The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Boyd D. Cathey Archive
The Death of Historical Accuracy
Dinesh D’Souza’s Movie, “Death of a Nation”
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_111094493

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In case you haven’t heard, there is a new “conservative” film out; it is titled “Death of a Nation: Can We Save America a Second Time?” Its director and screenwriter is Dinesh D’Souza, the word-measuring figure who occasionally shows up on Fox to talk in pious tones about “conservatism.” He is the movie producer who, by his own admission, has done as much as anyone to shape (in an almost ahistorical manner) perceptions about American history and the Founding Principles that have supposedly guided this country. And, in his latest cinematic adventure he stunningly compares the “triumph of America and its values” under that “great president and martyr” Abraham Lincoln to the crisis facing President Donald Trump. Like Lincoln, Trump is saving America “for a second time.”

Here is the film’s official blurb from D’Souza’s web site:

“Not since 1860 have the Democrats so fanatically refused to accept the result of a free election. That year, their target was Lincoln. They smeared him. They went to war to defeat him. In the end, they assassinated him. Now the target of the Democrats is President Trump and his supporters. The Left calls them racists, white supremacists and fascists. These charges are used to justify driving Trump from office and discrediting the right “by any means necessary.” But which is the party of the slave plantation? Which is the party that invented white supremacy? Which is the party that praised fascist dictators and shaped their genocidal policies and was in turn praised by them? Moreover, which is the party of racism today? Is fascism now institutionally embodied on the right or on the left?”

Thus, the president who refused all compromise (and torpedoed negotiations) with Southerners and Confederates (who were, as D’Souza assures us, no better than “racists” and “fascists”)—the president responsible for the most egregious violations of habeas corpus and constitutional liberties in American history–the president who in effect unleashed a vicious conflict that took the lives of at least 620,000 Americans and maimed and handicapped for life hundreds of thousands more—the president who by military force radically altered the original American Constitution and set the stage for the growth of powerful and unchecked government, and the emergence of the managerial Deep State…that president is D’Souza’s model…and his analogy for Donald Trump.

And Lincoln, that noble opponent of “racism”? D’Souza omits Lincoln’s contradictory statements on American blacks and his repeated desire that blacks be sent back to Africa. And he conveniently fails to cite Lincoln’s declaration to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862, scarcely three months prior to the formal issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation:

“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 this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”

The one very significant fact that becomes clear in his latest cinematic screed is that D’Souza is ignorant of American history, and that he is an ideological and historical fabricator who seeks, in the name of defending his adopted nation, to bend and mishandle its history to fit a preconceived narrative which satisfies his Neoconservative task masters. For him history becomes a cudgel, a weaponized arm to further the Neoconservative agenda of “equality” and “liberal democracy,” both against the “farther Left,” but also, very significantly, against the traditional Right and traditional conservatism…and, as well, against Southern conservatives who would dare defend their heritage and traditions.

His narrative is essentially a leftist one, and like other Neoconservatives, he partakes of the basic philosophical views of the post-Communist Left, emphasizing politicized constructs of race and gender, and equality and democracy, projecting them back to incorporate all of American history. Thus, so it goes, echoing Marxist historians like Eric Foner: “the South had slavery, therefore it was a racist society. Racism had to be opposed at all costs and by all means. And that is what Lincoln did.”

The equation says too much, and leaves out too much. Four slave states did not leave the union, and Lincoln’s reasons for attacking the Southern states were far more economic and power-driven than not, with his later appeals to abolitionism seen by most observers then, as well as by many historians since, as desperate propaganda appeals to war-weary Northerners, to gin up the sagging war effort.

As noted economist Frank Taussig has detailed in his classic study, Tariff History of the United States (1967 edition), tariffs were the chief revenue source for the Federal government. The Morrill Tariff more than doubled American tariffs and greatly expanded the list of taxable items. Abraham Lincoln had campaigned vigorously on a platform of strong support for the Morrill Tariff. While the South would be paying nearly 80 % of the tariff, most of the revenues would be spent in the North. With the Southern states seceding, such a loss of revenue would be devastating to the Federal treasury and could not be allowed to stand.

Like those Leftists farther to the Left, D’Souza accuses the seceding states in 1860-1861 of treason against the “idea of a (unitary) America,” yet he thus demonstrates his own historical ignorance. During the Antebellum period there was little political support for denying the right of secession or for the Constitutional right to suppress it. Of the pre-war presidents, it is true, Andrew Jackson threatened South Carolina in 1833 over Nullification of the “Tariff of Abominations,” but that crisis was resolved through compromise. Even staunch anti-slavery unionist President John Quincy Adams advocated secession over the annexation of Texas, and in his April 30, 1839, speech “The Jubilee of the Constitution,” commemorating the 50th anniversary of George Washington’s inauguration as the first American president, he affirmed:

“…if the day should ever come, (may Heaven avert it) when the affections of the people of these states shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give away to cold indifference, or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together the parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint.”

In his address to Congress in January of 1861, lame duck President James Buchanan, while deploring secession, stated frankly that he had no right to prevent it: “I certainly had no right to make aggressive war upon any State, and I am perfectly satisfied that the Constitution has wisely withheld that power even from Congress.” Former President John Tyler served in the Confederate Congress, and former President Franklin Pierce, in his famous Concord, New Hampshire, address, July 4, 1863, joined Buchanan in decrying the efforts to suppress the secession of the Southern states:

“Do we not all know that the cause of our casualties is the vicious intermeddling of too many of the citizens of the Northern States with the constitutional rights of the Southern States, cooperating with the discontents of the people of those states? Do we not know that the disregard of the Constitution, and of the security that it affords to the rights of States and of individuals, has been the cause of the calamity which our country is called to undergo?”

More, during the antebellum period William Rawle’s pro-secession text on Constitutional law, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1825,) was used at West Point as the standard text on the US Constitution. And on several occasions the Supreme Court, itself, affirmed this view. In The Bank of Augusta v. Earl (1839), the Court wrote in an 8-1 decision:

“The States…are distinct separate sovereignties, except so far as they have parted with some of the attributes of sovereignty by the Constitution. They continue to be nations, with all their rights, and under all their national obligations, and with all the rights of nations in every particular; except in the surrender by each to the common purposes and object of the Union, under the Constitution. The rights of each State, when not so yielded up, remain absolute.”

One of the better summaries of the prevalent Constitutional theory at that time has been made by black scholar, professor, and prolific author Dr. Walter Williams. Here is what he writes in one his columns:

“During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it, saying, ‘A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.’

“In fact, the ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said they held the right to resume powers delegated should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty — in a word, secede.

“On March 2, 1861, after seven states seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that read, “No state or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.”

“Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here’s a question for the reader: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?” [emphasis added]

An examination of the ratification processes for Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina in the late 1780s, reveal very similar discussions: it was the independent states themselves that had created a Federal government (and not the reverse, as Abe Lincoln erroneously suggested), and it was the various states that granted the Federal government certain very limited and specifically enumerated powers, reserving the vast remainder for themselves (see Professor Mel Bradford, Original Intentions: On the Making and Ratification of the United States Constitution. University of Georgia Press, 1993). As any number of the Framers indicated, there simply would not have been any United States if the states, both north and south, had believed that they could not leave it for just cause.

There is another major critique that must be made: despite D’Souza’s claims, it was the Republican Party in 1860 that was, by every measure, the radical party, the party intent on destroying the original Constitution and transforming the union, not the more conservative (at that time) Democrats. D’Souza projects a political genealogy that simply will not stand up to serious historical investigation. The outbreak of war in 1861 did not come about due to Democrats who “went to war to defeat [Lincoln].” As historian William Marvel, in his Mr. Lincoln Goes to War (2006), relates, the conflict must be laid squarely at the door of the Lincoln administration: “It was Lincoln, however, who finally eschewed diplomacy and sparked a confrontation. He backed himself into a corner from which he could escape only by mobilizing a national army, and thereby fanning the flames of Fort Sumter into full-scale conflagration.” (p. xvii) Thus, it was the intransigence of the Lincoln administration that literally provoked war.

Even D’Souza’s supposedly hated Marxists recognized that Lincoln and his actions furthered their program and ideals. In 1864 Karl Marx sent Lincoln a famous “Address” from his “workingman’s group,” in which he declared that “victory for the North would be a turning point for nineteenth-century politics, an affirmation of free labor, and a defeat for the most reactionary capitalists who depended on slavery and racial oppression,” that is, one more critical step in the projected Marxist historical dialectic. The American ambassador in London, Charles Francis Adams, responded and “thanked them for their support and expressed his conviction that the defeat of the rebellion would indeed be a victory for the cause of humanity everywhere.”

Like his supposed enemies over on the farther Left, Dinesh D’Souza employs the same faulty historical template, and, even if his arguments appear, at times, attractive or useful to conservatives, the end result is certain: you do not triumph historically or argumentatively using the same essential propositions, albeit less outrageous, as your opponent. Once you accept his grounds for debate, the battle—the war—is over.

Dinesh D’Souza’s “Death of a Nation” is like tasty ice cream infected with poisonous venom. It might taste good at first, but the poison is sure to work its effect.

Boyd D. Cathey holds a doctorate in European history from the Catholic University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, where he was a Richard Weaver Fellow, and an MA in intellectual history from the University of Virginia (as a Jefferson Fellow). He was assistant to conservative author and philosopher the late Russell Kirk. In more recent years he served as State Registrar of the North Carolina Division of Archives and History. He has published in French, Spanish, and English, on historical subjects as well as classical music and opera. He is active in the Sons of Confederate Veterans and various historical, archival, and genealogical organizations.

 
Hide 292 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    A good essay, in form and substance.

    Too nuanced and truthful to ever be seen or heard, much less comprehended, by 98% of the people in this country of TV-level, willful ignorance.

    Read More
    • Agree: Bubba
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    Too nuanced and truthful to ever be seen or heard, much less comprehended, by 98% of the people in this country of TV-level, willful ignorance.
     
    I so wanted to hit the “agree” button, but my Aspie nature kicked in and so instead I FIFY.

    Nothing “nuanced” about it. It galls me to no end that the evil bastard who slaughtered more Americans than any other, who shredded the Constitution of our Republic, has a gigantic monument in his honor on the National Mall and is enshrined as a hero by the public. And I have family who died on the wrong side of Lincoln’s evil War of Northern Oppression.

    Butchering 2.4% of the population, Lincoln was by far the most evil man in American history and one of the worst in human history.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

    We will know our Nation has been saved when the hideous monument to Lincoln is turned to rubble.
    , @Ned
    Yes and hopefully some day this forbidden knowledge will be widely known
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Logan says:

    While the South would be paying nearly 80 % of the tariff, most of the revenues would be spent in the North.

    I believe this to be entirely inaccurate, quite ironic given the title of the piece.

    However, if someone cares to demonstrate how either of these statements is accurate, I’m perfectly willing to be convinced.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    ‘…While the South would be paying nearly 80 % of the tariff, most of the revenues would be spent in the North.’

    I believe this to be entirely inaccurate, quite ironic given the title of the piece…

    There are two propositions you are questioning; first that 80% of the tariff would be collected from the South, and second that most of it would be spent in the North.

    Since the North had twice the population of the South, it indeed seems likely that most of the revenue would be spent there, so at least the second half of the statement seems reasonable.

    As to the South paying 80% of the tariff, since the South did rely heavily on importing manufactured goods, that too seems at least possible.
    , @Anonymous
    No one's stopping you from finding out on your own. But if you need help getting started, here are a couple relevant quotes:

    Charles Adams: The South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North.

    The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions." As the London Times of 7 Nov 1861 stated: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South...."
     

    Carl Pearlston: In 1860, the 15 Southern states had 8 million whites and 4½ million black slaves, compared to 19 million whites and ¼ million blacks in the North's 19 states. The vast areas of undeveloped western territory were rapidly being settled by people whose economic interests were not with the South. It found itself continually outvoted in both the Congress and Senate, especially on commercial regulations, with the prospect of an increasing majority against it. The nub of the problem was that the North wanted high tariffs on imported goods to protect its own manufactured products, while the South wanted low tariffs on imports and exports since it exported cotton and tobacco to Europe and imported manufactured goods in exchange. High tariffs in effect depressed the price for the South's agricultural exports; the South paid high prices for what it bought and got low prices for what it sold because of the federal tariff policy which the South was powerless to change. Southerners viewed themselves as being dominated by the mercantile interests of the North who profited from these high tariffs.

    At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Virginia had proposed a requirement for a 2/3 majority to enact laws regulating commerce and levying tariffs, which were the chief revenue of the federal government. George Mason of Virginia stated "The effect of a provision to pass commercial laws by a simple majority would be to deliver the south bound hand and foot to the eastern states". Virginia withdrew its amendment at the Convention in the interest of securing adoption of the Constitution, but ratification was with the proviso that it could be rescinded whenever the powers granted to the Union were used to oppress, and Virginia could then withdraw from the Union. True to George Mason's prediction, the high tariff of 1828 did bring the South to the verge of rebellion, leading Senator John C. Calhoun to unsuccessfully champion the concept of Nullification and the doctrine of the Concurrent Majority in 1833 to ensure that the South could have a veto power over commercial acts passed by a simple majority in Congress and the Senate.
     
    , @Dan Hayes
    Logan:

    No. It's up to you to prove the purported inaccuracies.
    , @anonymous
    This may be Mr. Cathey's reading of the Taussig book cited earlier in the paragraph. A linked citation to the 8th (1931) edition can be found at the end of the Wikipedia article on Taussig.
    , @Anonymous
    Without getting too technical, the finished goods and--especially--farm equipment that the south depended on were mostly imported in those days. Additionally, there was some fear in the south that foreign countries might retaliate with tariffs of their own on the agricultural commodities that the south exported. To be sure, I don't buy the theory that 'slavery had nothing to do with Civil War', but tariffs, no doubt, were at least a contributing factor.
    , @Johnnie Walker Read
    Read'em and weep my little mis-informed, publicly educated man. Although truth is a bitter pill, it must be swallowed if you are ever to rise above a mind controlled sheep.
    https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
    , @Jake
    You believe it to be entirely inaccurate? What if it believes that you do not exist? Or that you are a pederast Cultural Marxist?
    , @Anonymous
    There are some disrespectful replies to Logan. Even if the persons concerned thought Logan was trolling or lazy, two wrongs don't make a right. Kudos to those who took the comment at face value and gave matter-of-fact replies.
    , @Jim Bob Lassiter
    I'm with @Anonymous on the disrespectful replies to Logan. Logan may or may not be a troll, but he certainly isn't exuding troll. Those who watch my postings know that I can be a very brutal smart-ass--and I make my share of errors at it too, I hasten to add.

    Now for Logan, I would suggest that he read up on Dr. Cathey's bio and impressive credentials as a historian and highly lettered man.
    , @Liosnagcat
    You "believe" it to be inaccurate? It is either inaccurate or it is not. If you question its accuracy, doesn't the onus reside with you to present evidence to debunk it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. It’s nice to remind people that Lincoln was a Republican. An old blog post of mine provides a clearer explanation:

    Jan 2, 2011 – The War to Reclaim Federal Property 1861-1865

    I’ve noticed the “Power Elite” have decided to rewrite American history in regards to the American Civil War. This was known as the “War Between the States” or the “War of Secession”, but was officially named the “Civil War” as a Congressional compromise some 40 years later. The Power Elite recently mobilized their media front men to proclaim that war was all about slavery. Anyone who contends it was about states rights is labeled ignorant or a racist. Symbols of the Confederacy have been targeted for destruction, claiming they are racist.

    Slavery was a horrible institution, and was the prime source of friction between the states in the 1850s. Some wanted a military crusade to free the slaves, while an equal number demanded a military crusade to crush the evil Mormons in Utah. There was never strong support in Congress to ban slavery since many wealthy New Englanders profited in the textile business that relied upon cheap cotton from the South. In addition, the cherished American Constitution allowed for slavery.

    Had Congress made slavery illegal and our military ordered to enforce that law, it would have been a war against slavery, and it would have lasted but a few months. However, that is not how things played out. Southern states feared that Northerners were using the federal government to dominate the nation that was conceived as a federation of states. Slavery was the key issue, but most Southerners didn’t own slaves, and slavery was contentious within Southern states as many citizens opposed it. The Southern states peacefully and democratically seceded and formed the Confederate States of America (CSA), in the same way they joined the Union just two generations prior. The U.S. Congress didn’t declare that illegal, nor did the Supreme Court.

    Newly elected President Lincoln decided he would not tolerate the CSA, so he ordered it crushed. He assumed our military could quickly overrun the much weaker Confederate state militias, but it turned into a disastrous war. A key problem is that Lincoln refused to outlaw slavery and use that as a cause for military action, but said the effort was to preserve the union. As a result, Northerners were not enthusiastic about invading the South, while anti-slavery Southerners and the silent majority of non-slave holding Southerners felt compelled to defend their state from invasion. As his effort to “preserve the union” became a debacle, Lincoln finally evoked ending slavery as a cause with his 1863 “Emancipation Proclamation”. Even that did not free the 800,000 slaves in the slave-holding states of Missouri, Maryland, West Virginia, or Delaware, which had never declared a secession.

    Some say Lincoln only did this to prevent England from entering the war on the side of the CSA. England was upset by the Union sea blockade that denied its textile mills of cotton. Lincoln implemented his own form of slavery, the military draft, to fill his crusading army. The movie “Gangs of New York” addresses this issue toward the end — the resulting anti-draft riots by New York immigrants. The great movie “Glory” shows white Union troops angry at forced service in Lincoln’s crusade. Most of Lincoln’s free Negro troops were slaughtered in frontal attacks during the war, and only earned half-pay.

    In summary, slavery was the primary cause of conflict between the states, but the Civil War was caused by Lincoln’s blundering. He failed to act decisively because he had no official standing to end slavery, yet when he did act as a dictator, he refused to promote it as an anti-slavery crusade. As a result, most Southerners fought to defend their state from invasion, not to protect slavery. The Northern industrialists made huge profits from this war, so they sainted Lincoln as one of our greatest Presidents, for suspending the U.S. Constitution and causing the most disastrous event in American history.

    Read More
    • Agree: mark green, Cleburne
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    " In summary, slavery was the primary cause of conflict between the states, "
    Weird, in a country that treated the Indians far worse than the slaves.
    I spoke to an old USA lady, who was proud on her grandfather participating in smuggling run away slaves to the North.
    When I talked about the Indians her reply was 'before the Indians there were others'.
    I did not continue the discussion, but to this day do not understand how helping black people was good, but ethnically cleaning and killing Indians was irrelevant.
    , @Che Guava
    Your comment is interesting and informative.

    If you have not read the book, Gangs of New York, strongly recommend it.

    The depiction in the movie is confused, too brief, and does not capture the scale at all. Really, it was one of the battles of the war, not just 'riots'.

    Reading the account, the idea of the CSA somehow having some coordination with the anti-draft protestors would make a nice (but unlikely, due to pace, other factors) counter-factual history.

    GoNY is worth reading in general, but the most surprising parts to me were that part and the final parts on the rise of Jewish organised crime in Noo Yawk.

    No doubt, both topics that Scorcese was wanting to avoid.

    The movie seems not near his best at all, especially after reading the book.
    , @Logan
    He assumed our military could quickly overrun the much weaker Confederate state militias, but it turned into a disastrous war.

    Sorry, but this is flatly untrue. Lincoln was entirely aware that he did not have forces sufficient to crush the rebellion.

    The entire US Army in 1860 was composed of 16,000 men and officers, almost all scattered across the West in tiny packets to defend against Indians. About 20% of them promptly left when secession and war broke out.

    So by the time of Sumter, Lincoln had perhaps 14,000 men scattered across an entire continent. At this same time the state of SC alone fielded around 10,000 men, albeit mostly not nearly as well trained or armed as the Regulars.

    In fact, during the very early days of the War Lincoln's primary concern was that there simply was nothing at all to stop southern troops from marching straight into DC. I've not been able to find numbers for VA militia in 1860, but given that its white population was 3x that of SC, I think it's not unreasonable to assume VA had 25,000 or more men under arms in April of 1860. That would have outnumbered the entire US Army almost 2:1, even assuming the Regulars were concentrated, which they most certainly were not.

    People just don't realize how tiny the early 19th century US Army was. The organized militia of the Nauvoo Legion in the early 1840s numbered at least 2500. Compare that to the 8500 in the entire US Army. That's a single city.
    , @Ilyana_Rozumova
    You are correct. Civil war had nothing to do with slavery. Civil war was about textile industry, and so keeping the profits in US instead giving them to England. Slavery was only flag of camouflage.
    , @rebelwriter
    Just a couple of points; One is that the Emancipation Proclamation specifically excluded Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Delaware (slave states which did not secede), as well as Tennessee, 7 parishes in Louisiana, and 10 counties in Virginia, all of which were currently under Federal control.

    I think it's a bit naïve to lay the war at Lincoln's feet, and neglect the powers that raised him from a railroad lawyer to President. The elite of both sides were ready to fight, and I believe that by that time a war was unavoidable. All Lincoln could have done was delay the inevitable.

    There was a documentary I watched not long ago on dueling in the South. One professor from Virginia held that the war was the largest, and last, duel in American history. The Southerners honor was besmirched by the claims of the North, and the press in particular, and nothing would suffice save blood be shed on the field of honor. This is something not given much attention, but it should be. The Code Duello in use at the time was written by a former governor of South Carolina, and planters would duel at the drop of a hat, and drop the hat themselves. Andrew Jackson fought 13 duels, and was not atypical of the elite of the time.

    The Northern interests wanted to forever defeat their enemy, the planters, and turn the South into a colony, of sorts. They also saw a lot of money to be made selling goods to the army and navy, and the opportunity to force huge changes in the government in the expediency of war. "Never let a good crisis go to waste," is something that was not invented by Rahm Emanuel.
    , @S

    Slavery was the key issue...Slavery was a horrible institution, and was the prime source of friction between the states in the 1850s...In summary, slavery was the primary cause of conflict between the states...
     
    Very much so, on both the north and south's part, the elephant in the living room as it were. While it is widely known as it should be that the desire to retain the right to own and purchase chattel slaves is much of what drove seccessionism in the south little is known by most about chattel slavery in the northern colonies/states and its effects on the north, in particular the northeast (ie New England) and its push for abolitionism, and in time its drive for war. There is an explanation in this dirth of knowledge in that part of the spoils of winning a war is that the victors get to write the history books.

    While I won't delve into it here regarding causes of the US Civil War, there is also the aspect of the United States with its Manifest Destiny being historically very important to personages at the higher high levels of Freemasonry as a model of the continental superstate for the other continents of the world, the first cog and centerpiece at the time (and even now?) for the planned direct continuation of the British Empire as a truly all encompassing future global empire, ie the New Rome, or, the United States of the World. As such a model they couldn't very well let the Anglo-Saxon United States remain dis-united and split right down the middle for an indefinate period of time, now, could they?

    Anyhow, back to chattel slavery and its trade.

    In 1776 at the founding of the United States and as part of the British Empire's Triangular Trade, chattel slavery and its trade existed throughout the north and south of the North American colonies, much to the harm of the vast majority of the public whom did not own slaves but had to rather suffer with it, the practice not being called historically 'a scourge upon mankind' for nothing. Due to climatic conditions the slave dealers tended to be concentrated in the more mercantile orientated northeast (ie Massachusetts figuring quite prominently in this), while the slave ownership tended to be located in the more agrarian oriented south. By the latter 18th century the slave dealers had grasped that ultimately since slavery's introduction circa 1620 in North America what drives the person to purchase a chattel slave is a simple desire to pay significantly below whatever the prevailing real time local cost of labor was to employ (typically) one of their own. It had been realized that by providing their former would be slave owner/purchaser with a person (this person also known as an 'immigrant') whom would work well below the local prevailing cost of labor this requirement of the would be slave purchaser would be met. (To give an example of just how far below the prevailing rate when in the 1870's the California state legislature was literally forced to investigate the matter it was found the Chinese being continuously imported in by diktat were often being paid one third, ie almost seventy percent below, of whatever the prevailing local rate of labor was.). With the 'immigrant' (aka a 'wage slave', the systematic theft of the labor -the essence of slavery- being much more efficiently taken directly from their pay, hence the term wage slavery as opposed to a physically owned, ie chattel slave) just as before with chattel slavery the former would be slave dealer still profits, though even more so due to the volume, from constructing the ships, providing insurance for voyages, being paid per head in the form of a ticket now paid for by the immigrant and commisions paid by interested parties to locate and transport the sought after unpaid for labor internationally, etc. This transition from chattel to wage slavery went smoothly enough in the northeast during the late 18th and early 19th century where there were relatively few chattel slaves (though to be sure in the north they did own tens of thousands) and new chattel slave purchases were banned while current ownership was grandfathered, indeed some of these legally owned chattel slaves, albeit elderly, could still be found in the north, ie New Jersey, at the start of the Civil War in 1861. While it's true that in time the 'immigrant' might become unhappy being paid, either above or below the table, far below the prevailing local rate of labor for their work and seek employment elsewhere, that is perfectly okay in this arrangement. The former would be slave dealer ensures by a continuous flow of the 'immigrants' pouring in that there is always another one prepared to take his or her place at far below what is or would of been the prevailing local rate for labor were the immigration not taking place, it not being in time referred to as 'mass' immigration without reason. The would be slave purchaser with the 'immigrant(s)', just as with chattel slavery, still gets their secondary 'hit' of unpaid labor for whatever other business interests they may have in the form of overall depressed wages...ie in the US south virtual economic depressions were reported in the areas immediately surrounding plantations by the slave owners (typically) own people, as the chattel slaves, either on the plantation or being 'leased' out to the surrounding countryside were doing much of the available work making jobs scarce. A similar situation exist with imported H1b visa holders and technology jobs today.

    While as stated, with many fewer chattel slaves in the US north this transition, this monetization of chattel slavery and its trade, went smoothly enough with the introduction of what with industrialisation would soon enough in the early 19th century evolve into the cheap labor/mass immigration system which today forms the economic and political basis of the ideology of multi-culturalism. This effort to monetize slavery by the nascant US was part of a larger late 18th and early 19th century global push known as 'Abolitionism' to do the same (that is to monetize the practice of chattel slavery) culminating in the 1833 abolition of slave ownership within the British Empire. In the years following the Empire's West African fleet would hunt down any chattel slavers persisting in plying the trade in the Atlantic which would also (somewhat cynically on their part) ensure no one could somehow resurrect the chattel slave trade to compete with their new fangled wage slave trade (ie the cheap labor/mass immigration system). With wage slavery the British Empire then, and at present as the Anglosphere, thus continues to dominate the global trade in slaves.

    As mentioned the transition to wage slavery (the so called cheap labor) went smoothly enough where there were relatively fewer chattel slaves, ie New England and the British Carribean, the latter's slave owners being financially compensated by the British Empire. However, in the US south where there were a great many more chattel slaves, and the practice had become deeply embedded as a way of life, there were four million chattel slaves as opposed to tens of thousands, and there was a balking by southern slave owners at making this transition without receiving guarantees of compensation for their lost 'property'. Indeed, the Virginia state legislature came close multiple times in the years and decades preceding the Civil War to adopting the north's 'cheap labor'/mass immigration system, but without these guarantees of compensation for slave owners which for whatever reason were not forth coming, these bills could not be seen thru to passing. Even so, with or without chattel slaves, efforts were made to introduce the north's cheap labor/mass immigration system in the south and articles were written about this in the media of the day. However, chattel and wage slavery was found to not work very well together in part as southern slave owners didn't much like the fraternizing which sometimes occurred between the 'immigrants' and chattel slaves and the disaffection on the latter's part this could cause.

    Early 19th century New England textile mill owners, this subject having been researched and these were indeed the very same whom in many instances had been the chattel slave dealers in British colonial/early US North America, ie they 'ran the show' as to the chattel slave trade and its later monetization, had a very deep financial interest in the south adopting the cheap labor/mass immigration system of the US north. It was after all the inefficient and much costlier chattel slaves of the south whom were picking the cotton which supplied his northern textile mills. Anything adding to the cost of the finished cloth cut into the profit margin besides making his textiles less competitive and that much more difficult to sell. And it likely drove a number of these merchants almost mad thinking about the losses they were regularly incurring due to this inefficiency. These New England merchants, though having played a large part in the proliferation of chattel slavery as the slave dealers within what would be the United States, now wanted for financial reasons to see chattel slavery eradicated and replaced with its monetization, wage slavery, ie 'cheap labor' so called. They called this effort 'Abolition' and would finance much of this movement, if they had not originated it themselves with their London counter parts. The Lawrences of Massachusetts were such, being a family of textile factory magnates whom had constructed the planned industrial city of Lawrence, Mass in the 1840's to house imported labor to operate the family's mills, the city not coincidentally to this day officially nicknamed 'Immigrant City'. Abbott Lawrence, the family's patriarch, would finagle an appointment as US ambassador to the UK which then included famine stricken Ireland in the late 1840's. Ireland being prostate as it was at the time made for a rich source of wage slaves for the family's textile mills. Lest anyone think the Irish saw their enmasse predation as wage slaves to the United States as an act of kindness, think again. Paralleling the depopulating and genocidal effects of African chattel slavery, the Irish called their own resulting large scale depopulation of Ireland due to wage slavery 'extermination' and as documented by The Spectator of London were shooting members of the British aristocracy for advocating or sponsoring the large scale exodus of Irish to the US, something not presented in the movie The Gangs of New York. Entirely concurring with the Irish assesment (ie 'extermination' re mass immigration) the London Times wrote an editorial in 1851 regarding a tour Ambassador Lawrence was making of Ireland and declared the mass exodus of the Irish would soon directly result in their being 'known no more' as a people. It would be the Lawrence family which in support of 'free soilers' would finance the construction of Lawrence, KS (a sister city of Lawrence, Mass as it were) during the mid 1850's in the territory then known as 'Bleeding Kansas'. Kansas with its guerilla armies in the latter 1850's (some at times equipped with their own artillery) fighting for chattel or wage slavery and privately financed respectively by southern plantation owners and northern merchants was a micro-cosm of the coming US Civil War.

    While the term 'cheap labor' was in common usage in the decades prior to the US Civil War a curious but very telling thing happened as the 1850's progressed. As the decade came to a close in 1860 the term 'cheap labor' had literally disappeared from the corporate media of the day and had been replaced by the term 'free labor'. Much emphasis was made on the 'free' portion of this term, ie as this laborer was a free man rather than an unfree chattel slave and that they were often white European as opposed to black African. Little if any emphasis was made that this new 'free laborer' was quite often different to varying degrees physically and culturally from the then Anglo-Saxon majority population, as people then and Europeans in Europe now could readily tell you, some of these differences being significant and good and some not so good. No mention was made how in Massachusetts the Anglo-Saxon population had already been largely displaced by the yearly mass importation of Irish Roman Catholics, ie in Boston, nor for that matter that in the state of California thousands of Chinese wage slaves were then being imported in yearly though the country's 'back door'. Nor was much made that the desire of at least some (many?) of these northern merchants was to 'free' the African slaves only so they could be as quickly as possible entered into the work force as wage slaves, ie cheap laborers, their labor now being systematically stolen much more efficiently and profitably than before with the old chattel slave system.

    To sum it up, the average non-slave holding southern soldier despite many believing the at best self deceiving lies of many of their elites about the war being one simply of only 'state's rights' (unless one sees it as 'state's rights' to preserve chattel slavery) fought a war for chattel slavery, a terribly destructive practice decidedly not in any way shape or form in their best interest. Similarly, the northern soldier with the at best self deceptions of their elites about the war being one to 'preserve the union', or to 'free the slaves' also fought a war for slavery, specifically wage slavery (ie 'cheap labor' so called) which their formerly chattel slave dealing/owning elites hoped to forcibly introduce -and greatly profit from- into the US south as had already been done in the north. The northern soldier quite literally fought and died for the cause of 'cheap labor', labor which had already physically and culturally displaced him in many of the major northern cities, ie Boston and New York, and elements of the corporate media were already declaring in 1861 that it was a done deal that he would soon be completely displaced by tens of millions of Chinese wage slaves to be imported by diktat into the US via the state of California.

    When violence became inevitable between the north and south in the Spring of 1861 rather than the guns being turned upon each other the guns should of been turned upon their respective northern and southern slavery addicted elites, whom since 1620 had become ever more increasingly addicted to doing anything but anything than pay their own people the prevailing real time local rate of labor. Slavery, whether as manifested by northern dealer/owners, and now pushers of chattel slavery's monetization, so called 'cheap labor', or as chattel slave owners/ purchasers of the south, had largely corrupted these elites and their hangers on. Had that happened, instead of the catastrophe that did where chattel slavery was simply monetized rather than being abolished across the whole of the US in 1865 at the expense of six hundred thousand lives, I'm convinced most of them when so confronted by their own people would have surrendered, and compensation or not, would of ultimately felt...greatly relieved. Yes, some lives would have been lost by those hard core slavers defending their 'right' to own chattels as 'property' and others, being of the same ilk would no doubt have fought for their 'right' to import and employ wage slaves (cheap laborers), but certainly not six hundred thousand lives. Slavery could then truly have been eradicated in the US, much unlike the faux 'abolition' which took place. Self determination could then have been had for both the former African chattel slaves and the Europeans in the United States each grouping with plenty of reasons to go their own way. And in a likely relatively short war fought against slavery practitioners of both its chattel and wage manifestations, north and south, where they may well have joined forces against the non-slave holding general public, Robert E Lee, a non slave holder would have had the opportunity to have lead his fellow Virginians and others in an anti-slavery war with gusto rather than seemingly half grudgingly as when he fought out of loyalty for slave holding Virginia.


    “The [Civil] war was essentially an industrial struggle - a struggle between free labor and the masters of slave labor.” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine - January 1897

    “The educated free labor of Massachusetts*, we have seen, doubles the products of toil, per capita, as compared with Maryland, and quadruples them (as the Census shows) compared with South Carolina….” Former US Treasurer and slave speculator Robert Walker writing from London in December, 1863. The Continental Monthly - March 1864

    ‘Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and chattel slavery destroyed. This, I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care for the laborer, while the European plan led by England, is for capital to control labor by controlling the wages…’ Bank of England circular sent to every bank in New York and New England in 1862, Imperial Washington (1922) pg 51 - 52

    “It is our conviction that monopolies are as destructive as competition is conservative of the principles and vitalities of republican Government; that slave labor is a monopoly which excludes free labor and competition; that slaves are kept in comparitive idleness and ease in a fertile half of our arable national territory, while free white laborers, constantly augmenting in numbers from Europe, are confined to the the other half and are often distressed by want; that the free white laborers of the North has more need of expansion into the Southern States, from which it is virtually excluded, than slavery had into Texas in 1846…” Excerpt of Proclamation by US Brigadier-General Phelps to the loyal people of the Southwest, Ship Island, Mississippi, December 4, 1861. Report of Gulf Blockading Squadron - December 16, 1861 thru February 21, 1862

    '...the rise of the modern industrial system made wage slavery a more efficient agent of production than chattel slavery.' Excerpt of the 1907 foreword to the book The War-Time Journal of a Georgia Girl, 1864-1865 (published in 1908)

    * The former US Treasurer and slave speculator Robert Walker, utilizing US census data for 1860, compared Massachusetts and South Carolina. Mass, the center of US industry at the time, and indeed, where it had gotten started, was heavily reliant upon wage slaves, ie ‘cheap labor’ imported from French Quebec in Canada and Ireland in Europe…while meanwhile South Carolina was heavily reliant upon chattel slaves. In doing so he effectively calculated that wage slavery (ie cheap labor) was four times more profitable/productive than chattel slavery.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=ZKwcAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA51&dq=book+Imperial+Washington+Pettigrew&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html

    https://docsouth.unc.edu/fpn/andrews/andrews.html

    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_new_rome_or_the_united_states_of_the_world_1853

    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/a_virtual_round_the_world_voyage

    http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/20th-november-1847/12/extermination-and-vengeance

    http://slavenorth.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Biff says:

    A recent book destroyed the notion that the South is more racist than the North. Without going into too much detail(read the book, it’s really good) the book reveals where the staunchest racist lie, and that is in the North – Eastern Ohio, Western Pennsylvania.

    https://www.amazon.com/Everybody-Lies-Internet-About-Really/dp/0062390856

    Now there are historians/people/people I know/teachers/government employees that got it in their head that a bunch of very racist union troops where willing to leave their comfortable home and very segregated cities up north, and go down south to fight and die to free the black man. A crazy fairy tale that happens to be true.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Dumbo says:

    What’s funny for me is this, the “United States”, consisting of states that joined together voluntarily in an union, by the same measure should have been allowed to secede any time they wished, without interference of a tyrannical central government, which should not even have that authority. Patrick Henry was right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. Thomm says:

    Sorry, but Dinesh D’Souza is vastly more knowledgeable than Boyd Cathey.

    Boyd Cathey is a Nationalist-Leftist, which is still a leftist at the end of the day.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Per/Norway, RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Johnnie Walker Read
    Say's the MAGA Trumptard....Try as you might, sometimes it is impossible to stomp out ignorance from the public and the propaganda(lies) from the likes of the Neocon knee boy D'Souza.
    , @Anonymous
    Thomm is an Indian and is just defending his ethnic kin.

    D'Souza poses as a conservative but he is an open borders guy and would love nothing more than to flood this country with more Indians.
    , @Mr. Anon

    Sorry, but Dinesh D’Souza is vastly more knowledgeable than Boyd Cathey.
     
    What, specifically did Mr. Cathey say that was wrong? Can you say? Or do you prefer to just blow smoke?

    D'Souza's 'history' is the kind of bowlderized retconned drivel that belongs on the History Channel. It is pap for the intellectually adolescent.

    Consequently, it is unsuprising that a cretin like you finds it interesting.
    , @Rod1963
    Dinesh is no friend of the American people. He's a old Neo-Con and open border supporter. He was the hatchet man used to get Sam Francis from the NR fired.

    I watched his first movie and it was as milquetoast as can be and hardly informative.

    Maybe for MAGA types he's the man
    , @3g4me
    @6 Thomm: "Sorry, but Dinesh D’Souza is vastly more knowledgeable than Boyd Cathey."

    Because being a subcontinental larping as an American, just like you, he must be considered to have pure motives.
    , @drahthaar
    Dinesh D'Souza is probably the most dishonorable man or woman known to me in 40 years of academic and public life. Whatever ideas he has contributed - and they exist - pale beside his character and self-interest. He's a clever crook. The pardon was just but D'Souza should be shunned as a hustler and creep, not a truth-telling hero. He was the very worst of the Conservative Inc. idea-money machine. Now he's playing to the cretins.
    , @cassandra

    Sorry, but Dinesh D’Souza is vastly more knowledgeable than Boyd Cathey.
     
    This begs the question, then why is he such a fail at showing it?
    , @Chris Mallory
    Dinesh D’Souza is an Anti American, immigrant felon who should have been deported, not pardoned.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. @Logan
    While the South would be paying nearly 80 % of the tariff, most of the revenues would be spent in the North.

    I believe this to be entirely inaccurate, quite ironic given the title of the piece.

    However, if someone cares to demonstrate how either of these statements is accurate, I'm perfectly willing to be convinced.

    ‘…While the South would be paying nearly 80 % of the tariff, most of the revenues would be spent in the North.’

    I believe this to be entirely inaccurate, quite ironic given the title of the piece…

    There are two propositions you are questioning; first that 80% of the tariff would be collected from the South, and second that most of it would be spent in the North.

    Since the North had twice the population of the South, it indeed seems likely that most of the revenue would be spent there, so at least the second half of the statement seems reasonable.

    As to the South paying 80% of the tariff, since the South did rely heavily on importing manufactured goods, that too seems at least possible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    US population 1860, 31.5M. 4M slaves, so 27.5M free people, vast majority white.

    Determining what "the South" was in 1860 is a little ambiguous. Slaveowning states? States that seceded?

    Let's look at all slaveowning states. Total white population - 8M. Which leaves 18.5M in "the North," or free states.

    Tariffs are duties charged on imported goods. They are paid at the point of entry, not by the eventual buyer, other than indirectly. Hence there was no way to charge different taxes for different sections other than, theoretically, by including or excluding certain items from tariffs or by changing rates based on the rate of purchase of such items in the difference regions.

    So for the 80% claim to be accurate, the 29% of white people who lived in the South would have to purchase tariffed goods at a rate 2.8x that of white people who lived in the North. Does that seem likely to you?
    , @Reg Cæsar

    As to the South paying 80% of the tariff, since the South did rely heavily on importing manufactured goods...

     

    And who's fault was that? A tariff is just a small fine for not buying American. They seem to have had some problem with buying from their fellow citizens.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @Logan
    While the South would be paying nearly 80 % of the tariff, most of the revenues would be spent in the North.

    I believe this to be entirely inaccurate, quite ironic given the title of the piece.

    However, if someone cares to demonstrate how either of these statements is accurate, I'm perfectly willing to be convinced.

    No one’s stopping you from finding out on your own. But if you need help getting started, here are a couple relevant quotes:

    Charles Adams: The South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North.

    The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: “You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions.” As the London Times of 7 Nov 1861 stated: “The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South….”

    Carl Pearlston: In 1860, the 15 Southern states had 8 million whites and 4½ million black slaves, compared to 19 million whites and ¼ million blacks in the North’s 19 states. The vast areas of undeveloped western territory were rapidly being settled by people whose economic interests were not with the South. It found itself continually outvoted in both the Congress and Senate, especially on commercial regulations, with the prospect of an increasing majority against it. The nub of the problem was that the North wanted high tariffs on imported goods to protect its own manufactured products, while the South wanted low tariffs on imports and exports since it exported cotton and tobacco to Europe and imported manufactured goods in exchange. High tariffs in effect depressed the price for the South’s agricultural exports; the South paid high prices for what it bought and got low prices for what it sold because of the federal tariff policy which the South was powerless to change. Southerners viewed themselves as being dominated by the mercantile interests of the North who profited from these high tariffs.

    At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Virginia had proposed a requirement for a 2/3 majority to enact laws regulating commerce and levying tariffs, which were the chief revenue of the federal government. George Mason of Virginia stated “The effect of a provision to pass commercial laws by a simple majority would be to deliver the south bound hand and foot to the eastern states”. Virginia withdrew its amendment at the Convention in the interest of securing adoption of the Constitution, but ratification was with the proviso that it could be rescinded whenever the powers granted to the Union were used to oppress, and Virginia could then withdraw from the Union. True to George Mason’s prediction, the high tariff of 1828 did bring the South to the verge of rebellion, leading Senator John C. Calhoun to unsuccessfully champion the concept of Nullification and the doctrine of the Concurrent Majority in 1833 to ensure that the South could have a veto power over commercial acts passed by a simple majority in Congress and the Senate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    The Adams quote is not evidence, it's merely the source for the claim made in this article. It's from a book published in 2000. Adams, in that book, may quite possibly provide evidence the claim is accurate. But that Adams stated something is not evidence that the statement is true.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Couple of things-

    THING A-

    We can argue demographic data but many white Americans were not in the United States at the time of the Civil War.

    East Coast dominates and whites in the East Coast center aside from Jews tend to be Italians (Rudy, Nancy etc) and Irish-Catholics (Kennedy’s) whose ancestors arrived in the late 19th or early 20th century.

    So why is the Civil War important today? Because white Southerners long for some period of time when being descended from English aristocrats was relevant?

    THING B

    Cubans have made Miami economically relevant if only because Caribbean dictators stick their money to be safe from the next revolution and it attracts a great deal of international tourism.

    Texas pumps out a great deal of oil.

    Otherwise, what is the relevance of much of the South? To who, and why? That they are often poorer than the West Coast or the East Coast. That whites are poorest there? What’s its relevance? GDP? Technological innovation? Standard of living?

    THING C

    If the South could not have Federal bailouts than what would it do? More than Northern states with massive human capitol from Wall Street brokers and businessmen and international investors and tech giants the South has….well, poverty.

    The North is not a reliant on Federal money. Northern California and Manhattan could tell the Beltway to go F*(X themselves. They’d get by. But would Alabama?

    THING D

    The Southern border is the problem. It is not the Northern border. If anything, Canada is the one saying they don’t want whites from Maine or Michigan and rigidly enforce border security.

    Yet the South and Southwest allows millions of illegal immigrants through their border.

    Canada sure does a good job of keeping Americans from immigrating illegally. Try to do it. I guarantee you’ll be caught and end up with Canadian mounties and helicopters with infrared surrounding you.

    THING E

    White Southerners seem to have a huge hard-on for Jews. There are not many Jews in the South compared to Long Island or California. So why do white Southerners have this thing about Jews?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnnie Walker Read
    Ever heard of Judah P. Benjamin. Get educated before you speak my man.
    http://tomatobubble.com/id866.html
    , @Them Guys
    THING E
    White Southerners seem to have a huge hard-on for Jews. There are not many Jews in the South compared to Long Island or California. So why do white Southerners have this thing about Jews?

    #1 Reason since just over 100 yrs ago is....The Cyrus Scofield-perverted interpretations KJV Bible, and the fact that about 99% of Scofield Bible evangelical Jewdeo-Christian Devotees reside within the very same 10 or so Southern States that made up the Confeds of the civil war era.


    These are the who's that make up the huge vast majority of Jewdo-Zio-Christians, who basically worship, Jews & Israel, and do so regardless of what Jewry or Israel has ever done or will do that most sane folk consider to be wrong, bad, evil, unethical, and immoral. In other words, when the issue revolves around Israel or Jews...Both can never, ever do such wrongs etc...Period. No amount of proofs, documented and vetted facts, or anything else can change this. Only a self-wake-up, performed by each affected and delusional, warped minded individual has any chance of real success at lasting and good changes.

    Just among the Southern Baptist Conference group membership, is a whopping, 25,000,000+ individual members. This is the absolute largest sized group, aprox. one half of entire amount, of such worshipers of Jewry & Israel within the entire, Jewnited Snakes of Jewmerica.

    And furthermore, if not for their rabid foam at mouth worship of both entities, aka synagogue of Satan combo of Jewry+Israel, America would never be able to continue on as an, Colony of Tel Aviv Israel. There also would be massive exiting of most neocon repubs, who also worship Jewry & Israel, if not for these so totally Duped Via scam Scofield falsehood biblical interpretations, voters.


    Now do you understand, HTF aka how the fuck in the world did Nikki Haley get elected as Governor in a deep south state of S. Carolina ? Or Bobby Jindal also Governor in another deep south state ?....Very easy to do, all those two Israel firster clowns needed do to get elected by mostly White Southern voters....Was to state their deep love for and never ending support for...Jewry & Israel!....And an election win was in the proverbial bag, eh. Add in massive, several generations worth of, constant White Guilt effects, and the fools would likely elect Chicago's Louie Da Farakahn as Alabama Governor as long as he too did a 180 and stated avowed love and support for Jewry & Israel. Cuz, Now he beez a Changed colored folk man, and seen dat light to worship Jewry like's we does.
    , @Southern Fried
    There are plenty of Jewish people in the South lol. There's a county in Florida named after a Jewish man- Levy county. Also ever hear of South Beach? Broward and palm Beach? Tons of Jewish people there. There are many Jewish sherrifs and district attorneys throughout the South.

    They tend to be in law, politics, and medicine but socially self segregate. Can't see why that would cause a problem....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Thomas L Thompson describes the task of the historian ‘ to make sense of the apparent jumble of unrelated facts’, but I always wondered if this hindsight sense is reality or a construction.
    There is a saying among historians ‘a history book says more about the time it was written than about the time it describes’.
    Interesting in professional history books is how historians disagree, one finds them critising colleagues in the notes.
    In gymnasium I found history boring, nothing was explained, such as that the king of France never ate hot food, the time between the food leaving the kitchen and being under his nose was so long that it was cold.
    I now know why.
    History just becomes interesting when one knows details, alas these details dot not explain anything, sometimes very little.
    A historian of a very interesting book on how technical inventions changed society writes ‘an invention is a door opened on a until the closed room, but mankind never was obliged to go into the room’.
    Why mankind ignored many inventions, unexplained.
    Thomas L Thompson, ‘The mythic past, Biblical archaeology and the myth of Israel’, London 1999
    Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen, ‘ The world of the Huns’, 1973 Berkeley
    Raymond Aron, ´Introduction à la philosophie de l’histoire, Essai sur les limites de l’objectivité historique’, Paris 1948
    Lynn White Jr., ‘Medieval Technology and Social Change’, Oxford 1962

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Draws nice parallels with Ukraine’s problems since the anti-constitutional coup too!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. Truth says:

    Whoa…

    I thought Dinesh was conservative.

    Read More
    • Replies: @cassandra
    What does it matter whether or not deSousa is a "leftist neoliberal" or "conservative", when factual deceptions are at issue?

    Starting with swapping red with blue, since the 90's, the MSM has been fomenting wholesale confusion with muddy political labelling. The conflation of factions is now so rampant that it's plausible that there's a behind-the-scenes program to sow mental and political confusion.

    Names are slung with even more enthusiasm than before, argument by name-calling goes on. Yet everyone is exhibiting tell-tale frustration indicating that they don't quite know whether to get mad at or agree with the tenor of a discussion.

    I'm at the point where I ignore every argument that invokes political classifications to make a point, unless they first tell the reader exactly how the terms are being used. Everyone I've asked gets mightily frustrated and upset when called upon to do so. Understandably: political labels have complex historical meanings, and it's hardly ever clear exactly what they mean under a given circumstance without a scorecard, not even to the user.

    We're spending more time coloring images in a graphic novel, than being concerned with the text that tells the actual tale. Haven't we the discipline to discuss the story without throwing the crayons?
    , @gsjackson
    He was well-schooled in being a neocon useful idiot at the Heritage Foundation in the '80s. Just a walking, talking Wall Street Journal editorial.
    , @anonymous
    Truth writes:

    "Whoa…

    I thought Dinesh was conservative."

    I respond:

    Did you also think William Kristol, David Frum, Jonah Goldberg and all the J Neo Conservatives that destroyed National Review and Conservative Inc - did you think they were real "Conservatives"?

    William Kristol came out of the closet to state that if poor and working class Whites were doing so poorly with employment and heroin addiction that wouldn' t it be better to replace them with happy low wage immigrant workers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. D’Souza omits Lincoln’s… repeated desire that blacks be sent back to Africa.

    And Cathey omits that that alone would make Lincoln smarter, wiser, and more just than just about anyone in the South.

    On the other hand, Lincoln thought Southerners and their beloved African livestock were worth waging battle to keep in the Union. That alone is proof positive that Lincoln was insane.

    it was the various states that granted the Federal government certain very limited and specifically enumerated powers, reserving the vast remainder for themselves

    And the fugitive slave bills, no matter how constitutional, make a total hash of this. Yeah, you can say that Africans were property, but they were not property on the north shore of the Great Lakes. Why would they be on the south?

    If Southerners wanted to keep their pets on the farm, they had the technology to build a Berlin Wall along the Ohio and the Potomac, and let states to the north (not “North”) make their own policies concerning chattel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Them Guys
    The first US Supreme Ct. Case about, is a slave owned as Real property, like land or homes? Was a case dealing with a run away slave, that ended up in some northern state and was being protected by those northern folks. The BLACK Man slave OWNER, of the run away black slave, is who brought that case to supreme court....and He Won his case. Supremes decided a slave was property owned by slave owner who paid $$$ for his slave, and no matter Where slave was found or protected from return to slave owner Black man, those northern protector folks Had to hand slave back over to his Black Man slave owner. So that refutes the part you wrote of....."Yeah, you can say that Africans were property, but they were not property on the north shore of the Great Lakes. Why would they be on the south? "


    It is probably a good thing that the GA state, Black Woman who owned over, 300 black slaves, and was about the wealthiest $$$ Woman in the state then, didn't have her slaves run away eh?...Because for her to need bring hundreds of run away slave cases all the way to us supreme ct, would have likely depleted her vast $$$ holdings down to, herself perhaps needing to work as a black slave just to eat eh.


    Funny/Ironic they never taught us about Black Slave Owners back in school 50+ years ago eh? I reckon such truthful facts would cause all the anti-whitey propaganda agendas to, fast come Unglued and so awaken dumbed down white kids, they may never recover to again maintain vast white guilt feelings the Jewdeo-commie-Marxist Frankfurtist's worked so hard to develop in Whites.
    , @Stan d Mute

    And the fugitive slave bills, no matter how constitutional, make a total hash of this. Yeah, you can say that Africans were property, but they were not property on the north shore of the Great Lakes. Why would they be on the south?
     
    So if I’m a rancher in Nevada, and idiot vegans in California have declared cows as sentient creatures that are not “property,” anybody can steal my cattle, drive them across the border, and get away with it scot-free? Irrespective of the morality of slavery, slaves were property under the law of the Nation. Property rights are the most fundamental basis of liberty, without them we are all serfs and slaves.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Dan Hayes says:
    @Logan
    While the South would be paying nearly 80 % of the tariff, most of the revenues would be spent in the North.

    I believe this to be entirely inaccurate, quite ironic given the title of the piece.

    However, if someone cares to demonstrate how either of these statements is accurate, I'm perfectly willing to be convinced.

    Logan:

    No. It’s up to you to prove the purported inaccuracies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Disagree. The person making a statement is the one logically required to demonstrate why the statement is accurate.

    You have just provided a classic example of the "shifting the burden of proof" logical fallacy.

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/222/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Anonymous[134] • Disclaimer says:

    D’Souza’s book sounds like more ‘Dems are real rayciss’ nonsense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Logan
    While the South would be paying nearly 80 % of the tariff, most of the revenues would be spent in the North.

    I believe this to be entirely inaccurate, quite ironic given the title of the piece.

    However, if someone cares to demonstrate how either of these statements is accurate, I'm perfectly willing to be convinced.

    This may be Mr. Cathey’s reading of the Taussig book cited earlier in the paragraph. A linked citation to the 8th (1931) edition can be found at the end of the Wikipedia article on Taussig.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    You may very well be right. That book is 500+ pages, and while I downloaded it, I'm not really going to slog through it to find some quote that may or may not line up with the 80% number.

    However, Taussig, in his discussion of the prewar tariff (Part 2 - Chapter 1), states that it was the lowest it had been in a long time and was generally along free trade lines. I don't think anybody is going to find much support in Taussig for the notion that the intolerable exploitation of the tariff was the primary cause of secession.

    I've seen this 80% number tossed around for years, and have never been able to track it to its lair. The closest I've been able to come is the fact that 60% of exports were cotton, and if you add in other southern exports, you might get close to 80% of US exports being from the South.

    But of course exports are not tariffs. I suspect the two have been conflated and then the statistic passed from one source to another without bothering to check if it's, you know, true.
    , @Logan
    The other factor cited was that majority of federal spending would be in the North.

    Federal in 1860 was $78M. Let's at least note that in a country of 32M people this was an itsy-bitsy amount, nothing even remotely similar to the impact of federal spending today. It was $2.43 per person. Hard to be terribly oppressive with that kind of budget!

    Hard to find numbers on what the government spent its money on and where. But 37% was Defense and 4% interest.

    Much if not most of the Defense funds were spent in the West, where most troops were stationed. Which was of course neither in North nor South. A lot of Defense money at this time was also being spent on fortifications to defend ports. The South, having a much longer coastline, got a big chunk of this money, with, famously, a big project underway at Fort Sumter.

    Another big chunk of spending was clearly related to the overhead of the government, as largely located in DC. Which was in the South.

    One of the biggest operations of the federal government was the postal system, which is population related.

    So while it's possible the majority of federal funds were spent in the North, depending on how you define the terms, I'd be very surprised indeed if more federal funds were spent in northern states than their percentage of the population.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Anonymous[134] • Disclaimer says:
    @Logan
    While the South would be paying nearly 80 % of the tariff, most of the revenues would be spent in the North.

    I believe this to be entirely inaccurate, quite ironic given the title of the piece.

    However, if someone cares to demonstrate how either of these statements is accurate, I'm perfectly willing to be convinced.

    Without getting too technical, the finished goods and–especially–farm equipment that the south depended on were mostly imported in those days. Additionally, there was some fear in the south that foreign countries might retaliate with tariffs of their own on the agricultural commodities that the south exported. To be sure, I don’t buy the theory that ‘slavery had nothing to do with Civil War’, but tariffs, no doubt, were at least a contributing factor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Thanks for the logical reply.

    So the North did not used finished goods or farm equipment? The question is not whether the South paid tariffs on imported goods, it's whether the 29% of southern whites paid 80% of the tariffs, rather than the 71% of northern whites. Which would mean southern whites would have consumed finished good and farm equipment at a rate almost 3x that of northern whites. Which doesn't make a great deal of sense.

    It is often claimed that the South was agricultural while the North was industrial. But of course in 1860 the North was also still primarily agricultural. Of the 18.5M northern whites, 5M or 27% were urban (defined as living in towns over 2500). Of the 8M southern whites, 1.2M or 15% were urban by this definition. (Which is probably not the best definition.)

    This means that 73% of northern whites did not live in cities or even towns. As in the South, most of them were farmers. This was especially the case outside of the Northeast, where cities and industry were concentrated.

    An Iowa farmer paid (indirectly) exactly the same tariff as the South Carolina planter. And, for that matter, so did the Pennsylvania mill owner or worker.

    , @renfro

    Additionally, there was some fear in the south that foreign countries might retaliate with tariffs of their own on the agricultural commodities that the south exported.
     
    Foreign countries, mainly England which was the largest importer of Southern cotton, did not want to see tariffs on the South or impose them .....it would cost them more.
    The Northern factories would be made more competitive and benefit from the increased cost to GB companies.
    Southern families had fine linens, etc. they imported from England made from cotton of their own fields . If you wanted 'finer things' like linens, furniture, silver, china, you got it from England.

    The North wanted that business also and though there were no fine artisans in the colonies like England had, they had plenty of labor for their factories from indentured servants.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Heros says:

    Just like after the failed jew inspired Weimar take over of Germany in the 1920′s, after the failed 1848 revolutions in Europe, many squealing and kvetching marxist jews fled to the US, where they quickly integrated into their “good for the jews” JP collective. The Rothschilds, the bloodline families and the illuminati had already subverted all the masonic lodges in precisely the same way they are using D’Sousa to subvert “conservatism” now, but the JP was still gathering all the reigns of power into their hands.

    In fact, what Jewish Power (JP) is doing with D’Sousa is deliberately dividing any conservative resistance into the subverted “racist” alt-right and the subverted “non-racist” Neocon war machine. Of course, the militarized police forces are being set up to be deployed against the “racist” alt-right in the same way facebook, twitter and all the other JP social media corporations have shut down the free speech of that same alt-right. This is the same kind of judaic divide and conquer strategy that the tribe was using in the lead up to the war of northern aggression.

    D’Sousa is clearly a non-white, and like all dot-Indian immigrants he is merely another form of trojan horse brought into our society in the same way jews opened the gates let the moors into Granada and the Turks into Constantinople. Whether he realizes it or not, he is a jew puppet brought in to destroy Christianity and European civilization and replace their true liberalism with a Frankfurt School marxist cuckoo bird egg. Dot-Indians are to become a new technocratic upper caste brought into to help jews keep the goyim slaves in line. No good will come from allowing dot-Indians to preach judaicly perverted Christian morality back onto us.

    One of the little known characteristics of the War of Northern Aggression was that the majority of slave plantation owners in the south were jews, while the vast majority of Yankee bankers and slave traders were also jews. This is precisely the same kind of jewish over representation that we see in SCOTUS, Hollywood, Harvard and the “1%” today.

    So it was JP and its Freemason puppets who started the War of Northern Aggression, and it was a part of a thousand year old plan described in the Talmud and the Protocols to obliterate Europeans and their culture from the face of planet earth as revenge for Titus’s destruction of the Second Temple to Solomon in 70AD. There is plenty of confirmation of this in writings from places like the Frankfurt School, Saul Alinsky and Cultural Marxism. Although D’Sousa pays lip service to exposing some of these hidden agendas, he cannot see the forest because all he is willing to see is a “racist” hiding behind every tree. What a kike tool he is.

    Dave McGowan wrote in his great understated and laconic style about the judaic and masonic lies surrounding the Lincoln assassination. You can read it for free online, along with his great books “Wagging the Moon Dog” and “Weird Scenes in the Canyon”.

    http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/lincoln/

    Here is a fascinating unrolled, archived twitter feed about Lincoln and his jewish and masonic connections, with lots of interesting embedded pictures:

    https://archive.is/H3aMW

    “On the bottom of page three of four pages was a paragraph where the father, A.A. Springs, left to his son an enormous amount of land in the state of Alabama which is now known as Huntsville, Alabama. At first Mr. Christopher and his colleagues could not believe what their eyes, because the name of his son was “ABRAHAM LINCOLN”!

    This new information added to what they had already learned about the Springs, whose real name was Springstein, was one more twist to this already enigmatic family.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Them Guys
    Heros: Indeed, and here are a couple of famous high rated Jewish guys who fully confirm the Vast, Huge, Massive role Jews played in not only America's slave trading/owning business...But also, even long prior when Jews had control of European slavery, which consisted mostly of, European White Christians that Jews sold into slavery, To Arabs...After Jews stole or kidnapped said euro white Christians of course.

    “Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated. This was no less true on the North American mainland, where during the eighteenth century Jews participated in the ‘triangular trade’ that brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies and there exchanged them for molasses, which in turn was taken to New England and converted into rum for sale in Africa. Isaac Da Costa of Charleston in the 1750s, David Franks of Philadelphia in the 1760s, and Aaron Lopez of Newport in the late 1760s and early 1770s dominated Jewish slave trading on the American continent.”
    — Marc Raphael (Jew): “Jews and Judaism in the United States: A Documentary History”

    This quoted statement is from the same book, Blood Passover, that not too long ago an UNZ Article was done about it!

    “During this period, Jewish merchants, from the cities in the valley of the Rhône, Verdun, Lione, Arles and Narbonne, in addition to Aquisgrana, the capital of the empire in the times of Louis the Pious [Louis I]; and in Germany from the centres of the valley of the Rhine, from Worms, Magonza and Magdeburg; in Bavaria and Bohemia, from Regensburg and Prague – were active in the principal markets in which slaves (women, men, eunuchs) were offered for sale, by Jews, sometimes after abducting them from their houses. From Christian Europe the human merchandise was exported to the Islamic lands of Spain, in which there was a lively market. The castration of these slaves, particularly children, raised their prices, and was no doubt a lucrative and profitable practice…”
    — Dr. Ariel Toaff, Chapter Eight, Blood Passover . This book was ordered taken off book shelves and destroyed. Toaff was the son of the chief rabbi of Rome and had access to synagogue writings dating back to the Middle Ages.

    And it wasn't any "Nazis" or German's who did the book burnings on that expose' of Jewry eh.

    “To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly.”
    — The Talmud: Libbre David 37

    “The modern Jew is the product of the Talmud.”
    — Michael Rodkinson, in preface of Babylonian Talmud, page XI.

    “The Talmud is to this day the circulating heart’s blood of the Jewish religion. Whatever laws, customs, or ceremonies we observe — whether we are Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, or merely spasmodic sentimentalists — we follow the Talmud. It is our common law.”
    — Herman Wouk, “This is My God.” Wouk wrote the book and screenplay “Winds of War,” popular back in the 1970’s.

    Well, perhaps those last few quotes explain or answer the question of, "Gee why are there so very Few good Jews it seems, huh"? Ie: 99%+ adhere to their Talmud.
    , @Thim
    Yes this Doucsha is a fine daddy. While he is making crummy propaganda fiction, his Eurasian daughter has made quite a name posting pictures of herself on the net. DADDY she says. Find it yourself, I dont want to be banned here.
    , @Johnnie Walker Read
    Just wanted to agree with all you said. I am also a big fan of McGowan's and love everything he has ever written. His analysis of the Lincoln assassination was a real eye opener. Also loved his "Wagging the Moon Doggie."
    I would like to share this article by "The Mad Jewess" which points out the number of Marxist general's in Lincoln's Union Army. These generals were "48ers". 48ers were Communist Revolutionaries who brought Communist and Socialistic terror to Europe. These revolutionaries moved to America after Revolutions in EU failed and many ended up as officer's in the Union Army. Just another set of facts you never hear about.
    http://themadjewess.net/2015/07/did-lincoln-introduce-communism-socialism-to-america-strong-evidence-suggests-so/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Lincoln invaded, conquered, occupied and annexed the Confederacy. Sans federalism the Constitution was already not the Constitution. So fuck Lincoln.

    But we have Hamilton. Why not Death Of A Nation?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. Logan says:
    @Colin Wright
    ‘…While the South would be paying nearly 80 % of the tariff, most of the revenues would be spent in the North.’

    I believe this to be entirely inaccurate, quite ironic given the title of the piece…

    There are two propositions you are questioning; first that 80% of the tariff would be collected from the South, and second that most of it would be spent in the North.

    Since the North had twice the population of the South, it indeed seems likely that most of the revenue would be spent there, so at least the second half of the statement seems reasonable.

    As to the South paying 80% of the tariff, since the South did rely heavily on importing manufactured goods, that too seems at least possible.

    US population 1860, 31.5M. 4M slaves, so 27.5M free people, vast majority white.

    Determining what “the South” was in 1860 is a little ambiguous. Slaveowning states? States that seceded?

    Let’s look at all slaveowning states. Total white population – 8M. Which leaves 18.5M in “the North,” or free states.

    Tariffs are duties charged on imported goods. They are paid at the point of entry, not by the eventual buyer, other than indirectly. Hence there was no way to charge different taxes for different sections other than, theoretically, by including or excluding certain items from tariffs or by changing rates based on the rate of purchase of such items in the difference regions.

    So for the 80% claim to be accurate, the 29% of white people who lived in the South would have to purchase tariffed goods at a rate 2.8x that of white people who lived in the North. Does that seem likely to you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    '...Does that seem likely to you?'

    I wouldn't say 'likely.' I didn't say 'likely.' I said 'possible.' The other end of the proposition -- that most of the tariffs would get spent in the North -- does seem likely. That's what I said.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Logan says:
    @Anonymous
    No one's stopping you from finding out on your own. But if you need help getting started, here are a couple relevant quotes:

    Charles Adams: The South paid an undue proportion of federal revenues derived from tariffs, and these were expended by the federal government more in the North than the South: in 1840, the South paid 84% of the tariffs, rising to 87% in 1860. They paid 83% of the $13 million federal fishing bounties paid to New England fishermen, and also paid $35 million to Northern shipping interests which had a monopoly on shipping from Southern ports. The South, in effect, was paying tribute to the North.

    The address of Texas Congressman Reagan on 15 January 1861 summarizes this discontent: "You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions." As the London Times of 7 Nov 1861 stated: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South...."
     

    Carl Pearlston: In 1860, the 15 Southern states had 8 million whites and 4½ million black slaves, compared to 19 million whites and ¼ million blacks in the North's 19 states. The vast areas of undeveloped western territory were rapidly being settled by people whose economic interests were not with the South. It found itself continually outvoted in both the Congress and Senate, especially on commercial regulations, with the prospect of an increasing majority against it. The nub of the problem was that the North wanted high tariffs on imported goods to protect its own manufactured products, while the South wanted low tariffs on imports and exports since it exported cotton and tobacco to Europe and imported manufactured goods in exchange. High tariffs in effect depressed the price for the South's agricultural exports; the South paid high prices for what it bought and got low prices for what it sold because of the federal tariff policy which the South was powerless to change. Southerners viewed themselves as being dominated by the mercantile interests of the North who profited from these high tariffs.

    At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Virginia had proposed a requirement for a 2/3 majority to enact laws regulating commerce and levying tariffs, which were the chief revenue of the federal government. George Mason of Virginia stated "The effect of a provision to pass commercial laws by a simple majority would be to deliver the south bound hand and foot to the eastern states". Virginia withdrew its amendment at the Convention in the interest of securing adoption of the Constitution, but ratification was with the proviso that it could be rescinded whenever the powers granted to the Union were used to oppress, and Virginia could then withdraw from the Union. True to George Mason's prediction, the high tariff of 1828 did bring the South to the verge of rebellion, leading Senator John C. Calhoun to unsuccessfully champion the concept of Nullification and the doctrine of the Concurrent Majority in 1833 to ensure that the South could have a veto power over commercial acts passed by a simple majority in Congress and the Senate.
     

    The Adams quote is not evidence, it’s merely the source for the claim made in this article. It’s from a book published in 2000. Adams, in that book, may quite possibly provide evidence the claim is accurate. But that Adams stated something is not evidence that the statement is true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Do you want others to post the texts, with annotations, of the books to which you've now been directed? In a comment thread under an article on a website? I doubt that you would be so absurd and ungracious without pseudonymity.

    At this point, it now is incumbent on you to either (i) back down or (ii) go find and share the title of a scholarly work that might validate your hunches. Then, those who care to learn the truth can dig in. A group that apparently doesn't include "Logan."

    , @rebelwriter
    Sir,

    What you are demanding is information not easily acquirable on the internet, namely records of Federal Revenue, broken down geographically, and Federal spending broken down the same way. Such records exist, but I have only seen them in the footnotes of various books. Let me aid your understanding, however.

    Remember reading of the American Industrial Revolution? Where did it take place? In New England, of course. And in 1860 there were counties in New England that had more manufacturing than every state in the Confederacy combined. These tariffs were protective in nature, and only placed on manufactured goods. At first they were only placed on those goods which were also produced in the US, but later nearly anything manufactured outside of the US was subject to a tax.

    Who paid the tariffs? Those who purchased goods manufactured outside the US. The planters of the South paid a generally agreed upon estimate of 80% of tariffs due to simply wanting things not manufactured in the US; grand pianos, gilded mirrors, certain tiles for roofs, English buggies and carriages, French dresses, etc., etc.

    The Nullification Crisis over the Morrill Tariff only happened because the South paid most of the taxes. It was the South, particularly South Carolina, which objected to the increase in tax rates. I must also point out to those unaware that John C. Calhoun supported tariffs for the common good of the United States; he was not opposed to them until this point in time, and only opposed them out of political expediency.

    It's pretty clear from a casual reading of the history that the Southern states, who had no manufacturing to speak of, paid most of the tariffs, and benefitted from them the least. Whether or not you're satisfied, this is so.

    The next point of contention is where the revenues were spent. Southern senators and congressmen were not without power, in fact they were the dominant power up until around 1830. The fight over slavery in the new territories was all about congressional representation, and guarding the parity which was reached in 1830. So there were some projects, mostly military forts and bases, in the South, built with federal money.

    However the largest part of federal spending was infrastructure to ease transportation for commerce. Some money was spent on the nation's two largest ports of the time, Charleston and New Orleans, but much, much more was spent on canals, such as the Erie Canal, railroads, and bridges up North. Most federal infrastructure spending, by far, were those projects which aided the transportation of raw goods from the Midwest to the East Coast.

    There are books which break these down in detail, but I'm not going to be your private Google and hunt them down for you. There are no historians I have read, or read of, who contest this particular point, that the South paid most of the tariffs, and that most of the money from them was spent up North.
    , @Wally
    You dodged Carl Pearlston.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Logan says:
    @Dan Hayes
    Logan:

    No. It's up to you to prove the purported inaccuracies.

    Disagree. The person making a statement is the one logically required to demonstrate why the statement is accurate.

    You have just provided a classic example of the “shifting the burden of proof” logical fallacy.

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/222/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof

    Read More
    • Disagree: Dan Hayes
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Logan says:
    @Anonymous
    Without getting too technical, the finished goods and--especially--farm equipment that the south depended on were mostly imported in those days. Additionally, there was some fear in the south that foreign countries might retaliate with tariffs of their own on the agricultural commodities that the south exported. To be sure, I don't buy the theory that 'slavery had nothing to do with Civil War', but tariffs, no doubt, were at least a contributing factor.

    Thanks for the logical reply.

    So the North did not used finished goods or farm equipment? The question is not whether the South paid tariffs on imported goods, it’s whether the 29% of southern whites paid 80% of the tariffs, rather than the 71% of northern whites. Which would mean southern whites would have consumed finished good and farm equipment at a rate almost 3x that of northern whites. Which doesn’t make a great deal of sense.

    It is often claimed that the South was agricultural while the North was industrial. But of course in 1860 the North was also still primarily agricultural. Of the 18.5M northern whites, 5M or 27% were urban (defined as living in towns over 2500). Of the 8M southern whites, 1.2M or 15% were urban by this definition. (Which is probably not the best definition.)

    This means that 73% of northern whites did not live in cities or even towns. As in the South, most of them were farmers. This was especially the case outside of the Northeast, where cities and industry were concentrated.

    An Iowa farmer paid (indirectly) exactly the same tariff as the South Carolina planter. And, for that matter, so did the Pennsylvania mill owner or worker.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Carlton Meyer
    It's nice to remind people that Lincoln was a Republican. An old blog post of mine provides a clearer explanation:

    Jan 2, 2011 - The War to Reclaim Federal Property 1861-1865

    I've noticed the "Power Elite" have decided to rewrite American history in regards to the American Civil War. This was known as the "War Between the States" or the "War of Secession", but was officially named the "Civil War" as a Congressional compromise some 40 years later. The Power Elite recently mobilized their media front men to proclaim that war was all about slavery. Anyone who contends it was about states rights is labeled ignorant or a racist. Symbols of the Confederacy have been targeted for destruction, claiming they are racist.

    Slavery was a horrible institution, and was the prime source of friction between the states in the 1850s. Some wanted a military crusade to free the slaves, while an equal number demanded a military crusade to crush the evil Mormons in Utah. There was never strong support in Congress to ban slavery since many wealthy New Englanders profited in the textile business that relied upon cheap cotton from the South. In addition, the cherished American Constitution allowed for slavery.

    Had Congress made slavery illegal and our military ordered to enforce that law, it would have been a war against slavery, and it would have lasted but a few months. However, that is not how things played out. Southern states feared that Northerners were using the federal government to dominate the nation that was conceived as a federation of states. Slavery was the key issue, but most Southerners didn't own slaves, and slavery was contentious within Southern states as many citizens opposed it. The Southern states peacefully and democratically seceded and formed the Confederate States of America (CSA), in the same way they joined the Union just two generations prior. The U.S. Congress didn't declare that illegal, nor did the Supreme Court.

    Newly elected President Lincoln decided he would not tolerate the CSA, so he ordered it crushed. He assumed our military could quickly overrun the much weaker Confederate state militias, but it turned into a disastrous war. A key problem is that Lincoln refused to outlaw slavery and use that as a cause for military action, but said the effort was to preserve the union. As a result, Northerners were not enthusiastic about invading the South, while anti-slavery Southerners and the silent majority of non-slave holding Southerners felt compelled to defend their state from invasion. As his effort to "preserve the union" became a debacle, Lincoln finally evoked ending slavery as a cause with his 1863 "Emancipation Proclamation". Even that did not free the 800,000 slaves in the slave-holding states of Missouri, Maryland, West Virginia, or Delaware, which had never declared a secession.

    Some say Lincoln only did this to prevent England from entering the war on the side of the CSA. England was upset by the Union sea blockade that denied its textile mills of cotton. Lincoln implemented his own form of slavery, the military draft, to fill his crusading army. The movie "Gangs of New York" addresses this issue toward the end -- the resulting anti-draft riots by New York immigrants. The great movie "Glory" shows white Union troops angry at forced service in Lincoln's crusade. Most of Lincoln's free Negro troops were slaughtered in frontal attacks during the war, and only earned half-pay.

    In summary, slavery was the primary cause of conflict between the states, but the Civil War was caused by Lincoln's blundering. He failed to act decisively because he had no official standing to end slavery, yet when he did act as a dictator, he refused to promote it as an anti-slavery crusade. As a result, most Southerners fought to defend their state from invasion, not to protect slavery. The Northern industrialists made huge profits from this war, so they sainted Lincoln as one of our greatest Presidents, for suspending the U.S. Constitution and causing the most disastrous event in American history.

    ” In summary, slavery was the primary cause of conflict between the states, ”
    Weird, in a country that treated the Indians far worse than the slaves.
    I spoke to an old USA lady, who was proud on her grandfather participating in smuggling run away slaves to the North.
    When I talked about the Indians her reply was ‘before the Indians there were others’.
    I did not continue the discussion, but to this day do not understand how helping black people was good, but ethnically cleaning and killing Indians was irrelevant.

    Read More
    • Agree: chris
    • Replies: @Jake
    I have had such conversations a number of times with Leftists/Liberals. They never have an answer that makes sense.

    My assessment is it primarily is about the Who/Whom. The best way to grasp that is to know that while so much as being white and living in a state that had legal slavery in 1860 marks you condemned, being the direct ancestor of super rich New England WASPs who made a fortune from slave trading is not to be discussed in public, much less condemned.

    The Who/Whom is not about the non-whites involved but the whites doing to other whites as the end game. Pure WASPs from New England and the whites who became their closest allies by the Revolution (NY Dutch and PA Quakers and Old Germans) cannot be held accountable for slave trading (though nearly 100% of the massively profitable cross-Atlantic slave trade was by those very people). So the 'other whites' are damned as white trash.

    If whites moving in and displacing Indians is The Great Sin, then all those Yankees are guilty as Hell. But if the Great Sin, the Unpardonable Sin, is owning black slaves, then the original 'mainstream media' which was owned and operated 100% by Yankee WASPs could declare that slave shipping by their people was to be forgotten and also that what happened to Indians was totally insignificant compared to the pure evil of owning a black slave in 1860.

    And then they could claim that all their usurpations of government were really about saving the Union an spreading democracy.

    Jews did not invent the ultra hypocrisy and self-righteous mendacity and blood-lust that IS Neo-conservatism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Logan
    While the South would be paying nearly 80 % of the tariff, most of the revenues would be spent in the North.

    I believe this to be entirely inaccurate, quite ironic given the title of the piece.

    However, if someone cares to demonstrate how either of these statements is accurate, I'm perfectly willing to be convinced.

    Read’em and weep my little mis-informed, publicly educated man. Although truth is a bitter pill, it must be swallowed if you are ever to rise above a mind controlled sheep.

    https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Your link reiterates the claim that protective tariffs were the primary cause of the war. But it asserts the claim. It provides very little in the way of evidence.

    Amusingly, the cartoon about the Morrill Tariff is dated April 13, which was of course long after the initial secession. The Morill Tariff was passed as a result of secession, because it removed a large chunk of opponents from Congress, allowing it to pass when it had failed previously.

    You simply can't use a tariff that passed after and because of secession as the cause of that secession.

    You know, I've read the Declarations of Secession of every state, though it's been a while. Every one of them cites as the reasons for seceding primarily issues related to slavery. I don't recall any mention of tariffs at all, though it's possible they were cited in passing.

    If excessive tariffs/taxation were the cause of secession, how exactly was the South planning to finance its new government? The South would now have the full overhead of a govenrment, formerly split with the North. It would also clearly have to finance a major expansion of Defense to guard a long and hostile border with the USA. It's likely that if the South had left the Union uncontested, its 8M whites would have wound up bearing a larger tax burden than the 27M whites of the united country bore in 1860.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Logan says:
    @anonymous
    This may be Mr. Cathey's reading of the Taussig book cited earlier in the paragraph. A linked citation to the 8th (1931) edition can be found at the end of the Wikipedia article on Taussig.

    You may very well be right. That book is 500+ pages, and while I downloaded it, I’m not really going to slog through it to find some quote that may or may not line up with the 80% number.

    However, Taussig, in his discussion of the prewar tariff (Part 2 – Chapter 1), states that it was the lowest it had been in a long time and was generally along free trade lines. I don’t think anybody is going to find much support in Taussig for the notion that the intolerable exploitation of the tariff was the primary cause of secession.

    I’ve seen this 80% number tossed around for years, and have never been able to track it to its lair. The closest I’ve been able to come is the fact that 60% of exports were cotton, and if you add in other southern exports, you might get close to 80% of US exports being from the South.

    But of course exports are not tariffs. I suspect the two have been conflated and then the statistic passed from one source to another without bothering to check if it’s, you know, true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
    "But of course exports are not tariffs. I suspect the two have been conflated and then the statistic passed from one source to another without bothering to check if it’s, you know, true."

    You're right--exports are not tariffs, but tariffs can be levied on exports as well as on imports.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Thomm
    Sorry, but Dinesh D'Souza is vastly more knowledgeable than Boyd Cathey.

    Boyd Cathey is a Nationalist-Leftist, which is still a leftist at the end of the day.

    Say’s the MAGA Trumptard….Try as you might, sometimes it is impossible to stomp out ignorance from the public and the propaganda(lies) from the likes of the Neocon knee boy D’Souza.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomm
    You are obviously a leftist. Tell me, are you a WN wigger as well?
    , @Johnnie Walker Read
    Wrong my friend, I am a believer in natural law and NO political parties. I quit believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny a long time ago.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. The one very significant fact that becomes clear in his latest cinematic screed is that D’Souza is ignorant of American history, and that he is an ideological and historical fabricator who seeks, in the name of defending his adopted nation, to bend and mishandle its history to fit a preconceived narrative which satisfies his Neoconservative task masters.

    In my experience with American “educators,” I can state with confidence that the great bulk of them fit the description of “ignorant fabricator” or worse. Much the same can be said of the products of their so called “education” including journalists and pundits.

    Reader beware.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. Logan says:
    @anonymous
    This may be Mr. Cathey's reading of the Taussig book cited earlier in the paragraph. A linked citation to the 8th (1931) edition can be found at the end of the Wikipedia article on Taussig.

    The other factor cited was that majority of federal spending would be in the North.

    Federal in 1860 was $78M. Let’s at least note that in a country of 32M people this was an itsy-bitsy amount, nothing even remotely similar to the impact of federal spending today. It was $2.43 per person. Hard to be terribly oppressive with that kind of budget!

    Hard to find numbers on what the government spent its money on and where. But 37% was Defense and 4% interest.

    Much if not most of the Defense funds were spent in the West, where most troops were stationed. Which was of course neither in North nor South. A lot of Defense money at this time was also being spent on fortifications to defend ports. The South, having a much longer coastline, got a big chunk of this money, with, famously, a big project underway at Fort Sumter.

    Another big chunk of spending was clearly related to the overhead of the government, as largely located in DC. Which was in the South.

    One of the biggest operations of the federal government was the postal system, which is population related.

    So while it’s possible the majority of federal funds were spent in the North, depending on how you define the terms, I’d be very surprised indeed if more federal funds were spent in northern states than their percentage of the population.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Great article by Boyd in once again exposing the massive lies about “hero” Lincoln and the true causes of the war of northern aggression. I see the trolls or mis-informed are also here in force. Just a little advice from George Carlin: “Never argue with an idiot.They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Logan says:
    @Johnnie Walker Read
    Read'em and weep my little mis-informed, publicly educated man. Although truth is a bitter pill, it must be swallowed if you are ever to rise above a mind controlled sheep.
    https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/

    Your link reiterates the claim that protective tariffs were the primary cause of the war. But it asserts the claim. It provides very little in the way of evidence.

    Amusingly, the cartoon about the Morrill Tariff is dated April 13, which was of course long after the initial secession. The Morill Tariff was passed as a result of secession, because it removed a large chunk of opponents from Congress, allowing it to pass when it had failed previously.

    You simply can’t use a tariff that passed after and because of secession as the cause of that secession.

    You know, I’ve read the Declarations of Secession of every state, though it’s been a while. Every one of them cites as the reasons for seceding primarily issues related to slavery. I don’t recall any mention of tariffs at all, though it’s possible they were cited in passing.

    If excessive tariffs/taxation were the cause of secession, how exactly was the South planning to finance its new government? The South would now have the full overhead of a govenrment, formerly split with the North. It would also clearly have to finance a major expansion of Defense to guard a long and hostile border with the USA. It’s likely that if the South had left the Union uncontested, its 8M whites would have wound up bearing a larger tax burden than the 27M whites of the united country bore in 1860.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnnie Walker Read
    War is always the ultimate choice for the bankers and politicians suffering from psychosis( a serious mental illness (such as schizophrenia) characterized by defective or lost contact with reality often with hallucinations or delusions) such as Lincoln. Could the slaves have been freed without a civil war? - ABSOLUTELY. Simply compensating slave owners for the slaves and freeing them would have been a much better option. Mel Barger said it best in his article "Was The Civil War Necessary."
    "From 1861 to 1865, some of the worst savagery ever staged on Earth took place in North America. When it ended more than 620 thousand men were dead and many thousands more were blinded, crippled, disfigured, and otherwise maimed and injured. Towns and homes had been burned, railroads had been torn up, crops had been destroyed, and forests had been ravaged. Had a visitor from Outer Space witnessed this tragedy, he could only have assumed that millions of people in the United States had somehow gone temporarily insane."
    If Lincoln had been the compassionate man he is proclaimed to be and the war was all about slavery, he would have chosen a much cheaper(blood and treasure)and humane way to end the curse of slavery. Here is a link to the rest of Mel's article if you are so inclined to give it a look.
    http://melbarger.com/Civil_War_Necessary.html
    , @Wally
    said:
    "If excessive tariffs/taxation were the cause of secession, how exactly was the South planning to finance its new government? The South would now have the full overhead of a govenrment, formerly split with the North. It would also clearly have to finance a major expansion of Defense to guard a long and hostile border with the USA. It’s likely that if the South had left the Union uncontested, its 8M whites would have wound up bearing a larger tax burden than the 27M whites of the united country bore in 1860."

    Without the burden of northern taxes there would have been / was money

    The south DID "finance it's new government".

    The north was not going to let / did not let the south to leave '"uncontested".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Jeff Stryker
    Couple of things-

    THING A-

    We can argue demographic data but many white Americans were not in the United States at the time of the Civil War.

    East Coast dominates and whites in the East Coast center aside from Jews tend to be Italians (Rudy, Nancy etc) and Irish-Catholics (Kennedy's) whose ancestors arrived in the late 19th or early 20th century.

    So why is the Civil War important today? Because white Southerners long for some period of time when being descended from English aristocrats was relevant?

    THING B

    Cubans have made Miami economically relevant if only because Caribbean dictators stick their money to be safe from the next revolution and it attracts a great deal of international tourism.

    Texas pumps out a great deal of oil.

    Otherwise, what is the relevance of much of the South? To who, and why? That they are often poorer than the West Coast or the East Coast. That whites are poorest there? What's its relevance? GDP? Technological innovation? Standard of living?

    THING C

    If the South could not have Federal bailouts than what would it do? More than Northern states with massive human capitol from Wall Street brokers and businessmen and international investors and tech giants the South has....well, poverty.

    The North is not a reliant on Federal money. Northern California and Manhattan could tell the Beltway to go F*(X themselves. They'd get by. But would Alabama?

    THING D

    The Southern border is the problem. It is not the Northern border. If anything, Canada is the one saying they don't want whites from Maine or Michigan and rigidly enforce border security.

    Yet the South and Southwest allows millions of illegal immigrants through their border.

    Canada sure does a good job of keeping Americans from immigrating illegally. Try to do it. I guarantee you'll be caught and end up with Canadian mounties and helicopters with infrared surrounding you.

    THING E

    White Southerners seem to have a huge hard-on for Jews. There are not many Jews in the South compared to Long Island or California. So why do white Southerners have this thing about Jews?

    Ever heard of Judah P. Benjamin. Get educated before you speak my man.

    http://tomatobubble.com/id866.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @bjondo
    Thanks for link. Scanned contents didnt see mention of stolen gold so will add this:

    WHO STOLE THE SOUTH'S GOLD at the end of the US Civil War?
    Judah P. Benjamin Stole The Gold

    In 1865, Jefferson Davis entrusted Jewish Confederate Secretary of the Treasury, Judah P. Benjamin, with all the remaining gold in the Confederate Treasury, on the condition that Benjamin should run the blockade, take the gold to England, invest it, and use the proceeds to assist needy Confederate veterans, widows and orphans. Benjamin reached England in safety with the gold, which then promptly and completely disappeared. [See: Hoggan, DAS BLINDE JAHRHUNDERT, pp. 581-2].

    https://twishort.com/Iicfc

    Judah must've been a founding partner of Goldman-Sach's
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Them Guys says:
    @Jeff Stryker
    Couple of things-

    THING A-

    We can argue demographic data but many white Americans were not in the United States at the time of the Civil War.

    East Coast dominates and whites in the East Coast center aside from Jews tend to be Italians (Rudy, Nancy etc) and Irish-Catholics (Kennedy's) whose ancestors arrived in the late 19th or early 20th century.

    So why is the Civil War important today? Because white Southerners long for some period of time when being descended from English aristocrats was relevant?

    THING B

    Cubans have made Miami economically relevant if only because Caribbean dictators stick their money to be safe from the next revolution and it attracts a great deal of international tourism.

    Texas pumps out a great deal of oil.

    Otherwise, what is the relevance of much of the South? To who, and why? That they are often poorer than the West Coast or the East Coast. That whites are poorest there? What's its relevance? GDP? Technological innovation? Standard of living?

    THING C

    If the South could not have Federal bailouts than what would it do? More than Northern states with massive human capitol from Wall Street brokers and businessmen and international investors and tech giants the South has....well, poverty.

    The North is not a reliant on Federal money. Northern California and Manhattan could tell the Beltway to go F*(X themselves. They'd get by. But would Alabama?

    THING D

    The Southern border is the problem. It is not the Northern border. If anything, Canada is the one saying they don't want whites from Maine or Michigan and rigidly enforce border security.

    Yet the South and Southwest allows millions of illegal immigrants through their border.

    Canada sure does a good job of keeping Americans from immigrating illegally. Try to do it. I guarantee you'll be caught and end up with Canadian mounties and helicopters with infrared surrounding you.

    THING E

    White Southerners seem to have a huge hard-on for Jews. There are not many Jews in the South compared to Long Island or California. So why do white Southerners have this thing about Jews?

    THING E
    White Southerners seem to have a huge hard-on for Jews. There are not many Jews in the South compared to Long Island or California. So why do white Southerners have this thing about Jews?

    #1 Reason since just over 100 yrs ago is….The Cyrus Scofield-perverted interpretations KJV Bible, and the fact that about 99% of Scofield Bible evangelical Jewdeo-Christian Devotees reside within the very same 10 or so Southern States that made up the Confeds of the civil war era.

    These are the who’s that make up the huge vast majority of Jewdo-Zio-Christians, who basically worship, Jews & Israel, and do so regardless of what Jewry or Israel has ever done or will do that most sane folk consider to be wrong, bad, evil, unethical, and immoral. In other words, when the issue revolves around Israel or Jews…Both can never, ever do such wrongs etc…Period. No amount of proofs, documented and vetted facts, or anything else can change this. Only a self-wake-up, performed by each affected and delusional, warped minded individual has any chance of real success at lasting and good changes.

    Just among the Southern Baptist Conference group membership, is a whopping, 25,000,000+ individual members. This is the absolute largest sized group, aprox. one half of entire amount, of such worshipers of Jewry & Israel within the entire, Jewnited Snakes of Jewmerica.

    And furthermore, if not for their rabid foam at mouth worship of both entities, aka synagogue of Satan combo of Jewry+Israel, America would never be able to continue on as an, Colony of Tel Aviv Israel. There also would be massive exiting of most neocon repubs, who also worship Jewry & Israel, if not for these so totally Duped Via scam Scofield falsehood biblical interpretations, voters.

    Now do you understand, HTF aka how the fuck in the world did Nikki Haley get elected as Governor in a deep south state of S. Carolina ? Or Bobby Jindal also Governor in another deep south state ?….Very easy to do, all those two Israel firster clowns needed do to get elected by mostly White Southern voters….Was to state their deep love for and never ending support for…Jewry & Israel!….And an election win was in the proverbial bag, eh. Add in massive, several generations worth of, constant White Guilt effects, and the fools would likely elect Chicago’s Louie Da Farakahn as Alabama Governor as long as he too did a 180 and stated avowed love and support for Jewry & Israel. Cuz, Now he beez a Changed colored folk man, and seen dat light to worship Jewry like’s we does.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rebelwriter
    " So why do white Southerners have this thing about Jews?"

    A very good question, and a subject that needs some focus on it among my fellow Southerners. I know a few things.

    Charleston, SC, had the largest population of Jews in the US until 1830, when New York surpassed them. New Orleans also had a large Jewish population. The Jews in the South prior to 1830 were Sephardim, merchants, and almost all of them were slaveowners, too. They formed their own congregations, of course, and worshiped according to thier own beliefs, but that was not viewed negatively by most Southerners, at least not by the planter class, as far as I can tell. The first Reformed Synagogue in the nation, Beth Elohim, was founded in Charleston in 1749.

    They came to South Carolina after settlement was opened for, "Jews, heathens, and other dissenters," in 1699. According to the SC Jewish Virtual Library, by 1800, Charleston was home to the largest, wealthiest, and most cultured Jewish community in North America. Jews and Gentile Southerners shared cause, and got along well. Jews actually fought in the Revolution, with several noted Jewish leaders dying in the cause of SC and the US. Their men also enlisted and fought for the South, and their women sewed socks, flags, and uniforms along with their gentile neighbors.

    Among the notable Jewish families of SC was that of Bernard Baruch, Ambassador at Large to three presidents. His father was a surgeon in the Confederate Army, and also rode with the original KKK, which Bernard wrote of later in his life, specifically of the fear his mother felt, and the quiet of the house when his father was out riding at night. Also he wrote of he and his brother finding his father's Klan robes in the attic after his father's death.

    Everything we despise about Jewry today happened later, after Southerners were "adapted" to having Jewish neighbors. I knew of only two Jews in my young years, but I'm in the Upstate, where there are few to this day compared to Charleston, the Low Country, and the Pee Dee.

    The period that needs to be focused on for study is from 1900 to present day. I've done most of my study on periods prior to that. It's safe to say, though, that Jews were as assimilated as they ever have been in the US in the South prior to that time, and than Southerners have generally considered these Jews as American and Southern as themselves. They lived with us, fought and bled beside us, and mourned their dead with our own. That this has changed is self-evident. The history of that change is not, to my knowledge, recorded anywhere.
    , @Heros

    "how the fuck in the world did Nikki Haley get elected as Governor in a deep south state of S. Carolina"
     
    Civil War buffs make great cannon fodder for the collective. They are so easy to divide and conquer, it has been tested and perfected over thousands of years. All these jews and their shabboz cronies have to do is stage some kind of event, then spin a half true explanation and the "patriots" fall for it every time.

    All these civil war experts on this thread are merely regurgitating kosher lies. Everything important that they think they know are lies. Sure, there is plenty of minutia to argue about, but we can only find the truth if was ignore the lies and connect the dots. Here is the truth of why Americans have been dying in useless wars for 200 years:

    "Satanic Temple brings Baphomet statue to Arkansas for rally"

    http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/us/2018/08/17/satanic-temple-brings-baphomet-statue-to-arkansas-for-rally/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.png/1862/1048/1534511882062.png?ve=1&tl=1

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/17/satanic-temple-brings-baphomet-statue-to-arkansas-for-rally.html

    , @anonymous
    Scofield Bible evangelical Jewdeo-Christian Devotees, say you?

    "For it is we [Christians] who are the Circumcision." Philippians 3:3
     
    Scofield didn't write that.

    You're going to have to own up to the simple fact that the your religion is Jewdeo-Christian all on its own.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Them Guys says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    D’Souza omits Lincoln’s... repeated desire that blacks be sent back to Africa.
     
    And Cathey omits that that alone would make Lincoln smarter, wiser, and more just than just about anyone in the South.

    On the other hand, Lincoln thought Southerners and their beloved African livestock were worth waging battle to keep in the Union. That alone is proof positive that Lincoln was insane.

    it was the various states that granted the Federal government certain very limited and specifically enumerated powers, reserving the vast remainder for themselves
     
    And the fugitive slave bills, no matter how constitutional, make a total hash of this. Yeah, you can say that Africans were property, but they were not property on the north shore of the Great Lakes. Why would they be on the south?

    If Southerners wanted to keep their pets on the farm, they had the technology to build a Berlin Wall along the Ohio and the Potomac, and let states to the north (not "North") make their own policies concerning chattel.

    The first US Supreme Ct. Case about, is a slave owned as Real property, like land or homes? Was a case dealing with a run away slave, that ended up in some northern state and was being protected by those northern folks. The BLACK Man slave OWNER, of the run away black slave, is who brought that case to supreme court….and He Won his case. Supremes decided a slave was property owned by slave owner who paid $$$ for his slave, and no matter Where slave was found or protected from return to slave owner Black man, those northern protector folks Had to hand slave back over to his Black Man slave owner. So that refutes the part you wrote of…..”Yeah, you can say that Africans were property, but they were not property on the north shore of the Great Lakes. Why would they be on the south? ”

    It is probably a good thing that the GA state, Black Woman who owned over, 300 black slaves, and was about the wealthiest $$$ Woman in the state then, didn’t have her slaves run away eh?…Because for her to need bring hundreds of run away slave cases all the way to us supreme ct, would have likely depleted her vast $$$ holdings down to, herself perhaps needing to work as a black slave just to eat eh.

    Funny/Ironic they never taught us about Black Slave Owners back in school 50+ years ago eh? I reckon such truthful facts would cause all the anti-whitey propaganda agendas to, fast come Unglued and so awaken dumbed down white kids, they may never recover to again maintain vast white guilt feelings the Jewdeo-commie-Marxist Frankfurtist’s worked so hard to develop in Whites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Wiki: "The first Chief Justice of the United States was John Jay; the Court's first docketed case was Van Staphorst v. Maryland (1791), and its first recorded decision was West v. Barnes (1791)."

    Neither had anything to do with slavery.

    Methinks you're conflating the much earlier case where a Virginia colonial court first decided that blacks could be held in permanent slavery, rather than indentured servitude with a limited term of service. Ironically, the plaintiff/owner in that case was himself a black man who had previously served a term as an indentured servant.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    So that refutes the part you wrote of…..”Yeah, you can say that Africans were property, but they were not property on the north shore of the Great Lakes. Why would they be on the south? ”
     
    Then the states between the Ohio and the Lakes were less free than the colonies to the north of the Lakes. Or at least the latter agreed with their overlords, unlike those to the south.

    I didn't say these laws and decisions were unconstitutional. I said they made a mockery of federalism, and make today's Lincoln-bashers total hypocrites. If Upper Canada can declare a slave free, why can't Ohio? What does Upper Canada have that Ohio doesn't?

    Ohioans were thus like Finns before 1991, who had to return Soviet émigrés, thanks to some treaty. Nice company you're in, the USSR.

    Besides, Africans were trying to leave the country. What sane person would want to stop them?
    , @Anonymous
    Jewdeo-commie-Marxist, like this?

    "Not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were ☭common property☭ to them...and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." (((Acts 4:35)))

    Maybe you should reconsider worshiping a Jewish Rabbi. Maybe get de-baptized too, since John the Baptist was a Jewdeo-commie-Marxist.

    "John answered, 'Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.'" (((Luke 3:11)))
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Jake says:
    @Logan
    While the South would be paying nearly 80 % of the tariff, most of the revenues would be spent in the North.

    I believe this to be entirely inaccurate, quite ironic given the title of the piece.

    However, if someone cares to demonstrate how either of these statements is accurate, I'm perfectly willing to be convinced.

    You believe it to be entirely inaccurate? What if it believes that you do not exist? Or that you are a pederast Cultural Marxist?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    I stated my opinion that it is inaccurate, and requested evidence to the contrary, if it exists.

    One of the more common logical fallacies is "shifting the burden of proof." The article made a claim about facts. I requested evidence that the claim is true. So you and others respond by claiming that I must disprove the claim. That's not how logic works.

    Same thing applies to any such claim as that "Sherman is a pederast Cultural Marxist."

    I can reply that the accusation is untrue, which of course it is. But I can't prove it to be untrue, as "proving a negative" is inherently very difficult, though not perhaps always impossible. This is the main reason our legal system requires the State to prove the guilt of the accused, not the accused to prove his innocence of the charges.

    Luckily, the burden of proof is on the accuser in this case also. Feel free to provide any evidence you might have that any of these aspersions are accurate.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Che Guava says:
    @Carlton Meyer
    It's nice to remind people that Lincoln was a Republican. An old blog post of mine provides a clearer explanation:

    Jan 2, 2011 - The War to Reclaim Federal Property 1861-1865

    I've noticed the "Power Elite" have decided to rewrite American history in regards to the American Civil War. This was known as the "War Between the States" or the "War of Secession", but was officially named the "Civil War" as a Congressional compromise some 40 years later. The Power Elite recently mobilized their media front men to proclaim that war was all about slavery. Anyone who contends it was about states rights is labeled ignorant or a racist. Symbols of the Confederacy have been targeted for destruction, claiming they are racist.

    Slavery was a horrible institution, and was the prime source of friction between the states in the 1850s. Some wanted a military crusade to free the slaves, while an equal number demanded a military crusade to crush the evil Mormons in Utah. There was never strong support in Congress to ban slavery since many wealthy New Englanders profited in the textile business that relied upon cheap cotton from the South. In addition, the cherished American Constitution allowed for slavery.

    Had Congress made slavery illegal and our military ordered to enforce that law, it would have been a war against slavery, and it would have lasted but a few months. However, that is not how things played out. Southern states feared that Northerners were using the federal government to dominate the nation that was conceived as a federation of states. Slavery was the key issue, but most Southerners didn't own slaves, and slavery was contentious within Southern states as many citizens opposed it. The Southern states peacefully and democratically seceded and formed the Confederate States of America (CSA), in the same way they joined the Union just two generations prior. The U.S. Congress didn't declare that illegal, nor did the Supreme Court.

    Newly elected President Lincoln decided he would not tolerate the CSA, so he ordered it crushed. He assumed our military could quickly overrun the much weaker Confederate state militias, but it turned into a disastrous war. A key problem is that Lincoln refused to outlaw slavery and use that as a cause for military action, but said the effort was to preserve the union. As a result, Northerners were not enthusiastic about invading the South, while anti-slavery Southerners and the silent majority of non-slave holding Southerners felt compelled to defend their state from invasion. As his effort to "preserve the union" became a debacle, Lincoln finally evoked ending slavery as a cause with his 1863 "Emancipation Proclamation". Even that did not free the 800,000 slaves in the slave-holding states of Missouri, Maryland, West Virginia, or Delaware, which had never declared a secession.

    Some say Lincoln only did this to prevent England from entering the war on the side of the CSA. England was upset by the Union sea blockade that denied its textile mills of cotton. Lincoln implemented his own form of slavery, the military draft, to fill his crusading army. The movie "Gangs of New York" addresses this issue toward the end -- the resulting anti-draft riots by New York immigrants. The great movie "Glory" shows white Union troops angry at forced service in Lincoln's crusade. Most of Lincoln's free Negro troops were slaughtered in frontal attacks during the war, and only earned half-pay.

    In summary, slavery was the primary cause of conflict between the states, but the Civil War was caused by Lincoln's blundering. He failed to act decisively because he had no official standing to end slavery, yet when he did act as a dictator, he refused to promote it as an anti-slavery crusade. As a result, most Southerners fought to defend their state from invasion, not to protect slavery. The Northern industrialists made huge profits from this war, so they sainted Lincoln as one of our greatest Presidents, for suspending the U.S. Constitution and causing the most disastrous event in American history.

    Your comment is interesting and informative.

    If you have not read the book, Gangs of New York, strongly recommend it.

    The depiction in the movie is confused, too brief, and does not capture the scale at all. Really, it was one of the battles of the war, not just ‘riots’.

    Reading the account, the idea of the CSA somehow having some coordination with the anti-draft protestors would make a nice (but unlikely, due to pace, other factors) counter-factual history.

    GoNY is worth reading in general, but the most surprising parts to me were that part and the final parts on the rise of Jewish organised crime in Noo Yawk.

    No doubt, both topics that Scorcese was wanting to avoid.

    The movie seems not near his best at all, especially after reading the book.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I read the book GoNY. I remember the biggest fencing of stolen goods and organizer of burglaries was a Jewish woman. Ma Mandelbaum? or something Every ethnic group had its own speciality

    The movie focused on just 2 of the gangs, Irish and Nativists. Movies based on books have to select certain plots and characters otherwise some movies would be 6 hours long.

    I liked the movie. It got poor reviews I remember
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Logan
    The Adams quote is not evidence, it's merely the source for the claim made in this article. It's from a book published in 2000. Adams, in that book, may quite possibly provide evidence the claim is accurate. But that Adams stated something is not evidence that the statement is true.

    Do you want others to post the texts, with annotations, of the books to which you’ve now been directed? In a comment thread under an article on a website? I doubt that you would be so absurd and ungracious without pseudonymity.

    At this point, it now is incumbent on you to either (i) back down or (ii) go find and share the title of a scholarly work that might validate your hunches. Then, those who care to learn the truth can dig in. A group that apparently doesn’t include “Logan.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    I looked up Taussig, one of those to which I was referred. Did not read the 500 page book, but did read the chapter about the prewar tariff. It does not at all line up with what is claimed. In fact, he states that the prewar, pre-secession tariff was largely free trade. I refer you to Part 2, Chapter 1 of his book.

    I haven't read Adams, also cited as a reference. Possibly his book includes documentation that the claim is accurate.

    But it all gets back to the "burden of proof."

    Person A: The wage gap between men and women is entirely the result of sex discrimination.

    Person B: Can you provide proof that your assertion is true?

    Person A: I don't have to. It's up to you to prove it is false.

    Okay, okay. It's not a very good analogy, as proving that other factors also play at least some role in the wage gap is not hard. But my point is that if one asserts a claim as fact, one should be prepared to back up that claim with evidence. Which does not consist of a reference to a book in which purportedly the author made the claim. That author also would be required to prove the truth of the claim.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Them Guys says:
    @Heros
    Just like after the failed jew inspired Weimar take over of Germany in the 1920's, after the failed 1848 revolutions in Europe, many squealing and kvetching marxist jews fled to the US, where they quickly integrated into their "good for the jews" JP collective. The Rothschilds, the bloodline families and the illuminati had already subverted all the masonic lodges in precisely the same way they are using D'Sousa to subvert "conservatism" now, but the JP was still gathering all the reigns of power into their hands.

    In fact, what Jewish Power (JP) is doing with D'Sousa is deliberately dividing any conservative resistance into the subverted "racist" alt-right and the subverted "non-racist" Neocon war machine. Of course, the militarized police forces are being set up to be deployed against the "racist" alt-right in the same way facebook, twitter and all the other JP social media corporations have shut down the free speech of that same alt-right. This is the same kind of judaic divide and conquer strategy that the tribe was using in the lead up to the war of northern aggression.

    D'Sousa is clearly a non-white, and like all dot-Indian immigrants he is merely another form of trojan horse brought into our society in the same way jews opened the gates let the moors into Granada and the Turks into Constantinople. Whether he realizes it or not, he is a jew puppet brought in to destroy Christianity and European civilization and replace their true liberalism with a Frankfurt School marxist cuckoo bird egg. Dot-Indians are to become a new technocratic upper caste brought into to help jews keep the goyim slaves in line. No good will come from allowing dot-Indians to preach judaicly perverted Christian morality back onto us.

    One of the little known characteristics of the War of Northern Aggression was that the majority of slave plantation owners in the south were jews, while the vast majority of Yankee bankers and slave traders were also jews. This is precisely the same kind of jewish over representation that we see in SCOTUS, Hollywood, Harvard and the "1%" today.

    So it was JP and its Freemason puppets who started the War of Northern Aggression, and it was a part of a thousand year old plan described in the Talmud and the Protocols to obliterate Europeans and their culture from the face of planet earth as revenge for Titus's destruction of the Second Temple to Solomon in 70AD. There is plenty of confirmation of this in writings from places like the Frankfurt School, Saul Alinsky and Cultural Marxism. Although D'Sousa pays lip service to exposing some of these hidden agendas, he cannot see the forest because all he is willing to see is a "racist" hiding behind every tree. What a kike tool he is.

    Dave McGowan wrote in his great understated and laconic style about the judaic and masonic lies surrounding the Lincoln assassination. You can read it for free online, along with his great books "Wagging the Moon Dog" and "Weird Scenes in the Canyon".

    http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/lincoln/

    Here is a fascinating unrolled, archived twitter feed about Lincoln and his jewish and masonic connections, with lots of interesting embedded pictures:

    https://archive.is/H3aMW


    "On the bottom of page three of four pages was a paragraph where the father, A.A. Springs, left to his son an enormous amount of land in the state of Alabama which is now known as Huntsville, Alabama. At first Mr. Christopher and his colleagues could not believe what their eyes, because the name of his son was "ABRAHAM LINCOLN"!

    This new information added to what they had already learned about the Springs, whose real name was Springstein, was one more twist to this already enigmatic family."
     

    Heros: Indeed, and here are a couple of famous high rated Jewish guys who fully confirm the Vast, Huge, Massive role Jews played in not only America’s slave trading/owning business…But also, even long prior when Jews had control of European slavery, which consisted mostly of, European White Christians that Jews sold into slavery, To Arabs…After Jews stole or kidnapped said euro white Christians of course.

    “Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated. This was no less true on the North American mainland, where during the eighteenth century Jews participated in the ‘triangular trade’ that brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies and there exchanged them for molasses, which in turn was taken to New England and converted into rum for sale in Africa. Isaac Da Costa of Charleston in the 1750s, David Franks of Philadelphia in the 1760s, and Aaron Lopez of Newport in the late 1760s and early 1770s dominated Jewish slave trading on the American continent.”
    — Marc Raphael (Jew): “Jews and Judaism in the United States: A Documentary History”

    This quoted statement is from the same book, Blood Passover, that not too long ago an UNZ Article was done about it!

    “During this period, Jewish merchants, from the cities in the valley of the Rhône, Verdun, Lione, Arles and Narbonne, in addition to Aquisgrana, the capital of the empire in the times of Louis the Pious [Louis I]; and in Germany from the centres of the valley of the Rhine, from Worms, Magonza and Magdeburg; in Bavaria and Bohemia, from Regensburg and Prague – were active in the principal markets in which slaves (women, men, eunuchs) were offered for sale, by Jews, sometimes after abducting them from their houses. From Christian Europe the human merchandise was exported to the Islamic lands of Spain, in which there was a lively market. The castration of these slaves, particularly children, raised their prices, and was no doubt a lucrative and profitable practice…”
    — Dr. Ariel Toaff, Chapter Eight, Blood Passover . This book was ordered taken off book shelves and destroyed. Toaff was the son of the chief rabbi of Rome and had access to synagogue writings dating back to the Middle Ages.

    And it wasn’t any “Nazis” or German’s who did the book burnings on that expose’ of Jewry eh.

    “To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly.”
    — The Talmud: Libbre David 37

    “The modern Jew is the product of the Talmud.”
    — Michael Rodkinson, in preface of Babylonian Talmud, page XI.

    “The Talmud is to this day the circulating heart’s blood of the Jewish religion. Whatever laws, customs, or ceremonies we observe — whether we are Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, or merely spasmodic sentimentalists — we follow the Talmud. It is our common law.”
    — Herman Wouk, “This is My God.” Wouk wrote the book and screenplay “Winds of War,” popular back in the 1970’s.

    Well, perhaps those last few quotes explain or answer the question of, “Gee why are there so very Few good Jews it seems, huh”? Ie: 99%+ adhere to their Talmud.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Logan says:
    @Carlton Meyer
    It's nice to remind people that Lincoln was a Republican. An old blog post of mine provides a clearer explanation:

    Jan 2, 2011 - The War to Reclaim Federal Property 1861-1865

    I've noticed the "Power Elite" have decided to rewrite American history in regards to the American Civil War. This was known as the "War Between the States" or the "War of Secession", but was officially named the "Civil War" as a Congressional compromise some 40 years later. The Power Elite recently mobilized their media front men to proclaim that war was all about slavery. Anyone who contends it was about states rights is labeled ignorant or a racist. Symbols of the Confederacy have been targeted for destruction, claiming they are racist.

    Slavery was a horrible institution, and was the prime source of friction between the states in the 1850s. Some wanted a military crusade to free the slaves, while an equal number demanded a military crusade to crush the evil Mormons in Utah. There was never strong support in Congress to ban slavery since many wealthy New Englanders profited in the textile business that relied upon cheap cotton from the South. In addition, the cherished American Constitution allowed for slavery.

    Had Congress made slavery illegal and our military ordered to enforce that law, it would have been a war against slavery, and it would have lasted but a few months. However, that is not how things played out. Southern states feared that Northerners were using the federal government to dominate the nation that was conceived as a federation of states. Slavery was the key issue, but most Southerners didn't own slaves, and slavery was contentious within Southern states as many citizens opposed it. The Southern states peacefully and democratically seceded and formed the Confederate States of America (CSA), in the same way they joined the Union just two generations prior. The U.S. Congress didn't declare that illegal, nor did the Supreme Court.

    Newly elected President Lincoln decided he would not tolerate the CSA, so he ordered it crushed. He assumed our military could quickly overrun the much weaker Confederate state militias, but it turned into a disastrous war. A key problem is that Lincoln refused to outlaw slavery and use that as a cause for military action, but said the effort was to preserve the union. As a result, Northerners were not enthusiastic about invading the South, while anti-slavery Southerners and the silent majority of non-slave holding Southerners felt compelled to defend their state from invasion. As his effort to "preserve the union" became a debacle, Lincoln finally evoked ending slavery as a cause with his 1863 "Emancipation Proclamation". Even that did not free the 800,000 slaves in the slave-holding states of Missouri, Maryland, West Virginia, or Delaware, which had never declared a secession.

    Some say Lincoln only did this to prevent England from entering the war on the side of the CSA. England was upset by the Union sea blockade that denied its textile mills of cotton. Lincoln implemented his own form of slavery, the military draft, to fill his crusading army. The movie "Gangs of New York" addresses this issue toward the end -- the resulting anti-draft riots by New York immigrants. The great movie "Glory" shows white Union troops angry at forced service in Lincoln's crusade. Most of Lincoln's free Negro troops were slaughtered in frontal attacks during the war, and only earned half-pay.

    In summary, slavery was the primary cause of conflict between the states, but the Civil War was caused by Lincoln's blundering. He failed to act decisively because he had no official standing to end slavery, yet when he did act as a dictator, he refused to promote it as an anti-slavery crusade. As a result, most Southerners fought to defend their state from invasion, not to protect slavery. The Northern industrialists made huge profits from this war, so they sainted Lincoln as one of our greatest Presidents, for suspending the U.S. Constitution and causing the most disastrous event in American history.

    He assumed our military could quickly overrun the much weaker Confederate state militias, but it turned into a disastrous war.

    Sorry, but this is flatly untrue. Lincoln was entirely aware that he did not have forces sufficient to crush the rebellion.

    The entire US Army in 1860 was composed of 16,000 men and officers, almost all scattered across the West in tiny packets to defend against Indians. About 20% of them promptly left when secession and war broke out.

    So by the time of Sumter, Lincoln had perhaps 14,000 men scattered across an entire continent. At this same time the state of SC alone fielded around 10,000 men, albeit mostly not nearly as well trained or armed as the Regulars.

    In fact, during the very early days of the War Lincoln’s primary concern was that there simply was nothing at all to stop southern troops from marching straight into DC. I’ve not been able to find numbers for VA militia in 1860, but given that its white population was 3x that of SC, I think it’s not unreasonable to assume VA had 25,000 or more men under arms in April of 1860. That would have outnumbered the entire US Army almost 2:1, even assuming the Regulars were concentrated, which they most certainly were not.

    People just don’t realize how tiny the early 19th century US Army was. The organized militia of the Nauvoo Legion in the early 1840s numbered at least 2500. Compare that to the 8500 in the entire US Army. That’s a single city.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carlton Meyer
    That's a good point about the small size of the active US Army. But keep in mind that our Constitution says the US Army should exist only in time of war. Combat power was in the state militias, and the north had twice more than the South, and it had a Navy. Lincoln was surprised when the Virginians quickly attacked. On the other hand, if they had not, Lincoln may have been unable to rally the North to assemble its militias to invade the South and get Congress to pay for this disaster.

    Read about the first deadly fighting of the Civil War during a huge 1861 riot in Baltimore that occurred as federal troops and militias from Pennsylvania and Massachusetts arrived in this anti-war city. The state of Maryland would have also seceded, but this was prevented when federal troops arrested one-third of the state legislature that had convened to vote on the matter.

    Here are a few little known facts from my blog about Lincoln and slavery.

    Sep 1, 2017 - Was the Civil War About Slavery?

    First Inaugural Address of President Abraham Lincoln:
    MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861
    Fellow-Citizens of the United States:

    "...I declare that--

    I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

    Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

    Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

    Sep 5, 2011 - Congress Freed the Slaves

    For some reason, I was taught that President Lincoln freed the slaves with his 1863 Emancipation Proclamation. I just learned that in July 1862, Congress passed and Lincoln signed the "Second Confiscation Act" to liberate slaves, but Lincoln took the position that Congress lacked power to free slaves unless Lincoln as commander-in-chief deemed it a proper military measure. Lincoln was concerned that it would cause more states to secede. A few months later, he bowed to pressure and announced that law would be enforced while taking credit for freeing slaves.

    Another aspect of the Civil war that I had never read about was that most slaves slowed or stopped work during the war, and a half million ran off. Local state militias in the South had gone to war, so slave owners had no muscle to intimidate their slaves, and they feared traditional harsh discipline like whippings would incite revolts. As a result, most of the southern agricultural economy died by 1863.

    May 5, 2013 - Union Regiments Should Have Invaded Delaware

    As a follow up to yesterday's blog, Delaware organized several Union regiments that fought in the Civil War. Here is photo of this slave state's Union soldiers ready to die, to free slaves? They could have swept through their own state to accomplish that. As I've discussed many times, interesting history is whitewashed. The State of Delaware's detailed website of the Civil War fails to mention that it remained a slave state during the war. No need to confuse the public with facts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. The title of the movie should have been, “Dems R Real Rayciss, Part 2; Electric Bugaloo”

    I agree with pretty much everything in this article. I’m not a degreed historian (and don’t play one on TV), but I have been reading and studying this conflict for more than 40 years. The perspective is always given from the wrong angle, that of the people of the North vs. the people of the South; it was not. It was the elites of the North vs. the elites of the South.

    Elites of the North were industrialist, bankers, and those involved in commerce. The elites of the South were the Planters. What they were fighting over was the treasury, most specifically Mercantilist use of the treasury; i.e. spending Federal funds on roads, canals, bridges, harbors, and railroads to benefit commerce and trade. If anything approaching half of that spending had occured in the South, allowing Southern elites to profit from it, there would have been no war. As it was, almost all of it was spent north of the Mason Dixon line.

    The Planter elite were THE Congressional opposition to various bills proposing the use of Federal funds for infrastructure improvement. All such projects were plagued with graft and corruption, all ran over budget and schedule. The Achilles Heel of the planters was slavery, and THAT is why slavery was attacked. The vast majority of the people of the North could hardly care less, except that they considered the practice embarrassing, like a preacher having a drunk for a brother.

    There are always at least two reasons for every war; those used to motivate the common masses to fight, and the real reason, which is always and forever power, or control of resources. This war was no different. James McPherson, prof. of History Emeritus, Princeton, a man who HATES the South, investigated the reasons common soldiers fought, and discovered, to his dismay, that the men of both sides fought for almost exactly the same reasons, they just interpreted them differently. The men of both sides saw themselves as patriots; Northerners defending the Union, and Southerners defending the ideals of the Revolution.

    It was a complicated war, and anytime it is painted in simple terms, it is done so for some political or ideological purpose having nothing to do with presenting a factual and honest narrative.

    BUT LET ME SAY THIS AS BOLDY AS I CAN – IT DOESN’T MATTER TODAY. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE NOW. IT IS A FRACTURE POINT TO DIVIDE US AT A TIME WE SHOULD BE UNITED.

    The Dems R Real Rayciss meme was introduced originally by Dinesh, and was very popular among misguided, historically ignorant Southerners, and still is among some. This meme is the very reason we got traitor Nikki Haley for governor, and houseboy Tim Scott for a senator here in SC. The gaping flaw of this meme is that it acknowledges the social, racial, and cultural arguments of the progressives, and in reponse merely says, “no, you are.”

    This meme irritates me like no other, because I, for one, believe the Democrats in those days were right, and the Republicans were not only wrong, but were destructive to American ideals. The United States was founded as a free and voluntary Union of States. That union was destroyed the day Lincoln called for volunteers to invade the Southern states. Lincoln and the Republicans destroyed the free union, and erected another from its ashes, the one we live with today.

    The Democrats were right about States Rights (10th Amendment), slavery, the Constitution, and later they were right in confronting the Radical Republicans during Reconstruction. They were right about keeping the races separated. Readers of this site, especially those iSteve readers, are aware of the consequences borne by the white race since the Democrats abandoned racial reality.

    The Republicans today are not the Republicans of 1860, nor are they the polar opposite of the Democrats, though I wish they were.

    Whether our ancestors were Confederate, like mine, or Union, or both, or neither if your ancestors came afterwards, is of little consequence today. We can argue points of contention about a war already fought and won in our spare time, but we do have a war going on now, one every bit as grave and consequential to the future of the United States, and we should really focus on that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    We can argue points of contention about a war already fought and won in our spare time, but we do have a war going on now, one every bit as grave and consequential to the future of the United States, and we should really focus on that.
     
    My only qualm or quibble with your excellent comment is this. If we fail to recognize the way propaganda has altered our popular understanding of the past, how will we recognize it when we see it today? This is the reason I’m a huge fan of what Ron is doing with his American Pravda series as well as articles like the above by Boyd Cathey. It’s also the reason I continually harp on Yeshuanity as an alien cult foisted on our ancestors, demanding they “spread the other cheek” and accept that all men are identically created in the image of YHWH (except the Chosen who are special). Kids believe (not me, but most kids) whatever bullshit their parents and teachers utter. Whether it’s “Africans are exactly like Europeans or Orientals” or “the Sky Fairy made us all out of thin air and a rib bone and we are all borne of incest,” we need to examine the propaganda and debunk it for the nonsense it truly is.

    Reality is scary, nature is scary, and truth is scary. But when we in fear surrender to lies we empower the worst among us and that is much scarier still.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Logan says:
    @Them Guys
    The first US Supreme Ct. Case about, is a slave owned as Real property, like land or homes? Was a case dealing with a run away slave, that ended up in some northern state and was being protected by those northern folks. The BLACK Man slave OWNER, of the run away black slave, is who brought that case to supreme court....and He Won his case. Supremes decided a slave was property owned by slave owner who paid $$$ for his slave, and no matter Where slave was found or protected from return to slave owner Black man, those northern protector folks Had to hand slave back over to his Black Man slave owner. So that refutes the part you wrote of....."Yeah, you can say that Africans were property, but they were not property on the north shore of the Great Lakes. Why would they be on the south? "


    It is probably a good thing that the GA state, Black Woman who owned over, 300 black slaves, and was about the wealthiest $$$ Woman in the state then, didn't have her slaves run away eh?...Because for her to need bring hundreds of run away slave cases all the way to us supreme ct, would have likely depleted her vast $$$ holdings down to, herself perhaps needing to work as a black slave just to eat eh.


    Funny/Ironic they never taught us about Black Slave Owners back in school 50+ years ago eh? I reckon such truthful facts would cause all the anti-whitey propaganda agendas to, fast come Unglued and so awaken dumbed down white kids, they may never recover to again maintain vast white guilt feelings the Jewdeo-commie-Marxist Frankfurtist's worked so hard to develop in Whites.

    Wiki: “The first Chief Justice of the United States was John Jay; the Court’s first docketed case was Van Staphorst v. Maryland (1791), and its first recorded decision was West v. Barnes (1791).”

    Neither had anything to do with slavery.

    Methinks you’re conflating the much earlier case where a Virginia colonial court first decided that blacks could be held in permanent slavery, rather than indentured servitude with a limited term of service. Ironically, the plaintiff/owner in that case was himself a black man who had previously served a term as an indentured servant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Them Guys
    No, I said, the very first Slavery as property case brought to supremes. Not the first case ever.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Logan says:
    @Jake
    You believe it to be entirely inaccurate? What if it believes that you do not exist? Or that you are a pederast Cultural Marxist?

    I stated my opinion that it is inaccurate, and requested evidence to the contrary, if it exists.

    One of the more common logical fallacies is “shifting the burden of proof.” The article made a claim about facts. I requested evidence that the claim is true. So you and others respond by claiming that I must disprove the claim. That’s not how logic works.

    Same thing applies to any such claim as that “Sherman is a pederast Cultural Marxist.”

    I can reply that the accusation is untrue, which of course it is. But I can’t prove it to be untrue, as “proving a negative” is inherently very difficult, though not perhaps always impossible. This is the main reason our legal system requires the State to prove the guilt of the accused, not the accused to prove his innocence of the charges.

    Luckily, the burden of proof is on the accuser in this case also. Feel free to provide any evidence you might have that any of these aspersions are accurate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Sherman?

    And let us know of any scholarly work that supports your "opinion," which appears to remain informed by nothing beyond itself.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Logan says:
    @anonymous
    Do you want others to post the texts, with annotations, of the books to which you've now been directed? In a comment thread under an article on a website? I doubt that you would be so absurd and ungracious without pseudonymity.

    At this point, it now is incumbent on you to either (i) back down or (ii) go find and share the title of a scholarly work that might validate your hunches. Then, those who care to learn the truth can dig in. A group that apparently doesn't include "Logan."

    I looked up Taussig, one of those to which I was referred. Did not read the 500 page book, but did read the chapter about the prewar tariff. It does not at all line up with what is claimed. In fact, he states that the prewar, pre-secession tariff was largely free trade. I refer you to Part 2, Chapter 1 of his book.

    I haven’t read Adams, also cited as a reference. Possibly his book includes documentation that the claim is accurate.

    But it all gets back to the “burden of proof.”

    Person A: The wage gap between men and women is entirely the result of sex discrimination.

    Person B: Can you provide proof that your assertion is true?

    Person A: I don’t have to. It’s up to you to prove it is false.

    Okay, okay. It’s not a very good analogy, as proving that other factors also play at least some role in the wage gap is not hard. But my point is that if one asserts a claim as fact, one should be prepared to back up that claim with evidence. Which does not consist of a reference to a book in which purportedly the author made the claim. That author also would be required to prove the truth of the claim.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The substantial truth of the facts alleged is indeed important. I note that the small amount of reading of Taussig that you report doesn't support you. Mostly free trade (I assume that means tariff free or very low tariff trade) is quite compatible with the imbalance between North and South that is alleged. If most of the states banned alcohol you would clearly find that most of the excise would be collected from those states that didn't to give a slightly different cause of imbalance which might nonetheless help you agree that your free trade point doesn't help you without more facts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Jake says:
    @jilles dykstra
    " In summary, slavery was the primary cause of conflict between the states, "
    Weird, in a country that treated the Indians far worse than the slaves.
    I spoke to an old USA lady, who was proud on her grandfather participating in smuggling run away slaves to the North.
    When I talked about the Indians her reply was 'before the Indians there were others'.
    I did not continue the discussion, but to this day do not understand how helping black people was good, but ethnically cleaning and killing Indians was irrelevant.

    I have had such conversations a number of times with Leftists/Liberals. They never have an answer that makes sense.

    My assessment is it primarily is about the Who/Whom. The best way to grasp that is to know that while so much as being white and living in a state that had legal slavery in 1860 marks you condemned, being the direct ancestor of super rich New England WASPs who made a fortune from slave trading is not to be discussed in public, much less condemned.

    The Who/Whom is not about the non-whites involved but the whites doing to other whites as the end game. Pure WASPs from New England and the whites who became their closest allies by the Revolution (NY Dutch and PA Quakers and Old Germans) cannot be held accountable for slave trading (though nearly 100% of the massively profitable cross-Atlantic slave trade was by those very people). So the ‘other whites’ are damned as white trash.

    If whites moving in and displacing Indians is The Great Sin, then all those Yankees are guilty as Hell. But if the Great Sin, the Unpardonable Sin, is owning black slaves, then the original ‘mainstream media’ which was owned and operated 100% by Yankee WASPs could declare that slave shipping by their people was to be forgotten and also that what happened to Indians was totally insignificant compared to the pure evil of owning a black slave in 1860.

    And then they could claim that all their usurpations of government were really about saving the Union an spreading democracy.

    Jews did not invent the ultra hypocrisy and self-righteous mendacity and blood-lust that IS Neo-conservatism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rebelwriter
    Good points all. I refer readers to the amazing website slavenorth.com, which is still up and running, to my surprise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Logan
    The Adams quote is not evidence, it's merely the source for the claim made in this article. It's from a book published in 2000. Adams, in that book, may quite possibly provide evidence the claim is accurate. But that Adams stated something is not evidence that the statement is true.

    Sir,

    What you are demanding is information not easily acquirable on the internet, namely records of Federal Revenue, broken down geographically, and Federal spending broken down the same way. Such records exist, but I have only seen them in the footnotes of various books. Let me aid your understanding, however.

    Remember reading of the American Industrial Revolution? Where did it take place? In New England, of course. And in 1860 there were counties in New England that had more manufacturing than every state in the Confederacy combined. These tariffs were protective in nature, and only placed on manufactured goods. At first they were only placed on those goods which were also produced in the US, but later nearly anything manufactured outside of the US was subject to a tax.

    Who paid the tariffs? Those who purchased goods manufactured outside the US. The planters of the South paid a generally agreed upon estimate of 80% of tariffs due to simply wanting things not manufactured in the US; grand pianos, gilded mirrors, certain tiles for roofs, English buggies and carriages, French dresses, etc., etc.

    The Nullification Crisis over the Morrill Tariff only happened because the South paid most of the taxes. It was the South, particularly South Carolina, which objected to the increase in tax rates. I must also point out to those unaware that John C. Calhoun supported tariffs for the common good of the United States; he was not opposed to them until this point in time, and only opposed them out of political expediency.

    It’s pretty clear from a casual reading of the history that the Southern states, who had no manufacturing to speak of, paid most of the tariffs, and benefitted from them the least. Whether or not you’re satisfied, this is so.

    The next point of contention is where the revenues were spent. Southern senators and congressmen were not without power, in fact they were the dominant power up until around 1830. The fight over slavery in the new territories was all about congressional representation, and guarding the parity which was reached in 1830. So there were some projects, mostly military forts and bases, in the South, built with federal money.

    However the largest part of federal spending was infrastructure to ease transportation for commerce. Some money was spent on the nation’s two largest ports of the time, Charleston and New Orleans, but much, much more was spent on canals, such as the Erie Canal, railroads, and bridges up North. Most federal infrastructure spending, by far, were those projects which aided the transportation of raw goods from the Midwest to the East Coast.

    There are books which break these down in detail, but I’m not going to be your private Google and hunt them down for you. There are no historians I have read, or read of, who contest this particular point, that the South paid most of the tariffs, and that most of the money from them was spent up North.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    The Nullification Crisis over the Morrill Tariff only happened because the South paid most of the taxes. It was the South, particularly South Carolina, which objected to the increase in tax rates.

    The Nullification Crisis took place in 1832, the Morrill Tariff was passed only in 1861. You're thinking of what SC called the "Tariff of Abominations" passed in 1828. SC was not, BTW, supported in this crisis by any other southern state, and it was faced down by a southern slaveowner, Andrew Jackson, not "northerners."

    There is a hilarious story about how the T of A got passed. Calhoun and his cronies schemed to oppose the bill by loading on tariffs that would apply mostly to New England customers, then when New England congressmen opposed it, John and his bunch would switch sides and support it, then claim that the bill failed because of the Northeast. But of course because the bill passed with all the high tariffs on everybody.

    much, much more was spent on canals, such as the Erie Canal, railroads, and bridges up North.

    I am not aware of federal funds being spent on railroads prior to the transcontinental, which of course was during not before the war.

    The Erie Canal was built entirely with state and private funds, no federal funding. I am not aware of federal funds spent on other canals.

    The only road built with federal funds was the National Road, AFAIK, which did indeed run mostly through northern states. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42140.pdf

    I don't know of any bridges built with federal funds. Which bridges were those?

    Look, it's very simple. If you're going to run around saying, "The feds spent the vast majority of their money in the north," then you need to be able to cite numbers. Such as, "From 1815 to 1860 federal funding for improvements went $20M to southern states, $120M to northern states." Otherwise it's at best a guess.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. EXCELLENT article. I love reading concise argument presented by someone who knows how to think and write. We are lost, but as the writer makes clear, the losing has been a long time in the making.

    Read More
    • Agree: Stan d Mute
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. @Carlton Meyer
    It's nice to remind people that Lincoln was a Republican. An old blog post of mine provides a clearer explanation:

    Jan 2, 2011 - The War to Reclaim Federal Property 1861-1865

    I've noticed the "Power Elite" have decided to rewrite American history in regards to the American Civil War. This was known as the "War Between the States" or the "War of Secession", but was officially named the "Civil War" as a Congressional compromise some 40 years later. The Power Elite recently mobilized their media front men to proclaim that war was all about slavery. Anyone who contends it was about states rights is labeled ignorant or a racist. Symbols of the Confederacy have been targeted for destruction, claiming they are racist.

    Slavery was a horrible institution, and was the prime source of friction between the states in the 1850s. Some wanted a military crusade to free the slaves, while an equal number demanded a military crusade to crush the evil Mormons in Utah. There was never strong support in Congress to ban slavery since many wealthy New Englanders profited in the textile business that relied upon cheap cotton from the South. In addition, the cherished American Constitution allowed for slavery.

    Had Congress made slavery illegal and our military ordered to enforce that law, it would have been a war against slavery, and it would have lasted but a few months. However, that is not how things played out. Southern states feared that Northerners were using the federal government to dominate the nation that was conceived as a federation of states. Slavery was the key issue, but most Southerners didn't own slaves, and slavery was contentious within Southern states as many citizens opposed it. The Southern states peacefully and democratically seceded and formed the Confederate States of America (CSA), in the same way they joined the Union just two generations prior. The U.S. Congress didn't declare that illegal, nor did the Supreme Court.

    Newly elected President Lincoln decided he would not tolerate the CSA, so he ordered it crushed. He assumed our military could quickly overrun the much weaker Confederate state militias, but it turned into a disastrous war. A key problem is that Lincoln refused to outlaw slavery and use that as a cause for military action, but said the effort was to preserve the union. As a result, Northerners were not enthusiastic about invading the South, while anti-slavery Southerners and the silent majority of non-slave holding Southerners felt compelled to defend their state from invasion. As his effort to "preserve the union" became a debacle, Lincoln finally evoked ending slavery as a cause with his 1863 "Emancipation Proclamation". Even that did not free the 800,000 slaves in the slave-holding states of Missouri, Maryland, West Virginia, or Delaware, which had never declared a secession.

    Some say Lincoln only did this to prevent England from entering the war on the side of the CSA. England was upset by the Union sea blockade that denied its textile mills of cotton. Lincoln implemented his own form of slavery, the military draft, to fill his crusading army. The movie "Gangs of New York" addresses this issue toward the end -- the resulting anti-draft riots by New York immigrants. The great movie "Glory" shows white Union troops angry at forced service in Lincoln's crusade. Most of Lincoln's free Negro troops were slaughtered in frontal attacks during the war, and only earned half-pay.

    In summary, slavery was the primary cause of conflict between the states, but the Civil War was caused by Lincoln's blundering. He failed to act decisively because he had no official standing to end slavery, yet when he did act as a dictator, he refused to promote it as an anti-slavery crusade. As a result, most Southerners fought to defend their state from invasion, not to protect slavery. The Northern industrialists made huge profits from this war, so they sainted Lincoln as one of our greatest Presidents, for suspending the U.S. Constitution and causing the most disastrous event in American history.

    You are correct. Civil war had nothing to do with slavery. Civil war was about textile industry, and so keeping the profits in US instead giving them to England. Slavery was only flag of camouflage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Patricus
    "Nothing to do with slavery" overstates the case. Like many others I believe the tarrif issue was much more important. There were a tiny number of abolitionists in the north, and also in the south, but few were prepared to fight on behalf of Africans. "We fought to free the slaves" is a fairly recent attempt to put lipstick on a pig.

    If one wants to identify a single larger cause for the war he could answer the question: why did we go to war with Mexico and seize 1/3 of that territory? We didn't need it. We just saw that it could be easily accomplished and it was. The north thought the Southerners would be easily subdued after Manassas. Big mistake.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Just as in Orwells OCEANIA history is be rewritten every day by the Zionists who control the U.S. gov and just like Oceania it is rewritten to satisfy the Zionist line whatever that may happen to be at the time.

    War is peace, ignorance is strength and freedom is slavery and Israel is the sacred cow.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. Anonymous[410] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomm
    Sorry, but Dinesh D'Souza is vastly more knowledgeable than Boyd Cathey.

    Boyd Cathey is a Nationalist-Leftist, which is still a leftist at the end of the day.

    Thomm is an Indian and is just defending his ethnic kin.

    D’Souza poses as a conservative but he is an open borders guy and would love nothing more than to flood this country with more Indians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    D'Souza is a Goan-they're a Portuguese-Indian mixed group.
    , @Dumbo
    My "agree" button is not working, but I agree. The fact that Dinesh is Indian and friendly with the neocons should be a huge red flag. "Thomm" is an Indian too. Indians, conservative or not, smart or not, shouldn't be in the West. Once I went to an Indian restaurant and I got food poisoning.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. The Scalpel says: • Website

    Much like what happened with the Soviet Union, when the end comes for the “United” States, secession will be the mechanism that allows it to happen. Going forward, states rights, once a nearly forgotten topic of discussion, will become increasingly debated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. @Carlton Meyer
    It's nice to remind people that Lincoln was a Republican. An old blog post of mine provides a clearer explanation:

    Jan 2, 2011 - The War to Reclaim Federal Property 1861-1865

    I've noticed the "Power Elite" have decided to rewrite American history in regards to the American Civil War. This was known as the "War Between the States" or the "War of Secession", but was officially named the "Civil War" as a Congressional compromise some 40 years later. The Power Elite recently mobilized their media front men to proclaim that war was all about slavery. Anyone who contends it was about states rights is labeled ignorant or a racist. Symbols of the Confederacy have been targeted for destruction, claiming they are racist.

    Slavery was a horrible institution, and was the prime source of friction between the states in the 1850s. Some wanted a military crusade to free the slaves, while an equal number demanded a military crusade to crush the evil Mormons in Utah. There was never strong support in Congress to ban slavery since many wealthy New Englanders profited in the textile business that relied upon cheap cotton from the South. In addition, the cherished American Constitution allowed for slavery.

    Had Congress made slavery illegal and our military ordered to enforce that law, it would have been a war against slavery, and it would have lasted but a few months. However, that is not how things played out. Southern states feared that Northerners were using the federal government to dominate the nation that was conceived as a federation of states. Slavery was the key issue, but most Southerners didn't own slaves, and slavery was contentious within Southern states as many citizens opposed it. The Southern states peacefully and democratically seceded and formed the Confederate States of America (CSA), in the same way they joined the Union just two generations prior. The U.S. Congress didn't declare that illegal, nor did the Supreme Court.

    Newly elected President Lincoln decided he would not tolerate the CSA, so he ordered it crushed. He assumed our military could quickly overrun the much weaker Confederate state militias, but it turned into a disastrous war. A key problem is that Lincoln refused to outlaw slavery and use that as a cause for military action, but said the effort was to preserve the union. As a result, Northerners were not enthusiastic about invading the South, while anti-slavery Southerners and the silent majority of non-slave holding Southerners felt compelled to defend their state from invasion. As his effort to "preserve the union" became a debacle, Lincoln finally evoked ending slavery as a cause with his 1863 "Emancipation Proclamation". Even that did not free the 800,000 slaves in the slave-holding states of Missouri, Maryland, West Virginia, or Delaware, which had never declared a secession.

    Some say Lincoln only did this to prevent England from entering the war on the side of the CSA. England was upset by the Union sea blockade that denied its textile mills of cotton. Lincoln implemented his own form of slavery, the military draft, to fill his crusading army. The movie "Gangs of New York" addresses this issue toward the end -- the resulting anti-draft riots by New York immigrants. The great movie "Glory" shows white Union troops angry at forced service in Lincoln's crusade. Most of Lincoln's free Negro troops were slaughtered in frontal attacks during the war, and only earned half-pay.

    In summary, slavery was the primary cause of conflict between the states, but the Civil War was caused by Lincoln's blundering. He failed to act decisively because he had no official standing to end slavery, yet when he did act as a dictator, he refused to promote it as an anti-slavery crusade. As a result, most Southerners fought to defend their state from invasion, not to protect slavery. The Northern industrialists made huge profits from this war, so they sainted Lincoln as one of our greatest Presidents, for suspending the U.S. Constitution and causing the most disastrous event in American history.

    Just a couple of points; One is that the Emancipation Proclamation specifically excluded Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Delaware (slave states which did not secede), as well as Tennessee, 7 parishes in Louisiana, and 10 counties in Virginia, all of which were currently under Federal control.

    I think it’s a bit naïve to lay the war at Lincoln’s feet, and neglect the powers that raised him from a railroad lawyer to President. The elite of both sides were ready to fight, and I believe that by that time a war was unavoidable. All Lincoln could have done was delay the inevitable.

    There was a documentary I watched not long ago on dueling in the South. One professor from Virginia held that the war was the largest, and last, duel in American history. The Southerners honor was besmirched by the claims of the North, and the press in particular, and nothing would suffice save blood be shed on the field of honor. This is something not given much attention, but it should be. The Code Duello in use at the time was written by a former governor of South Carolina, and planters would duel at the drop of a hat, and drop the hat themselves. Andrew Jackson fought 13 duels, and was not atypical of the elite of the time.

    The Northern interests wanted to forever defeat their enemy, the planters, and turn the South into a colony, of sorts. They also saw a lot of money to be made selling goods to the army and navy, and the opportunity to force huge changes in the government in the expediency of war. “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” is something that was not invented by Rahm Emanuel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Logan
    I stated my opinion that it is inaccurate, and requested evidence to the contrary, if it exists.

    One of the more common logical fallacies is "shifting the burden of proof." The article made a claim about facts. I requested evidence that the claim is true. So you and others respond by claiming that I must disprove the claim. That's not how logic works.

    Same thing applies to any such claim as that "Sherman is a pederast Cultural Marxist."

    I can reply that the accusation is untrue, which of course it is. But I can't prove it to be untrue, as "proving a negative" is inherently very difficult, though not perhaps always impossible. This is the main reason our legal system requires the State to prove the guilt of the accused, not the accused to prove his innocence of the charges.

    Luckily, the burden of proof is on the accuser in this case also. Feel free to provide any evidence you might have that any of these aspersions are accurate.

    Sherman?

    And let us know of any scholarly work that supports your “opinion,” which appears to remain informed by nothing beyond itself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Mulegino1 says:

    Those who fought for the Union were fighting to defend the United States from Balkanization and dissolution at the hands of the predatory British and French Empires. Those who fought for the Confederacy were fighting to defend their perceived state and local rights. Chattel slavery was a secondary issue.

    It is time to let this conflict rest in peace. We can attribute noble motives to both sides, provided we recognize the excesses committed- particularly those by Sherman on his march through Georgia and the Carolinas- as well as the horrendous treatment of the prisoners of war by both sides.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    I think this is an excellent comment. Honorable men fought on both sides, for reasons that seemed honorable to them.

    Of course, dishonorable men also fought on both sides, for a variety of dishonorable reasons, often because they wanted to be on what they thought would be the winning side.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @anonymous
    A good essay, in form and substance.

    Too nuanced and truthful to ever be seen or heard, much less comprehended, by 98% of the people in this country of TV-level, willful ignorance.

    Too nuanced and truthful to ever be seen or heard, much less comprehended, by 98% of the people in this country of TV-level, willful ignorance.

    I so wanted to hit the “agree” button, but my Aspie nature kicked in and so instead I FIFY.

    Nothing “nuanced” about it. It galls me to no end that the evil bastard who slaughtered more Americans than any other, who shredded the Constitution of our Republic, has a gigantic monument in his honor on the National Mall and is enshrined as a hero by the public. And I have family who died on the wrong side of Lincoln’s evil War of Northern Oppression.

    Butchering 2.4% of the population, Lincoln was by far the most evil man in American history and one of the worst in human history.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

    We will know our Nation has been saved when the hideous monument to Lincoln is turned to rubble.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    One correction; 750,000 soldiers were killed. And about 60,000 civilians, mostly in the border states where most of the fighting was done from malnutrition and disease and general effects of living in a war zone.

    It plunged the south into a poverty that wasn’t alleviated for 100 years.
    , @Grumbler
    Stan, Hear! Hear!
    , @Fidelios Automata
    I'd argue that Woodrow Wilson was worse, and Slick Willie almost as bad, though the chickens didn't come to roost until after the Clinton administration. But you're right, Father Abraham was more a devil than a saint.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Jake
    I have had such conversations a number of times with Leftists/Liberals. They never have an answer that makes sense.

    My assessment is it primarily is about the Who/Whom. The best way to grasp that is to know that while so much as being white and living in a state that had legal slavery in 1860 marks you condemned, being the direct ancestor of super rich New England WASPs who made a fortune from slave trading is not to be discussed in public, much less condemned.

    The Who/Whom is not about the non-whites involved but the whites doing to other whites as the end game. Pure WASPs from New England and the whites who became their closest allies by the Revolution (NY Dutch and PA Quakers and Old Germans) cannot be held accountable for slave trading (though nearly 100% of the massively profitable cross-Atlantic slave trade was by those very people). So the 'other whites' are damned as white trash.

    If whites moving in and displacing Indians is The Great Sin, then all those Yankees are guilty as Hell. But if the Great Sin, the Unpardonable Sin, is owning black slaves, then the original 'mainstream media' which was owned and operated 100% by Yankee WASPs could declare that slave shipping by their people was to be forgotten and also that what happened to Indians was totally insignificant compared to the pure evil of owning a black slave in 1860.

    And then they could claim that all their usurpations of government were really about saving the Union an spreading democracy.

    Jews did not invent the ultra hypocrisy and self-righteous mendacity and blood-lust that IS Neo-conservatism.

    Good points all. I refer readers to the amazing website slavenorth.com, which is still up and running, to my surprise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Anonymous[225] • Disclaimer says:
    @Logan
    While the South would be paying nearly 80 % of the tariff, most of the revenues would be spent in the North.

    I believe this to be entirely inaccurate, quite ironic given the title of the piece.

    However, if someone cares to demonstrate how either of these statements is accurate, I'm perfectly willing to be convinced.

    There are some disrespectful replies to Logan. Even if the persons concerned thought Logan was trolling or lazy, two wrongs don’t make a right. Kudos to those who took the comment at face value and gave matter-of-fact replies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    I initially took the comment at face value, but it seems clear that Logan is either stubbornly proud or has been acting in bad faith.

    And, per my last in this thread, now I want to know if he's the same person as "Sherman," the thumb wrestling foil of "Wally."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Anonymous
    Thomm is an Indian and is just defending his ethnic kin.

    D'Souza poses as a conservative but he is an open borders guy and would love nothing more than to flood this country with more Indians.

    D’Souza is a Goan-they’re a Portuguese-Indian mixed group.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    And Goa is just another state in India, just as Iowa is just another state n the United States.
    , @Malla
    What good is that? Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho was one of those Luso Goans but led the leftist commie banker elite controlled Carnation Revolution against the post Salazar anti commie Estado Novo regime following the globalist elite backed Indian conquest of Goa. This destroyed the Portuguese Empire, brought years of misery to Angola and Mozambique and put more pressure on the Rhodesia as well as South Africa.
    I knew many of these elite Portuguese upper caste Hindu ancestry mixed Catholic families of Goa. Many of them took part in global subversive movements. One family had a family member in the past who was a friend of Lenin and was in Russia. What is ironic is that most of these idiotic elite catholic half Portuguese families lost a lot of their property to slimy Hindu scamsters who have ruined Goa by mafia rule and looting after the globalist backed Indian invasion. Most of the mining in Goa are run by these mafias. One of my female friend's ex boyfriend was from such an elite Goan family, one 'Farais' family, an elite Eurasian, aristocratic, well mannered, Catholic, old Goan family who lost nearly everything to ill mannered, thuggish Hindu goons after the Indian Army invasion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Logan
    US population 1860, 31.5M. 4M slaves, so 27.5M free people, vast majority white.

    Determining what "the South" was in 1860 is a little ambiguous. Slaveowning states? States that seceded?

    Let's look at all slaveowning states. Total white population - 8M. Which leaves 18.5M in "the North," or free states.

    Tariffs are duties charged on imported goods. They are paid at the point of entry, not by the eventual buyer, other than indirectly. Hence there was no way to charge different taxes for different sections other than, theoretically, by including or excluding certain items from tariffs or by changing rates based on the rate of purchase of such items in the difference regions.

    So for the 80% claim to be accurate, the 29% of white people who lived in the South would have to purchase tariffed goods at a rate 2.8x that of white people who lived in the North. Does that seem likely to you?

    ‘…Does that seem likely to you?’

    I wouldn’t say ‘likely.’ I didn’t say ‘likely.’ I said ‘possible.’ The other end of the proposition — that most of the tariffs would get spent in the North — does seem likely. That’s what I said.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Reg Cæsar

    D’Souza omits Lincoln’s... repeated desire that blacks be sent back to Africa.
     
    And Cathey omits that that alone would make Lincoln smarter, wiser, and more just than just about anyone in the South.

    On the other hand, Lincoln thought Southerners and their beloved African livestock were worth waging battle to keep in the Union. That alone is proof positive that Lincoln was insane.

    it was the various states that granted the Federal government certain very limited and specifically enumerated powers, reserving the vast remainder for themselves
     
    And the fugitive slave bills, no matter how constitutional, make a total hash of this. Yeah, you can say that Africans were property, but they were not property on the north shore of the Great Lakes. Why would they be on the south?

    If Southerners wanted to keep their pets on the farm, they had the technology to build a Berlin Wall along the Ohio and the Potomac, and let states to the north (not "North") make their own policies concerning chattel.

    And the fugitive slave bills, no matter how constitutional, make a total hash of this. Yeah, you can say that Africans were property, but they were not property on the north shore of the Great Lakes. Why would they be on the south?

    So if I’m a rancher in Nevada, and idiot vegans in California have declared cows as sentient creatures that are not “property,” anybody can steal my cattle, drive them across the border, and get away with it scot-free? Irrespective of the morality of slavery, slaves were property under the law of the Nation. Property rights are the most fundamental basis of liberty, without them we are all serfs and slaves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    ... the law of the Nation.
     
    Oh, "...the Nation". You sound like Lincoln!

    Who is this "Nation", Kemosabe?

    Property rights are the most fundamental basis of liberty, without them we are all serfs and slaves.
     
    Then why didn't we send our army and slave-catchers into Upper Canada and Nova Scotia? The Brits up there were making us slaves and serfs, right? And themselves, as well?

    So if I’m a rancher in Nevada, and idiot vegans in California...
     
    So if you're a planter in Georgia, and idiot foodies in Ohio turn your fugitive Negro into steak au poivre, they're guilty of nothing more than rustling?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Dumbo says:
    @Anonymous
    Thomm is an Indian and is just defending his ethnic kin.

    D'Souza poses as a conservative but he is an open borders guy and would love nothing more than to flood this country with more Indians.

    My “agree” button is not working, but I agree. The fact that Dinesh is Indian and friendly with the neocons should be a huge red flag. “Thomm” is an Indian too. Indians, conservative or not, smart or not, shouldn’t be in the West. Once I went to an Indian restaurant and I got food poisoning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    The fact that Dinesh is Indian and friendly with the neocons should be a huge red flag. “Thomm” is an Indian too. Indians, conservative or not, smart or not, shouldn’t be in the West.
     
    Indeed, America uses sanitary waste disposal, Indians (600,000,000 of them today) shit openly on their streets and in their potable water supply. Americans eat cows, Indians have an entire social class that does nothing but pick up and fondle cow shit. Americans pity widows, Indians burn them. Americans protect women, Indians gang-rape them. I could go on, but the point is made I think.

    Send the street shitting, cowshit loving, widow burning, gang rapists back to their sub-continental shithole until they manage to evolve beyond the state of Africans.
    , @Thomm

    “Thomm” is an Indian too.
     
    False. It is amazing that you WN wiggers think that, despite how little I write about the country in question. You also think Thorfinsson and DBCooper are Indians.

    On the other hand, you faggots can't figure out that Corvinus, Rec1Man, JohnnyWalker123, Talha, and others in fact ARE Indian.
    , @Malla

    Once I went to an Indian restaurant and I got food poisoning.
     
    Cook Indian food yourself. There are videos on youtube teaching you how to cook Indian food (or Arab food or Ethiopian food or Jamaican food). I am Indian myself and I am scared to go to most Indian (or ethnic) restaurants.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Them Guys
    The first US Supreme Ct. Case about, is a slave owned as Real property, like land or homes? Was a case dealing with a run away slave, that ended up in some northern state and was being protected by those northern folks. The BLACK Man slave OWNER, of the run away black slave, is who brought that case to supreme court....and He Won his case. Supremes decided a slave was property owned by slave owner who paid $$$ for his slave, and no matter Where slave was found or protected from return to slave owner Black man, those northern protector folks Had to hand slave back over to his Black Man slave owner. So that refutes the part you wrote of....."Yeah, you can say that Africans were property, but they were not property on the north shore of the Great Lakes. Why would they be on the south? "


    It is probably a good thing that the GA state, Black Woman who owned over, 300 black slaves, and was about the wealthiest $$$ Woman in the state then, didn't have her slaves run away eh?...Because for her to need bring hundreds of run away slave cases all the way to us supreme ct, would have likely depleted her vast $$$ holdings down to, herself perhaps needing to work as a black slave just to eat eh.


    Funny/Ironic they never taught us about Black Slave Owners back in school 50+ years ago eh? I reckon such truthful facts would cause all the anti-whitey propaganda agendas to, fast come Unglued and so awaken dumbed down white kids, they may never recover to again maintain vast white guilt feelings the Jewdeo-commie-Marxist Frankfurtist's worked so hard to develop in Whites.

    So that refutes the part you wrote of…..”Yeah, you can say that Africans were property, but they were not property on the north shore of the Great Lakes. Why would they be on the south? ”

    Then the states between the Ohio and the Lakes were less free than the colonies to the north of the Lakes. Or at least the latter agreed with their overlords, unlike those to the south.

    I didn’t say these laws and decisions were unconstitutional. I said they made a mockery of federalism, and make today’s Lincoln-bashers total hypocrites. If Upper Canada can declare a slave free, why can’t Ohio? What does Upper Canada have that Ohio doesn’t?

    Ohioans were thus like Finns before 1991, who had to return Soviet émigrés, thanks to some treaty. Nice company you’re in, the USSR.

    Besides, Africans were trying to leave the country. What sane person would want to stop them?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    What does Upper Canada have that Ohio doesn’t?
     
    A Queen?
    , @Them Guys
    Your Canada issue is moot. Ohio is part of America, Canada is not. Matters not if run away slaves were trying to leave America or not. That slave was Caught in usa lands, and the same supreme ct decision applied to every usa state. What do you not as yet get?

    It is not about support for or against slavery. Main issue was: Is or is not a slave owned property back during slave era. US Supremes said Yes is property. Your goofy argument is with those justices.
    , @Logan
    The problem with your theory is that the Constitution does not give one state to declare a fugitive slave from another state to be free. In fact, it specifically requires that state to return the slave.

    Now it doesn't prescribe exactly how this is supposed to be done, and it seems reasonable that a state could set up a system of due process whereby the slave would have to be proven to indeed be a slave and that the person claiming ownership was in the right.

    However, it's clear that a number of northern states set up such procedures with the intent of preventing return. IOW, they acted in bad faith, and had no intent of finding in favor of the owner.

    Which is why the federal government passed the Fugitive Slave Act of of 1850, whereby returning fugitive slaves was made a federal responsibility. Somewhat hilariously, this was perhaps the most egregious example during the 1850s of a violation of "states' rights."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous
    There are some disrespectful replies to Logan. Even if the persons concerned thought Logan was trolling or lazy, two wrongs don't make a right. Kudos to those who took the comment at face value and gave matter-of-fact replies.

    I initially took the comment at face value, but it seems clear that Logan is either stubbornly proud or has been acting in bad faith.

    And, per my last in this thread, now I want to know if he’s the same person as “Sherman,” the thumb wrestling foil of “Wally.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    I have no idea who Wally might be, so I doubt I'm him.

    Stubbornly proud or bad faith, eh?

    All you have to do is show the numbers by which the 80% was calculated, and I'll admit defeat. I do believe that is generally referred to as evidence. Just citing more people who agree with you does not support your position, when they also don't provide any evidence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Them Guys
    THING E
    White Southerners seem to have a huge hard-on for Jews. There are not many Jews in the South compared to Long Island or California. So why do white Southerners have this thing about Jews?

    #1 Reason since just over 100 yrs ago is....The Cyrus Scofield-perverted interpretations KJV Bible, and the fact that about 99% of Scofield Bible evangelical Jewdeo-Christian Devotees reside within the very same 10 or so Southern States that made up the Confeds of the civil war era.


    These are the who's that make up the huge vast majority of Jewdo-Zio-Christians, who basically worship, Jews & Israel, and do so regardless of what Jewry or Israel has ever done or will do that most sane folk consider to be wrong, bad, evil, unethical, and immoral. In other words, when the issue revolves around Israel or Jews...Both can never, ever do such wrongs etc...Period. No amount of proofs, documented and vetted facts, or anything else can change this. Only a self-wake-up, performed by each affected and delusional, warped minded individual has any chance of real success at lasting and good changes.

    Just among the Southern Baptist Conference group membership, is a whopping, 25,000,000+ individual members. This is the absolute largest sized group, aprox. one half of entire amount, of such worshipers of Jewry & Israel within the entire, Jewnited Snakes of Jewmerica.

    And furthermore, if not for their rabid foam at mouth worship of both entities, aka synagogue of Satan combo of Jewry+Israel, America would never be able to continue on as an, Colony of Tel Aviv Israel. There also would be massive exiting of most neocon repubs, who also worship Jewry & Israel, if not for these so totally Duped Via scam Scofield falsehood biblical interpretations, voters.


    Now do you understand, HTF aka how the fuck in the world did Nikki Haley get elected as Governor in a deep south state of S. Carolina ? Or Bobby Jindal also Governor in another deep south state ?....Very easy to do, all those two Israel firster clowns needed do to get elected by mostly White Southern voters....Was to state their deep love for and never ending support for...Jewry & Israel!....And an election win was in the proverbial bag, eh. Add in massive, several generations worth of, constant White Guilt effects, and the fools would likely elect Chicago's Louie Da Farakahn as Alabama Governor as long as he too did a 180 and stated avowed love and support for Jewry & Israel. Cuz, Now he beez a Changed colored folk man, and seen dat light to worship Jewry like's we does.

    ” So why do white Southerners have this thing about Jews?”

    A very good question, and a subject that needs some focus on it among my fellow Southerners. I know a few things.

    Charleston, SC, had the largest population of Jews in the US until 1830, when New York surpassed them. New Orleans also had a large Jewish population. The Jews in the South prior to 1830 were Sephardim, merchants, and almost all of them were slaveowners, too. They formed their own congregations, of course, and worshiped according to thier own beliefs, but that was not viewed negatively by most Southerners, at least not by the planter class, as far as I can tell. The first Reformed Synagogue in the nation, Beth Elohim, was founded in Charleston in 1749.

    They came to South Carolina after settlement was opened for, “Jews, heathens, and other dissenters,” in 1699. According to the SC Jewish Virtual Library, by 1800, Charleston was home to the largest, wealthiest, and most cultured Jewish community in North America. Jews and Gentile Southerners shared cause, and got along well. Jews actually fought in the Revolution, with several noted Jewish leaders dying in the cause of SC and the US. Their men also enlisted and fought for the South, and their women sewed socks, flags, and uniforms along with their gentile neighbors.

    Among the notable Jewish families of SC was that of Bernard Baruch, Ambassador at Large to three presidents. His father was a surgeon in the Confederate Army, and also rode with the original KKK, which Bernard wrote of later in his life, specifically of the fear his mother felt, and the quiet of the house when his father was out riding at night. Also he wrote of he and his brother finding his father’s Klan robes in the attic after his father’s death.

    Everything we despise about Jewry today happened later, after Southerners were “adapted” to having Jewish neighbors. I knew of only two Jews in my young years, but I’m in the Upstate, where there are few to this day compared to Charleston, the Low Country, and the Pee Dee.

    The period that needs to be focused on for study is from 1900 to present day. I’ve done most of my study on periods prior to that. It’s safe to say, though, that Jews were as assimilated as they ever have been in the US in the South prior to that time, and than Southerners have generally considered these Jews as American and Southern as themselves. They lived with us, fought and bled beside us, and mourned their dead with our own. That this has changed is self-evident. The history of that change is not, to my knowledge, recorded anywhere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Them Guys
    What you stated about "From, 1900 onwards to present day" is correct, and basically what my prior reply posting was about. Ie: Cyrus Scofield's false interpretations bible version. Most folks who swear by and live by that apostate bible version defend it ruthlessly as an, "KJV" bible that is word for word authentic to orig. KJV bible. Well yes that's true. However what they neglect to observe nor ever seem to question is...Just exactly Who was Scofield before he penned his own bible version? And just where or how did he arrive at his own personal interpretations which cover something around 57% of all verses contained in entire OT and NT books, aka page one genesis to last verse in book of Rev?

    This has caused those who base most every of modern day belief structure they have, based on Scofield, to be falsehoods galore. Yet never do they ever question any of it, nor question who Scofield was or where did his info arrive from. Due to this apostate bible versions adherence by well over 1/3rd, maybe closer to one half of usa Christianity today, we are in very dire straights via total abject worship of Jews & Israel, by aprox. 65+ Million duped and foolish folks who call themselves a, "Jewdeo-Christian" or as an "Jewdeo-Zionist-Christian".....never before has such a total farce of an Oxymoron existed that has led to so much usa damages, and phony wars for Israel etc.

    But just try telling those people that...There Never ever was, nor shall be, nor can ever be anything they call "Jewdeo-Christian". For they are a direct 180 degree opposite of each other. It is akin to calling one self as an, "Islamic-Christian" or an, "Hindu-Christian"! No such thing has or is, nor can exist if one is to be considered as a, True Christian Believer.

    Also if the duped foolish apostate souls would simply research Islam Vs Talmudic Judaism, they would quickly find that it is those two religions which have far greater in commons. Which is why we who are wised up's, have stated that neither Talmudic Judaism Nor Islamic Muslim, are really true pals of true Christians. In a religious sense. And in some ways Both are actual proven Enemy's of Christianity and Christians. With Talmudics being the worse.

    So yes indeed, as you stated, of begin with 1900 era, todays troubles and wrong foreign policy, wrong fraud wars, phony fed res monetary and usury policy, and too many more issues to here list. Have a very direct relationship to what began back when Cyrus Scofields apostate biblical version came to usa shores, around 1909 (?) if not earlier yet. It was very close to 1900 ad era. And ever since has created a massive ever growing problem, which today has brought Americans closer to a real nuke WW III with Russia and/or whoever else is Jewrys and Israels enemy of choice when they hit the Red Button.

    If we do see it lead to a nuke WW III event, I predict we shall also see, 65+ Million very duped apostate Jewdeo-Zio-Christians in America....Jumping for Joy at prospect of, in next 20 min or sooner! their foamed at mouth Pre-Trib-rapture event aka a fly away escape plan from god for only them....and when clock strikes minute number, 21 Min after button is pushed, likely by Israel first and foremost....at Min 21, the very same 65+ Million scofield duped souls will experience a real fright such as never before, when they finally realize Scofield as well as Pastor Darby's falsehoods are really Falsehoods galore...Just prior to those duped souls melting in fervent heat supplied by those Pre Trib Nukes once flown.

    Too bad most will never awaken sooner eh? Plus since they only need to re-review the past 100 years of apostate flashoods they fell victim to, it ain't so hard or difficult to do. Yet not many shall do so, so far at least.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Stan d Mute

    And the fugitive slave bills, no matter how constitutional, make a total hash of this. Yeah, you can say that Africans were property, but they were not property on the north shore of the Great Lakes. Why would they be on the south?
     
    So if I’m a rancher in Nevada, and idiot vegans in California have declared cows as sentient creatures that are not “property,” anybody can steal my cattle, drive them across the border, and get away with it scot-free? Irrespective of the morality of slavery, slaves were property under the law of the Nation. Property rights are the most fundamental basis of liberty, without them we are all serfs and slaves.

    … the law of the Nation.

    Oh, “…the Nation”. You sound like Lincoln!

    Who is this “Nation”, Kemosabe?

    Property rights are the most fundamental basis of liberty, without them we are all serfs and slaves.

    Then why didn’t we send our army and slave-catchers into Upper Canada and Nova Scotia? The Brits up there were making us slaves and serfs, right? And themselves, as well?

    So if I’m a rancher in Nevada, and idiot vegans in California…

    So if you’re a planter in Georgia, and idiot foodies in Ohio turn your fugitive Negro into steak au poivre, they’re guilty of nothing more than rustling?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    So if you’re a planter in Georgia, and idiot foodies in Ohio turn your fugitive Negro into steak au poivre, they’re guilty of nothing more than rustling?
     
    Sometimes Reg you catch on slowly, but at least you do eventually catch on..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Stan d Mute

    Too nuanced and truthful to ever be seen or heard, much less comprehended, by 98% of the people in this country of TV-level, willful ignorance.
     
    I so wanted to hit the “agree” button, but my Aspie nature kicked in and so instead I FIFY.

    Nothing “nuanced” about it. It galls me to no end that the evil bastard who slaughtered more Americans than any other, who shredded the Constitution of our Republic, has a gigantic monument in his honor on the National Mall and is enshrined as a hero by the public. And I have family who died on the wrong side of Lincoln’s evil War of Northern Oppression.

    Butchering 2.4% of the population, Lincoln was by far the most evil man in American history and one of the worst in human history.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

    We will know our Nation has been saved when the hideous monument to Lincoln is turned to rubble.

    One correction; 750,000 soldiers were killed. And about 60,000 civilians, mostly in the border states where most of the fighting was done from malnutrition and disease and general effects of living in a war zone.

    It plunged the south into a poverty that wasn’t alleviated for 100 years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rebelwriter
    The majority of the battles were fought South of the Border states. Only a few battles were fought north of Virginia. 60% of the land battles were fought IN Virginia. Two major battles were fought north of Virginia; Sharpsburg (Maryland, a border state), and Gettysburg. Chambersburg, PA, was burned in retaliation for Sherman's burning of Southern cities.
    , @Logan
    It plunged the south into a poverty that wasn’t alleviated for 100 years.

    Agreed. One cause of that poverty I've seldom seen noted. For at least 40 years prior to the war most southern capital went into buying slaves. They were simply the best investment. The value of the slaves was roughly equal to the value of all land and buildings in the South.

    So when emancipation came, half a century of investment was demonetized. The (ex-)slaves were still there, but they weren't money or property anymore.

    That's $4B of capital that just vanished. At the time that was a LOT of money.

    According to the standard inflation calculator (which has admittedly a lot of flaws) it equates to $121,448,674,698.80 today. I think that actually understates it.

    In 1860 dollars it was $500 per (white) capita. At a time when average family income was under that amount.

    That's in addition to the physical devastation wreaked on much of the South.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @Jeff Stryker
    Couple of things-

    THING A-

    We can argue demographic data but many white Americans were not in the United States at the time of the Civil War.

    East Coast dominates and whites in the East Coast center aside from Jews tend to be Italians (Rudy, Nancy etc) and Irish-Catholics (Kennedy's) whose ancestors arrived in the late 19th or early 20th century.

    So why is the Civil War important today? Because white Southerners long for some period of time when being descended from English aristocrats was relevant?

    THING B

    Cubans have made Miami economically relevant if only because Caribbean dictators stick their money to be safe from the next revolution and it attracts a great deal of international tourism.

    Texas pumps out a great deal of oil.

    Otherwise, what is the relevance of much of the South? To who, and why? That they are often poorer than the West Coast or the East Coast. That whites are poorest there? What's its relevance? GDP? Technological innovation? Standard of living?

    THING C

    If the South could not have Federal bailouts than what would it do? More than Northern states with massive human capitol from Wall Street brokers and businessmen and international investors and tech giants the South has....well, poverty.

    The North is not a reliant on Federal money. Northern California and Manhattan could tell the Beltway to go F*(X themselves. They'd get by. But would Alabama?

    THING D

    The Southern border is the problem. It is not the Northern border. If anything, Canada is the one saying they don't want whites from Maine or Michigan and rigidly enforce border security.

    Yet the South and Southwest allows millions of illegal immigrants through their border.

    Canada sure does a good job of keeping Americans from immigrating illegally. Try to do it. I guarantee you'll be caught and end up with Canadian mounties and helicopters with infrared surrounding you.

    THING E

    White Southerners seem to have a huge hard-on for Jews. There are not many Jews in the South compared to Long Island or California. So why do white Southerners have this thing about Jews?

    There are plenty of Jewish people in the South lol. There’s a county in Florida named after a Jewish man- Levy county. Also ever hear of South Beach? Broward and palm Beach? Tons of Jewish people there. There are many Jewish sherrifs and district attorneys throughout the South.

    They tend to be in law, politics, and medicine but socially self segregate. Can’t see why that would cause a problem….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Zeroh Tollrants
    From one Southerner to another, frankly, I'm dumbstruck you see no problem with this.
    Yeah, they do tend to be in law, lol. Screwing over gentiles. The Sheriff of Broward, Scott Israel, Muslim fanboy, is a great addition to the state, amirite?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jeff Stryker
    D'Souza is a Goan-they're a Portuguese-Indian mixed group.

    And Goa is just another state in India, just as Iowa is just another state n the United States.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    It was still a Portuguese colony in 1967.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @RebelWriter
    The title of the movie should have been, "Dems R Real Rayciss, Part 2; Electric Bugaloo"

    I agree with pretty much everything in this article. I'm not a degreed historian (and don't play one on TV), but I have been reading and studying this conflict for more than 40 years. The perspective is always given from the wrong angle, that of the people of the North vs. the people of the South; it was not. It was the elites of the North vs. the elites of the South.

    Elites of the North were industrialist, bankers, and those involved in commerce. The elites of the South were the Planters. What they were fighting over was the treasury, most specifically Mercantilist use of the treasury; i.e. spending Federal funds on roads, canals, bridges, harbors, and railroads to benefit commerce and trade. If anything approaching half of that spending had occured in the South, allowing Southern elites to profit from it, there would have been no war. As it was, almost all of it was spent north of the Mason Dixon line.

    The Planter elite were THE Congressional opposition to various bills proposing the use of Federal funds for infrastructure improvement. All such projects were plagued with graft and corruption, all ran over budget and schedule. The Achilles Heel of the planters was slavery, and THAT is why slavery was attacked. The vast majority of the people of the North could hardly care less, except that they considered the practice embarrassing, like a preacher having a drunk for a brother.

    There are always at least two reasons for every war; those used to motivate the common masses to fight, and the real reason, which is always and forever power, or control of resources. This war was no different. James McPherson, prof. of History Emeritus, Princeton, a man who HATES the South, investigated the reasons common soldiers fought, and discovered, to his dismay, that the men of both sides fought for almost exactly the same reasons, they just interpreted them differently. The men of both sides saw themselves as patriots; Northerners defending the Union, and Southerners defending the ideals of the Revolution.

    It was a complicated war, and anytime it is painted in simple terms, it is done so for some political or ideological purpose having nothing to do with presenting a factual and honest narrative.

    BUT LET ME SAY THIS AS BOLDY AS I CAN - IT DOESN'T MATTER TODAY. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE NOW. IT IS A FRACTURE POINT TO DIVIDE US AT A TIME WE SHOULD BE UNITED.

    The Dems R Real Rayciss meme was introduced originally by Dinesh, and was very popular among misguided, historically ignorant Southerners, and still is among some. This meme is the very reason we got traitor Nikki Haley for governor, and houseboy Tim Scott for a senator here in SC. The gaping flaw of this meme is that it acknowledges the social, racial, and cultural arguments of the progressives, and in reponse merely says, "no, you are."

    This meme irritates me like no other, because I, for one, believe the Democrats in those days were right, and the Republicans were not only wrong, but were destructive to American ideals. The United States was founded as a free and voluntary Union of States. That union was destroyed the day Lincoln called for volunteers to invade the Southern states. Lincoln and the Republicans destroyed the free union, and erected another from its ashes, the one we live with today.

    The Democrats were right about States Rights (10th Amendment), slavery, the Constitution, and later they were right in confronting the Radical Republicans during Reconstruction. They were right about keeping the races separated. Readers of this site, especially those iSteve readers, are aware of the consequences borne by the white race since the Democrats abandoned racial reality.

    The Republicans today are not the Republicans of 1860, nor are they the polar opposite of the Democrats, though I wish they were.

    Whether our ancestors were Confederate, like mine, or Union, or both, or neither if your ancestors came afterwards, is of little consequence today. We can argue points of contention about a war already fought and won in our spare time, but we do have a war going on now, one every bit as grave and consequential to the future of the United States, and we should really focus on that.

    We can argue points of contention about a war already fought and won in our spare time, but we do have a war going on now, one every bit as grave and consequential to the future of the United States, and we should really focus on that.

    My only qualm or quibble with your excellent comment is this. If we fail to recognize the way propaganda has altered our popular understanding of the past, how will we recognize it when we see it today? This is the reason I’m a huge fan of what Ron is doing with his American Pravda series as well as articles like the above by Boyd Cathey. It’s also the reason I continually harp on Yeshuanity as an alien cult foisted on our ancestors, demanding they “spread the other cheek” and accept that all men are identically created in the image of YHWH (except the Chosen who are special). Kids believe (not me, but most kids) whatever bullshit their parents and teachers utter. Whether it’s “Africans are exactly like Europeans or Orientals” or “the Sky Fairy made us all out of thin air and a rib bone and we are all borne of incest,” we need to examine the propaganda and debunk it for the nonsense it truly is.

    Reality is scary, nature is scary, and truth is scary. But when we in fear surrender to lies we empower the worst among us and that is much scarier still.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rebelwriter
    Point taken. Yet if we take the time to examine propaganda, there are plenty of excellent examples, i.e. WWII, the Weimar Republic, which are easier to unite around. This particular conflict arouses a great deal of division among white Americans, even today, more than 150 years after it ended. It is all too to exploit this division. It is an especially sensitive subject in the South, because it was fought in the South, and most Southerners had relatives who served the CSA. Many other reasons, too; I could go on. Yet I don't want to, because as fun as this discussion can be, it's mental masturbation in the face of a demographic replacement of our people, our culture, and our nation. All I'm saying is that we'll have plenty of time to debate it once we've secured a future for our children.
    , @jilles dykstra
    Propaganda is as old as the world
    Philip M. Taylor, 'Munitions of the Mind, A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Day', 1995, Manchester
    about WWI propaganda:
    Sir Campbell Stuart K.B.E., 'Secrets of Crewe House, The Story of a Famous Campaign', 1920, London
    Erich Ludendorff, 'Meine Kriegserinnerungen 1914 = 1918', Berlin, 1918
    Ludendorff was of the opinion that British propaganda was far better than the German
    About Morgenthau's WWI anti German propaganda:
    Heath W. Lowry, 'The story behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', Istanbul 1990
    , @lavoisier

    Reality is scary, nature is scary, and truth is scary. But when we in fear surrender to lies we empower the worst among us and that is much scarier still.
     
    Now that is true.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Logan
    He assumed our military could quickly overrun the much weaker Confederate state militias, but it turned into a disastrous war.

    Sorry, but this is flatly untrue. Lincoln was entirely aware that he did not have forces sufficient to crush the rebellion.

    The entire US Army in 1860 was composed of 16,000 men and officers, almost all scattered across the West in tiny packets to defend against Indians. About 20% of them promptly left when secession and war broke out.

    So by the time of Sumter, Lincoln had perhaps 14,000 men scattered across an entire continent. At this same time the state of SC alone fielded around 10,000 men, albeit mostly not nearly as well trained or armed as the Regulars.

    In fact, during the very early days of the War Lincoln's primary concern was that there simply was nothing at all to stop southern troops from marching straight into DC. I've not been able to find numbers for VA militia in 1860, but given that its white population was 3x that of SC, I think it's not unreasonable to assume VA had 25,000 or more men under arms in April of 1860. That would have outnumbered the entire US Army almost 2:1, even assuming the Regulars were concentrated, which they most certainly were not.

    People just don't realize how tiny the early 19th century US Army was. The organized militia of the Nauvoo Legion in the early 1840s numbered at least 2500. Compare that to the 8500 in the entire US Army. That's a single city.

    That’s a good point about the small size of the active US Army. But keep in mind that our Constitution says the US Army should exist only in time of war. Combat power was in the state militias, and the north had twice more than the South, and it had a Navy. Lincoln was surprised when the Virginians quickly attacked. On the other hand, if they had not, Lincoln may have been unable to rally the North to assemble its militias to invade the South and get Congress to pay for this disaster.

    Read about the first deadly fighting of the Civil War during a huge 1861 riot in Baltimore that occurred as federal troops and militias from Pennsylvania and Massachusetts arrived in this anti-war city. The state of Maryland would have also seceded, but this was prevented when federal troops arrested one-third of the state legislature that had convened to vote on the matter.

    Here are a few little known facts from my blog about Lincoln and slavery.

    Sep 1, 2017 – Was the Civil War About Slavery?

    First Inaugural Address of President Abraham Lincoln:
    MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861
    Fellow-Citizens of the United States:

    “…I declare that–

    I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

    Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

    Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.”

    Sep 5, 2011 – Congress Freed the Slaves

    For some reason, I was taught that President Lincoln freed the slaves with his 1863 Emancipation Proclamation. I just learned that in July 1862, Congress passed and Lincoln signed the “Second Confiscation Act” to liberate slaves, but Lincoln took the position that Congress lacked power to free slaves unless Lincoln as commander-in-chief deemed it a proper military measure. Lincoln was concerned that it would cause more states to secede. A few months later, he bowed to pressure and announced that law would be enforced while taking credit for freeing slaves.

    Another aspect of the Civil war that I had never read about was that most slaves slowed or stopped work during the war, and a half million ran off. Local state militias in the South had gone to war, so slave owners had no muscle to intimidate their slaves, and they feared traditional harsh discipline like whippings would incite revolts. As a result, most of the southern agricultural economy died by 1863.

    May 5, 2013 – Union Regiments Should Have Invaded Delaware

    As a follow up to yesterday’s blog, Delaware organized several Union regiments that fought in the Civil War. Here is photo of this slave state’s Union soldiers ready to die, to free slaves? They could have swept through their own state to accomplish that. As I’ve discussed many times, interesting history is whitewashed. The State of Delaware’s detailed website of the Civil War fails to mention that it remained a slave state during the war. No need to confuse the public with facts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rebelwriter
    I'm not picking on you, sir, but another quibble. Virginia didn't secede until after Lincoln petitioned the governors of all states for 75,000 volunteers to invade the South.


    "Lincoln was surprised when the Virginians quickly attacked."

    What on earth do you mean by this? "Virginia" never attacked. The first battle was IN Virginia. It was the US that attacked, not the other way around.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Reg Cæsar

    ... the law of the Nation.
     
    Oh, "...the Nation". You sound like Lincoln!

    Who is this "Nation", Kemosabe?

    Property rights are the most fundamental basis of liberty, without them we are all serfs and slaves.
     
    Then why didn't we send our army and slave-catchers into Upper Canada and Nova Scotia? The Brits up there were making us slaves and serfs, right? And themselves, as well?

    So if I’m a rancher in Nevada, and idiot vegans in California...
     
    So if you're a planter in Georgia, and idiot foodies in Ohio turn your fugitive Negro into steak au poivre, they're guilty of nothing more than rustling?

    So if you’re a planter in Georgia, and idiot foodies in Ohio turn your fugitive Negro into steak au poivre, they’re guilty of nothing more than rustling?

    Sometimes Reg you catch on slowly, but at least you do eventually catch on..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Stan d Mute

    We can argue points of contention about a war already fought and won in our spare time, but we do have a war going on now, one every bit as grave and consequential to the future of the United States, and we should really focus on that.
     
    My only qualm or quibble with your excellent comment is this. If we fail to recognize the way propaganda has altered our popular understanding of the past, how will we recognize it when we see it today? This is the reason I’m a huge fan of what Ron is doing with his American Pravda series as well as articles like the above by Boyd Cathey. It’s also the reason I continually harp on Yeshuanity as an alien cult foisted on our ancestors, demanding they “spread the other cheek” and accept that all men are identically created in the image of YHWH (except the Chosen who are special). Kids believe (not me, but most kids) whatever bullshit their parents and teachers utter. Whether it’s “Africans are exactly like Europeans or Orientals” or “the Sky Fairy made us all out of thin air and a rib bone and we are all borne of incest,” we need to examine the propaganda and debunk it for the nonsense it truly is.

    Reality is scary, nature is scary, and truth is scary. But when we in fear surrender to lies we empower the worst among us and that is much scarier still.

    Point taken. Yet if we take the time to examine propaganda, there are plenty of excellent examples, i.e. WWII, the Weimar Republic, which are easier to unite around. This particular conflict arouses a great deal of division among white Americans, even today, more than 150 years after it ended. It is all too to exploit this division. It is an especially sensitive subject in the South, because it was fought in the South, and most Southerners had relatives who served the CSA. Many other reasons, too; I could go on. Yet I don’t want to, because as fun as this discussion can be, it’s mental masturbation in the face of a demographic replacement of our people, our culture, and our nation. All I’m saying is that we’ll have plenty of time to debate it once we’ve secured a future for our children.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    as fun as this discussion can be, it’s mental masturbation in the face of a demographic replacement of our people, our culture, and our nation.
     
    Is it mental masturbation to call attention to the fact that the 10th Amendment has been de facto rescinded without ever being litigated or legislated? The population replacement is only possible because Lincoln stripped the States and the People themselves of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The average sportsball fan Israel-worshipping Lardassian TV watching American Yeshuan Cuck knows nothing about how the Narrative has subsumed the Truth.

    Once one realizes he’s been lied to his entire life, doesn’t he become quite angry? And don’t we need many many more people to become angry? Some will find their way based only on seeing their kids’ schools become majority third world, others based on being passed over for promotion (RIP Sky King) others for failure of our “healthcare” system (RIP Heli Ranger McFadden), but they’ll still lack inoculation against more propagandizing bullshit (“spread the other cheek Brother!”) won’t they?

    Most days I think we (us crackers) are too stupid to think objectively for ourselves and subscribe to Twain’s view from Mysterious Stranger:

    I know your race. It is made up of sheep. It is governed by minorities, seldom or never by majorities. It suppresses its feelings and its beliefs and follows the handful that makes the most noise. Sometimes the noisy handful is right, sometimes wrong; but no matter, the crowd follows it. The vast majority of the race, whether savage or civilized, are secretly kind-hearted and shrink from inflicting pain, but in the presence of the aggressive and pitiless minority they don't dare to assert themselves.
     
    Other days, like today (so far), I hold out some optimism that there is hope for us.

    Another Mysterious gem:

    A God who could make good children as easily a bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave is angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell--mouths mercy, and invented hell--mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him!
     
    Just spread the other cheek goyim! Believe and do what you’re told. You deserve it..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Reg Cæsar

    So that refutes the part you wrote of…..”Yeah, you can say that Africans were property, but they were not property on the north shore of the Great Lakes. Why would they be on the south? ”
     
    Then the states between the Ohio and the Lakes were less free than the colonies to the north of the Lakes. Or at least the latter agreed with their overlords, unlike those to the south.

    I didn't say these laws and decisions were unconstitutional. I said they made a mockery of federalism, and make today's Lincoln-bashers total hypocrites. If Upper Canada can declare a slave free, why can't Ohio? What does Upper Canada have that Ohio doesn't?

    Ohioans were thus like Finns before 1991, who had to return Soviet émigrés, thanks to some treaty. Nice company you're in, the USSR.

    Besides, Africans were trying to leave the country. What sane person would want to stop them?

    What does Upper Canada have that Ohio doesn’t?

    A Queen?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    Upper Canada was sparsely populated prior to 1865 and Canada tended to exploit Native Americans as labor.

    There was no agricultural economic sector to support slavery.

    The Northern US industrialized at a time when Europe was beset by war and famine. Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans would all work for a pittance in the factories. Slavery was unnecessary.

    Following the Civil War many white Americans migrated to Canada-like Rowdy Roddy Piper's ancestors.
    , @Reg Cæsar


    What does Upper Canada have that Ohio doesn’t?
     
    A Queen?
     
    So they don't have to give Sambo back, but we do. I see.

    Where do we get one of these queens?
    , @The Alarmist
    Go to Antioch University and you'll find plenty of queens.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Stan d Mute

    We can argue points of contention about a war already fought and won in our spare time, but we do have a war going on now, one every bit as grave and consequential to the future of the United States, and we should really focus on that.
     
    My only qualm or quibble with your excellent comment is this. If we fail to recognize the way propaganda has altered our popular understanding of the past, how will we recognize it when we see it today? This is the reason I’m a huge fan of what Ron is doing with his American Pravda series as well as articles like the above by Boyd Cathey. It’s also the reason I continually harp on Yeshuanity as an alien cult foisted on our ancestors, demanding they “spread the other cheek” and accept that all men are identically created in the image of YHWH (except the Chosen who are special). Kids believe (not me, but most kids) whatever bullshit their parents and teachers utter. Whether it’s “Africans are exactly like Europeans or Orientals” or “the Sky Fairy made us all out of thin air and a rib bone and we are all borne of incest,” we need to examine the propaganda and debunk it for the nonsense it truly is.

    Reality is scary, nature is scary, and truth is scary. But when we in fear surrender to lies we empower the worst among us and that is much scarier still.

    Propaganda is as old as the world
    Philip M. Taylor, ‘Munitions of the Mind, A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Day’, 1995, Manchester
    about WWI propaganda:
    Sir Campbell Stuart K.B.E., ‘Secrets of Crewe House, The Story of a Famous Campaign’, 1920, London
    Erich Ludendorff, ‘Meine Kriegserinnerungen 1914 = 1918′, Berlin, 1918
    Ludendorff was of the opinion that British propaganda was far better than the German
    About Morgenthau’s WWI anti German propaganda:
    Heath W. Lowry, ‘The story behind Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story’, Istanbul 1990

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    Every society and every tribe and every Empire from time immoral has depended upon propaganda for their power. Always have always will be. If you control the mind, you control the body, you do not have to post enforcers at every corner to enforce your rule on every BODY. Influence the MASS MINDS and the MINDS do the self controlling for you. As they say 'The Pen is mightier than the Sword'.
    That is why every modern nation on earth either democratic, communist or a religious theocracy wishes to teach the official version of 'history' (historic propaganda) in their classrooms only for that propaganda to be regularly enforced by the media.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Dumbo
    My "agree" button is not working, but I agree. The fact that Dinesh is Indian and friendly with the neocons should be a huge red flag. "Thomm" is an Indian too. Indians, conservative or not, smart or not, shouldn't be in the West. Once I went to an Indian restaurant and I got food poisoning.

    The fact that Dinesh is Indian and friendly with the neocons should be a huge red flag. “Thomm” is an Indian too. Indians, conservative or not, smart or not, shouldn’t be in the West.

    Indeed, America uses sanitary waste disposal, Indians (600,000,000 of them today) shit openly on their streets and in their potable water supply. Americans eat cows, Indians have an entire social class that does nothing but pick up and fondle cow shit. Americans pity widows, Indians burn them. Americans protect women, Indians gang-rape them. I could go on, but the point is made I think.

    Send the street shitting, cowshit loving, widow burning, gang rapists back to their sub-continental shithole until they manage to evolve beyond the state of Africans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. ArayanZ says:

    Finally!
    This is the first article I’ve read in years that used fact regarding the Civil War.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. @Anon
    And Goa is just another state in India, just as Iowa is just another state n the United States.

    It was still a Portuguese colony in 1967.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Stan d Mute

    What does Upper Canada have that Ohio doesn’t?
     
    A Queen?

    Upper Canada was sparsely populated prior to 1865 and Canada tended to exploit Native Americans as labor.

    There was no agricultural economic sector to support slavery.

    The Northern US industrialized at a time when Europe was beset by war and famine. Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans would all work for a pittance in the factories. Slavery was unnecessary.

    Following the Civil War many white Americans migrated to Canada-like Rowdy Roddy Piper’s ancestors.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. The history of the history of the war, though, is interesting. I’ll start by declaring that it’s something to be proud of that I can write in support of a group of people who fought a revolution against the US without being declared a traitor by the government. I have been called a traitor by some people, individuals, but that carried only the weight of personal opinion, and not the force of law.

    During and immediately after the war it was officially labeled as a rebellion. General-in-Chief Halleck ordered the collection of all records of both sides to be catalogued into “The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion.” Every order of the Union armies and navy, along with all such documents of the CSA that existed (far, far fewer), are available yet today. I thank him for that, but nothing else.

    Any man who had served the Confederate cause in any way was disenfranchised as a traitor. A general amnesty for most people was declared by President Johnson, but officers and politicians had to give an oath of loyalty to the US, and be pardoned by the president.

    It was about the time that Reconstruction came to an end, precisely because the Northern populace was weary of it, that the powers that be realized some mutual understanding must be reached in order to continue as a nation together. It’s important to note that the culpability of the elite classes of both sides would not enter into this agreement.

    The true turning point came at the outbreak of the Spanish American War. The war had a uniting effect on the populace, and not only the sons of Union and Confederate soldiers enlisted, but several notable Confederate officers served as well. Former Confederate General Joe Wheeler served as a US General officer in the Spanish American War. General Fitzhugh Lee, a nephew of Robert E. Lee, was another former Confederate General who was made a US general in the Spanish American War.

    It was in this age of conciliation that most Confederate reminiscences were written. There were only a few written prior to this, notable “Co. Aytch”, by Sam Watkins, the finest personal account I’ve ever read. This was also when Douglas Southall Freeman published the three volume biography on Robert E. Lee that is still the definitive book on the man. There are many other notable works published in that era, including Fighting for the Confederacy, by Edward Porter Alexander, who was Longstreet’s chief of artillery. This book includes one of the few recorded references to Lee’s fearful temper. Another is in Mary Chestnut’s A Diary From Dixie.

    Also this is when most of the monuments were raised that are currently under attack. There were few erected before this period, mostly due, I believe, to the South’s demolished condition. The region was recovering somewhat by this time, and there was money, mostly from the UDC, to build these monuments. The UDC was comprised of the wives of elites, and the widows of Confederates. It was, and is, an elite group of women, especially compared to the United Confederate Veterans, and later, the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

    The compromise that was reached allowed both sides to carry forward with some amount of pride, as neither could have been painted as all good, or all bad, without blaming the other, and causing ill feelings. It was promoted as a war of brother against brother, and entirely neglected the elite. Instead, it seemed to paint everyone as an elite, even the poorest private. It was a temporary fix, at best.

    Robert Penn Warren laid it out best in his short novella, The Legacy of the Civil War. The book is a treasure of its time. In it Warren names the gifts, both myths, to each side in the agreement.

    To the North was given the Treasury of Virtue; the belief it had fought a just war to abolish slavery, and to keep the Union united. “…an indulgence . . . for all sins past, present, and future, freely given by the hand of history.” With this gift, Northerners were free to practice their own forms of racism and segregation, and could always say in response to criticism, that “We fought to free the slaves. What more do you want?”

    To the South was given The Great Alibi; that it was noble in it’s cause and beliefs, but in the end it lost, and that wasn’t bad as America continued as one nation. This was imperfect. The Southern felt “trapped by history.” This was when the Moonlight and Magnolia Myth was born, where every Southerner considered himself a dispossessed knight, or son of one, toiling in the dirt from no fault of his own. The Confederacy became, “A city of the soul.”

    Nobody met and shook hands over this. No agreements were drawn up and signed. This is what was written in the papers, in the speeches at monument ceremonies, and eventually discussed at night by the firesides, North and South. This is what came to be, and was, until the Centennial of the Civil War. It was a gentleman’s agreement, of sorts, that allowed the nation to heal its wounds, to unite, and to carry on.

    That the Centennial occurred during the Civil Rights movement was either a great coincedence, or a “Cohencidence,” as the movements primary shakers and movers were not the poor blacks of the South, nor the WASP elite of New England, but Jews. However it came about, it destroyed the previous gentleman’s agreement, and tore open old wounds. The South’s history has been under attack ever since, and this attack has leached into the North’s history, and our Founding Fathers as well. For men of that day were nowhere near as enlightened as even the most craven “racist” is today. The greatest mistake most people make is judging historical figures through the lens of today’s social norms; they will never live up.

    What everybody misses, because it’s not discussed, is that the war was fought because the elites of trade and commerce and the planter elites had a disagreement over the use of Federal monies, and that led, eventually, to the bloodiest war in American history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    A very good post.
    Informative and thought provoking.

    This in particular:

    What everybody misses, because it’s not discussed, is that the war was fought because the elites of trade and commerce and the planter elites had a disagreement over the use of Federal monies, and that led, eventually, to the bloodiest war in American history.
     
    Or...."two elites had a disagreement over the use of Federal monies"......
    , @Anon
    I have FightingFor The Confederacy and the Mary Chesnut Diary. I also have books about the abolitionist Grimke sisters and their black spy Mary Bowser in Jeff Davis home and headquarters.

    Also the autobiography of Elizabeth Kekly Mary Lincoln’s freed slave dressmaker and mother of a son by her former owner who never supported the boy

    This thread is getting too much like the American Renaissance War of Northern Agression discussions so I’m saying good night my friends
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Anon
    One correction; 750,000 soldiers were killed. And about 60,000 civilians, mostly in the border states where most of the fighting was done from malnutrition and disease and general effects of living in a war zone.

    It plunged the south into a poverty that wasn’t alleviated for 100 years.

    The majority of the battles were fought South of the Border states. Only a few battles were fought north of Virginia. 60% of the land battles were fought IN Virginia. Two major battles were fought north of Virginia; Sharpsburg (Maryland, a border state), and Gettysburg. Chambersburg, PA, was burned in retaliation for Sherman’s burning of Southern cities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Excellent comment. One correction. Chambersburg was burned July 30 of 1864, almost certainly primarily in retaliation for the burning of towns and farms in the Shenandoah Valley.

    Sherman was at the time fighting his way from Chattanooga to Atlanta, which he had captured only about a week before Chambersburg was burned. Atlanta was the first city burned by Sherman, that I know of, and that took place mostly on his way out in November.

    OTOH, the troops who burned it came from the Shenandoah, and were entirely familiar with the devastation wrought there by Union troops. Often it was their own property that had been burned.

    My wife and I once stayed in a B&B in the northern Valley that still had scorch marks on beams from a failed arson attempt by Union forces.
    , @Anon
    Virginia is one of the border states whose civilians were devastated by the effects of the war and armies marauding back and forth stealing food and animal fodder, cutting down wood lots fences and then sheds for firewood.

    The people of Richmond were starving towards the end. Tennessee also suffered from the presence of the armies of both sides.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. @Carlton Meyer
    That's a good point about the small size of the active US Army. But keep in mind that our Constitution says the US Army should exist only in time of war. Combat power was in the state militias, and the north had twice more than the South, and it had a Navy. Lincoln was surprised when the Virginians quickly attacked. On the other hand, if they had not, Lincoln may have been unable to rally the North to assemble its militias to invade the South and get Congress to pay for this disaster.

    Read about the first deadly fighting of the Civil War during a huge 1861 riot in Baltimore that occurred as federal troops and militias from Pennsylvania and Massachusetts arrived in this anti-war city. The state of Maryland would have also seceded, but this was prevented when federal troops arrested one-third of the state legislature that had convened to vote on the matter.

    Here are a few little known facts from my blog about Lincoln and slavery.

    Sep 1, 2017 - Was the Civil War About Slavery?

    First Inaugural Address of President Abraham Lincoln:
    MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861
    Fellow-Citizens of the United States:

    "...I declare that--

    I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

    Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

    Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

    Sep 5, 2011 - Congress Freed the Slaves

    For some reason, I was taught that President Lincoln freed the slaves with his 1863 Emancipation Proclamation. I just learned that in July 1862, Congress passed and Lincoln signed the "Second Confiscation Act" to liberate slaves, but Lincoln took the position that Congress lacked power to free slaves unless Lincoln as commander-in-chief deemed it a proper military measure. Lincoln was concerned that it would cause more states to secede. A few months later, he bowed to pressure and announced that law would be enforced while taking credit for freeing slaves.

    Another aspect of the Civil war that I had never read about was that most slaves slowed or stopped work during the war, and a half million ran off. Local state militias in the South had gone to war, so slave owners had no muscle to intimidate their slaves, and they feared traditional harsh discipline like whippings would incite revolts. As a result, most of the southern agricultural economy died by 1863.

    May 5, 2013 - Union Regiments Should Have Invaded Delaware

    As a follow up to yesterday's blog, Delaware organized several Union regiments that fought in the Civil War. Here is photo of this slave state's Union soldiers ready to die, to free slaves? They could have swept through their own state to accomplish that. As I've discussed many times, interesting history is whitewashed. The State of Delaware's detailed website of the Civil War fails to mention that it remained a slave state during the war. No need to confuse the public with facts.

    I’m not picking on you, sir, but another quibble. Virginia didn’t secede until after Lincoln petitioned the governors of all states for 75,000 volunteers to invade the South.

    “Lincoln was surprised when the Virginians quickly attacked.”

    What on earth do you mean by this? “Virginia” never attacked. The first battle was IN Virginia. It was the US that attacked, not the other way around.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Stan d Mute

    What does Upper Canada have that Ohio doesn’t?
     
    A Queen?

    What does Upper Canada have that Ohio doesn’t?

    A Queen?

    So they don’t have to give Sambo back, but we do. I see.

    Where do we get one of these queens?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stan d Mute

    Where do we get one of these queens?
     
    From Cuck Island of course, but we kicked the hag (or her predecessor anyway) out a long time ago my friend..

    On the other hand, there are a metric shit-ton of small “q” queens in fabulous places like Ann Arbor, Ft Lauderdale, and San Francisco as well as on every TV channel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @rebelwriter
    Point taken. Yet if we take the time to examine propaganda, there are plenty of excellent examples, i.e. WWII, the Weimar Republic, which are easier to unite around. This particular conflict arouses a great deal of division among white Americans, even today, more than 150 years after it ended. It is all too to exploit this division. It is an especially sensitive subject in the South, because it was fought in the South, and most Southerners had relatives who served the CSA. Many other reasons, too; I could go on. Yet I don't want to, because as fun as this discussion can be, it's mental masturbation in the face of a demographic replacement of our people, our culture, and our nation. All I'm saying is that we'll have plenty of time to debate it once we've secured a future for our children.

    as fun as this discussion can be, it’s mental masturbation in the face of a demographic replacement of our people, our culture, and our nation.

    Is it mental masturbation to call attention to the fact that the 10th Amendment has been de facto rescinded without ever being litigated or legislated? The population replacement is only possible because Lincoln stripped the States and the People themselves of their rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The average sportsball fan Israel-worshipping Lardassian TV watching American Yeshuan Cuck knows nothing about how the Narrative has subsumed the Truth.

    Once one realizes he’s been lied to his entire life, doesn’t he become quite angry? And don’t we need many many more people to become angry? Some will find their way based only on seeing their kids’ schools become majority third world, others based on being passed over for promotion (RIP Sky King) others for failure of our “healthcare” system (RIP Heli Ranger McFadden), but they’ll still lack inoculation against more propagandizing bullshit (“spread the other cheek Brother!”) won’t they?

    Most days I think we (us crackers) are too stupid to think objectively for ourselves and subscribe to Twain’s view from Mysterious Stranger:

    I know your race. It is made up of sheep. It is governed by minorities, seldom or never by majorities. It suppresses its feelings and its beliefs and follows the handful that makes the most noise. Sometimes the noisy handful is right, sometimes wrong; but no matter, the crowd follows it. The vast majority of the race, whether savage or civilized, are secretly kind-hearted and shrink from inflicting pain, but in the presence of the aggressive and pitiless minority they don’t dare to assert themselves.

    Other days, like today (so far), I hold out some optimism that there is hope for us.

    Another Mysterious gem:

    A God who could make good children as easily a bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave is angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell–mouths mercy, and invented hell–mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man’s acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him!

    Just spread the other cheek goyim! Believe and do what you’re told. You deserve it..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Anon[647] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Did historical accuracy ever exist? Not in feature films, not in documentaries.

    Griffith’s BIRTH OF A NATION played loose with history.

    The famous bloodbath on the Odessa steps in POTEMKIN never happened.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. J1234 says:

    Dinesh said:

    Not since 1860 have the Democrats so fanatically refused to accept the result of a free election. That year, their target was Lincoln. They smeared him. They went to war to defeat him. In the end, they assassinated him. Now the target of the Democrats is President Trump and his supporters.

    This common conflation of the Democratic and Republican parties of the mid 19th century with their namesakes of today ignores a profoundly significant historical figure who came almost a half century after the war: William Jennings Bryan. This three time unsuccessful Democratic presidential candidate started the process that would transform the Democratic Party from the advocate of minimal federal government that it once was into a party that FDR could use to create his big New Deal federal bureaucracy.

    Bryan did it using the appeal of populism and, to a much lesser degree, connecting with ethnic identity of the common white rural folk who felt left behind by the industrial revolution and monopoly capitalism. He favored government intervention, and was actually referred to as “a Karl Marx for hillbillies” by one of his southern political allies. He also championed the vote for women. (His advocacy was based mostly on the common Christian perception of the day that women were morally superior to men.) The Republican Party, by default, eventually filled with people opposed to government intervention. Southerners generally didn’t defect to the Republican Party until the late 20th century, however, because of ill will from the civil war, and maybe because of Bryan’s appeal to white ethnic identity.

    Ann Coulter is another conservative who makes this same historical mistake that Dinesh does. She isn’t alone, as conservative Hollywood’s “Friends of Abe” appears, from it’s title, to have gone the same route. The mythology and deeply ingrained erroneous precepts surrounding Abraham Lincoln and his Republican Party are just to powerful (and politically convenient) to ignore, I guess.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  85. @Logan
    Your link reiterates the claim that protective tariffs were the primary cause of the war. But it asserts the claim. It provides very little in the way of evidence.

    Amusingly, the cartoon about the Morrill Tariff is dated April 13, which was of course long after the initial secession. The Morill Tariff was passed as a result of secession, because it removed a large chunk of opponents from Congress, allowing it to pass when it had failed previously.

    You simply can't use a tariff that passed after and because of secession as the cause of that secession.

    You know, I've read the Declarations of Secession of every state, though it's been a while. Every one of them cites as the reasons for seceding primarily issues related to slavery. I don't recall any mention of tariffs at all, though it's possible they were cited in passing.

    If excessive tariffs/taxation were the cause of secession, how exactly was the South planning to finance its new government? The South would now have the full overhead of a govenrment, formerly split with the North. It would also clearly have to finance a major expansion of Defense to guard a long and hostile border with the USA. It's likely that if the South had left the Union uncontested, its 8M whites would have wound up bearing a larger tax burden than the 27M whites of the united country bore in 1860.

    War is always the ultimate choice for the bankers and politicians suffering from psychosis( a serious mental illness (such as schizophrenia) characterized by defective or lost contact with reality often with hallucinations or delusions) such as Lincoln. Could the slaves have been freed without a civil war? – ABSOLUTELY. Simply compensating slave owners for the slaves and freeing them would have been a much better option. Mel Barger said it best in his article “Was The Civil War Necessary.”
    “From 1861 to 1865, some of the worst savagery ever staged on Earth took place in North America. When it ended more than 620 thousand men were dead and many thousands more were blinded, crippled, disfigured, and otherwise maimed and injured. Towns and homes had been burned, railroads had been torn up, crops had been destroyed, and forests had been ravaged. Had a visitor from Outer Space witnessed this tragedy, he could only have assumed that millions of people in the United States had somehow gone temporarily insane.”
    If Lincoln had been the compassionate man he is proclaimed to be and the war was all about slavery, he would have chosen a much cheaper(blood and treasure)and humane way to end the curse of slavery. Here is a link to the rest of Mel’s article if you are so inclined to give it a look.

    http://melbarger.com/Civil_War_Necessary.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Much cheaper, eh?

    4M slaves. Let's ballpark their value at $1000 each, which is probably in the neighborhood, though probably a little low for 1860.

    That's $4,000,000,000. At a time when the entire federal budget was $78M. Assuming the entire federal budget had been devoted to paying compensation for slaves, it would have taken more than 50 years to pay off.

    So to pay compensation in a reasonable timespan, taxes would have to have been at least doubled or tripled. Then all of the benefit would have been going to southern slaves, who get their freedom, and southern slaveowners, who get money. Northern taxpayers, quite reasonably, would have objected to this, since they'd be coming up with most of the money.

    I quite agree with you that a plan for compensated gradual emancipation would have been cheaper and less bloody for all concerned, quite possibly even better for the slaves themselves in the long run. But sadly people seldom think in these terms. Lincoln made several attempts to get the Union slave states to accept compensated emancipation in the early days of the war, and they rejected it.

    It's reasonably clear that the only reason UK and France didn't recognize the CSA and possibly enter the war on its side is because the war was seen in Europe as being about slavery. Adopt a plan for gradual emancipation, that objection disappears, Europe intervenes and the CSA becomes independent.

    The great problem for the South was that it wanted to be independent to protect the institution of slavery. Independence without slavery would be meaningless to them.
    , @Johnnie Walker Read
    In dollars and cents, the U.S. government estimated Jan. 1863 that the war was costing $2.5 million daily. A final official estimate in 1879 totaled $6,190,000,000. The Confederacy spent perhaps $2,099,808,707. By 1906 another $3.3 billion already had been spent by the U.S. government on Northerners' pensions and other veterans' benefits for former Federal soldiers. Southern states and private philanthropy provided benefits to the Confederate veterans. The amount spent on benefits eventually well exceeded the war's original cost.
    Inflation affected both Northern and Southern assets but hit those of the Confederacy harder. Northern currency fluctuated in value, and at its lowest point $2.59 in Federal paper money equaled $1 in gold. The Confederate currency so declined in purchasing power that eventually $60-$70 equaled a gold dollar.
    The physical devastation, almost all of it in the South, was enormous: burned or plundered homes, pillaged countryside, untold losses in crops and farm animals, ruined buildings and bridges, devastated college campuses, and neglected roads all left the South in ruins.
    , @Anon
    750,000 White men in the prime of life dead and at least 60,000 civilians in the upper south and border states dead from malnutrition disease and the disruptions of war.

    About 31,32 million population with 750,000 prime of life young men dead is a big loss to productivity especially in an era when so much depended on the muscle strength of young men.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Mr. Anon says:
    @Thomm
    Sorry, but Dinesh D'Souza is vastly more knowledgeable than Boyd Cathey.

    Boyd Cathey is a Nationalist-Leftist, which is still a leftist at the end of the day.

    Sorry, but Dinesh D’Souza is vastly more knowledgeable than Boyd Cathey.

    What, specifically did Mr. Cathey say that was wrong? Can you say? Or do you prefer to just blow smoke?

    D’Souza’s ‘history’ is the kind of bowlderized retconned drivel that belongs on the History Channel. It is pap for the intellectually adolescent.

    Consequently, it is unsuprising that a cretin like you finds it interesting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomm
    You are forgetting that White Trashionalists have sub-negro IQs, so any detailed explanation on my part would go completely over your head.

    But the fact remains, Boyd Cathey is a Neo-Confederate leftist. That ideology went out of style 150 years ago. He says Lincoln wanted to deport blacks back to Africa, for god's sake.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Agent76 says:

    I have never allowed government schooling to interfere with my education and learning.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. @Reg Cæsar


    What does Upper Canada have that Ohio doesn’t?
     
    A Queen?
     
    So they don't have to give Sambo back, but we do. I see.

    Where do we get one of these queens?

    Where do we get one of these queens?

    From Cuck Island of course, but we kicked the hag (or her predecessor anyway) out a long time ago my friend..

    On the other hand, there are a metric shit-ton of small “q” queens in fabulous places like Ann Arbor, Ft Lauderdale, and San Francisco as well as on every TV channel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Wally says:
    @Logan
    The Adams quote is not evidence, it's merely the source for the claim made in this article. It's from a book published in 2000. Adams, in that book, may quite possibly provide evidence the claim is accurate. But that Adams stated something is not evidence that the statement is true.

    You dodged Carl Pearlston.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Thomm says:
    @Johnnie Walker Read
    Say's the MAGA Trumptard....Try as you might, sometimes it is impossible to stomp out ignorance from the public and the propaganda(lies) from the likes of the Neocon knee boy D'Souza.

    You are obviously a leftist. Tell me, are you a WN wigger as well?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    You are obviously a leftist. Tell me, are you a WN wigger as well?
     
    You are obviously a cretin. Beyond that, nobody cares what a nothing like you is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Mr. Anon says:

    I saw an interview with D’Souza in which he showed some of his (probably, highly edited) interview with Richard Spencer. Spencer is not exactly a good spokesman for any kind of cause he has associated himself with, but – no matter – D’Souza’s point in interviewing him was to make him some kind of poster boy for his DR3 narrative. He asked Spencer what Presidents he admired the most, and Spencer answered “James Polk and Andrew Jackson”. D’Souza turning to his interviewer (some FOX News face) smirked a little school-boy smirk and said (I paraphase) “See – Democrats! Andrew Jackson was the founder of the democratic party (actually, Jefferson was, but one can’t expect a historian like D’Souza to know mere facts) there you have it – the alt-right are just leftist/Nazi/fascist Democrats”.

    So, this is what passes for american conservatism nowadays? Two minutes of hate directed at Andrew Jackson? Jefferson and Jackson were, practically, the founders of the Democratic party. For years, only up until recently, the Democratic Party had an annual celebration called the Jefferson-Jackson dinner. So, now – according to D’Souza – Old Hickory and the author of the Declaration are leftists, who are also “the real fascists”.

    This isn’t history, this is incoherent drivel. It is trying to win an argument by swapping out entries in the dictionary – redefining well defined terms. And – well, who would have ever guessed – it is done in service to a globo-poz neo-con agenda that ultimately undoes the historic nation of America.

    It should be noted that D’Souza was convicted of campaign finance violations – bundling campaign contributions. His defence seems to have been that his offense was small and his prosecution politically motivated. And that is probably all true. Still, he knowingly broke the law. What did he expect to happen? It’s almost as if he was caught shop-lifting stuff from a Bodega and said, in his defence, hey it was only a couple of snickers bars and some batteries! This is a political hit job!

    In short, he doesn’t seem to be very bright.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Patricus
    It is hard for a person with no family history in the US to grasp an event like the Civil War. My mother's side of the family were here before 1800 and 22 fought in the Civil War. Seven died. Whenever there is a family funeral or wedding a group of us talk about the war and any new battlefield letters unearthed, etc. My father's side arrived early in the 20th century. There is no Civil War history to talk about with them. As far as they know it is quaint ancient history like the War of the Roses.

    Those with history in the land roll eyes when hearing about the crusade to free slaves. Nearly 300 hundred letters from my ancestor soldiers never mention a quest to free Africans. Most were yankee Pennsylvanians, a third were rebel Marylanders. None owned slaves. By today's standards all were probably white supremacists like just about everyone in that time.
    , @Steve in Greensboro
    D'Souza's comment about how Americans should despise Presidents Jackson and Polk because they are of the same party as the Clintons is childish drivel.

    Similarly stupid are his comments about how "Democrats are the real racists". This would surprise my commie neighbors driving their Priuses with the little blue and yellow equals signs on the bumpers. Absolute equality of all humans in every way is an article of faith for the progressives. Proggies believe every member of every ethnic group, every individual human, even men and women are identical in all but the most insignificant ways, so that any inequality of result is the result of white privilege, misogyny, homophobia or some other mythical force -- like voodoo. Proggies' faith in equality is a form of insanity.

    I don't believe D'Souza believes the drivel he spouts. I think he knows he is lying, but he is being paid well to gaslight conservatives into supporting the neocons and cucks of the Republican Party and undermine the dissident right.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Wally says:
    @Logan
    Your link reiterates the claim that protective tariffs were the primary cause of the war. But it asserts the claim. It provides very little in the way of evidence.

    Amusingly, the cartoon about the Morrill Tariff is dated April 13, which was of course long after the initial secession. The Morill Tariff was passed as a result of secession, because it removed a large chunk of opponents from Congress, allowing it to pass when it had failed previously.

    You simply can't use a tariff that passed after and because of secession as the cause of that secession.

    You know, I've read the Declarations of Secession of every state, though it's been a while. Every one of them cites as the reasons for seceding primarily issues related to slavery. I don't recall any mention of tariffs at all, though it's possible they were cited in passing.

    If excessive tariffs/taxation were the cause of secession, how exactly was the South planning to finance its new government? The South would now have the full overhead of a govenrment, formerly split with the North. It would also clearly have to finance a major expansion of Defense to guard a long and hostile border with the USA. It's likely that if the South had left the Union uncontested, its 8M whites would have wound up bearing a larger tax burden than the 27M whites of the united country bore in 1860.

    said:
    “If excessive tariffs/taxation were the cause of secession, how exactly was the South planning to finance its new government? The South would now have the full overhead of a govenrment, formerly split with the North. It would also clearly have to finance a major expansion of Defense to guard a long and hostile border with the USA. It’s likely that if the South had left the Union uncontested, its 8M whites would have wound up bearing a larger tax burden than the 27M whites of the united country bore in 1860.”

    Without the burden of northern taxes there would have been / was money

    The south DID “finance it’s new government”.

    The north was not going to let / did not let the south to leave ‘”uncontested”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    In 1860 the federal government had very few functions except for the post office and customs. The south had a functioning national government all thru the war. There’s no reason an independent south couldn’t have maintained a national government.

    Remember all that cotton tobacco rice and sugar stored in barns and warehouses the whole world was eager to buy.

    Plus the European bankers who lent money to the south right before and during the war would have extended a lot of credit if necessary
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Thomm says:
    @Dumbo
    My "agree" button is not working, but I agree. The fact that Dinesh is Indian and friendly with the neocons should be a huge red flag. "Thomm" is an Indian too. Indians, conservative or not, smart or not, shouldn't be in the West. Once I went to an Indian restaurant and I got food poisoning.

    “Thomm” is an Indian too.

    False. It is amazing that you WN wiggers think that, despite how little I write about the country in question. You also think Thorfinsson and DBCooper are Indians.

    On the other hand, you faggots can’t figure out that Corvinus, Rec1Man, JohnnyWalker123, Talha, and others in fact ARE Indian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    Talha is Pakistani American. This is well known and he is open about who he is.
    Corvinus is either a Jew or a black Christian. Pro Communism and has a vicious hatred for White people and western civilization.
    Rec1Man is a South Indian Brahmin, most probably Tamil Brahmin. An average Brahmin supremacist.
    JohnnyWalker123, well I had suspected he was a White guy with curry fever and thus very pro Asian Indian. I doubt he is Asian Indian. I have come across a few guys like him before, White guys totally into Asian Indian culture, more Indian than many Westernised Indian upper middle class folks. Most of the White guys who marry Asian Indian women tend to be of this type. Same with White women. Many White women who marry Asian Indian guys are already in love with Bollywood and Asian Indian culture before they meet their husbands.
    DBCooper is definitely not Asian Indian. Most probably Chinese or a pro Chinese White guy.
    You Thomm are a mystery meat. I suspect, you really are an Asian Indian or a Jew. Or you a spoiled lefty upper middle class White guy, a Hipster type perhaps, scared shit of manly redneck Whites. Using Asian Indians and multiculturalism to differentiate yourself from the redneck Whites just like how many Upper class or upper middle class Asian Indians westernize, to differentiate themselves from the low IQ unwashed Indian masses.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Thomm says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Sorry, but Dinesh D’Souza is vastly more knowledgeable than Boyd Cathey.
     
    What, specifically did Mr. Cathey say that was wrong? Can you say? Or do you prefer to just blow smoke?

    D'Souza's 'history' is the kind of bowlderized retconned drivel that belongs on the History Channel. It is pap for the intellectually adolescent.

    Consequently, it is unsuprising that a cretin like you finds it interesting.

    You are forgetting that White Trashionalists have sub-negro IQs, so any detailed explanation on my part would go completely over your head.

    But the fact remains, Boyd Cathey is a Neo-Confederate leftist. That ideology went out of style 150 years ago. He says Lincoln wanted to deport blacks back to Africa, for god’s sake.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rod1963
    So you can only blow smoke, okay.
    , @chris

    He says Lincoln wanted to deport blacks back to Africa, for god’s sake.
     
    You really are a fool, are 't you! Don't suppose you've ever bothered to look too many things up, have you?
    , @Anon
    Lincoln wrote and said that he wanted to deport the blacks after the war. The Central American countries had some sort of customs and foreign affairs union at the time.

    All the individual countries were represented in Washington by just one envoy, the Nicaraguan Ambassador. Lincoln badgered him to take the former slaves. After consultations back home the plan was adamantly refused.

    Bribing Haiti to take them and shipping them to Liberia was also discussed by Lincoln.
    It’s just my personal opinion that Lincoln’s talk of deporting the slaves was just campaign promises for the 1964 election.

    The working and small family business class was the biggest voting bloc in the north. They didn’t want cheap labor and high crime levels in their towns.

    I doubt very much that Lincoln would have tried to deport the blacks had he lived.

    It’s often obvious you didn’t go to school in America but in some country whose streets are toilets and have been that way for 5,000 years.
    , @Mr. Anon
    So you can not point out anything Cathy said that was wrong. Okay.

    Good to know.

    All you can do is blow smoke out of your ass, which - in your case - is an orifice indistinguishable from your pie-hole, given that you are a butt-head.

    You are indeed - as everyone here knows by now - a stupid, bloviating dips**t.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. peterAUS says:
    @rebelwriter
    The history of the history of the war, though, is interesting. I'll start by declaring that it's something to be proud of that I can write in support of a group of people who fought a revolution against the US without being declared a traitor by the government. I have been called a traitor by some people, individuals, but that carried only the weight of personal opinion, and not the force of law.

    During and immediately after the war it was officially labeled as a rebellion. General-in-Chief Halleck ordered the collection of all records of both sides to be catalogued into "The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion." Every order of the Union armies and navy, along with all such documents of the CSA that existed (far, far fewer), are available yet today. I thank him for that, but nothing else.

    Any man who had served the Confederate cause in any way was disenfranchised as a traitor. A general amnesty for most people was declared by President Johnson, but officers and politicians had to give an oath of loyalty to the US, and be pardoned by the president.

    It was about the time that Reconstruction came to an end, precisely because the Northern populace was weary of it, that the powers that be realized some mutual understanding must be reached in order to continue as a nation together. It's important to note that the culpability of the elite classes of both sides would not enter into this agreement.

    The true turning point came at the outbreak of the Spanish American War. The war had a uniting effect on the populace, and not only the sons of Union and Confederate soldiers enlisted, but several notable Confederate officers served as well. Former Confederate General Joe Wheeler served as a US General officer in the Spanish American War. General Fitzhugh Lee, a nephew of Robert E. Lee, was another former Confederate General who was made a US general in the Spanish American War.

    It was in this age of conciliation that most Confederate reminiscences were written. There were only a few written prior to this, notable "Co. Aytch", by Sam Watkins, the finest personal account I've ever read. This was also when Douglas Southall Freeman published the three volume biography on Robert E. Lee that is still the definitive book on the man. There are many other notable works published in that era, including Fighting for the Confederacy, by Edward Porter Alexander, who was Longstreet's chief of artillery. This book includes one of the few recorded references to Lee's fearful temper. Another is in Mary Chestnut's A Diary From Dixie.

    Also this is when most of the monuments were raised that are currently under attack. There were few erected before this period, mostly due, I believe, to the South's demolished condition. The region was recovering somewhat by this time, and there was money, mostly from the UDC, to build these monuments. The UDC was comprised of the wives of elites, and the widows of Confederates. It was, and is, an elite group of women, especially compared to the United Confederate Veterans, and later, the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

    The compromise that was reached allowed both sides to carry forward with some amount of pride, as neither could have been painted as all good, or all bad, without blaming the other, and causing ill feelings. It was promoted as a war of brother against brother, and entirely neglected the elite. Instead, it seemed to paint everyone as an elite, even the poorest private. It was a temporary fix, at best.

    Robert Penn Warren laid it out best in his short novella, The Legacy of the Civil War. The book is a treasure of its time. In it Warren names the gifts, both myths, to each side in the agreement.

    To the North was given the Treasury of Virtue; the belief it had fought a just war to abolish slavery, and to keep the Union united. "...an indulgence . . . for all sins past, present, and future, freely given by the hand of history." With this gift, Northerners were free to practice their own forms of racism and segregation, and could always say in response to criticism, that "We fought to free the slaves. What more do you want?"

    To the South was given The Great Alibi; that it was noble in it's cause and beliefs, but in the end it lost, and that wasn't bad as America continued as one nation. This was imperfect. The Southern felt "trapped by history." This was when the Moonlight and Magnolia Myth was born, where every Southerner considered himself a dispossessed knight, or son of one, toiling in the dirt from no fault of his own. The Confederacy became, "A city of the soul."

    Nobody met and shook hands over this. No agreements were drawn up and signed. This is what was written in the papers, in the speeches at monument ceremonies, and eventually discussed at night by the firesides, North and South. This is what came to be, and was, until the Centennial of the Civil War. It was a gentleman's agreement, of sorts, that allowed the nation to heal its wounds, to unite, and to carry on.

    That the Centennial occurred during the Civil Rights movement was either a great coincedence, or a "Cohencidence," as the movements primary shakers and movers were not the poor blacks of the South, nor the WASP elite of New England, but Jews. However it came about, it destroyed the previous gentleman's agreement, and tore open old wounds. The South's history has been under attack ever since, and this attack has leached into the North's history, and our Founding Fathers as well. For men of that day were nowhere near as enlightened as even the most craven "racist" is today. The greatest mistake most people make is judging historical figures through the lens of today's social norms; they will never live up.

    What everybody misses, because it's not discussed, is that the war was fought because the elites of trade and commerce and the planter elites had a disagreement over the use of Federal monies, and that led, eventually, to the bloodiest war in American history.

    A very good post.
    Informative and thought provoking.

    This in particular:

    What everybody misses, because it’s not discussed, is that the war was fought because the elites of trade and commerce and the planter elites had a disagreement over the use of Federal monies, and that led, eventually, to the bloodiest war in American history.

    Or….”two elites had a disagreement over the use of Federal monies”……

    Read More
    • Replies: @Heros

    "the war was fought because the elites of trade and commerce and the planter elites had a disagreement over the use of Federal monies"
     
    What a pathetic load of crap. This was merely a single genocidal Christian civil war in a long, long chain of dozens, if not hundreds, where gullible, trusting and naiive Christians were deviously manipulated by secret societies controlled by the collective into warring among themselves.

    Just look how they have fractured the White Christian and European peoples across the planet today. The have become an ever shrinking minority with their share of the worlds population decreasing from over 30% to 10% in less than a century. All part of the Talmudic plans. We have white queers, feminists, anarchists, socialists, "racists", and "antisemites" all at each others throats. White guilt running out of control:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/style/white-guilt-privilege.html?ref=oembed

    Meanwhile every other "race" across on the planet has united in blaming centuries of problems on white males, instead of the secret societies really pulling the strings.

    Get a grip on reality James.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. Patricus says:
    @Ilyana_Rozumova
    You are correct. Civil war had nothing to do with slavery. Civil war was about textile industry, and so keeping the profits in US instead giving them to England. Slavery was only flag of camouflage.

    “Nothing to do with slavery” overstates the case. Like many others I believe the tarrif issue was much more important. There were a tiny number of abolitionists in the north, and also in the south, but few were prepared to fight on behalf of Africans. “We fought to free the slaves” is a fairly recent attempt to put lipstick on a pig.

    If one wants to identify a single larger cause for the war he could answer the question: why did we go to war with Mexico and seize 1/3 of that territory? We didn’t need it. We just saw that it could be easily accomplished and it was. The north thought the Southerners would be easily subdued after Manassas. Big mistake.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Rod1963 says:
    @Thomm
    Sorry, but Dinesh D'Souza is vastly more knowledgeable than Boyd Cathey.

    Boyd Cathey is a Nationalist-Leftist, which is still a leftist at the end of the day.

    Dinesh is no friend of the American people. He’s a old Neo-Con and open border supporter. He was the hatchet man used to get Sam Francis from the NR fired.

    I watched his first movie and it was as milquetoast as can be and hardly informative.

    Maybe for MAGA types he’s the man

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomm

    Dinesh is no friend of the American people. He’s a old Neo-Con and open border supporter.

     

    There is hardly anyone more pro-America than Dinesh D'Souza. Plus, he is extremely against illegal immigraton, as he has said on TV many times. Get a clue.

    Maybe for MAGA types he’s the man
     
    Gee, so Dinesh wants to make America great again. WN wiggers can't have that, because they just want intra-white socialism so that you can mooch off of productive whites like me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Rod1963 says:
    @Thomm
    You are forgetting that White Trashionalists have sub-negro IQs, so any detailed explanation on my part would go completely over your head.

    But the fact remains, Boyd Cathey is a Neo-Confederate leftist. That ideology went out of style 150 years ago. He says Lincoln wanted to deport blacks back to Africa, for god's sake.

    So you can only blow smoke, okay.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Patricus says:
    @Mr. Anon
    I saw an interview with D'Souza in which he showed some of his (probably, highly edited) interview with Richard Spencer. Spencer is not exactly a good spokesman for any kind of cause he has associated himself with, but - no matter - D'Souza's point in interviewing him was to make him some kind of poster boy for his DR3 narrative. He asked Spencer what Presidents he admired the most, and Spencer answered "James Polk and Andrew Jackson". D'Souza turning to his interviewer (some FOX News face) smirked a little school-boy smirk and said (I paraphase) "See - Democrats! Andrew Jackson was the founder of the democratic party (actually, Jefferson was, but one can't expect a historian like D'Souza to know mere facts) there you have it - the alt-right are just leftist/Nazi/fascist Democrats".

    So, this is what passes for american conservatism nowadays? Two minutes of hate directed at Andrew Jackson? Jefferson and Jackson were, practically, the founders of the Democratic party. For years, only up until recently, the Democratic Party had an annual celebration called the Jefferson-Jackson dinner. So, now - according to D'Souza - Old Hickory and the author of the Declaration are leftists, who are also "the real fascists".

    This isn't history, this is incoherent drivel. It is trying to win an argument by swapping out entries in the dictionary - redefining well defined terms. And - well, who would have ever guessed - it is done in service to a globo-poz neo-con agenda that ultimately undoes the historic nation of America.

    It should be noted that D'Souza was convicted of campaign finance violations - bundling campaign contributions. His defence seems to have been that his offense was small and his prosecution politically motivated. And that is probably all true. Still, he knowingly broke the law. What did he expect to happen? It's almost as if he was caught shop-lifting stuff from a Bodega and said, in his defence, hey it was only a couple of snickers bars and some batteries! This is a political hit job!

    In short, he doesn't seem to be very bright.

    It is hard for a person with no family history in the US to grasp an event like the Civil War. My mother’s side of the family were here before 1800 and 22 fought in the Civil War. Seven died. Whenever there is a family funeral or wedding a group of us talk about the war and any new battlefield letters unearthed, etc. My father’s side arrived early in the 20th century. There is no Civil War history to talk about with them. As far as they know it is quaint ancient history like the War of the Roses.

    Those with history in the land roll eyes when hearing about the crusade to free slaves. Nearly 300 hundred letters from my ancestor soldiers never mention a quest to free Africans. Most were yankee Pennsylvanians, a third were rebel Marylanders. None owned slaves. By today’s standards all were probably white supremacists like just about everyone in that time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Logan says:
    @anonymous
    I initially took the comment at face value, but it seems clear that Logan is either stubbornly proud or has been acting in bad faith.

    And, per my last in this thread, now I want to know if he's the same person as "Sherman," the thumb wrestling foil of "Wally."

    I have no idea who Wally might be, so I doubt I’m him.

    Stubbornly proud or bad faith, eh?

    All you have to do is show the numbers by which the 80% was calculated, and I’ll admit defeat. I do believe that is generally referred to as evidence. Just citing more people who agree with you does not support your position, when they also don’t provide any evidence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Now you’re feigning confusion.

    Please provide evidence to disprove my opinion that you are the same commenter as “Sherman.”
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Heros says:
    @Them Guys
    THING E
    White Southerners seem to have a huge hard-on for Jews. There are not many Jews in the South compared to Long Island or California. So why do white Southerners have this thing about Jews?

    #1 Reason since just over 100 yrs ago is....The Cyrus Scofield-perverted interpretations KJV Bible, and the fact that about 99% of Scofield Bible evangelical Jewdeo-Christian Devotees reside within the very same 10 or so Southern States that made up the Confeds of the civil war era.


    These are the who's that make up the huge vast majority of Jewdo-Zio-Christians, who basically worship, Jews & Israel, and do so regardless of what Jewry or Israel has ever done or will do that most sane folk consider to be wrong, bad, evil, unethical, and immoral. In other words, when the issue revolves around Israel or Jews...Both can never, ever do such wrongs etc...Period. No amount of proofs, documented and vetted facts, or anything else can change this. Only a self-wake-up, performed by each affected and delusional, warped minded individual has any chance of real success at lasting and good changes.

    Just among the Southern Baptist Conference group membership, is a whopping, 25,000,000+ individual members. This is the absolute largest sized group, aprox. one half of entire amount, of such worshipers of Jewry & Israel within the entire, Jewnited Snakes of Jewmerica.

    And furthermore, if not for their rabid foam at mouth worship of both entities, aka synagogue of Satan combo of Jewry+Israel, America would never be able to continue on as an, Colony of Tel Aviv Israel. There also would be massive exiting of most neocon repubs, who also worship Jewry & Israel, if not for these so totally Duped Via scam Scofield falsehood biblical interpretations, voters.


    Now do you understand, HTF aka how the fuck in the world did Nikki Haley get elected as Governor in a deep south state of S. Carolina ? Or Bobby Jindal also Governor in another deep south state ?....Very easy to do, all those two Israel firster clowns needed do to get elected by mostly White Southern voters....Was to state their deep love for and never ending support for...Jewry & Israel!....And an election win was in the proverbial bag, eh. Add in massive, several generations worth of, constant White Guilt effects, and the fools would likely elect Chicago's Louie Da Farakahn as Alabama Governor as long as he too did a 180 and stated avowed love and support for Jewry & Israel. Cuz, Now he beez a Changed colored folk man, and seen dat light to worship Jewry like's we does.

    “how the fuck in the world did Nikki Haley get elected as Governor in a deep south state of S. Carolina”

    Civil War buffs make great cannon fodder for the collective. They are so easy to divide and conquer, it has been tested and perfected over thousands of years. All these jews and their shabboz cronies have to do is stage some kind of event, then spin a half true explanation and the “patriots” fall for it every time.

    All these civil war experts on this thread are merely regurgitating kosher lies. Everything important that they think they know are lies. Sure, there is plenty of minutia to argue about, but we can only find the truth if was ignore the lies and connect the dots. Here is the truth of why Americans have been dying in useless wars for 200 years:

    “Satanic Temple brings Baphomet statue to Arkansas for rally”

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/17/satanic-temple-brings-baphomet-statue-to-arkansas-for-rally.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Them Guys
    Wow great find, Heros! Yep they tear down statues of southern generals and real hero's….Then replace with Satanic crap like in the photo eh...I bet zero southern folk in Arkansas or any from other southern states, showed up and did a Riot of violence at drop of a chicken bone, like typically seen by BLM savage negroes and Antifa leftys eh?.....I wonder if main reason for Antifa persons wearing face masks is less a factor of law enforcers, and more so to Hide the jewish Antifa faces, so they can dupe TV viewers into belief that it is just more goofy whitey leftys in Antifa?

    Usually Jewry just keeps pretending to also be a white folk like Us...Because mostly it works. But when they switch gears and go ape shit crazed like most African savage rioters do, I suppose then its better for any Jewish Antifa members to Hide in plain sight with a face mask. Back in the 1960's campus antiwar protests, leadership Jews just became a hippy and doper...That blended them in with real actual whites swell eh.. But in todays world, violence by a group is more frowned upon so they hide faces. Cannot hide them dark souless beady jewdeo eyes though, not from those who are Jewised Up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Them Guys says:
    @Logan
    Wiki: "The first Chief Justice of the United States was John Jay; the Court's first docketed case was Van Staphorst v. Maryland (1791), and its first recorded decision was West v. Barnes (1791)."

    Neither had anything to do with slavery.

    Methinks you're conflating the much earlier case where a Virginia colonial court first decided that blacks could be held in permanent slavery, rather than indentured servitude with a limited term of service. Ironically, the plaintiff/owner in that case was himself a black man who had previously served a term as an indentured servant.

    No, I said, the very first Slavery as property case brought to supremes. Not the first case ever.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Heros says:
    @peterAUS
    A very good post.
    Informative and thought provoking.

    This in particular:

    What everybody misses, because it’s not discussed, is that the war was fought because the elites of trade and commerce and the planter elites had a disagreement over the use of Federal monies, and that led, eventually, to the bloodiest war in American history.
     
    Or...."two elites had a disagreement over the use of Federal monies"......

    “the war was fought because the elites of trade and commerce and the planter elites had a disagreement over the use of Federal monies”

    What a pathetic load of crap. This was merely a single genocidal Christian civil war in a long, long chain of dozens, if not hundreds, where gullible, trusting and naiive Christians were deviously manipulated by secret societies controlled by the collective into warring among themselves.

    Just look how they have fractured the White Christian and European peoples across the planet today. The have become an ever shrinking minority with their share of the worlds population decreasing from over 30% to 10% in less than a century. All part of the Talmudic plans. We have white queers, feminists, anarchists, socialists, “racists”, and “antisemites” all at each others throats. White guilt running out of control:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/style/white-guilt-privilege.html?ref=oembed

    Meanwhile every other “race” across on the planet has united in blaming centuries of problems on white males, instead of the secret societies really pulling the strings.

    Get a grip on reality James.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Logan says:
    @Johnnie Walker Read
    War is always the ultimate choice for the bankers and politicians suffering from psychosis( a serious mental illness (such as schizophrenia) characterized by defective or lost contact with reality often with hallucinations or delusions) such as Lincoln. Could the slaves have been freed without a civil war? - ABSOLUTELY. Simply compensating slave owners for the slaves and freeing them would have been a much better option. Mel Barger said it best in his article "Was The Civil War Necessary."
    "From 1861 to 1865, some of the worst savagery ever staged on Earth took place in North America. When it ended more than 620 thousand men were dead and many thousands more were blinded, crippled, disfigured, and otherwise maimed and injured. Towns and homes had been burned, railroads had been torn up, crops had been destroyed, and forests had been ravaged. Had a visitor from Outer Space witnessed this tragedy, he could only have assumed that millions of people in the United States had somehow gone temporarily insane."
    If Lincoln had been the compassionate man he is proclaimed to be and the war was all about slavery, he would have chosen a much cheaper(blood and treasure)and humane way to end the curse of slavery. Here is a link to the rest of Mel's article if you are so inclined to give it a look.
    http://melbarger.com/Civil_War_Necessary.html

    Much cheaper, eh?

    4M slaves. Let’s ballpark their value at $1000 each, which is probably in the neighborhood, though probably a little low for 1860.

    That’s $4,000,000,000. At a time when the entire federal budget was $78M. Assuming the entire federal budget had been devoted to paying compensation for slaves, it would have taken more than 50 years to pay off.

    So to pay compensation in a reasonable timespan, taxes would have to have been at least doubled or tripled. Then all of the benefit would have been going to southern slaves, who get their freedom, and southern slaveowners, who get money. Northern taxpayers, quite reasonably, would have objected to this, since they’d be coming up with most of the money.

    I quite agree with you that a plan for compensated gradual emancipation would have been cheaper and less bloody for all concerned, quite possibly even better for the slaves themselves in the long run. But sadly people seldom think in these terms. Lincoln made several attempts to get the Union slave states to accept compensated emancipation in the early days of the war, and they rejected it.

    It’s reasonably clear that the only reason UK and France didn’t recognize the CSA and possibly enter the war on its side is because the war was seen in Europe as being about slavery. Adopt a plan for gradual emancipation, that objection disappears, Europe intervenes and the CSA becomes independent.

    The great problem for the South was that it wanted to be independent to protect the institution of slavery. Independence without slavery would be meaningless to them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnnie Walker Read
    We are done. All I can say is you wouldn't know the truth if it slapped you up side your cock sucker.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Heros says:

    I have always loved examining old pictures, that is one reason why I love all the subtle and thought provoking memes that the alt-right is producing. I have yet to see an alt-right meme showing any appreciation for D’Sousa.

    Sal the Agorist is one of my favorites:

    https://twitter.com/SallyMayweather

    This shot of Lincoln, blatantly flanked and corralled by Freemasons who are clearly sending the message that the hidden hand of the brotherhood is firmly in control, really explains the “civil war” in one shot:

    See my links above for more interesting information and photographs linking Lincoln’s life and his assassination to the tribe and the brotherhood.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Is that why the portraits of Napoleon always show him with his hand inside his jacket or vest? What about Merkels diamond and triangle shapes she makes with her fingers?
    , @Anon
    That shabby guy on the left looks like one of the sleazy army vendors who just got a contract to sell cardboard and glue saddles to the Union Army.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Them Guys says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    So that refutes the part you wrote of…..”Yeah, you can say that Africans were property, but they were not property on the north shore of the Great Lakes. Why would they be on the south? ”
     
    Then the states between the Ohio and the Lakes were less free than the colonies to the north of the Lakes. Or at least the latter agreed with their overlords, unlike those to the south.

    I didn't say these laws and decisions were unconstitutional. I said they made a mockery of federalism, and make today's Lincoln-bashers total hypocrites. If Upper Canada can declare a slave free, why can't Ohio? What does Upper Canada have that Ohio doesn't?

    Ohioans were thus like Finns before 1991, who had to return Soviet émigrés, thanks to some treaty. Nice company you're in, the USSR.

    Besides, Africans were trying to leave the country. What sane person would want to stop them?

    Your Canada issue is moot. Ohio is part of America, Canada is not. Matters not if run away slaves were trying to leave America or not. That slave was Caught in usa lands, and the same supreme ct decision applied to every usa state. What do you not as yet get?

    It is not about support for or against slavery. Main issue was: Is or is not a slave owned property back during slave era. US Supremes said Yes is property. Your goofy argument is with those justices.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Doesn't matter if Canada isn't part of the US. By your argument, that slave is property anywhere it the world he may reach-- if you are right. So the US Army or privateer bounty hunters would not only be fully justified in invading Canada, they would be remiss in their duties had they not. If you are right, that is.

    So why didn't Presidents Polk and Tyler and Buchanan invade Canada? Because they were afraid of a third war with the British? Victoria's minions were committing acts of war against the states.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Thomm says:
    @Rod1963
    Dinesh is no friend of the American people. He's a old Neo-Con and open border supporter. He was the hatchet man used to get Sam Francis from the NR fired.

    I watched his first movie and it was as milquetoast as can be and hardly informative.

    Maybe for MAGA types he's the man

    Dinesh is no friend of the American people. He’s a old Neo-Con and open border supporter.

    There is hardly anyone more pro-America than Dinesh D’Souza. Plus, he is extremely against illegal immigraton, as he has said on TV many times. Get a clue.

    Maybe for MAGA types he’s the man

    Gee, so Dinesh wants to make America great again. WN wiggers can’t have that, because they just want intra-white socialism so that you can mooch off of productive whites like me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You’re not White and you’re not productive. You’re a barely competent on call coder who lives in his uncle’s garden shed in Cupertino.

    The household of 30 people in a 3 bedroom house garage and garden shed is supported in part by the old age SSI 6 elderly family members collect every month.

    The elders were brought to the states because of the family re unification policy that allows Chinese, Indian and other useless old foreigners to come here and start collecting social security on their 65 birthday.

    The elders may or not be real family members and they may or may not be 65 old enough to collect SSI.


    The presence of those Chinese elders collecting SSI is a major reason we see all those articles breathlessly announcing that Asians have the highest household income of all races.

    What a world. The old upper castes of Indians are discriminated against in favor of Dalits in India. So they come here and because of the color of their skin they get affirmative action entitlements.
    , @Mr. Anon

    There is hardly anyone more pro-America than Dinesh D’Souza. Plus, he is extremely against illegal immigraton, as he has said on TV many times. Get a clue.
     
    Who gives a f**k? Is he against legal immigration? The kind that permitted dull-witted parasites like you to come to this country?

    You are a piece of human garbage - nobody here cares what you think.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. To those who say, “Slavery had nothing to do with it,” I must disagree, and I do so purely out of a desire for historical accuracy.

    The proper sequence of events, though, is important. Secession was partly to protect slavery, and the war was a response to secession, not slavery. The war was not started to free the slaves, and did not become a war aim until the Emancipation Proclamation was issued in Sept. of 1862, after Sharpsburg.

    One must read things such as “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union,” to get a glimpse of what the leaders were feeling and thinking at the time.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

    There were many valid points of contention that didn’t involve slavery, yet there were many that did. On top of this, every single man who signed the Ordinance of Secession for SC was a slaveholder, without one exception.

    The elite of the South were the planters, defined as owning 20 or more slaves. They had the political power, the economic power, and the cultural power. The antebellum South was as close to a feudal society as ever existed in North America. Common whites deferred to the “Landed Gentry,” as they were generally the only people with the luxury of free time for both education and politics.

    Be that as it may, it was surprising to me to read of how SC actually left the Union; which was exactly as they entered it, by a plebicite-like ratification process. Electors ran for representation based on their stance of Union vs. Secession. All qualified voters could vote. Secession was unamimous. Only one area of the state, the so-called Dark Corner of Greenville, voted in any numbers against secession.

    Depending on how you count them, meaning households vs. individuals, planters counted for around 6% of Southerners counted as households, or .75% counted as individuals.
    There were more slaveowners in SC, though. I can’t cite statistics for the state, but at one time slaves outnumbered free whites here and in Mississippi.

    I’m still not entirely comfortable I understand why so many Southerners who didn’t own slaves voted for secession, unless they didn’t view slavery as being the main reason for the break, which is the only reasonable explanation I have. They had their own reasons for wanting to leave.

    A very important fact to remember about these people is that there were more descendants of Revolutionary War veterans in the South per capita than in the North. The 19th Century influx of immigrants barely even touched the South, where the population was stable from 1780 until after the war. Those few who did immigrate to the South adopted the cause, and fought for the CSA. Why?

    The best explanation I can offer is that they viewed Washington, by that time, as being as foreign as was London to their forefathers, and were pushing back against being told what to do – about anything at all – by meddlesome Yankees.

    Remember that at this point a president had been elected without a single Southern electoral vote, and that Southerners were then a minority in BOTH houses of Congress. In the mind of a Southerner at the time, they were already a mere colony of Washington.

    This is backed up by my reading of the speeches of one William King Easley, a militia leader and Upstate planter, who spoke at every monthly meeting of the militia in Greenville. These were very interesting affairs, and they deserve their own post, or article even. Anyway, he never missed the opportunity to point out that these sons and grandsons of American patriots were under the yoke of Yankee slave masters in Washington, etc., etc. He very rarely spoke of slavery at all, except to point out that the North wished for a slave uprising, and had supported John Brown’s raid, both with good will, and with money.

    The fear of a slave uprising can’t be understated. From my readings I can confidently state most Southerners, slaveowner or not, held the possibility as one of their greatest mortal fears. Haiti was forever in their minds. It’s a recurring theme in their writings from the period.

    The Slave Codes, written prior to the American Revolution, and revised many times over the decades, were in response mostly to the possibility of a slave uprising. The earlier codes enacted the most restrictive laws, yet the later revisions included standards for the slave owners to maintain in the treatment of slaves, including food, housing, clothing, medical care, worship, and free time, and included legal penalties to back them up.

    African slavery in the US is undoubtedly the most injurious thing Americans ever inflicted upon themselves. It has begot us with more misery and devilment than we can humanely deal with. I am not the least bit proud to admit that pretty much every line of my mother’s family were slaveowners, and several were planters. In doing my family research, I have read far too many wills wherein human beings are divided amongst heirs in the same way as land, buggies, cows, and horses.

    However as bad as slavery was, I am 100% against the propaganda which claims it was worse in the US than it truly was. For here are some facts; of all the Africans shipped out during the entirety of the North Atlantic Slave Trade, only 4.4% were shipped to the US. In 1880, after Brazillian slavery finally came to an end, 38% of all New World Africans lived in the US. So they thrived here. They increased in number.

    Slavery in the US was incredibly benign compared to South American slavery, where the average lifespan of a slave was 10 years in slavery. Reading the primary sources, one finds out it was not uncommon in the US for slaves to resist their owners, and get not only relaxed work expectations, but other privileges as well. Slaves worked no harder than common white farmers, and indeed, probably less, as they learned to act stupid in front of their owners. The worst thing about slavery is what it has left us to deal with today.

    It is every bit as disingenuous to say slavery had nothing to do with the war as it is to say slavery was the cause of the war. Neither is true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Heros
    Spewing on and on about slavery is the same as quibbling about the exact number of 6 million dead in the holohoax. It is all jew guilt projected onto stupid goyim like you. Please get this through your thick skull: Your "Civil War" is just another line of fake kosher history for stupid goyim. Even stupid jews don't believe this slavery drivel.

    I will repeat: the "Civil War" was created by jews, just like WWI, WWII and the "Holocaust", in order to further their agenda. It had absolutely nothing to do with slavery or tariffs and everything to do with the Talmud. Stop acting like a tool like D'Sousa.

    , @Logan
    Excellent comment!

    I agree 100%!

    Slavery was at the root of the gradual estrangement of the sections.

    Think of it as the couple that gets a divorce. Each will point to different things that led them to want a divorce, but neither has or can have an objective view.

    Tariffs and any other policy could be compromised, and was. Slavery could not be compromised. Each side started believing it was fighting to defend itself against aggression from the other, and once things reached that stage it was really only a matter of time before secession.

    And once secession took place, the chance of war not breaking out sooner or later was very remote.

    , @peterAUS
    Another good comment/post.

    This is, I guess, interesting:

    The antebellum South was as close to a feudal society as ever existed in North America.

     

    for a couple of reasons.
    , @Jim Bob Lassiter
    "The antebellum South was as close to a feudal society as ever existed in North America."

    A very thorough post. I have a question for you though. How would you describe Northern society of the same time period?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Logan says:
    @rebelwriter
    Sir,

    What you are demanding is information not easily acquirable on the internet, namely records of Federal Revenue, broken down geographically, and Federal spending broken down the same way. Such records exist, but I have only seen them in the footnotes of various books. Let me aid your understanding, however.

    Remember reading of the American Industrial Revolution? Where did it take place? In New England, of course. And in 1860 there were counties in New England that had more manufacturing than every state in the Confederacy combined. These tariffs were protective in nature, and only placed on manufactured goods. At first they were only placed on those goods which were also produced in the US, but later nearly anything manufactured outside of the US was subject to a tax.

    Who paid the tariffs? Those who purchased goods manufactured outside the US. The planters of the South paid a generally agreed upon estimate of 80% of tariffs due to simply wanting things not manufactured in the US; grand pianos, gilded mirrors, certain tiles for roofs, English buggies and carriages, French dresses, etc., etc.

    The Nullification Crisis over the Morrill Tariff only happened because the South paid most of the taxes. It was the South, particularly South Carolina, which objected to the increase in tax rates. I must also point out to those unaware that John C. Calhoun supported tariffs for the common good of the United States; he was not opposed to them until this point in time, and only opposed them out of political expediency.

    It's pretty clear from a casual reading of the history that the Southern states, who had no manufacturing to speak of, paid most of the tariffs, and benefitted from them the least. Whether or not you're satisfied, this is so.

    The next point of contention is where the revenues were spent. Southern senators and congressmen were not without power, in fact they were the dominant power up until around 1830. The fight over slavery in the new territories was all about congressional representation, and guarding the parity which was reached in 1830. So there were some projects, mostly military forts and bases, in the South, built with federal money.

    However the largest part of federal spending was infrastructure to ease transportation for commerce. Some money was spent on the nation's two largest ports of the time, Charleston and New Orleans, but much, much more was spent on canals, such as the Erie Canal, railroads, and bridges up North. Most federal infrastructure spending, by far, were those projects which aided the transportation of raw goods from the Midwest to the East Coast.

    There are books which break these down in detail, but I'm not going to be your private Google and hunt them down for you. There are no historians I have read, or read of, who contest this particular point, that the South paid most of the tariffs, and that most of the money from them was spent up North.

    The Nullification Crisis over the Morrill Tariff only happened because the South paid most of the taxes. It was the South, particularly South Carolina, which objected to the increase in tax rates.

    The Nullification Crisis took place in 1832, the Morrill Tariff was passed only in 1861. You’re thinking of what SC called the “Tariff of Abominations” passed in 1828. SC was not, BTW, supported in this crisis by any other southern state, and it was faced down by a southern slaveowner, Andrew Jackson, not “northerners.”

    There is a hilarious story about how the T of A got passed. Calhoun and his cronies schemed to oppose the bill by loading on tariffs that would apply mostly to New England customers, then when New England congressmen opposed it, John and his bunch would switch sides and support it, then claim that the bill failed because of the Northeast. But of course because the bill passed with all the high tariffs on everybody.

    much, much more was spent on canals, such as the Erie Canal, railroads, and bridges up North.

    I am not aware of federal funds being spent on railroads prior to the transcontinental, which of course was during not before the war.

    The Erie Canal was built entirely with state and private funds, no federal funding. I am not aware of federal funds spent on other canals.

    The only road built with federal funds was the National Road, AFAIK, which did indeed run mostly through northern states. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42140.pdf

    I don’t know of any bridges built with federal funds. Which bridges were those?

    Look, it’s very simple. If you’re going to run around saying, “The feds spent the vast majority of their money in the north,” then you need to be able to cite numbers. Such as, “From 1815 to 1860 federal funding for improvements went $20M to southern states, $120M to northern states.” Otherwise it’s at best a guess.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The only federal assistance to build the transcontinental railroad west of Omah Nebraska was the right to sell parcels of land along the right of way and government bonds.

    The land was impossible to sell until well after the railroad was built and running, well into the 1870s. The bonds weren’t paid off for decades.

    As far as I know, every railroad east of The Mississippi Missouri River or Omaha was built with private money.

    The trans continental railroad was financed by Stanford, Crocker, Durant Hopkins and Huntington through finance investment companies they set up.
    , @RebelWriter
    Yes, I Morilled out, didn't I?

    You do have a point, and I admit I've never researched it. On the other hand, I've never read where anyone contested it, either. Maybe they did, but I've never read of it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Logan says:
    @Mulegino1
    Those who fought for the Union were fighting to defend the United States from Balkanization and dissolution at the hands of the predatory British and French Empires. Those who fought for the Confederacy were fighting to defend their perceived state and local rights. Chattel slavery was a secondary issue.

    It is time to let this conflict rest in peace. We can attribute noble motives to both sides, provided we recognize the excesses committed- particularly those by Sherman on his march through Georgia and the Carolinas- as well as the horrendous treatment of the prisoners of war by both sides.

    I think this is an excellent comment. Honorable men fought on both sides, for reasons that seemed honorable to them.

    Of course, dishonorable men also fought on both sides, for a variety of dishonorable reasons, often because they wanted to be on what they thought would be the winning side.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Logan says:
    @rebelwriter
    The majority of the battles were fought South of the Border states. Only a few battles were fought north of Virginia. 60% of the land battles were fought IN Virginia. Two major battles were fought north of Virginia; Sharpsburg (Maryland, a border state), and Gettysburg. Chambersburg, PA, was burned in retaliation for Sherman's burning of Southern cities.

    Excellent comment. One correction. Chambersburg was burned July 30 of 1864, almost certainly primarily in retaliation for the burning of towns and farms in the Shenandoah Valley.

    Sherman was at the time fighting his way from Chattanooga to Atlanta, which he had captured only about a week before Chambersburg was burned. Atlanta was the first city burned by Sherman, that I know of, and that took place mostly on his way out in November.

    OTOH, the troops who burned it came from the Shenandoah, and were entirely familiar with the devastation wrought there by Union troops. Often it was their own property that had been burned.

    My wife and I once stayed in a B&B in the northern Valley that still had scorch marks on beams from a failed arson attempt by Union forces.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RebelWriter
    Yes, you're right. Not the only failure of recall I've had today.

    I once lived in the Valley for a year and a half. I got to visit all the battlefields a day's round trip around me. I really enjoyed the time I spent there.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Logan says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    So that refutes the part you wrote of…..”Yeah, you can say that Africans were property, but they were not property on the north shore of the Great Lakes. Why would they be on the south? ”
     
    Then the states between the Ohio and the Lakes were less free than the colonies to the north of the Lakes. Or at least the latter agreed with their overlords, unlike those to the south.

    I didn't say these laws and decisions were unconstitutional. I said they made a mockery of federalism, and make today's Lincoln-bashers total hypocrites. If Upper Canada can declare a slave free, why can't Ohio? What does Upper Canada have that Ohio doesn't?

    Ohioans were thus like Finns before 1991, who had to return Soviet émigrés, thanks to some treaty. Nice company you're in, the USSR.

    Besides, Africans were trying to leave the country. What sane person would want to stop them?

    The problem with your theory is that the Constitution does not give one state to declare a fugitive slave from another state to be free. In fact, it specifically requires that state to return the slave.

    Now it doesn’t prescribe exactly how this is supposed to be done, and it seems reasonable that a state could set up a system of due process whereby the slave would have to be proven to indeed be a slave and that the person claiming ownership was in the right.

    However, it’s clear that a number of northern states set up such procedures with the intent of preventing return. IOW, they acted in bad faith, and had no intent of finding in favor of the owner.

    Which is why the federal government passed the Fugitive Slave Act of of 1850, whereby returning fugitive slaves was made a federal responsibility. Somewhat hilariously, this was perhaps the most egregious example during the 1850s of a violation of “states’ rights.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    The problem with your theory is that the Constitution does not give one state to declare a fugitive slave from another state to be free. In fact, it specifically requires that state to return the slave.

     

    That's what I said-- the law was constitutional, but it makes a mockery of state sovereignty. Thus, the Constitution makes a mockery of state sovereignty. Lansing and Yates were right to storm out.

    This is what gets my goat. Southerners go on and on and on about the loss of state sovereignty, but ignore the fact that they were once its worst enemy.

    Back in the days when they were also the pioneers in gun prohibition.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Heros says:
    @rebelwriter
    To those who say, "Slavery had nothing to do with it," I must disagree, and I do so purely out of a desire for historical accuracy.

    The proper sequence of events, though, is important. Secession was partly to protect slavery, and the war was a response to secession, not slavery. The war was not started to free the slaves, and did not become a war aim until the Emancipation Proclamation was issued in Sept. of 1862, after Sharpsburg.

    One must read things such as "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union," to get a glimpse of what the leaders were feeling and thinking at the time.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

    There were many valid points of contention that didn't involve slavery, yet there were many that did. On top of this, every single man who signed the Ordinance of Secession for SC was a slaveholder, without one exception.

    The elite of the South were the planters, defined as owning 20 or more slaves. They had the political power, the economic power, and the cultural power. The antebellum South was as close to a feudal society as ever existed in North America. Common whites deferred to the "Landed Gentry," as they were generally the only people with the luxury of free time for both education and politics.

    Be that as it may, it was surprising to me to read of how SC actually left the Union; which was exactly as they entered it, by a plebicite-like ratification process. Electors ran for representation based on their stance of Union vs. Secession. All qualified voters could vote. Secession was unamimous. Only one area of the state, the so-called Dark Corner of Greenville, voted in any numbers against secession.

    Depending on how you count them, meaning households vs. individuals, planters counted for around 6% of Southerners counted as households, or .75% counted as individuals.
    There were more slaveowners in SC, though. I can't cite statistics for the state, but at one time slaves outnumbered free whites here and in Mississippi.

    I'm still not entirely comfortable I understand why so many Southerners who didn't own slaves voted for secession, unless they didn't view slavery as being the main reason for the break, which is the only reasonable explanation I have. They had their own reasons for wanting to leave.

    A very important fact to remember about these people is that there were more descendants of Revolutionary War veterans in the South per capita than in the North. The 19th Century influx of immigrants barely even touched the South, where the population was stable from 1780 until after the war. Those few who did immigrate to the South adopted the cause, and fought for the CSA. Why?

    The best explanation I can offer is that they viewed Washington, by that time, as being as foreign as was London to their forefathers, and were pushing back against being told what to do - about anything at all - by meddlesome Yankees.

    Remember that at this point a president had been elected without a single Southern electoral vote, and that Southerners were then a minority in BOTH houses of Congress. In the mind of a Southerner at the time, they were already a mere colony of Washington.

    This is backed up by my reading of the speeches of one William King Easley, a militia leader and Upstate planter, who spoke at every monthly meeting of the militia in Greenville. These were very interesting affairs, and they deserve their own post, or article even. Anyway, he never missed the opportunity to point out that these sons and grandsons of American patriots were under the yoke of Yankee slave masters in Washington, etc., etc. He very rarely spoke of slavery at all, except to point out that the North wished for a slave uprising, and had supported John Brown's raid, both with good will, and with money.

    The fear of a slave uprising can't be understated. From my readings I can confidently state most Southerners, slaveowner or not, held the possibility as one of their greatest mortal fears. Haiti was forever in their minds. It's a recurring theme in their writings from the period.

    The Slave Codes, written prior to the American Revolution, and revised many times over the decades, were in response mostly to the possibility of a slave uprising. The earlier codes enacted the most restrictive laws, yet the later revisions included standards for the slave owners to maintain in the treatment of slaves, including food, housing, clothing, medical care, worship, and free time, and included legal penalties to back them up.

    African slavery in the US is undoubtedly the most injurious thing Americans ever inflicted upon themselves. It has begot us with more misery and devilment than we can humanely deal with. I am not the least bit proud to admit that pretty much every line of my mother's family were slaveowners, and several were planters. In doing my family research, I have read far too many wills wherein human beings are divided amongst heirs in the same way as land, buggies, cows, and horses.

    However as bad as slavery was, I am 100% against the propaganda which claims it was worse in the US than it truly was. For here are some facts; of all the Africans shipped out during the entirety of the North Atlantic Slave Trade, only 4.4% were shipped to the US. In 1880, after Brazillian slavery finally came to an end, 38% of all New World Africans lived in the US. So they thrived here. They increased in number.

    Slavery in the US was incredibly benign compared to South American slavery, where the average lifespan of a slave was 10 years in slavery. Reading the primary sources, one finds out it was not uncommon in the US for slaves to resist their owners, and get not only relaxed work expectations, but other privileges as well. Slaves worked no harder than common white farmers, and indeed, probably less, as they learned to act stupid in front of their owners. The worst thing about slavery is what it has left us to deal with today.

    It is every bit as disingenuous to say slavery had nothing to do with the war as it is to say slavery was the cause of the war. Neither is true.

    Spewing on and on about slavery is the same as quibbling about the exact number of 6 million dead in the holohoax. It is all jew guilt projected onto stupid goyim like you. Please get this through your thick skull: Your “Civil War” is just another line of fake kosher history for stupid goyim. Even stupid jews don’t believe this slavery drivel.

    I will repeat: the “Civil War” was created by jews, just like WWI, WWII and the “Holocaust”, in order to further their agenda. It had absolutely nothing to do with slavery or tariffs and everything to do with the Talmud. Stop acting like a tool like D’Sousa.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Logan says:
    @Anon
    One correction; 750,000 soldiers were killed. And about 60,000 civilians, mostly in the border states where most of the fighting was done from malnutrition and disease and general effects of living in a war zone.

    It plunged the south into a poverty that wasn’t alleviated for 100 years.

    It plunged the south into a poverty that wasn’t alleviated for 100 years.

    Agreed. One cause of that poverty I’ve seldom seen noted. For at least 40 years prior to the war most southern capital went into buying slaves. They were simply the best investment. The value of the slaves was roughly equal to the value of all land and buildings in the South.

    So when emancipation came, half a century of investment was demonetized. The (ex-)slaves were still there, but they weren’t money or property anymore.

    That’s $4B of capital that just vanished. At the time that was a LOT of money.

    According to the standard inflation calculator (which has admittedly a lot of flaws) it equates to $121,448,674,698.80 today. I think that actually understates it.

    In 1860 dollars it was $500 per (white) capita. At a time when average family income was under that amount.

    That’s in addition to the physical devastation wreaked on much of the South.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    There’s some books about the economic devastation caused by freeing the slaves. If any ones offended by what I’m going to say I’m sorry but it’s the truth.
    Turning a slave from a valuable piece of livestock that could produce more valuable live stock and build its own housing into a free person wiped out the capital of the south.

    Is anyone a farmer? Animals not crops? My brothers a diary farmer so I know how valuable live stock is or is not.
    Be in a barn during calving season. Good it’s a heifer! Damm, it’s a bull
    calf off to the veal farm with you.

    As soon as the cows get too old to bear calves they get sold to MacDonalds and Burger King. It’s about $700 800, a nice little sum for Christmas new clothes whatever.

    Buying very young children as young as at auction 3 was common. Thinking of them as people doesn’t make sense. They are useless as workers.

    But thinking of a 4 year old as livestock makes good economic sense. 8 years of food shelter and job training and the kid can do useful work. By 16 the 4 year old that cost $100 is worth $1000 if a girl up to $2000 if a boy.

    Natchez Mississippi in the 1840s 50s had the biggest number of millionaires in the world. Much of that was the worth of the slaves, not just the cotton.

    I’ve read a few books about the economic devastation caused by the sudden devaluation of the slaves. I can’t remember the names.

    They were published recently. I looked but all I saw was poverty among blacks. There was a guardian article that millions of slaves died of starvation and brutality after the war. Total lies

    A really horrible thing was that in the 1660s the colonies started making laws that children born to slave mothers took the slave status of the mother, not the status of the father.

    Historically,in the big slave economies such as the Roman’s Turks and Arabs children of slave mothers usually took the status of the father whoever he was. Children taking the status of the mother, not the father was a reversal of the way it worked in most slave economies.

    So slaves who were obviously mulattos quadroons octoroons 15th and 31th White were slaves aka valuable livestock. Selling your own daughters was specially horrible.

    On the other hand, 750,000 White men dead the destruction of our great cities and black crime rates makes the evils of slavery and the evils done by blacks even. By 2000 the scales were even. Since 2000 the blacks continue their crime and dysfunction as Whites aid abet and encourage their dysfunction.

    When Abraham Lincoln was trading up and down the river he was stalked by a gang of black robbers. After he sold his goods and had the money he was robbed beaten and seriously injured.

    I’ll look some more and see if I can find those books.
    , @Chris Mallory
    Don't forget the Southern wealth that went north in Yankee backpacks and wagons. The Southern nation was looted by Yankee trash both during and after the war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Logan says:
    @rebelwriter
    To those who say, "Slavery had nothing to do with it," I must disagree, and I do so purely out of a desire for historical accuracy.

    The proper sequence of events, though, is important. Secession was partly to protect slavery, and the war was a response to secession, not slavery. The war was not started to free the slaves, and did not become a war aim until the Emancipation Proclamation was issued in Sept. of 1862, after Sharpsburg.

    One must read things such as "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union," to get a glimpse of what the leaders were feeling and thinking at the time.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

    There were many valid points of contention that didn't involve slavery, yet there were many that did. On top of this, every single man who signed the Ordinance of Secession for SC was a slaveholder, without one exception.

    The elite of the South were the planters, defined as owning 20 or more slaves. They had the political power, the economic power, and the cultural power. The antebellum South was as close to a feudal society as ever existed in North America. Common whites deferred to the "Landed Gentry," as they were generally the only people with the luxury of free time for both education and politics.

    Be that as it may, it was surprising to me to read of how SC actually left the Union; which was exactly as they entered it, by a plebicite-like ratification process. Electors ran for representation based on their stance of Union vs. Secession. All qualified voters could vote. Secession was unamimous. Only one area of the state, the so-called Dark Corner of Greenville, voted in any numbers against secession.

    Depending on how you count them, meaning households vs. individuals, planters counted for around 6% of Southerners counted as households, or .75% counted as individuals.
    There were more slaveowners in SC, though. I can't cite statistics for the state, but at one time slaves outnumbered free whites here and in Mississippi.

    I'm still not entirely comfortable I understand why so many Southerners who didn't own slaves voted for secession, unless they didn't view slavery as being the main reason for the break, which is the only reasonable explanation I have. They had their own reasons for wanting to leave.

    A very important fact to remember about these people is that there were more descendants of Revolutionary War veterans in the South per capita than in the North. The 19th Century influx of immigrants barely even touched the South, where the population was stable from 1780 until after the war. Those few who did immigrate to the South adopted the cause, and fought for the CSA. Why?

    The best explanation I can offer is that they viewed Washington, by that time, as being as foreign as was London to their forefathers, and were pushing back against being told what to do - about anything at all - by meddlesome Yankees.

    Remember that at this point a president had been elected without a single Southern electoral vote, and that Southerners were then a minority in BOTH houses of Congress. In the mind of a Southerner at the time, they were already a mere colony of Washington.

    This is backed up by my reading of the speeches of one William King Easley, a militia leader and Upstate planter, who spoke at every monthly meeting of the militia in Greenville. These were very interesting affairs, and they deserve their own post, or article even. Anyway, he never missed the opportunity to point out that these sons and grandsons of American patriots were under the yoke of Yankee slave masters in Washington, etc., etc. He very rarely spoke of slavery at all, except to point out that the North wished for a slave uprising, and had supported John Brown's raid, both with good will, and with money.

    The fear of a slave uprising can't be understated. From my readings I can confidently state most Southerners, slaveowner or not, held the possibility as one of their greatest mortal fears. Haiti was forever in their minds. It's a recurring theme in their writings from the period.

    The Slave Codes, written prior to the American Revolution, and revised many times over the decades, were in response mostly to the possibility of a slave uprising. The earlier codes enacted the most restrictive laws, yet the later revisions included standards for the slave owners to maintain in the treatment of slaves, including food, housing, clothing, medical care, worship, and free time, and included legal penalties to back them up.

    African slavery in the US is undoubtedly the most injurious thing Americans ever inflicted upon themselves. It has begot us with more misery and devilment than we can humanely deal with. I am not the least bit proud to admit that pretty much every line of my mother's family were slaveowners, and several were planters. In doing my family research, I have read far too many wills wherein human beings are divided amongst heirs in the same way as land, buggies, cows, and horses.

    However as bad as slavery was, I am 100% against the propaganda which claims it was worse in the US than it truly was. For here are some facts; of all the Africans shipped out during the entirety of the North Atlantic Slave Trade, only 4.4% were shipped to the US. In 1880, after Brazillian slavery finally came to an end, 38% of all New World Africans lived in the US. So they thrived here. They increased in number.

    Slavery in the US was incredibly benign compared to South American slavery, where the average lifespan of a slave was 10 years in slavery. Reading the primary sources, one finds out it was not uncommon in the US for slaves to resist their owners, and get not only relaxed work expectations, but other privileges as well. Slaves worked no harder than common white farmers, and indeed, probably less, as they learned to act stupid in front of their owners. The worst thing about slavery is what it has left us to deal with today.

    It is every bit as disingenuous to say slavery had nothing to do with the war as it is to say slavery was the cause of the war. Neither is true.

    Excellent comment!

    I agree 100%!

    Slavery was at the root of the gradual estrangement of the sections.

    Think of it as the couple that gets a divorce. Each will point to different things that led them to want a divorce, but neither has or can have an objective view.

    Tariffs and any other policy could be compromised, and was. Slavery could not be compromised. Each side started believing it was fighting to defend itself against aggression from the other, and once things reached that stage it was really only a matter of time before secession.

    And once secession took place, the chance of war not breaking out sooner or later was very remote.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Thim says:
    @Heros
    Just like after the failed jew inspired Weimar take over of Germany in the 1920's, after the failed 1848 revolutions in Europe, many squealing and kvetching marxist jews fled to the US, where they quickly integrated into their "good for the jews" JP collective. The Rothschilds, the bloodline families and the illuminati had already subverted all the masonic lodges in precisely the same way they are using D'Sousa to subvert "conservatism" now, but the JP was still gathering all the reigns of power into their hands.

    In fact, what Jewish Power (JP) is doing with D'Sousa is deliberately dividing any conservative resistance into the subverted "racist" alt-right and the subverted "non-racist" Neocon war machine. Of course, the militarized police forces are being set up to be deployed against the "racist" alt-right in the same way facebook, twitter and all the other JP social media corporations have shut down the free speech of that same alt-right. This is the same kind of judaic divide and conquer strategy that the tribe was using in the lead up to the war of northern aggression.

    D'Sousa is clearly a non-white, and like all dot-Indian immigrants he is merely another form of trojan horse brought into our society in the same way jews opened the gates let the moors into Granada and the Turks into Constantinople. Whether he realizes it or not, he is a jew puppet brought in to destroy Christianity and European civilization and replace their true liberalism with a Frankfurt School marxist cuckoo bird egg. Dot-Indians are to become a new technocratic upper caste brought into to help jews keep the goyim slaves in line. No good will come from allowing dot-Indians to preach judaicly perverted Christian morality back onto us.

    One of the little known characteristics of the War of Northern Aggression was that the majority of slave plantation owners in the south were jews, while the vast majority of Yankee bankers and slave traders were also jews. This is precisely the same kind of jewish over representation that we see in SCOTUS, Hollywood, Harvard and the "1%" today.

    So it was JP and its Freemason puppets who started the War of Northern Aggression, and it was a part of a thousand year old plan described in the Talmud and the Protocols to obliterate Europeans and their culture from the face of planet earth as revenge for Titus's destruction of the Second Temple to Solomon in 70AD. There is plenty of confirmation of this in writings from places like the Frankfurt School, Saul Alinsky and Cultural Marxism. Although D'Sousa pays lip service to exposing some of these hidden agendas, he cannot see the forest because all he is willing to see is a "racist" hiding behind every tree. What a kike tool he is.

    Dave McGowan wrote in his great understated and laconic style about the judaic and masonic lies surrounding the Lincoln assassination. You can read it for free online, along with his great books "Wagging the Moon Dog" and "Weird Scenes in the Canyon".

    http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/lincoln/

    Here is a fascinating unrolled, archived twitter feed about Lincoln and his jewish and masonic connections, with lots of interesting embedded pictures:

    https://archive.is/H3aMW


    "On the bottom of page three of four pages was a paragraph where the father, A.A. Springs, left to his son an enormous amount of land in the state of Alabama which is now known as Huntsville, Alabama. At first Mr. Christopher and his colleagues could not believe what their eyes, because the name of his son was "ABRAHAM LINCOLN"!

    This new information added to what they had already learned about the Springs, whose real name was Springstein, was one more twist to this already enigmatic family."
     

    Yes this Doucsha is a fine daddy. While he is making crummy propaganda fiction, his Eurasian daughter has made quite a name posting pictures of herself on the net. DADDY she says. Find it yourself, I dont want to be banned here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @rebelwriter
    The majority of the battles were fought South of the Border states. Only a few battles were fought north of Virginia. 60% of the land battles were fought IN Virginia. Two major battles were fought north of Virginia; Sharpsburg (Maryland, a border state), and Gettysburg. Chambersburg, PA, was burned in retaliation for Sherman's burning of Southern cities.

    Virginia is one of the border states whose civilians were devastated by the effects of the war and armies marauding back and forth stealing food and animal fodder, cutting down wood lots fences and then sheds for firewood.

    The people of Richmond were starving towards the end. Tennessee also suffered from the presence of the armies of both sides.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RebelWriter
    You have a different understanding of "Border State," then. It does not mean a state on the border of the CSA and USA. It is a euphemism naming slave states which stayed in the Union. Look it up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Them Guys says:
    @rebelwriter
    " So why do white Southerners have this thing about Jews?"

    A very good question, and a subject that needs some focus on it among my fellow Southerners. I know a few things.

    Charleston, SC, had the largest population of Jews in the US until 1830, when New York surpassed them. New Orleans also had a large Jewish population. The Jews in the South prior to 1830 were Sephardim, merchants, and almost all of them were slaveowners, too. They formed their own congregations, of course, and worshiped according to thier own beliefs, but that was not viewed negatively by most Southerners, at least not by the planter class, as far as I can tell. The first Reformed Synagogue in the nation, Beth Elohim, was founded in Charleston in 1749.

    They came to South Carolina after settlement was opened for, "Jews, heathens, and other dissenters," in 1699. According to the SC Jewish Virtual Library, by 1800, Charleston was home to the largest, wealthiest, and most cultured Jewish community in North America. Jews and Gentile Southerners shared cause, and got along well. Jews actually fought in the Revolution, with several noted Jewish leaders dying in the cause of SC and the US. Their men also enlisted and fought for the South, and their women sewed socks, flags, and uniforms along with their gentile neighbors.

    Among the notable Jewish families of SC was that of Bernard Baruch, Ambassador at Large to three presidents. His father was a surgeon in the Confederate Army, and also rode with the original KKK, which Bernard wrote of later in his life, specifically of the fear his mother felt, and the quiet of the house when his father was out riding at night. Also he wrote of he and his brother finding his father's Klan robes in the attic after his father's death.

    Everything we despise about Jewry today happened later, after Southerners were "adapted" to having Jewish neighbors. I knew of only two Jews in my young years, but I'm in the Upstate, where there are few to this day compared to Charleston, the Low Country, and the Pee Dee.

    The period that needs to be focused on for study is from 1900 to present day. I've done most of my study on periods prior to that. It's safe to say, though, that Jews were as assimilated as they ever have been in the US in the South prior to that time, and than Southerners have generally considered these Jews as American and Southern as themselves. They lived with us, fought and bled beside us, and mourned their dead with our own. That this has changed is self-evident. The history of that change is not, to my knowledge, recorded anywhere.

    What you stated about “From, 1900 onwards to present day” is correct, and basically what my prior reply posting was about. Ie: Cyrus Scofield’s false interpretations bible version. Most folks who swear by and live by that apostate bible version defend it ruthlessly as an, “KJV” bible that is word for word authentic to orig. KJV bible. Well yes that’s true. However what they neglect to observe nor ever seem to question is…Just exactly Who was Scofield before he penned his own bible version? And just where or how did he arrive at his own personal interpretations which cover something around 57% of all verses contained in entire OT and NT books, aka page one genesis to last verse in book of Rev?

    This has caused those who base most every of modern day belief structure they have, based on Scofield, to be falsehoods galore. Yet never do they ever question any of it, nor question who Scofield was or where did his info arrive from. Due to this apostate bible versions adherence by well over 1/3rd, maybe closer to one half of usa Christianity today, we are in very dire straights via total abject worship of Jews & Israel, by aprox. 65+ Million duped and foolish folks who call themselves a, “Jewdeo-Christian” or as an “Jewdeo-Zionist-Christian”…..never before has such a total farce of an Oxymoron existed that has led to so much usa damages, and phony wars for Israel etc.

    But just try telling those people that…There Never ever was, nor shall be, nor can ever be anything they call “Jewdeo-Christian”. For they are a direct 180 degree opposite of each other. It is akin to calling one self as an, “Islamic-Christian” or an, “Hindu-Christian”! No such thing has or is, nor can exist if one is to be considered as a, True Christian Believer.

    Also if the duped foolish apostate souls would simply research Islam Vs Talmudic Judaism, they would quickly find that it is those two religions which have far greater in commons. Which is why we who are wised up’s, have stated that neither Talmudic Judaism Nor Islamic Muslim, are really true pals of true Christians. In a religious sense. And in some ways Both are actual proven Enemy’s of Christianity and Christians. With Talmudics being the worse.

    So yes indeed, as you stated, of begin with 1900 era, todays troubles and wrong foreign policy, wrong fraud wars, phony fed res monetary and usury policy, and too many more issues to here list. Have a very direct relationship to what began back when Cyrus Scofields apostate biblical version came to usa shores, around 1909 (?) if not earlier yet. It was very close to 1900 ad era. And ever since has created a massive ever growing problem, which today has brought Americans closer to a real nuke WW III with Russia and/or whoever else is Jewrys and Israels enemy of choice when they hit the Red Button.

    If we do see it lead to a nuke WW III event, I predict we shall also see, 65+ Million very duped apostate Jewdeo-Zio-Christians in America….Jumping for Joy at prospect of, in next 20 min or sooner! their foamed at mouth Pre-Trib-rapture event aka a fly away escape plan from god for only them….and when clock strikes minute number, 21 Min after button is pushed, likely by Israel first and foremost….at Min 21, the very same 65+ Million scofield duped souls will experience a real fright such as never before, when they finally realize Scofield as well as Pastor Darby’s falsehoods are really Falsehoods galore…Just prior to those duped souls melting in fervent heat supplied by those Pre Trib Nukes once flown.

    Too bad most will never awaken sooner eh? Plus since they only need to re-review the past 100 years of apostate flashoods they fell victim to, it ain’t so hard or difficult to do. Yet not many shall do so, so far at least.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Not everyone reads the Bible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. anonymous[710] • Disclaimer says:
    @Logan
    I have no idea who Wally might be, so I doubt I'm him.

    Stubbornly proud or bad faith, eh?

    All you have to do is show the numbers by which the 80% was calculated, and I'll admit defeat. I do believe that is generally referred to as evidence. Just citing more people who agree with you does not support your position, when they also don't provide any evidence.

    Now you’re feigning confusion.

    Please provide evidence to disprove my opinion that you are the same commenter as “Sherman.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Logan
    The Nullification Crisis over the Morrill Tariff only happened because the South paid most of the taxes. It was the South, particularly South Carolina, which objected to the increase in tax rates.

    The Nullification Crisis took place in 1832, the Morrill Tariff was passed only in 1861. You're thinking of what SC called the "Tariff of Abominations" passed in 1828. SC was not, BTW, supported in this crisis by any other southern state, and it was faced down by a southern slaveowner, Andrew Jackson, not "northerners."

    There is a hilarious story about how the T of A got passed. Calhoun and his cronies schemed to oppose the bill by loading on tariffs that would apply mostly to New England customers, then when New England congressmen opposed it, John and his bunch would switch sides and support it, then claim that the bill failed because of the Northeast. But of course because the bill passed with all the high tariffs on everybody.

    much, much more was spent on canals, such as the Erie Canal, railroads, and bridges up North.

    I am not aware of federal funds being spent on railroads prior to the transcontinental, which of course was during not before the war.

    The Erie Canal was built entirely with state and private funds, no federal funding. I am not aware of federal funds spent on other canals.

    The only road built with federal funds was the National Road, AFAIK, which did indeed run mostly through northern states. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42140.pdf

    I don't know of any bridges built with federal funds. Which bridges were those?

    Look, it's very simple. If you're going to run around saying, "The feds spent the vast majority of their money in the north," then you need to be able to cite numbers. Such as, "From 1815 to 1860 federal funding for improvements went $20M to southern states, $120M to northern states." Otherwise it's at best a guess.

    The only federal assistance to build the transcontinental railroad west of Omah Nebraska was the right to sell parcels of land along the right of way and government bonds.

    The land was impossible to sell until well after the railroad was built and running, well into the 1870s. The bonds weren’t paid off for decades.

    As far as I know, every railroad east of The Mississippi Missouri River or Omaha was built with private money.

    The trans continental railroad was financed by Stanford, Crocker, Durant Hopkins and Huntington through finance investment companies they set up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomm

    Dinesh is no friend of the American people. He’s a old Neo-Con and open border supporter.

     

    There is hardly anyone more pro-America than Dinesh D'Souza. Plus, he is extremely against illegal immigraton, as he has said on TV many times. Get a clue.

    Maybe for MAGA types he’s the man
     
    Gee, so Dinesh wants to make America great again. WN wiggers can't have that, because they just want intra-white socialism so that you can mooch off of productive whites like me.

    You’re not White and you’re not productive. You’re a barely competent on call coder who lives in his uncle’s garden shed in Cupertino.

    The household of 30 people in a 3 bedroom house garage and garden shed is supported in part by the old age SSI 6 elderly family members collect every month.

    The elders were brought to the states because of the family re unification policy that allows Chinese, Indian and other useless old foreigners to come here and start collecting social security on their 65 birthday.

    The elders may or not be real family members and they may or may not be 65 old enough to collect SSI.

    The presence of those Chinese elders collecting SSI is a major reason we see all those articles breathlessly announcing that Asians have the highest household income of all races.

    What a world. The old upper castes of Indians are discriminated against in favor of Dalits in India. So they come here and because of the color of their skin they get affirmative action entitlements.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    See, I had a similar reply to Thomm the barefoot sidewalk squatter, but the powers-that-be memory holed it. I thought it was an apt mocking of everyone's favorite monosyllabic mouth breather.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. 3g4me says:
    @Thomm
    Sorry, but Dinesh D'Souza is vastly more knowledgeable than Boyd Cathey.

    Boyd Cathey is a Nationalist-Leftist, which is still a leftist at the end of the day.

    @6 Thomm: “Sorry, but Dinesh D’Souza is vastly more knowledgeable than Boyd Cathey.”

    Because being a subcontinental larping as an American, just like you, he must be considered to have pure motives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomm
    False. See Comment #93.

    Now, as for you, remember that as a White Trashionalist, you are not a member of the functional white race. You are where the waste matter collects for swift removal. The female members of your defective subrace are the fat bluehaired feminists.

    That is why we keep WN wiggers out of polite society.

    Heh heh heh heh
    , @Jim Bob Lassiter
    Thomm is really Senator Thom Tillis with an extra m.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Heros
    I have always loved examining old pictures, that is one reason why I love all the subtle and thought provoking memes that the alt-right is producing. I have yet to see an alt-right meme showing any appreciation for D'Sousa.

    Sal the Agorist is one of my favorites:

    https://twitter.com/SallyMayweather

    This shot of Lincoln, blatantly flanked and corralled by Freemasons who are clearly sending the message that the hidden hand of the brotherhood is firmly in control, really explains the "civil war" in one shot:

    https://archive.is/H3aMW/01443e399508f209fa7b039948646b7a4db06f81.jpg

    See my links above for more interesting information and photographs linking Lincoln's life and his assassination to the tribe and the brotherhood.

    Is that why the portraits of Napoleon always show him with his hand inside his jacket or vest? What about Merkels diamond and triangle shapes she makes with her fingers?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Heros
    I just stumbled across a great article about the "the hidden hand that shaped history":

    http://transmissionsmedia.com/the-hidden-hand-that-shaped-history/

    http://www.whale.to/b/hand_s38.gif

    John Wilkes Booth (b. 1838 – d. 1865) Freemason and American stage actor who assassinated U.S. president Abraham Lincoln.

    http://www.whale.to/b/hand_s22.jpg

    Robert Anderson (b. 1805 – d. 1875) Freemason and Major General in the U.S. Army during the American Civil War. Anderson was in command of Sumter at the time of the Confederate attack.

    http://www.whale.to/b/hand_s25.gif

    Andrew Johnson (b. 1808 – d. 1875) 32° Freemason and 17th President of the United States. Johnson pardoned 3 of the 8 men charged in the Lincoln assassination.

    http://www.whale.to/b/hand_s32.gif

    George B. McClellan (b. 1826 – d. 1885) Freemason and Major General during the American Civil War.

    http://www.whale.to/b/hand_s31.jpg


    Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) was a military and political leader of France whose actions shaped European politics in the early 19th century. He was initiated into Army Philadelphe Lodge in 1798. His brothers, Joseph, Lucian, Louis and Jerome, were also Freemasons. Five of the six members of Napoleon’s Grand Councel of the Empire were Freemasons, as were six of the nine Imperial Officers and 22 of the 30 Marshals of France. Bonaparte’s association with Masonry has always been played down in historical records.
     
    http://www.whale.to/b/hand_s42.gif

    Paul von Hindenburg (b. 1847 – d. 1934) Prussia-German field marshal and statesman

    http://www.whale.to/b/hand_s40.jpg

    Friedrich Nietzsche (b. 1844 – d. 1900) German philosopher and atheist.

    There are loads of other lithographs and pictures of famous masons posing with the hidden hand.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Heros
    I have always loved examining old pictures, that is one reason why I love all the subtle and thought provoking memes that the alt-right is producing. I have yet to see an alt-right meme showing any appreciation for D'Sousa.

    Sal the Agorist is one of my favorites:

    https://twitter.com/SallyMayweather

    This shot of Lincoln, blatantly flanked and corralled by Freemasons who are clearly sending the message that the hidden hand of the brotherhood is firmly in control, really explains the "civil war" in one shot:

    https://archive.is/H3aMW/01443e399508f209fa7b039948646b7a4db06f81.jpg

    See my links above for more interesting information and photographs linking Lincoln's life and his assassination to the tribe and the brotherhood.

    That shabby guy on the left looks like one of the sleazy army vendors who just got a contract to sell cardboard and glue saddles to the Union Army.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Heros
    The guy on the left is Allan Pinkerton, founder of the Pinkerton Detective Agency. He was the Erik Prinz of the 1800's, and his company was the equivalent of Blackwater, now Academi. Prinz now has his own private army in Qatar.

    The freemason on Lincoln's right was General McClernand. The photo was taken at Antietam. McClernand was dismissed by Grant in Vicksburg, but managed to finagle an officer's pension. Just like Pike.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. “Victory for the North would be a turning point for nineteenth-century politics, an affirmation of free labor, and a defeat for the most reactionary capitalists who depended on slavery and racial oppression,” that is, one more critical step in the projected Marxist historical dialectic.

    So, apparently, this writer is pro-slavery. Because free labor is “leftist.” Brilliant. I am so edified.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  126. @Logan
    Excellent comment. One correction. Chambersburg was burned July 30 of 1864, almost certainly primarily in retaliation for the burning of towns and farms in the Shenandoah Valley.

    Sherman was at the time fighting his way from Chattanooga to Atlanta, which he had captured only about a week before Chambersburg was burned. Atlanta was the first city burned by Sherman, that I know of, and that took place mostly on his way out in November.

    OTOH, the troops who burned it came from the Shenandoah, and were entirely familiar with the devastation wrought there by Union troops. Often it was their own property that had been burned.

    My wife and I once stayed in a B&B in the northern Valley that still had scorch marks on beams from a failed arson attempt by Union forces.

    Yes, you’re right. Not the only failure of recall I’ve had today.

    I once lived in the Valley for a year and a half. I got to visit all the battlefields a day’s round trip around me. I really enjoyed the time I spent there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. drahthaar says:
    @Thomm
    Sorry, but Dinesh D'Souza is vastly more knowledgeable than Boyd Cathey.

    Boyd Cathey is a Nationalist-Leftist, which is still a leftist at the end of the day.

    Dinesh D’Souza is probably the most dishonorable man or woman known to me in 40 years of academic and public life. Whatever ideas he has contributed – and they exist – pale beside his character and self-interest. He’s a clever crook. The pardon was just but D’Souza should be shunned as a hustler and creep, not a truth-telling hero. He was the very worst of the Conservative Inc. idea-money machine. Now he’s playing to the cretins.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Anon
    Virginia is one of the border states whose civilians were devastated by the effects of the war and armies marauding back and forth stealing food and animal fodder, cutting down wood lots fences and then sheds for firewood.

    The people of Richmond were starving towards the end. Tennessee also suffered from the presence of the armies of both sides.

    You have a different understanding of “Border State,” then. It does not mean a state on the border of the CSA and USA. It is a euphemism naming slave states which stayed in the Union. Look it up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I do have a different understanding. The states right on the northern edge of the south. Kentucky didn’t secede. But the armies going back and forth destroyed many farms along the main roads like Jack Daniels parent’s farm.

    The devastation during the war in that area was so bad a lot of people just left. It wasn’t battles, just armies stealing food and cutting down not just fences but buildings for firewood.

    Neither army was well supplied compared to nowadays. The southern army was on very short rations and equipment. Plus the armies carried diseases and didn’t dump lime in and cover up the latrine trenches every day either.

    So both armies foraged and scavenged stole food and spread disease. The states where there was little fighting, the Carolinas, Georgia Florida Alabama Mississippi suffered little damage until 1864.

    I’m a good ol rebel that’s just what I am. I hates that stripped banner
    I won’t be reconstructed and I don’t give a damm.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. renfro says:
    @Anonymous
    Without getting too technical, the finished goods and--especially--farm equipment that the south depended on were mostly imported in those days. Additionally, there was some fear in the south that foreign countries might retaliate with tariffs of their own on the agricultural commodities that the south exported. To be sure, I don't buy the theory that 'slavery had nothing to do with Civil War', but tariffs, no doubt, were at least a contributing factor.

    Additionally, there was some fear in the south that foreign countries might retaliate with tariffs of their own on the agricultural commodities that the south exported.

    Foreign countries, mainly England which was the largest importer of Southern cotton, did not want to see tariffs on the South or impose them …..it would cost them more.
    The Northern factories would be made more competitive and benefit from the increased cost to GB companies.
    Southern families had fine linens, etc. they imported from England made from cotton of their own fields . If you wanted ‘finer things’ like linens, furniture, silver, china, you got it from England.

    The North wanted that business also and though there were no fine artisans in the colonies like England had, they had plenty of labor for their factories from indentured servants.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Thomm says:
    @3g4me
    @6 Thomm: "Sorry, but Dinesh D’Souza is vastly more knowledgeable than Boyd Cathey."

    Because being a subcontinental larping as an American, just like you, he must be considered to have pure motives.

    False. See Comment #93.

    Now, as for you, remember that as a White Trashionalist, you are not a member of the functional white race. You are where the waste matter collects for swift removal. The female members of your defective subrace are the fat bluehaired feminists.

    That is why we keep WN wiggers out of polite society.

    Heh heh heh heh

    Read More
    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    And for you, as a member of the bare foot brigade, have no use for paper, to either write upon or to wipe with. Your understanding of American politics is about as proficient as your understanding of indoor plumbing. A movie about your life might be titled Slumdog Derriere, as you constantly show your ass to the readership here. Sadly though, there are no more lifelines for you, and the chances of you meeting a pretty young lady with all of her teeth are about likely as you not calling me a WNW (phrase coined in 1492 by Columbus when he discovered Hawaii).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. chris says:
    @Thomm
    You are forgetting that White Trashionalists have sub-negro IQs, so any detailed explanation on my part would go completely over your head.

    But the fact remains, Boyd Cathey is a Neo-Confederate leftist. That ideology went out of style 150 years ago. He says Lincoln wanted to deport blacks back to Africa, for god's sake.

    He says Lincoln wanted to deport blacks back to Africa, for god’s sake.

    You really are a fool, are ‘t you! Don’t suppose you’ve ever bothered to look too many things up, have you?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomm
    You are forgetting that White Trashionalists have sub-negro IQs, so any detailed explanation on my part would go completely over your head.

    But the fact remains, Boyd Cathey is a Neo-Confederate leftist. That ideology went out of style 150 years ago. He says Lincoln wanted to deport blacks back to Africa, for god's sake.

    Lincoln wrote and said that he wanted to deport the blacks after the war. The Central American countries had some sort of customs and foreign affairs union at the time.

    All the individual countries were represented in Washington by just one envoy, the Nicaraguan Ambassador. Lincoln badgered him to take the former slaves. After consultations back home the plan was adamantly refused.

    Bribing Haiti to take them and shipping them to Liberia was also discussed by Lincoln.
    It’s just my personal opinion that Lincoln’s talk of deporting the slaves was just campaign promises for the 1964 election.

    The working and small family business class was the biggest voting bloc in the north. They didn’t want cheap labor and high crime levels in their towns.

    I doubt very much that Lincoln would have tried to deport the blacks had he lived.

    It’s often obvious you didn’t go to school in America but in some country whose streets are toilets and have been that way for 5,000 years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla

    All the individual countries were represented in Washington by just one envoy, the Nicaraguan Ambassador. Lincoln badgered him to take the former slaves. After consultations back home the plan was adamantly refused.
     
    LOL I remember someone complain about how the Central American nations loved morally beating White America about their treatment of blacks but when asked to take those American blacks and make them citizens in their own mestizo-mulatto countries, they would all shy away and refuse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @Mr. Anon
    I saw an interview with D'Souza in which he showed some of his (probably, highly edited) interview with Richard Spencer. Spencer is not exactly a good spokesman for any kind of cause he has associated himself with, but - no matter - D'Souza's point in interviewing him was to make him some kind of poster boy for his DR3 narrative. He asked Spencer what Presidents he admired the most, and Spencer answered "James Polk and Andrew Jackson". D'Souza turning to his interviewer (some FOX News face) smirked a little school-boy smirk and said (I paraphase) "See - Democrats! Andrew Jackson was the founder of the democratic party (actually, Jefferson was, but one can't expect a historian like D'Souza to know mere facts) there you have it - the alt-right are just leftist/Nazi/fascist Democrats".

    So, this is what passes for american conservatism nowadays? Two minutes of hate directed at Andrew Jackson? Jefferson and Jackson were, practically, the founders of the Democratic party. For years, only up until recently, the Democratic Party had an annual celebration called the Jefferson-Jackson dinner. So, now - according to D'Souza - Old Hickory and the author of the Declaration are leftists, who are also "the real fascists".

    This isn't history, this is incoherent drivel. It is trying to win an argument by swapping out entries in the dictionary - redefining well defined terms. And - well, who would have ever guessed - it is done in service to a globo-poz neo-con agenda that ultimately undoes the historic nation of America.

    It should be noted that D'Souza was convicted of campaign finance violations - bundling campaign contributions. His defence seems to have been that his offense was small and his prosecution politically motivated. And that is probably all true. Still, he knowingly broke the law. What did he expect to happen? It's almost as if he was caught shop-lifting stuff from a Bodega and said, in his defence, hey it was only a couple of snickers bars and some batteries! This is a political hit job!

    In short, he doesn't seem to be very bright.

    D’Souza’s comment about how Americans should despise Presidents Jackson and Polk because they are of the same party as the Clintons is childish drivel.

    Similarly stupid are his comments about how “Democrats are the real racists”. This would surprise my commie neighbors driving their Priuses with the little blue and yellow equals signs on the bumpers. Absolute equality of all humans in every way is an article of faith for the progressives. Proggies believe every member of every ethnic group, every individual human, even men and women are identical in all but the most insignificant ways, so that any inequality of result is the result of white privilege, misogyny, homophobia or some other mythical force — like voodoo. Proggies’ faith in equality is a form of insanity.

    I don’t believe D’Souza believes the drivel he spouts. I think he knows he is lying, but he is being paid well to gaslight conservatives into supporting the neocons and cucks of the Republican Party and undermine the dissident right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I’m not a conservative or a republican. I’m a White Nationalist so I’ve never paid attention to this NR token brown conservative I assume he’s an immigrant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Them Guys says:
    @Heros

    "how the fuck in the world did Nikki Haley get elected as Governor in a deep south state of S. Carolina"
     
    Civil War buffs make great cannon fodder for the collective. They are so easy to divide and conquer, it has been tested and perfected over thousands of years. All these jews and their shabboz cronies have to do is stage some kind of event, then spin a half true explanation and the "patriots" fall for it every time.

    All these civil war experts on this thread are merely regurgitating kosher lies. Everything important that they think they know are lies. Sure, there is plenty of minutia to argue about, but we can only find the truth if was ignore the lies and connect the dots. Here is the truth of why Americans have been dying in useless wars for 200 years:

    "Satanic Temple brings Baphomet statue to Arkansas for rally"

    http://a57.foxnews.com/images.foxnews.com/content/fox-news/us/2018/08/17/satanic-temple-brings-baphomet-statue-to-arkansas-for-rally/_jcr_content/par/featured-media/media-0.img.png/1862/1048/1534511882062.png?ve=1&tl=1

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/17/satanic-temple-brings-baphomet-statue-to-arkansas-for-rally.html

    Wow great find, Heros! Yep they tear down statues of southern generals and real hero’s….Then replace with Satanic crap like in the photo eh…I bet zero southern folk in Arkansas or any from other southern states, showed up and did a Riot of violence at drop of a chicken bone, like typically seen by BLM savage negroes and Antifa leftys eh?…..I wonder if main reason for Antifa persons wearing face masks is less a factor of law enforcers, and more so to Hide the jewish Antifa faces, so they can dupe TV viewers into belief that it is just more goofy whitey leftys in Antifa?

    Usually Jewry just keeps pretending to also be a white folk like Us…Because mostly it works. But when they switch gears and go ape shit crazed like most African savage rioters do, I suppose then its better for any Jewish Antifa members to Hide in plain sight with a face mask. Back in the 1960′s campus antiwar protests, leadership Jews just became a hippy and doper…That blended them in with real actual whites swell eh.. But in todays world, violence by a group is more frowned upon so they hide faces. Cannot hide them dark souless beady jewdeo eyes though, not from those who are Jewised Up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Logan
    The Nullification Crisis over the Morrill Tariff only happened because the South paid most of the taxes. It was the South, particularly South Carolina, which objected to the increase in tax rates.

    The Nullification Crisis took place in 1832, the Morrill Tariff was passed only in 1861. You're thinking of what SC called the "Tariff of Abominations" passed in 1828. SC was not, BTW, supported in this crisis by any other southern state, and it was faced down by a southern slaveowner, Andrew Jackson, not "northerners."

    There is a hilarious story about how the T of A got passed. Calhoun and his cronies schemed to oppose the bill by loading on tariffs that would apply mostly to New England customers, then when New England congressmen opposed it, John and his bunch would switch sides and support it, then claim that the bill failed because of the Northeast. But of course because the bill passed with all the high tariffs on everybody.

    much, much more was spent on canals, such as the Erie Canal, railroads, and bridges up North.

    I am not aware of federal funds being spent on railroads prior to the transcontinental, which of course was during not before the war.

    The Erie Canal was built entirely with state and private funds, no federal funding. I am not aware of federal funds spent on other canals.

    The only road built with federal funds was the National Road, AFAIK, which did indeed run mostly through northern states. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42140.pdf

    I don't know of any bridges built with federal funds. Which bridges were those?

    Look, it's very simple. If you're going to run around saying, "The feds spent the vast majority of their money in the north," then you need to be able to cite numbers. Such as, "From 1815 to 1860 federal funding for improvements went $20M to southern states, $120M to northern states." Otherwise it's at best a guess.

    Yes, I Morilled out, didn’t I?

    You do have a point, and I admit I’ve never researched it. On the other hand, I’ve never read where anyone contested it, either. Maybe they did, but I’ve never read of it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wally
    said:
    "If excessive tariffs/taxation were the cause of secession, how exactly was the South planning to finance its new government? The South would now have the full overhead of a govenrment, formerly split with the North. It would also clearly have to finance a major expansion of Defense to guard a long and hostile border with the USA. It’s likely that if the South had left the Union uncontested, its 8M whites would have wound up bearing a larger tax burden than the 27M whites of the united country bore in 1860."

    Without the burden of northern taxes there would have been / was money

    The south DID "finance it's new government".

    The north was not going to let / did not let the south to leave '"uncontested".

    In 1860 the federal government had very few functions except for the post office and customs. The south had a functioning national government all thru the war. There’s no reason an independent south couldn’t have maintained a national government.

    Remember all that cotton tobacco rice and sugar stored in barns and warehouses the whole world was eager to buy.

    Plus the European bankers who lent money to the south right before and during the war would have extended a lot of credit if necessary

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. cassandra says:
    @Truth
    Whoa...

    I thought Dinesh was conservative.

    What does it matter whether or not deSousa is a “leftist neoliberal” or “conservative”, when factual deceptions are at issue?

    Starting with swapping red with blue, since the 90′s, the MSM has been fomenting wholesale confusion with muddy political labelling. The conflation of factions is now so rampant that it’s plausible that there’s a behind-the-scenes program to sow mental and political confusion.

    Names are slung with even more enthusiasm than before, argument by name-calling goes on. Yet everyone is exhibiting tell-tale frustration indicating that they don’t quite know whether to get mad at or agree with the tenor of a discussion.

    I’m at the point where I ignore every argument that invokes political classifications to make a point, unless they first tell the reader exactly how the terms are being used. Everyone I’ve asked gets mightily frustrated and upset when called upon to do so. Understandably: political labels have complex historical meanings, and it’s hardly ever clear exactly what they mean under a given circumstance without a scorecard, not even to the user.

    We’re spending more time coloring images in a graphic novel, than being concerned with the text that tells the actual tale. Haven’t we the discipline to discuss the story without throwing the crayons?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. cassandra says:
    @Thomm
    Sorry, but Dinesh D'Souza is vastly more knowledgeable than Boyd Cathey.

    Boyd Cathey is a Nationalist-Leftist, which is still a leftist at the end of the day.

    Sorry, but Dinesh D’Souza is vastly more knowledgeable than Boyd Cathey.

    This begs the question, then why is he such a fail at showing it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. “Slavery was at the root of the gradual estrangement of the sections.”

    I never wrote that, and do not agree with it. The “gradual estrangement” was baked into the cake from the beginning. I’ve read that at the very first Continental Congress, Yankees and Southerners despised each other. Slavery existed in all of the colonies at the time, so it wasn’t that. I believe the divisions were even then demographic. Read Albion’s Seed, or about it, for more information on that. They parted ways by taking different paths. Slavery is far from the one “root” of the sectional schism. There were three secession crises prior to the one in 1830. The first was over the War of 1812, specifically Jefferson’s embargo. This led to the Hartford Convention, where secession was offered up as a solution to the financial ruin the emnbargo had brought on New England shipping. Jefferson wrote that he could more easily raise men to invade New England than to fight the British. The next two were also in the North. One was over the Lousianna Purchase, and the other over Admitting Texas to the Union. Both were viewed as possibly giving too much power to the South.

    “Tariffs and any other policy could be compromised, and was.”

    If you consider, “I’ll send an army and hang you all,” to be compromise, then yes. For most of the history of the US, where tariffs are concerned, they were considered necessary to protect US industry, which was a one-finger salute to Britain, and nearly all were onboard with them. When they got too high, some people pushed back. They were one thing a completely out-voted South feared in the hands of Northerners.

    “Each side started believing it was fighting to defend itself against aggression from the other, and once things reached that stage it was really only a matter of time before secession.”

    I’ve not read of this fear of Southern aggression in the North. Replace “each side” with simply, “The South,” and I agree with this sentence. Otherwise, I don’t.

    I do agree with your last sentence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  140. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Logan
    It plunged the south into a poverty that wasn’t alleviated for 100 years.

    Agreed. One cause of that poverty I've seldom seen noted. For at least 40 years prior to the war most southern capital went into buying slaves. They were simply the best investment. The value of the slaves was roughly equal to the value of all land and buildings in the South.

    So when emancipation came, half a century of investment was demonetized. The (ex-)slaves were still there, but they weren't money or property anymore.

    That's $4B of capital that just vanished. At the time that was a LOT of money.

    According to the standard inflation calculator (which has admittedly a lot of flaws) it equates to $121,448,674,698.80 today. I think that actually understates it.

    In 1860 dollars it was $500 per (white) capita. At a time when average family income was under that amount.

    That's in addition to the physical devastation wreaked on much of the South.

    There’s some books about the economic devastation caused by freeing the slaves. If any ones offended by what I’m going to say I’m sorry but it’s the truth.
    Turning a slave from a valuable piece of livestock that could produce more valuable live stock and build its own housing into a free person wiped out the capital of the south.

    Is anyone a farmer? Animals not crops? My brothers a diary farmer so I know how valuable live stock is or is not.
    Be in a barn during calving season. Good it’s a heifer! Damm, it’s a bull
    calf off to the veal farm with you.

    As soon as the cows get too old to bear calves they get sold to MacDonalds and Burger King. It’s about $700 800, a nice little sum for Christmas new clothes whatever.

    Buying very young children as young as at auction 3 was common. Thinking of them as people doesn’t make sense. They are useless as workers.

    But thinking of a 4 year old as livestock makes good economic sense. 8 years of food shelter and job training and the kid can do useful work. By 16 the 4 year old that cost $100 is worth $1000 if a girl up to $2000 if a boy.

    Natchez Mississippi in the 1840s 50s had the biggest number of millionaires in the world. Much of that was the worth of the slaves, not just the cotton.

    I’ve read a few books about the economic devastation caused by the sudden devaluation of the slaves. I can’t remember the names.

    They were published recently. I looked but all I saw was poverty among blacks. There was a guardian article that millions of slaves died of starvation and brutality after the war. Total lies

    A really horrible thing was that in the 1660s the colonies started making laws that children born to slave mothers took the slave status of the mother, not the status of the father.

    Historically,in the big slave economies such as the Roman’s Turks and Arabs children of slave mothers usually took the status of the father whoever he was. Children taking the status of the mother, not the father was a reversal of the way it worked in most slave economies.

    So slaves who were obviously mulattos quadroons octoroons 15th and 31th White were slaves aka valuable livestock. Selling your own daughters was specially horrible.

    On the other hand, 750,000 White men dead the destruction of our great cities and black crime rates makes the evils of slavery and the evils done by blacks even. By 2000 the scales were even. Since 2000 the blacks continue their crime and dysfunction as Whites aid abet and encourage their dysfunction.

    When Abraham Lincoln was trading up and down the river he was stalked by a gang of black robbers. After he sold his goods and had the money he was robbed beaten and seriously injured.

    I’ll look some more and see if I can find those books.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    One depressing thing I ran across is that in his later life T. Jefferson more or less abandoned his previous opposition to slavery. This seems to have happened shortly after some letters he wrote in which he reported to friends about the great potential profitability of slavery, especially of slave women. They not only were worth money as capital, and produced income via their labor, but they also produced, potentially, an additional capital investment every couple of years.

    This tied in with the fact that the economy of VA was for most of the prewar years largely based on esssentially the sale of surplus slaves to farther south.
    , @Logan
    One depressing thing I ran across is that in his later life T. Jefferson more or less abandoned his previous opposition to slavery. This seems to have happened shortly after some letters he wrote in which he reported to friends about the great potential profitability of slavery, especially of slave women. They not only were worth money as capital, and produced income via their labor, but they also produced, potentially, an additional capital investment every couple of years.

    This tied in with the fact that the economy of VA was for most of the prewar years largely based on the sale of surplus slaves to farther south. IOW, instead of raising crops, they ranched slaves.

    If you have any information on Lincoln and the river pirates, that sounds very interesting.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Johnnie Walker Read
    Say's the MAGA Trumptard....Try as you might, sometimes it is impossible to stomp out ignorance from the public and the propaganda(lies) from the likes of the Neocon knee boy D'Souza.

    Wrong my friend, I am a believer in natural law and NO political parties. I quit believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny a long time ago.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Per/Norway
    only sheeple believe the left/right bs, if they dont get it with ALL the info in the world at their fingertips they have chosen the path of no thinking.
    sadly most of them are so invested in their chosen faith that to stop believing would destroy their selves and they cannot let that happen... they belong in the 10-25% of the western population that will fight to their death to defend the status quo and their "elite".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    Some of my fathers ancestors in the maternal line were involved in the Kansas Nebraska war of the 1850s. They were burnt out of Lawrence Kansas by Quantrill’s raiders. They returned to St Joe Mo for a while and then went west and didn’t stop till they got to the Pacific.

    Dad’s paternal line were some of the founders of Frankfort Kentucky in the 1820s. I once thought of retiring to Frankfurt. A nice little 1840s house, a big garden no liberals lecturing and hating me, blue grass music.

    Then I checked the census. About 30 % black. No thanks.

    The country is run by the people who think American history began in 1890 on Ellis island.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    They run it now. The East Coast power center. The Jews. The Irish-Catholics. The Italians.

    On the West Coast the Asian technocrats.

    The Cubans in Miami.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. A few years back, while on a visit to San Diego, who do I run into but D. D’Souza in a Starbucks off the Market Street. He was reading a page from a stack of his manuscript. He nodded to me and I chatted with him briefly. I remember warning him of his powerful enemies who were out to get him. He shrugged it off. A few months later he was indicted.

    I think D’Souza was offered a bargain in which he was to do the bidding of the powers that be and not to stick his nose in the AGENDA. That boy is simply keeping his end of the bargain while enjoying a second chance in the country that has given him much to be thankful for. He is no conservative!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  144. @Logan
    Much cheaper, eh?

    4M slaves. Let's ballpark their value at $1000 each, which is probably in the neighborhood, though probably a little low for 1860.

    That's $4,000,000,000. At a time when the entire federal budget was $78M. Assuming the entire federal budget had been devoted to paying compensation for slaves, it would have taken more than 50 years to pay off.

    So to pay compensation in a reasonable timespan, taxes would have to have been at least doubled or tripled. Then all of the benefit would have been going to southern slaves, who get their freedom, and southern slaveowners, who get money. Northern taxpayers, quite reasonably, would have objected to this, since they'd be coming up with most of the money.

    I quite agree with you that a plan for compensated gradual emancipation would have been cheaper and less bloody for all concerned, quite possibly even better for the slaves themselves in the long run. But sadly people seldom think in these terms. Lincoln made several attempts to get the Union slave states to accept compensated emancipation in the early days of the war, and they rejected it.

    It's reasonably clear that the only reason UK and France didn't recognize the CSA and possibly enter the war on its side is because the war was seen in Europe as being about slavery. Adopt a plan for gradual emancipation, that objection disappears, Europe intervenes and the CSA becomes independent.

    The great problem for the South was that it wanted to be independent to protect the institution of slavery. Independence without slavery would be meaningless to them.

    We are done. All I can say is you wouldn’t know the truth if it slapped you up side your cock sucker.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve in Greensboro
    D'Souza's comment about how Americans should despise Presidents Jackson and Polk because they are of the same party as the Clintons is childish drivel.

    Similarly stupid are his comments about how "Democrats are the real racists". This would surprise my commie neighbors driving their Priuses with the little blue and yellow equals signs on the bumpers. Absolute equality of all humans in every way is an article of faith for the progressives. Proggies believe every member of every ethnic group, every individual human, even men and women are identical in all but the most insignificant ways, so that any inequality of result is the result of white privilege, misogyny, homophobia or some other mythical force -- like voodoo. Proggies' faith in equality is a form of insanity.

    I don't believe D'Souza believes the drivel he spouts. I think he knows he is lying, but he is being paid well to gaslight conservatives into supporting the neocons and cucks of the Republican Party and undermine the dissident right.

    I’m not a conservative or a republican. I’m a White Nationalist so I’ve never paid attention to this NR token brown conservative I assume he’s an immigrant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Johnnie Walker Read
    War is always the ultimate choice for the bankers and politicians suffering from psychosis( a serious mental illness (such as schizophrenia) characterized by defective or lost contact with reality often with hallucinations or delusions) such as Lincoln. Could the slaves have been freed without a civil war? - ABSOLUTELY. Simply compensating slave owners for the slaves and freeing them would have been a much better option. Mel Barger said it best in his article "Was The Civil War Necessary."
    "From 1861 to 1865, some of the worst savagery ever staged on Earth took place in North America. When it ended more than 620 thousand men were dead and many thousands more were blinded, crippled, disfigured, and otherwise maimed and injured. Towns and homes had been burned, railroads had been torn up, crops had been destroyed, and forests had been ravaged. Had a visitor from Outer Space witnessed this tragedy, he could only have assumed that millions of people in the United States had somehow gone temporarily insane."
    If Lincoln had been the compassionate man he is proclaimed to be and the war was all about slavery, he would have chosen a much cheaper(blood and treasure)and humane way to end the curse of slavery. Here is a link to the rest of Mel's article if you are so inclined to give it a look.
    http://melbarger.com/Civil_War_Necessary.html

    In dollars and cents, the U.S. government estimated Jan. 1863 that the war was costing $2.5 million daily. A final official estimate in 1879 totaled $6,190,000,000. The Confederacy spent perhaps $2,099,808,707. By 1906 another $3.3 billion already had been spent by the U.S. government on Northerners’ pensions and other veterans’ benefits for former Federal soldiers. Southern states and private philanthropy provided benefits to the Confederate veterans. The amount spent on benefits eventually well exceeded the war’s original cost.
    Inflation affected both Northern and Southern assets but hit those of the Confederacy harder. Northern currency fluctuated in value, and at its lowest point $2.59 in Federal paper money equaled $1 in gold. The Confederate currency so declined in purchasing power that eventually $60-$70 equaled a gold dollar.
    The physical devastation, almost all of it in the South, was enormous: burned or plundered homes, pillaged countryside, untold losses in crops and farm animals, ruined buildings and bridges, devastated college campuses, and neglected roads all left the South in ruins.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    To the point of benefits-hangover, here's a 2014 Time Magazine blurb on the last living Civil War pensioner.

    http://time.com/95195/civil-war-pensioner/

    Here's one from the Daily Mail ...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2296995/Child-Civil-War-veteran-STILL-receiving-soldiers-pension-nearly-150-YEARS-conflict-ended.html

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @RebelWriter
    You have a different understanding of "Border State," then. It does not mean a state on the border of the CSA and USA. It is a euphemism naming slave states which stayed in the Union. Look it up.

    I do have a different understanding. The states right on the northern edge of the south. Kentucky didn’t secede. But the armies going back and forth destroyed many farms along the main roads like Jack Daniels parent’s farm.

    The devastation during the war in that area was so bad a lot of people just left. It wasn’t battles, just armies stealing food and cutting down not just fences but buildings for firewood.

    Neither army was well supplied compared to nowadays. The southern army was on very short rations and equipment. Plus the armies carried diseases and didn’t dump lime in and cover up the latrine trenches every day either.

    So both armies foraged and scavenged stole food and spread disease. The states where there was little fighting, the Carolinas, Georgia Florida Alabama Mississippi suffered little damage until 1864.

    I’m a good ol rebel that’s just what I am. I hates that stripped banner
    I won’t be reconstructed and I don’t give a damm.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rebelwriter
    Well sir, you are certainly welcome to your own private definitions of anything and everything you wish. However, when you speak to others, don't be surprised if your definitions lead to confusion.

    The term "Border State" is an example of propaganda in common use. Calling a state a "Border State," (always capitalized), is a way of hiding the truth of what it really was, which was a slave state that stayed in the Union, and kept its slaves throughout the war. If you SAY you're fighting a war against slavery, you can hardly brag about your loyal slave states, now can you?

    There were lots of slave owners who fought for the Union, including several notable general officers. One was actually named Jefferson Davis. He was often accused of having Southern sympathies, and this may have led him to fight even harder for the US. He was in Sherman's Army of the Tennessee.

    And then there's Grant, who became a legal slave owner when he married his wife, who had inherited slaves. They remained his slaves for several years during the war. Grant was NOT an abolitionist, and, in fact, hated them. He supposedly once said out loud, in the lobby of the Willard Hotel in Washington, that he would draw his sword on any man who said he fought the abolitionist's cause. I could never verify this, though.

    Sherman was another peculiar person. He never owned slaves, but he was a professor at Louisiana College (later LSU), married a Southern woman, and loved the South. He hated secession with every last ounce of his considerable personal energy. It was all treason to him, and every Southerner who supported it, no matter that person's station in life, was a traitor, and deserved nothing short of death.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Them Guys
    What you stated about "From, 1900 onwards to present day" is correct, and basically what my prior reply posting was about. Ie: Cyrus Scofield's false interpretations bible version. Most folks who swear by and live by that apostate bible version defend it ruthlessly as an, "KJV" bible that is word for word authentic to orig. KJV bible. Well yes that's true. However what they neglect to observe nor ever seem to question is...Just exactly Who was Scofield before he penned his own bible version? And just where or how did he arrive at his own personal interpretations which cover something around 57% of all verses contained in entire OT and NT books, aka page one genesis to last verse in book of Rev?

    This has caused those who base most every of modern day belief structure they have, based on Scofield, to be falsehoods galore. Yet never do they ever question any of it, nor question who Scofield was or where did his info arrive from. Due to this apostate bible versions adherence by well over 1/3rd, maybe closer to one half of usa Christianity today, we are in very dire straights via total abject worship of Jews & Israel, by aprox. 65+ Million duped and foolish folks who call themselves a, "Jewdeo-Christian" or as an "Jewdeo-Zionist-Christian".....never before has such a total farce of an Oxymoron existed that has led to so much usa damages, and phony wars for Israel etc.

    But just try telling those people that...There Never ever was, nor shall be, nor can ever be anything they call "Jewdeo-Christian". For they are a direct 180 degree opposite of each other. It is akin to calling one self as an, "Islamic-Christian" or an, "Hindu-Christian"! No such thing has or is, nor can exist if one is to be considered as a, True Christian Believer.

    Also if the duped foolish apostate souls would simply research Islam Vs Talmudic Judaism, they would quickly find that it is those two religions which have far greater in commons. Which is why we who are wised up's, have stated that neither Talmudic Judaism Nor Islamic Muslim, are really true pals of true Christians. In a religious sense. And in some ways Both are actual proven Enemy's of Christianity and Christians. With Talmudics being the worse.

    So yes indeed, as you stated, of begin with 1900 era, todays troubles and wrong foreign policy, wrong fraud wars, phony fed res monetary and usury policy, and too many more issues to here list. Have a very direct relationship to what began back when Cyrus Scofields apostate biblical version came to usa shores, around 1909 (?) if not earlier yet. It was very close to 1900 ad era. And ever since has created a massive ever growing problem, which today has brought Americans closer to a real nuke WW III with Russia and/or whoever else is Jewrys and Israels enemy of choice when they hit the Red Button.

    If we do see it lead to a nuke WW III event, I predict we shall also see, 65+ Million very duped apostate Jewdeo-Zio-Christians in America....Jumping for Joy at prospect of, in next 20 min or sooner! their foamed at mouth Pre-Trib-rapture event aka a fly away escape plan from god for only them....and when clock strikes minute number, 21 Min after button is pushed, likely by Israel first and foremost....at Min 21, the very same 65+ Million scofield duped souls will experience a real fright such as never before, when they finally realize Scofield as well as Pastor Darby's falsehoods are really Falsehoods galore...Just prior to those duped souls melting in fervent heat supplied by those Pre Trib Nukes once flown.

    Too bad most will never awaken sooner eh? Plus since they only need to re-review the past 100 years of apostate flashoods they fell victim to, it ain't so hard or difficult to do. Yet not many shall do so, so far at least.

    Not everyone reads the Bible.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @Anon
    You’re not White and you’re not productive. You’re a barely competent on call coder who lives in his uncle’s garden shed in Cupertino.

    The household of 30 people in a 3 bedroom house garage and garden shed is supported in part by the old age SSI 6 elderly family members collect every month.

    The elders were brought to the states because of the family re unification policy that allows Chinese, Indian and other useless old foreigners to come here and start collecting social security on their 65 birthday.

    The elders may or not be real family members and they may or may not be 65 old enough to collect SSI.


    The presence of those Chinese elders collecting SSI is a major reason we see all those articles breathlessly announcing that Asians have the highest household income of all races.

    What a world. The old upper castes of Indians are discriminated against in favor of Dalits in India. So they come here and because of the color of their skin they get affirmative action entitlements.

    See, I had a similar reply to Thomm the barefoot sidewalk squatter, but the powers-that-be memory holed it. I thought it was an apt mocking of everyone’s favorite monosyllabic mouth breather.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Democrat/Republican, Conservative/Liberal doesn’t really matter, the past thirty years should be proof of this, no matter who is “elected” the system never changes.

    They’re all owned by the same master. Wall St, MIC, the fake Jews. Politicians have no real power, the real shot callers don’t hold elections.

    We’re all n!ggers to them, whether you’re white, black, mexican, injun=Slaves. Not much different than it was back then. White people didn’t own slaves, rich elites owned slaves. Most white people were just as bad off as the black. Same as today.

    Wake the hell up folks.

    Read More
    • Agree: Johnnie Walker Read
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  151. S says:
    @Carlton Meyer
    It's nice to remind people that Lincoln was a Republican. An old blog post of mine provides a clearer explanation:

    Jan 2, 2011 - The War to Reclaim Federal Property 1861-1865

    I've noticed the "Power Elite" have decided to rewrite American history in regards to the American Civil War. This was known as the "War Between the States" or the "War of Secession", but was officially named the "Civil War" as a Congressional compromise some 40 years later. The Power Elite recently mobilized their media front men to proclaim that war was all about slavery. Anyone who contends it was about states rights is labeled ignorant or a racist. Symbols of the Confederacy have been targeted for destruction, claiming they are racist.

    Slavery was a horrible institution, and was the prime source of friction between the states in the 1850s. Some wanted a military crusade to free the slaves, while an equal number demanded a military crusade to crush the evil Mormons in Utah. There was never strong support in Congress to ban slavery since many wealthy New Englanders profited in the textile business that relied upon cheap cotton from the South. In addition, the cherished American Constitution allowed for slavery.

    Had Congress made slavery illegal and our military ordered to enforce that law, it would have been a war against slavery, and it would have lasted but a few months. However, that is not how things played out. Southern states feared that Northerners were using the federal government to dominate the nation that was conceived as a federation of states. Slavery was the key issue, but most Southerners didn't own slaves, and slavery was contentious within Southern states as many citizens opposed it. The Southern states peacefully and democratically seceded and formed the Confederate States of America (CSA), in the same way they joined the Union just two generations prior. The U.S. Congress didn't declare that illegal, nor did the Supreme Court.

    Newly elected President Lincoln decided he would not tolerate the CSA, so he ordered it crushed. He assumed our military could quickly overrun the much weaker Confederate state militias, but it turned into a disastrous war. A key problem is that Lincoln refused to outlaw slavery and use that as a cause for military action, but said the effort was to preserve the union. As a result, Northerners were not enthusiastic about invading the South, while anti-slavery Southerners and the silent majority of non-slave holding Southerners felt compelled to defend their state from invasion. As his effort to "preserve the union" became a debacle, Lincoln finally evoked ending slavery as a cause with his 1863 "Emancipation Proclamation". Even that did not free the 800,000 slaves in the slave-holding states of Missouri, Maryland, West Virginia, or Delaware, which had never declared a secession.

    Some say Lincoln only did this to prevent England from entering the war on the side of the CSA. England was upset by the Union sea blockade that denied its textile mills of cotton. Lincoln implemented his own form of slavery, the military draft, to fill his crusading army. The movie "Gangs of New York" addresses this issue toward the end -- the resulting anti-draft riots by New York immigrants. The great movie "Glory" shows white Union troops angry at forced service in Lincoln's crusade. Most of Lincoln's free Negro troops were slaughtered in frontal attacks during the war, and only earned half-pay.

    In summary, slavery was the primary cause of conflict between the states, but the Civil War was caused by Lincoln's blundering. He failed to act decisively because he had no official standing to end slavery, yet when he did act as a dictator, he refused to promote it as an anti-slavery crusade. As a result, most Southerners fought to defend their state from invasion, not to protect slavery. The Northern industrialists made huge profits from this war, so they sainted Lincoln as one of our greatest Presidents, for suspending the U.S. Constitution and causing the most disastrous event in American history.

    Slavery was the key issue…Slavery was a horrible institution, and was the prime source of friction between the states in the 1850s…In summary, slavery was the primary cause of conflict between the states…

    Very much so, on both the north and south’s part, the elephant in the living room as it were. While it is widely known as it should be that the desire to retain the right to own and purchase chattel slaves is much of what drove seccessionism in the south little is known by most about chattel slavery in the northern colonies/states and its effects on the north, in particular the northeast (ie New England) and its push for abolitionism, and in time its drive for war. There is an explanation in this dirth of knowledge in that part of the spoils of winning a war is that the victors get to write the history books.

    While I won’t delve into it here regarding causes of the US Civil War, there is also the aspect of the United States with its Manifest Destiny being historically very important to personages at the higher high levels of Freemasonry as a model of the continental superstate for the other continents of the world, the first cog and centerpiece at the time (and even now?) for the planned direct continuation of the British Empire as a truly all encompassing future global empire, ie the New Rome, or, the United States of the World. As such a model they couldn’t very well let the Anglo-Saxon United States remain dis-united and split right down the middle for an indefinate period of time, now, could they?

    Anyhow, back to chattel slavery and its trade.

    [MORE]

    In 1776 at the founding of the United States and as part of the British Empire’s Triangular Trade, chattel slavery and its trade existed throughout the north and south of the North American colonies, much to the harm of the vast majority of the public whom did not own slaves but had to rather suffer with it, the practice not being called historically ‘a scourge upon mankind’ for nothing. Due to climatic conditions the slave dealers tended to be concentrated in the more mercantile orientated northeast (ie Massachusetts figuring quite prominently in this), while the slave ownership tended to be located in the more agrarian oriented south. By the latter 18th century the slave dealers had grasped that ultimately since slavery’s introduction circa 1620 in North America what drives the person to purchase a chattel slave is a simple desire to pay significantly below whatever the prevailing real time local cost of labor was to employ (typically) one of their own. It had been realized that by providing their former would be slave owner/purchaser with a person (this person also known as an ‘immigrant’) whom would work well below the local prevailing cost of labor this requirement of the would be slave purchaser would be met. (To give an example of just how far below the prevailing rate when in the 1870′s the California state legislature was literally forced to investigate the matter it was found the Chinese being continuously imported in by diktat were often being paid one third, ie almost seventy percent below, of whatever the prevailing local rate of labor was.). With the ‘immigrant’ (aka a ‘wage slave’, the systematic theft of the labor -the essence of slavery- being much more efficiently taken directly from their pay, hence the term wage slavery as opposed to a physically owned, ie chattel slave) just as before with chattel slavery the former would be slave dealer still profits, though even more so due to the volume, from constructing the ships, providing insurance for voyages, being paid per head in the form of a ticket now paid for by the immigrant and commisions paid by interested parties to locate and transport the sought after unpaid for labor internationally, etc. This transition from chattel to wage slavery went smoothly enough in the northeast during the late 18th and early 19th century where there were relatively few chattel slaves (though to be sure in the north they did own tens of thousands) and new chattel slave purchases were banned while current ownership was grandfathered, indeed some of these legally owned chattel slaves, albeit elderly, could still be found in the north, ie New Jersey, at the start of the Civil War in 1861. While it’s true that in time the ‘immigrant’ might become unhappy being paid, either above or below the table, far below the prevailing local rate of labor for their work and seek employment elsewhere, that is perfectly okay in this arrangement. The former would be slave dealer ensures by a continuous flow of the ‘immigrants’ pouring in that there is always another one prepared to take his or her place at far below what is or would of been the prevailing local rate for labor were the immigration not taking place, it not being in time referred to as ‘mass’ immigration without reason. The would be slave purchaser with the ‘immigrant(s)’, just as with chattel slavery, still gets their secondary ‘hit’ of unpaid labor for whatever other business interests they may have in the form of overall depressed wages…ie in the US south virtual economic depressions were reported in the areas immediately surrounding plantations by the slave owners (typically) own people, as the chattel slaves, either on the plantation or being ‘leased’ out to the surrounding countryside were doing much of the available work making jobs scarce. A similar situation exist with imported H1b visa holders and technology jobs today.

    While as stated, with many fewer chattel slaves in the US north this transition, this monetization of chattel slavery and its trade, went smoothly enough with the introduction of what with industrialisation would soon enough in the early 19th century evolve into the cheap labor/mass immigration system which today forms the economic and political basis of the ideology of multi-culturalism. This effort to monetize slavery by the nascant US was part of a larger late 18th and early 19th century global push known as ‘Abolitionism’ to do the same (that is to monetize the practice of chattel slavery) culminating in the 1833 abolition of slave ownership within the British Empire. In the years following the Empire’s West African fleet would hunt down any chattel slavers persisting in plying the trade in the Atlantic which would also (somewhat cynically on their part) ensure no one could somehow resurrect the chattel slave trade to compete with their new fangled wage slave trade (ie the cheap labor/mass immigration system). With wage slavery the British Empire then, and at present as the Anglosphere, thus continues to dominate the global trade in slaves.

    As mentioned the transition to wage slavery (the so called cheap labor) went smoothly enough where there were relatively fewer chattel slaves, ie New England and the British Carribean, the latter’s slave owners being financially compensated by the British Empire. However, in the US south where there were a great many more chattel slaves, and the practice had become deeply embedded as a way of life, there were four million chattel slaves as opposed to tens of thousands, and there was a balking by southern slave owners at making this transition without receiving guarantees of compensation for their lost ‘property’. Indeed, the Virginia state legislature came close multiple times in the years and decades preceding the Civil War to adopting the north’s ‘cheap labor’/mass immigration system, but without these guarantees of compensation for slave owners which for whatever reason were not forth coming, these bills could not be seen thru to passing. Even so, with or without chattel slaves, efforts were made to introduce the north’s cheap labor/mass immigration system in the south and articles were written about this in the media of the day. However, chattel and wage slavery was found to not work very well together in part as southern slave owners didn’t much like the fraternizing which sometimes occurred between the ‘immigrants’ and chattel slaves and the disaffection on the latter’s part this could cause.

    Early 19th century New England textile mill owners, this subject having been researched and these were indeed the very same whom in many instances had been the chattel slave dealers in British colonial/early US North America, ie they ‘ran the show’ as to the chattel slave trade and its later monetization, had a very deep financial interest in the south adopting the cheap labor/mass immigration system of the US north. It was after all the inefficient and much costlier chattel slaves of the south whom were picking the cotton which supplied his northern textile mills. Anything adding to the cost of the finished cloth cut into the profit margin besides making his textiles less competitive and that much more difficult to sell. And it likely drove a number of these merchants almost mad thinking about the losses they were regularly incurring due to this inefficiency. These New England merchants, though having played a large part in the proliferation of chattel slavery as the slave dealers within what would be the United States, now wanted for financial reasons to see chattel slavery eradicated and replaced with its monetization, wage slavery, ie ‘cheap labor’ so called. They called this effort ‘Abolition’ and would finance much of this movement, if they had not originated it themselves with their London counter parts. The Lawrences of Massachusetts were such, being a family of textile factory magnates whom had constructed the planned industrial city of Lawrence, Mass in the 1840′s to house imported labor to operate the family’s mills, the city not coincidentally to this day officially nicknamed ‘Immigrant City’. Abbott Lawrence, the family’s patriarch, would finagle an appointment as US ambassador to the UK which then included famine stricken Ireland in the late 1840′s. Ireland being prostate as it was at the time made for a rich source of wage slaves for the family’s textile mills. Lest anyone think the Irish saw their enmasse predation as wage slaves to the United States as an act of kindness, think again. Paralleling the depopulating and genocidal effects of African chattel slavery, the Irish called their own resulting large scale depopulation of Ireland due to wage slavery ‘extermination’ and as documented by The Spectator of London were shooting members of the British aristocracy for advocating or sponsoring the large scale exodus of Irish to the US, something not presented in the movie The Gangs of New York. Entirely concurring with the Irish assesment (ie ‘extermination’ re mass immigration) the London Times wrote an editorial in 1851 regarding a tour Ambassador Lawrence was making of Ireland and declared the mass exodus of the Irish would soon directly result in their being ‘known no more’ as a people. It would be the Lawrence family which in support of ‘free soilers’ would finance the construction of Lawrence, KS (a sister city of Lawrence, Mass as it were) during the mid 1850′s in the territory then known as ‘Bleeding Kansas’. Kansas with its guerilla armies in the latter 1850′s (some at times equipped with their own artillery) fighting for chattel or wage slavery and privately financed respectively by southern plantation owners and northern merchants was a micro-cosm of the coming US Civil War.

    While the term ‘cheap labor’ was in common usage in the decades prior to the US Civil War a curious but very telling thing happened as the 1850′s progressed. As the decade came to a close in 1860 the term ‘cheap labor’ had literally disappeared from the corporate media of the day and had been replaced by the term ‘free labor’. Much emphasis was made on the ‘free’ portion of this term, ie as this laborer was a free man rather than an unfree chattel slave and that they were often white European as opposed to black African. Little if any emphasis was made that this new ‘free laborer’ was quite often different to varying degrees physically and culturally from the then Anglo-Saxon majority population, as people then and Europeans in Europe now could readily tell you, some of these differences being significant and good and some not so good. No mention was made how in Massachusetts the Anglo-Saxon population had already been largely displaced by the yearly mass importation of Irish Roman Catholics, ie in Boston, nor for that matter that in the state of California thousands of Chinese wage slaves were then being imported in yearly though the country’s ‘back door’. Nor was much made that the desire of at least some (many?) of these northern merchants was to ‘free’ the African slaves only so they could be as quickly as possible entered into the work force as wage slaves, ie cheap laborers, their labor now being systematically stolen much more efficiently and profitably than before with the old chattel slave system.

    To sum it up, the average non-slave holding southern soldier despite many believing the at best self deceiving lies of many of their elites about the war being one simply of only ‘state’s rights’ (unless one sees it as ‘state’s rights’ to preserve chattel slavery) fought a war for chattel slavery, a terribly destructive practice decidedly not in any way shape or form in their best interest. Similarly, the northern soldier with the at best self deceptions of their elites about the war being one to ‘preserve the union’, or to ‘free the slaves’ also fought a war for slavery, specifically wage slavery (ie ‘cheap labor’ so called) which their formerly chattel slave dealing/owning elites hoped to forcibly introduce -and greatly profit from- into the US south as had already been done in the north. The northern soldier quite literally fought and died for the cause of ‘cheap labor’, labor which had already physically and culturally displaced him in many of the major northern cities, ie Boston and New York, and elements of the corporate media were already declaring in 1861 that it was a done deal that he would soon be completely displaced by tens of millions of Chinese wage slaves to be imported by diktat into the US via the state of California.

    When violence became inevitable between the north and south in the Spring of 1861 rather than the guns being turned upon each other the guns should of been turned upon their respective northern and southern slavery addicted elites, whom since 1620 had become ever more increasingly addicted to doing anything but anything than pay their own people the prevailing real time local rate of labor. Slavery, whether as manifested by northern dealer/owners, and now pushers of chattel slavery’s monetization, so called ‘cheap labor’, or as chattel slave owners/ purchasers of the south, had largely corrupted these elites and their hangers on. Had that happened, instead of the catastrophe that did where chattel slavery was simply monetized rather than being abolished across the whole of the US in 1865 at the expense of six hundred thousand lives, I’m convinced most of them when so confronted by their own people would have surrendered, and compensation or not, would of ultimately felt…greatly relieved. Yes, some lives would have been lost by those hard core slavers defending their ‘right’ to own chattels as ‘property’ and others, being of the same ilk would no doubt have fought for their ‘right’ to import and employ wage slaves (cheap laborers), but certainly not six hundred thousand lives. Slavery could then truly have been eradicated in the US, much unlike the faux ‘abolition’ which took place. Self determination could then have been had for both the former African chattel slaves and the Europeans in the United States each grouping with plenty of reasons to go their own way. And in a likely relatively short war fought against slavery practitioners of both its chattel and wage manifestations, north and south, where they may well have joined forces against the non-slave holding general public, Robert E Lee, a non slave holder would have had the opportunity to have lead his fellow Virginians and others in an anti-slavery war with gusto rather than seemingly half grudgingly as when he fought out of loyalty for slave holding Virginia.

    “The [Civil] war was essentially an industrial struggle – a struggle between free labor and the masters of slave labor.” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine – January 1897

    “The educated free labor of Massachusetts*, we have seen, doubles the products of toil, per capita, as compared with Maryland, and quadruples them (as the Census shows) compared with South Carolina….” Former US Treasurer and slave speculator Robert Walker writing from London in December, 1863. The Continental Monthly – March 1864

    ‘Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and chattel slavery destroyed. This, I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care for the laborer, while the European plan led by England, is for capital to control labor by controlling the wages…’ Bank of England circular sent to every bank in New York and New England in 1862, Imperial Washington (1922) pg 51 – 52

    “It is our conviction that monopolies are as destructive as competition is conservative of the principles and vitalities of republican Government; that slave labor is a monopoly which excludes free labor and competition; that slaves are kept in comparitive idleness and ease in a fertile half of our arable national territory, while free white laborers, constantly augmenting in numbers from Europe, are confined to the the other half and are often distressed by want; that the free white laborers of the North has more need of expansion into the Southern States, from which it is virtually excluded, than slavery had into Texas in 1846…” Excerpt of Proclamation by US Brigadier-General Phelps to the loyal people of the Southwest, Ship Island, Mississippi, December 4, 1861. Report of Gulf Blockading Squadron – December 16, 1861 thru February 21, 1862

    ‘…the rise of the modern industrial system made wage slavery a more efficient agent of production than chattel slavery.’ Excerpt of the 1907 foreword to the book The War-Time Journal of a Georgia Girl, 1864-1865 (published in 1908)

    * The former US Treasurer and slave speculator Robert Walker, utilizing US census data for 1860, compared Massachusetts and South Carolina. Mass, the center of US industry at the time, and indeed, where it had gotten started, was heavily reliant upon wage slaves, ie ‘cheap labor’ imported from French Quebec in Canada and Ireland in Europe…while meanwhile South Carolina was heavily reliant upon chattel slaves. In doing so he effectively calculated that wage slavery (ie cheap labor) was four times more profitable/productive than chattel slavery.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=ZKwcAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA51&dq=book+Imperial+Washington+Pettigrew&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html

    https://docsouth.unc.edu/fpn/andrews/andrews.html

    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_new_rome_or_the_united_states_of_the_world_1853

    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/a_virtual_round_the_world_voyage

    http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/20th-november-1847/12/extermination-and-vengeance

    http://slavenorth.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Seems to be a wonderful article but can’t be read because no paragraphs.

    Short paragraphs with a space between is more important for reading on a computer screen than reading on paper.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Thank you for putting that together for this thread. I am in no position to compete with your knowledge but note that your giving the 1833 abolition of slavery in those British territories where it existed as the time after which the Royal Navy interdicted the slave trade is wrong. It was the slave trade abolition in March 1807 which set it off.

    One small unmentioned factor is the various causes of rapid population growth, not least sewers which did so much to end cholera outbreaks. The "wage slaves" were an almost inevitable product of human fertility keeping ahead of technical productivity growth and enforced minimum wages and conditions. Productivity, birth control and legislation eventually combined to ameliorate wage slavery - more than unions I suggest.

    The most recently read book to engross me is Nancy Isenberg's " White Trash: the 400-year history of class in America". I would be interested in your view of it.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @Thomm
    False. See Comment #93.

    Now, as for you, remember that as a White Trashionalist, you are not a member of the functional white race. You are where the waste matter collects for swift removal. The female members of your defective subrace are the fat bluehaired feminists.

    That is why we keep WN wiggers out of polite society.

    Heh heh heh heh

    And for you, as a member of the bare foot brigade, have no use for paper, to either write upon or to wipe with. Your understanding of American politics is about as proficient as your understanding of indoor plumbing. A movie about your life might be titled Slumdog Derriere, as you constantly show your ass to the readership here. Sadly though, there are no more lifelines for you, and the chances of you meeting a pretty young lady with all of her teeth are about likely as you not calling me a WNW (phrase coined in 1492 by Columbus when he discovered Hawaii).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @rebelwriter
    The history of the history of the war, though, is interesting. I'll start by declaring that it's something to be proud of that I can write in support of a group of people who fought a revolution against the US without being declared a traitor by the government. I have been called a traitor by some people, individuals, but that carried only the weight of personal opinion, and not the force of law.

    During and immediately after the war it was officially labeled as a rebellion. General-in-Chief Halleck ordered the collection of all records of both sides to be catalogued into "The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion." Every order of the Union armies and navy, along with all such documents of the CSA that existed (far, far fewer), are available yet today. I thank him for that, but nothing else.

    Any man who had served the Confederate cause in any way was disenfranchised as a traitor. A general amnesty for most people was declared by President Johnson, but officers and politicians had to give an oath of loyalty to the US, and be pardoned by the president.

    It was about the time that Reconstruction came to an end, precisely because the Northern populace was weary of it, that the powers that be realized some mutual understanding must be reached in order to continue as a nation together. It's important to note that the culpability of the elite classes of both sides would not enter into this agreement.

    The true turning point came at the outbreak of the Spanish American War. The war had a uniting effect on the populace, and not only the sons of Union and Confederate soldiers enlisted, but several notable Confederate officers served as well. Former Confederate General Joe Wheeler served as a US General officer in the Spanish American War. General Fitzhugh Lee, a nephew of Robert E. Lee, was another former Confederate General who was made a US general in the Spanish American War.

    It was in this age of conciliation that most Confederate reminiscences were written. There were only a few written prior to this, notable "Co. Aytch", by Sam Watkins, the finest personal account I've ever read. This was also when Douglas Southall Freeman published the three volume biography on Robert E. Lee that is still the definitive book on the man. There are many other notable works published in that era, including Fighting for the Confederacy, by Edward Porter Alexander, who was Longstreet's chief of artillery. This book includes one of the few recorded references to Lee's fearful temper. Another is in Mary Chestnut's A Diary From Dixie.

    Also this is when most of the monuments were raised that are currently under attack. There were few erected before this period, mostly due, I believe, to the South's demolished condition. The region was recovering somewhat by this time, and there was money, mostly from the UDC, to build these monuments. The UDC was comprised of the wives of elites, and the widows of Confederates. It was, and is, an elite group of women, especially compared to the United Confederate Veterans, and later, the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

    The compromise that was reached allowed both sides to carry forward with some amount of pride, as neither could have been painted as all good, or all bad, without blaming the other, and causing ill feelings. It was promoted as a war of brother against brother, and entirely neglected the elite. Instead, it seemed to paint everyone as an elite, even the poorest private. It was a temporary fix, at best.

    Robert Penn Warren laid it out best in his short novella, The Legacy of the Civil War. The book is a treasure of its time. In it Warren names the gifts, both myths, to each side in the agreement.

    To the North was given the Treasury of Virtue; the belief it had fought a just war to abolish slavery, and to keep the Union united. "...an indulgence . . . for all sins past, present, and future, freely given by the hand of history." With this gift, Northerners were free to practice their own forms of racism and segregation, and could always say in response to criticism, that "We fought to free the slaves. What more do you want?"

    To the South was given The Great Alibi; that it was noble in it's cause and beliefs, but in the end it lost, and that wasn't bad as America continued as one nation. This was imperfect. The Southern felt "trapped by history." This was when the Moonlight and Magnolia Myth was born, where every Southerner considered himself a dispossessed knight, or son of one, toiling in the dirt from no fault of his own. The Confederacy became, "A city of the soul."

    Nobody met and shook hands over this. No agreements were drawn up and signed. This is what was written in the papers, in the speeches at monument ceremonies, and eventually discussed at night by the firesides, North and South. This is what came to be, and was, until the Centennial of the Civil War. It was a gentleman's agreement, of sorts, that allowed the nation to heal its wounds, to unite, and to carry on.

    That the Centennial occurred during the Civil Rights movement was either a great coincedence, or a "Cohencidence," as the movements primary shakers and movers were not the poor blacks of the South, nor the WASP elite of New England, but Jews. However it came about, it destroyed the previous gentleman's agreement, and tore open old wounds. The South's history has been under attack ever since, and this attack has leached into the North's history, and our Founding Fathers as well. For men of that day were nowhere near as enlightened as even the most craven "racist" is today. The greatest mistake most people make is judging historical figures through the lens of today's social norms; they will never live up.

    What everybody misses, because it's not discussed, is that the war was fought because the elites of trade and commerce and the planter elites had a disagreement over the use of Federal monies, and that led, eventually, to the bloodiest war in American history.

    I have FightingFor The Confederacy and the Mary Chesnut Diary. I also have books about the abolitionist Grimke sisters and their black spy Mary Bowser in Jeff Davis home and headquarters.

    Also the autobiography of Elizabeth Kekly Mary Lincoln’s freed slave dressmaker and mother of a son by her former owner who never supported the boy

    This thread is getting too much like the American Renaissance War of Northern Agression discussions so I’m saying good night my friends

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. peterAUS says:
    @rebelwriter
    To those who say, "Slavery had nothing to do with it," I must disagree, and I do so purely out of a desire for historical accuracy.

    The proper sequence of events, though, is important. Secession was partly to protect slavery, and the war was a response to secession, not slavery. The war was not started to free the slaves, and did not become a war aim until the Emancipation Proclamation was issued in Sept. of 1862, after Sharpsburg.

    One must read things such as "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union," to get a glimpse of what the leaders were feeling and thinking at the time.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

    There were many valid points of contention that didn't involve slavery, yet there were many that did. On top of this, every single man who signed the Ordinance of Secession for SC was a slaveholder, without one exception.

    The elite of the South were the planters, defined as owning 20 or more slaves. They had the political power, the economic power, and the cultural power. The antebellum South was as close to a feudal society as ever existed in North America. Common whites deferred to the "Landed Gentry," as they were generally the only people with the luxury of free time for both education and politics.

    Be that as it may, it was surprising to me to read of how SC actually left the Union; which was exactly as they entered it, by a plebicite-like ratification process. Electors ran for representation based on their stance of Union vs. Secession. All qualified voters could vote. Secession was unamimous. Only one area of the state, the so-called Dark Corner of Greenville, voted in any numbers against secession.

    Depending on how you count them, meaning households vs. individuals, planters counted for around 6% of Southerners counted as households, or .75% counted as individuals.
    There were more slaveowners in SC, though. I can't cite statistics for the state, but at one time slaves outnumbered free whites here and in Mississippi.

    I'm still not entirely comfortable I understand why so many Southerners who didn't own slaves voted for secession, unless they didn't view slavery as being the main reason for the break, which is the only reasonable explanation I have. They had their own reasons for wanting to leave.

    A very important fact to remember about these people is that there were more descendants of Revolutionary War veterans in the South per capita than in the North. The 19th Century influx of immigrants barely even touched the South, where the population was stable from 1780 until after the war. Those few who did immigrate to the South adopted the cause, and fought for the CSA. Why?

    The best explanation I can offer is that they viewed Washington, by that time, as being as foreign as was London to their forefathers, and were pushing back against being told what to do - about anything at all - by meddlesome Yankees.

    Remember that at this point a president had been elected without a single Southern electoral vote, and that Southerners were then a minority in BOTH houses of Congress. In the mind of a Southerner at the time, they were already a mere colony of Washington.

    This is backed up by my reading of the speeches of one William King Easley, a militia leader and Upstate planter, who spoke at every monthly meeting of the militia in Greenville. These were very interesting affairs, and they deserve their own post, or article even. Anyway, he never missed the opportunity to point out that these sons and grandsons of American patriots were under the yoke of Yankee slave masters in Washington, etc., etc. He very rarely spoke of slavery at all, except to point out that the North wished for a slave uprising, and had supported John Brown's raid, both with good will, and with money.

    The fear of a slave uprising can't be understated. From my readings I can confidently state most Southerners, slaveowner or not, held the possibility as one of their greatest mortal fears. Haiti was forever in their minds. It's a recurring theme in their writings from the period.

    The Slave Codes, written prior to the American Revolution, and revised many times over the decades, were in response mostly to the possibility of a slave uprising. The earlier codes enacted the most restrictive laws, yet the later revisions included standards for the slave owners to maintain in the treatment of slaves, including food, housing, clothing, medical care, worship, and free time, and included legal penalties to back them up.

    African slavery in the US is undoubtedly the most injurious thing Americans ever inflicted upon themselves. It has begot us with more misery and devilment than we can humanely deal with. I am not the least bit proud to admit that pretty much every line of my mother's family were slaveowners, and several were planters. In doing my family research, I have read far too many wills wherein human beings are divided amongst heirs in the same way as land, buggies, cows, and horses.

    However as bad as slavery was, I am 100% against the propaganda which claims it was worse in the US than it truly was. For here are some facts; of all the Africans shipped out during the entirety of the North Atlantic Slave Trade, only 4.4% were shipped to the US. In 1880, after Brazillian slavery finally came to an end, 38% of all New World Africans lived in the US. So they thrived here. They increased in number.

    Slavery in the US was incredibly benign compared to South American slavery, where the average lifespan of a slave was 10 years in slavery. Reading the primary sources, one finds out it was not uncommon in the US for slaves to resist their owners, and get not only relaxed work expectations, but other privileges as well. Slaves worked no harder than common white farmers, and indeed, probably less, as they learned to act stupid in front of their owners. The worst thing about slavery is what it has left us to deal with today.

    It is every bit as disingenuous to say slavery had nothing to do with the war as it is to say slavery was the cause of the war. Neither is true.

    Another good comment/post.

    This is, I guess, interesting:

    The antebellum South was as close to a feudal society as ever existed in North America.

    for a couple of reasons.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @S

    Slavery was the key issue...Slavery was a horrible institution, and was the prime source of friction between the states in the 1850s...In summary, slavery was the primary cause of conflict between the states...
     
    Very much so, on both the north and south's part, the elephant in the living room as it were. While it is widely known as it should be that the desire to retain the right to own and purchase chattel slaves is much of what drove seccessionism in the south little is known by most about chattel slavery in the northern colonies/states and its effects on the north, in particular the northeast (ie New England) and its push for abolitionism, and in time its drive for war. There is an explanation in this dirth of knowledge in that part of the spoils of winning a war is that the victors get to write the history books.

    While I won't delve into it here regarding causes of the US Civil War, there is also the aspect of the United States with its Manifest Destiny being historically very important to personages at the higher high levels of Freemasonry as a model of the continental superstate for the other continents of the world, the first cog and centerpiece at the time (and even now?) for the planned direct continuation of the British Empire as a truly all encompassing future global empire, ie the New Rome, or, the United States of the World. As such a model they couldn't very well let the Anglo-Saxon United States remain dis-united and split right down the middle for an indefinate period of time, now, could they?

    Anyhow, back to chattel slavery and its trade.

    In 1776 at the founding of the United States and as part of the British Empire's Triangular Trade, chattel slavery and its trade existed throughout the north and south of the North American colonies, much to the harm of the vast majority of the public whom did not own slaves but had to rather suffer with it, the practice not being called historically 'a scourge upon mankind' for nothing. Due to climatic conditions the slave dealers tended to be concentrated in the more mercantile orientated northeast (ie Massachusetts figuring quite prominently in this), while the slave ownership tended to be located in the more agrarian oriented south. By the latter 18th century the slave dealers had grasped that ultimately since slavery's introduction circa 1620 in North America what drives the person to purchase a chattel slave is a simple desire to pay significantly below whatever the prevailing real time local cost of labor was to employ (typically) one of their own. It had been realized that by providing their former would be slave owner/purchaser with a person (this person also known as an 'immigrant') whom would work well below the local prevailing cost of labor this requirement of the would be slave purchaser would be met. (To give an example of just how far below the prevailing rate when in the 1870's the California state legislature was literally forced to investigate the matter it was found the Chinese being continuously imported in by diktat were often being paid one third, ie almost seventy percent below, of whatever the prevailing local rate of labor was.). With the 'immigrant' (aka a 'wage slave', the systematic theft of the labor -the essence of slavery- being much more efficiently taken directly from their pay, hence the term wage slavery as opposed to a physically owned, ie chattel slave) just as before with chattel slavery the former would be slave dealer still profits, though even more so due to the volume, from constructing the ships, providing insurance for voyages, being paid per head in the form of a ticket now paid for by the immigrant and commisions paid by interested parties to locate and transport the sought after unpaid for labor internationally, etc. This transition from chattel to wage slavery went smoothly enough in the northeast during the late 18th and early 19th century where there were relatively few chattel slaves (though to be sure in the north they did own tens of thousands) and new chattel slave purchases were banned while current ownership was grandfathered, indeed some of these legally owned chattel slaves, albeit elderly, could still be found in the north, ie New Jersey, at the start of the Civil War in 1861. While it's true that in time the 'immigrant' might become unhappy being paid, either above or below the table, far below the prevailing local rate of labor for their work and seek employment elsewhere, that is perfectly okay in this arrangement. The former would be slave dealer ensures by a continuous flow of the 'immigrants' pouring in that there is always another one prepared to take his or her place at far below what is or would of been the prevailing local rate for labor were the immigration not taking place, it not being in time referred to as 'mass' immigration without reason. The would be slave purchaser with the 'immigrant(s)', just as with chattel slavery, still gets their secondary 'hit' of unpaid labor for whatever other business interests they may have in the form of overall depressed wages...ie in the US south virtual economic depressions were reported in the areas immediately surrounding plantations by the slave owners (typically) own people, as the chattel slaves, either on the plantation or being 'leased' out to the surrounding countryside were doing much of the available work making jobs scarce. A similar situation exist with imported H1b visa holders and technology jobs today.

    While as stated, with many fewer chattel slaves in the US north this transition, this monetization of chattel slavery and its trade, went smoothly enough with the introduction of what with industrialisation would soon enough in the early 19th century evolve into the cheap labor/mass immigration system which today forms the economic and political basis of the ideology of multi-culturalism. This effort to monetize slavery by the nascant US was part of a larger late 18th and early 19th century global push known as 'Abolitionism' to do the same (that is to monetize the practice of chattel slavery) culminating in the 1833 abolition of slave ownership within the British Empire. In the years following the Empire's West African fleet would hunt down any chattel slavers persisting in plying the trade in the Atlantic which would also (somewhat cynically on their part) ensure no one could somehow resurrect the chattel slave trade to compete with their new fangled wage slave trade (ie the cheap labor/mass immigration system). With wage slavery the British Empire then, and at present as the Anglosphere, thus continues to dominate the global trade in slaves.

    As mentioned the transition to wage slavery (the so called cheap labor) went smoothly enough where there were relatively fewer chattel slaves, ie New England and the British Carribean, the latter's slave owners being financially compensated by the British Empire. However, in the US south where there were a great many more chattel slaves, and the practice had become deeply embedded as a way of life, there were four million chattel slaves as opposed to tens of thousands, and there was a balking by southern slave owners at making this transition without receiving guarantees of compensation for their lost 'property'. Indeed, the Virginia state legislature came close multiple times in the years and decades preceding the Civil War to adopting the north's 'cheap labor'/mass immigration system, but without these guarantees of compensation for slave owners which for whatever reason were not forth coming, these bills could not be seen thru to passing. Even so, with or without chattel slaves, efforts were made to introduce the north's cheap labor/mass immigration system in the south and articles were written about this in the media of the day. However, chattel and wage slavery was found to not work very well together in part as southern slave owners didn't much like the fraternizing which sometimes occurred between the 'immigrants' and chattel slaves and the disaffection on the latter's part this could cause.

    Early 19th century New England textile mill owners, this subject having been researched and these were indeed the very same whom in many instances had been the chattel slave dealers in British colonial/early US North America, ie they 'ran the show' as to the chattel slave trade and its later monetization, had a very deep financial interest in the south adopting the cheap labor/mass immigration system of the US north. It was after all the inefficient and much costlier chattel slaves of the south whom were picking the cotton which supplied his northern textile mills. Anything adding to the cost of the finished cloth cut into the profit margin besides making his textiles less competitive and that much more difficult to sell. And it likely drove a number of these merchants almost mad thinking about the losses they were regularly incurring due to this inefficiency. These New England merchants, though having played a large part in the proliferation of chattel slavery as the slave dealers within what would be the United States, now wanted for financial reasons to see chattel slavery eradicated and replaced with its monetization, wage slavery, ie 'cheap labor' so called. They called this effort 'Abolition' and would finance much of this movement, if they had not originated it themselves with their London counter parts. The Lawrences of Massachusetts were such, being a family of textile factory magnates whom had constructed the planned industrial city of Lawrence, Mass in the 1840's to house imported labor to operate the family's mills, the city not coincidentally to this day officially nicknamed 'Immigrant City'. Abbott Lawrence, the family's patriarch, would finagle an appointment as US ambassador to the UK which then included famine stricken Ireland in the late 1840's. Ireland being prostate as it was at the time made for a rich source of wage slaves for the family's textile mills. Lest anyone think the Irish saw their enmasse predation as wage slaves to the United States as an act of kindness, think again. Paralleling the depopulating and genocidal effects of African chattel slavery, the Irish called their own resulting large scale depopulation of Ireland due to wage slavery 'extermination' and as documented by The Spectator of London were shooting members of the British aristocracy for advocating or sponsoring the large scale exodus of Irish to the US, something not presented in the movie The Gangs of New York. Entirely concurring with the Irish assesment (ie 'extermination' re mass immigration) the London Times wrote an editorial in 1851 regarding a tour Ambassador Lawrence was making of Ireland and declared the mass exodus of the Irish would soon directly result in their being 'known no more' as a people. It would be the Lawrence family which in support of 'free soilers' would finance the construction of Lawrence, KS (a sister city of Lawrence, Mass as it were) during the mid 1850's in the territory then known as 'Bleeding Kansas'. Kansas with its guerilla armies in the latter 1850's (some at times equipped with their own artillery) fighting for chattel or wage slavery and privately financed respectively by southern plantation owners and northern merchants was a micro-cosm of the coming US Civil War.

    While the term 'cheap labor' was in common usage in the decades prior to the US Civil War a curious but very telling thing happened as the 1850's progressed. As the decade came to a close in 1860 the term 'cheap labor' had literally disappeared from the corporate media of the day and had been replaced by the term 'free labor'. Much emphasis was made on the 'free' portion of this term, ie as this laborer was a free man rather than an unfree chattel slave and that they were often white European as opposed to black African. Little if any emphasis was made that this new 'free laborer' was quite often different to varying degrees physically and culturally from the then Anglo-Saxon majority population, as people then and Europeans in Europe now could readily tell you, some of these differences being significant and good and some not so good. No mention was made how in Massachusetts the Anglo-Saxon population had already been largely displaced by the yearly mass importation of Irish Roman Catholics, ie in Boston, nor for that matter that in the state of California thousands of Chinese wage slaves were then being imported in yearly though the country's 'back door'. Nor was much made that the desire of at least some (many?) of these northern merchants was to 'free' the African slaves only so they could be as quickly as possible entered into the work force as wage slaves, ie cheap laborers, their labor now being systematically stolen much more efficiently and profitably than before with the old chattel slave system.

    To sum it up, the average non-slave holding southern soldier despite many believing the at best self deceiving lies of many of their elites about the war being one simply of only 'state's rights' (unless one sees it as 'state's rights' to preserve chattel slavery) fought a war for chattel slavery, a terribly destructive practice decidedly not in any way shape or form in their best interest. Similarly, the northern soldier with the at best self deceptions of their elites about the war being one to 'preserve the union', or to 'free the slaves' also fought a war for slavery, specifically wage slavery (ie 'cheap labor' so called) which their formerly chattel slave dealing/owning elites hoped to forcibly introduce -and greatly profit from- into the US south as had already been done in the north. The northern soldier quite literally fought and died for the cause of 'cheap labor', labor which had already physically and culturally displaced him in many of the major northern cities, ie Boston and New York, and elements of the corporate media were already declaring in 1861 that it was a done deal that he would soon be completely displaced by tens of millions of Chinese wage slaves to be imported by diktat into the US via the state of California.

    When violence became inevitable between the north and south in the Spring of 1861 rather than the guns being turned upon each other the guns should of been turned upon their respective northern and southern slavery addicted elites, whom since 1620 had become ever more increasingly addicted to doing anything but anything than pay their own people the prevailing real time local rate of labor. Slavery, whether as manifested by northern dealer/owners, and now pushers of chattel slavery's monetization, so called 'cheap labor', or as chattel slave owners/ purchasers of the south, had largely corrupted these elites and their hangers on. Had that happened, instead of the catastrophe that did where chattel slavery was simply monetized rather than being abolished across the whole of the US in 1865 at the expense of six hundred thousand lives, I'm convinced most of them when so confronted by their own people would have surrendered, and compensation or not, would of ultimately felt...greatly relieved. Yes, some lives would have been lost by those hard core slavers defending their 'right' to own chattels as 'property' and others, being of the same ilk would no doubt have fought for their 'right' to import and employ wage slaves (cheap laborers), but certainly not six hundred thousand lives. Slavery could then truly have been eradicated in the US, much unlike the faux 'abolition' which took place. Self determination could then have been had for both the former African chattel slaves and the Europeans in the United States each grouping with plenty of reasons to go their own way. And in a likely relatively short war fought against slavery practitioners of both its chattel and wage manifestations, north and south, where they may well have joined forces against the non-slave holding general public, Robert E Lee, a non slave holder would have had the opportunity to have lead his fellow Virginians and others in an anti-slavery war with gusto rather than seemingly half grudgingly as when he fought out of loyalty for slave holding Virginia.


    “The [Civil] war was essentially an industrial struggle - a struggle between free labor and the masters of slave labor.” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine - January 1897

    “The educated free labor of Massachusetts*, we have seen, doubles the products of toil, per capita, as compared with Maryland, and quadruples them (as the Census shows) compared with South Carolina….” Former US Treasurer and slave speculator Robert Walker writing from London in December, 1863. The Continental Monthly - March 1864

    ‘Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war power, and chattel slavery destroyed. This, I and my European friends are in favor of, for slavery is but the owning of labor and carries with it the care for the laborer, while the European plan led by England, is for capital to control labor by controlling the wages…’ Bank of England circular sent to every bank in New York and New England in 1862, Imperial Washington (1922) pg 51 - 52

    “It is our conviction that monopolies are as destructive as competition is conservative of the principles and vitalities of republican Government; that slave labor is a monopoly which excludes free labor and competition; that slaves are kept in comparitive idleness and ease in a fertile half of our arable national territory, while free white laborers, constantly augmenting in numbers from Europe, are confined to the the other half and are often distressed by want; that the free white laborers of the North has more need of expansion into the Southern States, from which it is virtually excluded, than slavery had into Texas in 1846…” Excerpt of Proclamation by US Brigadier-General Phelps to the loyal people of the Southwest, Ship Island, Mississippi, December 4, 1861. Report of Gulf Blockading Squadron - December 16, 1861 thru February 21, 1862

    '...the rise of the modern industrial system made wage slavery a more efficient agent of production than chattel slavery.' Excerpt of the 1907 foreword to the book The War-Time Journal of a Georgia Girl, 1864-1865 (published in 1908)

    * The former US Treasurer and slave speculator Robert Walker, utilizing US census data for 1860, compared Massachusetts and South Carolina. Mass, the center of US industry at the time, and indeed, where it had gotten started, was heavily reliant upon wage slaves, ie ‘cheap labor’ imported from French Quebec in Canada and Ireland in Europe…while meanwhile South Carolina was heavily reliant upon chattel slaves. In doing so he effectively calculated that wage slavery (ie cheap labor) was four times more profitable/productive than chattel slavery.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=ZKwcAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA51&dq=book+Imperial+Washington+Pettigrew&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html

    https://docsouth.unc.edu/fpn/andrews/andrews.html

    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_new_rome_or_the_united_states_of_the_world_1853

    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/a_virtual_round_the_world_voyage

    http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/20th-november-1847/12/extermination-and-vengeance

    http://slavenorth.com

    Seems to be a wonderful article but can’t be read because no paragraphs.

    Short paragraphs with a space between is more important for reading on a computer screen than reading on paper.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Logan
    While the South would be paying nearly 80 % of the tariff, most of the revenues would be spent in the North.

    I believe this to be entirely inaccurate, quite ironic given the title of the piece.

    However, if someone cares to demonstrate how either of these statements is accurate, I'm perfectly willing to be convinced.

    I’m with on the disrespectful replies to Logan. Logan may or may not be a troll, but he certainly isn’t exuding troll. Those who watch my postings know that I can be a very brutal smart-ass–and I make my share of errors at it too, I hasten to add.

    Now for Logan, I would suggest that he read up on Dr. Cathey’s bio and impressive credentials as a historian and highly lettered man.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    In his comment #42 to Jake, Logan referred to himself as "Sherman." He has since been evading my observation of that apparent slip up, reinforcing my hypothesis that he is the "Sherman" who has helped to clutter many threads on this website playing the Jewish foil of "Wally."

    It's even more clear from this thread that he's not about to take your suggestion. Logan's not here to learn or teach, but to squabble (sincerely or not) and defend his mere, self-described "opinion."

    I regret wasting anyone else's time with this, but commenters like Logan/Sherman tend to drive out the good, cf., Takimag and ZeroHedge. And the substantive discussion about the article has played out anyway.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. @3g4me
    @6 Thomm: "Sorry, but Dinesh D’Souza is vastly more knowledgeable than Boyd Cathey."

    Because being a subcontinental larping as an American, just like you, he must be considered to have pure motives.

    Thomm is really Senator Thom Tillis with an extra m.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @Logan
    The problem with your theory is that the Constitution does not give one state to declare a fugitive slave from another state to be free. In fact, it specifically requires that state to return the slave.

    Now it doesn't prescribe exactly how this is supposed to be done, and it seems reasonable that a state could set up a system of due process whereby the slave would have to be proven to indeed be a slave and that the person claiming ownership was in the right.

    However, it's clear that a number of northern states set up such procedures with the intent of preventing return. IOW, they acted in bad faith, and had no intent of finding in favor of the owner.

    Which is why the federal government passed the Fugitive Slave Act of of 1850, whereby returning fugitive slaves was made a federal responsibility. Somewhat hilariously, this was perhaps the most egregious example during the 1850s of a violation of "states' rights."

    The problem with your theory is that the Constitution does not give one state to declare a fugitive slave from another state to be free. In fact, it specifically requires that state to return the slave.

    That’s what I said– the law was constitutional, but it makes a mockery of state sovereignty. Thus, the Constitution makes a mockery of state sovereignty. Lansing and Yates were right to storm out.

    This is what gets my goat. Southerners go on and on and on about the loss of state sovereignty, but ignore the fact that they were once its worst enemy.

    Back in the days when they were also the pioneers in gun prohibition.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. You guys realize that Muslims enslaved white Europeans by the hundreds of thousands?

    Whats up with the white guilt?

    I as a Muslim dont feel guilty for enslaving your ancestors.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
    You probably don't feel guilty about washing all that Wilbur's pork barbeque and hushpuppies down with PBRs last night either.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @Anon
    Some of my fathers ancestors in the maternal line were involved in the Kansas Nebraska war of the 1850s. They were burnt out of Lawrence Kansas by Quantrill’s raiders. They returned to St Joe Mo for a while and then went west and didn’t stop till they got to the Pacific.

    Dad’s paternal line were some of the founders of Frankfort Kentucky in the 1820s. I once thought of retiring to Frankfurt. A nice little 1840s house, a big garden no liberals lecturing and hating me, blue grass music.

    Then I checked the census. About 30 % black. No thanks.

    The country is run by the people who think American history began in 1890 on Ellis island.

    They run it now. The East Coast power center. The Jews. The Irish-Catholics. The Italians.

    On the West Coast the Asian technocrats.

    The Cubans in Miami.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Them Guys
    Your Canada issue is moot. Ohio is part of America, Canada is not. Matters not if run away slaves were trying to leave America or not. That slave was Caught in usa lands, and the same supreme ct decision applied to every usa state. What do you not as yet get?

    It is not about support for or against slavery. Main issue was: Is or is not a slave owned property back during slave era. US Supremes said Yes is property. Your goofy argument is with those justices.

    Doesn’t matter if Canada isn’t part of the US. By your argument, that slave is property anywhere it the world he may reach– if you are right. So the US Army or privateer bounty hunters would not only be fully justified in invading Canada, they would be remiss in their duties had they not. If you are right, that is.

    So why didn’t Presidents Polk and Tyler and Buchanan invade Canada? Because they were afraid of a third war with the British? Victoria’s minions were committing acts of war against the states.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Them Guys
    Stop the many "What If's". the slave was CAUGHT IN usa lands. His Black owner brought a case to us supremes. He won, got run away slave returned end of story. Matters not if slave intended to flee to canada, or zimbawbwee Africa. He Ran away, was caught and assisted in Northern state, by White assisters. Black slave owner located his property/slave, proved it so in top USA court, got slave back...


    So just What do You not as yet get? All your questionings of Canada, why didn't some us prez start a new war with Canada or British England etc etc is MOOT.


    Was slave property in all countries he "Might" have ended up in? I don't know. Guess it all depends on That nations Laws eh. Maybe Canada would return the slave? maybe Not? But it matters NOT and is Moot as I prior stated...The facts of what did happen is what we speak of...Not a hundred what ifs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @Colin Wright
    ‘…While the South would be paying nearly 80 % of the tariff, most of the revenues would be spent in the North.’

    I believe this to be entirely inaccurate, quite ironic given the title of the piece…

    There are two propositions you are questioning; first that 80% of the tariff would be collected from the South, and second that most of it would be spent in the North.

    Since the North had twice the population of the South, it indeed seems likely that most of the revenue would be spent there, so at least the second half of the statement seems reasonable.

    As to the South paying 80% of the tariff, since the South did rely heavily on importing manufactured goods, that too seems at least possible.

    As to the South paying 80% of the tariff, since the South did rely heavily on importing manufactured goods…

    And who’s fault was that? A tariff is just a small fine for not buying American. They seem to have had some problem with buying from their fellow citizens.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @Logan
    You may very well be right. That book is 500+ pages, and while I downloaded it, I'm not really going to slog through it to find some quote that may or may not line up with the 80% number.

    However, Taussig, in his discussion of the prewar tariff (Part 2 - Chapter 1), states that it was the lowest it had been in a long time and was generally along free trade lines. I don't think anybody is going to find much support in Taussig for the notion that the intolerable exploitation of the tariff was the primary cause of secession.

    I've seen this 80% number tossed around for years, and have never been able to track it to its lair. The closest I've been able to come is the fact that 60% of exports were cotton, and if you add in other southern exports, you might get close to 80% of US exports being from the South.

    But of course exports are not tariffs. I suspect the two have been conflated and then the statistic passed from one source to another without bothering to check if it's, you know, true.

    “But of course exports are not tariffs. I suspect the two have been conflated and then the statistic passed from one source to another without bothering to check if it’s, you know, true.”

    You’re right–exports are not tariffs, but tariffs can be levied on exports as well as on imports.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @rebelwriter
    To those who say, "Slavery had nothing to do with it," I must disagree, and I do so purely out of a desire for historical accuracy.

    The proper sequence of events, though, is important. Secession was partly to protect slavery, and the war was a response to secession, not slavery. The war was not started to free the slaves, and did not become a war aim until the Emancipation Proclamation was issued in Sept. of 1862, after Sharpsburg.

    One must read things such as "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union," to get a glimpse of what the leaders were feeling and thinking at the time.

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

    There were many valid points of contention that didn't involve slavery, yet there were many that did. On top of this, every single man who signed the Ordinance of Secession for SC was a slaveholder, without one exception.

    The elite of the South were the planters, defined as owning 20 or more slaves. They had the political power, the economic power, and the cultural power. The antebellum South was as close to a feudal society as ever existed in North America. Common whites deferred to the "Landed Gentry," as they were generally the only people with the luxury of free time for both education and politics.

    Be that as it may, it was surprising to me to read of how SC actually left the Union; which was exactly as they entered it, by a plebicite-like ratification process. Electors ran for representation based on their stance of Union vs. Secession. All qualified voters could vote. Secession was unamimous. Only one area of the state, the so-called Dark Corner of Greenville, voted in any numbers against secession.

    Depending on how you count them, meaning households vs. individuals, planters counted for around 6% of Southerners counted as households, or .75% counted as individuals.
    There were more slaveowners in SC, though. I can't cite statistics for the state, but at one time slaves outnumbered free whites here and in Mississippi.

    I'm still not entirely comfortable I understand why so many Southerners who didn't own slaves voted for secession, unless they didn't view slavery as being the main reason for the break, which is the only reasonable explanation I have. They had their own reasons for wanting to leave.

    A very important fact to remember about these people is that there were more descendants of Revolutionary War veterans in the South per capita than in the North. The 19th Century influx of immigrants barely even touched the South, where the population was stable from 1780 until after the war. Those few who did immigrate to the South adopted the cause, and fought for the CSA. Why?

    The best explanation I can offer is that they viewed Washington, by that time, as being as foreign as was London to their forefathers, and were pushing back against being told what to do - about anything at all - by meddlesome Yankees.

    Remember that at this point a president had been elected without a single Southern electoral vote, and that Southerners were then a minority in BOTH houses of Congress. In the mind of a Southerner at the time, they were already a mere colony of Washington.

    This is backed up by my reading of the speeches of one William King Easley, a militia leader and Upstate planter, who spoke at every monthly meeting of the militia in Greenville. These were very interesting affairs, and they deserve their own post, or article even. Anyway, he never missed the opportunity to point out that these sons and grandsons of American patriots were under the yoke of Yankee slave masters in Washington, etc., etc. He very rarely spoke of slavery at all, except to point out that the North wished for a slave uprising, and had supported John Brown's raid, both with good will, and with money.

    The fear of a slave uprising can't be understated. From my readings I can confidently state most Southerners, slaveowner or not, held the possibility as one of their greatest mortal fears. Haiti was forever in their minds. It's a recurring theme in their writings from the period.

    The Slave Codes, written prior to the American Revolution, and revised many times over the decades, were in response mostly to the possibility of a slave uprising. The earlier codes enacted the most restrictive laws, yet the later revisions included standards for the slave owners to maintain in the treatment of slaves, including food, housing, clothing, medical care, worship, and free time, and included legal penalties to back them up.

    African slavery in the US is undoubtedly the most injurious thing Americans ever inflicted upon themselves. It has begot us with more misery and devilment than we can humanely deal with. I am not the least bit proud to admit that pretty much every line of my mother's family were slaveowners, and several were planters. In doing my family research, I have read far too many wills wherein human beings are divided amongst heirs in the same way as land, buggies, cows, and horses.

    However as bad as slavery was, I am 100% against the propaganda which claims it was worse in the US than it truly was. For here are some facts; of all the Africans shipped out during the entirety of the North Atlantic Slave Trade, only 4.4% were shipped to the US. In 1880, after Brazillian slavery finally came to an end, 38% of all New World Africans lived in the US. So they thrived here. They increased in number.

    Slavery in the US was incredibly benign compared to South American slavery, where the average lifespan of a slave was 10 years in slavery. Reading the primary sources, one finds out it was not uncommon in the US for slaves to resist their owners, and get not only relaxed work expectations, but other privileges as well. Slaves worked no harder than common white farmers, and indeed, probably less, as they learned to act stupid in front of their owners. The worst thing about slavery is what it has left us to deal with today.

    It is every bit as disingenuous to say slavery had nothing to do with the war as it is to say slavery was the cause of the war. Neither is true.

    “The antebellum South was as close to a feudal society as ever existed in North America.”

    A very thorough post. I have a question for you though. How would you describe Northern society of the same time period?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    Industrial. That is why the center of power and finance is on the East Coast today. Fueled by the immigrant waves to the East Coast.
    , @RebelWriter
    I don't know nearly as much about the North at that time as I do the South, because I haven't read as much about it. I'll list the things I do know, but a near comparison with a word as cool as "feudal" won't be possible.

    New York and New England were THE centers of international trade and commerce. They pretty much always had been after they were established. The ships that docked in Charleston harbor and New Orleans, and sailed up and down the Chesapeake Bay, were Northern ships for the most part. Trade was the life blood of the Northeast. For all they produced, from cotton, to indigo, to rice, the South never really developed a trading fleet of any sort until the blockade runners of the war, and while I haven't looked into it, I'd bet most of the captains on those ships were Yankees. A saying from the time was, "Southern cotton makes Northern sails," and they didn't mean cotton was the raw material for sailcloth, but that it made the industry rich.

    A little further inland were the factories. Here there is something to compare to the South, as it was compared to the South at the time. The largest share of manufacturing was textiles, an industry later moved from New England to the South for a lower paid work force, because American unions were born in the textile mills in the 18th Century. Working conditions were, as you might guess, abominable. There were no child labor laws. Young single women made up the largest part of the work force, and everything you can imagine that would lead to, it did. There are plenty of stories about young women working in textile mills getting pregnant by their supervisor, and becoming soiled doves, and also unemployed.

    The first mill town ever built was in Rhode Island. The mill town was not an American invention, as they existed in Britain, and I'm not certain the American factory owners came up with the mill script system, but they employed it extensively. The mill system worked like this; they provided the housing, which workers rented. The rent was docked from one's pay. The pay was in company script, redeemable at the company store, which sold everything the mill workers needed, and most of what they wanted. This system was subject to considerable abuse, and such abuse was documented, as the company knew how much a worker made, and how much they spent, and could keep them forever in debt.

    A child as young as 12 could go to work in the mill, and work until he could not work any longer, from old age, or more likely, a mill accident. His career always ended in debt. I've never read of anyone retiring from a milll of the time with any savings. It might have happened, though. It's also possible that this is merely a worst case scenario, and that there were more benevolent mill owners. I feel certain this is the case.

    The reason slaves weren't used in Northern mills and at the harbors for loading and unloading is that the common people simply would not allow it. Common people in the South farmed, but common people in the much more densely populated North needed jobs. Paul Revere, an artisan, wrote some pretty harsh things about his neighbors that owned slaves, and what might be done to them if they were used to compete with him. Slaves were competition for jobs, and also would have kept wages down. Immigrants, however, in very large numbers, came in from Ireland and Germany, and had the same effect. This is the main reason for the violence between the natives and the immigrants.

    Let's talk about black up North for a minute. There were slaves in every Northern colony, then in every Northern state. They were generally house servants, domestics, drivers, and cooks, etc. Most were gone by 1830, though there were still some slaves in NY and NJ when the Civil War broke out. The majority of them were sold South. Those that were freed were encouraged to leave. There were many, many more free black in the South than in the North. Hundreds of free blacks in the South owned slaves. Blacks weren't welcome in most places in the North, and vagrancy laws were used to move them on and keep them out. I refer you to www.slavenorth.com for more detail on slaves and blacks in the North. It's a very good site, and I highly recommend it.

    I have the book, somewhere, and can't remember the name of the author, or the name of the book. I really need to hunt it down if I'm going to reference it. Anyway, he was a tobacco farmer in North Carolina who was determined to make a profit without the use of slaves. He used the 1860 US Census, the previous farm census, and other tables available at the time to prove slavery was far less profitable than the Northern mill system. He published the book just before war broke out, so it wasn't widely read. However, it had some really interesting information.

    A slave was "paid" whether or not he worked, as the slave owner was entirely responsible for his upkeep, 24/7/365, from the time he was born until he died. In the case of a child, he was paid for without working at all until the child reached 12, when he would begin working on the plantation. Slaves rarely worked in the fields past their early to mid 60's, but were kept up until they died of old age. In the Northern system, workers were only paid for the time they worked, and were themselves responsible for everything else. This alone, according to the author, would lead to the end of slavery. It would die a natural death, so to speak. However, that wasn't allowed to happen.

    This was not the first time such an argument had been made. Indeed it was one slave owners used to justify the "peculiar institution." They claimed slavery was far more benevolent than the Northern system, as the worker was always cared for, even when he was hurt and could not work.

    The rest of the North, away from the coasts, was an agrarian country of large, mostly German farms worked by large families. There was industry that sprang up in the larger towns, but overall, farming was the life blood of the region, and it produced prodigious quantities of wheat, millet, corn, beef, pork, and chicken, for the markets back East.

    The difference between these Midwest family farms, and those in the South, are stark. There was only one money crop in the South, cotton, and every family farm devoted some land to its cultivation. The Northern farms devoted vast fields to crops such as wheat. Up North, people fenced their livestock in, while down South livestock was ranged, and crops were fenced off to keep the livestock out. Tattooing and ear-notching were used as marks of ownership. These were precursors to branding that would later be used on ranged cattle out West. Midwestern farms were more profitable than Southern farms. From what I can tell, Southern farmers weren't that interested in profit, and were merely concerned with self-sufficiency.

    This last is an interesting difference in Southern vs. Northern culture in general. Too much attention to money was considered vulgar among Southerners, where it was a virtue in the North. I really can't explain it. The planters loved being rich - and some of them were hideously wealthy - and enjoyed all the fine things their money could buy them, and yet at the same time they never seemed to discuss money among themselves, at all. In the 1850's Northern banks sent agents to the South to offer loans for improvements. It was not a successful operation. Most of the planters treated them with indifference. Those that took the loans later said they did so out of kindness, or something.

    I won't go into detail about how the elite of the North lived, because I just don't know enough about it. There were many fine things about Northern culture that I wish had caught on down South, such as general education, and colleges. There were some fine colleges down South, UVA, Columbia College (later the University of South Carolina), and others, but most planters sent their sons to Princeton or Harvard, and if they could, to Cambridge or Oxford. General education was instituted in the South during Reconstruction. Though Charleston did have the first public school in the colonies, it was a school for orphans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi
    You guys realize that Muslims enslaved white Europeans by the hundreds of thousands?

    Whats up with the white guilt?

    I as a Muslim dont feel guilty for enslaving your ancestors.

    You probably don’t feel guilty about washing all that Wilbur’s pork barbeque and hushpuppies down with PBRs last night either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    A very belated LOL, JBL! I almost spewed out my hash and PBR myself.

    (Just reading through all the comments now.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. gsjackson says:
    @Truth
    Whoa...

    I thought Dinesh was conservative.

    He was well-schooled in being a neocon useful idiot at the Heritage Foundation in the ’80s. Just a walking, talking Wall Street Journal editorial.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @Jim Bob Lassiter
    "The antebellum South was as close to a feudal society as ever existed in North America."

    A very thorough post. I have a question for you though. How would you describe Northern society of the same time period?

    Industrial. That is why the center of power and finance is on the East Coast today. Fueled by the immigrant waves to the East Coast.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
    "Industrial" doesn't evoke the same imagery as "feudal". A compare and contrast description of the model of exploiting labor and the life styles of the laboring class is in order here.

    Slave vs. Free is about as useful as Democrat vs. Republican.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. I saw the D’Souza movie and hated it. It was a modge podge of disjointed historical events that D’Souza tried to weave together to make a propaganda film.

    D’Souza never did explain why Hitler rose to power in Germany. The history of World War I and the horrendous Versailles treaty never entered into his research on how nations come to an end.

    Dr. Boyd Cathey wrote a great critique of this propaganda film, and confirmed what I was feeling about that film.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    I often thought about writing my history of the western world.
    I would begin with the French attack into what now is S Germany, this attack made possible the unified Germany, that around 1900 had become a serious economic competitor of the Great Britain empire.
    The economic also technical, scientific, social success of the unified Germany made it possible for enterprising jews to improve their position in society enormously.
    Alas, in my opinion, German jews did not behave very sensible, as Katz wrote: close economic cooperation, intermarriage, showing their new wealth, occupying a very disproportional part of intellectual jobs.
    This caused the German antisemitism.
    If jews were important in causing WWI, never found any evidence.
    But GB saw in detroying Germany the only way to maintain the British standard of living.
    WWI was only possible because of USA support, in the beginning just political and economic, later the USA had to interfere militarily to prevent a GB capitulation.
    Jews that had fled from Germany to the USA were important in the USA attitude in WWI, such as Morganthau sr and Bernard Baruch.
    When, unexpectedly, Hitler suceeded, despite Versailles, to resurrect Germany, Bernard Baruch brough FDR into politics to do it better.
    As to Germany, it succeeded.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Crimson2 says:

    This is hilarious.

    D’Souza claims the liberals are the real racists.

    The far-right: BULLSHIT!

    The fact that HE is the smarter one should be terrifying to you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    He isn't, he's a babbler who at one point claimed that Brahmin's and Jews came from the same gene pool.

    Also, like Spencer and the rest of them, he is one more example of the lack of brains behind the Alt-Right.

    A few lawyers, a onetime online editor, a homosexual with a Jewish mother and a ragtag bunch of blue-collar guys are no match for the billions (And billionaires) that the Left has to stand behind.

    Not all of them are pussies, either. The Democratic auxiliary shock troops of Cholos and blacks not the skinny pasty hippie ne're-do-wells. They're going to fight tooth-and-nail for the Democratic party, including the cops.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Minnesota Mary
    I saw the D'Souza movie and hated it. It was a modge podge of disjointed historical events that D'Souza tried to weave together to make a propaganda film.

    D'Souza never did explain why Hitler rose to power in Germany. The history of World War I and the horrendous Versailles treaty never entered into his research on how nations come to an end.

    Dr. Boyd Cathey wrote a great critique of this propaganda film, and confirmed what I was feeling about that film.

    I often thought about writing my history of the western world.
    I would begin with the French attack into what now is S Germany, this attack made possible the unified Germany, that around 1900 had become a serious economic competitor of the Great Britain empire.
    The economic also technical, scientific, social success of the unified Germany made it possible for enterprising jews to improve their position in society enormously.
    Alas, in my opinion, German jews did not behave very sensible, as Katz wrote: close economic cooperation, intermarriage, showing their new wealth, occupying a very disproportional part of intellectual jobs.
    This caused the German antisemitism.
    If jews were important in causing WWI, never found any evidence.
    But GB saw in detroying Germany the only way to maintain the British standard of living.
    WWI was only possible because of USA support, in the beginning just political and economic, later the USA had to interfere militarily to prevent a GB capitulation.
    Jews that had fled from Germany to the USA were important in the USA attitude in WWI, such as Morganthau sr and Bernard Baruch.
    When, unexpectedly, Hitler suceeded, despite Versailles, to resurrect Germany, Bernard Baruch brough FDR into politics to do it better.
    As to Germany, it succeeded.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @Crimson2
    This is hilarious.

    D'Souza claims the liberals are the real racists.

    The far-right: BULLSHIT!

    The fact that HE is the smarter one should be terrifying to you.

    He isn’t, he’s a babbler who at one point claimed that Brahmin’s and Jews came from the same gene pool.

    Also, like Spencer and the rest of them, he is one more example of the lack of brains behind the Alt-Right.

    A few lawyers, a onetime online editor, a homosexual with a Jewish mother and a ragtag bunch of blue-collar guys are no match for the billions (And billionaires) that the Left has to stand behind.

    Not all of them are pussies, either. The Democratic auxiliary shock troops of Cholos and blacks not the skinny pasty hippie ne’re-do-wells. They’re going to fight tooth-and-nail for the Democratic party, including the cops.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Malla says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Propaganda is as old as the world
    Philip M. Taylor, 'Munitions of the Mind, A History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Day', 1995, Manchester
    about WWI propaganda:
    Sir Campbell Stuart K.B.E., 'Secrets of Crewe House, The Story of a Famous Campaign', 1920, London
    Erich Ludendorff, 'Meine Kriegserinnerungen 1914 = 1918', Berlin, 1918
    Ludendorff was of the opinion that British propaganda was far better than the German
    About Morgenthau's WWI anti German propaganda:
    Heath W. Lowry, 'The story behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story', Istanbul 1990

    Every society and every tribe and every Empire from time immoral has depended upon propaganda for their power. Always have always will be. If you control the mind, you control the body, you do not have to post enforcers at every corner to enforce your rule on every BODY. Influence the MASS MINDS and the MINDS do the self controlling for you. As they say ‘The Pen is mightier than the Sword’.
    That is why every modern nation on earth either democratic, communist or a religious theocracy wishes to teach the official version of ‘history’ (historic propaganda) in their classrooms only for that propaganda to be regularly enforced by the media.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    Let me ask you these 2 questions.

    1. China has been able to become a manufacturing super power. On the basis of manufacturing, China has climbed the economic ladder and given the peasant masses a high standard of living. Do you think India has the ability to do the same? Can Indians work well with their hands in a manufacturing environment? I've noticed that Indians seem eager to take over the IT/software industry, but are hesitant about competing in manufacturing.

    2. I've heard people say that Northwestern Indians and Middle Easterners have similarities in personality, abilities, and culture. Both groups are supposed to be hot headed, prone to religious fundamentalism, talkative, fond of war, protective of their women, anti-feminist, physically aggressive, skilled at small business&trading, strict about food taboos (like pork and beef), and clannish.

    I've also heard that Southern Indians and East Asians have similarities in personality, culture, and abilities. Both groups are supposed to be diligent, academically oriented, gifted in math, quiet, self-restrained, secretive, less religious, less clannish, and less strict on food taboos.

    Is there any truth to any of that in your opinions?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jim Bob Lassiter
    I'm with @Anonymous on the disrespectful replies to Logan. Logan may or may not be a troll, but he certainly isn't exuding troll. Those who watch my postings know that I can be a very brutal smart-ass--and I make my share of errors at it too, I hasten to add.

    Now for Logan, I would suggest that he read up on Dr. Cathey's bio and impressive credentials as a historian and highly lettered man.

    In his comment #42 to Jake, Logan referred to himself as “Sherman.” He has since been evading my observation of that apparent slip up, reinforcing my hypothesis that he is the “Sherman” who has helped to clutter many threads on this website playing the Jewish foil of “Wally.”

    It’s even more clear from this thread that he’s not about to take your suggestion. Logan’s not here to learn or teach, but to squabble (sincerely or not) and defend his mere, self-described “opinion.”

    I regret wasting anyone else’s time with this, but commenters like Logan/Sherman tend to drive out the good, cf., Takimag and ZeroHedge. And the substantive discussion about the article has played out anyway.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Malla says:
    @Thomm

    “Thomm” is an Indian too.
     
    False. It is amazing that you WN wiggers think that, despite how little I write about the country in question. You also think Thorfinsson and DBCooper are Indians.

    On the other hand, you faggots can't figure out that Corvinus, Rec1Man, JohnnyWalker123, Talha, and others in fact ARE Indian.

    Talha is Pakistani American. This is well known and he is open about who he is.
    Corvinus is either a Jew or a black Christian. Pro Communism and has a vicious hatred for White people and western civilization.
    Rec1Man is a South Indian Brahmin, most probably Tamil Brahmin. An average Brahmin supremacist.
    JohnnyWalker123, well I had suspected he was a White guy with curry fever and thus very pro Asian Indian. I doubt he is Asian Indian. I have come across a few guys like him before, White guys totally into Asian Indian culture, more Indian than many Westernised Indian upper middle class folks. Most of the White guys who marry Asian Indian women tend to be of this type. Same with White women. Many White women who marry Asian Indian guys are already in love with Bollywood and Asian Indian culture before they meet their husbands.
    DBCooper is definitely not Asian Indian. Most probably Chinese or a pro Chinese White guy.
    You Thomm are a mystery meat. I suspect, you really are an Asian Indian or a Jew. Or you a spoiled lefty upper middle class White guy, a Hipster type perhaps, scared shit of manly redneck Whites. Using Asian Indians and multiculturalism to differentiate yourself from the redneck Whites just like how many Upper class or upper middle class Asian Indians westernize, to differentiate themselves from the low IQ unwashed Indian masses.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla

    JohnnyWalker123, well I had suspected he was a White guy with curry fever
     
    Curry fever here means guys who are into exotic brown South Asian girls.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Malla says:
    @Anon
    Lincoln wrote and said that he wanted to deport the blacks after the war. The Central American countries had some sort of customs and foreign affairs union at the time.

    All the individual countries were represented in Washington by just one envoy, the Nicaraguan Ambassador. Lincoln badgered him to take the former slaves. After consultations back home the plan was adamantly refused.

    Bribing Haiti to take them and shipping them to Liberia was also discussed by Lincoln.
    It’s just my personal opinion that Lincoln’s talk of deporting the slaves was just campaign promises for the 1964 election.

    The working and small family business class was the biggest voting bloc in the north. They didn’t want cheap labor and high crime levels in their towns.

    I doubt very much that Lincoln would have tried to deport the blacks had he lived.

    It’s often obvious you didn’t go to school in America but in some country whose streets are toilets and have been that way for 5,000 years.

    All the individual countries were represented in Washington by just one envoy, the Nicaraguan Ambassador. Lincoln badgered him to take the former slaves. After consultations back home the plan was adamantly refused.

    LOL I remember someone complain about how the Central American nations loved morally beating White America about their treatment of blacks but when asked to take those American blacks and make them citizens in their own mestizo-mulatto countries, they would all shy away and refuse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Malla says:
    @Dumbo
    My "agree" button is not working, but I agree. The fact that Dinesh is Indian and friendly with the neocons should be a huge red flag. "Thomm" is an Indian too. Indians, conservative or not, smart or not, shouldn't be in the West. Once I went to an Indian restaurant and I got food poisoning.

    Once I went to an Indian restaurant and I got food poisoning.

    Cook Indian food yourself. There are videos on youtube teaching you how to cook Indian food (or Arab food or Ethiopian food or Jamaican food). I am Indian myself and I am scared to go to most Indian (or ethnic) restaurants.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Malla says:
    @Malla
    Talha is Pakistani American. This is well known and he is open about who he is.
    Corvinus is either a Jew or a black Christian. Pro Communism and has a vicious hatred for White people and western civilization.
    Rec1Man is a South Indian Brahmin, most probably Tamil Brahmin. An average Brahmin supremacist.
    JohnnyWalker123, well I had suspected he was a White guy with curry fever and thus very pro Asian Indian. I doubt he is Asian Indian. I have come across a few guys like him before, White guys totally into Asian Indian culture, more Indian than many Westernised Indian upper middle class folks. Most of the White guys who marry Asian Indian women tend to be of this type. Same with White women. Many White women who marry Asian Indian guys are already in love with Bollywood and Asian Indian culture before they meet their husbands.
    DBCooper is definitely not Asian Indian. Most probably Chinese or a pro Chinese White guy.
    You Thomm are a mystery meat. I suspect, you really are an Asian Indian or a Jew. Or you a spoiled lefty upper middle class White guy, a Hipster type perhaps, scared shit of manly redneck Whites. Using Asian Indians and multiculturalism to differentiate yourself from the redneck Whites just like how many Upper class or upper middle class Asian Indians westernize, to differentiate themselves from the low IQ unwashed Indian masses.

    JohnnyWalker123, well I had suspected he was a White guy with curry fever

    Curry fever here means guys who are into exotic brown South Asian girls.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Mr. Anon says:
    @Thomm
    You are forgetting that White Trashionalists have sub-negro IQs, so any detailed explanation on my part would go completely over your head.

    But the fact remains, Boyd Cathey is a Neo-Confederate leftist. That ideology went out of style 150 years ago. He says Lincoln wanted to deport blacks back to Africa, for god's sake.

    So you can not point out anything Cathy said that was wrong. Okay.

    Good to know.

    All you can do is blow smoke out of your ass, which – in your case – is an orifice indistinguishable from your pie-hole, given that you are a butt-head.

    You are indeed – as everyone here knows by now – a stupid, bloviating dips**t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Mr. Anon says:
    @Thomm

    Dinesh is no friend of the American people. He’s a old Neo-Con and open border supporter.

     

    There is hardly anyone more pro-America than Dinesh D'Souza. Plus, he is extremely against illegal immigraton, as he has said on TV many times. Get a clue.

    Maybe for MAGA types he’s the man
     
    Gee, so Dinesh wants to make America great again. WN wiggers can't have that, because they just want intra-white socialism so that you can mooch off of productive whites like me.

    There is hardly anyone more pro-America than Dinesh D’Souza. Plus, he is extremely against illegal immigraton, as he has said on TV many times. Get a clue.

    Who gives a f**k? Is he against legal immigration? The kind that permitted dull-witted parasites like you to come to this country?

    You are a piece of human garbage – nobody here cares what you think.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Why don't you just write as Rigoletto? No make believe needed for you as the malevolent hunchbacked dwarf. Probably Sicilian-Arab-Moor quadroon.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. APilgrim says:

    Back in the day, many Southern Elders referred to the 1860s & 1870s as …

    The Recent Unpleasantness.’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  181. Malla says:
    @Jeff Stryker
    D'Souza is a Goan-they're a Portuguese-Indian mixed group.

    What good is that? Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho was one of those Luso Goans but led the leftist commie banker elite controlled Carnation Revolution against the post Salazar anti commie Estado Novo regime following the globalist elite backed Indian conquest of Goa. This destroyed the Portuguese Empire, brought years of misery to Angola and Mozambique and put more pressure on the Rhodesia as well as South Africa.
    I knew many of these elite Portuguese upper caste Hindu ancestry mixed Catholic families of Goa. Many of them took part in global subversive movements. One family had a family member in the past who was a friend of Lenin and was in Russia. What is ironic is that most of these idiotic elite catholic half Portuguese families lost a lot of their property to slimy Hindu scamsters who have ruined Goa by mafia rule and looting after the globalist backed Indian invasion. Most of the mining in Goa are run by these mafias. One of my female friend’s ex boyfriend was from such an elite Goan family, one ‘Farais’ family, an elite Eurasian, aristocratic, well mannered, Catholic, old Goan family who lost nearly everything to ill mannered, thuggish Hindu goons after the Indian Army invasion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    I was identifying what D'Souza WAS to ignorant posters who have never traveled and will say all sorts of things about Indian ("Street shitters" etc) without knowing a thing about it.

    The Indian military is thuggish. I was on one train where some rambunctious Navy sailors sort of ignored me but went after an IT dork from Bangalore for some reason.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @Jeff Stryker
    Industrial. That is why the center of power and finance is on the East Coast today. Fueled by the immigrant waves to the East Coast.

    “Industrial” doesn’t evoke the same imagery as “feudal”. A compare and contrast description of the model of exploiting labor and the life styles of the laboring class is in order here.

    Slave vs. Free is about as useful as Democrat vs. Republican.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. @Malla
    Every society and every tribe and every Empire from time immoral has depended upon propaganda for their power. Always have always will be. If you control the mind, you control the body, you do not have to post enforcers at every corner to enforce your rule on every BODY. Influence the MASS MINDS and the MINDS do the self controlling for you. As they say 'The Pen is mightier than the Sword'.
    That is why every modern nation on earth either democratic, communist or a religious theocracy wishes to teach the official version of 'history' (historic propaganda) in their classrooms only for that propaganda to be regularly enforced by the media.

    Let me ask you these 2 questions.

    1. China has been able to become a manufacturing super power. On the basis of manufacturing, China has climbed the economic ladder and given the peasant masses a high standard of living. Do you think India has the ability to do the same? Can Indians work well with their hands in a manufacturing environment? I’ve noticed that Indians seem eager to take over the IT/software industry, but are hesitant about competing in manufacturing.

    2. I’ve heard people say that Northwestern Indians and Middle Easterners have similarities in personality, abilities, and culture. Both groups are supposed to be hot headed, prone to religious fundamentalism, talkative, fond of war, protective of their women, anti-feminist, physically aggressive, skilled at small business&trading, strict about food taboos (like pork and beef), and clannish.

    I’ve also heard that Southern Indians and East Asians have similarities in personality, culture, and abilities. Both groups are supposed to be diligent, academically oriented, gifted in math, quiet, self-restrained, secretive, less religious, less clannish, and less strict on food taboos.

    Is there any truth to any of that in your opinions?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    Punjabis will eat anything that moves if they are Hindu but you are more or less correct.

    Gujarat is near to the Middle East, in fact. Stones throw over the Gulf of Oman. South Asia is far across the Arabian Sea.
    , @Malla

    Do you think India has the ability to do the same? Can Indians work well with their hands in a manufacturing environment? I’ve noticed that Indians seem eager to take over the IT/software industry, but are hesitant about competing in manufacturing.
     
    Not likely. The masses of India are low IQ with low productivity, cunning, cheating population who lack discipline. There is good labour in India but not enough, too few. India is an corrupt oligarchy where most foreign companies are afraid to work. Government employees from the lowly peon to top officials are all extremely corrupt and will always be so. Goon and thug culture abound.

    The problem in India is the same on nearly the whole brown black third world i.e. low quality, low IQ, low productivity, cunning, low moral population.

    https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/3qjewAnLB1AxPOEhyhAEiN/Indian-workers-have-a-productivity-problem.html
    Indian workers have a productivity problem

    https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Doing-business-in-India-difficult-Honda-Motor-chief-says/articleshow/42385801.cms
    Doing business in India difficult, Honda Motor chief says - Times of India.
    BTW Honda knows what they are talking about, they have been in India for decades and have sold 17 million+ motorcycles and many cars.


    I will let some experts explain the rest

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdVYVSdDAXs

    As portfolio manager Justin Leverenz says 'There will be no Next China'. Neither India not Africa.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nh25s-zAZo

    More about India becoming China hype

    https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/jobs/only-6-of-those-passing-out-of-indias-engineering-colleges-are-fit-for-a-job/articleshow/64446292.cms
    Engineering Jobs: 94% of engineering graduates are not fit for hiring

    https://qz.com/india/941399/indian-engineers-are-so-bad-that-hcl-technologies-wants-to-hire-high-school-graduates/
    Indian Engineers are so bad that HCL Engineers are hiring High School graduates

    As far as software is concerned, even that is a hype. No Indian IIT team has won the IBM ACM contest and in some years have not even solved a single problem.

    https://www.infoworld.com/article/3113107/application-development/us-developers-have-the-numbers-but-china-and-russia-have-the-skills.html
    American (mostly Indians) and Indian software engineers are overhyped. China, Russia and Eastern Europe in general has the talent.

    Indians are similar to blacks and like to thump their chests and over hype themselves. I live here, I see it EVERYDAY. Not all but most.
    , @Malla

    I’ve heard people say that Northwestern Indians and Middle Easterners have similarities in personality, abilities, and culture.
     
    Up to some extent yes. But actually Middle Easterners like Iranians, Turks and Syrians/Lebanese/Palestenians/Jordanians are more Caucasian looking cleaner then Indians. Their cities are much cleaner then North Indian cities. Southern Arabs are more like Indians actually. I remember some British diplomat saying how Tehran feels more like Athens than say Mumbai or Cairo.

    I’ve also heard that Southern Indians and East Asians have similarities in personality, culture, and abilities. Both groups are supposed to be diligent, academically oriented, gifted in math, quiet, self-restrained, secretive, less religious, less clannish, and less strict on food taboos.
     
    Again there are few similarities. South India is better than the North in many parameters but the difference is only very small from a global perspective. Similar to East Asians. NOT AT ALL. Not even South East Asians let alone North East Asians. In South India you get intellectual elites who posses those qualities you state but the lower classes are quite thuggish too just less than Northerner lower classes. The South is also much cleaner then the North. For example, little India in Singapore full of South Indians is the dirtiest place in Singapore dirtier than Chinese and Malay areas.

    In Malaysia for example, South Indian Tamils have gangs much similar to Hispanic gangs.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkTgg5pbPHs

    Similarly South Indian Tamil gang activity in Britain

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAEJwbEvyaM

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Heros says:
    @Anon
    That shabby guy on the left looks like one of the sleazy army vendors who just got a contract to sell cardboard and glue saddles to the Union Army.

    The guy on the left is Allan Pinkerton, founder of the Pinkerton Detective Agency. He was the Erik Prinz of the 1800′s, and his company was the equivalent of Blackwater, now Academi. Prinz now has his own private army in Qatar.

    The freemason on Lincoln’s right was General McClernand. The photo was taken at Antietam. McClernand was dismissed by Grant in Vicksburg, but managed to finagle an officer’s pension. Just like Pike.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @Malla
    What good is that? Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho was one of those Luso Goans but led the leftist commie banker elite controlled Carnation Revolution against the post Salazar anti commie Estado Novo regime following the globalist elite backed Indian conquest of Goa. This destroyed the Portuguese Empire, brought years of misery to Angola and Mozambique and put more pressure on the Rhodesia as well as South Africa.
    I knew many of these elite Portuguese upper caste Hindu ancestry mixed Catholic families of Goa. Many of them took part in global subversive movements. One family had a family member in the past who was a friend of Lenin and was in Russia. What is ironic is that most of these idiotic elite catholic half Portuguese families lost a lot of their property to slimy Hindu scamsters who have ruined Goa by mafia rule and looting after the globalist backed Indian invasion. Most of the mining in Goa are run by these mafias. One of my female friend's ex boyfriend was from such an elite Goan family, one 'Farais' family, an elite Eurasian, aristocratic, well mannered, Catholic, old Goan family who lost nearly everything to ill mannered, thuggish Hindu goons after the Indian Army invasion.

    I was identifying what D’Souza WAS to ignorant posters who have never traveled and will say all sorts of things about Indian (“Street shitters” etc) without knowing a thing about it.

    The Indian military is thuggish. I was on one train where some rambunctious Navy sailors sort of ignored me but went after an IT dork from Bangalore for some reason.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Malla
    Goans are definitely not streetshitters. Goa enjoyed 400 years of European rule, of Portuguese rule and the rest of India much less European rule. Even today Goa has one of the highest per capita income among Indian states. The difference in between the rich and poor is still smaller today but under Portuguese rule it was even lessor. Overall British rule was better than Portuguese rule but
    1] The rule was shorter lived
    2] The rest of India was huge and it took a much longer time to have positive effects unlike tiny Goa.

    The Indian military is thuggish.
     
    In Indian trains, military people have their own compartments. But anyways many lower level soldiers are thuggish. But I have many officer level friends and man, they are true gentlemen. The last gentlemen in India are in the military.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @JohnnyWalker123
    Let me ask you these 2 questions.

    1. China has been able to become a manufacturing super power. On the basis of manufacturing, China has climbed the economic ladder and given the peasant masses a high standard of living. Do you think India has the ability to do the same? Can Indians work well with their hands in a manufacturing environment? I've noticed that Indians seem eager to take over the IT/software industry, but are hesitant about competing in manufacturing.

    2. I've heard people say that Northwestern Indians and Middle Easterners have similarities in personality, abilities, and culture. Both groups are supposed to be hot headed, prone to religious fundamentalism, talkative, fond of war, protective of their women, anti-feminist, physically aggressive, skilled at small business&trading, strict about food taboos (like pork and beef), and clannish.

    I've also heard that Southern Indians and East Asians have similarities in personality, culture, and abilities. Both groups are supposed to be diligent, academically oriented, gifted in math, quiet, self-restrained, secretive, less religious, less clannish, and less strict on food taboos.

    Is there any truth to any of that in your opinions?

    Punjabis will eat anything that moves if they are Hindu but you are more or less correct.

    Gujarat is near to the Middle East, in fact. Stones throw over the Gulf of Oman. South Asia is far across the Arabian Sea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123

    Punjabis will eat anything that moves if they are Hindu but you are more or less correct.

     

    I recall reading somewhere that the Punjabis were strict vegetarians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. APilgrim says:

    The Southern Poverty Law Center does not like Boyd Cathey.

    BOYD CATHEY, Born 1950, Group Institute for Historical Review, Location Wendell, NC, Ideology Neo-Confederate, https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/boyd-cathey

    “Boyd Cathey has been involved in several extremist movements, including Radical Traditionalist Catholicism, Holocaust Denial and the neo-Confederate movement.”

    The SPLC smears individuals and groups it differs with by labeling them as some form of “hater” — “racist,” “white supremacist,” “extremist” and the like. ‘The Bad Hate The Good: The Southern Poverty Law Center Tries To Smear PragerU’, DENNIS PRAGER, COLUMNISTS, 6/19/2018, https://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/splc-prager-university-hate-groups-left-wing/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    It's funny you mention that, Pilgrim. When I linked to a previous article by Mr. Cathey last winter, I looked online to get some more information on this excellent historian. I'm pretty sure he's a N. Carolinian just from his mentioning a TV station, but, other than that, all the info. I could get was disparagement from the $SPLC. To me that makes him BONA FIDE! As for the Peak Stupidity blog, we have unfortunately not reached that worthy goal yet, but we value your support in that endeavor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @Stan d Mute

    What does Upper Canada have that Ohio doesn’t?
     
    A Queen?

    Go to Antioch University and you’ll find plenty of queens.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @Jim Bob Lassiter
    "The antebellum South was as close to a feudal society as ever existed in North America."

    A very thorough post. I have a question for you though. How would you describe Northern society of the same time period?

    I don’t know nearly as much about the North at that time as I do the South, because I haven’t read as much about it. I’ll list the things I do know, but a near comparison with a word as cool as “feudal” won’t be possible.

    New York and New England were THE centers of international trade and commerce. They pretty much always had been after they were established. The ships that docked in Charleston harbor and New Orleans, and sailed up and down the Chesapeake Bay, were Northern ships for the most part. Trade was the life blood of the Northeast. For all they produced, from cotton, to indigo, to rice, the South never really developed a trading fleet of any sort until the blockade runners of the war, and while I haven’t looked into it, I’d bet most of the captains on those ships were Yankees. A saying from the time was, “Southern cotton makes Northern sails,” and they didn’t mean cotton was the raw material for sailcloth, but that it made the industry rich.

    A little further inland were the factories. Here there is something to compare to the South, as it was compared to the South at the time. The largest share of manufacturing was textiles, an industry later moved from New England to the South for a lower paid work force, because American unions were born in the textile mills in the 18th Century. Working conditions were, as you might guess, abominable. There were no child labor laws. Young single women made up the largest part of the work force, and everything you can imagine that would lead to, it did. There are plenty of stories about young women working in textile mills getting pregnant by their supervisor, and becoming soiled doves, and also unemployed.

    The first mill town ever built was in Rhode Island. The mill town was not an American invention, as they existed in Britain, and I’m not certain the American factory owners came up with the mill script system, but they employed it extensively. The mill system worked like this; they provided the housing, which workers rented. The rent was docked from one’s pay. The pay was in company script, redeemable at the company store, which sold everything the mill workers needed, and most of what they wanted. This system was subject to considerable abuse, and such abuse was documented, as the company knew how much a worker made, and how much they spent, and could keep them forever in debt.

    A child as young as 12 could go to work in the mill, and work until he could not work any longer, from old age, or more likely, a mill accident. His career always ended in debt. I’ve never read of anyone retiring from a milll of the time with any savings. It might have happened, though. It’s also possible that this is merely a worst case scenario, and that there were more benevolent mill owners. I feel certain this is the case.

    The reason slaves weren’t used in Northern mills and at the harbors for loading and unloading is that the common people simply would not allow it. Common people in the South farmed, but common people in the much more densely populated North needed jobs. Paul Revere, an artisan, wrote some pretty harsh things about his neighbors that owned slaves, and what might be done to them if they were used to compete with him. Slaves were competition for jobs, and also would have kept wages down. Immigrants, however, in very large numbers, came in from Ireland and Germany, and had the same effect. This is the main reason for the violence between the natives and the immigrants.

    Let’s talk about black up North for a minute. There were slaves in every Northern colony, then in every Northern state. They were generally house servants, domestics, drivers, and cooks, etc. Most were gone by 1830, though there were still some slaves in NY and NJ when the Civil War broke out. The majority of them were sold South. Those that were freed were encouraged to leave. There were many, many more free black in the South than in the North. Hundreds of free blacks in the South owned slaves. Blacks weren’t welcome in most places in the North, and vagrancy laws were used to move them on and keep them out. I refer you to http://www.slavenorth.com for more detail on slaves and blacks in the North. It’s a very good site, and I highly recommend it.

    I have the book, somewhere, and can’t remember the name of the author, or the name of the book. I really need to hunt it down if I’m going to reference it. Anyway, he was a tobacco farmer in North Carolina who was determined to make a profit without the use of slaves. He used the 1860 US Census, the previous farm census, and other tables available at the time to prove slavery was far less profitable than the Northern mill system. He published the book just before war broke out, so it wasn’t widely read. However, it had some really interesting information.

    A slave was “paid” whether or not he worked, as the slave owner was entirely responsible for his upkeep, 24/7/365, from the time he was born until he died. In the case of a child, he was paid for without working at all until the child reached 12, when he would begin working on the plantation. Slaves rarely worked in the fields past their early to mid 60′s, but were kept up until they died of old age. In the Northern system, workers were only paid for the time they worked, and were themselves responsible for everything else. This alone, according to the author, would lead to the end of slavery. It would die a natural death, so to speak. However, that wasn’t allowed to happen.

    This was not the first time such an argument had been made. Indeed it was one slave owners used to justify the “peculiar institution.” They claimed slavery was far more benevolent than the Northern system, as the worker was always cared for, even when he was hurt and could not work.

    The rest of the North, away from the coasts, was an agrarian country of large, mostly German farms worked by large families. There was industry that sprang up in the larger towns, but overall, farming was the life blood of the region, and it produced prodigious quantities of wheat, millet, corn, beef, pork, and chicken, for the markets back East.

    The difference between these Midwest family farms, and those in the South, are stark. There was only one money crop in the South, cotton, and every family farm devoted some land to its cultivation. The Northern farms devoted vast fields to crops such as wheat. Up North, people fenced their livestock in, while down South livestock was ranged, and crops were fenced off to keep the livestock out. Tattooing and ear-notching were used as marks of ownership. These were precursors to branding that would later be used on ranged cattle out West. Midwestern farms were more profitable than Southern farms. From what I can tell, Southern farmers weren’t that interested in profit, and were merely concerned with self-sufficiency.

    This last is an interesting difference in Southern vs. Northern culture in general. Too much attention to money was considered vulgar among Southerners, where it was a virtue in the North. I really can’t explain it. The planters loved being rich – and some of them were hideously wealthy – and enjoyed all the fine things their money could buy them, and yet at the same time they never seemed to discuss money among themselves, at all. In the 1850′s Northern banks sent agents to the South to offer loans for improvements. It was not a successful operation. Most of the planters treated them with indifference. Those that took the loans later said they did so out of kindness, or something.

    I won’t go into detail about how the elite of the North lived, because I just don’t know enough about it. There were many fine things about Northern culture that I wish had caught on down South, such as general education, and colleges. There were some fine colleges down South, UVA, Columbia College (later the University of South Carolina), and others, but most planters sent their sons to Princeton or Harvard, and if they could, to Cambridge or Oxford. General education was instituted in the South during Reconstruction. Though Charleston did have the first public school in the colonies, it was a school for orphans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @Heros
    Just like after the failed jew inspired Weimar take over of Germany in the 1920's, after the failed 1848 revolutions in Europe, many squealing and kvetching marxist jews fled to the US, where they quickly integrated into their "good for the jews" JP collective. The Rothschilds, the bloodline families and the illuminati had already subverted all the masonic lodges in precisely the same way they are using D'Sousa to subvert "conservatism" now, but the JP was still gathering all the reigns of power into their hands.

    In fact, what Jewish Power (JP) is doing with D'Sousa is deliberately dividing any conservative resistance into the subverted "racist" alt-right and the subverted "non-racist" Neocon war machine. Of course, the militarized police forces are being set up to be deployed against the "racist" alt-right in the same way facebook, twitter and all the other JP social media corporations have shut down the free speech of that same alt-right. This is the same kind of judaic divide and conquer strategy that the tribe was using in the lead up to the war of northern aggression.

    D'Sousa is clearly a non-white, and like all dot-Indian immigrants he is merely another form of trojan horse brought into our society in the same way jews opened the gates let the moors into Granada and the Turks into Constantinople. Whether he realizes it or not, he is a jew puppet brought in to destroy Christianity and European civilization and replace their true liberalism with a Frankfurt School marxist cuckoo bird egg. Dot-Indians are to become a new technocratic upper caste brought into to help jews keep the goyim slaves in line. No good will come from allowing dot-Indians to preach judaicly perverted Christian morality back onto us.

    One of the little known characteristics of the War of Northern Aggression was that the majority of slave plantation owners in the south were jews, while the vast majority of Yankee bankers and slave traders were also jews. This is precisely the same kind of jewish over representation that we see in SCOTUS, Hollywood, Harvard and the "1%" today.

    So it was JP and its Freemason puppets who started the War of Northern Aggression, and it was a part of a thousand year old plan described in the Talmud and the Protocols to obliterate Europeans and their culture from the face of planet earth as revenge for Titus's destruction of the Second Temple to Solomon in 70AD. There is plenty of confirmation of this in writings from places like the Frankfurt School, Saul Alinsky and Cultural Marxism. Although D'Sousa pays lip service to exposing some of these hidden agendas, he cannot see the forest because all he is willing to see is a "racist" hiding behind every tree. What a kike tool he is.

    Dave McGowan wrote in his great understated and laconic style about the judaic and masonic lies surrounding the Lincoln assassination. You can read it for free online, along with his great books "Wagging the Moon Dog" and "Weird Scenes in the Canyon".

    http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/lincoln/

    Here is a fascinating unrolled, archived twitter feed about Lincoln and his jewish and masonic connections, with lots of interesting embedded pictures:

    https://archive.is/H3aMW


    "On the bottom of page three of four pages was a paragraph where the father, A.A. Springs, left to his son an enormous amount of land in the state of Alabama which is now known as Huntsville, Alabama. At first Mr. Christopher and his colleagues could not believe what their eyes, because the name of his son was "ABRAHAM LINCOLN"!

    This new information added to what they had already learned about the Springs, whose real name was Springstein, was one more twist to this already enigmatic family."
     

    Just wanted to agree with all you said. I am also a big fan of McGowan’s and love everything he has ever written. His analysis of the Lincoln assassination was a real eye opener. Also loved his “Wagging the Moon Doggie.”
    I would like to share this article by “The Mad Jewess” which points out the number of Marxist general’s in Lincoln’s Union Army. These generals were “48ers”. 48ers were Communist Revolutionaries who brought Communist and Socialistic terror to Europe. These revolutionaries moved to America after Revolutions in EU failed and many ended up as officer’s in the Union Army. Just another set of facts you never hear about.

    http://themadjewess.net/2015/07/did-lincoln-introduce-communism-socialism-to-america-strong-evidence-suggests-so/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Heros
    I read the madjewess article and scanned several others linked into it. I found this linked one the best of a mixed bag of totally un-jew-aware articles. Some are older, so maybe the authors have learned more about the JQ in the interim.

    https://www.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=33930

    There was little I was not aware of already, but I did find the list of the German names of these communists to be quite interesting. There were no Rosens, Golds, Bergs, Witz's, or first names like Abraham, David or Benjamin. All these names look Germanic, plus a couple with "von" indicating some kind of aristocracy. I find this hard to believe.


    "Adolf Dengler, a Baden Revolution veteran, was the colonel of the 43rd Illinois. Colonels Joseph Gerhardt, Carl Eberhard Salomon, Wilhelm Heine, Konrad Krez, Henry Flad, Fritz Anneke, Franz Mahler, Adolf von Hartung, Edward Kapff, August Mersey, Friedrich Poschner, Franz Wutschel, Rudolf von Rosa, and other such names form a list that goes on and on. All of them were socialists, all of them were Union officers. There were at least 50 German-born majors, though that number is probably far too low. Most of these men were from midwestern states: Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, and Wisconsin. "
     
    None of these except Salomon sound jewish, so they were likely either crypto-jews or high level freemasons. I would bet on the second, and would help explain how so many ended up as officers.

    My handle here at UR, Heros, is short for Heros von Borcke, a Prussian cavalry officer who traveled to the US specifically to fight for the south. I now wonder if one of the reasons he stood with the underdog was because he knew a little of the Talmud.

    I find reading these jew blind articles to be very frustrating to read. Take this section:


    "Forty-eighters, on the other hand, came to America for its socialist promise, such as that of free land as was represented by the Homestead movement. Most settled in cities, however. They were rootless, with no particular attraction for a homeland. As Marx said, "the proletarian knows no fatherland."These Germans coming after 1848 were more urban, more educated, less willing to work and more apt to look to the welfare state. They tended to be irreligious, even atheistic."
     
    The true meaning appears to be hidden behind code words like "proletarian knows no fatherland", "more urban, more educated, less willing to work", "more apt to look to the welfare state", "rootless" "irreligious", "even athiestic".

    These are all code words for jews, why can't he just spit it out? Is the author telling us that these German '48er's were jews?

    It is also important to note that the carpetbaggers who invaded and raped the south after the war were jews, just like the majority of war profiteers up north. Grant famously tried to deny jews access to any war zone. Was it just their greed that got odd fellow Grant so upset, or were they also harvesting body parts and sacrificing children?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @Anon
    I do have a different understanding. The states right on the northern edge of the south. Kentucky didn’t secede. But the armies going back and forth destroyed many farms along the main roads like Jack Daniels parent’s farm.

    The devastation during the war in that area was so bad a lot of people just left. It wasn’t battles, just armies stealing food and cutting down not just fences but buildings for firewood.

    Neither army was well supplied compared to nowadays. The southern army was on very short rations and equipment. Plus the armies carried diseases and didn’t dump lime in and cover up the latrine trenches every day either.

    So both armies foraged and scavenged stole food and spread disease. The states where there was little fighting, the Carolinas, Georgia Florida Alabama Mississippi suffered little damage until 1864.

    I’m a good ol rebel that’s just what I am. I hates that stripped banner
    I won’t be reconstructed and I don’t give a damm.

    Well sir, you are certainly welcome to your own private definitions of anything and everything you wish. However, when you speak to others, don’t be surprised if your definitions lead to confusion.

    The term “Border State” is an example of propaganda in common use. Calling a state a “Border State,” (always capitalized), is a way of hiding the truth of what it really was, which was a slave state that stayed in the Union, and kept its slaves throughout the war. If you SAY you’re fighting a war against slavery, you can hardly brag about your loyal slave states, now can you?

    There were lots of slave owners who fought for the Union, including several notable general officers. One was actually named Jefferson Davis. He was often accused of having Southern sympathies, and this may have led him to fight even harder for the US. He was in Sherman’s Army of the Tennessee.

    And then there’s Grant, who became a legal slave owner when he married his wife, who had inherited slaves. They remained his slaves for several years during the war. Grant was NOT an abolitionist, and, in fact, hated them. He supposedly once said out loud, in the lobby of the Willard Hotel in Washington, that he would draw his sword on any man who said he fought the abolitionist’s cause. I could never verify this, though.

    Sherman was another peculiar person. He never owned slaves, but he was a professor at Louisiana College (later LSU), married a Southern woman, and loved the South. He hated secession with every last ounce of his considerable personal energy. It was all treason to him, and every Southerner who supported it, no matter that person’s station in life, was a traitor, and deserved nothing short of death.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @Johnnie Walker Read
    In dollars and cents, the U.S. government estimated Jan. 1863 that the war was costing $2.5 million daily. A final official estimate in 1879 totaled $6,190,000,000. The Confederacy spent perhaps $2,099,808,707. By 1906 another $3.3 billion already had been spent by the U.S. government on Northerners' pensions and other veterans' benefits for former Federal soldiers. Southern states and private philanthropy provided benefits to the Confederate veterans. The amount spent on benefits eventually well exceeded the war's original cost.
    Inflation affected both Northern and Southern assets but hit those of the Confederacy harder. Northern currency fluctuated in value, and at its lowest point $2.59 in Federal paper money equaled $1 in gold. The Confederate currency so declined in purchasing power that eventually $60-$70 equaled a gold dollar.
    The physical devastation, almost all of it in the South, was enormous: burned or plundered homes, pillaged countryside, untold losses in crops and farm animals, ruined buildings and bridges, devastated college campuses, and neglected roads all left the South in ruins.

    To the point of benefits-hangover, here’s a 2014 Time Magazine blurb on the last living Civil War pensioner.

    http://time.com/95195/civil-war-pensioner/

    Here’s one from the Daily Mail …

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2296995/Child-Civil-War-veteran-STILL-receiving-soldiers-pension-nearly-150-YEARS-conflict-ended.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. APilgrim says:

    Henry Louis Mencken: (1919),

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  194. APilgrim says:

    The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are.

    H. L. Mencken (1919)

    Read More
    • Replies: @S

    'The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos...'
     
    Great quote by Mencken. There does seem to be all too little original thought. Unfortunately, it would seem that most (across the board) provided they have a minimum of food and shelter will just 'go with the flow'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Heros says:
    @Johnnie Walker Read
    Just wanted to agree with all you said. I am also a big fan of McGowan's and love everything he has ever written. His analysis of the Lincoln assassination was a real eye opener. Also loved his "Wagging the Moon Doggie."
    I would like to share this article by "The Mad Jewess" which points out the number of Marxist general's in Lincoln's Union Army. These generals were "48ers". 48ers were Communist Revolutionaries who brought Communist and Socialistic terror to Europe. These revolutionaries moved to America after Revolutions in EU failed and many ended up as officer's in the Union Army. Just another set of facts you never hear about.
    http://themadjewess.net/2015/07/did-lincoln-introduce-communism-socialism-to-america-strong-evidence-suggests-so/

    I read the madjewess article and scanned several others linked into it. I found this linked one the best of a mixed bag of totally un-jew-aware articles. Some are older, so maybe the authors have learned more about the JQ in the interim.

    https://www.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=33930

    There was little I was not aware of already, but I did find the list of the German names of these communists to be quite interesting. There were no Rosens, Golds, Bergs, Witz’s, or first names like Abraham, David or Benjamin. All these names look Germanic, plus a couple with “von” indicating some kind of aristocracy. I find this hard to believe.

    “Adolf Dengler, a Baden Revolution veteran, was the colonel of the 43rd Illinois. Colonels Joseph Gerhardt, Carl Eberhard Salomon, Wilhelm Heine, Konrad Krez, Henry Flad, Fritz Anneke, Franz Mahler, Adolf von Hartung, Edward Kapff, August Mersey, Friedrich Poschner, Franz Wutschel, Rudolf von Rosa, and other such names form a list that goes on and on. All of them were socialists, all of them were Union officers. There were at least 50 German-born majors, though that number is probably far too low. Most of these men were from midwestern states: Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, and Wisconsin. “

    None of these except Salomon sound jewish, so they were likely either crypto-jews or high level freemasons. I would bet on the second, and would help explain how so many ended up as officers.

    My handle here at UR, Heros, is short for Heros von Borcke, a Prussian cavalry officer who traveled to the US specifically to fight for the south. I now wonder if one of the reasons he stood with the underdog was because he knew a little of the Talmud.

    I find reading these jew blind articles to be very frustrating to read. Take this section:

    “Forty-eighters, on the other hand, came to America for its socialist promise, such as that of free land as was represented by the Homestead movement. Most settled in cities, however. They were rootless, with no particular attraction for a homeland. As Marx said, “the proletarian knows no fatherland.”These Germans coming after 1848 were more urban, more educated, less willing to work and more apt to look to the welfare state. They tended to be irreligious, even atheistic.”

    The true meaning appears to be hidden behind code words like “proletarian knows no fatherland”, “more urban, more educated, less willing to work”, “more apt to look to the welfare state”, “rootless” “irreligious”, “even athiestic”.

    These are all code words for jews, why can’t he just spit it out? Is the author telling us that these German ’48er’s were jews?

    It is also important to note that the carpetbaggers who invaded and raped the south after the war were jews, just like the majority of war profiteers up north. Grant famously tried to deny jews access to any war zone. Was it just their greed that got odd fellow Grant so upset, or were they also harvesting body parts and sacrificing children?

    Read More
    • Agree: Johnnie Walker Read
    • Replies: @S
    The '48er's were indeed an intriguing bunch.

    One of these, a young twenty something would be revolutionary named Theodore Poesche, after fleeing Germany and lounging about in London (London always seeming to figure prominantly in these things) for about a year with other failed revolutionaries from across Europe would come to the United States in the early 1850's.

    Immediately upon arriving in America he would in close collaboration with another person from out of Germany named Charles Goepp set about writing a book entitled The New Rome; or, the United States of the World.

    This book was readily picked up for publication and published in 1853 by the major US establishment publisher G P Putnam (now Penguin, and then with offices in New York and London).

    The book was widely reviewed at the time and while some took it seriously most didn't know what to make of it. Karl Marx in his writings would specifically reference the ideas it espoused and mock its adherants as 'the New Romans'.

    The writers of The New Rome allude:

    1) that the 1776 Revolution was a geo-political false split between the United States and the British Empire and that from the very beginning the resulting separation was only ever intended to be but temporary; in the future the US and UK are to reunite.

    2) When the US and UK reunite the center of power of the British Empire will move from England to the United States; together the US and UK will form a nearly unbeatable bloc.

    3) Having reunited the US and UK will first proceed to co-jointly conquer and gain control of Germany, the center of power upon continental Europe.

    4) Immediately upon having conquered Germany a great struggle is to commence specifically between the US and Russia. While this struggle will be centered upon Europe to decide which of these two great powers is to dominate that continent it will simultaneously encompass the entire globe; the United States and its allies are to be pitted against Russia and its allies.

    5) The ability to project its great airpower (the US in the future is to dominate the air militarily) will give the United States the upper hand over Russia's land forces. Poesche and Goepp declare that the US is to prevail against Russia in this future struggle.

    6) While its military power is quite important it is ultimately to be its conquest and domination of the world economically via Capitalism that will give to the United States 'the empire of the world', the New Rome.

    What I wonder is if in Russia they have some long forgotten book just like this one (perhaps called The Third Rome) that tells them that it is they who are to win some great future war with the US and UK after they first get control of Germany?

    The peoples of both the US and Russia might ought to take a giant step back from all this due to the fact that both partys to varying degrees might be being played by some (ie elites of differing backgrounds and hangers on) with ulterior motives. People have their refusal.

    The New Rome - pg 109

    ‘Thus the lines are drawn. The choirs are marshalled on each wing of the world’s stage, Russia leading the one, the United States the other. Yet the world is too small for both, and the contest must end in the downfall of the one and the victory of the other.’
     
    There are some clear indications that specifically in regards to the Anglo-Saxon power elites of the US/UK that they have indeed historically known of or been aware of the ideology of the New Rome as outlined in the 1853 book, namely that since its founding the United States itself is to be the planned direct continuation of the British Empire and that more powerful than ever in the future as the presiding force over the United States of the World will truly dominate and control the entire globe.

    (Regarding those powerful elements of the elites of the Jewish people and their hangers on whom know of this project within the Anglosphere I can only suppose they might call it New Jerusalem or perhaps New Zion and have its capital at Jerusalem rather than Washington, New York, or London.)

    In the Majority Rights link below there is one such example of this awareness from a 1950's Time magazine article which specifically refers to the United States as the 'New Rome', Washington DC and the US having supplanted ancient Rome and London as the world's center of power.

    Historically, one person amongst others whom almost certainly would have known of the New Rome would have been the Union army's chief of intelligence during the Civil War, Lafayette Baker. Baker would be instrumental in the tracking down and capture of Lincoln's assassin, John Wilkes Booth, and later would be at the center of controversy surrounding an alleged 18 critical missing pages from Booth's diary. After having been found to have spied on both War Department Secretary and President Johnson he was forced out of his government position in 1866.

    After writing a book in 1867 about his government experiences he would die in 1868 officially due to meningitis, though alleged by some to in reality have been poisoned with arsenic to keep him from talking and revealing a much larger plot which placed powerful people within the US (Union) government itself as ultimately being behind Lincoln's assassination, Booth like Oswald as some believe in regards to Kennedy being something of a patsy and a useful pawn within this overall scheme.

    The below is claimed to have been deciphered from a 19th century British military journal that Baker had used (within its margins) as a diary and which had allegedly been discovered many decades after his death. While much like General Cornwallis's supposed declaration at his surrender to Washington in the infamous no one can locate or verify 'Legions of Satan' book the claims about Baker are most likely apocryphal, also like with Cornwallis the contents of the claim is interesting so I include a portion of the alleged Baker diary entries here.

    'In new Rome there walked three men, a Judas, a Brutus and a spy.'

    Baker's decoded confession in Colburn's United Service Magazine, an English military journal, was dated February 5, 1868 and read as follows:

    "I am constantly being followed. They are professionals. I cannot fool them. In new Rome there walked three men, a Judas, a Brutus and a spy. Each planned that he should be king when Abraham should die. One trusted not the other but they went on for that day, waiting for the final moment when, with pistol in his hand, one of the sons of Brutus could sneak behind that cursed man and put a bullet in his brain and lay his clumsey [sic] corpse away. As the fallen man lay dying, Judas came and paid respects to the one he hated, and when at last he saw him die, he said 'Now the ages have him and the nation now have I' But alas, fate would have it Judas slowly fell from grace, and with him went Brutus down to their proper place. But lest one is left to wonder what happened to the spy, I can tell you, it was I."
     
    Getting back to the 1848 Revolutions across Europe the history books teach us it was all 'spontaneous'. And yet over a year prior in November, 1846 some cryptic writings of the then British foreign secretary and future prime minister Lord Palmerston appear to outline from start to finish the entire series of events which are to take place (ie 'all Europe is about to be in commotion. A dark intrigue is seen in every region…') and were the lead story on the front page of The Spectator of London.

    The Spectator – November 21, 1846

    'The most striking occurrence of the week is not an event, but some writing, highly Palmerstonian in its savor. According to this characteristic effusion, all Europe is about to be in commotion. A dark intrigue is seen in every region…You would think there was going to be instant war – in Italy, in Schleswig, in Switzerland, in Poland – everywhere.'
     
    https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/the_new_rome_or_the_united_states_of_the_world_1853

    https://archive.org/details/newrome00poes

    https://archive.org/details/politicalprophec00goeb

    http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/21st-november-1846/1/news-of-the-week

    http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/lincoln.html

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafayette_C._Baker
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Mr. Anon says:
    @Thomm
    You are obviously a leftist. Tell me, are you a WN wigger as well?

    You are obviously a leftist. Tell me, are you a WN wigger as well?

    You are obviously a cretin. Beyond that, nobody cares what a nothing like you is.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Heros says:

    Speak of the devil:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-19/trump-mulling-blackwater-founder-erik-princes-plan-privatize-war-afghanistan

    Erik Prince wants to become Viceroy of Afghanistan.

    “Prince — the brother of billionaire Education Secretary Betsy DeVos — has over the past years since selling his mired-in-controversy Blackwater group (now Academi) begun a new mercenary empire in China called Frontier Services Group (FSG), in a market where Western firms of necessity find themselves working closely with Chinese state authorities. He’s reportedly had success in securing security and logistics contracts in Africa and China, and has since at least 2017 lobbied both top US generals and Congressional leaders to consider massive privatization of the now fast approaching two decade long quagmire.

    His plan involves multiple thousands of contractors overseen by a “viceroy” reporting directly to the White House, and with a private air force to boot.

    A modern day Pinkerton straddling wars and making money off of both sides. I am sure D’Sousa would call him an “entrepreneur”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    Tucker had Prinz on his show the other night; I thought it showed bad judgement on Carlson's part. Prinz was advocating a version of this plan, though I don't remember him talking about leaving most of it in the hands of private contractors. Perhaps he intended that part to go unsaid.

    I don't want him or anyone else as viceroy; I just want the US out. If Prinz wants to try to do a Man Who Would Be King gambit, well - knock yourself out, pal. Send us a postcard sometime.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Malla says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Let me ask you these 2 questions.

    1. China has been able to become a manufacturing super power. On the basis of manufacturing, China has climbed the economic ladder and given the peasant masses a high standard of living. Do you think India has the ability to do the same? Can Indians work well with their hands in a manufacturing environment? I've noticed that Indians seem eager to take over the IT/software industry, but are hesitant about competing in manufacturing.

    2. I've heard people say that Northwestern Indians and Middle Easterners have similarities in personality, abilities, and culture. Both groups are supposed to be hot headed, prone to religious fundamentalism, talkative, fond of war, protective of their women, anti-feminist, physically aggressive, skilled at small business&trading, strict about food taboos (like pork and beef), and clannish.

    I've also heard that Southern Indians and East Asians have similarities in personality, culture, and abilities. Both groups are supposed to be diligent, academically oriented, gifted in math, quiet, self-restrained, secretive, less religious, less clannish, and less strict on food taboos.

    Is there any truth to any of that in your opinions?

    Do you think India has the ability to do the same? Can Indians work well with their hands in a manufacturing environment? I’ve noticed that Indians seem eager to take over the IT/software industry, but are hesitant about competing in manufacturing.

    Not likely. The masses of India are low IQ with low productivity, cunning, cheating population who lack discipline. There is good labour in India but not enough, too few. India is an corrupt oligarchy where most foreign companies are afraid to work. Government employees from the lowly peon to top officials are all extremely corrupt and will always be so. Goon and thug culture abound.

    The problem in India is the same on nearly the whole brown black third world i.e. low quality, low IQ, low productivity, cunning, low moral population.

    https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/3qjewAnLB1AxPOEhyhAEiN/Indian-workers-have-a-productivity-problem.html

    Indian workers have a productivity problem

    https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Doing-business-in-India-difficult-Honda-Motor-chief-says/articleshow/42385801.cms

    Doing business in India difficult, Honda Motor chief says – Times of India.
    BTW Honda knows what they are talking about, they have been in India for decades and have sold 17 million+ motorcycles and many cars.

    I will let some experts explain the rest

    As portfolio manager Justin Leverenz says ‘There will be no Next China’. Neither India not Africa.

    More about India becoming China hype

    https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/jobs/only-6-of-those-passing-out-of-indias-engineering-colleges-are-fit-for-a-job/articleshow/64446292.cms

    Engineering Jobs: 94% of engineering graduates are not fit for hiring

    https://qz.com/india/941399/indian-engineers-are-so-bad-that-hcl-technologies-wants-to-hire-high-school-graduates/

    Indian Engineers are so bad that HCL Engineers are hiring High School graduates

    As far as software is concerned, even that is a hype. No Indian IIT team has won the IBM ACM contest and in some years have not even solved a single problem.

    https://www.infoworld.com/article/3113107/application-development/us-developers-have-the-numbers-but-china-and-russia-have-the-skills.html

    American (mostly Indians) and Indian software engineers are overhyped. China, Russia and Eastern Europe in general has the talent.

    Indians are similar to blacks and like to thump their chests and over hype themselves. I live here, I see it EVERYDAY. Not all but most.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Malla says:
    @Jeff Stryker
    I was identifying what D'Souza WAS to ignorant posters who have never traveled and will say all sorts of things about Indian ("Street shitters" etc) without knowing a thing about it.

    The Indian military is thuggish. I was on one train where some rambunctious Navy sailors sort of ignored me but went after an IT dork from Bangalore for some reason.

    Goans are definitely not streetshitters. Goa enjoyed 400 years of European rule, of Portuguese rule and the rest of India much less European rule. Even today Goa has one of the highest per capita income among Indian states. The difference in between the rich and poor is still smaller today but under Portuguese rule it was even lessor. Overall British rule was better than Portuguese rule but
    1] The rule was shorter lived
    2] The rest of India was huge and it took a much longer time to have positive effects unlike tiny Goa.

    The Indian military is thuggish.

    In Indian trains, military people have their own compartments. But anyways many lower level soldiers are thuggish. But I have many officer level friends and man, they are true gentlemen. The last gentlemen in India are in the military.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    Indian Navy guys don't have separate compartments, I rode with them on a train.
    , @S
    I can only laud your brutal honesty about things Malla. You must be a very free at heart person. Same compliment goes for much of what Ron Unz has posted. That brutal honesty with one's self about things is how problems between both individuals and peoples get resolved.

    Just wish there was more of this honesty amongst and between every individual and people across the globe.

    Instead, all too often it seems that self deception reigns supreme most everywhere.

    The blind accusing the blind.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @Jeff Stryker
    Punjabis will eat anything that moves if they are Hindu but you are more or less correct.

    Gujarat is near to the Middle East, in fact. Stones throw over the Gulf of Oman. South Asia is far across the Arabian Sea.

    Punjabis will eat anything that moves if they are Hindu but you are more or less correct.

    I recall reading somewhere that the Punjabis were strict vegetarians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Stryker
    I've actually spent months in India and not all of them are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. Malla says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    Let me ask you these 2 questions.

    1. China has been able to become a manufacturing super power. On the basis of manufacturing, China has climbed the economic ladder and given the peasant masses a high standard of living. Do you think India has the ability to do the same? Can Indians work well with their hands in a manufacturing environment? I've noticed that Indians seem eager to take over the IT/software industry, but are hesitant about competing in manufacturing.

    2. I've heard people say that Northwestern Indians and Middle Easterners have similarities in personality, abilities, and culture. Both groups are supposed to be hot headed, prone to religious fundamentalism, talkative, fond of war, protective of their women, anti-feminist, physically aggressive, skilled at small business&trading, strict about food taboos (like pork and beef), and clannish.

    I've also heard that Southern Indians and East Asians have similarities in personality, culture, and abilities. Both groups are supposed to be diligent, academically oriented, gifted in math, quiet, self-restrained, secretive, less religious, less clannish, and less strict on food taboos.

    Is there any truth to any of that in your opinions?

    I’ve heard people say that Northwestern Indians and Middle Easterners have similarities in personality, abilities, and culture.

    Up to some extent yes. But actually Middle Easterners like Iranians, Turks and Syrians/Lebanese/Palestenians/Jordanians are more Caucasian looking cleaner then Indians. Their cities are much cleaner then North Indian cities. Southern Arabs are more like Indians actually. I remember some British diplomat saying how Tehran feels more like Athens than say Mumbai or Cairo.

    I’ve also heard that Southern Indians and East Asians have similarities in personality, culture, and abilities. Both groups are supposed to be diligent, academically oriented, gifted in math, quiet, self-restrained, secretive, less religious, less clannish, and less strict on food taboos.

    Again there are few similarities. South India is better than the North in many parameters but the difference is only very small from a global perspective. Similar to East Asians. NOT AT ALL. Not even South East Asians let alone North East Asians. In South India you get intellectual elites who posses those qualities you state but the lower classes are quite thuggish too just less than Northerner lower classes. The South is also much cleaner then the North. For example, little India in Singapore full of South Indians is the dirtiest place in Singapore dirtier than Chinese and Malay areas.

    In Malaysia for example, South Indian Tamils have gangs much similar to Hispanic gangs.

    Similarly South Indian Tamil gang activity in Britain

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Mr. Anon says:
    @Heros
    Speak of the devil:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-19/trump-mulling-blackwater-founder-erik-princes-plan-privatize-war-afghanistan

    https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/styles/inline_image_desktop/public/inline-images/Erik%20Prince.jpg?itok=iVx2yJck


    Erik Prince wants to become Viceroy of Afghanistan.


    "Prince — the brother of billionaire Education Secretary Betsy DeVos — has over the past years since selling his mired-in-controversy Blackwater group (now Academi) begun a new mercenary empire in China called Frontier Services Group (FSG), in a market where Western firms of necessity find themselves working closely with Chinese state authorities. He's reportedly had success in securing security and logistics contracts in Africa and China, and has since at least 2017 lobbied both top US generals and Congressional leaders to consider massive privatization of the now fast approaching two decade long quagmire.

    His plan involves multiple thousands of contractors overseen by a "viceroy" reporting directly to the White House, and with a private air force to boot."
     

    A modern day Pinkerton straddling wars and making money off of both sides. I am sure D'Sousa would call him an "entrepreneur".

    Tucker had Prinz on his show the other night; I thought it showed bad judgement on Carlson’s part. Prinz was advocating a version of this plan, though I don’t remember him talking about leaving most of it in the hands of private contractors. Perhaps he intended that part to go unsaid.

    I don’t want him or anyone else as viceroy; I just want the US out. If Prinz wants to try to do a Man Who Would Be King gambit, well – knock yourself out, pal. Send us a postcard sometime.

    Read More
    Reply