By Al Benson Jr.
The history of conspiracies in this country is fascinating, and the results of government “investigations” into these conspiracies is likewise fascinating, even though often ludicrous.
There seems to be a standard, pat answer given by investigators for the feds regarding political assassinations. According to the government’s “investigators” few real conspiracies exist and most political assassinations involve lone, crazed gunmen who keep diaries , of which the last several pages are often missing. I have often wondered if Hilary’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” would have fit into this somewhere. But I digress.
Take the assassination of John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas back on November 22, 1963. The Warren Commission issued a report of that, stating that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman and that no one but him was involved. However, in all honesty, anyone who doesn't have mush for brains has never bought into the conclusions of the Warren Commission, knowing how the government lies, who can blame them? I can remember, watching on television the killing of Oswald by Jack Ruby (I think Rubinstein was his real name). When Ruby stepped out with the gun in his hand the look on Oswald’s face was reveling indeed. He knew why Ruby was there and what was going to happen to him. Lone gunman indeed! What hogwash.
By the same token, so many conspiracy theories about Kennedy’s assassination have appeared in the following years, both in the movies and in print, that who knows which one to believe? I’ve read at least three myself, all agreeing in some aspects and wildly disagreeing in others. How does the average man know which one was true? There have been about a dozen or so theories tossed out there regarding Kennedy’s death and I’d be willing to bet that there is a bit of truth in several of them along with the wild speculation. But it’s so confusing to the average guy that he has no idea of what to believe, or how such things affect his life, which they do. And I think the government likes it that way. The only conspiracies the “news” media (I have to laugh every time I call them that, because news is the last thing they are about) is willing to entertain is those possibly committed by the “right-wingers.” And that might depend on who you consider “the right” to be. Some people consider the CIA to be “on the right.” I don’t.
The same thing is true regarding the Lincoln assassination. There have been at least seven conspiracy theories regarding that which I have read about, and who, at large, really knows? Here again, the “official” version of Lincoln’s assassination is that it was done by John Wilkes Booth and his merry band of co-conspirators, some of whom seemed to have about as much intelligence as a flea. Supposedly no one other than Booth and his happy group was involved. However, if you are one of those who choose to believe the government’s “official version” you will, as Khrushchev said, “wait for a shrimp to whistle.”
Government “investigators” in Lincoln’s day were not one whit more reliable than they are today. It all depends on who is doing the investigating and what their agenda is—and giving the American public the actual truth is never part of the agenda, I repeat, never! Giving them cleverly devised fables to get them mad at those you wish to defame is always part of the agenda. And that principal has not changed from Lincoln’s day right up to Sandy Hook in Connecticut. (The shootings will continue until the public has the right attitude on gun confiscation.)
Thus, getting the Northern public mad at Jeff Davis and that nasty old Confederacy by trying to throw the blame on them for the assassination was very much a part of the federal program. So the government “investigators” (and again, I use that term very loosely) worked to sling enough mud against Jeff Davis’ wall so that it stuck. Fortunately, the mud was not thick enough, and their lies were not convincing enough, except in the fevered brains of some of our current “historians” (actually, hysterians might be a more accurate word) so that most folks have not bought it.
There have been several books over the years dealing with the Lincoln assassination, one of which is Otto Eisenschiml’s Why Was Lincoln Murdered? published in 1937. Viewing material not previously accessible, Eisenschiml strongly felt that Edwin M. Stanton and a cohort of his Radical Republican abolitionist friends had a lot to do with it. And believe me, folks, these guys were not on the political right. They had major problems with Lincoln over how “reconstruction” was to be administered to a beaten and battered South. Lincoln wanted to administer “reconstruction” in his own way, partly because he would benefit from the patronage involved, while the radicals wanted to treat the South as vindictively as possible and have “reconstruction” run by Congress so they could loot and plunder what was left of the South and make sure all their buddies got in on the goodies. It was the supreme case of two dictators (or buzzards) fighting over the same carcass.
Three years later, in 1940, Eisenschiml also wrote In The Shadow Of Lincoln’s Death which continued on the same track. Eisenschiml’s books sold well enough that they were fervently attacked by professional historians as being “rambling and disconnected implication and innuendo.” It’s interesting, though, that Eisenschiml’s books have asked several questions that have really never been satisfactorily dealt with. I guess if you just smear the guy enough you never really have to deal with what he says.
In 1951 Nathaniel Weyl wrote a book called The Battle Against Disloyalty. In that book he had a chapter, chapter 6, dealing with Edwin Stanton and his high-handed methods and his secret police. That’s right folks, we had secret police in this country too, distasteful though the thought is. If you want to read a little about this get a copy of Lincoln’s Marxists.
In the late 1950's Theodore Roscoe wrote a book called The Web Of Conspiracy which dealt with this same subject. Roscoe’s book went through at least two printings that I know of. He dealt with the definite possibility that Colonel Lafayette Baker, the head of the country’s first secret service, was probably involved, with his boss, Stanton, in the plot to assassinate Lincoln. Interestingly enough, Colonel Baker died in 1868—of arsenic poisoning. Seems someone laced his beer with the stuff. Do you wonder why? Dead men tell no tales do they? Mr. Roscoe’s book was even attacked by the Secret Service during what has been referred to as “your government always tells the truth era.” Folks, I hate to have to be the one to say it (actually lots of other folks have said it also) but anyone that really believes that this government tells us the truth has got to be a prime candidate for a weekend trip to the planet Venus, on a space ship piloted by the Easter Bunny.
By the late 1970's yet another book had come out which built upon all these earlier ones. It was called The Lincoln Conspiracy and was written by David Balsiger and Charles E. Sellier Jr. Again, this book dealt with the real probability that Edwin M. Stanton and the radical abolitionist Republicans had something to do with Lincoln’s death because of the potential “reconstruction” issue.
In regard to conspiracies, they are almost as old as mankind. They are nothing new, nothing peculiar to this generation. They are mentioned in the Holy Scriptures. Go back and look at John 11:53 and Matthew 26:3-4, where the Pharisees “take counsel” together on how they might put Jesus to death. And this from the so-called “religious leaders” of Israel! They are truly a fitting example of how apostate and truly revolutionary Israel had become at that point in history. And yet, even with their evil conspiracies, those men ended up doing God’s will. With their plotting and treachery they managed to have Jesus crucified, only to have Him arise from the dead on the third day, and in so doing He made total shipwreck of all their well-laid conspiracies and machinations.
The question arises then, should we fear conspiracies? Today many do, and they tremble at the power those evil men seem to hold. But, if God is sovereign then we need not fear men’s evil conspiracies, for they cannot go beyond what the Lord will allow them to do no matter how powerful they seem to be.
However, it is well that the Lord’s people be aware of these conspiracies and that we expose them (Ephesians 5:11) and oppose them wherever possible, ultimately trusting in the Lord for our defense and discernment.
The work of building God’s Kingdom requires that we be discerning and knowledgeable to the best of our ability and so we should seek to learn as much as the Lord allows us to, and to use that knowledge as He directs. This is what Donnie Kennedy and I sought to do with our book Lincoln’s Marxists. We took a subject historians have only toyed with in passing and have tried to bring the information to the public at large, especially the folks in the Southern Movement.
There is much out there dealing with Lincoln’s assassination and those times in our history that needs to be aired, because all the problems of that era remain with us today in exaggerated form. If we are ignorant about our true history then we will be ignorant about what to do in our future.
by: Jimmy Ward
With all the hoopla over the 150th anniversary of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, a few thoughts on this so-called "great man" and what he CAUSED:
Over 620,000 soldiers dead; nearly 1 million civilian casualties due to war being waged on non-combatants; the South destroyed and bankrupt; over 30,000 northerners illegally imprisoned as Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in the north; old Republic dead; old Constitution dead. Lincoln wasn't an emancipator - he was an eradicator.
I agree with Lincoln's law partner, William Herndon of over 34 years, that Lincoln was an atheist. No God-fearing man would have done the above.
No man was more worthy of death on April 14th, 1865.
H.L. Mencken on Abraham Lincoln
From "Five Men at Random," Prejudices: Third Series, 1922, pp. 171-76.
First printed, in part, in the Smart Set, May, 1920, p. 141
Some time ago a publisher told me that there are four kinds of books that seldom, if ever, lose money in the United States—first, murder stories; secondly, novels in which the heroine is forcibly overcome by the hero; thirdly, volumes on spiritualism, occultism and other such claptrap, and fourthly, books on Lincoln. But despite all the vast mass of Lincolniana and the constant discussion of old Abe in other ways, even so elemental a problem as that of his religious ideas—surely an important matter in any competent biography—is yet but half solved. Was he a Christian? Did he believe in the Divinity of Jesus? I am left in doubt. He was very polite about it, and very cautious, as befitted a politician in need of Christian votes, but how much genuine conviction was in that politeness? And if his occasional references to Jesus were thus open to question, what of his rather vague avowals of belief in a personal God and in the immortality of the soul? Herndon and some of his other early friends always maintained that he was an atheist, but the Rev. Willian E. Barton, one of the best of later Lincolnologists, argues that this atheism was simply disbelief in the idiotic Methodist and Baptist dogmas of his time—that nine Christian churches out of ten, if he were live today, would admit him to their high privileges and prerogatives without anything worse than a few warning coughs. As for me, I still wonder.
Lincoln becomes the American solar myth, the chief butt of American credulity and sentimentality. Washington, of late years, has bee perceptible humanized; every schoolboy now knows that he used to swear a good deal, and was a sharp trader, and had a quick eye for a pretty ankle. But meanwhile the varnishers and veneerers have been busily converting Abe into a plaster saint, thus marking hum fit for adoration in the Y.M.C.A.’s. All the popular pictures of him show him in his robes of state, and wearing an expression fit for a man about to be hanged. There is, so far as I know, not a single portrait of him showing him smiling—and yet he must have cackled a good deal, first and last: who ever heard of a storyteller who didn’t? Worse, there is an obvious effort to pump all his human weaknesses out of him, an obvious effort to pump all his human weaknesses out of him, and so leave him a mere moral apparition, a sort of amalgam of John Wesley and the Holy Ghost. What could be more absurd? Lincoln, in point of fact, was a practical politician of long experience and high talents, and by no means cursed with idealistic superstitions. Until he emerged from Illinois they always put the women, children and clergy to bed when he got a few gourds of corn aboard, and it is a matter of unescapable record that his career in the State Legislature was indistinguishable from that of a Tammany Nietzsche. Even his handling of the slavery question was that of a politician, not that of a messiah. Nothing alarmed him more than the suspicion that he was an Abolitionist, and Barton tells of an occasion when he actually fled town to avoid meeting the issue squarely. An Abolitionist would have published the Emancipation Proclamation the day after the first battle of Bull Run. But Lincoln waited until the time was more favorable—until Lee had been hurled out of Pennsylvania, and more important still, until the political currents were safely funning his way. Even so, he freed the slaves in only a part of the country: all the rest continued to clank their chains until he himself was an angel in Heaven.
Like William Jennings Bryan, he was a dark horse made suddenly formidable by fortunate rhetoric. The Douglas debate launched hum, and the Cooper Union Speech got him the Presidency. His talent for emotional utterance was an accomplishment of late growth. His early speeches were mere empty fire-works—the hollow rodomontades of the era. But in the middle life he purged his style of ornament and it became almost badly simple—and it is for that simplicity that he is remembered today. The Gettysburg speech is at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history. Put beside it, all the whoopings of the Websters, Sumners and Everetts seem gaudy and silly It is eloquence brought to a pellucid and almost gem-like perfection—the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Nothing else precisely like it is to be found in the whole range of oratory. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous.
But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination—"that government of the people, by the people, for the people," should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i.e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and veto of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that veto was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary.
Any Time is a Good Time When People Learn Truth
by: Joan Hough
Never was there a collection of people more hated by Communists than were our Southern Planters in the 1800's. The Communist's hatred for them was but one aspect of their loathing for any and all capitalists, that is, for landowners,
Since 1848 the Communists’ ongoing hatred of capitalists has been a major motive for their every attack on the U.S. constitution, on the people who honor the Constitution and on the States’ rights guaranteed by it. By 1861, Communists’ detestation for Planters had smeared over on all white Southerners because the vast majority of Southerners were landowners
. In the north, property ownership was not widely spread. The north was a land overrun with recent mostly German immigrants unable even to speak or read English--men who had not obtained property. [Not only were the new immigrant Communists unaware that the vast majority of Southerners were landowners, but Communists also lacked the knowledge that black Southern land-owning capitalists (planters) existed in impressive numbers, and some of them even owned hundreds of slaves.[ii]]
The contents of The Communist Manifesto
, the Marxists’ bible, had everything to do with the “Civil War hate-inspired” attacks on all Southerners- and especially those on Southern Planters. (Interestingly northern slave ship owners and slave sellers were excluded from the Commie hatred.)
After Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were employed by the Illuminati to write The Communist Manifesto
in 1848. Marx, with the help of Charles Dana, acquired the only job he ever held for any length of time in his life; he became a foreign correspondent for the most widely circulated newspaper in the United States, “The New York Tribune.” [iii]
Mr. Lincoln’s buddy, Horace Greeley, owned this paper.[iv]
Charles Dana, a Tribune reporter, became inter-meshed with Marx and Engels during the Socialist Revolution in Europe. Dana had Greeley hire Marx. Dana, a determined Communist, later became, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of War, and Lincoln’s “eyes of the Administration.” [v]
Greeley and Engels became pro-creators of the Republican Party [vi]
and with the cooperative efforts of the Communist 48'ers—those WAR Republicans, put Lincoln on the Republican “throne.” [vii]
Without the new immigrant Germans’ vote, Lincoln would not have been elected. He was elected by an element of voters who knew the least about the type of government so carefully crafted by brilliant Americans in the 1700's- These immigrants not only “knew the least” about American institutions, they despised them the most.[viii]
Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Ten Commandments (the Manifesto) for their brethren. They obviously did not go up into the mountains and find their Commandments inscribed on stone tablets, but somehow they managed to come up with, surprisingly, the same number as found in the Holy Bible—ten of them. It must be assumed that atheist Marx, a Communist hater of religion, was familiar with the Old Testament’s commandments because of rabbis in his family.
For the purpose of this series of articles, only six of the Communist Commandments are considered: 1. Abolition of property and land
and application of all rents of land to public purposes. Private ownership of property was not to be allowed! Property taxes prove that nobody today really owns property in America, but simple is “leasing” it from the government. America has more “public lands” in 2013 than contained in most nations in Europe. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax
.[ix] Lincoln obeyed this command and gave America its very first Income Tax and Department of Revenue. Income tax makes possible the existence of the all powerful central government a their central banks, and the wars necessary if the New World Order goal is to be fulfilled 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance
. Said the Commies, “How dare a vast majority of Southerners own land and houses and their children inherit such!” The death tax is an offshoot of this belief.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels
.[x] This command was well heeded and gleefully followed by the Republicans, i.e. General Sherman and his Radical Republican Senator brother both became so filthy rich as the result of “their” war, General Sherman was able to bail out his friend Grant when Grant lost all of his bucks after serving as the 2nd U.S. Republican President. During Reconstruction all the Republican military Generals in dictatorial positions throughout the five divisions of the South, a virtual flood of Yankee carpetbaggers and some turncoat Southern scalawags, followed the confiscation commandment to the very letter. The U.S. government also somehow has possessed thousands of acres which it uses today for Parks where it shares with millions of visitors the Marxist propagandized “truth” that enslavement of course by nasty Southern folks and decadent white Southern plantation owners who were cruel were the cause of the war, and that only through the efforts of noble warriors of the Constitution-loving United States government, could the slaves be set free. Surprisingly, not a word is even whispered that the north had slaves for 200 years while the Confederacy only had them for five years and that northerners PAID by government to free their slaves by manumission—most often took the money and sold their slaves to the South.
The 6th and 10th Communist commandments guaranteed that Communism had a great opportunity to forever keep all that it obtained by hook, crook and sword: 6
. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State, meaning in the hands of all powerful central government. This was to prohibit the communication of politically incorrect ideas and to control travel of politically incorrect citizens and their publications. 10
. Free education of children in public schools
. This was to enable effective brainwashing and guarantee all the Constitutional changes made by the Commies in government would be maintained by future generations of Americans for centuries. Note: The Marxist (or Marxist influenced) efforts never end. A recent modern land grab job done by the united [xi] States government testifies to the success of the Commie plan to eliminate private ownership of property by individuals. The United States government now owns more American land than that found in the acreage of numerous nations in Europe. http://www.newswithviews.com/Emord/jonathan315.htm
Communists so disguise their personal truths that even their detractors may fail to realize that Commie tenets of anti-capitalism apply only to non-Communists and even to those Communists at less than the higher echelons of Communism. Some present day, evidently important, Russian Communists who are now American citizens, are able to travel annually to and from Mother Russia, to summer in Germany and winter in America. (Do they vote in Russia and America? Russians living in the U.S. own camps, apartments and homes in Russia, in Germany, and maybe elsewhere. The Chinese Communists in the high ranks have equal or even more latitude in their lives. Life is very good for “some” Communists. Everything is coming up roses for them until the next flood of purges begins. Unfortunately Communists in America seem immune to purges.
Some Americans who have contended for years that evil Southern planters were the cause of the war now tell us that they have recently been enlightened--that “God has revealed the truth” to them. They now know, so they say, the true motive for the South's secession from the united[xii]
States government and the real reason that Republicans invaded the Confederate States of America. They now declare that motive and real reason was the Constitution.
Most researchers, unfortunately, continue to miss the actual truth---that the real motive of the invaders of the South was based entirely in the New World Order goals of Communist men and women whose political affiliation was their religion. All-powerful government was their god and those men wishing to head it, were commanded to dismantle America’s Republic. Southern planters (with the wisdom of the ages) stood in their way.
The 1848 Marxist Republicans were no ordinary folks, but brilliant, highly educated, extremely determined, totally dedicated intellectuals--revolutionaries from Germany. Their genetic descendants, as well as some persons in the highest echelons of government and society, captivated by their New World Order dream—continue in the year 2013 to push those same Communist goals.[xiii]
The Marxist-Communists were so clever that upon arriving in America, copies of their Manifesto in their pockets, they entrenched themselves in types of jobs allowing them to influence others. They became active in churches, in politics, in Unions, in the military, and in schools. Charles Dana was instrumental in arranging their employment.[xiv]
The Commies involved themselves in the business of influencing Americans working in shipping, in government, in entertainment, in journalism, and in businesses. They organized a political party—the Republican Party. They especially sought out and invited to membership disgruntled Yankee souls with axes to grind and a penchant for rabble rousing concerning abolition. At the time, surprisingly, there were few abolitionists in the north -- a large number of truly humanitarian abolitionists were, instead, among the Communist-hated plantation owners in the South. It was true that Southerners were seeking humane and safe ways to achieve the releasing of millions of barely civilized black aliens. Thousands of slaves had already been freed and were prosperous, as in Louisiana.The Invaders brought Southerners’ efforts to a complete halt.
Here before, through all their years, the now newly enlightened Americans were so brainwashed, that they believed the men and women of the “evil” planter class were holding and beating all the noble slaves, so had to be wiped out. The Southern babies must die also because theirs was evil seed. Planters had corrupted all Southerners, so Sherman’s murders of civilians were all justified and besides, it was a lie that Sherman burned any homes or his soldiers raped helpless women of both races. Planters, concluded the brainwashed, caused the war by influencing common citizens of the South to fight “to preserve slavery.” Such ignorance of historical truth!— Because of the still alive ( in 2013) Constitutional Amendment (The Corwin Amendment) passed in 1861 and even ratified by some states, including the north’s) all the Southern planters had to do to keep slavery “in perpetuity” was to pay Mr. Lincoln’s tariffs! [xv] The South was America’s richest area—paying money for the continuation of slavery was certainly possible and might well have been done had the South’s secession really been because of any fear of losing slaves.
But our suddenly enlightened Americans once swallowed an entire pack of Marxist-created lies, they believed:
1. The South was the only place throughout the history of the world- where folks were ever held in slavery. Southerners would never have freed the slaves unless forced to do so by killing off most white folks and all planters in the South.
2. The Vikings never had slaves.
3. The English never had slaves.
4. The Muslims never had slaves
5. The Orientals never had slaves and neither did American Indians.
6. The French and Spanish and Portuguese never had slaves
7. People in all the nations in the world never had slaves
8. New Englanders never owned and cruelly mistreated slaves—more horribly than anything done in the South.
9. Entire settlements of homes of free blacks in the north were never deliberately set afire by white northerners
10. The Africans never had slaves and never sold them to the New Englanders who held them in their own homes and factories until cheaper Irish slaves appeared--
11. Northerners did not discriminate against black people, only Southerners did.
12. No Northern states ever legally declared horrific enslavement or other punishment for any free blacks who attempted to settle in one of their states –even while the so called war to free slaves was ongoing.
13. Only black people were slaves; white people were never slaves anywhere in the world, not on the island sugar plantations of the English and especially not in the United States’ north.[xvi]
Five-year-old boys were never enslaved chimney swifts in jolly ole England. White children kidnapped in England were never sold to northern factory owners as slave labor.
14. The New Englanders did not continue buying and selling black slaves to other nations for a number of years after they won their war “supposedly” to free slaves held by “supposedly” decadent, wicked Confederate Planters.
15. Everyone in America in the 1800's knew that the “Civil War” was fought to free the slaves—started because the South wanted to keep slaves forever and Slaves were horrifically mistreated by Southern planters.
Deliberately “dumbed down” by educators who know which side of the bread their butter is on, almost all Americans today remain unaware that most white male immigrants detested and despised black people but simply joined the army of Generals, such as General William T. Sherman, to obtain loot, land, and citizenship.
Marxist 1848'er Germans thought the Invasion of the South correct and joined in it thinking: We should be the rich ones, we should hold all the national power, we hate Southern Planters because we are jealous of their Southern Culture and their Influence on America –besides, they own more stuff than we do. We will redistribute their wealth among ourselves.
Most of the 1848'ers were convinced that Southerners were the main obstacles to their New World Order. Once the South was defeated and Southern men were prohibited from them or their States ever again
having any real influence on the national government, including the Supreme Court, many of the Germans returned to their homeland “to participate in the war of German unification and the Franco-German War in 1870-71.”[xvii] Too bad more did not go. [i]
Carl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, (Great Britain: Merlin Press Ltd., 2003), [ii]
Walter D. Kennedy, Myths of American Slavery,
(Gretna Louisiana: Pelican Publishing Company, 2003). [iii]
James Ledbetter, editor. Karl Marx: Dispatches for the New York Tribune: Selected Journalism of Karl Marx
(New York: Penguin Books, 2007). [iv] Ibid. [v]
Al Benson, Jr., and Walter Donald Kennedy, Lincoln’s Marxists
(Gretna: Pelican Publishing Company, 2011), p. 155. [vi] http://www.jbs.org/news/republican-party-origins [vii] Ibid. [viii]
John Avery Emison, Lincoln uber Alles
: Dictatorship Comes to America (Gretna: Pelican Publishing Company, 2009 [ix]
Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War
( New York: Three Rivers Press, 2003) pp. 254-256. [x]
Carl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Ibid. [xi]
The little “u” is substituted for the commonly used capitol in deference to the fact that the formal documents, The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, were both created and signed by each individual State maintaining its own individual sovereignty while organizing with other States and surrendering specified and restricted powers to the “Union.” The individual State did not surrender its rights as a sovereign nation—for the very word “State” had been chosen to represent clearly this sovereignty. The lowercase letter refers to the fact that each individual State, with its rights, existed prior to the writing of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution. In conclusion of the American Revolution, the Britannic King recognized the individuality of each States and named each in the Treaty of Paris: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=6&page=transcript [xii] ibid. [xiii]
George Bush New World Order speech to Congress http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byxeOG_pZ1o http://www.canadianliberty.com/?p=13220 [xiv]
Benson and Kennedy, ibid. [xv] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment [xvi]
Don Jordan and Michael Walsh, White Cargo
: The Forgotten History of Britain’s White Slaves in America
(New York: New York University Press, 2008). [xvii]
John Emison, Ibid. p. 97.
Compliments of the Charleston Voice.
THE LETTER from Union Lieutenant Thomas J. Myers: Feb 26, 1865 of the Morrill Tariff Camp near Camden, S. C.
My dear wife--I have no time for particulars. We have had a glorious time in this State. Unrestricted license to burn and plunder was the order of the day.
The chivalry [meaning the Honourable & Chivalrous people of the South] have been stripped of most of their valuables. Gold watches, silver pitchers, cups, spoons, forks, &c., are as common in camp as blackberries.
The terms of plunder are as follows: Each company is required to exhibit the results of its operations at any given place--one-fifth and first choice falls to the share of the commander-in-chief and staff; one-fifth to the corps commanders and staff; one-fifth to field officers of regiments, and two-fifths to the company.
Officers are not allowed to join these expeditions without disguising themselves as privates. One of our corps commanders borrowed a suit of rough clothes from one of my men, and was successful in this place. He got a large quantity of silver (among other things an old-time milk pitcher) and a very fine gold watch from a Mrs DeSaussure, at this place. DeSaussure was one of the F. F. V.s of South Carolina, and was made to fork over liberally.. Officers over the rank of Captain are not made to put their plunder in the estimate for general distribution. This is very unfair, and for that reason, in order to protect themselves, subordinate officers and privates keep back every thing that they can carry about their persons, such as rings, earrings, breast pins, &c., of which, if I ever get home, I have about a quart. I am not joking--I have at least a quart of jewelry for you and all the girls, and some No. 1 diamond rings and pins among them.
General Sherman has silver and gold enough to start a bank. His share in gold watches alone at Columbia was two hundred and seventy-five. But I said I could not go into particulars. All the general officers and many besides had valuables of every description, down to embroidered ladies' pocket handkerchiefs. I have my share of them, too. We took gold and silver enough from the damned rebels to have redeemed their infernal currency twice over.
This, (the currency), whenever we came across it, we burned, as we considered it utterly worthless.
~ Charleston, South Carolina ~I wish all the jewelry this army has could be carried to the "Old Bay State". It would deck her out in glorious style; but, alas! it will be scattered all over the North and Middle States.
The damned niggers, as a general rule, prefer to stay at home, particularly after they found out that we only wanted the able-bodied men, (and to tell the truth, the youngest and best-looking women). Sometimes we took off whole families and plantations of niggers, by way of repaying secessionists. But the useless part of them we soon manage to lose; [one very effective was to "shoot at their bobbing heads as they swam rivers" after the army units crossed over], sometimes in crossing rivers, sometimes in other ways.
I shall write to you again from Wilmington, Goldsboro', or some other place in North Carolina. The order to march has arrived, and I must close hurriedly. Love to grandmother and aunt Charlotte. Take care of yourself and children. Don't show this letter out of the family.
Your affectionate husband, Thomas J Myers, Lieut.,
P.S. I will send this by the first flag of truce to be mailed, unless I have an opportunity of sending it at Hilton Head. Tell Sallie I am saving a pearl bracelet and ear-rings for her; but Lambert got the necklace and breast pin of the same set. I am trying to trade him out of them. These were taken from the Misses Jamison, daughters of the President of the South Carolina Secession Convention. We found these on our trip through Georgia."
Slave quarters in Bristol Rhode Island
By: Laurence M. Vance Copyright © 2013 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
"No subject has been more generally misunderstood or more persistently misrepresented." Jefferson Davis
Much of what we hear today about slavery from the Black community, the news media, the pulpit, the high school classroom, and the university lectern is a myth. This does not mean that slavery was anything but a great evil. It just means many things commonly accepted as slavery facts are actually slavery myths.
This is not an attempt at a scholarly discourse on slavery. It is merely a presentation of some myth-refuting facts that I have assembled from a few books in my own library.
Myth number one: Slavery was a distinctively Southern institution. From Ira Berlin’sGenerations of Captivity
(Harvard University Press, 2003), we read:
On the eve of American independence, nearly three-fourths of Boston’s wealthiest quartile of property-holders held slaves. A like proportion could be found in New York, Philadelphia, Providence, and Newport. From a position at the top of colonial society, one visitor noted that there was "not a house in Boston" that "has not one or two" slaves — an observation that might be applied to every northern city with but slight exaggeration.
The expansion of slavery followed a similar trajectory in the countryside. Indeed, the rapid growth of rural slavery eclipsed its development in the cities of the North. Throughout the grain-producing areas of Pennsylvania, northern New Jersey, the Hudson Valley, and Long Island — the North’s bread basket — bondage spread swiftly during the eighteenth century, as farmers turned from white indentured servants to black slaves. By mid-century slavery’s tentacles reached into parts of southern New England, especially the area around Narragansett Bay, where large slaveholders — many of whom had originated in Barbados — took on the airs of a planter class. In these places, slaves constituted as much as one-third of the labor force, and sometimes more than half.
In the northern colonies, Africans had difficulty finding mates, establishing families, conceiving, and producing healthy infants. The problem was not new. From the beginning of settlement, northern slaveholders, unlike their counterparts farther south, showed little interest in creating an indigenous slave population. From their perspective, the discomfort and expense of sharing their cramped quarters with slaves outweighed the profits offered by a self-reproducing labor force. Northern slaveholders discouraged their slaves from marrying and did not provide accommodations for slave families to reside in the same abode. They routinely separated husbands from wives and parents from children and only reluctantly extended visitation rights. Seeing but small advantage in the creation of an indigenous, self-reproducing slave population, northern slaveholders sold slave women at the first sign of pregnancy. Such practices constrained the development of residential family units and diminished the chances that black men would assume the roles of husbands and fathers and black women the roles of wives and mothers. Grandparenthood became unknown to most northerners of African descent.
In the middle years of the eighteenth century, northern lawmakers — taking a page from southern statute books — updated, refined, or consolidated the miscellaneous regulations that had been enacted during the seventeenth century and issued more comprehensive slave codes. In every case, legislators strengthened the hand of the slaveowner at the expense of the slave and free black.
Black life in the North increasingly resembled that of the plantation South.Thomas DiLorenzo
has also recently pointed out that Ira Berlin played a role in assembling an exhibit in October at the New York Historical Society entitled "Slavery in New York." When interviewed about the exhibit, Professor Berlin pointed out that "New York City in the 17th and 18th centuries was the largest slave-holding city on the North American continent. There were more slaves in New York than in Charleston or New Orleans. Slaves made up a quarter of New York’s population at various times. . . . New York had slave auctions and slave whipping posts and slave rebellions. . . . there were over 10,000 slaves in New York in the third decade of the 19th century."
Myth number two: The White man captured slaves in the African jungles. From Alan Taylor’s American Colonies
(Viking, 2001), we read:
Popular myth has it that the Europeans obtained their slaves by attacking and seizing Africans. In fact, the shippers almost always bought their slaves from African middlemen, generally the leading merchants and chiefs of the coastal kingdoms. Determined to profit from the trade, the African traders and chiefs did not tolerate Europeans who foolishly bypassed them to seize slaves on their own initiative. And during the eighteenth century the Africans had the power to defeat Europeans who failed to cooperate. Contrary to the stereotype of shrewd Europeans cheating weak and gullible natives, the European traders had to pay premium, and rising, prices to African chiefs and traders, who drove a hard bargain.
The Europeans exploited and expanded the slavery long practiced by Africans. Some slaves were starving children sold by their impoverished parents. Others were debtors or criminals sentenced to slavery. But most were taken in wars between kingdoms or simply kidnapped by armed gangs.
The African raiders marched their captives to the coast in long lines know as coffles: dozens of people yoked together by the neck with leather thongs to prevent escape. Some marches to the coast exceeded five hundred miles and six months. About a quarter of the captives died along the way from some combination of disease, hunger, exhaustion, beatings, and suicide.
Upon reaching the coast, the captors herded their captives into walled pens called barracoons. Stripped naked, the slaves were closely examined by European traders, who wanted only reasonably healthy and young people, preferably male.
Myth number three: Blacks never owned slaves. From Anne Sarah Rubin’s A Shattered Nation: The Rise & Fall of the Confederacy
(The University of North Carolina Press, 2005), we read:
The free blacks who had prospered in the prewar South had done so by seeking favor with local whites and assuring them of their loyalty. Some of them had owned slaves themselves.
And again, from Berlin’s Generations of Captivity:
As societies engaged in the trade in slaves, the coastal enclaves became societies with slaves. African slavery in its various forms — from pawnage to chattel bondage — was practiced in these towns. Both Europeans and Africans held slaves, imported and exported them, hired them, used them as collateral, and traded them. At Elmina, the Dutch West India Company owned some 300 slaves in the late seventeenth century, and individual Europeans and Africans held others.
Myth number four: Slave masters were brutal taskmasters. From Berlin’s Generations of Captivity, we read:
Other aspects of the new work regimen operated to the slaves’ advantage. Slave lumbermen, many of them hired out for short periods of time, carried axes and, like slave drovers and herdsmen, were generally armed with knives and guns — necessities for men who worked in the wild and hunted animals for food and furs. Woodsmen had access to horses, as did slaves who tended cattle and swine. Periodic demands that slaveowners disarm their slaves and restrict their access to horses and mules confirmed that many believed these to be dangerous practices, but they did nothing to halt them. In short, slave lumbermen and drovers were not to be trifled with. Their work allowed considerable mobility and latitude in choosing their associates and bred a sense of independence, not something planters wanted to encourage. Slaves found it a welcome relief from the old plantation order.
As the slaveholders’ economy faded, the slaves’ economy flourished. Black men and women became full participants in the system of exchange that developed within the lower Mississippi Valley, trading the produce of their gardens and provision grounds, the fruits of their hunting and trapping expeditions, and a variety of handicrafts with European settlers and Indian tribesmen. Many hard-pressed planters turned to the production of foodstuffs for internal consumption and sometimes for export to Saint Domingue and Martinique. To cut costs, they encouraged and sometimes required slaves to feed themselves and their families by gardening, hunting, and trapping on their own time. Indeed, some slaveholders demanded that their slaves not only feed themselves but also provide their own clothes and purchase other necessities. Such requirements forced slaveowners to cede their slaves a portion of their time to work independently. "It is because the slaves are not clothed that they are left free of all work on Sunday," argued one advocate in an affirmation of the slaves’ right to maintain gardens, market produce, and work independently on Sunday. "On such days some of them go to the neighbors’ plantations who hire them to cut moss and to gather provisions. This is done with the tacit consent of their masters who do not know the where-abouts of their slaves on the said day, nor do they question them, nor do they worry themselves about them and are always satisfied that the Negroes will appear again on the following Monday for work."
Myth number five: The Civil War was fought entirely over slavery. From Mark Thornton and Robert Ekelund’s Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War
(Scholarly Resources, 2004), we read:
Slavery and its opposition were interwoven into the economic, political, social, and religious fabric of America. However, it was not the only factor in the South’s decision to secede and the North’s decision to take up arms to prevent secession. Active abolitionists in the North and slaveholders in the South were relatively small minorities of their populations. Therefore, to get below the surface of these issues we focus on economic interests in the various causes that have been attributed to the Civil War. The evolving relations between the powers of the federal government and the states were certainly an issue. In general, the South’s well-known position was one of states’ rights, while the North increasingly preferred a stronger central government. This question was the underpinning of another incendiary matter — the issue of import duties. Both as a revenue device for the federal government and as a means of industry protection, the tariff was a flashpoint for particular interests, North and South.
We maintain that a multiplicity of issues brought about the conflict and that those economic interests and the interest groups surrounding them were the key factor in explaining these events. While we acknowledge that other dimensions affected the coming of the war, such as the moral and philosophical horrors of slavery, this chapter argues that economic interests, many of them at least somewhat related to slavery, were a major factor in the emergence of the conflict. Political parties, moreover, evolved and coalesced around this embroidery of interests. Many social and economic factors are involved in this connection, including the statues of money and banking in the North and South, canal and railway building, and other public works.
Slaveholders can therefore be viewed as an economic interest group that established secession and thus helped precipitate the war. The very election of Abraham Lincoln was seen by them as an economic loss to slaveholders and as an impetus for secession and war. In other words, the containment policies of the Republican Party were a long-run threat to the wealth of slaveholders, but the party’s protectionist policies were an immediate threat to the profitability of their plantations, having the same effect as one-third of the slave population running away outside the South.
The twin issues of tariffs and slavery were thus at the fore of aligning economic interest groups, North and South.
Myth number six: Slaves never defended the Confederacy. From William W. Freehling’s The South vs. the South
(Oxford University Press, 2001), we read:
During the Civil War’s relatively quiet first year, slavery tolerably passed its paternalistic test. Thousands of slaves labored inside army camps and fortifications. More thousand manned new munitions factories. Blacks comprised over half the toilers at Richmond’s Tredegar Iron Works and over three in four at Selma, Alabama’s, naval ordnance plant. In the fields, slave millions produced a record cotton crop, even with many masters away. A few blacks donated cash to the Confederate cause. Two Mobile slaves bought $400 in Confederate bonds. One New Orleans slave subscribed for $200.
When mutilated masters returned from the bloodbath, some slaves raged as well as wept. "Dey brung" Massa Billy home, one South Carolina slave grieved to a contemporary, "with he jaw split open . . . He teeth all shine through he cheek. . . . I be happy iffen I could kill me jes’ one Yankee. I hated dem ’cause dey hurt my white people."
And, from a review for the History Book Club by William C. Davis of what promises to be an interesting work, Bruce Levine’s Confederate Emancipation: Southern Plans to Free and Arm Slaves during the Civil War
(Oxford University Press, 2005), we read that "there were clear signs that some of the slave population saw themselves as Southerners first and blacks second, and expressed a willingness to take the field."
Myth number seven: Abraham Lincoln was the Negroes friend. In his debate with Stephen Douglas
, Lincoln said:
I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
In his First Inaugural Address
, Lincoln said:
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when 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.
In his letter to Horace Greeley
, the editor of the New York Tribune, dated August 22, 1862, Lincoln said:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.
Just before Lincoln was inaugurated in 1861, Congress proposed an amendment to the Constitution that would have protected slavery:
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said state.
In his First Inaugural Address
, Lincoln specifically mentioned this amendment, and voiced no objection to it:
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution — which amendment, however, I have not seen — has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
And who can forget that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation
only freed those slaves that were under the control of the Confederate government, which means that it basically freed no one. Lincoln declared that only "persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons." Here are the states and parts of states that Lincoln listed:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
Lincoln’s Secretary of State, William Seward, remarked about the Emancipation Proclamation only applying to slaves in areas that were in a state of rebellion against the United States: "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."
To keep this article at a reasonable length, there is one book on slavery in my library that I have deliberately refrained from referring to: Walter Kennedy, Myths of American Slavery
(Pelican Publishing Company, 2003). It is the antidote to every slavery myth that has ever been perpetrated, and I highly recommend it: For the antidote to the myths of Abraham Lincoln, there is Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln
(Three Rivers Press, 2003). And for the antidote to the myths of American history in general, I recommend Thomas Woods,The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History
(Regnery Publishing, 2004).
Slavery myths — may they be forever banished to the dustbin of history.
By Al Benson Jr.
It should be common knowledge by now that when liberals, socialists, and communists have something on their agenda they seldom quit until they get what they want. Much as I hate to do it, I have to credit them for their tenacity in pursuing their agendas and I could wish our folks on the right had a little more of that tenacity. When the communists and their buddies lose a fight they come back next year, and next year, and so on until they wear their opposition down. And their “opposition”—in many cases, like the judge in Luke 18 that feared neither God nor man, will end up giving them what they want just so that they will no longer trouble them. Christians and patriotic folks have not yet learned that lesson. Most of our folks fight one battle, lose it, and tuck tail and run home and we don’t even think about coming back next year—and so the leftists win by default.
Several years back there was a big fuss in Mississippi over the state flag. The “progressives” (liberals, socialists and communists) claimed the flag represented “racism” and slavery and they wanted to replace it with some watered-down rag that had no cultural or regional significance whatever—the same game they play in all the Southern states—replace yet another Southern symbol with cultural genocide on a piece of cloth.
Some of the good folks in Mississippi resisted their efforts and traveled around the state to rallies and meetings educating the public (because they sure didn’t get it in public school) as to what was going on and who was doing it. There was finally a referendum put up that allowed Mississippians to vote on whether to keep their current state flag with the St. Andrews cross on it or to adopt the proposed politically correct and insipid rag.
When the folks in Mississippi had the chance to vote they voted 67% or right around there, to keep their current flag. There were some black folks that voted to keep the current flag. So the far left lost that particular battle. Now, after nursing their wounds and planning new strategy for a decade and a half, they seem to be drifting back.
There was an article by a Donna Ladd on http://www.jacksonfreepress.com
for October 30th which had several comments about the state flag—none of them good. She started out her article saying: “Ah, the flag. The Mississippi State flag is like that obnoxious relative at a family gathering. He’s offensive, disrespectful and not representative of your family’s values at all—one hopes—but he’s not going anywhere anytime soon. So you put up with him.”