Union or Confederates?

[George McClellan]

North, simply because trying to win with McClellan is quite the task. And I know that he sucks, but then, that's the reason why I use him. More challenging if the Army of the Potomac is commanded by him than Grant.

I despise you with all the hatred in my heart. You must treat a superior with respect . Unless you would like your head up the barrel of a cannon.

[dolphin]

With all due respect i must disagree with you on this. The south actaully had a chance to win through out the entire war. Maybe not through an all out military victory but it was possible. All the South was really trying to do was outlast the Union until they would just let them leave in peace. I mean all through out the war there were tons of times that the South almost pulled off a victory that would have spelled an end to the war. I mean up North there was alot of antiwar attituded and if a battle would have gone just a little differently then peace could have happened. So really i think Longstreet and Lee did think they had a chance at winning. It may have been slim but i still think they thought they did

From my personal research I have always had the very definate feeling that the South lost primarily for one reason alone and that was the massive immigration of foreigners from Europe who were encouraged to move to the United States for the express purpose of swelling the ranks of the Union Army.

These immigrants were totally and completely ignorant as to what the war was really about and merely came to start a new life at the price of being willing to join the Union Army.

In the United States today the same thing has been done to us to destroy our Constitutional Republic. It is called cultural diffusion.

[caranorn]

From my personal research I have always had the very definate feeling that the South lost primarily for one reason alone and that was the massive immigration of foreigners from Europe who were encouraged to move to the United States for the express purpose of swelling the ranks of the Union Army.

These immigrants were totally and completely ignorant as to what the war was really about and merely came to start a new life at the price of being willing to join the Union Army.

In the United States today the same thing has been done to us to destroy our Constitutional Republic. It is called cultural diffusion.

You know, many of those imigrants had fought in a series of revolutionary wars. They knew pretty well what the ACW meant to them, more equality and freedom. Whether that was the real reason for the Union to start this conflict is another issue, the immigrants believed in freedom.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

Pat Cleburne was a direct immigrant from Ireland . Don't be so quick to hate on us.

[dolphin]

You know, many of those imigrants had fought in a series of revolutionary wars. They knew pretty well what the ACW meant to them, more equality and freedom. Whether that was the real reason for the Union to start this conflict is another issue, the immigrants believed in freedom.

Actually I think the immigrants we are talking about believed more in eating than they did in equality and freedom.

People were starving in Europe back in them days.

I think it is fair to say that the ACW had absolutely nothing to do with equality and freedom unless your talking about the Southern motivation.

The slavery issue is played up in history by revisionists who use it as a suger coated propaganda tool. Lincoln himself was a biggoted rascist as is well documented in his own writings and statements.

Besides the fact that slavery is just as prevalent today as it was back then. It has merely evolved into a more modern form is all.

The Story of Your Enslavement
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A&feature=player_embedded

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

Actually I think the immigrants we are talking about believed more in eating than they did in equality and freedom.

People were starving in Europe back in them days.

I think it is fair to say that the ACW had absolutely nothing to do with equality and freedom unless your talking about the Southern motivation.

The slavery issue is played up in history by revisionists who use it as a suger coated propaganda tool. Lincoln himself was a biggoted rascist as is well documented in his own writings and statements .

Why didn't the south emancipate the slaves to releave the manpower shortage then? Slavery was definitely an issue. Lincoln would be a racist by today's standards, but he lived in the mid 1800's. I know this argument has happened a ton of times, so I won't keep it going but slavery isn't a "sugar coated propaganda tool". I've played 99% of my turns as the south, but the politicians in particular werent honorable states righters.

[dolphin]

Why didn't the south emancipate the slaves to releave the manpower shortage then? Slavery was definitely an issue. Lincoln would be a racist by today's standards, but he lived in the mid 1800's. I know this argument has happened a ton of times, so I won't keep it going but slavery isn't a "sugar coated propaganda tool". I've played 99% of my turns as the south, but the politicians in particular werent honorable states righters.

Many people are totally dumbed down about the history back then.

For instance there were a great many blacks in the South who
were already free and quite a goodly number who fought for
the South and wore the uniform.

Most people know that Bedford Forest started the Klu Klux Klan,
but ignore the fact that many thousands of Blacks were members
of the KKK.

Many blacks in the South were very well educated back then.

A very good case could be made that rascism and biggotry
were far more rampant in the North than in the South.

The prevailing history we are taught today is a complete lie.

One could easily research the relevent facts and conclude that
the lies we are subjected to today are in reality part of a
Communist Conspiracy.

I could elaborate, but I don't think I should.

Not sure it would be appropriate to this forum and I am new here.

Truth very often has a way of pissing people off.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

This isn't the place and I'm not a great point by point arguer, so I'll just say I disagree.

[dolphin]

This isn't the place and I'm not a great point by point arguer, so I'll just say I disagree.

I understand and agree it is not the place.

Once upon a time not too many years ago I would
have disagreed with me too.

I think I can get away with giving you this without stepping on
anyones toes though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYCBfmIcHM&feature=player_embedded

John Hanson the first President has his statue in Statuary Hall in the U.S. Capitol
Peyton Randolph Virginia September 5, 1774[a] October 22, 1774 2
Henry Middleton South Carolina October 22, 1774 October 26, 1774 <1
Peyton Randolph Virginia May 10, 1775[c] May 24, 1775 <1
John Hancock Massachusetts May 24, 1775 October 29, 1777 29
Henry Laurens South Carolina November 1, 1777[d] December 9, 1778 13
John Jay New York December 10, 1778 September 28, 1779 10
Samuel Huntington Connecticut September 28, 1779 July 10, 1781[e] 21
Thomas McKean Delaware July 10, 1781 November 5, 1781 4
John Hanson Maryland November 5, 1781[f] November 4, 1782 12
Elias Boudinot New Jersey November 4, 1782 November 3, 1783 12
Thomas Mifflin Pennsylvania November 3, 1783[g] June 3, 1784 7
Richard Henry Lee Virginia November 30, 1784 November 4, 1785 11
John Hancock[h] Massachusetts November 23, 1785 June 5, 1786 6
Nathaniel Gorham Massachusetts June 6, 1786 November 3, 1786 5
Arthur St. Clair Pennsylvania February 2, 1787 November 4, 1787 10
Cyrus Griffin Virginia January 22, 1788 November 15, 1788[i] 10
[B][SIZE="4"]18th President of the United States [color="Red"]George Washintgton[/color][/size]

[Carrington]

"You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts."

One could easily research the relevent facts and conclude that
the lies we are subjected to today are in reality part of a
Communist Conspiracy.

I could elaborate, but I don't think I should.

Probably wise.

With all due respect i must disagree with you on this. The south actaully had a chance to win through out the entire war. Maybe not through an all out military victory but it was possible. All the South was really trying to do was outlast the Union until they would just let them leave in peace. I mean all through out the war there were tons of times that the South almost pulled off a victory that would have spelled an end to the war. I mean up North there was alot of antiwar attituded and if a battle would have gone just a little differently then peace could have happened. So really i think Longstreet and Lee did think they had a chance at winning. It may have been slim but i still think they thought they did

To a degree, you're right -- Northern support for the war was fairly squishy, both in the coastal Democratic cities --. E.g. pace Caranorn (and Meagher's Irish Brigade), I've read that Irish immigrants were actually underreppresented in the Union army and in the 'Old Northwest' -- Copperhead areas in Ohio, Indiana, and Southern Illinois.

The problem is that the South's war aims were significantly more expansive than they have been portrayed: for them, the war was to preserve slavery (a point made repeatedly in the varying states' articles of secession). It would be fair to say that Southern popular support for these war aims was 'squishy' as well, not least amongst black Southerners, as well as certain segments of whites (vis. East Tennessee, West Virginia counter-secessionists, etc.) The basic problem slavery would be difficult to preserve if neighboring states and nations were willing to grant asylum to those slaves who made their escape -- hence the Fugitive Slave crises of the early 1850s. It was a problem that would seem painfully familiar to Walter Ulbricht or Erich Honecker

That issue would not likely go away -- it was one of the reasons that coastal enclaves (such as Sumter or Ft. Monroe) were a strategic concern for the South (and a headache for Lincoln, who had to equivocate for a couple years about the 'contrabands' who began flocking to Ft. Monroe). I tend to suspect it would have ensured an ongoing Cold War between North and South, even if, say, the 20th Maine had fallen back off Little Round Top.

[gchristie]

Not sure it would be appropriate to this forum

It's not, and you show good judgment not to. Plenty of other places on the internet to hash out things like this.

Welcome to the forum and I hope you enjoy your time among the many people here who do know their history, Civil War and otherwise.

And thanks for following the suggestions to ramp down the big, bold text. I too find it hard to read, and sometime fall prey to "reading into" such text perhaps things not intended to be conveyed.

Regards.

[dolphin]

I've read that Irish immigrants were actually underreppresented in the Union army and in the 'Old Northwest' -- Copperhead areas in Ohio, Indiana, and Southern Illinois..

Interesting you mentioned the Irish.

Of all the union soldiers drafted into service they were the one group that deserted in mass.

What most people are unaware of though is the reason why.

The Pope and hence the Vatican were very sympathetic to the Southern Cause. The Pope actually sent a letter of support to Jeffereson Davis.

The Popes support for the South was widely publicized.

Hence the Irish desertions.

The problem is that the South's war aims were significantly more expansive than they have been portrayed: for them, the war was to preserve slavery (a point made repeatedly in the varying states' articles of secession). It would be fair to say that Southern popular support for these war aims was 'squishy' as well, not least amongst black Southerners, as well as certain segments of whites (vis. East Tennessee, West Virginia counter-secessionists, etc.) The basic problem slavery would be difficult to preserve if neighboring states and nations were willing to grant asylum to those slaves who made their escape -- hence the Fugitive Slave crises of the early 1850s. It was a problem that would seem painfully familiar to Walter Ulbricht or Erich Honecker

The above statement about the war having to do with preserving slavery is hogwash.

No serious student of history would embarass themselves with such a ludicrous fairy tale that was concocted well after the war started.

In fact when states began to seceede Lincoln himself pleaded with them to keep the Union together and stated uncatagorically that the Federal Government had no intention whatsoever of messing with the issue of slavery.

Interestingly this game actually has a newspaper event telling you that was Lincoln's position when he spoke publicly in an attempt to convince the South not to continue with what they were doing.

[Carrington]

Interesting you mentioned the Irish.

Of all the union soldiers drafted into service they were the one group that deserted in mass.

What most people are unaware of though is the reason why.

The Pope and hence the Vatican were very sympathetic to the Southern Cause. The Pope actually sent a letter of support to Jeffereson Davis.

The Popes support for the South was widely publicized.

Hence the Irish desertions.





The above statement about the war having to do with preserving slavery is hogwash.

No serious student of history would embarass themselves with such a ludicrous fairy tale that was concocted well after the war started.

Interesting about the Pope and the Irish. The irony is that Frederick Douglass had a fairly good reception when he toured Ireland -- many of the nationalists tended to see similarities between anti-slavery and Irish liberation.

Needless to say, the Pope was not, historically, a 'progressive.'

As to the 'ludicrous fairy tale...' it's one that a serious student of history might come to after reading the articles of secession in a number of Southern States... "[whereas the North won't let us keep slaves]" tends to show up, in varying exact phrases, in the first couple paragraphs.

You can make an argument about those primary documents... but they seem pretty authoritative as statements of intent.

[dolphin]

Interesting about the Pope and the Irish. The irony is that Frederick Douglass had a fairly good reception when he toured Ireland -- many of the nationalists tended to see similarities between anti-slavery and Irish liberation.

Needless to say, the Pope was not, historically, a 'progressive.'

As to the 'ludicrous fairy tale...' it's one that a serious student of history might come to after reading the articles of secession in a number of Southern States... "[whereas the North won't let us keep slaves]" tends to show up, in varying exact phrases, in the first couple paragraphs.

You can make an argument about those primary documents... but they seem pretty authoritative as statements of intent.

You are intentionally muddling two distinct and separate concepts and reinterpreting them to suit your revisionism, or rather your delusions. I should explain.

The issue of slavery was most definitely a hot bed of antagonism, but it was not the reason for secession. It was not the cause.

The Constitution and the laws of the land were being flagrantly violated by the Federal Government and a militant minority of abolitionists.

Southerners were being subjected to intolerable crimes to include violence and murder.

In truth the South had already been subjected to guerilla warfare for quite some time by incursions from Northern Terrorists.

Perhaps you should read those articles again.
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/


Slavery in the South in those days was not the living hell revisionist history makes it out to be. It was a different time and a different culture. The brainwashing and conditioning we are subjected to with modern techniques of behavioral modification make it impossible to judge the issues of slavery back in those days as a crime against humanity justifying blanket condemnation.


The simple truth is that slavery exists today in a much more insidious and evil forms because Lincolns War did not free the black man, but rather enslaved the white man right along side of him.

We are living in a world where the Right to Bear Arms is fast being reinterpreted to mean that it is legal to wear short sleeves.


It is also very important to consider the role played by foreign Intelligence Services who were tasked with causing the war to destroy the Union and force the colonies to eventually return to their servitude.

Don't think I am just talking about the British Empire controlled by the European Cartels. Their Jesuit allies were hip deep involved as well which fully explains the Vatican’s support for the South and also
why the Cartels today are the Vatican’s Bankers. What an incestuous relationship that is.

Lincolns assassination of course was also a foreign operation as most of us should know by now.

You may remain in denial for the rest of your life, but the reality is you personally are in fact regarded as property owned by a corporation.

The sad reality is that 5 billion of us all over the world have been classified as surplus cattle and slated for extermination by our owners.

So much for your misguided and ill informed historical perspective that Slavery had anything to do with the Civil War other than as a convenient Hegelian Ruse, or if you prefer a more modern term; PSYOP.


[SIZE="3"]DEPOPULATION under cover of Globalization [/size]
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?259560-DEPOPULATION-under-cover-of-Globalization

[GraniteStater]

@dolphin

The issue of slavery was most definitely a hot bed of antagonism, but it was not the reason for secession. It was not the cause.

The Constitution and the laws of the land were being flagrantly violated by the Federal Government and a militant minority of abolitionists.

I must, absolutely must, take issue with this.

Lemme get this straight - before Lincoln had even taken office, before the Administration had begun, several States, starting with South Carolina, attempted to secede from the Union.

Before the guy had even taken the oath of office, mind you. Before he had signed a document or issued a single order.

Read Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, for starters. Then read Grant's analysis of the causes of the war in his Memoirs - both incisive and original and well worth contemplating, seeing that they are the reflections of one of the chief participants.

And let me quote from Article I, US Constitution: "...no State shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation." To maintain that a State may leave the Union and then do those things is, shall we say, disingenuous at best. Furthermore, refer to the Articles of Confederation, wherein "perpetual Union" is pledged among the States.

Last, may I point out that the late unpleasantness ended in 1865. There was a rather stark decision rendered at the time. If one wishes to maintain that South Carolina and others had a right to secede because of 'wrongs', well, all I can say is have a good conversation with Alexander Stephens.

And if one wishes to maintain that slavery had little to do with antebelleum events, well, you're entitled to your opinion, but if slavery had been ended eighty or sixty years before, there would have been no conflict between North and South. I hope that is readily apparent.

The plain fact of the matter is that the South attempted to secede because it didn't get its way in an election and for the first time in the history of the Republic, would be losing any control whatsoever over the national government. Thereupon, like Brutus and the assassins, they decided to take precipitate action, not for what had been done, but because of their apprehensions.

Grant said it best, reflecting on his feelings at Appomattox: "Never had I felt less like exulting at the defeat of a foe who had fought so gallantly and so long against overwhelming odds; who, however, had fought for one of the worst causes ever and with the least excuse."

[dolphin]

Slavery was AN ISSUE, but not THE CAUSE. Slavery would have eventually been abolished for economic reasons without the war. There were some in the North who truly saw slavery as an evil that should be abolished, but the majority was not so vehemently opposed to it. Only a very small percentage in the South owned more than one or two slaves and therefore had an economic interest in maintaining the status quo. Actually, only 5% owned even one slave. Mothers would not send their sons to die to free the slaves or maintain the plantations labor supply. If you read some Yankee Civil War diaries NONE said they were fighting to free the slaves. The most common reasons for joining were to preserve the Union and, in Bloody Kansas, revenge for raids by the Missouri pro-slavery forces. If you can find any Rebel diaries, I doubt if many (if any) would say they were fighting to preserve slavery.

With a larger population (20 million vs 5 million citizens plus 4 million slaves), the Northern states controlled the House of Representatives. With a larger number of states (19 vs 11), the North controlled the Senate. The South had an agricultural economy, primarily from exporting cotton. EXPORTS of agricultural products were taxed, keeping prices low. The North had an industrial economy. IMPORTS of finished products were taxed, inflating the value of industrial output. 85% of the US budget was from taxes collected in the Southern states. With the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the South saw their power in the Federal government being reduced even further. The primary causes of the Civil War were much the same as they were in the American Revolution.

As the power of the Presidency grew along with the power of what amounted to a foreign power running Washington the South got fed up.

Look at what we have in DC today if you have any doubts whatsoever that the South was not justified in throwing off the new yoke of oppresion.

The only justification explainable for the North going to war against the South would be to force STATES to submit to a
central authority and strip away the wealth of certain people in the South in order to transfer it to others in the North.


Of course what is totally ignored is the role of foriegn involvement in stiring up the hornets nest for the express purpose of creating chaos in order to reshuffle the order. It was then and still is today always about puppet masters manipulating circumstances to further consolidate their power while disenfranchising any potential competition that might grow powerful enough to challenge their authority.

[GraniteStater]

They had representation. Being in the minority does not justify an unconstitutional and illegal attempt to destroy the nation.

There is no getting around the fact that "...combinations in several States, too powerful to suppress by the ordinary operation of the courts and federal marshals, [were] in unlawful possession of federal property and in open defiance of the lawful authority of the United States." Lincoln's call for volunteers, April, 1861.

No slavery - no war. It's that simple. Pray, name the flagrant abuses that had been perpetrated on the South. Dred Scott? The Fugitive Slave Act? The Missouri Compromise? No, sir, the plain facts are that the South had either been in a position to control the national government or steer things favorably. There was a gag rule in the House with regard to slavery, sir - hardly an indication of how unimportant the issue was to the South.

Lincoln stood for one thing clearly - he was against the expansion of slavery to the territories; bear in mind that the territories were largely subject to Federal law, directly. That's why Lincoln was anathema, not because of his views on the institution itself. The South saw that it was not going to get its way with regard to slavery's expansion.

"There is no appeal from ballots to bullets." This is not the time and place to discuss constitutional theories and the people's rights, vice the Declaration of Independence. There is a case against tyrrany.

Merely losing an election does not make that case. If you're worried about the present day, let me point out that the courts are open and we have elections.

The South's actions in 1860-1 were intemperate, precipitate, and dead wrong.

[dolphin]

Being in the minority does not justify an unconstitutional and illegal attempt to destroy the nation.

Actually if you study the history of the Constitution you will find that it is technically not even a legal document.


The Articles of Confederation still are though.

Alexander Hamilton was a Rothschild Agent and a traitor.

1) A small band of highly organized men with particular economic and political interests shaped and directed the drive towards holding a Constitutional Convention.

2) When the convention was held at Philadelphia in 1787 it was under strict instructions from the Continental Congress only to prepare a list of amendments to the Articles of Confederation; the convention was not authorized to draw up a whole new Constitution, but only to advise the Continental Congress about what it should do to meet the needs of the Union. Therefore the delegates had exceeded their instructions and were acting illegally.

3) The delegates at Philadelphia wrote a document which was in their direct economic and political interests; the new government would be in their hands and its fiscal policy helped directly to enrich the personal fortunes of the original Philadelphia delegates.

4) The delegates at Philadelphia met in secrecy and not in an open forum which was subject to public scrutiny. Moreover they never wanted publication of their debates or even the minutes of the convention. All the records were given to George Washington to take home with him at the end of the meeting in the belief that the great patriot of the Revolution would never be challenged for them. Conspiracy historians point out that by getting Washington into their camp, the pro-Constitution forces went a long way in fending off critical opposition. In fact Washington is portrayed as a pawn in the hands of those organizing the drive for holding a convention in Philadelphia.

5) The ratification procedure was patently illegal: According to the Articles of Confederation, which was the fundamental law of the land at the Constitutional convention, any change in the powers of the central government had to have the unanimous approval of all thirteen states as represented in the Continental Congress. The founding fathers changed this because they knew they could not get ratification under this procedure, so they said that the new Constitution would take effect for all the states when nine of them had registered their approval. The Continental Congress was completely sidestepped, it being asked to send the proposed Constitution along to the states immediately and without any debate or discussion.


Congress, on the eve of the convention, declared that it only had the authority to propose changes to the Articles, and even then a unanimous vote of the states was necessary for any amendment to be approved. Congress said the convention could meet, but then any suggestions to come out of it would not have the force of law. The delegates at Philadelphia were aware of this, but they pushed ahead anyway with their design to replace the Articles of Confederation with a completely new constitution. They even changed the rules of the game for ratification by declaring that the new constitution would take effect when only nine of the states gave their approval rather than all thirteeen.

[dolphin]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater
Being in the minority does not justify an unconstitutional and illegal attempt to destroy the nation.

Hamilton was all about helping to establesh a foothold in the States for the Central Bankers in the European Cartels who controlled the British Empire. He did everything he could to reverse our Independence and set us on a course to return to the Empire and every war since that time including the Civil War and both World Wars have been instigated by these people to control the whole world under a global centralised government.

So you see when you put forth Slavery as having anything to do with causing the Civil War you simply make me laugh. Your geopolitical perception is narrowminded and myopic to say the least.

Revealed by US Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. from Minnesota before the US Congress They kidnapped and murdered his son to shut him up, punish him, and make an example to warn others.

We (the bankers) must proceed with caution and guard every move made, for the lower order of people are already showing signs of restless commotion. Prudence will therefore show a policy of apparently yielding to the popular will until our plans are so far consummated that we can declare our designs without fear of any organized resistance. The Farmers Alliance and Knights of Labor organizations in the United States should be carefully watched by our trusted men, and we must take immediate steps to control these organizations in our interest or disrupt them.

At the coming Omaha Convention to be held July 4th (1892), our men must attend and direct its movement, or else there will be set on foot such antagonism to our designs as may require force to overcome. This at the present time would be premature. We are not yet ready for such a crisis. Capital must protect itself in every possible manner through combination ( conspiracy) and legislation.

The courts must be called to our aid, debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible.

When through the process of the law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders.

History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism.

The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.

By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished."

Capital must protect itself in every way, through combination and through legislation. Debts must be collected and loans and mortgages foreclosed as soon as possible. When through a process of law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and more easily governed by the strong arm of the law applied by the central power of wealth, under control of leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders. This is well known among our principle men now engaged in forming an IMPERIALISM of capital to govern the world. By dividing the people we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us except as teachers of the common herd. Thus by discrete action we can secure for ourselves what has been generally planned and successfully accomplished.
http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2005/07jul/bankersmanifesto.html


[SIZE="4"]Listen to JFK[/size] Another one they murdered to shut up and make an example out of to warn others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces



"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
-Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence

[GraniteStater]

If I wanna do this, I can go to OT on P-dox.

As we say on the seacoast, "shovelin' s**t against the tide."

It's hard to see how Mr. Hamilton (of whom I am a subscriber, BTW; I'm a great admirer of Jefferson and agree with him on fundamentals, but Hamilton saw how the nation was to develop much more presciently), having expired in 1804, could have been an agent of a banking family whose first great fortune was made due to the climax of the Napoleonic Wars.

Other than that, good luck with your research.

[dolphin]

If I wanna do this, I can go to OT on P-dox.

As we say on the seacoast, "shovelin' s**t against the tide."

It's hard to see how Mr. Hamilton (of whom I am a subscriber, BTW; I'm a great admirer of Jefferson and agree with him on fundamentals, but Hamilton saw how the nation was to develop much more presciently), having expired in 1804, could have been an agent of a banking family whose first great fortune was made due to the climax of the Napoleonic Wars.

Other than that, good luck with your research.

My research is done. I'm retired and the world is screwed. I regard myself as very lucky in that I don't have children, or grandchildren. Too bad for you if you do. It is after all their funeral. Not yours.

Listen to them in their own words spell out their policies.

"We are the living sponsors of the great Cecil Rhodes will of 1877, in which Rhodes devoted his fortune to: ’the extension of British rule throughout the world... the colonization by British subjects of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the islands of the pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain the whole of the Malay archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire...

We stand with Lord Milner’s Credo. We too are ’British Race patriots’ and our patriotism is ’the speech, the tradition, the principles, the aspirations of the British Race.’ Do you fear to take this stand at the very last moment when this purpose can be realized? Do you not see that failure now is to be pulled down by the billions of Lilliputians of lesser race who care little or nothing for the Anglo-Saxon system?"


Their goal was always never to lose their wealth and power to a transnational middle class, but rather to extinguish the notion of a middle class, and transnationalize a lower, uneducated, labour oriented class in order to secure their ultimate wealth and power.

To fully integrate and internationalize a middle class on a global scale would have required industrialization and development in places such as Africa, and certain places in Asia and Latin America, and would have created a massive threat to the Oligarchs, as it would have been a valve through which much of their wealth and power would have escaped them. They have to kill us off before enough people wake up and realize what kind of scam they have been running and if that means another Global War that is exactly what they will create just as they have always done.

THEREFORE THE FOLLOWING POLICY MUST BE IMPLEMENTED:

A. The Security Council of the UN led by the Anglo-Saxon major Nation powers, will decree that henceforth, the Security Council will inform all nations that its sufferance on population has ended, that all nations have quotas for reduction on a yearly basis, which will be enforced by the Security Council by selective or total embargo of credit, items of trade including food an medicine, or by military force, when required.
B. The security Council of the UN will inform all nations that outmoded notions of national sovereignty will be discarded and that the Security Council has complete legal, military, and economic jurisdiction in any region in the world and that this will be enforced by the Major Nations of the Security Council
C. The security Council of the UN will take possession of all natural resources, including the watersheds and great forests, to be used and preserved for the good of the Major nations of the Security Council.
D. The Security Council of the UN will explain that not all races and peoples are equal, nor should they be. Those races proven superior by superior achievements ought to rule the lesser races, caring for them on sufferance that they cooperate with the Security Council. Decision-making, including banking, trade, currency rates, and economic development plans, will be made in stewardship by the Major Nations.
E. All of the above constitute the New World Order, in which Order, all nations, regions and races will cooperate with the decisions of the Major Nations of the Security Council.

The purpose of this document is to demonstrate that action delayed could well be fatal. All could be lost if mere opposition by minor races is tolerated and the unfortunate vacillations or our closest comrades is cause for our hesitations. Open declaration of intent followed by decisive force is the final solution. This must be done before any shock hits our financial markets, tarnishing our credibility and perhaps diminishing our force.

Listen to the insider turned whistle blower.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4434160622382887664&q=New+world&pl=true#


"Towards the end of 1922 ,on Lenin’s initiative, a meeting was organised at the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. The aim of the meeting was to clarify the concept of, and give concrete effect to, a Marxist cultural revolution. Amongst those present were Georg Lukacs (a Hungarian aristocrat, son of a banker, who had become a Communist during World War I ; a good Marxist theoretician he developed the idea of ‘Revolution and Eros’ - sexual instinct used as an instrument of destruction) and Willi Munzenberg (whose proposed solution was to ‘organise the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilisation stink. Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat’) ‘It was’, said Ralph de Toledano (1916-2007) the conservative author and co-founder of the ‘National Review’, a meeting ‘perhaps more harmful to Western civilization than the Bolshevik Revolution itself.'

Basically, the Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief - or even the hope of belief - that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy.


To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus—‘continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means’ as one of their members noted.To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution - but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future - the School recommended (among other things):

1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family

One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of ‘pansexualism’ - the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women.


To further their aims they would:

1. attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and take away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
2. abolish differences in the education of boys and girls
3. abolish all forms of male dominance - hence the presence of women in the armed forces
4. declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’
5. merging or reversing the sexes or sex roles;
6. abolishing the family as we know it’


Munzenberg summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term operation thus:

‘We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.'


The School believed there were two types of revolution: (a) political and (b) cultural. Cultural revolution demolishes from within. ‘Modern forms of subjection are marked by mildness’.

They saw it as a long-term project and kept their sights clearly focused on the family, education, media, sex and popular culture.

[dolphin]

It's hard to see how Mr. Hamilton (of whom I am a subscriber, BTW; I'm a great admirer of Jefferson and agree with him on fundamentals, .

You make no sense. They were the antithesis of each other.

Hamilton was a Federalist while Jefferson was an Anti Federalist.

Federalism was the pre-requisite for the United States to be vulnerable to financial takeover.

A dominant and all powerful Central Government was required in order to take back control of all the states into the Empire in one catch.

The division of power and the checks and balances by virtue of individual state soverignity was the only way the country could have remained free from being retaken by the Globalists. Globalism is the modern day word for the Imperialism of the British Empire.


Had the South won then the United States might have remained free.


THE EMPIRE OF "THE CITY" (World Superstate)

City of London + City of Vatican + City of columbia are the 3 independant states within states wich composes the empire of the city. The first is financial control over earth economy, the second is religion control over the earth and the third one is military control over the earth. Together they make the very unholy trinity which forms the egyptian pyramid that we can see on the back of the privately owned federal reserve note that is used as american dollar to maintain the colony in debt and under the Queen. Many people realize that this mystifying situation, in which an alleged democratic and self-governing nation is actually controlled against the will of the people, is a clear indication that there must be a very powerful and well-financed occult organization which plans and directs world affairs, and for lack of a more specific identification thie suspected secret organization is popularly referred to as the International Financiers, Banksters cartel or "The Crown corporation.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4675077383139148549#34m56s

[GraniteStater]

You might be surprised at how much I might sympathize with your apprehensions. BTW, it is far from a contradiction to admire Jefferson and his principles and to be a Hamiltonian, also; more in common than not, really; just had different viewpoints on some details and Hamilton's vision was the one that came to pass, not TJ's.

Nonetheless, as much as I might be acquainted with your concerns and even more than a little understanding, methinks you need to grease the wheels on your little red wagon.

[dolphin]

You might be surprised at how much I might sympathize with your apprehensions. BTW, it is far from a contradiction to admire Jefferson and his principles and to be a Hamiltonian, also; more in common than not, really; just had different viewpoints on some details and Hamilton's vision was the one that came to pass, not TJ's.

Nonetheless, as much as I might be acquainted with your concerns and even more than a little understanding, methinks you need to grease the wheels on your little red wagon.

Hamiltons vision was not visionary. It was the well estableshed plan of the Banking Cartels and the obvious progression of the Imperialism of Wealth which has always been the root of all evil in the world.

I prefer to spend my time polishing my Horse Drawn Hurse.

No need to worry about our wagons as the Malthusian Transnationalists have made provisions in their plans to pretty well fix over 5 billion of them no matter if you need it, or not.


As one of many examples I could cite....

A small California biotech company, Epicyte, in 2001 announced the development of genetically engineered corn which contained a spermicide which made the semen of men who ate it sterile. At the time Epicyte had a joint venture agreement to spread its technology with DuPont and Syngenta, two of the sponsors of the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault. Epicyte was since acquired by a North Carolina biotech company. Astonishing to learn was that Epicyte had developed its spermicidal GMO corn with research funds from the US Department of Agriculture, the same USDA which, despite worldwide opposition, continued to finance the development of Terminator technology, now held by Monsanto.

In the 1990’s the UN’s World Health Organization launched a campaign to vaccinate millions of women in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines between the ages of 15 and 45, allegedly against Tentanus, a sickness arising from such things as stepping on a rusty nail. The vaccine was not given to men or boys, despite the fact they are presumably equally liable to step on rusty nails as women.

Because of that curious anomaly, Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization became suspicious and had vaccine samples tested. The tests revealed that the Tetanus vaccine being spread by the WHO only to women of child-bearing age contained human Chorionic Gonadotrophin or hCG, a natural hormone which when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier stimulated antibodies rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy. None of the women vaccinated were told.

It later came out that the Rockefeller Foundation along with the Rockefeller’s Population Council, the World Bank (home to CGIAR), and the United States’ National Institutes of Health had been involved in a 20-year-long project begun in 1972 to develop the concealed abortion vaccine with a tetanus carrier for WHO. In addition, the Government of Norway, the host to the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault, donated $41 million to develop the special abortive Tetanus vaccine.





Their goal is not to lose their wealth and power to a transnational middle class, but rather to extinguish the notion of a middle class, and transnationalize a lower, uneducated, labour oriented class, through which they will secure ultimate wealth and power.

To fully integrate and internationalize a middle class on a global scale would require industrialization and development in places such as Africa, and certain places in Asia and Latin America, and would represent a massive threat to the Oligarchs, as it would be a valve through which much of their wealth and power would escape them.

The economic crisis served as a cover for them to destroy much of the wealth the middle class holds and as the crisis progresses, or rather, regresses, and then accelerates, the middle classes of the world will suffer, while a great percentage of lower classes of the world, poverty-stricken even prior to the crisis, will suffer the greatest leading to a massive reduction in population levels, particularly in the “developed” or “Third World” states which has been one of their primary goals all along.

Naturally they will continue to stimulate crisis to keep us off balance and under control by throwing various threats againt us along the way. Be it a global warming hoax, pandemics, war, terrorism, or famine to cause as much poverty and death as they think they can get away with without making it too obvious all the while while using their well practiced Hegallian Psychology to pretend they are trying to stop it by making it look like they are making progress to stave it off and save us when in fact they are merely managing it to continue in a controlled decline (slow burn) to avoid being chased down by angry mobs carrying pitch forks and torches.



More Here

Rothkopf is one of those Transnationalist Super Class people I was telling you about. There are about 6,000 of them world wide.

Rothkopf's credible, if not especially original argument in "Superclass" is that over the past several decades a "global elite" has emerged whose connections to each other have become more significant than their ties to their home nations and governments. They schmooze regularly at conferences like Davos, go to the same schools, serve together on corporate and nonprofit boards, and above all do business with each other constantly -- to the point that they have become a kind of culture in themselves, a "class without a country," as Rothkopf puts it. Furthermore, these people are "the new leadership class for our era."
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2008/03/14/superclass/

[GraniteStater]

"Oooohhhkay!"

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

I need to invest in Epicyte. Forced sterilization is where it's at nowadays. Btw, do you know how I can get in contact with Rothkopf?

[GraniteStater]

They're in the Yellow Pages, under "Conspiracies."

[gchristie]

Please...

[Carrington]

...
The issue of slavery was most definitely a hot bed of antagonism, but it was not the reason for secession. It was not the cause.

The Constitution and the laws of the land were being flagrantly violated by the Federal Government and a militant minority of abolitionists.
....

Perhaps you should read those articles again.
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/

Ok... I will.
Here we go:
from your Civil War documents:
{snip... a lot about the initial formation... and the basic compact}

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

I.e. "the Northern States have violated the basic compact by refusing to return 'persons held in service' --{read slaves} -- therefore, we are justified in exiting the compact. ...

Ole' Miss is far less disputatious than SC... gets right to the point in its second paragraph
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

I.e. the "abolitionists are taking over and will make us give up our slaves."

How many more articles of secession do you suggest we read before we get the idea that it was all about slavery?

How about Georgia?

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war.

Does the argument sound familiar?

Hmm... How about the Lone Star State?

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

It is, I think, correct that portions of the North were reneging on the original constitutional structure... though... it should be noted, that was on a 'state-by-state' basis. The problem for NeoConfederates -- even neoconfederates who don't wander as fully into the 'paranoid style' as our mr. Dolphin -- is that the basic dispute was indeed over slavery.

Further, I'm willing -- as Mr. Dolphin might wish -- to assign a fair portion of the 'blame' or 'credit' for the Civil War to Southern blacks themselves. If, as the documents suggest, one of the main issues was the treatment of fugitive slaves... then it was the fugitives themselves who helped fuel the crisis. This despite the fact that Southern slavery was, indeed, somewhat more 'humane' in its day-to-day conduct than slavery in, e.g. the sugar islands, or in Leopold's African possession.

As they say on the coast of Friesland: "Leaver dea as slaef."

By the way... http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/prestonj/prestonj.html (John Preston's embassy (from SC to Virginia) in favor of secession) is also interesting.

[Mickey3D]

There is interesting things in your past messages but sorry I think this discussion has no place in this thread (title is : "union or confederates"). There is an "ACW History Club / Histoire de la Guerre de Sécession" section on this forum.

And as written by gchristie : don't feed the trolls.