The reader may be surprised to know that the American Civil War was not a Civil War. The Southern people were not fighting to control the United States Government. The Southern people were fighting for the right to be left alone. They were fighting for Southern Independence while the Yankees were fighting for the right to dominate another people against their will. Thus the American Civil War was really The War of Northern Aggression. As I have shown in my The Union Army; Freedom Fighters or Communist Thugs?[1], the War of Northern Aggression was truly a Communist Revolution. The reader may be surprised to know that the Roman Catholic Church has always been Communist.
Thomas Aquinas says,
“The second thing that is competent to man with regard to external things is their use. On this respect man ought to possess external things, not as his own, but as common, so that, to wit, he is ready to communicate them to others in their need. Hence the Apostle says (1 Timothy 6:17-18): “Charge the rich of this world . . . to give easily, to communicate to others,” etc.
Reply to Objection 1. Community of goods is ascribed to the natural law, not that the natural law dictates that all things should be possessed in common and that nothing should be possessed as one’s own: but because the division of possessions is not according to the natural law, but rather arose from human agreement which belongs to positive law, as stated above (57, 2,3). Hence the ownership of possessions is not contrary to the natural law, but an addition thereto devised by human reason.
Reply to Objection 2. A man would not act unlawfully if by going beforehand to the play he prepared the way for others: but he acts unlawfully if by so doing he hinders others from going. On like manner a rich man does not act unlawfully if he anticipates someone in taking possession of something which at first was common property, and gives others a share: but he sins if he excludes others indiscriminately from using it. Hence Basil says (Hom. in Luc. xii, 18): “Why are you rich while another is poor, unless it be that you may have the merit of a good stewardship, and he the reward of patience?”[2]
and again,
“On the contrary, In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another’s property, for need has made it common.”[3]
The Jesuits also perfected Communism in their South American Reductions: The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia admits in its article “Reductions of Paraguay”,
“(1) Conditions of Property
The economic basis was a sort of communism…The land and all that stood upon it was the property of the community. The land was apportioned among the caciques, who allotted it to the families under them. Agricultural instruments and draught-cattle were loaned from the common supply. No one was permitted to sell his plot of land or his house, called abamba, i.e. “own possession.” The individual efforts of the Indians, owing to their indolence, soon proved to be inadequate, whereupon separate plots were set aside as common fields, called Tupamba, i.e. “God’s property” which were cultivated by common labour under the guidance of the Padres. The products of these fields were placed in the common storehouse, and were used partly for the support of the poor, the sick, widows, orphans, Church Indians, etc., partly as seed for the next year, partly as reserve supply for unforeseen contingencies, and also as a medium of exchange for European goods and for taxes (see below). The yield of the private fields and of private effort became the absolute property of the Indians, and was credited to them individually in the common barter transactions, so that each received in exchange the goods he desired. Those abamba plots which gave a smaller yield because of faulty individual management were exchanged from time to time. The herds of livestock were also common property. The caballos del Santo, which were used in processions on festal occasions, were especially reserved. Thus the Reduction Los Santos Apostoles at one time owned 599 of these.”[4]
In the last few centuries the Catholic Church in the West has not totally abandoned their Faith but adapted to the highly successful Protestant cultures that were absolutely humiliating Catholic countries in wealth and influence by either assembling themselves into Communist Unions to fight against the evil “Rich Protestants” or giving lip service institutionally and full ascent personally to the principles of Protestant Economics. Though there are many forms of Capitalism, Protestantism championed the ideas of individual liberty and private property; all ideas formerly anathema to Rome but agreeable to the greedy Western Roman Catholic businessman who wants to profit from the Protestant Reformation. Protestant Countries gave their people freedom of the press which laid the foundation for the coming technological innovations. Rome’s Jesuit Order has now destroyed Western Protestant Countries by destroying their cultures from within, and is now taking the world back to the old ways of the Holy Roman Empire’s Feudal Guild Socialism.
In 1773 the order of the Jesuits was suppressed with the Papal Bull Dominus ac Redemptor Noster. The French Revolution was led by Jesuits Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès and Adam Weishaupt. The killing of the Catholics was a punishment for their Suppression. The Jesuits were behind Napoleon’s subsequent invasion of all the Countries that had recently suppressed the Jesuits. Sieyes was the instigator of the coup d’état of 1799 which brought Napoleon Bonaparte to power. What a coincidence! EJP says in Vatican Assassins (2001), pg. 247-249,
“Did not the Jesuits benefit when Napoleon Bonaparte drove the Bourbon King of Spain, Charles IV, into exile? Did not the Jesuits benefit when Napoleon exiled the Braganza monarchs, Queen Maria Francisca I (1777-1816) and her son John (later King John VI, 1816-1826) of Portugalto Brazil? Did not the Jesuits benefit when Napoleon drove the Knights of Malta from the island of Malta, confiscating all their treasures and weapons? (Remember, the Knights had previously expelled the Jesuits from Malta.) Did not the Jesuits benefit when Napoleon conquered the Protestant Dutch Republic, founded by one of our heroes, William I of Orange? Did not the Jesuits benefit when Napoleon conquered Italy, and vanquished Austria as both nations had expelled the Jesuit Order? Did not the Jesuits benefit when Napoleon conquered Protestant Switzerland? Would not the Jesuits have benefited if the French General Hocke had succeeded in breaking away Catholic Ireland from Protestant England (later accomplished after World War I)? Would not the Jesuits have benefited had Napoleon conquered Jerusalem, he having called for the establishment of “Jerusalem for the Jews” on April 14, 1799? Did not the Jesuits benefit when Napoleon broke up the Pope’s Holy Roman Empire? Why did nearly every strategy of Napoleon result in benefiting the Jesuit Order? The answer is in the person of Abbe Sieyes. According to Ridpath’s Universal History this priest was a prime mover of the French Revolution, the Directory, and was the Second Consul on Napoleon’s Consulate (Pierre-Roger Ducos being the third), calling for the end of the nobility and clergy — the enemies of the Society of Jesus! It is also most fascinating to see that Sieyes, the man whose coup d’etat brought Napoleon to power, was Jesuit-trained. We read:
“Sieyes, Emmanuel Joseph (1748-1836), one of the chief political thinkers and writers of the period of the French Revolution and the first empire . . . He was destined for the Church, was educated by the Jesuits, became a licentiate of the Canon law [including the oppressive and evil Council of Trent] . . . ” [The Encyclopedia Britannica, New Werner Edition, New American Supplement, Ninth Edition, Day Otis Kellogg, (New York: The Werner Co., 1903) Vol. XXII, p. 45- Footnote in Vatican Assassins-DS]
Thus Napoleon, the Roman Catholic Freemason called “Robespierre on horseback” by Madame de Stael, whose right-hand man was both a Jesuit-trained and controlled advisor, Abbe Sieyes, was brought to power from the Jesuit stronghold of Corsica.”
…Following Napoleon’s Russian campaign – his successful betrayal and murder of hundreds of thousands of freedom-loving republican soldiers [Napoleon abandoned them. He had to kill this army that would never accept an Absolute monarch as described in Ridpath’s Universal History, Vol. XIV, p. 746, “As soon as the fate of his great campaign was decided, Napolean, leaving Murat in command of the army, took a sledge, sped with all hast across the snow-covered wastes of Poland, and came unannounced to Paris.”-DS] – the Jesuits sought to restore the old order of things. The Jesuit Order was revived in 1814 and the Congress of Vienna began as well. Meanwhile, Napoleon was rewarded for a job well done with an annual pension of two million francs while on the island of Elba. But the Monarchs at the Congress of Vienna squabbled; so, the Jesuits brought Napoleon back to France, known as “the hundred days.” This frightened the Monarchs into coming to terms with each other. With the Congress of Vienna having fulfilled the purpose of the Jesuit Order, the soldiers of France could now be finally defeated. Napoleon gathered an army of French patriots and deliberately sacrificed it at Waterloo by attacking the wrong point of the British line. We read concerning General “Stonewall” Jackson’s observations:
“In the summer of 1856, he employed his long vacation in a European tour, in which he visited England,France, and Switzerland. During this journey he carefully examined the field of Waterloo, and traced out upon it the positions of the contending armies. When he returned home, he said although Napoleon was the greatest of commanders, he had committed an error in selecting the Chateau of Hougomont as the vital point of attack upon the British line; it should have been the village of Mont St. Jean. This opinion has subsequently been corroborated by high authority in the military art.” [Life and Campaigns of Lt. General T. J. (Stonewall)Jackson, R. L. Dabney, (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 1983; originally published in 1865) pp. 82, 83.-Foonote-DS]…
Dear truth-seeker, do you think the master of Austerlitz would make such a basic blunder – by accident – blasting all hope for French liberty? How ridiculous! Napoleon was captured by the English and banished to an island in the South Atlantic Ocean called St. Helena. There, his Memoirs were written which accurately described his masters, the Sons of Loyola, having betrayed him into the hands of his captors.”
History of the Captivity of Napoleon at St. Helena (1846) by Montholon Volume 2, pg. 388 says,
“But there is a religious society, the tendency of which is highly dangerous, and which should never have been admitted into the territories of the empire- — viz., the Society of Jesus. Its doctrines are subversive of all monarchical principles. The General of the Jesuits desires to be sovereign master, the sovereign of sovereigns. Everywhere that the Jesuits are tolerated, they strive for power, at any price. Their society is by nature fond of ruling, and nourishes, therefore, an irreconcilable hatred of all existing power. Any action, any crime, however atrocious it may be, is meritorious, if committed- for the interest of the society, or by the orders of its General. The Jesuits are all men of talent and learning. They are the best existing missionaries, and would be, were it not for their ambition of ruling, the best instructing body, for the propagation of civilisation and the development of its progress. They may be of service in Russia for some years longer, because the first need of that empire is civilisation.”
Moreover, Marx was trained by Jesuits in Trier, Germany.[5]
As is typical in the Roman Church, this Bull was contradicted by the Jesuit order’s re-establishment of 1814. Immediately, Counter-Reformation conferences were held by that Papal Knight
Klemens von Metternich and his Congress of Vienna.
In 1818 the Duke of Richmond warned of the Roman Catholic plot,
“The Duke of Richmond.–The following language of the Duke of Richmond, while Governor of the Canadas, is reported by Mr. H. G. Gates, of Montreal, who was present when it was uttered:
“The Duke, a short time prior to his death, in speaking of the Government of the United States, said: ‘It was weak, inconsistent, and bad, and could not long exist. It will be destroyed; it ought not, and will not, be permitted to exist; for many and great are the evils that have originated from the existence of that Government. The curse of the French revolution, and subsequent wars and commotions in Europe, are to be attributed to its example ; and, so long as it exists, no prince will be safe upon his throne; and the sovereigns of Europe are aware of it, and they have been determined upon its destruction, and have come to an understanding upon this subject, and have decided on the means to accomplish it; and they will eventually succeed, by subversion rather than conquest.’ ‘All the low and surplus population of the different nations of Europe will be carried into that country; it is, and will be, a receptacle for the bad and disaffected population of Europe, when they are not wanted for soldiers, or to supply the navies; and the European governments will favor such a course. This will create a surplus and a majority of low population, who are so very easily excited; and they will bring with them their principles, and, in nine cases out of ten, adhere to their ancient and former governments, laws, manners, customs, and religion, and will transmit them to their posterity and in many cases propagate them among the natives. These men will become citizens, and, by the constitution and laws, will be invested with the right of suffrage. The different grades -of society will then be created by the elevation of a few, and by degrading many, and thus a heterogeneous population will be formed, speaking different languages, and of different religions and sentiments; and to make them act, think, and feel alike in political affairs, will be like mixing oil and water; hence discord, dissension, anarchy, and civil war, will ensue, and some popular individual will assume the Government and restore order, and the sovereigns of Europe, the emigrants, and many of the natives, will sustain him.’ ‘The Church of Rome has a design upon that country, and it will, in time, be the established religion, and will aid in the destruction of that Republic’ ‘I have conversed with many of the sovereigns and princes of Europe, and they have unanimously expressed these opinions relative to the Government of the United States, and their determination to subvert it.’”[6]
In 1822, the Treaty of Verona was produced, to regain powers that European Monarchs had lost in the last couple centuries with the fall of The Divine Right of Kings. In the US, this movement was countered by the Monroe Doctrine of 1823.[7] In 1825 the Treaty of Verona was furthered by a Jesuit session in Chieri located in Italy.[8] With this plot in place, the Jesuits began to infiltrate Protestant Universities in America through Freemasonry and the Skull and Bones organization.[9] Luigi Desanctis said,
“The Jesuits exist in all Protestant countries under the name of missionaries, with the habit of priest, and . . . they exist there under other names. . . . Take England for example, there they do not legally exist [since 1829 until re-admitted in 1902 by King Edward VII]; nevertheless, they have not given up that country, and I assure you that they are more numerous in England than in Italy, and this because all the English, Scotch and Irish priests are pupils of the Jesuits [as was the assassin of President John F. Kennedy, Francis Cardinal Spellman], . . . There are Jesuits in Parliament, amongst the Anglican clergy, amongst the Bishops, and perhaps also in still higher circles [advisors of Queen Victoria] . . .”[10]
This kind of infiltration is exactly what the Jesuits did to Germany.[11] Thus, with the massive Jesuit-inspired Luciferian infiltration of the Protestant Universities (Skull and Bones, etc.), the Jesuits construction of DECONSTRUCTION, was underway, paving the way for the reconstruction of Holy Roman Empire. The destruction of our social order was under way with the primary targets being our limited government and the idea that a government must have the consent of the governed in order to be de jure, our religion, the family and our racial identity (Which would be accomplished with the civil war, Abolition and the Uncivil Rights Era). With the advent of Abolition, the Northern Jesuitized women began to complain that their “liberation” necessarily followed from Negro emancipation and voting rights.[12] Thus ends White Christian Patriarchy and enter Negro male and White female supremacy (Who for additional humiliation to the white man, publicly advertise and flaunt their copulations) under the guise of Universal Equality, i.e. Communism. Thus white Protestant Christian masculinity is demonized and suppressed.
Charles Chiniquy,
“The Protestants of both the North and South would surely unite to exterminate the priests and the Jesuits, . . . if they could learn how the priests, the nuns, and the monks, which daily land on our shores, under the pretext of preaching their religion . . . are nothing else but the [political] emissaries of the Pope, of Napoleon [III], and the other despots of Europe,[13] to undermine our institutions, alienate the hearts of our people from our Constitution, and our laws, destroy our schools, and prepare a reign of anarchy here as they have done in Ireland, in Mexico, in Spain, and wherever there are any people who want to be free.”[14]
Proceedings of the Nob Mountain Meeting, Held in Columbia County, PA. on the Last Three Days of August, 1865 by the Democratic Party (Columbia County, Pa.) states,
MR. BURR’S SPEECH…
I will now read to you a very brief extract from Mr. Forney’s[15] paper in Philadelphia, about three years ago. You have heard of Mr. Forney in Pennsylvania, I believe. (Laughter.) You know he has been of the Cabinet at Washington, the kitchen member; he occupied all sorts of positions under the Lincoln administration, and is trying the same way to get into Mr. Johnson’s kitchen. Forney said in his paper, three years ago:
“Another principle must certainly be embodied in our re-organized form of government. The men who shape the legislation of this country when the war is passed, must remember that what we want is power and strength. The problem will be to combine the forms of a republican government with the powers of a monarchical government.”
There is an admission that they were about to “re-organize” the government. They, Forney, Lincoln & Co., were going to kindly give you the forms of a republican government, but to put you really under the hammer of a monarchical government. There were Republicans in Pennsylvania who read Forney’s paper and took that as a sweet morsel, and rolled it under their tongues, the traitors and scoundrels! and you, gentlemen of Pennsylvania, who believed right, made the great mistake that you did not take the thing by the throat, then and there, and strangle it and them on the very spot when they first dared enunciate such sentiments as these! How is it that the men who boldly proclaimed that they would strip you of all the principles of republican government, and would leave you only its forms, while they put you under the hammer of a monarchical government, have escaped hanging so long? How is it that they have been allowed to stain the soil of this country, that their very existence has been allowed here as a stench and a shame to a once free and brave people?
The North American, a very respectable organ of the Republican party in this State, at the same time that Mr. Forney was preaching about revolutionizing the Government, said:
“This war has already shown the absurdity of a Government of limited powers.”
Here is one of the most conservative and respectable organs of the party—a very different sheet from John W. Forney’s unscrupulous affair—saying, that the war has demonstrated the fact that a Government of limited powers is an absurdity. And it said further:—
“It has shown that the power of our Government ought to be, and must be, unlimited.”[16]
I am a follower of Robert Dabney’s Economics. I am no Communist, no Libertarian, or Red Republican and I hate usury. I exposed Gary North on this issue.[17] I am a Southerner and a Confederate. I believe in the supremacy of Agrarianism not at the expense of Industrialism but at the subordination of Industrialism. I also believe in Cultural and racial Patriarchalism. Ownership and social obligations should not be merely individual as in the self-centered Libertarian philosophy. Nor should ownership and social obligations be at the State level as in Communism. Ownership and social obligations should be familial- Patriarchal. Both Libertarianism and Communism are both premised on the idea that a person should be considered a priori an individual social orphan. That was the purpose of these Communist Revolutions.
Now can we find a connection between Yankee Abolitionism and the Papal Knight Prince Klemens von Metternich and his Congress of Vienna? Yes we can. In Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Volume 2 (1893) by Edward L. Pierce, we read of Sumner’s letter to George Hillard,
“TO GEORGE S. HILLARD.
Berlin, Dec. 25,1839.
Dear Hillard, — A happy Christmas to you, and all my friends! If this sheet is fortunate in reaching the steamship, you will receive it before my arrival; otherwise, it may be doubtful which will first see Boston. Your last is of Oct. 14, and gives me the afflicting intelligence of the death of Alvord.
“Dead ere his prime,
Young Lycidas, and hath not left his peer.”
The loss is great for all; but greater for us, his friends. I can hardly realize that my circle of friends is to be drawn closer by this departure; and yet this is the course of life: one by one we shall be summoned, till this circle entirely disappears. I shall break away from Berlin soon, — though, I confess, -with great reluctance. I fain would rest here all the winter, pursuing my studies, and mingling in this learned and gay world. I know everybody, and am engaged every day. All the distinguished professors I have seen familiarly, or received them at my own room. Raumer, and Ranke, the historians; of these two, Ranke pleases me the most: he has the most vivacity, humor, and, I should think, genius, and is placed before Raumer here. You doubtless know his “History of the Popes;” Mrs. Austin is translating it in England. Humboldt is very kind to me. He is placed at the head of the conversers of Germany. So far as I can compare conversation in different languages, his reminds me of Judge Story’s: it is rapid, continuous, unflagging, lively, various. He has spoken to me in the highest terms of Prescott’s book, — which I saw on his table, — as has Ranke also. In a note to me, he spoke of “l’excellent et spirituel Gouverneur Everett.” Savigny I know well, and have had the great pleasure of discussing with him the question of codification. I was told in Paris that he had modified his views on this subject of late years; but I was sorry to find that my informants are mistaken. He is as firm as ever in his opposition to codes. He listened very kindly to my views on the subject, but seemed unshakable in his own. He is placed, by common consent, at the head of jurisprudence in Germany, and, you may say, upon the whole Continent. He had read Judge Story’s “Conflict of Laws” with admiration, and wished to know why he was not on our committee for codifying the Criminal Law. Savigny, in personal appearance and manner, resembles Webster more than any person I have ever seen. He is taller, not quite so stout; has the same dark face, hair, and eyes; and as be has been sitting by my side, when I have first caught his voice, I have thought it was our Senator’s. Savigny and Humboldt both are in what is called the society of Berlin; that is, with la haute vole’e, the court, and the diplomatic circle, — though I have not seen either there. The other professors do not enter that circle. Most of the corps diplomatique and the Ministers I know already; and I have been well received by the Crown Prince, and the Prince William, and their princesses. The Crown Prince, who seems bon garcon, inquired about our summers: he thought they must be magnificent. I told him I thought so, till I had been in Italy. He asked me if Boston were not an old city (une ville
ancienne), three hundred years old. “Two hundred,” I said; “but that is antiquity with us.” I regret much that Mr. Wheaton is not here. He is passing the winter in Paris. He is at the head of our diplomacy in Europe, and does us great honor: the Princess William spoke of him to me in the most flattering terms. This society is pleasant to enter, as I do, for a few times, and with the excitement of novelty; but I think I could not endure it a whole season. The presence of the Royal Princess is too genante; and then, all is formality and etiquette. I have seen here some very pretty women, — some of the prettiest I have ever met; two of them young princesses, the nieces of Puckler-Muskau. Bad, however, as the society is, I should prefer it before Vienna, where aristocracy has its most select home. Personally, I can bear very slight testimony on this subject, as I left Vienna the week the season commenced. I was, however, at Prince Metternich’s, where I saw the highest and proudest. Princess Metternich is thought very beautiful. I do not think so. She tosses a slight nod, if a proud prince or ambassador bends his body before her. The Austrian nobility only await the death of the Prince, her husband, to take their revanche. On my entering the salon, the Prince covered me with all those pleasant terms of French salutation: “Je suis bien enchante” de faire votre connaissance,” &c. He spoke of our country, for which he professed the greatest regard; said we were young, and Europe old: “Mais laissons nous jouir de notre vieillesse.” I disclaimed for myself and the better portion of my countrymen any vulgar propagandism. He spoke of Washington with great respect, and inquired about Sparks’s “Life and Writings,” and this new labor of Guizot. He requested me, on my return to America, to make the acquaintance of the Austrian Minister. After this reception from the Prince, I should probably have found the way easy to extending my acquaintance. But I left Vienna immediately, rode a night and a day and night over a dismal country to Prague: there passed a day; saw its bridge, its ancient towers, and the palace of the Bohemian kings…
As ever, affectionately yours, C.S.”[18]
Sumner was the leader of the antislavery forces in Massachusetts. He was a leader of the Radical Republicans in the United States Senate during the American Civil War. He devoted his work to destroy the Confederacy. Moreover, in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s The Key to Uncle Tom’s Cabin Part IV Chapter 9, page 485 we read,
“Our admiration of some of the labourers who have conducted the system is very great; so also is our admiration of many of the Jesuit missionaries who have spread the Roman Catholic religion among our aboriginal tribes.”[19]
And what was Stowe’s role in the Civil War? According to a recent New York Times article (Feb. 27, 2013), Harriet Beecher Stowe by Susan Belasco, we read,
“According to family accounts, Lincoln greeted Stowe by saying that she was the ‘little lady who started the big war,’ but no historical record confirms this conversation.”
Was the Civil War fought over slavery? Well, we need to distinguish the common man from their government. I maintain that the government, under the influence of the Counter-Reformation knew that Stowe’s book was a lie but fomented hatred for the South with that book to provide support for their agenda. (Just like they do today with hoaxes such as 9/11 and the recent Sandy Hook Massacre.)
In Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley he stated,
“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.”[20]
The Christians of the original colonies were overwhelmingly agreed that the slave institution was lawful. As I showed in an earlier article here, the New England Puritans had agreed to its lawfulness. So there must have been another purpose behind this war. Anyone familiar with the history of Western Civilization knows that the centuries before the Civil War were dominated by the Wars between the Protestants and the Catholics. My College textbook on Western Civilization begins talking about Roman Catholicism around page 170 and doesn’t stop until about page 335. The west is dominated by this influence but somehow modernized people think that Roman Catholicism gave up their agenda after the Thirty Years War. This is the legacy of the Jesuits. The Jesuits were ordained specifically for infiltration. The once bold open policies of the Vatican, after the Thirty Years War, become secret policies. It is in consideration of these things that we must also take into account that the Jesuits imported an army of Irish Catholics into the North with the Irish Potato Famine which they caused via, their servant (Whether willingly or not, I don’t know) Queen Victoria. In a Private “letter from “Brilliant Brother Bridgenorth” to Eric Jon Phelps, April 12, 2002, quoting a portion of The Great Starvation[21] (1845-1852), An Irish Holocaust, Seamus P. Metrus & Richard J. Rajner, (Stony Point, New York: American Ireland Education Foundation, 1995), p. xviii, we read,
‘During this five-year period – with Queen Victoria sitting on the British throne (The Royal Butcheress of Ireland whose Masonic Scotland Yard never caught Walter Richard Sickert, the notorious “Jack the Ripper”), and closely attended by her Jesuit advisors – freighters laden with Irish wheat, oats, barley, eggs, beef and pork were DEPARTING Irish ports en route to other countries, at the rate of about EIGHT FREIGHTERS PER DAY, while nearly one million of my Irish ancestors were starving to death. [In the 1930s the Company would cause Stalin’s Massacre of Orthodox Ukrainians, the so called “Famine in the Ukraine,” ordering Stalin to lock up all the food as millions perished.] In addition to producing another Vatican harvest – the Irish Protestant body count – the ensuing increased Irish emigration provided the Jesuits with a stepped-up flow of Irish Catholics to the United States, to help build within that Protestant nation a blindly obedient Papal fifth column, as an instrument for destroying American constitutional self-government. It worked. [In the 1960s the Jesuits would cause the forced mass emigration of North Vietnamese Catholics to South Vietnam by using Ho Chi Minh to spread the rumor that his Communists were going to kill all the Catholics in North Vietnam. The U.S. Navy, controlled by Cardinal Spellman’s Francis Matthews, provided the vessels for that movement.]” Taken from Eric Phelps’ VA, 2001.
Chiniquy (Ex-Catholic Priest) explains,
“WHEN it became evident, in 1851, that my plan of forming a grand colony of Roman Catholic French-speaking people in the prairies of Illinois was to be a success, D’Arcy McGee, ‘hen editor of The Freeman’s Journal, official journal of the Bishop of New York, wrote me to know my views, and immediately determined to put himself at the head of a similar enterprise in behalf of the Irish Roman Catholics. He published several able articles to show that the Irish people, with very few exceptions, were demoralized, degraded and kept poor, around their groggeries, and showed how they would thrive, become respectable and rich, if they could be induced to exchange their grog shops for the fertile lands of the west. [Just like the Mexicans today!-DS] Through his influence, a large assembly, principally composed of priests, to which I was invited, met at Buffalo, in the spring of 1852. But what was his disappointment, when he saw that the greatest part of those priests were sent by the Bishops of the United States to oppose and defeat his plans!
He vainly spoke with a burning eloquence for his pet scheme. The majority coldly answered him: “We are determined, like you, to take possession of the United States and rule them; but we cannot do that without acting secretly and with the utmost wisdom. If our plans are known, they will surely be defeated. What does a skillful general do when he wants to conquer a country? Does he scatter his soldiers over the farm lands, and spend their time and energy in ploughing the fields and sowing grain? No! He keeps them well united around his banners, and marches at their head, to the conquest of the strongholds, the rich and powerful cities. The farming countries then submit and become the price of his victory, without moving a finger to subdue them. So it is with us. Silently and patiently, we must mass our Roman Catholics in the great cities of the United States, remembering that the vote of a poor journeyman, though he be covered with rags, has as much weight in the scale of power as the millionaire Astor, and that if we have two votes against his one, he will become as powerless as an oyster.[Yet another problem with universal suffrage and One Man One Vote.-DS] Let us, then, multiply our votes; let us call our poor but faithful Irish Catholics from every corner of the world, and gather them into the very hearts of those proud citadels which the Yankees are so rapidly building under the names of Washington, New York, Boston, Chicago, Buffalo, Albany, Troy, Cincinnati, etc. Under the shadows of those great cities, the Americans consider themselves as a giant and unconquerable race. They look upon the poor Irish Catholic people with supreme contempt, as only fit to dig their canals, sweep their streets and work in their kitchens. Let no one awake those sleeping lions, to-day. Let us pray God that they may sleep and dream their sweet dreams, a few years more. How sad will their awakening be, when with our outnumbering votes, we will turn them, forever, from every position of honor, power and profit! What will those hypocritical and godless sons and daughters of the fanatical Pilgrim Fathers say, when not a single judge, not a single teacher, not a single policeman, will be elected if he be not a devoted Irish Roman Catholic? [Or pet Jewish Labor Zionist-DS] What will those so called giants think of their matchless shrewdness and ability, when not a single Senator or member of Congress will be chosen, if he be not submitted to our holy father, the Pope? What a sad figure those Protestant Yankees will cut when we will not only elect the President, but fill and command the armies, man the navies, and hold the keys of the public treasury? It will then be time for our faithful Irish people to give up their grogshops, in order to become the judges and governors of the land. Then our poor and humble mechanics, will leave their damp ditches and muddy streets, to rule the cities in all their departments, from the stately mansion of Mayor of New York, to the humble, though not less noble position of teacher.
“Then, yes! then, we will rule the United States, and lay them at the feet of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, that he may put an end to their godless system of education, and sweep away those impious laws of liberty of conscience, which are an insult to God and man!”[22]
Currently, our political climate is dominated by Irish Catholics such as Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Timothy Dolan, and William Joseph McDonough. The Supreme Court is dominated by Roman Catholics and Jews. What a surprise! The Pope played both sides of the American Civil War. Charles Chiniquy says again,
“When saying these things to the President [Lincoln-DS], I was exceedingly moved, my voice was as choked, and I could hardly retain my tears. But the President was perfectly calm. When I had finished speaking, he took the volume of Bussambaum from my hands, read the lines which I had marked with red ink, and I helped him to translate them into English. He, then, gave me back the book, and said:
“I will repeat to you what I said at Urbana, when for the first time you told me your fears lest I would be assassinated by the Jesuits. ‘Man must not care where and when he will die, provided he dies at the post of honor and duty.’ But I may add, to-day, that I have a presentiment that God will call me to him through the hand of an assassin. Let His will, and not mine, be done!” He then looked at his watch, and said: “I am sorry that the twenty minutes I had consecrated to our interview have almost passed away; I will be forever grateful for the warning words you have addressed to me about the dangers ahead to my life, from Rome. I know that they are not imaginary dangers. If I were fighting against a Protestant Soutlh as a nation, there would be no danger of assassination. The nations who read the Bible, fight bravely on the battle-fields, but they do not assassinate their enemies. The Pope and the Jesuits, with their infernal Inquisition, are the only organized power in the world which have recourse to the dagger of the assassin to murder those whom they cannot convince with their arguments, or conquer with the sword.
“Unfortunately, I feel more and more, every day, that it is not against the Americans of the South, alone, I am fighting, it is more against the Pope of Rome, his perfidious Jesuits and their blind and blood-thirsty slaves, than against the real American Protestants, that we have to defend ourselves, Here is the real danger of our position. So long as they will hope to conquer the North, they will spare me; but the day we will rout their armies (and the day will surely come, with the help of God), take their cities, and force them to submit; then, it is my impression that the Jesuits, who are the principal rulers of the South, will do what they have almost invariably done in the past. The dagger or the pistol of one of their adepts, will do what the strong hands of the warriors could not achieve. This civil war seems to be nothing but a political affair to those who do not see, as I do, the secret springs of that terrible drama. But it is more a religious than a civil war. It is Rome who wants to rule and degrade the North, as she has ruled and degraded the South, from the very day of its discovery. There are only very few of the Southern leaders who are not more or less under the influence of the Jesuits, through their wives, family relations and their friends. Several members of the family of Jeff Davis belong to the Church of Rome. Even the Protestant ministers are under the influence of the Jesuits without suspecting it. To keep her ascendency in the North, as she does in the South, Rome is doing here what she has done in Mexico, and in all the South American Republics; she is paralyzing, by a civil war, the arms of the soldiers of Liberty. She divides our nation, in order to weaken, subdue and rule it.
“Surely we have some brave and reliable Roman Catholic officers and soldiers in our armies, but they form an insignificant minority when compared with the Roman Catholic traitors against whom we have to guard ourselves, day and night. The fact is, that the immense majority of the Roman Catholic bishops, priests and laymen, are rebels in heart, when they cannot be in fact; with very few exceptions, they are publicly in favor of slavery. I understand, now, why the patriots of France, who determined to see the colors of Liberty floating over their great and beautiful country, were forced to hang or shoot almost all the priests and the monks as the irreconcilable enemies of Liberty. For it is a fact, which is now evident to me, that, with very few exceptions, every priest and every true Roman Catholic is a determined enemy of Liberty. Their extermination, in France, was one of those terrible necessities which no human wisdom could avoid; it looks to me now as an order from heaven to save France. May God grant that the same terrible necessity be never felt in the United States! But there is a thing which is very certain; it is, that if the American people could learn what I know of the fierce hatred of the generality of the priests of Rome against our institutions, our schools, our most sacred rights, and our so dearly bought liberties, they would drive them away, to-morrow, from among us, or they would shoot them as traitors. But I keep those sad secrets in my heart; you are the only one to whom I reveal them, for I know that you learned them before me. The history of these last thousand years tells us that wherever the Church of Rome is not a dagger to pierce the bosom of a free nation, she is a stone to her neck, and a ball to her feet, to paralyze her and prevent her advance in the ways of civilization, science, intelligence, happiness and liberty. But I forget that my twenty minutes are gone long ago.”[23]
This war then was clearly a Jesuit Communist Inquisition, pursuant unto the Counter-Reformation.
The slavery foundation is terribly weak. First, who owned slaves? In the 1850 census Kentucky was compromised of 8% slave holders, and Virginia, 6% slave holders.[24] Even a liberal publication like PBS’s Africans in America admits,
“The standard image of Southern slavery is that of a large plantation with hundreds of slaves. In fact, such situations were rare. Fully 3/4 of Southern whites did not even own slaves; of those who did, 88% owned twenty or fewer. ”[25]
Walter Kennedy figured that the Southern non-slave holders made up “80-90 percent of the Southern population.”[26]
Thus any accusation that the Southern non-slave owners would fight for slavery indirectly so to preserve their State wide economies is absurd. Moreover, the North had more of a stake in Southern slavery than many Southerners. The New York Times states in its article “The Great Question”, published March 30, 1861,
“The predicament in which both the Government and the commerce of the country are placed, through the non-enforcement of our revenue laws, is now thoroughly understood the world over…If the manufacturer at Manchester can send his goods into the Western States through New-Orleans at a less cost than through New-York, he is a fool for not availing himself of his advantage. We should do the same thing, and feel fully justified. The English, almost to a man are Abolitionists of the ultra school. They abhor the principles of the Confederate States, but they intend to trade with them notwithstanding. We do not propose to offer a remonstrance, unless we are prepared by force to make good our position.
Government claims jurisdiction over every portion of the country. The Constitution says that taxation shall be everywhere equal and uniform. But Government imposes onerous taxes upon New-York, none upon New-Orleans, and destroys, at the same breath, our means of payment. If the importations of the country are made through Southern ports, its exports will go through the same channel. This is inevitable. The produce of the West, instead of coming to our own port by millions of tons, to be transported abroad by the same ships through which we received our importations, will seek other routes and other outlets. With the loss of our foreign trade, what is to become of our public works, conducted at the cost of many hundred millions of dollars, to turn into our harbor the products of the interior? They share in the common ruin. So do our manufacturers. Is it just for Government to permit a tariff, enacted for their benefit, to be so avoided as to leave them worse off than before? Is it either dignified or provident to have the amount of its revenues depend upon the acts or policy of revolted provinces, who will take any possible means of weakening us to secure impunity to themselves?
The mode by which our revenue laws are now evaded, we have fully shown. New-Orleans de jure is a part of the United States, but not de facto. Once at New-Orleans, goods may be distributed over the whole country, duty free. The process is perfectly simple. No remedy is suggested, except force or treaty. We see no other. But neither means can be resorted to without the action of Congress. For this purpose it appears that it should now be called together. There never has been a time since the election when there was so much unity of conviction and purpose as at the present moment. The commercial bearing of the question has acted upon the North precisely as it has in Europe. We now see clearly whither we are tending, and the policy we must adopt. With us it is no longer an abstract question — one of constitutional construction, or of the reserved or delegated powers of the State or Federal Government, but of material existence and moral position both at home and abroad. England and France were indifferent spectators till their interests were affected. We were divided and confused till our pockets were touched. Government has done well in waiting till the future was fully disclosed. It could not till then have had the requisite moral and material support for a decisive step. But firm and prompt action will now have an universal response. The time for meeting the question at issue has come. We desire peace — reconciliation, if possible, — but we must know where we stand.
We are confident that a temperate but firm stand would do more for us in the Border States than continued inaction. Government cannot forego the exercise of its attributes without the country sinking into anarchy. It is now getting to be a common saying among ourselves that we have no Government. We shall soon hear the echo of this from abroad. Already the Frenchmen tell us that the present form of our Government has continued too long — that its failure is proved. We must not allow such a conviction to make further headway either at home or abroad.
Suppose we continue inert and inactive — will the Confederate States? By no means, They are straining every nerve to gain standing before we move. If we allow the revenue laws to remain untouched, they will have a recognition in every Court in Europe — all effected by a blunder, which is destroying our prosperity at home as much as it is undermining our position abroad. The South well know our strength. If they understood that it was to be vigorously exerted, unless we had fair play, they would concede it at once. But they rely upon our inaction as a means of gaining their ends. Let us put a speedy end to all such expectations, and hold ourselves in readiness to accept promptly any alternative that our interest or our duty may impose upon us.[27]
The Manchester Union Democrat, in its article, “Let Them Go!”, February 19, 1861 states,
“The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of cotton and its fabrics employs more ships than all other trade. The first result will be, that Northern ships and ship owners will go to the South. They are doing it even now. It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose… No—we must not “let the South go.”[28]
Senator Thomas Benton stated in 1828,
“Under Federal legislation, the exports of the South haven been the basis of the Federal revenue.”[29]
Moreover, there were many black slave owners. On page 1 of Black Slaveowners: Free Black Slave Masters in South Carolina, 1790-1860 by Larry Koger we read,
“In Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia, free blacks owned more than 10, 000 slaves, according to the federal census of 1830.”[30]
If the reader wants more detail into this census he can read Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830 by Carter Woodson.[31] He goes into great detail in the census, showing all the names of the slave owners and how many slaves they had. In the 1830 census the reader can also see the tens of thousands of free blacks in each state.
It is very clear that the union soldiers did not know this when they invaded the South. In Alexandria Louisiana, 1864, the Yankees invaded and found free blacks. Cisco records the events of a black woman in Louisiana opening her door to Yankee soldiers,
“On seeing me they asked who I was,’ said Fanny. When she tried to make them understand that she was free, they called her a liar. When she said that the house belonged to her and to no one else, ‘they cursed me and called me a liar again, and said niggers could not own property in this State.” [32]
Here we see the Abolitionist lies and propaganda at work. In recent wars people have seen the United States Government caught in such a matter as in the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Today people understand that this government lies to its people to justify so-called wars of liberation and they still don’t get it! That is what happened during the so called Civil War. Oh but those were white Protestant Christians, so no one cares.
And again the same can be seen in 1863 in Bayou Teche where a black woman named Aimee Oliver answered the door of her mansion. They didn’t believe she was the wife of the deceased owner of the house. [33]
Empire building and commerce was why there was a war, not slavery.
Moreover, Dabney exposes even more financial schemes of the Yankees to use Abolition as a way to cripple the White Protestant South.
“But the violent abolition of slavery here has exploded into thin air every sophism by which it has been argued that it was adverse to the interests of the non-slaveholding whites…They see, that while the late masters are reduced from country gentlemen to yeomen landholders, they are reduced from a thrifty, reputable middle class, to starving competitors for day labour with still more starving free negroes.[34]…The legislator, therefore, in devising a frame of society, should adapt it to a state in which the rich are selfish and the poor indolent and improvident. For, after all that has been boasted of human improvement, this is usually man’s condition. Now, in adjusting social institutions, it is all-important to secure physical comfort; because in a state of physical misery and degradation, moral and intellectual improvement are hopeless; and the business of the legislator is more especially to take care of the weak: the Strong will take care of themselves. Property is the chief element of political strength; it is this which gives to individuals power in society; for “money answereth all things;” it commands for its possessor whatever he needs for his physical comfort and safety. The great desideratum in all benign legislation is to sustain the class which has no property, against the social depression and physical suffering to which they always tend. That there will always be such a class, at least till the millennium, is certain, for reasons already stated. Now all civilized communities exhibit a natural law which tends to depress the physical condition of those who have no property, “who are, usually, the laboring classes.
That law is the tendency of population to increase. The area of a country grows no larger, while the number of people in it is perpetually increasing, unless that tendency is already arrested by extreme physical evils. The same acres have, therefore, more and more mouths to feed, and backs to clothe. Consequently, each person must receive a smaller and smaller share of the total proceeds of the earth. The demand perpetually increases in proportion to the supply; and therefore the price of those productions rises, as compared with the price of labour. Hence in every flourishing community, the relative proportion between the price of land, its rents, and the food and clothing which it produces, on the one hand, and the price of manual labour on the other, is perpetually, though slowly, changing. The former rises, the latter sinks. Improvements in agriculture and the arts, extensive conquests, emigrations, or some other cause, may for, a time arrest, or even reverse, this process; but such is the general law, and the constant tendency. The very prosperity and growth of the community work this result. The owners of land become richer: those who live by labour become poorer. Physical depression works moral = depression, and these overcrowded and under-fed labourers, becoming more reckless, are familiarized with a lower standard of comfort, and continue to increase. This law has wrought in every growing nation on the globe which is without domestic slavery.”
“We found the remedy in the much-abused institution of domestic slavery. It simply ended this natural, this universal strife between capital and labour, by making labour the property of capital, and thus investing it with an unfailing claim upon its fair share in the joint products of the two. The manner in which slavery, effects this is plain. Where labour is free, competition reduces its price to whatever grade the laws of trade may fix; for labour is then a mere commodity in the market, unprotected, and subject to all the laws of demand and supply. The owner of land or capital pays for the labour he needs, in the shape of wages, just the price fixed by the relation of supply and demand; and if that price implies the severest privation for the labourer or his family, it is no concern of his. Should they perish by the inadequacy of the remuneration, it is not his loss: he has but to hire others from the anxious and competing multitude. [Did you here that Unionists! Did you here that, you ignorant fools! You thought you were smarter than God and he judged you! He punished you! You took slavery out of the equation in your pietism and God brought the Scourge of the Yankee Cartel Capitalist right on your head!-DS] Moreover, the ties of compassion and charity are vastly weaker than under our system; for that suffering labourer and his family are no more to that capitalist, than any other among the sons of want. But when we make the labour the property of the same persons to whom the land and capital belong, self-interest inevitably impels them to share with the labourer liberally enough to preserve his life and efficiency, because the labour is also, in the language of Moses, “their money,” and if it suffers, they are the losers. By this arrangement also, a special tie and bond of sympathy are established between the capitalist and his labourers. They are members of his family. They not only work, but live, on his premises. A disregard of their wants and destitution is tenfold more glaring, more difficult to perpetrate, and more promptly avenged by his own conscience and public opinion. The bond of domestic affection ensures to the labourer a comfortable share of the fruits of that capital which his labour fecundates.
And the law is enabled to make the employer directly responsible for the welfare of the employed. Thus, by this simple and potent expedient, slavery solved the difficulty, and answered the question raised by the gloomy speculations of Malthus, at whom all antislavery philosophers have only been able to rail, while equally impotent to overthrow his premises, or to arrest the evils he predicts.
Slavery also presented us with a simple and perfectly efficient preventive of pauperism. The law, public opinion, and natural affection, all joined in compelling each master to support his own sick and superannuated. And the elevation of the free white labourers, which results from slavery, by placing another labouring class below them, by assigning to them higher and more remunerative kinds of labour, and by diffusing a more general prosperity, reduced white pauperism to the smallest possible amount amongst us. In a Virginian slaveholding county, the financial: burden of white pauperism was almost inappreciable. Thus, at one touch, our system solved happily, mercifully, justly, the Gordian knot of pauperism, a subject which has completely baffled British wisdom. [And modern day American wisdom.-DS][35]…As population increases, the size of fortunes which are accumulated increases. Instances of accumulation are more numerous and far more excessive. Density of population, facility of large industrial operations, concentration of number of labourers, with other causes, ensure that rich men will be vastly richer than while population was sparse; and that there will be many more rich men. While a few of these will be misers, as a general rule they will seek to expend their overflowing incomes. But as man’s real wants lie within very narrow limits, and the actual necessaries and comforts of life are cheap, the larger part of these overgrown incomes must be spent in superfluities.
The money of the many excessively rich men is profusely spent in expensive jewelry, clothing, equipage, ostentatious architecture, useless menials, fine arts, and a thousand similar luxuries. Now the production of all these superfluities absorbs a vast amount of the national labour, and thus diminishes greatly the production of those values which satisfy real wants. A multitude of the labourers are seduced from the production of those more essential values, by the higher prices which luxury and pride are enabled to pay for their objects. Now, although the manufacturers of these superfluities may, individually, secure a better livelihood than those laborers who produce the necessaries of life, yet the result of the withdrawal of so many producing hands is, that the total amount of necessaries produced in the nation is much smaller. There is, then, a less mass of the necessaries of life to divide among the whole number of the citizens ; and some peopie must draw a smaller share from the common stock.
Every sensible man knows that these will be the landless, labouring men. The wealth of the rich will, of course, enable them to engross a liberal supply for their own wants, however scant may be that left for the poor. The ability to expend in superfluities is, therefore, a misdirection of just so much of the productive labour of the country, from the creation of essential values, to the producing of that which fills no hungry stomach, clothes no naked back, and relieves no actual, bodily want… The operative cause of the growing depression of the poor is, not that the same acres are compelled to feed more mouths, and clothe more backs, so much as this: that the inducements which excessive wealth gives to the production of superfluities, misdirects so much precious labour, that the fruitfulness of those acres is not made to increase with the increase of mouths. This is proved by the simple fact, that in all the old countries the misery of the lowest classes tends to keep pace with the luxury of the highest. It is proved emphatically by the industrial condition of Great Britain. There is no country in which production is so active; none in which agriculture and the arts are more stimulated by science and intelligence; and yet there is a growing mass of destitution, yearly approaching more frightful dimensions, and testing the endurance of human nature by lower grades of physical discomfort. The reason is not to be sought in her limited territory or crowded population; for if the British Islands have not acres enough to grow their own bread for so many, why is it that so productive a people are not able to pay for abundance of imported bread? It is to be found in the existence of their vast incomes, and the excessive luxury practised by the numerous rich.
True, these magnates excuse their vast expenditures in superfluities by the plea, that one of the motives is the “encouragement of industry.” But they effect, as we have seen, not an encouragement, but a misdirection of industry; The reason why so many British poor have a scanty share of physical comforts is, that there are so many British rich men who, by their lavish expenditure, tempt and seduce so large a multitude of producing hands from the creation of actual comforts to the creation of superfluities… That truth is, that luxury is a social evil. We have shown that it is as wasteful of social wealth as it is of morals. The ancients thought thus, and they were right…
But our system of labour certainly gave us a partial one of inestimable value. Where the rich man is a citizen of a hirelingState, his accumulated wealth and profuse income are all spent in superfluities, except the small portion needed for the comforts of life for his own family. But when he is a citizen of a slave State, they are first taxed with the comfortable support of his slaves. The law, public opinion, affection for them, and self-interest, all compel him to make the first appropriation out of that profuse income, to feeding and clothing his slaves, before he proceeds to superfluities.
Thus, the proceeds of the accumulations which dense population and social prosperity cause, are rescued from a useless and mischievous expenditure in those luxuries, the purchase of which misdirects public industry, and tempts to a deficient production of the necessaries of life; and are directed where benevolence, mercy, and the public good indicate, to the comfortable maintenance of the labouring people. That this is the effect of domestic slavery on the incomes of the rich, is proved by one familiar fact. It is well known at the South how slaveholders usually murmured when comparing their style of living with that of capitalists in the hireling States of equal nominal wealth.
The planter who owned fifty thousand dollars worth of fertile lands, and a hundred slaves, while he lived in far more substantial comfort and plenty, displayed in Virginia far less ostentation and luxury than the merchant or manufacturer of the North who owns the same amount of capital. His house was plainly furnished with the old-fashioned goods of his fathers; his family rode in a plain carriage, drawn by a pair of stout nags which, probably, either did a fair share of ploughing also, or drew a large part of the fuel for the household. He himself was dressed partly in “jeans,” woven under the superintendence of his wife; and his boys were at school in a log house, with homespun clothing, and, in summer, bare feet. It was not unusual to hear the slaveholder, when he considered this contrast, complain of slavery as a bad institution for the master. But this was its merciful feature, that it in some measure arrested superfluous luxury, and taxed superfluous income with the more comfortable support of the labourers. In a hireling State, these might be left half-starved on the inadequate compensation which the hard law of supply and demand in the labour-market would compel them to accept, while the capitalist was rioting in a mischievous waste of the overgrown profits of his capital.[36]…
In free States there is just as truly a servile class, bearing the servile inferiority of social station, as among us. [We are more enslaved today than the slaves were in the South!-DS] That class being white, and nominally free, its addiction to manual labour is the only badge of its social condition. Hence whites of the superior class have a far stronger motive, in their pride, to shun labour. But the white master could freely labour among his black servants, without danger of being mistaken by the transient observer fopr one of the class, because his skin distinguished him:[37]…But in the South, nothing was more common than to see estates farmed by the faithful slaves, for widows, orphans, professional men, or non-resident proprietors, without any other superintendence than an occasional visit.”[38] [ISN’T THAT STRANGE? I was taught in public school that they were prisoners.-DS]
Dabney answers the argument against slave labor compared to free labor,
“But we are told that actual inspection showed the labour of the South to be wasteful, shiftless, and expensive, as compared with the free labour of the North. We reply, if it seemed so in any case, it is because the comparison is unfairly made. On the Northern side, the specimen is selected near some great city, in some crack farming district, where the labour is stimulated by abundant capital, supplied with costly implements, and directed by the best skill of that section. On the Southern side, the specimen was taken from some ill-informed population, or some soil originally thin, and in a community depressed and depleted by the iniquitous taxation of Yankee tariffs. But let the best of each be compared; or the medium specimens of each; or the worst of each; and we fearlessly abide the test. Where slave labour was directed by equal skill and capital, it is shown to be as efficient as any in America.
There was nowhere on our continent, more beautiful, more economical, or more remunerative farming, than in our densest slaveholding communities.”[39]
Dabney on Welfare,
“That fact is, that in free States, a large portion of all those who, from their moneyless condition, ought to pursue manual labour, are too lazy to do so voluntarily. But they must live, and they do it by some expedient which is a virtual preying on means of the more industrious, by stealing, by begging, by some form of swindling, by perambulating the streets with a barrel-organ and monkey, or by vending toys or superfluities. Their labour is lost to the community; and their maintenance, together with their dishonest arts and crimes, is a perpetual drain from the public wealth. But slavery made the lazy do their part with the industrious, by the wholesome fear of the birch [For the lack of a better word, a whip.-DS].
Slavery allowed no loafers, no swindlers, no ” b’hoys,” no “plug-uglies,” no grinders of hurdy-gurdies, among her labouring class. Who does not see that, even if the average slave in Virginia did only two-thirds of the day’s work accomplished by the industrious free labourer in New York, yet, if all the idle classes in that great commonwealth, together with those now industrious, were compelled to do just the tasks of the average Virginia slave, there would be, on the whole, a vast and manifold gain to the public?”[40]
Dabney on better prices on goods for labor and wages for slave labor (dispelling the myth):
“The simple system of slaveholding distributed that part of the products of farms, which properly went to the labourers’ subsistence, direct to the consumers, without taxing it unnecessarily with the profits of the local merchant. The master was himself the retail merchant; and he distributed his commodities to the proper consumers, at wholesale prices, without profit. The consumers were his own servants. He remarked, in the language of the country, that, for this part of his products, he “had his market at home.” Now, is it not obvious that the consumer, the slave, got more for his labour, and that the system of hireling labour, by invoking this local storekeeper, instead of the master, to do this work of distribution to consumers, which the master did better without him, and without charge, has brought in a useless middle-man? And his industry being useless and unproductive, its wages are a dead loss to the publick wealth. This coarse fellow behind the counter, retailing the meal and bacon and soap, at extortionate retail prices, to labourers, should be compelled to labour himself, at some really productive task; and the labourers should have gotten these supplies, untaxed with his extortion, on the farms where their own labour produced them, and at the farmer’s prices. Is not this true science, and true common sense ? But this is just the old Virginian system.”[41]
This is attested to in other states by the slave D. Davis R.F.D., six miles north of Marvell, Arkansas,
“so de fust of ebery week he gib each en ebery single man er fambly er task fer ter do dat week, en atter dat task is done den dey fru wuk fer dat week en kin den ten de patches whut he wud gib dem fer ter raise whut dey want on, en whut de slabes raise on dese patches dat he gib em wud be deres whut-sum-eber hit wud be, cotton er taters er what, hit wub be, dey own, en dey cud sell hit en hab de money fer demselves ter buy whut dey want.”[42]
The glowing wisdom of Dabney shines through the dark stupidities of our modern world and glares so bright as to strip us bare and expose our shame.
The Design of the Jesuits
Proverbs 11:15 “He that is surety for a stranger shall smart [hurt] for it: and he that hateth suretiship is sure.”
The end of the Civil War introduced an entirely new Government and citizenship onto the people of the South and really to all Americans. This transition has been fully documented in Eric Jon Phelps’ Seven Transitions of US Citizenship. This work can be attained by contacting EJP directly.[43]
In this work EJP shows how our new citizenship has robbed us of our traditional English Common Law rights and has imposed upon us a Roman Military Government.
In 1835 Samuel Morse wrote a book entitled Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States. This work details a number of the issues I addressed earlier in this blog. However Morse adds the opposition that James Monroe offered to Metternich’s agenda with the Monroe Doctrine. For this Monroe was given the poison cup of The Order (He was assassinated) . In Texas v White, 74 U.S. 700, the Supreme Court declared that no state now has the right to secede from the De Jure 14th Amendment National Government. Later Corporations can be “persons” and “citizens” as codified by 46 USC 802.
In 1868 the 14th Amendment turned the United States into an Empire. Where once you were first a citizen of your sovereign state and then a federal citizen, this amendment reversed that and made the American man first and foremost a member of a now easily manipulated Empire. James Gillespie Blaine (1830 – 1893), U.S. Representative and Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, said in his Political Discussions (1887) pg. 63-64,
“In the first place, we ask that they will agree to certain changes in the Constitution of the United States; and, to begin with, we want them to unite with us in broadening the citizenship of the Republic. The slaves recently emancipated by proclamation, and subsequently by Constitutional Amendment, have no civil status. They should be made citizens, and in making this extension of citizenship, we are not confining the breadth and scope of our efforts to the negro. It is for the white man as well. We intend to make citizenship National. Heretofore, a man has been a citizen of the United States because he was a citizen of some one of the States: Now, we propose to reverse that, and make him a citizen of any State where he chooses to reside, by defining in advance his National citizenship — and our Amendment declares that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States [State] wherein they reside.’ “[44]
In 1873 we have The Slaughter-House Cases. The 14th Amendment’s Imperial qualities are solidified by the Supreme Court. The Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities clause only affected the rights of Federal citizenship and not state citizenship. EJP says,
“In looking back, we Americans can see the evil decisions made possible by the Jesuits’ “Federal Question Jurisdiction.” Among others, it enabled the Supreme Court to force the religion of evolution down our throats, to force the integration of public schools when neither the Whites nor the Blacks wanted it; to legalize abortion and prohibit capital punishment overthrowing laws of the States to the contrary, and to outlaw Bible-reading and prayer in the “accursed public schools.” For in prohibiting Bible-reading and prayer in the public schools, Protestant civilization is destroyed, and with it, popular self-government — to the delight of the Jesuit Order!”[45]
Remember, under the Roman Religion it was unlawful for the Bible to be in the hands of the common man.
Judge Richard W. Thompson[46], in his The Papacy and the Civil Power states,
“The Papacy is now endeavoring, by the most active and persistent efforts, to substitute an ecclesiastical government of the people—a grand ‘Holy Empire’ for this free and popular republic which it has cost so much blood and treasure to establish and maintain.”[47]
In my state of Kentucky, the 1891 Constitution mandated a maximum of $500,000 of indebtedness for the state. The current Constitution states,
“The maximum tax rates of counties, cities, towns, and taxing districts were written into Section 157 of the Constitution, but no property tax limit was set on the state or on school districts. Very little was said about other possible forms of taxation, such as those on income, which in effect left the state government free to impose them, but a great deal was included in the Constitution concerning borrowing by both the state and localities. Recalling vividly how the state had its fingers burned in the early 19th century, and determined to prevent wild spending for public works, the framers retained a constitutional provision forbidding the state to go into debt more than $500,000.
This rigorous provision has been weakened by court cases. Revenue bonds, interest bearing warrants, and holding company bonds have been interpreted as not falling within the constitutional debt limit because they are not guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the Commonwealth. Finally, the Constitution prohibited the General Assembly from giving financial assistance to local governments except in the case of schools. State grants-in-aid, state taxes for local purposes, and any loan of the state’s credit to localities were forbidden.”[48]
We are now in debt of around 12.5 billion dollars.[49]
Is it not also curious that it was during the Reconstruction period that the Roman Catholic Church gained the right to sue and to hold property in the US Treaty with Spain in 1898? We read in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary and Concise Encyclopedia, Volume 3,
“Roman Catholic Church. The juristic personality of the Roman Catholic
Church, with the right to sue and to take and hold property has been recognized by all systems of European law from the fourth century. It was formally recognized between Spain and the Papacy and by Spanish laws from the beginning of the settlements in the Indies, also by our Treaty with Spain in 1898, whereby its property rights were solemnly safeguarded.”[50]
Now to our emergency war powers government:
J.P. Morgan backed the Federal Reserve Act which was perfected at his clubhouse on Jekyll Island, Georgia. To remove all opponents to the Federal Reserve Bank, he had one of his own ships, the Titanic, sunk immediately killing all enemies to the Federal Reserve Bank, like John Jacob Astor IV.
The Pollack decision (Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.) was nullified in 1913 making way for the Fed.
The Federal Reserve Act was passed on December 23, 1913. The Vatican had now erected its central bank to exercise a monopoly on all credit to be extended to the American Congress. Funding for the Pope’s crusades was in place, not to mention the confiscation of Boer gold and diamonds.[51]
In 1916, Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad, 240 U.S. 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the Sixteenth Amendment did not confer any new power of taxation on Congress as desired by Taft. The tax was to be laid on “income” of a coming martial persona, circa 1939.
1929-The Stock Market crashed due to three Irish Roman Catholics “selling short” on Wall Street. EJP says,
“In October of 1929 three Irish Roman Catholics on the New York Stock Exchange “sold short,” hundreds of margin calls crashing the market. According to Curtis Dahl, FDR’s son-in-law, they were Ben Strong, Tom Bragg and Joseph Kennedy [Knight of Malta]. Hundreds of millions of hard-earned, real dollars had been invested in the market at the behest and encouragement of Dupont multimillionaire, Knight of Malta John J. Raskob. The calculated crash, resulting in the Great Depression, enabled the Jesuits to buy up all bankrupted businesses of interest on Wall Street for pennies on the dollar. The funds came from fascist Mussolini who had given the Vatican nearly 100 million dollars via the Lateran Treaty of March, 1929, as reparations for the loss of the Pope’s Temporal Power from 1870 to 1929. With this backdrop, we can now understand why the Order used its CFR member and 33rd Degree Freemason President Franklin Roosevelt to remove the nation’s gold coins from circulation in 1933 and to institute the Social Security System in 1934 as part of the Black Pope’s socialist “New Deal,” then supported by radio priest, Jew-baiter and Jesuit coadjutor, Charles Coughlin.”[52]
1933- The Emergency Banking Powers Executive Order is passed which activated the Military Persona on State Level making all citizens a Surety/US Citizen ready for duty.
All courts are now “Emergency Powers Courts”. EJP,
“With gold circulating as Money, the War-Making Powers of Congress representing the De Jure National “New Republic” of 14th Amendment America were LIMITED” …
Knight of Columbus Al Smith, Knight of Malta John J. Raskob and others conspire to remove FDR and put De Facto Empire under fascist military rule of retired Marine Corps General Smedley Butler. Butler reveals plot to Congress. No one is prosecuted…US v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, overturned Lochner and ended the Lochner Era. No longer are individual federal common law rights protected by Supreme Court decisions on a federal or state level.”[53]
In 1938, with Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, there is the overturn of Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. 1 (1842), and thus a new Legal Era began (1938-Present). We no longer have common law rights, and that is why we always have to pay for the income tax no matter what common law precedent has been set.
The Jesuits with their Knights of Malta on Wall Street, along with the Federal Reserve Bank, financed Adolf Hitler and brought him to power. Charles Higham says,
“Joseph J. Larkin resembled [Senator Nelson] Aldrich in his immaculate tailoring, perfect manners, austere deportment, and in his dedication to The Fraternity. A distinguished member of a Roman Catholic family, he had received the Order of the Grand Cross of the Knights of Malta from Pope Pius XI in 1928. He was an ardent supporter of General Franco and, by natural extension, Hitler.”[54]
And again,
“On May 3, 1941, J. Edgar Hoover sent a memorandum to Roosevelt’s secretary, Major General Watson which read as follows:
‘Information has been received at this Bureau from a source that is socially prominent and known to be in touch with some of the people involved, but for whom we cannot vouch, to the effect that [Knight of Malta] Joseph P. Kennedy, the former Ambassador to England, and Ben Smith, the Wall Street operator [two of the short sellers having caused the Depression] some time in the past had a meeting with Goering in Vichy, France and that thereafter Kennedy and Smith had donated a considerable amount of money to the German cause.’ ”[55]
H. S. Kenan says,
“Immense sums belonging to our national-bank depositors have been given to Germany on no collateral security whatever . . . Billions upon billions of our money has been pumped into Germany by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks . . . On April 27, 1932, the Federal Reserve outfit sent $750,000, belonging to American bank depositors, in gold to Germany. A week later, another $300,000 in gold was shipped to Germany in the same way. About the middle of May $12,000,000 in gold was shipped to Germany by the Federal Reserve banks. Almost every week there is a shipment of gold [stolen from Fort Knox, Kentucky] to Germany.”[56]
That war was designed to kill off all those millions of German Protestants, Russian Orthodox Christians, Chinese peoples still clinging to the Culture of the Qing Dynasty, and of course the American Protestants; In short, all of the most powerful enemies of the Papacy.
FDR passed the War Powers Act of 1941, however, As EJP says,
“when Harry Truman in 1950 signed into law the Emergency War Powers Act, the Cold War was in full force. They were building bomb shelters, etc. So the nation was in kind of a
frenzy.
When he signed this into law, it put the whole country under military or martial law, and that’s when the flags in every courtroom, state and federal, began to be changed. And every state flag and every U.S. flag is now trimmed in gold fringe. And whenever you see a flag trimmed in gold fringe, that means that it is the flag of the Commander-in-Chief. Now, if it’s the state flag, it means that’s the flag of the governor, as Commander-in-Chief. And if it’s the federal flag, or the national flag, more correctly, it’s the flag of the Commander-in-Chief in Washington.
So, all your courts are nothing more than courts of military rule. They all proceed with summary procedures. The jury has no power of jury nullification. And they are simply enforcing the laws of the Empire, which I call 14th Amendment America, which is a military-style, King of England-style country. The courts are nothing more than courts of the king’s bench, as you can see in Blackstone’s Commentaries.
And the banks, as you walk into every bank, they all have a flag trimmed in gold fringe. The bank is what England would call, in Blackstone’s day, the king’s bank. So, we have the king’s bank, and we have the king’s bench. And it’s run according to military rule, according to Berkheimer’s great work Military Rule And Martial Law, published in 1914.”[57]
We are under a military government pursuant unto the destruction of all governments and ways of life that will not submit to the temporal power of the Vatican, and guess what, the American people are paying for it! We are making it all possible with the forced income tax.
Conclusion
As we have seen, the Papacy and its Jesuit Order were behind all of this pursuant to the Counter-Reformation agenda. I would challenge you to search for all of the movements in your city that have spawned out of the Lincolnist and Abolitionist Philosophy. You may be surprised to know that American Fundamentalism also came out of Abolitionism. The Orthodox Presbyterian Church has cataloged the history of this in their Fighting the Good Fight by D. G. Hart, and John Muether.[58] The Abolition Philosophy and the Civil War is the foundation upon which our adversary’s Fortress is built in this land my Southern Brother. Break it, and the whole thing will come tumbling down. Join an organization in your state devoted to the Confederacy and get active. Expose the Papacy’s hand in your organization and let’s begin to Counter, the Counter-Reformation.
[1] https://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2013/02/08/the-union-army-freedom-fighters-or-communist-thugs/
[2] Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 66, Article 2, http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3066.htm#article7
[3] Ibid., Article 7
[5] Geography of Hope by Pierre Birnbaum: http://books.google.com/books?id=vSSrAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=jesuit,+high+school,+trier,+marx&source=bl&ots=LhEuMvDVl1&sig=ZSrL6aYPj-ZcpqjfiCsnduaw2W8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TSAuUJzwE4OGyQHy5YD4CQ&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false, page 50
[6] Footnote page 12, of Speech of Mr. L.C. Levin, of Penn., on the Proposed Mission to Rome Delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States, March 2, 1848 [http://www.familytales.org/dbDisplay.php?id=ltr_jed7470&person=jed]
[7] See Samuel Morse, Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States; Thanks Eric Jon Phelps (EJP)
[8] Abate Leone, The Jesuit Conspiracy; Thanks EJP
[9] James D. Shaw & Tom C. McKenney , The Deadly Deception (Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House, Inc., 1988) p. 104. ; Alexandra Robbins, Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League and the Hidden Paths of Power, (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 2002) p. 119-121; Thanks EJP
[10] Popery, Puseyism, and Jesuitism, Luigi Desanctis, (London: D. Catt, 1905; translated by Maria Betts from the original Italian edition published as Roma Papale in 1865) p. 135.” Taken from EJP’s VA, 2001, pg. 118
[11] https://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/secularism-the-handmaid-of-the-jesuits-part-2-german-rationalism-liberal-christianity-and-the-jesuits/
[12] Dabney says, “we find the argument for the popular, Radical mind perfectly unanswerable. ‘It has been decided that all Negro men have a right to vote: is not a Yankee white woman with her ‘smartness’ and education as good as a stupid, ignorant, Southern black?” The Southern Magazine, January, 1871 Vol. 8, pg. 324
[13] The Council of Vienna and the Treaty of Verona
[14] Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, p. 699-700: http://books.google.com/books?id=AhU3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA699&dq=The+Protestants+of+both+the+North+and+South+would+surely+unite+to+exterminate+the+priests+and+the+Jesuits&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3I4sUZDSIMmsqgGw1ICQBg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
[16] http://books.google.com/books?ei=lZMsUeyJJYag2QW-k4CQBA&dq=Another+principle+must+certainly+be+embodied+in+our+re-organized+form+of+government.+The+men+who+shape+the+legislation+of+this+country,+when+the+war+is+past,+must+remember+what+we+want+is+power+and+strength.+The+problem+will+be+to+combine+the+forms+of+a+republican+government+with+the+powers+of+a+monarchical+government&jtp=122&id=MV8JAQAAMAAJ&ots=WVzQ5t7_6x#v=onepage&q&f=false, page 122
[17] https://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/08/19/is-gary-north-a-jesuit-temporal-coadjutor-case-studies-in-the-contemporary-lust-for-filthy-lucre-in-the-reformed-church/; Seed also Mooney Answers North: http://spiritwaterblood.com/docs/North.pdf
[18]http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=Charles+Sumner,+Prince+Metternich&sig=cPnD9gVrZaoDJX0Dr5sM7EJgkcE&ei=3pYtUa_JEKrV2QWpn4HAAQ&id=XN8XAQAAIAAJ&ots=M-ds84I0Z7#v=onepage&q&f=false, pages 127-130
[20]http://books.google.com/books?id=igZUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA181&dq=abraham+lincoln+letter+to+horace+greeley&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4EmTUK_ZEoO68ASDoYDgDA&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false, page 182
[22] Fifty Years in the Church of Rome by Charles Chiniquy, pg. 668-670: http://books.google.com/books?ei=drctUZziI4ny2gWSuICoBg&id=AhU3AAAAMAAJ&dq=Fifty+Years+in+the+Church+of+Rome+by+Charles+Chiniquy&jtp=668#v=onepage&q&f=false
[23] Ibid., pg. 695-697
[24] William O. Blake, The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade, page 830:
[26] Myths, pg. 34
[27] http://www.nytimes.com/1861/03/30/news/the-great-question.html?scp=1&sq=%22the+predicament+in+which+both+the+government%22&st=p
[28] http://www.historians.org/projects/SecessionEditorials/Editorials/ManchesterUnionDem_02_19_61.htm
[29] The North American Review Vol. 150: No. 1. January 1890, page 215, et. al. http://books.google.com/books?id=-1gCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA215&dq=%22under+federal+legislation,+the+exports+of+the+south+have+been+the+basis%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SzEfUbO3BbTo2gX0vYGYDA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
[30]http://books.google.com/books?id=QjbM8H6LjwwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=10%2C000&f=false
[32] Cisco, pg. 169
[33] Cisco, pg. 170
[34] Defence of Virginia, 301
[35] Ibid., 303-307
[36] Ibid., 308-313
[37] Ibid., 318
[38] Ibid., 321
[39] Ibid., 324
[40] Ibid., 327
[41] Ibid., 329-330
[42] Slave Narratives: A Folk History of Slavery in the United States: From Interviews with Former Slaves Arkansas Narratives, Part 2: http://archive.org/stream/slavenarrativesa13700gut/13700.txt
[44]http://books.google.com/books?id=uiT35dvhoxcC&pg=PA63&dq=In+the+first+place,+we+ask+that+they+will+agree+to+certain+changes+in+the+Constitution+of+the+United+States;+and,+to+begin+with,+we+want+them+to+unite+with+us+in+broadening+the+citizenship+of+the+Republic&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YQUvUdWtOYjkrQHf3IF4&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
[45] Vatican Assassins (2001), pg. 342
[47]http://books.google.com/books?id=DwMQAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA29&dq=The+Papacy+is+now+endeavoring,+by+the+most+active+and+persistent+efforts,++to+substitute+an+ecclesiastical+government+of+the+people%E2%80%94a+grand+%E2%80%98Holy++Empire%E2%80%99&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QwYvUf2HD8TkqgH2oYDYBA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false, page 29
[50]http://books.google.com/books?id=sIWPAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA2974&lpg=PA2974&dq=%22Roman+Catholic+Church.+The+juristic+personality+of+the+Roman+Catholic+++Church,+with+the+right+to+sue+and+to+take+and+hold+property+++%22&source=bl&ots=RcEIK1Iqyl&sig=zoDlsiDpmf5kTYZdTia6j-JLumg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CUIuUdHSI6rQ0wGb_oHACw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false, page 2974
[51] http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/concerning-roman-catholicism/the-jesuit-inspired-boer-genocide-in-south-africa
[53] EJP-Seven Transitions of US Citizenship
[54] Charles Higham, Trading with the Enemy, (New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1983), p. 42.-Taken from EJP’s VA, 2001
[55] Ibid, p. 204
[56] H. S. Kenan, The Federal Reserve Bank, (Los Angeles; California: The Noontide Press, 1968; originally published in 1966) p. 158.- Taken from EJP’s VA, 2001
War Crimes of the Union Army
trampled under foot.
1. The Tredegar Iron Works
were rented to or drafted by the Confederate government to work on specific projects related to the South’s military infrastructure, such as bridges and railroads. Third, black southerners were part of the work force in the Confederacy’s war-related foundries, munitions factories, and mines. In addition, they transported food and war material to the front by wagon, and provided services to wounded and sick soldiers in Confederate hospitals. Last, a large number of black southerners went to war with the Confederate army as noncombatants, serving as personal servants, company cooks, and grooms.”
The first question that we need to ask ourselves when judging the moral value of an action is how do we know the difference between right and wrong? Technically we first need to know how we know anything at all and I have spoken to that issue elsewhere.
“I will say that 
emotions of shame, indignation, and sorrow”; and almost he believes “that in Boston we have merely the form of religious worship, without the substance.” Even in towns, like the Quaker New Bedford, where pupils of both colors were admitted to the public schools, “the black boys were seated by themselves, and the white offenders were punished by being obliged to sit with them.” 
I would like to begin briefly with what many Western students of the slave trade often ignore: the Mohammedans’ involvement in kidnapping and selling African slaves. What The Nation of Islam often ignores is that Mohammedans have been kidnapping Africans and making slaves of them since at the earliest, the time of Mohammed himself and even after the slave trade was abolished in the white countries, the Mohammedans continued to kidnap and trade prolifically under Mohammed Ali.
Before I begin I would like to anticipate some objections and accusations as to clear the path.
CATHOLIC CHURCH,
-1-.jpg)
Anglo Judaizer 
