The End of the Antebellum South; The Mother of All American Conspiracies Part 8; Why Did the North Really Invade the South? Thursday, Feb 28 2013 

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.


[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

[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

[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

[23] Ibid., pg. 695-697

[26] Myths, pg. 34

[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

[45] Vatican Assassins (2001), pg. 342

[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

Reply to Ancient Faith Radio’s “Will Everyone Eventually Be Saved?” With Perry Robinson Tuesday, Feb 26 2013 

The link to the interview is here: http://ancientfaith.com/announcements/will_everyone_eventually_be_saved

The End of the Antebellum South; The Mother of All American Conspiracies Part 7; War Crimes Against Southern Civilians Tuesday, Feb 26 2013 

War Crimes of the Union Army

 Chronicles of the American Inquisition

“We believe in a war of extermination…”

    Brig. Gen. James H. Lane[1]

Anyone familiar with the History of Western Civilization has heard of the Inquisition. Before and during the 30 Years War, the Vatican openly called on the armies of confederate nations in the Holy Roman Empire to exterminate their Religious and Political enemies. Could it be that the most powerful Protestant lands in the world, which also included a Catholic element in Louisiana that had suppressed the Jesuits in the late 18th Century and the early 19th Century, received such treatment?   This is a question to be answered in a following blog but for now, is it not at least curious that the Son of General Sherman was a Jesuit?[2]

The following will be a catalogue of the war crimes against the people of the South. Cisco’s War Crimes Against Southern Civilians provides much more and in fuller detail but I have focused on the most grievous and most documentable online.

1. Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion by Mr. Charles Stewart, Series I-Volume 25

 

General order of Rear-Admiral Porter, V. S. Navy, regarding depredations committed by the fleet on unarmed citizens.

General Order,                                                                        U. S. Mississippi Squadron,

No. 158.                                                                      Flagship Black Hawk, January 18,1864.

“I regret to say that I have been deeply mortified in one or two instances by the conduct of persons in charge of some of the gunboats, the most prominent of whom are Acting Master F. T. Coleman and Acting Ensign S. B. Coleman, of the Mound City. These two officers, in the absence of their gallant commander (who has led the Mound City through battles that will render her name historic and which have reflected much honor and credit on the brave crew), have committed offenses against the laws of justice and humanity which call for the severest punishment the law can inflict. Lost to all sense of propriety and regardless of all orders, they have both indulged in a system of petty pillaging and outrages on unarmed individuals, and have converted the vessel of which they had charge into an instrument of tyranny and aversion to the people, instead of upholding that nice sense of honor, propriety, and discipline by which the Navy has been known since it first had an existence…

David D. Porter.

Bear-Admiral, Comdg. Mws. Squadron[3]

2. Maj. Gen. Benjamin Butler, General Order No. 28,

New Orleans, May 15, 1862.

“As the officers and soldiers of the United States have been subject to repeated insults from the women (calling themselves ladies) of New Orleans in return for the most scrupulous non-interference and courtesy on our part, it is ordered that hereafter when any female shall by word, gesture, or movement insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation.”[4] [5]

3. The St. Louis Massacre, May 10, 1861.[6]

4. The Burning of Charleston,

Our Women in the War.”: The Lives They Lived; the Deaths They Died by

The Weekly News and Courier, Charleston, S.C, 1885,

“At the given signal, in rushed Howard’s lawless 15th corps, to wreak their vengeance upon an unprotected town of women and children. But again an over-ruling Providence and merciful Father said, “Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther,” or what would have remained of us?

ON CAME THE FLAMES,

driven by a fierce wind and augmented by the cruel torches of the fiends, who unrelentingly applied them to building ‘after building, as they rushed from block to block in their fury. The streets were bright as day, and the air was rent with the screams and cries of distress, mingled with infant wails, and the demon yells of the tormentors. Who can picture that scene, except to compare it with the lower regions?”[7]

Theft

5. Tennessee civilians in the Nashville area were forced out of their homes under Brig. Gen. Robert B. Mitchell.[8]

6. The Plantation of Mrs. William Harding of Belle Meade, Tennessee was invaded by Yankee troops and pillaged.[9]

7. The Pillaging of Fredericksburg, Virginia. When confronted with the crimes of his men Maj. Gen. Oliver O. Howard stated, “Soldiers are not supposed to be angels.”[10] http://dotcw.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/The-sacking-of-Fredericksburg-December-12.jpg

8. The 21st Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry, under Captain Gates set fire to a house filled with women in it destroying these people’s lives.[11]

9. The Conduct of Federal Troops in Louisiana during the invasions of 1863 and 1864 by Henry Watkins Allen says of the Union pillaging of Dasincourt Borel of New Iberia and the horse taken from him by the Yankees,

“It is the only means of support I have left me,’ said he ‘and if I do not get it, I cannot support my family. My children will starve.’…the horse is no more your property than the rest [said Banks]…Louisiana is mine. I intend to take everything.”[12]

10. Elise Tharbodeaux of the Vermillion, witnessed a mass execution of hundreds of cattle in his yard performed by Union troops.[13] An act of theft and cruelty; not only to the animals but to the people who needed them for sustenance.

11. Even after the Union’s formal withdrawal, people in Louisiana still suffered under their hand. The Civil War in Louisiana by John David Winters says,

“In September and October the jayhawkers came from hiding and resumed their regime of rape, murder and pillage. A new home guard was raised in November but the jayhawkers, now led by a slave named Bernard continued their reign of terror.”[14]

12. The War of the Rebellion, Series 1, Volume 38, Part 5,

“Headquarters Calvary Division

Near Roswell, July 6, 1864-7 p.m.

Major-General Sherman,

My impression is that Johnston will make no attempt on this flank, but that his cavalry has gone to his left. He will try to keep his communications -with the source of his supplies westward. All information from citizens and his acts in this vicinity lead to this belief. His cavalry instead of falling back to the fords and bridges in this locality crossed on the bridges, &c, with the infantry. Everything is taken out of this country; the grain cut by the rebel soldiers and hauled off. All citizens of property also have left. There were some line factories here, one woolen factory, capacity 30,000 yards a month, and has furnished up to within a few weeks 15,000 yards per month to the rebel Government, the Government furnishing men and material. Capacity of cotton factory 216 looms, 191,086 yards per month, and 51,666 pounds of thread, and 4,229 pounds of cotton rope. This was worked exclusively for the rebel Government. The other cotton factory, one mile and a half from town, I have no data concerning. There was six months’ supply of cotton on hand. Over the woolen factory the French flag was flying, but seeing no Federal flag above it I had the building burnt. All are burnt. The cotton factory was worked up to the time of its destruction, some 400 women, being employed. There was some cloth which had been made since yesterday morning, which I will save for our hospitals (several thousand yards of cotton cloth), also some rope and thread. I have just learned that McCook is near the paper-mills, on Soap Creek, and I may not take up the position first proposed in this letter. I will try to disguise the strength of my command. Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

K. GAEEAED, Brigadier- General, Commanding”[15]

And what became of these 400? They were shipped away, finally arriving in Louisville, KY.

“Only think of it; Four hundred weeping and terrified Ellens, Susans, and Maggies transported in springless and seatless army wagons, away from their lovers and brothers of the sunny South, and all for the offense of weaving tent-cloth and spinning stocking yarn…

Cincinnati Daily Commercial, 19 July 1864”[16]

 

13. The Women of the South in War Times, 

 

“IN SHERMAN’S SWATH TO THE SEA

The utter destitution of the women and children of Georgia in the wake of Sherman’s army is well illustrated by the narrative of one of them—Mary A. H. Gay. The authenticity of her narrative has been vouched for by Joel Chandler Harris, of “Uncle Remus” fame.

From her home near Decatur, Georgia, Miss Gay set out for Atlanta, in 1864, on an errand of mercy. She arrived at the latter city after Sherman had entered, and she saw the despoiling of the houses not already destroyed. Having obtained a pass, she went from Atlanta southward to Jonesboro, taking with her carefully secreted and much needed clothing for the Confederate soldiers.

On the way she saw and afterwards graphically described the appearance of “the entire Southern population of Atlanta, and that of miles around as they were dumped out upon the cold ground without shelter.” In her description of the scene as she passed through, she wrote: “An autumnal mist or drizzle was slowly but surely saturating every article of clothing upon them. Aged grandmothers upon the verge of the grave, tender girls in the first bloom of young womanhood, and little babes not three days old in the arms of sick mothers, were driven from their homes and all thrown out upon the cold charity of the world.”[17]

14. Philip Sheridan’s pillaging of Virginia. The War of the Rebellion, Series 1, Volume 43, Part 2,

Woodstock, Va., October 7,1864—9 p. m.

(Received 9th.)

Lieut. Gen. U. S. Grant,

Commanding Armies of the United States:

…I have destroyed over 2,000 barns, filled with wheat, hay, and farming implements; over 70 mills, filled with flour and wheat; have driven in front of the army over 4[,000] head of stock, and have killed and issued to the troops not less than 3,000 sheep. This destruction embraces the LurayValley and Little Fort Valley, as well as the main valley. A large number of horses have been obtained, a proper estimate of which I cannot now make. Lieut. John B. Meigs, my engineer officer, was murdered beyond Harrisonburg, near Dayton. For this atrocious act all the houses within an area of five miles were burned. Since I came into the Valley, from Harper’s Ferry up to Harrisonburg, every train, every small party, and every straggler has been bushwhacked by people, many of whom have protection papers from commanders who have been hitherto in this valley. From the vicinity of Harrisonburg over 400 wagon loads of refugees have been sent back to Martinsburg; most of these people were Bunkers, and had been conscripted. The people here are getting sick of the war; heretofore they have had no reason to complain, because they have been living in great abundance. I have not been followed by the enemy up to this point, with the exception of a small force of rebel cavalry that showed themselves some distance behind my rear guard to-day…

P. H. SHERIDAN,

Major- General[18]

15. Staunton Vindicator, October 21st, 1864,

“Unable to vanquish Robert E. Lee on the battlefield Grant has turned his arms against the women and children of our land.”

16. Pillage at Clinton, GA,

“SHERMAN AT CLINTON.

Correspondence of the Macon Telegraph & Confederate.

CLINTON, Ga., Saturday, Nov. 26

I snatch a moment to advise you of the destruction committed by the enemy here. Many of us are utterly ruined — hundreds of our people are without anything to eat — their stock of cattle and hogs are killed; horses and mules with wagons are all taken off — all through our streets and commons are to be seen dead horses and mules — entrails of hogs and cattle killed, and in many instances, the hams only taken — oxen and carts taken away, so that we are not able to remove this offensive matter — our school-houses and most of the churches burned — Capt. BOMERS’ beautiful residence in ashes, together with everything of his that could be found, destroyed. He was from home. Atrocities most henious were committed — MORGAN’s tannery, with a quantity of Government leather, destroyed, and his family, like many others, deprived of all food — clothes taken off the backs of some of the contrabands, and female servants taken and violated without mercy, by their officers, and in some instances when they were reared as tenderly as the whites. But I cannot recapitulate in detail the many outrages — residence of J. MCGRAY, Dr. BLOUNT, J.H. BLOUNT and others burned.”[19]

Rape

 17. Men from the Ninth Regiment of New York Volunteers attempted to rape a woman in Fredericksburg, VA.[20]

 18. The Nineteenth Regiment Illinois under Col. J. B. Turchin committed mass theft, pillage, mass rape and murder.

“General Orders

No. 39.

Headquarters Army Of The Ohio,

In Camp, Huntsville, Ala., August 6, 1862.

I. By a general court-martial, which convened at Athens, Ala., on the 7th day of July, 1862, pursuant to Special Orders, No. 93, of July 5, 1862, and which was adjourned to Huntsville, Ala., by Special Orders, No. 108. of July 20, 1862, from the Headquarters Army of the Ohio, and of which Brig. Gen. J. A. Garfield, D. S. Volunteers, is president, was arraigned and tried Col. J. B. Turchin, of the Nineteenth Regiment Illinois Volunteers:

Charge 1.—Neglect of duty, to the prejudice of good order and military discipline.

Specification.—In this, that the said Col. J. B. Turchin, of the Nineteenth Regiment Illinois Volunteers, being in command of the Eighth Brigade, Army of the Ohio, did, on or about the 2d day of May, 1862, march the said brigade into the town of Athens, State of Alabama, and having had the arms of the regiment stacked in the streets did allow his command to disperse, and in his presence or with his knowledge and that of his officers to plunder and pillage the” inhabitants of said town and of the country adjacent thereto, without taking adequate steps to restrain them.

Among the incidents of said plundering and pillaging are the following:

A party entered the dwelling of Milly Ann Clayton and opened all the trunks, drawers, and boxes of every description, and taking out the contents thereof, consisting of wearing apparel and bed-clothes, destroyed, spoiled, or carried away the same. They also insulted the said Milly Ann Clayton and threatened to shoot her, and then proceeding to the kitchen they there attempted an indecent outrage on the person of her servant girl.

A squad of soldiers went to the office of R. 0. David and plundered it of about. $1,000 in money and of much wearing apparel, and destroyed a stock of books, among which was a lot of fine Bibles and Testaments, which were torn, defaced, and kicked about the floor and trampled under foot.

A party of this command entered a house occupied by two females, M. E. Malone and S. B. Malone, and ransacked it throughout, carrying off the money which they found, and also the jewelry, plate, and female ornaments of value and interest to the owners, and destroying and spoiling the furniture of said house without cause.

For six or eight hours that day squads of soldiers visited the dwelling house of Thomas S. Malone, breaking open his desk and carrying off or destroying valuable papers, notes of hand, and other property, to the value of about $4,500, more or less, acting rudely and violently toward the females of the family. This last was done chiefly by the men of Edgarton’s battery. The plundering of saddles, bridles, blankets, &c, was by the Thirty-seventh Indiana Volunteers.

The same parties plundered the drug store of William D. Allen, destroying completely a set of surgical, obstetrical, and dental instruments, or carrying them away.

The store of Madison Thompson was broken open and plundered of a stock of goods worth about $3,000, and his stable was entered, and corn, oats, and fodder taken by different parties, who on his application for receipts replied that they gave receipts at other places, but intended that this place should support them,” or words to that effect.

The office of J. F. Lowell was broken open and a fine microscope and many geological specimens, together with many surgical instruments and books, carried off or destroyed.

Squads of soldiers, with force of arms, entered the private residence of John P. Malone and forced open all the locks of the doors, broke open all the drawers to the bureaus, the secretary, sideboard, wardrobes, and trunks in the house, and rifled them of their contents, consisting of valuable clothing, silver-ware, silver-plate jewelry, a gold watch and chain, &c, and in the performing these outrages they used coarse, vulgar, and profane language to the females of the family. These squads came in large numbers and plundered the house thoroughly. They also broke open the law office of said Malone and destroyed his safe and damaged his books. A part of this brigade went to the plantation of the above named Malone and quartered in the negro huts for weeks, debauching the females and roaming with the males over the surrounding country to plunder and pillage.

A mob of soldiers burst open the doors and windows of the business houses of Samuel Tanner, jr., and plundered them of their contents, consisting of sugar, coffee, boots and shoes, leather, and other merchandise.

Very soon after the command entered the town a party of soldiers broke into the silversmith shop and jewelry store owned by D. H. Friend, and plundered it of its contents and valuables to the amount of about $3,000.

A party of this command entered the house of R. S. Irwin and ordered his wife to cook dinner for them, and while she and her servant were so engaged they made the most indecent and beastly propositions to the latter in the presence of the whole family, and when the girl went away they followed her in the same manner, notwithstanding her efforts to avoid them.

Mrs. Hollinsworth’s house was entered and plundered of clothing and other property by several parties, and some of the men fired into the house and threatened to burn it, and used violent and insulting language toward the said Mrs. Hollinsworth. The alarm and excitement occasioned miscarriage and subsequently her death.

Several soldiers came to the house of Mrs. Charlotte Hine and committed rape on the person of a colored girl and then entered the house and plundered it of all the sugar, coffee, preserves, and the like which they could find. Before leaving they destroyed or carried oft” all the pictures and ornaments they could lay their hands on.

A mob of soldiers filled the house of J. A. Cox, broke open his iron safe, destroyed and carried off papers of value, plundering the house thoroughly, carrying off the clothes of his wife and children.

Some soldiers broke into the brick store of P. Tanner & Sons, and destroyed or carried off nearly the entire stock of goods contained there, and broke open the safe and took about $2,000 in money and many valuable papers.

A party of soldiers, at the order of Captain Edgarton, broke into an office through the windows and doors and plundered it of its contents, consisting of bedding, furniture, and wearing apparel. Lieutenant Berwick was also with the party. This officer was on the ground.

The law office of William Bichardson, which was in another part of the town, was rifled completely and many valuable papers, consisting of bonds, bills, and notes of hand, lost or destroyed.

The house of J. H. Jones was entered by Colonel Mihalotzy, of the Twenty-fourth Illinois Volunteers, who behaved rudely and coarsely to the ladies of the family. He then quartered two companies of infantry in the house. About one hour after Captain Edgarton quartered his artillery company in the parlors, and these companies plundered the house of all provisions and clothing they could lay their hands on, and spoiled the furniture and carpets maliciously and without a shadow of reason, spoiling the parlor carpets by cutting bacon on them, and the piano by chopping joints on it with an axe, the beds by sleeping in them with their muddy boots on. The library of the house was destroyed, and the locks of the bureaus, secretaries, wardrobes, and trunks were all forced and their contents pillaged. The family plate was carried off, but some of the pieces have been recovered.

The store of George R. Peck was entered by a large crowd of soldiers and stripped of its contents, and the iron safe broken open and its contents plundered, consisting of $940.90 and $4,000 worth of notes.

John Turrentine’s store was broken into by a party of soldiers on that day, and an iron safe cut. open belonging to the same and about $5,000 worth of notes of hand taken or destroyed. These men destroyed about $200 worth of books found in said store, consisting .of law books, religious books, and reading books generally…

The court finds the accused as follows:

Of the specification to the First Charge, Guilty.

Of the First Charge, Guilty.”[21]

And how was Turchin punished? Well Abraham Lincoln thought it fit to promote Turchin to Brigadier General.

20. In Aiken, South Carolina, the Confederacy met an old Baptist Pastor,

“leaning against a fence post for support. ‘My daughter,” he sobbed. ‘A bunch of Yankees raped her-they just left here.’ The [Confederate] troopers charged down the road and quickly overtook the party of foragers. ‘Boys, I know why you do this, but I had nothing to do with it.’ Said one wounded Federal as he begged for his life. The Confederates spared him but executed the others.” [22]

21. WAR CRIMES AGAINST SOUTHERN CIVILIANS by Walter Cisco page 152 (Chapter on South Carolina),

“Confederate brigadier general James Chesnut was informed by Wheeler’s cavalrymen of a crime they discovered that was far worse. The home of a family identified as the “M.’s” was found plundered. A party of seven Federals had come upon only Mrs. M and her teenaged daughter at home. They tied up the mother and each then proceeded to rape the daughter. By the time Confederates arrived, the girl was dead and the mother was out of her mind. The Yankees were overtaken on the road by the Southern troopers, who shot them down, cut their throats, and left the bodies with a sign that read, “THESE ARE THE SEVEN.”

Against Southern Blacks

22. The War of the Rebellion, Official Records, Series 3, Volume 3,

“Pope’s Plantation, Saint Helena Island, May 13, 1862. Major-General Hunter,

Commanding Department of the South:

General: It seems important to advise you of the scenes transpiring yesterday in the execution of your order for the collection and transportation of the able-bodied colored men from the islands to Hilton Head. The colored people became suspicious of the presence of the companies of soldiers detailed for the service, who were marching through the islands during the night. Some thought the rebels were coming and stood guard at the creeks. The next morning (yesterday) they went to the fields, some, however, seeking the woods. They were taken from the fields without being allowed to go to their houses even to get a jacket, this, however, in some cases, being gone for by the wife. The inevitableness of the order made many resigned, but there was sadness in all. As those on this plantation were called in from the fields, the soldiers, under orders, and while on the steps of my headquarters, loaded their guns, so that the negroes might see what would take place in case they attempted to get away…On some plantations the wailing and screaming were loud and the women threw themselves in despair on the ground. On some plantations the people took to the woods and were hunted up by the soldiers. The school at Eustis was a scene of confusion, the children crying, and it was found of no use to carry it on…

Edward L. Pierce,
Special Agent Treasury Department[23]

 

Rape

23. The Plantation of Mrs. William Harding of Belle Meade, Tennessee was invaded by Yankee troops who molested the slave women of the plantation.[24]

24. The Rape of Athens. At the home of Milly Ann Clayton, of AthensAlabama, Union soldiers under Col. Turchin,

“insulted the said Milly Ann Clayton and threatened to shoot her, and then proceeding to the kitchen they there attempted an indecent outrage on the person of her servant girl…Squads of soldiers, with force of arms, entered the private residence of John P. Malone A part of this brigade went to the plantation of the above named Malone and quartered in the negro huts for weeks, debauching the females and roaming with the males over the surrounding country to plunder and pillage…Several soldiers came to the house of Mrs. Charlotte Hine and committed rape on the person of a colored girl and then entered the house and plundered it of all the sugar, coffee, preserves, and the like which they could find.”[25]

25. Cisco states,

“Butler’s discipline of his own men often seemed curiously lax. For example, on June 10, 1862, Cpl. William M. Chinock raped an African-American woman named Mary Ellen De Riley. Found guilty by a military court for the crime of rape, Chinock was reduced from corporal to private and fined forty dollars.”[26]

These and many other crimes prompted Jefferson Davis to state,

“Now therefore, I Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America, and in their name do pronounce and declare the said Benjamin F. Butler to be a felon deserving of capital punishment. I do order that he be no longer considered or treated simply as a public enemy of the Confederate States of America but as an outlaw and common enemy of mankind, and that in the event of his capture the officer in command of the capturing force do cause him to be immediately executed by hanging; and I do further order that no commissioned officer of the United States taken captive shall be released on parole before exchange until the said Butler shall have met with due punishment for his crimes.”[27]

26. The War of the Rebellion, Series 1, Volume 15,

“Headquarters First Brigade, Grover’s Division,

In camp on Rayon Baruff, beyond 

Washington, La., April 27, 1863. 

“Sir: In compliance with Special Orders, No. 100,1 have the honor to submit the following report of the operations of this brigade from the time it left Baton Rouge until its arrival in Opelousas…

This brigade encamped on the evening of the engagement, April 14, 1863, near the scene of the action. Next morning it marched in pursuit of the enemy, and at night encamped near IndianVillage. Next day it marched to New Iberia. The scenes of disorder and pillage on these two days’ march were disgraceful to civilized war. Houses were entered and all in them destroyed in the most wanton manner. Ladies were frightened into delivering their jewels and valuables into the hands of the soldiers by threats of violence toward their husbands. Negro women were ravished in the presence of white women and children. These disgusting scenes were due to the want of discipline in this army, and to the utter incompetency of regimental officers.

…WILLIAM DWIGHT, Jr.,

Brigadier-General, Commanding Brigade[28]

27. Rape at Clinton, GA,

“SHERMAN AT CLINTON.

Correspondence of the Macon Telegraph & Confederate.

CLINTON, Ga., Saturday, Nov. 26

I snatch a moment to advise you of the destruction committed by the enemy here. Many of us are utterly ruined — hundreds of our people are without anything to eat — their stock of cattle and hogs are killed; horses and mules with wagons are all taken off — all through our streets and commons are to be seen dead horses and mules — entrails of hogs and cattle killed, and in many instances, the hams only taken — oxen and carts taken away, so that we are not able to remove this offensive matter — our school-houses and most of the churches burned — Capt. BOMERS’ beautiful residence in ashes, together with everything of his that could be found, destroyed. He was from home. Atrocities most henious were committed — MORGAN’s tannery, with a quantity of Government leather, destroyed, and his family, like many others, deprived of all food — clothes taken off the backs of some of the contrabands, and female servants taken and violated without mercy, by their officers, and in some instances when they were reared as tenderly as the whites. But I cannot recapitulate in detail the many outrages — residence of J. MCGRAY, Dr. BLOUNT, J.H. BLOUNT and others burned.”[29]

28. Andy Brice,

“By instint, a nigger can make up his mind pretty quick ’bout de creed of white folks, whether they am buckra or whether they am not. Every Yankee I see had de stamp of poor white trash on them. They strutted ’round, big Ike fashion, a bustin’ in rooms widout knockin’, talkin’ free to de white ladies, and familiar to de slave gals, ransackin’ drawers, and runnin’ deir bayonets into feather beds, and into de flower beds in de yards.”[30]

29. Sexual Misbehavior In the Civil War: A Compendium by Thomas P. Lowry (Which is chalked full of incidents like these),

“In October 1865, a ‘colored girl,’ Sarah, who worked at Murray Robinson’s plantation, was beaten and raped at Rowe’s Pump. Her assailant was Oscar Mendelsohn of the 54th New York Veteran Volunteers…’He caught me by the breast, threw me down and ravaged me for a quarter of an hour.’ ”[31]

30. At the South Carolina Bryce family home, Union troops overwhelmed the house. They kicked out the Bryce family but the blacks received a far worse treatment.

“South Carolina author William Gilmore Simms described some of the more horrific aspects of the night, noting first the rapes of black women by the soldiers and then their mistreatment of white women and even the dead…

Regiments, in successive relays, subjected scores of these poor women to the torture of their embraces”.[32]

My black friend, was it really the Southern Plantation owner that raped your Great Grandmother? And by the way, this little quote may shed some more light on the subject of abuse of slaves in the South:

Abraham Lincoln, Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise-Speech at Peoria, Illinois

October 16, 1854,

“We know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north, and

become tip-top abolitionists; while some northern ones go south, and become most cruel slavemasters.”[33]

I wonder how many cruel slave masters in the South were really Yankees?

Assault

31. The War of the Rebellion, Official Records, Series 1 Volume 34, Part 2,

“Maj. Gen. W. S. Rosecrans:

General: A negro, Sam Marshall, who resides in Leavenworth, reports to me that yesterday he went over to Platte City, Mo., to get his children, who he was told would be allowed to come away free. The children were at a Mr. Green’s. Sam went in daylight with a team driven by a white man, and made no demonstration of insolence or disrespect to anybody. He was arrested by the military commander, one Capt. David Johnson, of the Missouri militia, who talked to him about the impropriety of his conduct. The sheriff, one Jesse Morris, also lectured him and told him the captain would send a guard to take him away, as it was a wonder he was not killed. About a dozen of the soldiers did escort him about half a mile out of PlatteCity, where they tied him to a tree, and stripping him to the waist lacerated his back with a cowskin, the marks of which Sam. will carry to his grave. They told him they were “introducing him to the Paw Paw militia,” and that if Colonel Jeimison would come to PlatteCity they would treat him in the same way. The militia were dressed in Federal uniform and armed with revolvers. Two of them Sam. knew. They are young Chinn and a young Cockerel. Sam. is a quiet, well-behaved negro, whose tears and sorely lacerated back seem to attest the truth of his statement.

…S. R. CURTIS,

    Major- General.[34]

 

32. The War of the Rebellion, Official Records, Series I, Volume 42,

“New Berne, N. C, September 1, 1864.

Maj. Gen. B. F. Butler,

Comdg. Department of Virginia and North Carolina: 

General: The negroes will not go voluntarily, so I am obliged to force them. I have sent seventy-one and will send this afternoon about 150. I expect to get a large lot to-morrow. I have done all that could be done, but I am not as fortunate as you expected me to be. I shall keep working.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully,

Fred Martin,

Captain and Aide-de-Camp.”[35]

Theft

33. Army Life of an Illinois Soldier by Charles Wright Wills,

“Most of the mischief is done by the advance of the army, though, God knows, the infantry is bad enough. The d—d thieves even steal from the negroes (which is lower business than I ever thought it possible for a white man to be guilty of) and many of them are learning to hate the Yankees as much as our “Southern Brethren” do. The army is becoming awfully depraved.”[36]

34.  Yankee Autumn in Acadiana by David C. Edmonds quotes Rev. James Earl Bradley living west of Opelousas in 1863 when the Yankees invaded his home,

“they entered the house, searched every room and found the only (saddle) on the place. It belonged to Miss Amanda’s deceased brother, but they took it. They examined the cabins, robbed us of our dinner (and robbed) the Negroes too. It was such fun to see big darkie in the cabins daring white soldiers to search him.”[37]

35. Benjamin George, a black slave who lived near Samuel Schumulen, a man invaded by Yankee criminals, tried to help Schumulen. For this the Yankees robbed him, and shot him in the leg, crippling him for life.[38]

36. The War of the Rebellion, Series 1, Volume 34, Part 1,

“Headquarters District of West Louisiana,

Monett’s Ferry, April 24, 1864…

The destruction of this country by the enemy exceeds anything in history. For many miles every dwelling-house, every negro cabin, every cotton-gin, every corn-crib, and even chicken-houses have been burned to the ground ; every fence torn down and the fields torn up by the hoofs of horses and wheels of wagons. Many hundreds of persons are utterly without shelter. But for our prompt attacks Natchitoches would have been burned to the ground, and also the little village of Cloutierville, both of them having been fired in several places.

R. Taylor

Major-General

[Confederate-DS]”[39]

CAN WE NOW SEE WHY THE WHITE MEN IN THE SOUTH AFTER THE CIVIL WAR WERE ANGRY AND BITTER? OF COURSE THEY WERE. THEY HAD EVERY RIGHT TO BE.

LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION MY SOUTHERN BROTHER: ARE YOU ANGRY AFTER READING THIS? WELL THEN LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION: WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

Are you going to sit back while your homeland has been raped in more ways than one for the last 150 years? The white men around you are ready for action and the Jesuits are going to harness that anger into the creation a coming white Fascist party. We have to prevent this.  We don’t need Fascism. We don’t need infiltrated organizations like the KKK. And we certainly don’t need the Republican Party. They are the ones who invaded us down here in the first place! They are just as atheist and communist as the left. We need the South to rise again. We need to base this on the foundations of the Protestant Reformation. The Solemn League and Covenant needs to be re-affirmed. In the coming blogs I am going to discuss who is to blame. These are the conclusions I will come to:

  1. The Vatican and its Jesuit Order and Military cult, the Knights of Malta
  2. The extension of the Vatican in Protestant lands: The Masonic Lodge.

In the coming years Alex Jones and Jesse Ventura, or people associated with them are going to popularize that old Nazi mantra that the Jews are to blame for everything: The Jews are the Zionists and the Jews are the international bankers. That will be their platform and in some degree they are right. However, the Jews have a master in Rome. Remember what the Jews said in John 19:15,

“Away with Him, away with Him, crucify Him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.”

Study the Vatican’s Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem and ask yourself who ultimately benefits from Zionism.

Lastly, don’t hate the black people. They suffered right along with us. Don’t fall for these coming white Fascist regimes. Forget about the KKK, forget about the Neo-Nazi groups, and forget about the Republican Party. Join a Confederate Organization. Join the Sons of Confederate Veterans or the League of the South and get active. We don’t need Corporate Fascism, we need that old Agrarian-Southern-Patriarchal way of life in order to break free from the Pope’s NWO.


[3]Official Records of the Union and Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion by Mr. Charles Stewart, Series I-Volume 25: http://books.google.com/books?pg=PR7&dq=%22have+committed+offenses+against+the+laws+of+justice+and+humanity%22&id=xzfZ-m5_FmoC&ots=OgaloYRa8p#v=onepage&q&f=false

[8] See Nashville: The Occupied City by Walter T. Durham as quoted by Walter Cisco in War Crimes Against Southern Civilians.

[9] Ibid., 180

[10] The Fredericksburg Campaign by Francis Augustín O’Reilly, pg. 124

[12] Pg. 40

[13] Cisco, pg. 93-94

[20] The Ninth Regiment by Lt. Matthew Graham,385-386: http://archive.org/stream/ninthregimentnew01grah#page/384/mode/2up

[22] Cisco, pg. 146-147; FN: Sherman‘s March by Burke Davis pg. 151-152

[24] Nashville: The Occupied City by Walter T. Durham, 180

[26] Cisco, pg. 67-68

[27]ADJT. AND INSP. GENERAL’S OFFICE, Richmond [Va.], December 24, 1862.

GENERAL ORDERS, No. 111: http://www.history.umd.edu/Freedmen/pow.htm

[30] Slave Narratives, South Carolina Narratives, Part 1: http://archive.org/stream/slavenarrativesv18912gut/18912.txt

[37] Pg. 248

[38] Cisco, pg. 95

The End of the Antebellum South; The Mother of All American Conspiracies Part 6; On the Treatment of Blacks in the South; Black Perspective Monday, Feb 25 2013 

confedpicI will be working through all the Slave Narrative Volumes in times to come but the most study I have done is in the Mississippi Narrative and it is overwhelmingly in favor of the good treatment  the blacks received from white slave owners and the intimate familial love that existed between them.  For more information on the Southern slave system see Southern Slavery, As It Was by Rev. Wilkins and Robert Fogel’s Time on the Cross. I will try to make my comments as brief as possible while primarily focusing on documented evidence from primary sources, taken from people who actually lived in the Southern slave system.

The Slave States of America, Volume 2  By James Buckingham

“This is only one among the many proofs I had witnessed of the fact, that the prejudice of color is not nearly so strong in the South as in the North. (In the South) it is not at all uncommon to see the black slaves of both sexes, shake hands with white people when they meet, and interchange friendly personal inquiries; but at the north i do not remember to have witnessed this once; and neither in Boston, New York, or Philadelphia would white persons generally like to be seen shaking hands and talking familiarly with blacks in the streets.”[1]

The Peculiar Institution by Kenneth Stamp states,

“Visitors often registered surprise at the social intimacy that existed between masters and slaves in certain situations. A Northerner saw a group of Mississippi farmers encamped with their slaves near Natchez after hauling their cotton to market. Here they assumed a ‘cheek by jowl’ familiarity with perfect good will and a mutual contempt for nicer distinctions of color.”[2]

Now to the Southern slaves themselves. Whenever we come into contact with a Yankee propagandist we must take them to task on their knowledge of these Volumes. And remember, these interviews were conducted by the US Government which had every reason to make these Narratives as Condemning to the South as possible.

Isaam Morgan, Mobile Alabama,

“Any time a slave worked over time or cut mo’ wood dan he s’pose’ to, Massa pay him money for it, caze whenever one of us slaves seen somp’n we lak, we did jus’ lak de white folks does now. Us bought it. “Massa never whupped none of his slaves; he jus’ tole us whut to do an’ iffen we didn’t do it, he’d call us to him an’ he would say in his sorta way: ’Nigger! How many mo’ times is I gotta tell you to do lak you tole?’ Dat’s all he would say, an’ believe me Mistis, he hada a way of lookin’ at you dat made you jump. When he bought a new slave dat wasn’t use to doin’ what he was tol’, ’twarn’t long befo’ massa had him in line… “Atter de surrender, de Yankees camped near our place, an’ bought aigs f’um us. Dey offered me a hoss iffen I would go nawth wid dem, but I jus’ couldn’t leave de Massa even dough I did wanted dat hoss mighty bad.”[3]

Simon Phillips,

“People,” he says, “has the wrong idea of slave days. We was treated good. My massa never laid a hand on me durin’ the whole time I was wid him. He scolded me once for not bringin’ him a drink when I was supposed to, but he never whup me… “The massa never have no more trouble. Them niggers jus’ stays right there and works. Sometime they loaned the massa money when he was hard pushed. Most of ’em died on the old grounds.”[4]

Mary Rice

“Massa Cullen and Mistis’ Ma’y Jane was de bes’ Marster and Mistis’ in de worl’. Once when I was awful sick, Mistis’ Ma’y Jane had me brung in de Big House and put me in a room dat sot on de ’tother side of the kitchen so she could take kere of me herself ’cause it was a right fur piece to de quahter and I had to be nussed day and night… I was happy all de time in slavery days, but dere ain’t much to git happy over now”.[5]

Samuel S. Taylor

“My mother was always right in the house with the white people and I was fed just like I was one of their children. They even done put me to bed with them. You see, this discrimination on color wasn’t as bad then as it is now. They handled you as a slave but they didn’t discriminate against you on account of color like they do now. Of course, there were brutal masters then just like there are brutal people now… “In slavery times, a poor white man was worse off than a nigger.”[6]

Sara and Tom Douglas, Alabama

 “…slavery times was sho’ good times. We was fed and clothed an’ had nothin’ to worry  about” [7]

Jane Georgiana

“Ole Marster dead an’ gone an’ Ole Mistis too, but I ‘members ’em jus’ lak dey was, when dey looked atter (after) us whenst we belonged to ’em or dey belong to us, I dunno which it was.”

“De times was better fo’ de war….  I goes to church and sings and prays, an’ when de good Lord teks me, I’se ready to go, en I specs to see Jesus an’ Ole Mistis an’ Ole Marster when I gits to de he’beny land’!”[8]

Mrs. Candis Goodwin

“Ah ain’t knowd, ‘xactly, how ol’ ah is, but ah bawn ‘fo’ de war. Bawn ovuh yonder at Seaview, on ol’ Masser Scott’s plantation. Tain’t fur f’om here. Yes, reckon ah ’bout six yeah ol’ when de Yankees come, jes’ a lil’ thin’, you know.

My white people dey good tuh me. Cose dey gits mad wid you but dey don’ beat non o’ us; jes’ ack lak it. Why, ah was jes lak dey’s chullun; ah played wid ’em, et wid ’em an’ eb’n slep’ wid ’em…Uster go down dere, an’ dem Yankees be sittin’ all ‘long de road wid dey blue coats; ret pretty site; ’twas. But ah’s sceard tuh deaf, when ah gits neah ’em. Ah gits what ah wants f’om de stow, an’ flys pass ’em. Dem Yankees show had dey way. Dey went in all de white folks house; tek dey silver, an’ inything dey big ‘nough carry out. Jes’ ruin Missus furniture; get up on de table an’ jes’ cut capper. Nasty things!”[9]

Jim Allen,

“I ain’t seen my boss since dem Yankees took me ‘way. I was seven miles down in de swamp when I was tuk. I wouldn’ of tol’ him goodbye. I jes wouldn’ of lef’ him. No sir, I couldn’ have lef’ my good boss. He tol’ me dem Yankees was comin’ to take me off. I never wanted to see him ’cause I would have went back ’cause he pertected me an’ loved me.”[10]

John Cameron,

“De war broke out spite o’ how Marster’s Niggers felt. When I seen my white folks leave for war, I cried myself sick, an’ all de res’ did too. Den de Yankees come through a-takin’ de country. Old Marster refugeed us to Virginny. I can’t say if de lan’ was his’n, but he had a place for us to stay at. I know us raised ‘nough food stuff for all de slaves. Marster took care o’ us dere ’til de war ended.

“Den he come to camp late one evenin’ an tol’ us dat us was free as he was; dat us could stay in Virginny an work or us could come to Mississippi wid him. Might nigh de whole passel bun’led up an’ come back, an’ glad to do it, too. Dar us all stayed ’til de family all died. De las’ one died a few years ago an’ lef’ us few old darkies to grieve over ’em.”[11]

Charlie Davenport

“Lak all de fool Niggers o’ dat time I was right smart bit by de freedom bug for awhile. It sounded pow’ful nice to be tol’:

‘You don’t have to chop cotton no more. You can th’ow dat hoe down an’ go fishin’ whensoever de notion strikes you. An’ you can roam’ roun’ at night an’ court gals jus’ as late as you please. Aint no marster gwine a-say to you, “Charlie, you’s got to be back when de clock strikes nine.”‘

“I was fool ‘nough to b’lieve all dat kin’ o’ stuff. But to tell de hones’ truf, mos’ o’ us didn’ know ourse’fs no better off. Freedom meant us could leave where us’d been born an’ bred, but it meant, too, dat us had to scratch for us ownse’fs. Dem what lef’ de old plantation seemed so all fired glad to git back dat I made up my min’ to stay put. I stayed right wid my white folks as long as I could.”[12]

Pet Franks

“I knows all ’bout slav’ry an’ de war. I was right dere on de spot when it all happened. I wish to goodness I was back dere now, not in de war, but in de slav’ry times. Niggers where I lived didn’ have nothin’ to worry ’bout in dem days. Dey aint got no sense now-a-days. All dey b’lieves in now is drinkin’ an’ carousin’. Dey aint got no use for nothin’ but a little corn likker an’ a fight. I dont b’lieve in no such gwine-on, no sir-ree. Dat’s de reason I stays out here by myse’f all de

time. I don’t want to have nothin’ to do wid ’em. I goes to town ’bout once a mont’ to git s’pplies, but I don’ never fool ‘roun’ wid dem Niggers den. I gits ‘long wid my white folks, too. All da mens an’ wimmens what comes out to de club is pow’ful good to me.

“I was born up near Bartley’s Ferry right on de river. De way I cal’clates my age makes me ’bout 92 years old. My firs’ Marster was name Mr. Harry Allen. He died when I was a boy an’ I don’t ‘member much ’bout him. De Mistis, dat was his wife, married ag’in an’ dat husband’s name was Marse Jimmy Tatum. Dey was sho’ good white folks…I guess Niggers lak dat wished dey was free, but I didn’ want to leave my white folks, ever.”[13]

Wayne Holliday

“My mammy did de cookin’ for de white folks dere. Dey all thought a lot of her. I never knowed much what slav’ry was ’bout, to tell de truf. De folks never treated us wrong an’ chullun in dem days didn’ get to run aroun’ lak dey do today an’ we didn’ get to hear no gossip ’bout de other niggers. Since we didn’ live in no quarters we didn’ hear nothin. Our folks never said nothin’ ’cause dey was very well satisfied lak dey was. We never hear of no whuppin’s, or runaways either, ’til afte’ de War an’ when we got older.”[14]

James Lucas

“Slaves didn’ know what to ‘spec from freedom, but a lot of ’em hoped dey would be fed an’ kep’ by de gov’ment. Dey all had diffe’nt ways o’ thinkin’ ’bout it. Mos’ly though dey was jus’ lak me, dey didn’ know jus’ zackly what it meant. It was jus’ somp’n dat de white folks an’ slaves all de time talk ’bout. Dat’s all. Folks dat ain’ never been free don’ rightly know de _feel_ of bein’ free. Dey don’ know de meanin’ of it. Slaves like us, what was owned by quality-folks, was sati’fied an’ didn’ sing none of dem freedom songs.”[15]

Sam McAllum

“Some folks treated dey slaves mighty bad–put Nigger dogs on ’em. All my white folks were good to dey slaves, ‘cordin’ to how good de Niggers b’haved deyse’fs. Course, you couldn’ leave no plantation widout a pass, or de pateroller’d git you. I aint countin’ dat, ’cause dat were somthin’ ever’body knowed ‘forehan’.”[16]

Henri Necaise

“Dey didn’ give me money, but, you see, I was a slave. Dey sho’ give me ever’thing else I need, clo’es an’ shoes. I always had a-plenty t’eat, better’n I can git now. I was better off when I was a slave dan I is now, ’cause I had ever’thing furnished me den. Now I got to do it all  myse’f.

“My Marster was a Catholic. One thing I can thank dem godly white folks for, dey raise’ me right. Dey taught me out o’ God’s word, ‘Our Father which art in Heaven.’ Ever’body ought-a know dat prayer.”[17]

Susan Snow

“My white folks was good people an’ didn’ whup nobody, ‘less dey needed it. Some o’ de Niggers was sho’ ‘nough bad. Dey used to take de marster’s horses out at night an’ ride ’em down. One Nigger, Sam, got dat mad at a mule for grabbin’ at cotton he cut his tongue out. Course, Marster whupped him, but when he went to look for ‘im ’bout a hour after, he foun’ ‘im soun’ asleep. Said he ought to kill ‘im, but he didn’.”[18]

Jane Sutton

“My white folks was all Baptis’ an’ dey made us go to church, too. De church was called de Strong River Church. Dey had big baptisin’s. I ‘members when I joined de church. De white folks preacher baptised us in de creek what run from Marse Berry’s mill pond. I was dressed up in a white lowell slip. When us dress’ up in Sund’y clo’es us had caliker[FN: calico] dresses. Dey sho’ was pretty. I ‘members a dress now dat Old Marster bought for my granny. It was white an’yaller, an’ it was de prettiest thing I ever seen.

“Us white folks was good to us. Dey warnt always a-beatin’ an’ a-knockin’ us ‘roun’. De truf is you couldn’ fin’ a scar on nary one o’ us. ‘Course, some times dey whup us, but dey didn’ gash us lak some o’ de old marsters did dey Niggers…”I ‘members dey promise to give de cullud folks all kin’ o’ things. Dey never give ’em nothin’ dat I know’s about. Us was jus’ turnt loose to scratch for us ownse’ves. Us was glad to stay on wid de white folks, ’cause dey was de bes’ frien’s us had. I don’ know nobody what got a thing ‘cept what Old Marster an’ Old Mis’ give ’em.”[19]

Martha Colquitt,

“Us chilluns wuz a-cryin’ and takin’ on ’cause us loved Mist’ess and us didn’t want nobody to bother her. Dey made out like dey wuz goin’ to kill her if she didn’t tell ’em what dey wanted to know, but atter a while dey let her alone…Atter de Yankees wuz done gone off Grandma ‘gun to fuss: ‘How, dem sojers wuz tellin’ us what ain’t so, ’cause ain’t nobody got no right to take what belongs to Marster and Mist’ess.”[20]

And let us not forget Slavery and Abolitionism, as Viewed by a Georgia Slave
by Harrison Berry which dispels two Yankee myths: 1. That blacks in the South were kept illiterate 2. That the southern blacks hated their station.

There was also John Jasper who was converted to Christianity under his slave master and later became a well known Black Preacher and Philosopher. Again dispelling the two myths as stated above.[21]

For information on Virginia slavery you can read my blog on Django, Dabney’s Defence of Virginia is smathered all throughout this series and also  Stonewall Jackson: The Black Man’s Friend  by Richard G. Williams Jr.

Black Confederatesconfedpic2

Documented Evidence that Blacks fought and worked for the Victory of the Confederate Army.

I have downloaded a catalog of black confederate soldiers on pdf documents, taken from The South Was Right by the Kennedy brothers.[22]

Remember, the Southern men were out fighting the Yankees. The vast majority of the white people who remained to over-see the blacks were women, children and elderly men. Thus the blacks could not have been physically forced to help in the cause.

Dr. Edward C. Smith, Professor at American University says in his Blacks in Blue and Gray

“Throughout the war in Virginia, contrary to what many northerners thought and hoped would happen, there were only a few examples of black efforts to sabotage the confederate cause, yet they had it in their power to wreak wholesale havoc throughout the South. Black uprisings would certainly have forced the confederate government to pull badly needed troops from the lines to provide police protection for farms and families under threat of destruction. Furthermore, at any time during the war, especially after the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect, blacks could, with attendant risks, have escaped to nearby Union lines but few chose to do so and instead remained at home and became the most essential element in the southern infrastructure of resistance to northern invasion. Over the years I have read the letters of many southern deserters and I have yet to discover a single one from a soldier who said that the reason he left his unit in the field was because he feared that rampaging blacks on the homefront would exploit the chaos and do harm to his farm or family.”[23]

1. The Tredegar Iron Works
From the Virginia Heritage Website:

“By the beginning of the Civil War, Tredegar was the largest ironworks in the Confederacy, with almost 700 black and white workers. The ironworks was virtually the sole source of heavy guns, projectiles, gun carriages, plates for iron-clad vessels, wheels and axles for railroad rolling stock, furnace machinery, and a variety of other products for Confederate munitions factories and navy yards.”[24]

2. Dr. Lewis Steiner, Chief Inspector of the United States Sanitary Commission while observing Gen. “Stonewall” Jackson’s occupation of Frederick, Maryland, in 1862:

“Wednesday, September 10.–At four o’clock this morning the rebel army began to move from our town “Frederick, Maryland,” Jackson’s force taking the advance. The movement continued until eight o’clock p.m., occupying sixteen hours. The most liberal calculations could not give them more than 64,000 men.

Over 3,000 negroes must be included in this number. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in the rebel ranks. Most of the negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabres, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied, in many instances, with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy Army. They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of Generals, and promiscuously mixed up with all the rebel horde. The fact was patent, and rather interesting when considered in connection with the horror rebels express at the suggestion of black soldiers being employed for the National defence.”[25]  [26]

3. Captain Arthur Freemantle accompanied Lee in Gettysburg in 1863 and wrote,

“This little episode of a Southern slave leading a white Yankee through a Northern village, alone and of his own accord, would not have been gratifying to an abolitionists…Nor would the sympathizers both in England and in the North feel encouraged if they could hear the language of detestation and contempt with which numerous Negroes with the Southern armies speak of their liberators.”[27] [28]

4. The attitude of the southern black slaves toward the Yankees and the Confederate armies:

Hannah Irwin

“I suppose dem Yankees was all right in dere place,” she continued, “but dey neber belong in de South. Why, Miss, one of ’em axe me what was dem white flowers in de fiel’? You’d think dat a gent’men wid all dem decorations on hisself woulda knowed a fiel’ of cotton. An’ as for dey a-settin’ me free! Miss, us niggers on de Bennett place was free as soon as we was bawn. I always been free.”[29]

Tom McAlpin

“But Boss, dere ain’t never been nobody afightin’ lak our ’federates done, but dey ain’t never had a chance. Dere was jes’ too many of dem blue coats for us to lick. I seen our ’federates go off laughin’ an’ gay; full of life an’ health. Dey was big an’ strong, asingin’ Dixie an’ dey jus knowed dey was agoin’ to win. An’ boss, I seen ’em come back skin an’ bone, dere eyes all sad an’ hollow, an dere clothes all ragged. Boss, dey was all lookin’ sick. De sperrit dey lef’ wid jus’ been done whupped outten dem, but it tuk dem Yankees a long time to do it. Our ‘federates was de bes’ fightin’ men dat ever were. Dere warn’t nobody lak our ’federates… Yassuh, I was sont to Richmond to bring home some of our wounded ’federates. Dey sont me ’caze dey knowed I was agoin’ to do my bes’, an’ caze dey knowed I warn’t afeered of nothin’. Dat’s de way I’ve always tried to be, white boss, lak my white people what raised me. God bless ’em.”[30]

Aunt Adeline

“After the War many soldiers came to my mistress, Mrs. Blakely, trying to make her free me. I told them I was free but I did not want to go anywhere, that I wanted to stay in the only home that I had ever known. In a way that placed me in a wrong attitude. I was pointed out as different. Sometimes I was threatened for not leaving but I stayed on.

“I had always been well treated by my master’s folks.”[31]

Betty Curlett

“When Mars Daniel come home he went to my papa’s house and says, ‘John, you free.’ He says, ‘I been free as I wanter be whah I is.’ He went on to my grandpa’s house and says, ‘Toby, you are free!’ He raised up and says, ‘You brought me here frum Africa and North Carolina and I goiner stay wid you long as ever I get sompin to eat. You gotter look after me!’ Mars Daniel say, ‘Well, I ain’t runnin’ nobody off my place long as they behave.’ Purtnigh every nigger sot tight till he died of the old sets. Mars Daniel say to grandpa, ‘Toby, you ain’t my nigger.’ Grandpa raise up an’ say, ‘I is, too.’”[32]

Mrs. Cora Gillam

“if the rough element from the north had stayed out of the south the trouble of reconstruction would not happened…They tried to excite (incite) the colored against their white friends. The white folks was still kind to them what had been their slaves. They would have helped them get started. I know that. I always say that if the south could of been left to adjust itself, both white and colored would been better off.”[33]

Sam Word

“I never did care much for politics, but I’ve always been for the South. I love the Southland. Only thing I don’t like is they don’t give a square deal when it comes between the colored and the Whites. Ten years ago, I was worth $15,000 and now I’m not worth fifteen cents. The real estate men got the best of me. I’ve been blind now for four years and all my wife and I have is what we get from the Welfare.”[34]

James Gill

“all dem good times ceasted atter a while when de War come and de Yankees started all dere debbilment. Us was Confedrits all de while, leastwise I means my mammy an’ my pappy and me an’ all de res’ of de chillun ’cause ole mars was and Mars Jeff would er fit ’em too and me wid him iffen we had been ole enough…”But de Yankees, dey didn’ know dat we was Confedrits, dey jus’ reckon we like most all de res’ of de niggers. [What we are seeing is that they were like the rest but the Yankees tried to brainwash everyone into thinking the opposite of the truth.-DS]… When de Yankees ud come dey would ax my mammy, ‘Aunt Mary, is you seen any Se-cesh today?’ and mammy, she ud say ‘Naw suh’ eben iffen she had seen some of us mens, but when our sojers ud come and say, ‘Aunt Mary, is you seen ary Yankee ’round here recent?’ she ud allus tell dem de truf. Dey was a bunch of us sojers, dat is de Confedrits, what used to stay ’round in de community constant, dat we knowed, but dey allus had to be on de dodge ’cause dere was so many more Yankees dan dem.”[35]

Black Contributions in the “Cradle of Secession” by Brian Lee Merrill,

“When  the first shell crashed into Pinckney Street in the early morning on August 29th, 1863 and subsequently started a fire, the first fire company to arrive on the scene was composed of  free Black firefighters.  They battled the blaze all the while cursing the Federals.”[36]

The Mississippi Historical Society’s online publication Black Confederate Pensioners After the Civil War by James G. Hollandsworth Jr. states,

“Black southerners contributed to the Confederate war effort in four ways. First, as slaves, they provided the labor that fueled the Southern cotton economy and maintained the production of foodstuffs and other commodities. Second, slaves 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.”[37]

Here we have seen then, the familial love of the Southern whites and blacks, the hatred the Southern blacks bore to the Yankees, the subsequent voluntary military support for the South both by way of immediate fighting and also factory support of arms and also food.  All in all, I hope the preceding must have driven any honest supporter of the Union Army to the edge of insanity. I will be adding to this research in the weeks to come showing how the slaves often lived in their 90s and many to 100 years old. That does not sound like a life of oppression to me.


[Images] The top image is taken from The South was Right by the Kennedy’s. The caption reads: “A Mrs. Shelby of Vicksburg, Mississippi, with her former slaves. This photograph was taken circa 1885. It was not uncommon after the war for black and white families to stay together Many, as this photograph indicates, did so into old age. (Image courtesy of Old Court House Museum, Vicksburg, Mississippi)”.

The Second image of Black Confederates was also taken from the Kennedy’s book. The caption reads: “…(Image Courtesy of The Institute of Texas Cultures, San Antonio, Texas; Bruce Marshall, artist)”

[1]http://books.google.com/books?id=vzp9XWBsQtQC&pg=PA112&lpg=PA112&dq=%22but+at+the+north+I+do+not+remember%22&source=bl&ots=lmsU0L6nUd&sig=GT-WM8jDXCU5MRDbUln1f_a0m14&hl=en&sa=X&ei=E9UhUZXQDqjLyQGv1oCQCA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false, Page 112

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Slave Narratives: a Folk History of Slavery in the United States From Interviews with Former Slaves: Arkansas Narratives Part 3: http://archive.org/stream/slavenarrativesa19446gut/19446.txt

[7] Slave Narratives: a Folk History of Slavery in the United States From Interviews with Former Slaves: Alabama Narratives Part 2, pg. 196-200

[8] Ibid., Part 1, pg. 224-226

[9] Slave Narratives, Virginia Narratives: http://archive.org/stream/slavenarrativesa28973gut/28973.txt

[10] Slave Narratives, Mississippi Narratives: http://archive.org/stream/slavenarrativesa12055gut/12055.txt

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Slave Narratives, Georgia Narratives, Part 1: http://archive.org/stream/slavenarrativesa13602gut/13602.txt

[21] See John Jasper: The Unmatched Negro Philosopher and Preacher by William E. Hatcher: http://archive.org/stream/johnjasperunmatc00hatciala#page/n7/mode/2up

[22] http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/black-confederates

[29]Slave Narratives: Alabama Narratives Part 1: http://archive.org/stream/slavenarrativesa36020gut/36020-0.txt

[30] Ibid.

[31] Slave Narratives, Arkansas Narratives Part 1: http://archive.org/stream/slavenarrativesa11255gut/11255.txt

[36] FN: “The Siege of Charleston 1861-1865, E. Milby Burton,  page 252”: http://www.scvcamp38.org/files/Black_Contributions.pdf

The End of the Antebellum South; The Mother of All American Conspiracies Part 5; On the Treatment of Blacks in the South; White Perspective. Sunday, Feb 24 2013 

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.[1] This brings us to the Philosophy of Ethics.

Dr. Clark defines Ethics as “the study of right and wrong, of the most desirable manner of life, and of the most worthy motivation.”[2]

There are three primary theories of ethics: Teleological Ethics, Ateleological Ethics and Revealed Ethics, i.e. Religion.

Teleological Ethics

Teleological Ethics asserts that the morality of an act is dependent on its purpose. An act is virtuous if it is a means to that end. Clark objects,

“At the outset someone might object that this type of theory is not worthwhile discussing because it is false. The moral value of an act cannot be judged by its consequences for the reason that the agent cannot control them. A man may have the best intentions and he may do what is right, and yet through some accidental, unforeseen circumstance, the consequences are unhappy. For example, he might make a generous donation to a charitable organization that has been highly recommended to him. But because of some recent change in the board of directors or for some other reason of which the donor is unaware, the money is used foolishly or even wickedly. Does this unforeseen consequence make the donation evil? Should not its moral value depend on the intention of the donor and not on the consequences of the act? Or, conversely, a wicked man may intend to do harm, but for similar reasons the results turn out to be good. Do not motives, the objector asks, bear on moral values as much as or even more than consequences do?…There is a second preliminary objection to teleological ethics…Far from being a theory of morality, one might declare it a theory of immorality. For, it will be said, if we decide on the basis of consequences, and if virtue is only a means, then this theory is reduced to the execrable position that the end justifies the means. And is there anything more vile than this principle-a principle that has justified the worst crimes in history?…The Roman Catholics wanted to rid France of the Protestants, and the massacre accomplished this end.”[3]

One form of Teleological Ethics is the ethical theory called Psychological Hedonism. This theory asserts that the Good is pleasure. On this view all people always desire pleasure and nothing else but pleasure. This theory is an illusion. Will the Psychological Hedonists refuse bitter medicine or a discomforting trip to the dentist to cure their ailment? Will they not suffer the pains of employment? All these do not give pleasure at the moment. If not an immediate pleasure, maybe then all people always desire or act towards a future pleasure. Clark objects,

“There are many evidences that this is not true. A drunkard may know that guzzling his liquor will make him sick and give him a headache, but he guzzles. He desires the immediate pleasure and sacrifices the pleasure of tomorrow.”[4]

The difficulties continue for secular theories because it can never be determined how a good desire is distinguished from a bad desire. And finally, the definition of pleasure as sensation falls prey to the hundreds of criticisms Clark has made to the entire endeavor of Empiricism.

Another form of Teleological Ethics is the ethical theory called Utilitarianism. This is the ethical theory that affirms that the proper moral action is one that produces the overall happiness for the greatest number. This has been the ethic of many tyrannical nations. The execution and torture of the inferior race gives pleasure to the superior race therefore it is the right thing to do. This theory also caters to totalitarians systems. In utilitarianism, the individual must sacrifice his own interests for the interests of the whole or the state.  Clark summarizes the problem with teleological theories:

“It would be necessary to know not merely the immediate results of a given choice, but the more remote, and the still more remote into an indefinite future. It would be necessary to know the effects of the proposed action on every individual who might possibly be involved. And all these effects in their various degrees would have to be balanced against the same calculations made for each of the other proposed policies. Only after all these calculations had been completed could it be said that such and such ought to be done. But obviously these calculations cannot be completed. Therefore, a teleological system cannot conclude that one action rather than another is a moral obligation.”[5]

 

Ateleological Ethics

This theory of Ethics denies that moral excellence is found in its purpose or that a certain act is a means to a good end.   This theory affirms that morality is found in the act itself irrespective of its consequences. The primary proponent of this view was Immanuel Kant. Kant’s construction is based on logical consistency. Immoral action is logically fallacious and self deceiving. This is a replacement of Teleogy’s theory that morality is based in consequence. Clark says,

“Truth telling is right, so Kant argued, because everyone can tell the truth without any logical impossibility arising in the total situation, while lying is wrong because it is logically impossible for everyone to tell lies. But what about suicide? Of course, Kant believed that suicide is wrong. But is it not logically possible for me to commit suicide and at the same time to will that everyone else should commit suicide? If I will to break a promise, I desire to make myself a exception. I want other people to keep their promises to me; I want faithfulness to be universal, with myself an exception. Because of such an exception, argues Kant, the act contemplated is immoral. But no such exception is logically necessary in the case of suicide. I may believe, without contradicting myself, that life is evil, that suicide is the solution, and that everyone ought to commit suicide.”[6]

This system of ethics is strenuously against the idea of incentive because man should perform moral actions because they are good actions, not to gain a reward. This is where Christian revealed ethics improves.

Revealed Ethics

Revealed ethics avoid all the problems of secular theories. The omniscient creator of the universe knows all the consequences of an action. His commands are universal. Natural law, universal ethical norms, cannot be deduced or induced from sensation. Sensation would tell us there are no norms for Heraclitus proved that all physical objects are in constant flux, so a fixed norm would ipso facto be impossible. Secondly, induction is a formal fallacy.

Also, the authority of their obligation is unquestioned. Thus saith the Lord is how we know these commands are right and good.  Moreover, the Christian view gives man promises of reward for obediance, and a purpose to live and to continue human society, while secular theories can give us no reason to believe life is even worth living.

Not every command in the scripture is easy to understand. However, that does not eliminate the possibility of knowing right from wrong in some cases. The other theories cannot even get off the ground. The summary of the Protestant Christian theory of ethics is found in the Westminster Larger Catechism questions 98 to 148.[7] This theory is based on the Calvinist understanding of the continuity of God’s moral law. I would suggest to the reader, Anthony Burgess’ Vindiciae Legis : or, A Vindication of the Moral Law and the Covenants, from the Errors of Papists, Arminians, Socinians, and more especially, Antinomians (1647) which is a series of thirty lectures preached in London during the Westminster Assembly.

Before the Yankee replies let him take into consideration some statements and questions:

1. The Slave trade was originally forced on us. What else were we supposed to do that we didn’t do? 

2. What were we supposed to do with them? These people were brought to our shores, starving and desperate to get out of the hands of the slave merchants. They begged us to but them. What were we supposed to do? Let them go? They had no property, no weapons, and the Indians would have slaughtered them in the wilderness. We couldn’t send them all back to Africa. For one that would have cost a fortune and secondly, Africa was full of armies who would round up these people and put them right back into the slave trade.

3. How would you have handled a savage, uneducated people better than we did? These people were not like the modern day educated black people  They were savage, pagan, immoral people, and given the circumstances it was the best practical option. Educated and civilized people can progress as free laborers more efficiently than being a slave. Uncivilized people progress as slaves of Christian freeman more efficiently than being free as Southern slaves themselves admitted and Fogel demonstrated.

4. The process was to civilize these people and in process of time emancipate a reformed and enlightened race. How else should we have gone about this?

5. Given the circumstances we did an awesome job with the cards we were dealt.

I have provided the Biblical Basis for slavery (The institution, not the trade) in its substance, in these articles:

Alexander Mcleod’s Negro Slavery Unjustifiable Reviewed

A Defence of Virginia by Robert Lewis Dabney as an Examination of my Article on Mcleod’s Negro Slavery Unjustifiable and Contemporary Anti-White Propaganda

John Robbins’ Slavery and Christianity Refuted; Part 1

John Robbins’ Slavery and Christianity Refuted; Part 2

Robert Lewis Dabney Refutes the Abolitionist Appeal to the Golden Rule

In slavery’s  modes and circumstances in the South we see according to Robert Fogel’s Time on the Cross, “Data in the 1850 census suggest that the economic condition of the average free northern Negro may have been worse than that of the average free negro in the South.”[8] And again, “The material (not psychological) conditions of the lives of slaves compared favorably with those of free industrial workers.”[9] And again, “U.S. Slaves had much longer life expectations than free urban industrial workers in both the United States and Europe.”[10]

That has got to be devastating to any modern Communist critic of the South. Absolutely devastating. Any honest consideration of these facts must shake him to the very core of his being. He will be faced with a conspiracy and a deceit so monumental, that it may be too overwhelming for him to come to terms with.

With reference to the treatment of slaves in the South I have written an introduction entitled:

Boycott Django in Kentucky; Jamie Foxx’s Attempt at Race War Exposed in His Recent Movie.

I will catalog a number of myths regarding Southern slavery and in my next article I will give attention to what the slaves themselves had to say about the South.

Walter Kennedy catalogs 8 Yankee myths surrounding Slavery: [11]

1. Slavery was an institution operated by white people for the oppression of black people.

As we have seen, the slave trade was performed by the Yankees and the slave institution was forced onto us by the Yankee trade via King George and the Royal African Company. Having established this system as a necessity, later Southerners did voluntarily seek after slaves lawfully and provided the blacks the best system of slavery ever known.

2. Slavery was a system organized by Christians

As we have seen,[12] the slave trade was first enacted by the Muslim nations and then enacted in white European Christian nations by that anti-Christian Vatican. The Protestant nations resisted it and only complied with it when their government was controlled by Jesuits. We also saw that the slave trade was ended by White Protestant Christians. Not Catholics; Not Muslims; Not Atheists.

3. Slavery was a Southern Institution.

The Slave trade was a Yankee institution and the North also owned slaves many years after the Civil War.[13]

4. Slavery was a self-evident sin, and so recognized by the Christian Church.

Dabney showed that slavery, in substance, is an integral part of the Biblical social structure[14] and I showed that it is a necessary aspect of the story of redemption.[15] Abraham himself had many slaves and he is referred to as the Father of us all in Rom. 4:16. To condemn slave owners is to condemn all the Abrahamic religions. Moreover, as we have seen from the history of the last 160 years, Communists (Yes if you believe in universal equality you are a Communist) have no basis whatsoever to lecture anyone on morality. Their regimes have been responsible for the greatest massacres in the history of mankind, [16] and they are behind the greatest of all recent massacres, the 50 million+ children murdered by abortion since Roe V. Wade. No, no, no; these people are not qualified to lecture ANYONE on morality.
5. Slavery only existed in the North for a very short time and had little economic effect.

Slavery began in the 17th century in New England, lasted until the late 19th century, and laid the foundations for New England wealth. Moreover, as we shall see in a later post on the real purpose behind the Civil War, the Southern Slave-produced cotton exports were the backbone of Revenue for the North years after the Northern States had supposedly emancipated their own slaves.

6. The North ended slavery because it was offensive to the moral character of Northerners

It was actually the South that had the first and most numerous slave abolitionist societies. The first was the American Colonization Society of 1816-1817.[17] They worked for the separate nationhood of the American blacks in the establishment of Liberia and Monrovia. And as I have shown, the South was first to attempt to make the slave trade illegal, and were the first in the world to succeed.[18] The Yankees hated black people and could care less about their benefit.[19] Abolition was an angle used to gain economic and political advantage over the South.
7. The North offered the black man equality and brotherhood

As I have shown and will continue to show with my next post, the opposite was the case.[20] The South had an intimate and familial relationship with the black slaves; and so far from segregation, the majority of the white Southern slave owners, the non aristocratic slave owners who only owned one to a few families, worked shoulder to shoulder with their black people.

8. Racial discrimination and/or segregation is a legacy of Southern slavery.

How a Yankee abolitionist is going to figure that the Slave system was segregation is beyond me. The blacks lived with the whites they worked for. Sometimes they had their own houses but they lived on the same land and worked right along-side the white people. Many have an image of Southern slavery as the Aristocratic Plantation where hundreds of blacks are laboring in the Sun while the rich white man sits in his living room glorying in his gluttony. Yet 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. ”[21]

Now it is true that the white man had a franchisement superior to that of the blacks, but that is not condemned in the word of God. In fact the superior franchisement of the National citizen is the rule of the Old Testament law and I showed that in my The Curse of Women’s Rights and Universal Suffrage.[22] The Israelites had a superior franchisement to any gentile living among them. Now the Gentile immigrants had equality under the law but not an equality of franchisement.

Another popular myth that survives today is that the lives of modern African-Americans have been irreparably damaged by slavery, and therefore the government should provide endless entitlements and reparations to the black population. This little myth is exposed by the fact that first, from the testimony of black slaves themselves (See Pet Franks quote below), abolition was the first piece of legislation to economically destroy blacks (Yes I’m serious; I’m not F****** kidding you). Second,  Integration has been the most influential legislation in removing the wealthy and educated blacks from the black communities, and has left them to be ruled by gangs and drug dealers. Thirdly, there were tens of thousands of free blacks in each state and there were thousands of 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.”[23]

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.[24] Woodson 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.

Fourthly, the record shows that the physical and spiritual well being of blacks diminishes the further away from Southern slavery we drift. The black slaves admitted this.

Former Mississippi slave Pet Franks says,

“I knows all ’bout slav’ry an’ de war. I was right dere on de spot when it all happened. I wish to goodness I was back dere now, not in de war, but in de slav’ry times. Niggers where I lived didn’ have nothin’ to worry ’bout in dem days. Dey aint got no sense now-a-days. All dey b’lieves in now is drinkin’ an’ carousin’. Dey aint got no use for nothin’ but a little corn likker an’ a fight. I dont b’lieve in no such gwine-on, no sir-ree. Dat’s de reason I stays out here by myse’f all de

time. I don’t want to have nothin’ to do wid ’em. I goes to town ’bout once a mont’ to git s’pplies, but I don’ never fool ‘roun’ wid dem Niggers den. I gits ‘long wid my white folks, too. All da mens an’ wimmens what comes out to de club is pow’ful good to me.

“I was born up near Bartley’s Ferry right on de river. De way I cal’clates my age makes me ’bout 92 years old. My firs’ Marster was name Mr. Harry Allen. He died when I was a boy an’ I don’t ‘member much ’bout him. De Mistis, dat was his wife, married ag’in an’ dat husband’s name was Marse Jimmy Tatum. Dey was sho’ good white folks…I guess Niggers lak dat wished dey was free, but I didn’ want to leave my white folks, ever.”[25]

That has to be two of the most horrifying paragraphs Yankee-Anti-White Communists have ever read. The black social order is destroyed. The blacks are killing themselves off in record rates.  Yet our Southern system was the cruel one? No, no, the Yankee system is the cruel one.

Another popular myth is that the blacks received no wages for their work. This is absurd and an issue that Fogel speak to in great detail in Time on the Cross and which Dabney spoke to as well. The slaves had everything they needed for life. They were given food, shelter, health care, and retirement. They wanted for nothing as Pet Franks attested to above. Moreover, Dabney speaks in detail to the way our system in Virginia operated:

“A given landholder was, under our beneficent system, a slaveholder. He employed ten labourers; and for them and their families he reserved four hundred bushels of grain in his garners, which their labour and his capital jointly had produced. This grain is worth to him wholesale prices; and it is distributed by him to his servants, throughout the year, without charge. It is, in fact, a part of the virtual wages of their labour; and they get it at the wholesale price. But now, abolition comes: these ten labourers become freemen and householders. They now work the same lands, for the same proprietor; and instead of drawing their wages in the form of a generous subsistence at wholesale prices, they draw money. [Notice the banking interest being introduced. The Jesuits love Commerce!-DS] Out of that money they and their families must be maintained. One result is, that the landholder now has a surplus of four hundred bushels more than before. Of course it goes to the corn-merchant. And there must these labourers go, with their money wages, to buy this same corn, at the enhanced retail price. [Thus more commerce means more tax. Can you smell the Jesuits yet reader?-DS] They get less for their labour. The local merchant, thus unnecessarily invited in, sucks a greedy profit; a vain show of trading activity is made in the community; and all the really producing classes are made actually poorer; while this unproductive consumer, the unnecessary retail trader, congratulates himself on his mischievous prosperity. It is most obvious, that when the advocate of the hireling system attempts to reply to this, by saying that his system has opened a place for an additional branch of industry, that of enlarged traffic, he is preposterous. The answer is, that the additional industry is a loss: it is unproductive. [HUGE. The Yankee idea is more industry means better economy. Not so!-DS] As reasonably might one argue that crime is promotive of publick prosperity, by opening up a new branch of remunerative industry,—that of police and jailors, (a well-paid class !)…

By the census of 1860, while the population of the Free. States was not quite nineteen millions, their total of assessed values, real and personal, was $6,541,000,000: being three hundred and forty-six ($346) dollars to each soul. The free white population of the South was a little more than eight and a quarter millions, and our total of assessed values was $5,465,-808,000 : being six hundred and sixty ($660) dollars to each soul; nearly double the wealth of the North. But if the four millions of Africans in the South be added, our people still have four hundred and forty-seven ($447) dollars of value for each soul, black and white.”[26]

This kind of treatment is not afforded highly educated white people in modern day corporations! So much for the nonsense that the slaves ate only the leftovers of their master.

With the Yankee system came an inherently larger government and a larger and more powerful corporate influence. We warned that this was the plot behind abolition and the so-called Civil War. We told you what was going to happen and to all you Yankee Communists who complain about the Cartel Capitalists: I do not have a bit of sympathy for you. You got exactly what you wanted.

Now another Yankee myth of Southern Slavery is the Underground Railroad. Larry Gara wrote a helpful book The Liberty Line, The Legend of the Underground Railroad (The University of Kentucky Press: Lexington, KY, 1961, Preface 1996). We read,

“After examining the traditional sources, I concluded that the underground railroad legend was a mixture of fact and fiction. Research for most earlier histories had relied on memoirs of white abolitionists…Recent scholars have begun to question the traditional stories, some of which are too fantastic to be taken seriously…In 1991 Byron Freuhling, a graduate student in archaeology at the University of Akron, conducted an archaeological search of seventeen Ohio houses said to have been connected with the underground railroad. His conclusion was that none of the homes he examined had contained tunnels or secret places of concealment. ‘If such constructions existed at all, they must be extremely rare,’ he wrote. ”[27]

Have we caught the Yankee abolitionists lying again? Oh, but just wait for the next couple articles reader. You haven’t seen anything yet. We are about to break open the slave narratives and get their opinion on what really happened in the South during slavery. These could be the most terrifying books an abolitionist will ever read. These may be the most dangerous books in circulation in America. It is in my judgment that if the contents of these books were known to the general population, we would have a revolution in the South.

As a post-script, when a Yankee introduces you to a photograph of slaves whose living conditions look oppressive, check to see the historical context. Yankees like to take examples from Post-Rape-Pillage-and Murder-Civil War-Impoverished-Reconstruction era and try to make a case that those conditions were indicative of the Antebellum South. Watch out for that.


[2] Essays on Ethics and Politics, pg. 50

[3] Gordon Clark, Christian View of Men and Things, pg. 114-115

[4] Ibid. 118

[5] Ibid., 124-125

[6] Ibid., 129-130

[7] However, I would warn the reader that I believe that the Sabbath is to be observed  on Saturday not Sunday.

[9] Pg. 5

[10] Pg. 126

[11] Walter Kennedy, Myths of American Slavery (Pelican Publishing Company: Gretna, 2003), 10-11

[25] Slave Narratives, Mississippi Narratives: http://archive.org/stream/slavenarrativesa12055gut/12055.txt

[26] Dabney, Defence of Virginia, 330-331

The End of the Antebellum South; The Mother of All American Conspiracies Part 4; On the Yankee Treatment of Blacks Saturday, Feb 23 2013 

250px-Slave_kidnap_post_1851_bostonThe first Yankee myth that needs to be exposed is the myth that the Yankees were not slave owners. It will be shown that they were slave holders and the only reason they abolished slavery was because a free labor force was available to replace them and emancipation was an angle for the North to demonize the South.

Aside from the facts already cataloged about northern slavery seen here, according to TABLE  V, PATTERN OF SLAVE AND SERVANT OWNERSHIP IN  PHILADELPHIA IN  1767, Philadelphia had 521 slave owners.[1]

And contrary to another popular myth, the Quakers did own slaves,

“And  among the slaveowners identified in the 1769 assessors’ reports are the names of at least seven Quakers who had not owned  slaves two  years before. The  evidence  is  substantial, then,  that when faced with  a direct choice between forgoing the human labor they  needed  or  ignoring  the  principles enunciated by  their  leaders and  officially sanctioned by the Society through its Quarterly and Yearly Meetings,  the  rank and file of  Philadelphia Friends  chose the latter course. More  than twenty years of  abolitionist campaigning by men such as Woolman and Benezet, and the increasing commitment of the Society of Friends to  ending  slavery, culminating in  the  decisions of  I758,  failed to  stem the influx of slave labor into Philadelphia, to bring about more than a handful  of  manumissions, or  even  to  prevent an  increase in  slaveownership among Quakers. Not  until about I764, by which time white bound labor had  become  as  available as  before the  war,  did  Quakers stop  buying slaves; and not  until  the  eve  of  the  American Revolution was  the  ideological commitment  of  the  Quaker leadership able to  prevail over the membership at large in  the matter of manumission.” [2]

The only reason they got rid of slavery is because slavery’s use had expired. Walter Kennedy states,

“The scope of the practice of African slavery in the north can be gauged by the number of slaves in each Northern state in 1790. It should be noted that by this time the supply of free white laborers was more than adequate to meet the needs of the Northern states.”[3]

Now to the abolition of slavery in the North: Northern law never gave freedom to a person who was a slave.

Dabney says in Defence of Virginia,

“in the words of the Hon. A. H. H. Stuart of Virginia, in his Report to the General Assembly, as chairman of its joint committee on the Harper’s Ferry outrages. He says[4]:… No law can be found on the statute-book of any NorthernState, which conferred the boon of freedom on a single slave in being. All who were slaves remained slaves. Freedom was secured only to the children of slaves, born after the days designated in the laws; and it was secured to them only in the contingency that the owner of the female slave should retain her within the jurisdiction of the State until after the child was born. To secure freedom to the afterborn child, therefore, it was necessary that the consent of the master, indicated, by his permitting the mother to remain in the State, should be superadded to the provisions of the law. Without such consent, the law would have been inoperative, because the mother, before the birth of the child, might, at the will of the master, be removed beyond the jurisdiction of the law. There was no legal prohibition of such removal, for such a prohibition would have been at war with the policy of the law, which was obviously- removal, and not emancipation. The effect of this legislation was, as might have readily been foreseen, to induce the owners of female slaves to sell them to the planters of the South, before the time arrived when the forfeiture of the offspring would accrue. By these laws, a wholesale slave trade was inaugurated, under which a large proportion of the slaves of the Northern States were sold to persons residing south of Pennsylvania; and it is an unquestionable fact that a large number of the slaves of

the Southern States are the descendants of those sold by Northern men to citizens of the South, with covenants of general warranty of title to them and to their increase,” Thus wrote Mr. Stuart, after thorough research. A brief recital of the enactments of the Northern slaveholding States will show that his general representation is correct. We begin with Massachusetts. No law against slavery, (which had been long legally established in the colony,) was ever passed by her legislature [Moore, Slavery in Mass., p. 242.]; and in that sense, the right to hold slaves may be said to have formally existed, until it was extinguished by her adoption of the “constitutional amendment,” in 1866!

Practically, slavery was gradually removed after 1780, by the current of the legal decisions against it, grounded upon a clause in the new bill of rights, adopted by the State in that year. This clause asserted, nearly in the words of the Declaration of Independence, the native equality and liberty of men…That the Massachusetts statesmen who adopted the same proposition in the Declaration of Independence, never dreamed of its possessing any force to abolish slavery in the United States which set it forth: That the convention which drew up the bill of rights for Massachusetts did not think of such an application; That this document declared “no part of any citizen’s property could be taken from him without his own consent:” That slaves continued to be bought and sold, and advertised as before; And that the abolitionists, still in the minority, continued after 1780 to remonstrate against slavery as a sin still legalized. But such a mode of determining the question was well adapted to the meddlesome and crooked temper of that people. By this judicial trick the envious non-slaveholders were enabled to attack their richer slaveholding neighbours, and render them so uneasy as to insure their disposing of their slaves; while still there was neither law nor publick opinion prevalent enough to procure a legal act of emancipation.

New Hampshire and Vermont embodied the principle of prospective emancipation in their new constitutions. In 1790 there were 158 slaves in New Hampshire. In 1840 there was still one! Rhode Island passed a law in 1784, that no person born after that year should continue a slave. Connecticut embodied in the revision of her laws, in 1784, a law providing that all children born of slave parents after March 1st of that year, should be free at twenty-five years of age. In 1797 the term of servitude was reduced to twenty-one years for all born after August 1st of that year. Slavery was not actually abolished by law until June 12th, 1848; when the census shows there were no fewer than seventeen slaves in the State; and how old and worthless they must have been, appears from the fact that the youngest of them must have been born before March 1st, 1784.

In New York, the laws for slaves were more severe than in the Southern States, and the African slave trade was zealously encouraged during the whole colonial period. The slave could not testify, even to exculpate a slave. Three justices, with a sort of jury of five freeholders, could try capitally, and inflict any sentence, inclusive of burning alive [Chancellor Kent] It was not until 1799 that the State commenced a system of laws for the gradual abolition of slavery. Every slave child born after July 4th of that year was to be free, the males after twenty-eight, and the females after twenty-five years. In 1810, the benefit of freedom was also extended to those born before July 4th, 1799, to take effect July 4th, 1821, the date at which the earliest born of those freed by previous law reached their majority of twenty-eight years. Still the census of 1830 found 15 slaves! The Revised Statutes of New York, after 1811, provided a penalty for those carrying them out of the State for sale; showing that the tendency to do so existed. In New Jersey, the first act looking towards prospective emancipation was adopted in 1784. By it all born after 1804 were to be free in 1820. It was not until  1820 that action was taken to give effect to this promise ; and then the nature of the law was such as to postpone the hopes of the slaves. The first section of the law of February 24th, 1820, says: ” Every child born of a slave within this State since the 4th day of July 1804, or which shall hereafter be born as aforesaid, shall be free ; but shall remain the servant of the owner of his or her mother, and the executors, administrators and assigns of such owners, in the same manner as if such child had been bound to service by the Trustees or Overseers of the poor, and shall continue in such service, if a male until the age of twenty-five years, and if a female until the age of twenty-one years.” It was within the scope of possibility that slave women whom this law left slaves for life might bear children as late as the year 1848: whence bondage would not have been terminated wholly by it until 1813.

New Jersey had 236 slaves for life in 1850. It is stated by one of the best informed of her old citizens, that the prospective effect of these enactments was to cause a considerable exodus to Southern markets; and that when a boy, he heard much talk of the sale of negroes, and the sending of them to “the Natchez,” and was cognizant of the continual apprehension of the negroes concerning the danger.

In Pennsylvania, emancipation was also prospective and gradual. Her first act was passed March 1st, 1780. The rate at which it operated may be seen from these figures: In 1776 she had about 10,000 slaves; in 1790, (ten years after her first act,) she had 3,737; in 1800, 1,706 ; in 1810, 795; in 1820, 211; in 1830, 403; and in 1840, 64 slaves.

Thus, the emancipation legislation of the Northern States has been reviewed, and the assertions of the Hon. Mr. Stuart substantially sustained. That Northern emancipation was prompted by no consideration for the supposed rights of Africans, but by regard to their own interests, is evinced by many facts. Of these, perhaps the most general and striking is the persistentneglect of the welfare of their emancipated slaves;the refusal to give them equal civic rights, until theyfound a motive for doing so in malice against the South;and the shocking decadence, vice and misery to which- a nominal liberty, according to the testimony of Northern writers, has consigned their wretched free blacks. [5]

Now to the so-called equality and suffrage afforded the blacks in the North. It will be shown that the idea that Yankees believed in equality and in the enfranchisement of blacks in the North and the liberation of the blacks in the South during the civil war to be yet another Yankee myth. It will be shown that the Yankees despised the blacks and only used them to disenfranchise the South.

Alice Williamson Diary,

“May 2nd A reg. of East Tenneseans [Unionists-DS] have come to hold this Post. They are the meanest men I ever saw; but they have one good trait they make the negroes ‘walk a chalk’

May 3rd The East Tenneseans burnt a school hous last night it was a contraband school.[6] They say they will have none of that while they stay here.

May 4th The soldiers are behaving very well I do not suppose the negroes think so though they threatened to burn the old tavern last night (that like every thing else is filled with contrabands.) but the citizens told them if they did Gallatin would burn; they let it alone but say if they get up a school in it they will burn it and G. may go to H___”[7]

Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts (1866) by George Henry Moore,

“The Massachusetts Law,entitled “An act for suppressing and punishing of Rogues, Vagabonds, common Beggars, and other idle, disorderly, and lewd Persons” was presented in the Senate on the 6th of March, 1788. It went through the usual stages of legislation, with various amendments, and was finally passed on the 26th of March, 1788. It contains the following very remarkable provision:

“V. Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid [the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled], that no person being an African or Negro, other than a subject of the Emperor of Morocco, or a citizen of some one of the United States (to be evidenced by a certificate from the Secretary of the State of which he shall be a citizen), shall tarry within this Commonwealth, for a longer time than two months, and upon complaint made to any Justice of the Peace within this Commonwealth, that any such person has been within the same more than two months, the said Justice shall order the said person to depart out of this Commonwealth, and in case that the said African or Negro shall not depart as aforesaid, any Justice of the Peace within this Commonwealth, upon complaint and proof made that such person has continued within this Commonwealth ten days after notice given him or her to depart as aforesaid, shall commit the said person to any house of correction within the county, there to be kept to hard labour, agreeable to the rules and orders of the said house, until the Sessions of the Peace, next to be holden within and for the said county; and the master of the said house of correction is hereby required and directed to transmit an attested copy of the warrant of commitment to the said Court on the first day of their said session, and if upon trial at the said Court, it shall be made to appear that the said person has thus continued within the Commonwealth, contrary to the tenor of this act, he or she shall be whipped not exceeding ten stripes, and ordered to depart out of this Commonwealth within ten days; and if he or she shall not so depart, the same process shall be had and punishment inflicted, and so toties quoties.”[8]

Indiana’s Constitution of 1851, Article 13 – “Negroes and Mulattoes” states,

Section 1. No negro or mulatto shall come into or settle in the State, after the adoption of this Constitution.

Section 2. All contracts made with any Negro or Mulatto coming into the State, contrary to the provisions of the foregoing section, shall be void; and any person who shall employ such Negro or Mulatto, or otherwise encourage him to remain in the State, shall be fined in any sum not less than ten dollars, nor more than five hundred dollars.

Section 3. All fines which may be collected for a violation of the provisions of this article, or of any law which ay hereafter be passed for the purpose of carrying the same into execution, shall be set apart and appropriated for the colonization of such Negroes and Mulattoes, and their descendants, as may be in the State at the adoption of this Constitution, and may be willing to emigrate.

Section 4. The General Assembly shall pass laws to carry out the provisions of this article.[9]

The State of Illinois in its Statutes of Illinois, 1853, passed “An Acts to Prevent the immigration of Free Negroes into the State.”[10] And again,

 “At the Constitutional convention held in Springfield in 1862, an article referring to negroes and numbered XVIII. Was added on march 5 to the proposed Constitution. It reads as follows:

Sec. I. No Negro or MULATTO SHALL MIGRATE OR SETTLE IN THIS State, after the adoption of this Constitution.”[11]

Edgar J. McManus in his Black Bondage in the North pointed out on page 184 of his work that many Northern States had barred blacks from voting: New Jersey in 1807, Connecticut in 1814, Rhode Island in 1822 and Pennsylvania in 1838.

James Albert Hamilton in his Negro Suffrage and Congressional Representation pointed out that Ohio defeated Negro suffrage in 1867.[12]

Poison Vaccines and The LA Sugar House Incident by Brian E. Orger, (Which is quite a fascinating look into the Yankee attitude towards blacks), tells of Dr. George Hill,

“In the summer of 1863 another civilian doctor by the name of George Hill witnessed the Union army occupy what is today called Morgan City, at that time called Brasher. An event took place here, the likes of which would not be seen again until Hitler and the Nazis started their “final solution.”

Dr. Hill was reported as being “a distinguished physician and surgeon of Opelousas.” But all his years as a doctor did not prepare him for what he saw.

“In the summer of 1863, Berwick’s Bay and a portion of the Lafourche country were taken possession of by the Confederate army. I, with many others who had lost property by the raid which the Federal army made between the 20th of April and the 20th of May of this year, visited the Bay for the purpose of recovering our property. I was among the first to cross the bay; and having been informed on the night of my arrival by a gentleman named March that several of my lost Negroes were at the sugar house of Dr. Sanders (Henry Sanders), and that others were there in a dying condition, I [left] in the morning [for the] sugar house of Dr. S. and entered it by a door in the west end.

[Original sentence says: I, in the morning as soon as sugar house of Dr. S. and entered it by a door in the west end.] –ed

The scene which then and there presented itself can never be effaced from my memory. On the right hand, female corpses in a state of nudity, and also in a far advanced stage of decomposition. Many others were lying all over the floor, many speechless and in a dying condition.

“All appeared to have died of the same disease : bloody flux. The floor was slippery with blood, mucus and feces. The dying, and all those unable to help themselves, were lying with their scanty garments rolled around their heads and breasts – the lower part of the body naked – and every time an involuntary discharge of blood and feces, combined with air, would pass, making a slight noise, clouds of flies, such as I never saw before, would immediately rise and settle down again on all the exposed parts of the dying. In passing through the house a cold chill shook my frame, from which I did not recover for several months, and, indeed, it came near costing my life.

“As I passed from the house I met with a Negro man of my own, who informed me that he had lost his wife and two children. I asked him if his friends – the Yankees – had not furnished him with medicine. He said, ‘No, and if they had, I would not have given it to my family as all who took their medicine died in twelve hours from the time of its being given.”[13]

Susan Dabney Smedes tells of the Union treatment of blacks in Mississippi in her Memorials of a Southern Planter,

 “Papa had taken off his two fine imported rifles. He left a number of others of less value behind, the sporting guns of his sons. There were eleven of them in the hall. The Federals took them all out and broke them against two young water-oaks that had been set out that spring. It killed the two trees…One day they got more angry than usual, and sworo with many oaths that they meant to shoot the overseer. They were drunk enough to do it. They gave him five minutes to prepare for death. The man was no coward. He said simply, “God will be merciful to my soul. He knows that I am taken suddenly in my sins. My poor wife and children!” He closed his eyes for a few minutes in prayer, and then said, “I am ready.” …They had taken all the money from every negro on the plantation. Uncle Isaac had buried eighty dollars in gold,—the savings of years. This he was made to unearth. He had lately bought a new silver watch, for which he had paid forty dollars. This was taken from him. Uncle Isaac was not a special favorite with his master, but he had been his playfellow in babyhood and boyhood. Partly for this reason, and partly because he was the master’s own age, sixty-three years, and had been for years afflicted with incurable lameness, Thomas Dabney made him a present of a pair of his old carriage horses. Uncle Isaac was a preacher, and the horses were intended to give him ease and comfort in going about and in ploughing his own little patch. These horses ho sold to a stage-driver for fifty dollars. His master was disgusted, as he had not wished the horses to do hard work.”[14]

And to conclude with another famous piece of Yankee deceit, the Emancipation Proclamation, proclaimed all slaves in Confederate territory to be forever free. This was not for the benefit of black people, but was a war strategy to cause slave rebellion in the South, to create a two front war for the South to manage.


[IMAGE] The above image is a poster pertaining to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850

[1]Slaves and Slaveowners  in Colonial Philadelphia by Gary B. Nash: http://catotheyounger.org/academics/courses/PSC442_542/literature/Class_003_01February2011/007_SlaveryintheNorth/Nash_SlavesAndSlaveownersInColonialPhiladelphia.pdf, 244

[3] Myths, pg. 53

[6] Cisco states this was a school for black children. Pg. 175

The End of the Antebellum South; The Mother of All American Conspiracies Part 3; The Yankee Attitude Towards the Black Man Saturday, Feb 23 2013 

Before I consider the actions taken by Yankees against blacks I want to expose the underlying attitude that Yankees had against blacks so as to not be accused of misrepresentation. To begin, I want to expose the chief Yankee: Abraham Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln said in the Lincoln Douglas Debates[1], Fourth Joint Debate,

 “I will say that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. And I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”[2]

Moreover, Abraham Lincoln was not concerned about ending slavery out of some moral virtue but preserving the union and introducing us to federal citizenship. In his 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.”[3]

The infamous Yankee General Sherman said,

 “I like niggers well enough as niggers, but when fools and idiots try and make niggers better than ourselves, I have an opinion.”[4]

Lincoln agreed with him. From Lincoln’s Speech on the Repeal of the Missouri Compromise Speech at Peoria, Illinois October 16, 1854,

“Free them, and make them politically and socially, our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of  white people will not.”[5]

Alexis de Tocqueville says in Democracy In America, 1831 Chapter XVIII: Future Condition Of Three Races In The United States – Part I says,

“I see that in a certain portion of the territory of the United States at the present day, the legal barrier which separated the two races is tending to fall away, but not that which exists in the manners of the country; slavery recedes, but the prejudice to which it has given birth remains stationary. Whosoever has inhabited the United States must have perceived that in those parts of the Union in which the negroes are no longer slaves, they have in no wise drawn nearer to the whites. On the contrary, the prejudice of the race appears to be stronger in the States which have abolished slavery, than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those States where servitude has never been known.”[6]

David Wilmot, The United States House of Representatives, 1848,

“I plead the cause and the rights of white freemen [and] I would preserve to free white labor a fair country, a rich inheritance, where the sons of toil, of my own race and own color, can live without the disgrace which association with negro slavery brings upon free labor.”[7]

William Lloyd Garrison, by Wendell Phillips Garrison and Francis Jackson Garrison,

 “I never,” says Mr. Garrison, “can look up to these wretched retreats for my colored brethren without feeling my soul overwhelmed with 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.” In a word, the free colored people were looked upon as an inferior caste, to whom their liberty was a curse, and their lot worse than that of the slaves, with this difference — that while the latter were kept in bondage “for their own good,” it would have been very wicked to enslave the former for their good.”[8]

Our Women in the War speaks of Yankee behavior in Covington, GA,

“But I must not forget to mention the conduct of a colored girl of ours while the Yankees were passing. She was standing in the yard, viewing with apparent indifference the passing pageant, when she recognized some of her clothing in the bands of a soldier returning to the street. She immediately investigated the matter, and found that ‘they had broken open her house and were appropriating all that she prized. She soon tilled the yard with her

SHRIEKS AND LAMENTATIONS.

A Dutchman in our house at the time inquired, “What’s de matter wid dat nigger?”

“Your soldiers,” I replied, “are carrying off everything she owns, and yet you pretend to Be fighting for the negro.”

Fight for de nigger! I’d see ’em in de bottom of a swamp before I’d fight for ’em,” he answered angrily.”[9]

 

South Carolina Civilians in Sherman’s Path by Karen Stokes speaks of Sophie Sosnowski, who was headmistress of a school for girls near South Carolina’s capital city. She was frustrated by the presence of Yankee troops. She writes,

“One among them…made a regular stump speech, in which he endeavored to demonstrate that this country was destined only for the white man, and that the Indian, as well as the Negro had to be, or in the course of events would be, exterminated; furthermore, he expressed his own wish to have the entire negro race on an immense platform and power sufficient to blow them all to atoms. This latter remark was received with repeated cheers by his companions-in-arms.”[10]

The Yankee attitude towards blacks can be seen in their demographics. Dabney says,

“Between 1840 and 1850, the increase of the slave population solely from the excess of births over deaths, was twenty-eight and eight-tenths per cent., (28.8,) and between 1850 and 1860, it was twenty-three and three tenths (23.3) per cent. One cause for the diminished rate of increase in the latter decade, was doubtless the growing passion of the Yankees for the abduction of our slaves; which, towards the last, carried off thousands annually. But either rate of increase is more rapid than the whites, either North or South, ever attained without the aid of immigration. The native in-crease of the free States in ten years has probably been between eleven and fifteen per cent. So that tried by this well restablished test, the physical well-being of the slaves is higher than of any race in the world. Meantime, the miserable free blacks of New England, in the midst of the boasted philanthropy of abolitionism, only increase at the rate of one and sevenths of one percent in ten years”.[11]

This trend has continued until today. All the American states with a black population over 15% are Southern states except for New York and Delaware. Black people in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Maryland, Virginia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee and Arkansas obviously do not find the South that racist.


[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%E2%80%93Douglas_debates

[2]http://books.google.com/books?id=ij_PdIMkBxUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=lincoln,+%22i+am+not+nor+ever+have+been%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=eWaTUOPJGMbbyQGo4YDgCw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%20%22i%20am%20not%20nor%20ever%20have%20been%22&f=false, page, 136

[3]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

[4] http://www.historynet.com/a-white-mans-war.htm

[5] https://learn.montpelier.org/system/learning_resources/3/original/Abraham-Lincoln-Speech-at-Preoria-Oct-16-1854.pdf

[6] http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/de-tocqueville/democracy-america/ch18.htm

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wilmot

[8]http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA254&dq=william+lloyd+garrison,+%22and+their+lot+was+worse+than+that+of+slaves%22&ei=skgfUaE-pfHZBam2gLAF&id=ZIsEAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false, pg. 253-254

[9]http://books.google.com/books?id=GsoksxMSO58C&pg=PA392&lpg=PA392&dq=%22are+carrying+off+everything+she+owns%22&source=bl&ots=ifBJRFb5tu&sig=vyRZ29WOOR8s1Ucrhu3Zz-0sH8c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XWkmUejwGYyN0QHQ3oD4Cg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false, page 392

[10]http://books.google.com/books?id=vz-fmXugGWQC&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=%22one+among+them,+made+a+regular+stump+speech%22&source=bl&ots=NH67f-doWr&sig=FWUHdMzLAHcOOOxLsoZ9EL36Bqk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VWsmUfm1AoXO0QHa8oCIAg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false, page 66; See also Cisco, War Crimes, page 181.

[11] Defence of  Virginia, Pages 341-342: http://books.google.com/books?id=PwVnt4hozogC&printsec=frontcover&dq=dabney,+defence+of+virginia&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5GwoUduTMI2sqQGJ1IDACA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

The End of the Antebellum South; The Mother of All American Conspiracies Part 2: Identifying the Real Slave Traders Friday, Feb 22 2013 

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.[1] Also, the Negroes themselves practiced hereditary slavery such as the Ethiopians through purchase and war-prisoners from neighboring tribes.[2]

But our concern is the Atlantic Slave Trade. Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas in 1452. This Bull granted Afonso V of Portugal the right to enslave “Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers” to hereditary slavery. The Roman Church’s approval of the slave trade was reaffirmed and supplemented by Nicholas V’s Bull, Romanus Pontifex of 1455. These bulls served the justification for the subsequent centuries of slave trade and colonialism.

The two countries who first had their hands into the African slave trade were the Roman Catholic Portugal and Spain. Roman Catholic Portugal was the first to start stealing the Negroes with Antonio Gonzalez in 1434 A.D.[3] Gonzalez sold these slaves to Muslims (Prolific African slave traders) in southern Spain. Roman Catholic Spain was the first to become party with the Portuguese in this trade. At the beginning of the 16th century this trade became so large that thousands were taken from Africa annually.[4] When America was discovered in 1492 the Spaniards were the first to colonize it and began to enslave the Native Americans.[5]  But they proved too weak to bear up under slave labor. It got so bad that even Roman Catholic clergymen protested it![6] A stronger slave was needed, and thus the Negro was looked upon as prey. Thus in 1503 A.D. and 1510 A.D.  the Spaniards began the Negro slave trade to the Americas.

In 1562, England under Queen Elizabeth legalized the purchase of Negro slaves but there was not much demand for them at the time due to unsuccessful English Colonization (It would not be until the 17th century that the Puritan English Colonies would succeed). Even the Dutch slave ship that landed between 1619-1620 in Virginia was on behalf of Spanish Colonies.[7] Immediately after this, all the major commercialized countries of the world, and sadly Protestant Governments  participated in the criminal and unbiblical sin of the Negro slave trade.  However, let it be remembered that it was the Roman Church that wet the appetites of all the other countries who participated in it, the South did not participate in it (My ancestor’s State of Virginia never sent a single vessel), and as we shall see later, the Jesuits were behind the English Slave Trade.[8]

Blake speaks to the issue of Elizabeth with more detail,

“The first importation of slaves from Africa by the English was in 1562, in the reign of Elizabeth. This great princess seems on the very commencement of the trade to have questioned its lawfulness; to have entertained a religious scruple concerning it, and, indeed, to have revolted at the very thought of it. She seems to have been aware of the evils to which its continuance might lead, or that, if it were sanctioned, the most unjustifiable means might be made use of to procure the persons of the natives of Africa. And in what light she would have viewed any acts of this kind, had they taken place, we may conjecture from this fact; that when Captain (afterwards Sir John) Hawkins returned from his first voyage to Africa and Hispaniola, whither he had carried slaves, she sent for him, and, as we learn from Hill’s Naval History, expressed her concern lest any of the Africans should be carried off without their free consent, declaring that “It would be detestable, and call down the vengeance of Heaven upon the undertakers.” Captain Hawkins promised to comply with the injunctions of Elizabeth in this respect. But he did not keep his word; for when he went to Africa again, he seized many of the inhabitants, and carried them off as slaves, which occasioned Hill, in the account he gives of his voyage, to use these remarkable words: “Here began the horrid practice of forcing the Africans into slavery, an injustice and barbarity which, so sure as there is vengeance in heaven for the worst of crimes, will some time be the destruction of all who allow or encourage it.” [9] [10]

Elizabeth resisted the African slave trade. No charter was made by her for these actions and none existed in England until 1618. Therefore these actions must be looked upon as piracy.  It must be remembered that Hawkins did indeed kidnap Africans[11] but it must also be understood that he did it against the will of his sovereign Queen. One good indication that Hawkins was not on good terms with Elizabeth at this time was his involvement in a conspiracy with Philip II to assassinate Elizabeth. Though he did not go through with it, he was originally interested in the plot and cooperated with it. Now when the trade began to boom in the mid 1600s this gave impetus for many Negroes to kidnap each other and for rival tribes to make prisoners of each other to sell to the Europeans on the coast. The trade became so big that factories were created to make the entire African trade of wax and ivory and slaves more efficient.[12]

Just like the derelicts who worked the slave ships, the men who would be willing to work these factories were also men of ill repute. Blake says,

“The European subordinates of the establishment consisted of clerks, bookkeepers, warehousemen, artificers, mechanics, gunners, and private soldiers, all of whom had particular quarters assigned for their abode, and lived under military discipline. The soldiers employed in the service of the different African companies were mostly invalids, and persons who had been dismissed from the army on account of bad conduct. Destitute of the means of subsistence at home, such men willingly engaged to go to the coast of Africa, where they knew they would be permitted to lead a life of ease, indolence, and licentiousness, and be exposed to no danger except that of a deadly climate, which was in reality the most certain and inevitable one that they could anywhere encounter.” [13]

At the end of the slave trade Africa even had armies of men to hunt and capture other Africans to be sold into slavery.

Blake says,

“The first attempt by the British to establish a regular trade on the African coast, was made in the year 1618, when James L granted an exclusive charter to Sir Robert Rich, and some other merchants ofLondon, for raising a joint stock company to trade to Guinea. The profits not being found to answer their expectations, the charter was suffered to expire.

In 1631, Charles I. granted a second charter to Richard Young, Sir Ken elm Digby, and sundry merchants, to enjoy the exclusive trade to the coast of Guinea, between Cape Blanco and the Cape of Good Hope, for a period of thirty-one years. As the English had by this time began the settlement of plantations in the West Indies, Negroes were in general demand; and the company erected on the African coast, forts and warehouses, to protect their commerce. Private adventurers and interlopers of all nations broke in upon them, and forced the trade open, and so it continued until after the restoration of Charles II. In 1662, a third exclusive company was incorporated, consisting of many persons of high rank and distinction, at the head of whom was the king’s brother, the Duke of York. This company undertook to supply the English plantations with 3000 negroes, annually. In 1664, all the Dutch forts on the African coast but two were captured by the English; but in the following year they were retaken by the Dutch Admiral, De Ruyter, who also seized one of the forts belonging to the English company. In 1672, the company surrendered their charter. [FOR A BETTER ONE!-DS]

The same year, 1672, the fourth and last exclusive company was established. It was dignified by the title of the Royal African Company, and had among the stockholders, the king, the duke of York, and many other persons of high rank. The capital was £111,000, and was raised in nine months. They paid £35,000 for the forts of the old company.[SEE!-DS] Besides the traffic in slaves, they imported into England great quantities of gold. In 1673, 50,000 guineas, (named from the country), were coined. They also imported redwood, ivory, wax, &cut ., and- exported to the value of £70,000, annually, in English goods.

The revolution of 1688 upset the exclusive privileges of this company. By the 1st William and Mary, the African, and all other exclusive companies not authorized by parliament were abolished. The company, however, continued its operations.”[14]

It is interesting that the year that England considered the African slave trade (1618) was the beginning of the 30 Years War. As we see from Blake, slavery does not flourish under James I but it was considered. Elizabeth did no such thing. This is indicative of James’ personality. He did in fact reject papal authority and the Jesuits did try to assassinate him with the Gunpowder plot. However, it was only because of his personal prerogative to sustain his powers as an absolute Monarch and head of the Church. He persecuted Protestant Puritans in England and he created havoc among the Protestants in Scotland. King James plotted against the Reformation.  James passed the Black Acts (1584) to impose royal authority over the Kirk between 1584 and 1603. This Act prohibited ecclesiastical assemblies without the King’s consent; thus attacking previous Protestant legislation. Between 1618-1621, James increased his pressures against the Reformation. The Reformed Presbytery says,

“Thus, after several former attempts to this effect, was episcopacy again established, and prelates lording over GOD’S heritage advanced, imposing their Popish ceremonies, which in that pretended assembly convened at Perth, anno 1618, were enacted, and afterwards ratified in a subsequent parliament, in the year 1621.”[15]

I understand that the Protestant Elizabethan “Golden Age” flourished under his reign but James was no Protestant Christian. He was a Crypto-Catholic at heart. He openly rejected the Protestant upbringing he received from George Buchanan with his wicked Black Acts.

Charles I was also no Protestant. He was a crypto-catholic. He continued his Father’s attack on the Scottish Reformation through his Crypto-Catholic tyrant Bishop William Laud. We all know the humiliation he received under Cromwell but also, in 1637-1638 the Covenanter Protestants  in Scotland rose up against the efforts of their King and renewed the Reformed National Covenant in March of 1638. Charles I refused to allow Protestants to officially assemble in England for the purpose of creating Religious Reform and Uniformity through extensive dialogue and debate. The Protestants were forced to pass a bill through the House of Commons with the agreement of the House of Lords without the King’s consent in June of 1643.  In 1643 the Westminster Assembly began. The Scottish Covenanters continued to resist the impositions of popish ceremonies upon their nation and in 1646 Charles I surrendered to the Covenanter army after his General Montrose was defeated at Newark.

Later, Charles I would be beheaded by Cromwell.

Charles II was also no Protestant; that wretch, that covenant breaking, treasonous, backstabbing bastard comes to the throne at his Father’s execution in 1649. Charles II was appointed King upon condition of him taking the Covenants. The Reformed Presbytery states,

“Upon which the parliament of Scotland, on the 5th of February, 1649, caused proclaim his son Charles II, king of Great Britain, France, Ireland (which title he had assumed himself at the Hague, as soon as the report of his father’s death came to his ears), promising their fidelity and defence of his person and authority, according to the National Covenant, and the Solemn League and Covenant. And in the same time declaring, that before he be admitted to the exercise of the royal power, he shall give security for the preservation and maintenance of the true reformed religion, and unity of the kingdoms, now established, by laws both civil and ecclesiastical, according to the covenants: which security for religion and liberty, at the first proposed treaty at the Hague, he deferred to grant, and afterward postponed the signing of the treaty at Breda, when everything was agreed upon, from the great hopes he entertained of accomplishing his design, without acquiescing with their demand from Montrose’s expedition, whom he had sent into Scotland with an army, in order to prepare his way into that kingdom, by devastation with fire and sword. But this intrigue not succeeding, he found himself obliged to comply with all their proposals, and signed the treaty. This treaty the king did in effect break, before he left Breda, by communicating after the Episcopal manner, contrary to the express warning and remonstrance of the commissioners from the church of Scotland, who went to him, and showed him his sin in so doing, and how inconsistent it was with his own concessions in the sent treaty; and an evidence that he had no intention to perform what he had agreed to, but dissembled with GOD and man; and he, on the other hand, put them off with sham excuses and professions; and so, from their too much credulity to his fraudulent professions and promises all along, they brought him over to Scotland, and before his landing in this kingdom, he takes the covenant at Spey, on the 23rd of June, 1649, by his oath subjoined in allowance and approbation of the Covenants National, and Solemn League, obliging himself faithfully to prosecute the ends thereof in his station and calling; and for himself and successors, he shall agree to all acts of parliament enjoining the same, and establishing presbyterial church government, the directory for worship, confession of faith and catechisms, in the kingdom of Scotland, as approven by the General Assemblies of this kirk, and parliament of this kingdom. And for their further satisfaction, according to the act of the West Kirk, Edinburgh, August 13th, 1650, approven the same day by the committee of estates, he emitted a declaration at Dunfermline, by profession, fully and heartily acquiescing with all their demands; all which afterward served for nothing but as a lasting monument of his horrid perjury, wicked dissimulation, and mockery of God and man. And even then, when this declaration was published, he had formed a design for bringing in the enemies of the covenant, and work of reformation, both into the army and judicatories, and for dividing the Presbyterians among themselves. And this he effectually managed for both foresaid ends, by the public resolutions, on the 14th of December, that same year, 1650. This woful and prime step of defection, so contrary to the word, and injurious to the work of God, was faithfully testified against by many, both ministers, and whole presbyteries, who were sensible of the present sinfulness and evil of it, and foresaw the bitter and dismal consequences that followed upon it.”[16]

As Blake mentioned, Charles II had a brother, the Duke of York (Later King James II), who was a flaming Roman Catholic and a persecutor of Protestants. He enjoyed killing Scottish Covenanters and set up the infamous Royal African Company devoted to the African Slave Trade. Later, when James the Duke of York became King, he pursued anti-Protestant Legislation in proportions in much greater degree than even his wicked predecessors.  James II allowed Romanists into the highest offices in government, welcomed the Papacy’s envoys, and even had a Jesuit confessor named Edward Petre! Even his crypto-catholic Anglican brothers objected to this. Now the Jesuits were in control of the English slave trade that could now be blamed on the Protestants while all the time James II was an open Romanist and Jesuit conspirator pulling all the strings.

Yet what happened when the Protestant King and Queen William and Mary came to power in England? The African slave trade is abolished and made illegal.

Why was I not taught this in Public School as I was being made ashamed to be a member of White Anglo Protestant Culture? I’ll tell you why: The Roman Catholic Hierarchy controls the American Educational system for the purpose of destroying the White Anglo Culture that overturned and stripped the Papacy of its Power and Influence in the world 5 centuries ago.

Now who were the American slave traders?

Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts (1866) by George Henry Moore says,

A subsequent entry in Winthrop’s Journal gives us another glimpse of the subject, Feb. 26, 1638.

 

“Mr. Peirce, in the Salem ship, the Desire, returned from the West Indies after seven months. He had been at Providence, and brought some cotton, and tobacco, and negroes, etc., from thence, and salt from Tertugos;” Winthrop, 1., 254. He adds to this account that “Dry fish and strong liquors are the only commodities for those parts. He met there two men-of-war, set forth by the lords, etc., of Providence with letters of mart, who had taken divers prizes from the Spaniard and many negroes.” Long afterwards Dr. Belknap said of the slave-trade, that the rum distilled in Massachusetts was “the mainspring of this traffick.” M. H. S. Coll., i., iv., 197.”[17]

So here we see that it was the New England Colonies who first began the slave trade, not the Southern Colonies. Not only so, they even passed a law, legalizing it in 1641.  Blake states that the 1641 Massachusetts law did not provide an absolute condoning of the slave trade but,

“there shall never be any bond slavery, villeinage, nor captivity  among us, unless it be for lawful captives, taken in just wars, and such strangers as willingly sell themselves or are sold unto us, and these shall have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of God established in Israel; requires. This exempts none from servitude who shall be judged thereto by authority.”[18]

I think my Southern brethren in their zeal to expose the crimes of the North, step on their own feet just a bit. The New England Puritans, at least the first generation, were our brethren in religion and race. We need not unjustly smear them in our indignation, however justified that indignation may be. However good the intentions of the Puritans may have been, the Yankee industrialists, adamant to make a profit from the slave trade, pushed on with their production of rum to be traded for slaves and goods.

Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England, Vol. 6 (1861), Ed. John Russell Bartlett states,

“This little colony, only, for more than thirty years past, have annually sent about eighteen sail of vessels to the coast, which have carried about eighteen hundred hogsheads of rum, together with a small quantity of provisions and some other articles, which have been sold for slaves, gold dust, elephants’ teeth, camwood…The slaves have been sold in the English islands, in Carolina and Virginia, for bills of exchange, and the other articles have been sent to Europe; and by this trade alone, remittances have been made from this colony to Great Britain, to the value of about £40,000, yearly; and this rum, carried to the coast, is so far from prejudicing the British trade thither, that it may be said rather to promote it; for as soon as our rum vessels arrive, they exchange away some of the rum with the traders from Britain, for a quantity of dry goods, with which each of them sort their cargoes to their mutual advantage… This distillery is the main hinge upon which the trade of the colony turns, and many hundreds of persons depend immediately upon it for a subsistence.”[19]

The United States and Africa: A History by Peter Duignan states,

“Soon the Yankee trader was a familiar sight from the Cape of Good Hope to Cape Guardafui and at Madagascar and the offshore islands. Nathaniel Isaacs, an enterprising Anglo-Jewish trader, explorer, adventurer, and inadvertent empire builder, said in commenting upon a visit to an obscure port in 1831:

The post of Lamoo [Lamy Kenya] is free to all nations, but few have visited it, except the enterprising Americans, whose star-spangled banner may be seen streaming in the wind, where other nations, not even my own country, would not deign to traffic. America is the forerunner of commerce in new countries, and she enjoys the sweets which they afford.”[20]

The American Slave-Trade by John Randolph Spears states,

“This story, sworn to before United States Consul George William Gordon, was repeated by Consul Henry A. Wise (of Virginia) in an official communication to Secretary of State James Buchanan, under date of May 1, 1845. James K. Polk was then President of the United States, and this story and other stories of like character were sent to the Congress of the United States in House Ex. Doc. 61, 30th Congress second session, and Senate Ex. Doc. 28 of the same session.

Said Consul Wise in an official letter dated February 18, 1845:

“I beseech, I implore, the President of the United States to take a decided stand on this subject. You have no conception of the bold effrontery and the flagrant outrages of the African slave-trade, and of the shameless manner in which its worst crimes are licensed here. And every patriot in our land would blush for our country did he know and see, as I do, how our own citizens sail and sell our flag to the uses and abuses of that accursed traffic. We are a ‘by-word among nations’—the only people who can now fetch and carry any and everything for the slave-trade . . . and, because we are the only people who can, are we to allow our proudest privilege to be perverted, and to pervert our own glorious flag into the pirate’s flag?”[21]

Even after the slave trade had been formally abolished Yankees still wanted to profit from it.

House Documents, Thirty-First Congress, First Session, Ex. Doc. No. 5. by the United States Congress, Message from the President of the United States [Zachary Taylor] Dec. 24, 1849, read Dec. 27, 1849 states,

“Your attention is earnestly invited to an amendment of our existing laws relating to the African slave-trade, with a view to the effectual suppression of that barbarous traffic. It is not to be denied that this trade is still, in part, carried on by means of vessels built in the United States and owned or navigated by some of our citizens.”

Here we see then that the North American participation with the Slave Trade was a Yankee affair, performed by Yankee vessels flying the Stars and Stripes not the Confederate flag.

Objection: New England Could not have been so productive in the slave trade without the Southern demand!

Ans. Demand? First, as we shall see later, this trade had to be forced on us. Second,  Robert William Fogel and Stanley Lewis Engerman’s Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery shows that the United States possessed only 6% of the slaves taken in the entire slave trade from 1500 A.D. to 1870 A.D. Brazil possessed 38%, the British Caribbean 17%, the French Caribbean 17%, and Spanish America 17%.[22] Why is it then, that the only major players in this trade, who themselves did not kidnap these Africans, and possessed the lowest percentage of slaves were the only major slave holding country, invaded, tortured, gang raped and murdered supposedly for owning slaves?   Could it be because they were white Protestants pursuant unto the Jesuit Inquisitional Counter-Reformation?

After 1800 the South was no longer a market for slaves. Moreover, the Constitution of the Confederate States of America states in Article I,  Section 9 – “Limits on Congress, Bill of Rights” states,

“1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.”

In contrast to the Yankee flesh market we have the pleasant record of the South. In 1772, American colonies beseeched King George to let them outlaw African Slavery. He refused and in so doing showed that he was plotting a race war against the Protestant Colonies to stall any attempt of an Independent Protestant Nation. His new league with the Romanists can be seen in his “Intolerable Acts” of 1774 as described by the Colonialists. The most aggravated offense came with his Quebec Act of 1774. This was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain (citation 14 Geo. III c. 83) for the province of Quebec. It established Catholicism in Quebec and made Catholics equals in the British Colonies in America and repealed Protestant legislation in the English Protestant Oath of Allegiance. Blake says,

“In the year 1772, a disposition favorable to the oppressed Africans became very generally manifest in some of the American Provinces. The house of burgesses of Virginia even presented a petition to the king, beseeching his majesty to remove all those restraints on his governors of that colony, which inhibited their assent to such laws as might check that inhuman and impolitic commerce, the slave-trade: and it is remarkable that the refusal of the British government to permit the colonists to exclude slaves from among them bylaw, was enumerated afterwards among the public reasons for separating from the mother country distinguished dye, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them, thus paying off former crimes, committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.” (See the fac-simile of this draft in Jefferson’s Correspondence.) But this passage was struck out when the Declaration of Independence was adopted.”[23]

Virginia and other colonies in North America were places of refuge for Protestants who were escaping the Inquisition and other Crypto-Catholic religious persecution. Our original colony had made the Inquisition and the Council of Trent powerless in these lands and was a bastion of the Protestant Religion. The Jesuits were not going to stand by and watch this happen. I want to survey some points of history with you:

1. The Colony of Virginia had no ships involved in any foreign slave trade.

2. 1726 A.D. – Virginian statesman Mr. Drysdale annexed a tax on the African slave traders in order to decrease the influx of the slaves coming into the colonies yet it was repealed by the English Royal African Company.[24]

3. 1769 A.D. – The House of Burgesses were the first assembly of Colonial representatives in North America which was established by the Virginia Company. It passed an act for raising the duty on all slaves imported, to twenty per cent. “The records of the Executive Department show that this law was vetoed by the king, and declared repealed by a proclamation of William Nelson, President of the Council, April 3d, 1771.”[25]

4. 1772 A.D. – The House of Burgesses Petitioned,

“Resolved, that an humble address be prepared to be presented to his Majesty, to express the high opinion we entertain of his benevolent intentions towards his subjects in the colonies, and that we are thereby induced to ask his paternal assistance in  averting a calamity of a most alarming nature; that  the importation of negroes from Africa has long been considered as, a trade of great inhumanity, and under its present encouragement may endanger the existence of his American dominions; that self-preservation, therefore, urges us to implore him to remove all restraints on his Governors from passing acts of Assembly which are intended to check this pernicious commerce”.[26]

5. 1776 A.D. – Virginia declared her independence from Great Britain. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were drawn up for the State of Virginia where we read in the section detailing the grievances against King George III, “By prompting our negroes to rise in arms against us, those very negroes whom, by an inhuman use of his negative, he hath refused us permission to exclude by law”.

6. 1778 A.D. – On Oct. 5, 1778, Patrick Henry, Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, passed An Act for the Preventing the Farther Importation of Slaves, thus  preventing of the African slave trade.[27] Virginia was then the first province on earth to abolish the African slave trade and make it a penal offence.[28]

Why Were The Africans Forced On Virginia ?

1. During the Suppression of the Jesuits in the 1760s and the 1770s in Europe, the Jesuits fled to England and were received by King George III.[29]

2. Jeremiah Dyson and Charles Jenkinson were known as “the Jesuits of the Treasury”, and the Treasury was the secret dictator behind the throne, which used Grenville as their tool to persecute the American Colonies with their Grenville’s Stamp Act.[30] Dyson also protested the repealing of the said Grenville’s Stamp Act and supported the other measures drawn up by Lord North against the American Colonies.[31] In 1774, Lord North, the ringleader of the Jesuit Treasury,[32] defended the Intolerable Acts in the House of Commons; and let us not forget the Quebec Act which was flagrantly Pro-Catholic, and went against King George’s Protestant Oath which he had taken at his Coronation.

Thus King George was in league with the Jesuits pursuant unto the Counter-Reformation agenda. The Jesuits controlled and used King George and the Royal African Company to flood Virginia with African slaves to kill their citizens just like what happened with the Haitian Revolution. The Jesuits are the real criminals not the White Anglo Protestants in Virginia. On the contrary, the Virginians were the first people on earth to abolish the slave trade. The Jesuit race-war failed to arise but the Africans would later be used as a justification to invade and impoverish the South in the Civil War.

The Wanderer is sometimes accused of being a Southern Slave vessel. However, the facts tell a different story. It was built in the north, flew the New York Yacht Club Flag and was captained by a man from New York.

In North America, Virginia was the first to abolish the Slave Trade under Patrick Henry and the English were led by Granville Sharp, Thomas Clarkson, and William Wilberforce. All white Protestant Christians. After abolition, we tried to send Africans back to Africa with Liberia and Monrovia.

Thus we have seen that the ever popular Yankee story that the Southerners kidnapped and enslaved Africans has turned out to be a myth. Not only so, it was the Yankees who were the real flesh merchants of the earth.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————-

[IMAGE] The above image is of the New England Slave Vessel, The USS Nightingale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nightingale_(1851)

[1] The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade, By William O. Blake, Chapter 8; http://books.google.com/books?id=g213AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

[2] Ibid., 94

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 95

[5] Ibid., 95-96

[6] Ibid., 96

[7] Ibid., 98;

[8] Ibid., 98

[9] See The New and Complete American Encyclopedia (1808), Volume 4, Pg. 237; http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA237&lpg=PA237&dq=elizabeth,+it+would+be+detestable,+call+down&sig=VCeRzC9w2HgrJ5HVdJyhlcQZFbM&ei=Uo_IT5emFoqk8gSHxontDg&id=I80aAAAAYAAJ&ots=ybFbAbtblV#v=onepage&q&f=false

[10] Blake, 158

[11] Ibid., 108

[12] Ibid., 99

[13] Ibid., 100

[14] Ibid., 107

[15] Act, Declaration and Testimony, Part 1: http://www.covenanter.org/RefPres/actdeclarationandtestimony/actpart1.htm

[16] Ibid.

[17]http://books.google.com/books?ei=HFofUbXaD7OA2AXNyIHgAQ&dq=a+history+of+slavery+is+massachusetts&jtp=228&id=ohsEAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false, pages 5-6

[18] Pg. 370

[19]http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA381&lpg=PA381&dq=%22this+distillery+is+the+main+hinge+upon+which+the%22&sig=yA8hExG8WnovWartP_r5txUURiM&ei=-5wgUeruFuX4yQHE6YDQDA&id=ZsINAQAAMAAJ&ots=k_gSc2D43A#v=onepage&q&f=false, Page 380-381

[20]http://books.google.com/books?id=dDwUFhl-4EMC&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=%22enterprising+americans+whose+star-spangled%22&source=bl&ots=08rdUcbviH&sig=cqr4Lk1bIRHJN2mHCmLJWudruQc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=P6MgUYzrH4SMyAGGioDACA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false, page 68-69

[21]http://books.google.com/books?ei=5LkgUcG9CuaH2AXEuICYAQ&dq=american+slave+trader,+spear&jtp=81&id=XA4rAQAAIAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false, page 81

[22]http://books.google.com/books?id=ScpPBinpzwoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=robert+fogel,+time+on+the+cross&hl=en&sa=X&ei=J6AgUePJEYTJygHD_oHADg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false, page 14

[23] Blake, 177

[24] R.L. Dabney, Defence of Virginia  (New York: E.J. Hale and Son, 1867), 29

[25] Ibid., 47

[26] The General Assembly of the House of Burgesses, Journals-The House of Burgesses of Virginia (The Colonial Press, E. Waddy Co., 1770), 256

[27] William Waller Hening (editor), The Statutes at Large: A Collection of All the Laws of Virginia From the First Session of the Legislature in the Year 1619 , Volume IX (New York: W.G. Bartow, 1823), 471

[28] Dabney, 49

[29] Horace Walpole, Memoirs of the Reign of King George the Third Vol.3 (London: Richard Bentley, 1845), 47; http://archive.org/stream/memoirsreignkin08walpgoog#page/n70/mode/2up

[30] Horace Walpole, Memoirs of the Reign of King George the Third Vol.4 (London: Richard Bentley, 1845), 109-113; http://archive.org/stream/memoirsreignkingg04walp#page/109/mode/1up

[31] Stephen (Sir Leslie), Robert Blake, Christine Stephanie Nicholls, The Dictionary of National Biography, Volume 6, 300

[32] Great Britain. Public Record Office, Annual Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, Appendix to the Twenty-Fifth Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, 66; http://books.google.com/books?id=OYtIAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA2-PA66&lpg=RA2-PA66&dq=jeremiah+dyson,+lord+frederick+north&source=bl&ots=YuXRcLK_3T&sig=5Sz7R0gTaXqe4TkClcMFICWsNt4&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

The End of the Antebellum South; The Mother of All American Conspiracies; Introduction Friday, Feb 22 2013 

Before I begin I would like to anticipate some objections and accusations as to clear the path.

1. If you are a typical anti-white, pro-American Communist (An advocate of universal equality), let me assure you that I used to think just like you. I was raised an atheist in the public school system. My cultural upbringing was rooted in Eazy-E, Too-Short, and the Geto Boys. My High School years were formed by the Wu-Tang Clan. I bought the anti-Christian, anti-European propaganda hook, line and sinker. I was convinced that my white Christian ancestors in the South were evil monsters and thus any identification with them was rejected.

Even after my conversion into Christianity at the age of about 20, I still maintained the idea that God cares nothing about race, or heritage. Having been brainwashed by Jesuit Dispensationalism and still clinging to my Hollywood programming, I considered any white man with a care for his heritage and race an ignorant back-woods redneck. Thus any and all forms of multi-culturalism were to be sought.

The positions I have now espoused are results of my own personal life study and experience.

2. I don’t hate black people. On the contrary, I am very friendly with black people and have been greatly exhorted by the godly moral lifestyles of black men I have worked with in the past and present. I make a distinction between the Majority Savage Blacks and the Minority Civil Blacks.

3. My position on race does not concern how individual people get along. People of different cultures can get along fine as individuals.  The concerns I have are not about individuals but  group dynamics.

4. I am not advocating Pre-Civil Rights Era Segregation. I am advocating Nationalism for both Blacks and Whites. I am advocating that a portion of the United States be reserved for the re-establishment of the American Blacks.[1]  This removes the ability of white men to discriminate against black men. Do you have no pride black man? Do you really think you need the white man to succeed? This system is designed to fail. It is designed to destroy both your people and my people, the Southern Protestant. That has been the design the whole time.  Thomas Jefferson says in Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XIV,  (1787)

“It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expense of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions, which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race. – To these objections, which are political, may be added others, which are physical and moral.”[2]

This government has known for a long time that the integration policy was not going to work. You see, the Jesuits are masters of class conflict. They have been kicked out of 83 Countries for fomenting wars. Did you know that?[3]

5. I admit that the United States Conspiracy is not only against White Protestantism. This government has tried to exterminate the blacks on numerous occasions and has played a vital role in the destruction of their communities.

The following will rely on a revealed view of history as described in the Bible and will not allow any Scientific Method to determine the meaning and direction of History. I have already refuted the Empirical method and shown the entire Scientific method to be formally fallacious, providing quotes from Secular Educators themselves to this effect.[4] Thus, my appeals to History will be from actual written records instead of appeals to DNA or Genetic History. Among many records, I will primarily rely on the great Historian John Clark Ridpath for History before the 20th Century. Ridpath was not a Christian but a Darwinist. However, Rome had not yet fully grasped our educational establishment and he exposed the history of Roman Catholic tyranny with great skill in his many volumes.

This discourse will be organized according to chronological flow. It will demonstrate that the Jesuit order of the Roman Catholic Church has used and is still using the Blacks from Africa to perpetrate race war against their political enemies, primarily the White-Anglo Protestants (WASPs).[5] Though the Luciferian Jesuits have had and still have Catholic enemies within their own Churches, the Hierarchy of the Roman Church obeys these men with fear. The Jesuits will be shown to have been the fountain of the Illuminati and the French Revolution pursuant unto the downfall of all ancient and traditional governments, religions and ways of life, pursuant to the demoralization and denationalization (Which requires integration and miscegenation) of all peoples to dissolve their National Governments into an International Government headed by the Vatican and its Jesuit order completing their Counter Reformation and the Re-establishment of the Holy Roman Empire.

The Chicago Tribune, May 5, 1903.

“QUIGLEY AS AN OPTIMIST. SEES WONDERFUL GROWTH OF ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH,

Standing the Only Man Among 800 Women, the Archbishop Declares He Has Been Deeply Impressed by the Progressive Spirit of the West Forecasts the Time When the Religion He Represents Will Lead the World.

“Since I have seen the western parochial schools I have come to the conclusion that in fifty years, if things go on as I see, they are going on at present, the Catholic Church will actually own the west.”

Such was the optimistic declaration of Archbishop Quigley last night before the Children of Mary sodality at the Holy Name parish school, Chicago avenue and Cass street. The occasion was a reception given to the Archbishop by the members of the sodality, and the prelate was the only man in a gathering of 800 women.

“Within twenty years this country is going to rule the world. Kings and emperors will soon pass away, and the democracy of the United States will take their place. The  west will dominate the country, and what I have seen of the western parochial schools has proved that the generation which follows us will be exclusively Catholic. When the United States rules the world the Catholic Church will rule the world.”[6]

There is no option for America. In order to survive, the South MUST rise again.

I am going to organize my Anti-WASP Race War page to correlate with this new series.


[4] https://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/the-failure-of-secular-philosophy-to-the-university-of-louisville/; See also See my Systematic Theology, Chapter 1. Section 1. I.iii; Chapter 1. Section 1. II.; Chapter 1, Section 2. I; Chapter 1, Section 2. III.III: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_Uia_WumWyCbTh2SXYzMjNKMXM/edit?pli=1

[6] Jeremiah Crowley, Romanism a Menace to the Nation, 573; I obtained a copy of this edition of the original article from the Chicago Tribune through the Public Libraries of Louisville, KY and Chicago, IL: I have provided the image in a pdf document here: http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/concerning-roman-catholicism/archbishop-quigley-s-confession

Coincidence? P.S. This is my 500th post! Saturday, Feb 16 2013 

Did anyone notice that Peter Hans Kolvenbach, the previous General of the Jesuit Order also mysteriously stepped down in 2008? The Pope now 5 years later mysteriously steps down. It looks to me like the Vatican is preparing for something; putting all their chess pieces in place for the coming check.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hans_Kolvenbach

Where is Oliver Cromwell when you need him? God please raise up a Cromwell for us here in America. A man that is willing to prepare for Papal conflict amidst people who scoff at him for being a conspiracy theorist.

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: