# The True History of the American Civil War (War of Rebellion)



## dreamtime (May 4, 2021)

Lets use this thread to research the history of the Civil War before the leftist academics purged it's history in the 1960s.

The following is a book review of *Southern Scribblings* by Brion T. McClanahan. I haven't read the book yet but it's probably a good start to get a better picture of what really happened back then. A primary theme is that the Southern States hated the Central Government (probably Vatican-infiltrated) that began to form in Washington, and due to their enourmous resistance, a big war was waged against the Southerners - in my view they were part of the "Old World" remnants - the Old World is defined by an absence of Central Governance and corrupt power structures.


The American History You’re Not Supposed to Know - By Thomas DiLorenzo August 7, 2020​​Brion McClanahan’s new book, _Southern Scriblings,_ contains sixty scholarly and eloquently-written essays about the American history you are not supposed to know.  The reason you are not supposed to know about it is America’s first cultural war that long preceded the current one and is still ongoing.​​That “war” began with the New England Puritans, whose philosophical descendants became the universally despised “Yankees.”  These are people mostly from New England and the upper Mid-West originally who believed that they were superior to all others and therefore had a “right” to govern over them, by force if necessary.  They have a mindset of what Judge Napolitano calls “libido dominandi,” or the lust to dominate.  Today, Hillary Clinton would be what Clyde Wilson has called “a museum-quality specimen” of a Yankee.  Yankees are a component of both political parties, but today’s Democratic party is the home of the most extreme ones, who seem to be part Yankee and part Stalinist totalitarian with their university speech codes, their “cancel culture,” their utopian plans to centrally plan all aspects of everyone’s life with their “Green New Deal,” to confiscate private wealth, communist style, with “wealth taxes,” and so on.​​After waging total war on the entire civilian population of the South from 1861-1865, murdering hundreds of thousands, the Yankees commenced a “holy war” against American history and especially Southern history, a major theme of _Southern Scribblings._  In war, the victors always write the history to portray themselves in the best light possible, no matter what the truth is.  The Yankees have been doing this for more than 150 years, as McClanahan describes in essay after essay.​​Among the things you will learn from this book are why Hamiltonian statism has always been the enemy of American freedom and a poisonous threat to genuine, free-market capitalism.  Most Americans would also be surprised to learn that, after the War to Prevent Southern Independence, there was a monumental effort at reconciliation, lasting for generations, and supported by presidents from McKinley to Bill Clinton.  McClanahan calls Jimmy Carter “the last Jeffersonian president” and discusses how “Memorial Day” began as “Decoration Day” where the sacrifices of soldiers on _both_ sides of the “Civil War” were recognized.  This of course is no longer the case thanks to the stultification of America by the country’s own universities over the past generation.​​Prior to the 1960s “Civil War” history was much more honest and truthful than it has become ever since then.  For example, everyone understood that the tariff was the main bone of contention between the Yankees of the North, who wanted a 50% (and higher) protectionist tariff, whereas the South wanted its entire country to be a free-trade zone with minimal “revenue tariffs.”  Republican party newspapers even editorialized in favor of bombarding the Southern ports _before the war_ because they understood that free trade in the South would be devastating to the Northern plutocracy.​​Everyone also understood that slavery had nothing to do with why Lincoln launched a military invasion of his own country because they were familiar with his own words and the 1861 war aims resolution of the U.S. Congress. That all changed in the 1960s when Leftist historians like Kenneth Stampp decided that the history of the war and reconstruction should be rewritten so as to portray the New England Yankees as angels of salvation who were willing to die by the hundreds of thousands solely for the benefit of black strangers a thousand miles away.  (McClanahan points out the truth that racism and white supremacy was worse in the North than in the South in the nineteenth century, something that even Toqueville wrote about in _Democracy in America)_.​​At the same time the history profession since the 1960s contrasted angelic Northern saviors to the descendants of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and other Southerners as the most evil and decadent human beings to ever inhabit the earth.  This of course is the current politically-correct view of everyone and everything Southern in the eyes of the left-wing political elite.​​_Southern Scribblings_ explains what a big, steaming pile of horse manure this all is, along with the incredible hypocrisy of “Northern self righteousness.”  It has fueled the fires of “PC Lunacy,” a section of the book containing nine hard-hitting essays.​​You will also learn how insidious the academic history profession is with book after book having been written with false narratives about the “lost cause.”  As the only group of Americans who ever seriously challenged the tyrannical impulses of the central government, Southerners must be demonized for eternity in the eyes of the Puritan/Yankee culture that lords over American academe – and much of the rest of society.​​The most interesting chapters to your author are the ones that dissect the Leftist and neo-conservative smearing of such Southern figures as Robert E. Lee and John C. Calhoun and their never-ending deification of Lincoln.  The chapters on “the real Robert E. Lee” is worth the price of the book.  Addressing the current effort by the ignoramus governor of Virginia, among others, to get the statue of Lee removed from the national Capitol building in Washington, McClanahan writes:  “No one as grand as Lee . . . should be surrounded by such reptiles in Washington” anyway.​​Few Southerners have been as vilified as John C. Calhoun, a former secretary of war, secretary of state, vice president, senator, and representative.  The real reason for this vilification has nothing to do with slavery, but with the fact that, philosophically, Calhoun was “too much” of a Jeffersonian and a champion of federalism, states’ rights, and decentralization, deadly poisons to all would-be tyrants and dictators.  His _Disquisition on Government_ is one of the greatest treatises on political philosophy ever written by an American and was a favorite of Murray Rothbard’s, who cited him in many of his writings.​​McClanahan discusses many of the key ideas in the _Disquisition_ in several essays  on Calhoun.  After reading them you will understand the evil and dishonesty of his detractors, from neocons like Victor Davis Hanson to just about the entire academic history profession, which after all is dominated by self-described Marxists.​​Taken from:

https://confederatehonorhome.files....erican-history-youre-not-supposed-to-know.pdf
The American History You’re Not Supposed To Know - LewRockwell

Also relevant: 


SH Archive - 1863 Russian involvement in the US Civil War
SH Archive - American Civil War a Photographic History


----------



## solarbard (May 4, 2021)

As a Southerner, let me say I heartily approve of this thread. The damned Yankees burned my ancestor's land. No one talks about Sherman's war crimes.


----------



## Silveryou (May 4, 2021)

I liked the article overall, but I don't like the use of the terminology "white supremacy" for facts happened in the 19th century. This is a modern cultural-Marxist category and it's strange that a supposedly anti-leftist guy uses it. Maybe just an error...


----------



## dreamtime (May 4, 2021)

The name "Civil War" itself is heavily biased. The Southerners preferred other terms:


"Great Rebellion"
"War of Rebellion"
"War for Southern Independence"
"War of Northern Aggression"
I would think simply finding the historical sources that were well-known until the leftist takeover in the 60s will give us a clearer understanding what really happened back then. From the Confederate Academic sources we could infer the real enemy of that time.


Henry S. Foote, _War of the Rebellion; Or, Scylla and Charybdis_, New York: Harper & Bros., 1866; Horace Greeley, _The American Conflict: A History of the Great Rebellion in the United States of America, 1860–64_, 2 vols., Hartford, Conn.: O.D. Case & Co., 1864, 1866; Henry Wilson, _The History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America_, 3 vols, Boston: J.R. Osgood & Co., 1872–1877.

Wikipedia:



> The official US war records refer to the war as the "War of the Rebellion." The records were compiled by the US War Department in a 127-volume collection, _The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies_, which was published from 1881 to 1901. Historians commonly refer to the collection as the _Official Records_.




And here we have a hint to the idea that the War of 1812 really was the same as the Civil War (SH Archive - Is the American Civil War part of the War of 1812?):



> The "War for Southern Independence," the "Second American Revolution," and their variations are names used by some Southerners to refer to the war. That terminology aims to parallel usage of the American Revolutionary War. While popular on the Confederate side during the war (Stonewall Jackson regularly referred to the war as the "second war for independence"), the term lost popularity in the immediate aftermath of the Confederacy's defeat and its failure to gain independence. The term resurfaced slightly in the late 20th century.
> 
> A popular poem published in the early stages of hostilities was _South Carolina_. Its prologue referred to the war as the "Third War for Independence" since it named the War of 1812 as the second such war. On November 8, 1860, the _Charleston Mercury_, a contemporary southern newspaper, stated, "The tea has been thrown overboard. The Revolution of 1860 has been initiated."




While the war was still going on, Stonewall Jackson referred to it as the "Second War for Independence", not including the War of 1812.




> The name "War of Northern Aggression" has been used to indicate the Union as the belligerent party in the war. The name arose in the 1950s, during the Jim Crow era, when it was coined by segregationists who tried to equate contemporary efforts to end segregation with 19th-century efforts to abolish slavery. The name has been criticized by historians such as James M. McPherson, as the Confederacy "took the initiative by seceding in defiance of an election of a president by a constitutional majority" and "started the war by firing on the American flag."
> 
> Since the free states and most non-Yankee groups (Germans, Dutch-Americans, New York Irish and southern-leaning settlers in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois) showed opposition to waging the Civil War, other Confederate sympathizers have used the name "War of Yankee Aggression" or "Great War of Yankee Aggression" to indicate the Civil War as a Yankee war, not a Northern war _per se_.
> 
> Conversely, the "War of Southern Aggression" has been used by those who maintain that the Confederacy was the belligerent party. They maintain the assertion that the Confederacy started the war by initiating combat at Fort Sumter.




Benen, Steve (February 11, 2009). "War of Northern Aggression". _The Washington Monthly_. Retrieved November 18, 2009.


----------



## Silveryou (May 4, 2021)

Didn't know. I really don't understand why authors who should be anti-left, anti-liberal etc. end up using their terminology instead of the authentic existing one. Words are powerful and a sign of _rebellion _in itself. So why don't they speak about the "War of Northern Aggression"? Saying that "white supremacists" from the north attacked the south leaves the impression that it would be good to act now 160 years later against those dangerous white people. But I am not an American and I am probably imagining things...


----------



## CBRadio (May 4, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I liked the article overall, but I don't like the use of the terminology "white supremacy" for facts happened in the 19th century. This is a modern cultural-Marxist category and it's strange that a supposedly anti-leftist guy uses it. Maybe just an error...




I take your point. The author could have stopped at 'racism' to make his point. But it reads to me as if he added 'and white supremacy' because that's what Southerners have been accused of, and he wants to put the record straight on both counts. But I agree - using 'supremacy' in any sense is unnecessarily emotive and distorting.


----------



## torgo (May 5, 2021)

Very interesting post. I don't claim to know the absolute truth, but I tend to trust the EIR's (Executive Intelligence Review) take on things more than most, especially back in their hey-day in the 70s and 80s., publishing their notorious Dope, Inc. book (attached) which blew the lid off the international drug trade and the histories, families and agencies behind it.  They explain that the secession of the South was a plot to subvert and split up the US by using the British and oligarchy-backed South. Chapter 2 goes into the history of all of this. Here is a quote:

_"Control over the Order of Zion rested in the British Board of Deputies, founded in 1763 and still in action. One of the board's earliest presidents was Sir Moses Montefiore, described in contemporary accounts as "Queen Victoria's favorite Jew." (2) When Montefiore took command of the board in 1835, its dirty tricks division, the Order of Zion, was on the verge of launching the covert campaign that would lead to both the Lincoln assassination, and the founding of organized crime, so-called, in the United States. Through the efforts of Montefiore, later Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (the Earl of Beaconsfield), and the then nouveau riche Rothschilds, the Order of Zion nursed into being the leadership of the *Confederacy*. Their starting point was the 1843 founding of the B'nai B'rith, also called the Constitutional Grand Lodge of the Order of the Sons of the Covenant, as a recognized branch of the Scottish Rite for American Jews. B'nai B'rith's first headquarters were at 450 Grand Street in Manhattan, at the house of Joseph Seligman, the wealthy "dry goods" merchant. (3) Seligman, whose name survives on Wall Street along withsuch of his contemporaries as August Belmont, Loeb, Schiff, and Lazard, was allied to the cotton-trading British oligarchy. B'nai B'rith was a straightforward covert intelligence front for the Montefiores and Rothschilds. Its American house organ, the Menorah, could not disguise its relationship to the Rothschilds."_

Also, the EIR has gone into the history of The US-Russian Entente that Saved the Union, about how Russia had sent out some battleships to the US in order to deter Britain and possibly France from joining the South in the war. Historian and economist Webster Tarpley has discussed this various times, such as in this interview and in this speech.






Relevant articles:
*The Rothschild Roots of the Ku Klux Klan*
*America's 'Young America' Movement: Slaveholders and the B'nai B'rith*
*Simon Wolf's Role in the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln*
*Why the British killed Abraham Lincoln*
*Masons Conspire for World Power: The Pike-Mazzini Correspondence*


----------



## Silveryou (May 5, 2021)

torgo said:


> _"Control over the Order of Zion rested in the British Board of Deputies, founded in 1763 and still in action. One of the board's earliest presidents was Sir Moses Montefiore, described in contemporary accounts as "Queen Victoria's favorite Jew." (2) When Montefiore took command of the board in 1835, its dirty tricks division, the Order of Zion, was on the verge of launching the covert campaign that would lead to both the Lincoln assassination, and the founding of organized crime, so-called, in the United States. Through the efforts of Montefiore, later Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (the Earl of Beaconsfield), and the then nouveau riche Rothschilds, the Order of Zion nursed into being the leadership of the *Confederacy*. Their starting point was the 1843 founding of the B'nai B'rith, also called the Constitutional Grand Lodge of the Order of the Sons of the Covenant, as a recognized branch of the Scottish Rite for American Jews. B'nai B'rith's first headquarters were at 450 Grand Street in Manhattan, at the house of Joseph Seligman, the wealthy "dry goods" merchant. (3) Seligman, whose name survives on Wall Street along withsuch of his contemporaries as August Belmont, Loeb, Schiff, and Lazard, was allied to the cotton-trading British oligarchy. B'nai B'rith was a straightforward covert intelligence front for the Montefiores and Rothschilds. Its American house organ, the Menorah, could not disguise its relationship to the Rothschilds."_


Just something to add about the Montefiore-Rothschild duet from the Italian historian Pietro Ratto:
_"The most important marriage, among those of Amschel's (Rothschild) daughters, was probably the one that fell to Henriette, who married Abraham Montefiore, a member of the powerful London Jewish family who emigrated to Livorno and uncle of that very rich Moses Montefiore, successful businessman and future philanthropist and activist for the Zionist cause. To strengthen the union between the two important Jewish families, the marriage between Nathan (Rothschild) and Moses' sister-in-law, Hannah Cohen, future third cousin of Karl Marx (who would be born twelve years after the marriage). A union that gave way to an impressive financial partnership between the Rothschilds and the Montefiores, starting with the Insurance Company Alliance (the current RSA - Royal & Sun Alliance, one of the largest insurance multinationals in the world), which the two founded in 1824."_
Pietro Ratto - Rothschild, il nome impronunciabile


----------



## Oracle (May 5, 2021)

A very well written review and a view of the civil war I haven't come across before.


dreamtime said:


> - the Old World is defined by an absence of Central Governance and corrupt power structures.


I would be very interested if you were to elucidate on this view.


----------



## Onijunbei (May 5, 2021)

There were people of the hidden hand on both sides of this "war" (just look at the avatar I use).  We know that the Lincoln assassination was fake and we know what group of people name their children Abraham.  We know they introduce the Lieber Code to reconcile their war effects and we know the outcome.  All "people" are to be "citizens" of the state and of the United States, putting "people" under the laws of the United States "which is Congress assembled".  Which allows Congress to manifest way more control over the territories being conquered and future lands to be taken by purchase or conflict. It is a consolidation of power...


----------



## dreamtime (May 5, 2021)

Oracle said:


> I would be very interested if you were to elucidate on this view.



The topic is in the queue for a documentary. First one is about industrialization (will be released next week probably), then the World Fair's, then the Reset and Mudflood, and after that we will do a video on governance structure in the old world. For all videos we will also release a 1:1 transcript, and hopefully I find time to put some images into it etc., for those who prefer to read.

The reason I don't write a lot in the forum currently is that most of my time is spent on writing for the videos.


----------



## KeeperOfTheKnowledge (May 5, 2021)

dreamtime said:


> And here we have a hint to the idea that the War of 1812 really was the same as the Civil War (SH Archive - Is the American Civil War part of the War of 1812?):



I am curious to see a geographical overlay of the battles from the War of 1812 and the American Civil War. Do any battles over lap? Do some? Do any at all?


----------



## JWW427 (May 6, 2021)

Being a Virginian and a son of the Civil War and Revolution, I can only say that all wars are manipulated by the winners.
Robert E. Lee took communion after the war in a church in Richmond with a black man to everyone's shock and awe. That says it all for me.


----------



## Onijunbei (May 6, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> Can you show me the post or where the idea the assassination didn't take place? I would like to check it for myself.


http://mileswmathis.com/lincoln.pdf


----------



## xandermcargyle (May 6, 2021)

KeeperOfTheKnowledge said:


> I am curious to see a geographical overlay of the battles from the War of 1812 and the American Civil War. Do any battles over lap? Do some? Do any at all?


Like this?


----------



## dakotamoon (May 7, 2021)

The Civil war is a pit of disinformation. Sherman had serious mental issues,  (Barnes Report) and couldn't mount a horse let alone .. drive to the sea and wipe out the south!  Sherman's neckties are a case in point - according to the official narrative: Union Soldiers were so appalled by slavery that they set bonfires and melted railway ties - and tied them in knots.  Would any child believe that tale?  We know from the Madrid Fault - that the Mississippi ran backwards - leading to a Mudflood and massive uprooting of N. America!  Only Children would buy this tale!


----------



## Armouro (May 7, 2021)

Any of you familiar with Ryan Dawson?

He may have his personality, but I've not seen a better exposition of the intricacies and inconsistencies in the American Civil War narrative, than he has provided.
Here, directly pertinent to this thread, is an exegesis of the post-war America.
And what a bucket of filth that era was, to the southerners.


_View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZlHnrRE6OJIn/_


----------



## Armouro (May 7, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> Before I get into watching these videos and reading these articles fully. I'll have to ask was the South operating as a nation and the North conquered it or at least possibly the American states were supposed to operate as independently as possible, but we are told that America used to be a single nation.


The states were operating under a union of states, formally recognised as a nation, but the states still held individual power the likes of which they don't have today. Hence the "confederation" being a confederation of states against a northern "Union" of states. 

Only afterwards do we see this amalgam of states operating in a fashion we currently view as a single entity in more than just name. (imo)


----------



## RaeWest (May 7, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> Before I get into watching these videos and reading these articles fully. I'll have to ask was the South operating as a nation and the North conquered it or at least possibly the American states were supposed to operate as independently as possible, but we are told that America used to be a single nation.


You haven't understood the role of Jews. Every 'nation' in fact is the supposed nation PLUS Jews.  Essential to understand that!


----------



## dakotamoon (May 7, 2021)

Onijunbei said:


> http://mileswmathis.com/lincoln.pdf


Miles Mathis is a terrible researcher. We've communicated several times.  A case in point .. His genealogical research is "legendary" !
Exhibit A- His genealogical research on David Icke:  Mathis tells us that Icke's ancestors were Hick's  - which rhymes with Ickes - which makes Icke a member of the Hicks  family!    


dakotamoon said:


> Miles Mathis is a terrible researcher. We've communicated several times.  A case in point .. His genealogical research is "legendary" !


http://mileswmathis.com/icke.pdf


----------



## RaeWest (May 8, 2021)

You pick just one example of Mathis' work; he's posted hundreds.


----------



## Onijunbei (May 8, 2021)

dakotamoon said:


> Miles Mathis is a terrible researcher. We've communicated several times.  A case in point .. His genealogical research is "legendary" !
> Exhibit A- His genealogical research on David Icke:  Mathis tells us that Icke's ancestors were Hick's  - which rhymes with Ickes - which makes Icke a member of the Hicks  family!
> 
> http://mileswmathis.com/icke.pdf


by Miles Mathis
First published May 14, 2017
Just my opinion, as usual.
I am just going to tell you a few basic genealogy facts, and you can do the rest here. Start at the *House of Names*,
https://www.houseofnames.com/icke-family-crest where you will find the name *Icke is a variation of the name Hicke or Hickes*. Just remove the “H”, you see. I don't know how David Icke pronounces it, but it was not originally pronounced Eye-ck. It was pronounced Ick, as in icky. Rhyming with sick. And dick. So the Ickes descend from the British Hicks/Hickes. Who are the Hicks? They are in the peerage, being the Baronets of Beverston Castle.


david icke...what does he do....he gives you some truth....and then tells you the royal family is.....wait for it.....reptilian shapeshifters....!!!!!!  the world is being ruled by giant lizards  !!!!


----------



## Silveryou (May 8, 2021)

Is this another thread about the genius of all geniuses Mr. Miles Mathis?

Icke vs Mathis = Reptilians vs Homosexuals


----------



## dakotamoon (May 8, 2021)

Miles has many of his "legendary" incidents of genealogical research.  Stating that someone's name rhymes with another name, and stating that as fact - is NOT genealogical research!  Genealogical research is: pointing to a source that proves someone's heritage!  Myles over and overstates: There is no genealogical info on this person so "OBVIOUSLY" - this means the person is from the Elite. That is NOT research. It's Nonsense.


----------



## JWW427 (May 8, 2021)

Just to be clear, David Icke is referring to a person's soul being a regressive extraterrestrial, not an actual serpent.
If one considers that Southern Freemason bigshot Albert Pike may have had this kind of soul, it does make some metaphysical sense.
It's possible that psychopaths like Sherman and Gen. Beauregard may have had some of this going on. Atrocities on both sides are clearly evident. The prison camps, starvation, the murder of black troops, etc.


----------



## EUAFU (May 9, 2021)

solarbard said:


> As a Southerner, let me say I heartily approve of this thread. The damned Yankees burned my ancestor's land. No one talks about Sherman's war crimes.



War is war, by definition crime. Of course, every kind of crime will always happen in a war. Slavery is worse than war.


----------



## RaeWest (May 10, 2021)

Miles Mathis is one of the best researchers today.  It's amusing to see these sad people doing what they're told, like zombies.
.
• Miles Mathis. Commentary, reviews, useful site searcher, and mirrored files.   By Rae West.  is my own personal view of his pdf papers, plus a site searcher - he doesn't bother with such things.
.
As in other fields, there's no substitute for looking for yourself.  In any controversial field, particularly involving Jews, if you're serious you have to look.  Don't blame me; I didn't arrange the system.
.
NB I watched the Pope or alleged Pope; Bergoglio I think. The old fool actually encouraged people to get jabbed. He knows nothing about it of course.


----------



## jo'bo (May 10, 2021)

Armouro said:


> The states were operating under a union of states, formally recognised as a nation, but the states still held individual power the likes of which they don't have today. Hence the "confederation" being a confederation of states against a northern "Union" of states.
> 
> Only afterwards do we see this amalgam of states operating in a fashion we currently view as a single entity in more than just name. (imo)



Well not really, there was no " formal" method back then for a nation to be recognised,  You either had enough muscle to protect your borders or at least allies that did or you quickly ceased to exist.

Really the whole formal recognition thing did not  exist till the United nation's was formed

By the start of the civil war America had just about reach the status of being able to exist by being powerful enough to defend it's own borders rather than no one had choosen to invade them recently

. But it still wasnt a Nation in the,sense of a common identity of people who considered themselves, first and foremost " American"

Hence the southern states deciding they had more allegiance to each other than the collective whole and electing to leave .

The term Unionists, applied to the folk who wanted the union of all states to continue,. Confederate, to the confederation that wanted to go their own way

Its depicted as a civil war, which it really wasnt, in the normal use of the phrase, it was more a hostile nation had suddenly appeared and had taken great big lumps of territory which they wanted back

The whole notion that it was about slavery rather than territory,  has had some artistic impression added


----------



## Silveryou (May 10, 2021)

Miles Mathis is the best researcher when it comes to actors and homosexuals. His name probably reveals who he really is, following his own "method":

Miles, a variant of Michael, means "who is like God?” or “gift from God". The Hebrew name Mathis (https://charlies-names.com/en/mathis/#:~:text=Meaning of Mathis,referring to the Hebrew God).) means “gift of Yahweh” (from Hebrew “mattath/מַתָּת” = gift + “yah/יָה” = referring to the Hebrew God).

His name also suggests a strong connection with Freemasonry and the myth of a quantifiable and measurable creation, given the obvious allusion to miles (Mile - Wikipedia) and mathematics (Mathematics - Wikipedia) in his name.

By the way... Is this another thread about the genius of all geniuses Mr. Miles Mathis?


----------



## Ponygirl (May 10, 2021)

dreamtime said:


> Lets use this thread to research the history of the Civil War before the leftist academics purged it's history in the 1960s.
> 
> The following is a book review of *Southern Scribblings* by Brion T. McClanahan. I haven't read the book yet but it's probably a good start to get a better picture of what really happened back then. A primary theme is that the Southern States hated the Central Government (probably Vatican-infiltrated) that began to form in Washington, and due to their enourmous resistance, a big war was waged against the Southerners - in my view they were part of the "Old World" remnants - the Old World is defined by an absence of Central Governance and corrupt power structures.
> 
> ...


As a descentent of Robert E Lee, I find the war of northern agression dispiciable. Lincoln couldn’t even find a competent General. No one asks why a man like Lee would side with the South. He went to West Point like all of the other generals so he was well-versed in what the political situation was. He was a good man. Maybe he understood the parasites had taken over the north. The final insult from the north, was turning Lee’s land into a graveyard. Sounds like something the liberals would do now.


----------



## jo'bo (May 10, 2021)

Ponygirl said:


> As a descentent of Robert E Lee, I find the war of northern agression dispiciable. Lincoln couldn’t even find a competent General. No one asks why a man like Lee would side with the South. He went to West Point like all of the other generals so he was well-versed in what the political situation was. He was a good man. Maybe he understood the parasites had taken over the north. The final insult from the north, was turning Lee’s land into a graveyard. Sounds like something the liberals would do now.


I think attaching out rage to most historical events,  is a liberal trait, very nearly everything historical is outragiuous  by modern standards, even stuff from 20 years ago.

I think a lot of history, ( if it happened at all anything like portrayed) was just an inevitability,  based on events that preceded it and or the prevailing morality  . or complete fluke that could have gone either way on the toss of a coin

There was only one likely out come from the confederation leaving the union and only one likely out come from the war, given the inequality between the sides. If the confederacy didnt realise  that, they didnt consider it carefully enough


----------



## Armouro (May 10, 2021)

jo'bo said:


> Well not really, there was no " formal" method back then for a nation to be recognised,  You either had enough muscle to protect your borders or at least allies that did or you quickly ceased to exist.
> 
> Really the whole formal recognition thing did not  exist till the United nation's was formed
> 
> ...


There we go. I gave a basic premise to a foreigner. You narrowed it down a bit.


----------



## RaeWest (May 11, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Miles Mathis is the best researcher when it comes to actors and homosexuals. His name probably reveals who he really is, following his own "method":
> etc etc



Presumably you're hired or something to say you don't like Mathis.  If there are people here who want to look at his material, I have to recommend my own introduction here

https://big-lies.org/mileswmathis/index.html
Unfortunately he doesn't bother to spend time on uninformed people.  But my piece gives brief outlines and also includes a site searcher - look for JFK, or Lincoln, or the Meuse, or lenin. Just a few examples.


torgo said:


> Very interesting post. I don't claim to know the absolute truth, but I tend to trust the EIR's (Executive Intelligence Review) take on things more than most, especially back in their hey-day in the 70s and 80s., publishing their notorious Dope, Inc. book (attached) which blew the lid off the international drug trade and the histories, families and agencies behind it.  They explain that the secession of the South was a plot to subvert and split up the US by using the British and oligarchy-backed South. Chapter 2 goes into the history of all of this. Here is a quote:
> 
> _"Control over the Order of Zion rested in the British Board of Deputies, founded in 1763 and still in action. One of the board's earliest presidents was Sir Moses Montefiore, described in contemporary accounts as "Queen Victoria's favorite Jew." (2) When Montefiore took command of the board in 1835, its dirty tricks division, the Order of Zion, was on the verge of launching the covert campaign that would lead to both the Lincoln assassination, and the founding of organized crime, so-called, in the United States. ........._
> *Masons Conspire for World Power: The Pike-Mazzini Correspondence*



You're definitely right to assign a large part of the causes of war to Jews.  So, well done.  It's amazing how misleading history is without their malign influence.  Albert Pike is unmentioned by these 'historians'.   It's exactly analogous with European Wars, of course.
.
Keep it up. And watch for Jewish lies and fakes, which are endless. For example, the Lincoln Assassination seems to have been a psy-op.


----------



## Ponygirl (May 13, 2021)

jo'bo said:


> I think attaching out rage to most historical events,  is a liberal trait, very nearly everything historical is outragiuous  by modern standards, even stuff from 20 years ago.
> 
> I think a lot of history, ( if it happened at all anything like portrayed) was just an inevitability,  based on events that preceded it and or the prevailing morality  . or complete fluke that could have gone either way on the toss of a coin
> 
> There was only one likely out come from the confederation leaving the union and only one likely out come from the war, given the inequality between the sides. If the confederacy didnt realise  that, they didnt consider it carefully enough


Maybe it was a William Wallace moment for the south; die on your feet rather than live on your knees. Our current society seems content with a mask and matching knee pads.


----------



## Silveryou (May 15, 2021)

dreamtime said:


> Yankees


Premise: this is not pertaining the American Civil War but I think it is nontheless interesting.

I was watching a video on Youtube about an Afro-American woman giving an interview in 1941 and talking about her Yankee "masters" in a good way. I've heard this word "Yankee" multiple times but I never thought it was kind of a very common name for Americans (from the North-East??? - don't slay me on this one because I don't know) in the middle of the 20th century. Certainly today is no more used or at least not as commonly and with the certainty showed by this woman, who felt them as a distinct group among others, by the way in which she speaks, imo. Here the video: Yankees at about 00:20.

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYrsYrA7an0_


So, intrigued by this simple detail I've done my simple search. Here is what I've found: "American musicologist Oscar Sonneck debunked a romanticized false etymology in his 1909 work _Report on "The Star-Spangled Banner", "Hail Columbia", "America", "Yankee Doodle"_. He cited a popular theory which claimed that the word came from a tribe who called themselves _Yankoos_, said to mean "invincible". The story claimed that New Englanders had defeated this tribe after a bloody battle, and the remaining _Yankoo_ Indians transferred their name to the victors—who were "agreeable to the Indian custom". Sonneck notes that multiple American writers since 1775 had repeated this story as if it were fact, despite what he perceived to be holes in it. It had never been the tradition of any Indian tribe to transfer their name to other peoples, according to Sonneck, nor had any settlers ever adopted an Indian name to describe themselves. Sonneck concludes by pointing out that there was never a tribe called the _Yankoos_." (Yankee - Wikipedia)

On that wiki there are various etymologies proposed for the name, but this one has struck me as the most realistic. First of all the terminology used is quite suspect: _FALSE ETYMOLOGY *DEBUNKED. *_Then the "debunker" himself is a semi-obscure figure (a _*musicologist*_!!!) who deserves to be inspected by someone interested... And finally the _*fact *_that he supposedly debunked the most reknown story about the origin of the Yankees, transforming it in a myth, of which modern Americans could be unaware. Is there someone with more info? I smell interesting revelations here!!


----------



## Silveryou (May 15, 2021)

"British General James Wolfe made the earliest recorded use of the word "Yankee" in 1758 when he referred to the New England soldiers under his command. "I can afford you two companies of Yankees, and the more, because they are better for ranging and scouting than either work or vigilance". Later British use of the word was in a derogatory manner, as seen in a cartoon published in 1775 ridiculing "Yankee" (American) soldiers. New Englanders themselves employed the word in a neutral sense" (Yankee - Wikipedia)

So if my enemy calls me let's say... _Moron._.. Will I employ that word in a neutral sense, just because it sounds cool? Is my IQ below that of a monkey? On the other hand the most natural solution is that Yankees were the original white native inhabitants of that part of America. Could their name be Yamasees (Yamasee - Wikipedia), before it changed into Yankees? In any case the name itself Yankee speaks of a native origin as well as Cherokee.


----------



## Worsaae (May 16, 2021)

Using google ngram, we can see that yankee was used much prior to new englander. New Englander could be a term used to describe the yankees when the english saw yankees in America.


----------



## gkelly (May 16, 2021)

Onijunbei said:


> We know that the Lincoln assassination was fake


How do we know this?  Evidence?


----------



## BStankman (May 16, 2021)

gkelly said:


> How do we know this?  Evidence?



Speculative, but something to consider.
Did Lincoln attend his own funeral?


----------



## Will Scarlet (May 16, 2021)

Whilst I have no doubt that the Civil War was nothing like its portrayal in mainstream history, I do have some doubts regarding the North=bad and South=good  theory. For example how does this situation reconcile with the Greenback phenomena? This was Lincoln sticking it to the financial cabal in no uncertain terms and many people cite it as the reason for his (supposed) assassination.

_"The government should create issue and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers..... The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government's greatest creative opportunity. By the adoption of these principles,
the long-felt want for a uniform medium will be satisfied. The taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest, discounts and exchanges. The financing of all public enterprises, the maintenance of stable government and ordered progress, and the conduct of the Treasury will become matters of practical administration. The people can and will be furnished with a currency as safe as their own government. Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity. Democracy will rise superior to the money power."_
(President Lincoln - Senate document 23, Page 91. 1865)

We know from experience that anyone who dares to do that ends up either dead or in a massive amount of trouble... usually both.

_*"I have two enemies; the Southern army in front of me and the financial *_*institutions in the rear. Of the two, the one in the rear is my greatest *_*foe."*_ Abraham Lincoln

These 'financial institutions' were most probably European - in the broadest sense of the term. Whilst the authenticity of such quotes can be disputed, the issuing of Greenbacks is pretty much as close to a 'fact' as you can get.

I get the feeling that none of this is as 'cut and dried' as it seems. It's also worth bearing in mind that the very first flag of America is the exact same one as that of the *British East India Company*,.


----------



## Silveryou (May 16, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> Using google ngram, we can see that yankee was used much prior to new englander. New Englander could be a term used to describe the yankees when the english saw yankees in America.


My concern with google ngram is that it doesn't show the bibliography and so for me its utility is somewhat questionable. Your idea of New Englander used instead of Yankees could be true if there was an appropriation of Yankee's history as it is implied in the original story of the "passage" of the name to the New Englanders by the Yankees who recognised their valour. But this story seems akward to me since "Yankees" was a term apparently used as their real name as a nation. And Yankee is too similar to Cherokee to be a coincidence, imo.

I am sincerily surprised to have NEVER seen a discussion on this aspect. It is so "in your face". Does it trigger some shameful memory of the past? Or is it just the more common brainwashing which has hidden these aspects in plain sight? The Sonneck guy acted in the moment in time when the USA changed owner, so to say, and was head of the music division of the Library of Congress. I would like the opinion of the modern Yankees


----------



## Worsaae (May 16, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> My concern with google ngram is that it doesn't show the bibliography and so for me its utility is somewhat questionable. Your idea of New Englander used instead of Yankees could be true if there was an appropriation of Yankee's history as it is implied in the original story of the "passage" of the name to the New Englanders by the Yankees who recognised their valour. But this story seems akward to me since "Yankees" was a term apparently used as their real name as a nation. And Yankee is too similar to Cherokee to be a coincidence, imo.
> 
> I am sincerily surprised to have NEVER seen a discussion on this aspect. It is so "in your face". Does it trigger some shameful memory of the past? Or is it just the more common brainwashing which has hidden these aspects in plain sight? The Sonneck guy acted in the moment in time when the USA changed owner, so to say, and was head of the music division of the Library of Congress. I would like the opinion of the modern Yankees


Let's say Yankees lived in the US as a tribe before the English officially arrived in the Americas, let's remember that the vikings visited the Americas 500 years prior to Columbus according to mainstream history and that most american tribes have stories of red headed giants and white people prior to the discovery (dis - cover) of America, and that the English are the same ethnicity as the vikings; anglos a part of Denmark (although this history is questionable in itself but that's for another thread). 
Now once the English arrived in the Americas and settled here to establish and expand the English Kingdom, it stands to reason that you would want to include the people already living there into your identity, so that they feel included in your Kingdom. New Englanders seems a fitting name for that, and if the "New Englanders" were of the same ethnicity as the "Old Englanders" arriving in the Americas, then it works well. 
I know one of the most used tricks to rewrite history is to change the meaning of words or by changing the context of words, which shapes the thoughts of people. An example of that is Native American -> White American, then Indian -> Native American. By changing words, we can change thoughts and perspectives. 

To look into this with regards to the civil war, I think it is useful to look into which language people spoke if that's possible. I know that German was in widespread use in the Americas before the 1900s and king George is of germanic/gothic heritage.


----------



## Silveryou (May 16, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> Let's say Yankees lived in the US as a tribe before the English officially arrived in the Americas, let's remember that the vikings visited the Americas 500 years prior to Columbus according to mainstream history and that most american tribes have stories of red headed giants and white people prior to the discovery (dis - cover) of America, and that the English are the same ethnicity as the vikings; anglos a part of Denmark (although this history is questionable in itself but that's for another thread).
> Now once the English arrived in the Americas and settled here to establish and expand the English Kingdom, it stands to reason that you would want to include the people already living there into your identity, so that they feel included in your Kingdom. New Englanders seems a fitting name for that, and if the "New Englanders" were of the same ethnicity as the "Old Englanders" arriving in the Americas, then it works well.
> I know one of the most used tricks to rewrite history is to change the meaning of words or by changing the context of words, which shapes the thoughts of people. An example of that is Native American -> White American, then Indian -> Native American. By changing words, we can change thoughts and perspectives.
> 
> To look into this with regards to the civil war, I think it is useful to look into which language people spoke if that's possible. I know that German was in widespread use in the Americas before the 1900s and king George is of germanic/gothic heritage.


The most akward thing to me is that if you google "Yankee", this is what you find...




 


... candles and baseball!!! I am really surprised by the fact that many Americans seem to be extremely focused on Romans, British Monarchy, Vatican and Nazixxx when in reality the place in which most of events went down is America itself. Where the Yankees disappeared? Genocide?


----------



## Worsaae (May 16, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> The most akward thing to me is that if you google "Yankee", this is what you find...
> View attachment 8953View attachment 8954​
> ... candles and baseball!!! I am really surprised by the fact that many Americans seem to be extremely focused on Romans, British Monarchy, Vatican and Nazixxx when in reality the place in which most of events went down is America itself. Where the Yankees disappeared? Genocide?


Who is to say that the yankees disappeared? How many preussians do you see walking around today?


----------



## Silveryou (May 16, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> Who is to say that the yankees disappeared? How many preussians do you see walking around today?


Culturally speaking though... they are synonim with candles and baseball. Their heritage has been destroyed, so... let's talk about Nazisss


----------



## Will Scarlet (May 16, 2021)

"_The origin of the word Yankee. There are several theories as to the origin of the word, but the prevailing theory is that was a dismissive reference by the British towards American colonists and the Dutch origins of many northeast settlers. It is believed to be a corruption of Janke, or little Jan, a common Dutch name._" (Article)

Sounds a bit like the Ignatius/Nazi connection.

So what's a "Yankee Doodle Dandy" then?

_"The song "Yankee Doodle Dandy" became popular among the British as well as the rebels. A doodle was a simpleton and the phrase "stuck a feather in his hat and called it macaroni" implied the backwoods bumpkins could put a feather in their coonskin hats and think they were as elegant as European in the latest Italian style -- the "macaroni."_  (Article)

"_I'm a Yankee Doodle Dandy
A Yankee Doodle, do or die
A real live nephew of my Uncle Sam
Born on the Fourth of July

!I've got a Yankee Doodle sweetheart
She's my Yankee Doodle joy
Yankee Doodle came to London
Just to ride the ponies
I am the Yankee Doodle Boy_"
(by George M. *Cohan*... obviously the pasta-free version)

"_The earliest words of "Yankee Doodle" came from a *Middle Dutch harvest song* which is thought to have followed the same tune, possibly dating back as far as 15th-century Holland. It contained mostly nonsensical words in English and Dutch: "Yanker, didel, doodle down, Diddle, dudel, lanther, Yanke viver, voover vown, Botermilk und tanther." Farm laborers in Holland were paid "as much buttermilk (Botermilk) as they could drink, and a tenth (tanther) of the grain_" (Wikipiddlia)


----------



## Silveryou (May 16, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> So what's a "Yankee Doodle Dandy" then?
> 
> _"The song "Yankee Doodle Dandy" became popular among the British as well as the rebels. A doodle was a simpleton and the phrase "stuck a feather in his hat and called it macaroni" implied the backwoods bumpkins could put a feather in their coonskin hats and think they were as elegant as European in the latest Italian style -- the "macaroni."_ (Article)
> 
> ...


I think this explanation goes back to the Oscar Sonneck I was talking about, or at least partially (Yankee - Wikipedia). In fact I think he has a point in showing the similarity of these words with Middle Dutch which by the way is said to have been "spoken and written between 1150 and 1500" (Middle Dutch - Wikipedia). But still remains the problem with the name _Yankee _itself and its connection with _Cherokee. _Were the Cherokee of "Germanic" origin as well (if the proposal of a Viking origin for the Yankee is true, obviously)? Or is it possible that the Yankees, of European origin, really took the name of the Indian tribe as consistently told before the official _debunking_ by Sonneck?
We should investigate this guy. Sadly, I don't know where to begin. I need American HELP! Is there someone interested in this subject? HELP!!!

Could there be a connection between the Yankees and the Afrikaners (Afrikaners - Wikipedia)? Is it possible to search the etimology of _Yankee _and _Cherokee _in Afrikaans language (Afrikaans - Wikipedia)?


----------



## Sigian (May 17, 2021)

dakotamoon said:


> The Civil war is a pit of disinformation. Sherman had serious mental issues,  (Barnes Report) and couldn't mount a horse let alone .. drive to the sea and wipe out the south!  Sherman's neckties are a case in point - according to the official narrative: Union Soldiers were so appalled by slavery that they set bonfires and melted railway ties - and tied them in knots.  Would any child believe that tale?  We know from the Madrid Fault - that the Mississippi ran backwards - leading to a Mudflood and massive uprooting of N. America!  Only Children would buy this tale!



Weren't the Rothchilds known for disinformation on both sides of a conflict?  Remember the Napoleonic Wars?  Rothschild bet on both sides, the longer it goes, the more profitable.  Feed all sides wrong information, conflicts arise, profit some more.  Seems like anviscious cycle.  Maybe that's why Lincoln was killed.


----------



## Silveryou (May 17, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I think this explanation goes back to the Oscar Sonneck I was talking about, or at least partially (Yankee - Wikipedia). In fact I think he has a point in showing the similarity of these words with Middle Dutch which by the way is said to have been "spoken and written between 1150 and 1500" (Middle Dutch - Wikipedia). But still remains the problem with the name _Yankee _itself and its connection with _Cherokee. _Were the Cherokee of "Germanic" origin as well (if the proposal of a Viking origin for the Yankee is true, obviously)? Or is it possible that the Yankees, of European origin, really took the name of the Indian tribe as consistently told before the official _debunking_ by Sonneck?
> We should investigate this guy. Sadly, I don't know where to begin. I need American HELP! Is there someone interested in this subject? HELP!!!
> 
> Could there be a connection between the Yankees and the Afrikaners (Afrikaners - Wikipedia)? Is it possible to search the etimology of _Yankee _and _Cherokee _in Afrikaans language (Afrikaans - Wikipedia)?


One step closer to the truth?

Black Dutch (genealogy) - Wikipedia

"Before the Indian Removal Act in 1830, many of Lawrence County's *Cherokee *people were already mixed with white settlers and stayed in the country of the Warrior Mountains. They denied their ancestry and basically lived much of their lives in fear of being sent West. Full bloods claimed to be Black Irish or Black Dutch, thus denying their rightful Native American blood. After being fully assimilated into the general population years later, these Irish Cherokee mixed-blood descendants, began reclaiming their Native American heritage in the land of the Warrior Mountains, Lawrence County, Alabama. During the 1900 U.S. Census only 78 people claimed their Native American heritage. In 1990, more than 2000 individuals claimed Native American descent. Today more than 4000 citizens are proud to claim their Native American heritage and are members of the Echota Cherokee tribe."

"There are strong indications that the original "Black Dutch" were swarthy-complexioned Germans. Anglo-Americans loosely applied the term to any dark-complexioned American of European descent. The term was adopted [by some people] as an attempt to disguise Indian or infrequently, tri-racial descent. By the mid-19th century, the term had become an American colloquialism; a derogative term for anything denoting one's small stature, dark coloring, working-class status, political sentiments or anyone of foreign extract. In contrast to the Anglo-surnamed Melungeons, nearly 60% of American families reporting Black Dutch tradition bear surnames that are either decidedly German or possibly Americanized from Germanic origin."

Cherokees today...


----------



## Will Scarlet (May 18, 2021)

With reference to racial mixing, it shouldn't be forgotten that the Spanish were there before most other Europeans.


----------



## Silveryou (May 18, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> With reference to racial mixing, it shouldn't be forgotten that the Spanish were there before most other Europeans.


And the Netherlands were part of the Spanish Crown from 1556 to 1714 (Spanish Netherlands - Wikipedia)


----------



## Will Scarlet (May 18, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> And the Netherlands were part of the Spanish Crown from 1556 to 1714 (Spanish Netherlands - Wikipedia)



Yes and the Dutch East India Company predated the British one... the plot thickens 

Could the Civil War have been a fight for supremacy between the two East India Companies?


----------



## Silveryou (May 18, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Yes and the Dutch East India Company predated the British one... the plot thickens
> 
> Could the Civil War have been a fight for supremacy between the two East India Companies?


This is what I am subconsciously thinking: Holy Roman Empire against the new un-named modern powers with their operational base in Britain. But I think it's better to turn back for the moment and look into more details


----------



## Will Scarlet (May 18, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> This is what I am subconsciously thinking: Holy Roman Empire against the new un-named modern powers with their operational base in Britain. But I think it's better to turn back for the moment and look into more details



Strangely enough I am working on something else that also seems to support a similar hypothesis related to the Civil War. However, for now there's this:

"_When the word __filibuster __is used today, it is most often in reference to political act of extending a debate in order to prevent a vote on an issue. In nineteenth century America, the term filibuster took on a different tone. Instead, it referred to the violent and treasonous acts by Americans to extend slavery into Central and South America. A major figure in the filibuster was *William Walker, “the grey-eyed man of destiny”*, who led several filibustering expeditions in Mexico and South America before being executed in Honduras in 1860. Though unsuccessful like the movement as a whole, Walker and filibustering are *another example of the violent events concerning the extension of slavery that preceded the Civil War.*_" (Article)


----------



## Silveryou (May 18, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Strangely enough I am working on something else that also seems to support a similar hypothesis related to the Civil War. However, for now there's this:
> 
> "_When the word __filibuster __is used today, it is most often in reference to political act of extending a debate in order to prevent a vote on an issue. In nineteenth century America, the term filibuster took on a different tone. Instead, it referred to the violent and treasonous acts by Americans to extend slavery into Central and South America. A major figure in the filibuster was *William Walker, “the grey-eyed man of destiny”*, who led several filibustering expeditions in Mexico and South America before being executed in Honduras in 1860. Though unsuccessful like the movement as a whole, Walker and filibustering are *another example of the violent events concerning the extension of slavery that preceded the Civil War.*_" (Article)


And also "The English term "filibuster" derives from the Spanish _filibustero_, itself *deriving originally from the Dutch *_*vrijbuiter*_, 'privateer, pirate, robber' (also the root of English _freebooter_)." (Filibuster (military) - Wikipedia)

My knowledge of this time period and places is very minute though. I am navigating by sight.


----------



## Will Scarlet (May 18, 2021)

"_There are eight States in the United States Confederation, who between them borrowed £15,040,000 from London in the good old days a century ago _[1834]_, and who have since been too proud to pay either principal or interest. These original borrowings in these American defaults are:_




_"The Council of Foreign Bondholders in 1930 asserted that the arrears of interest on the American defaulted loans had accumulated to the sum of £52,339,200._”
(‘The Financiers and the Nation’ 1934, by The Rt. Hon. Thomas Johnston, P.C. ex Lord Privy Seal)

This list is missing only Texas, Tennessee and Virginia to cover all of the southern states involved in the uprising.

These loans were made at a time when the same British based financiers were making similar loans to most South American 'states' in order to overthrow Spanish rule. Most of these 'loans' were never repaid either.

[Edit: to remove "(under the control of Rothschild)" which may not have been the case.]


----------



## Silveryou (May 18, 2021)

I am currently looking into the word "Yankee" in the Historic American Newspapers and the first mention is about a Yankee privateer... interesting! (The Newport gazette. [volume] (Newport [R.I.]) 1777-1779, September 04, 1777, Image 2)

EDIT @Will Scarlet
Trivia: "Last night Capt. Bowles, chief of the embassy of the Creeks and Cherokee Indians, was initiated into the mysteries of Free Masonry." (Gazette of the United-States. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1789-1793, April 02, 1791, Page 802, Image 2)
Emmet Starr, an early historian of the Cherokee, describes Bowles as "being decidedly Gaelic in appearance, having light eyes, red hair, and somewhat freckled." (The Bowl (Cherokee chief) - Wikipedia)

By the way, in the treaties with various Indian Nations, the Cherokees are the only ones without a single member named (Gazette of the United-States. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1789-1793, September 15, 1790, Page 595, Image 3)


----------



## Worsaae (May 18, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I am currently looking into the word "Yankee" in the Historic American Newspapers and the first mention is about a Yankee privateer... interesting! (The Newport gazette. [volume] (Newport [R.I.]) 1777-1779, September 04, 1777, Image 2)
> 
> EDIT @Will Scarlet
> Trivia: "Last night Capt. Bowles, chief of the embassy of the Creeks and Cherokee Indians, was initiated into the mysteries of Free Masonry." (Gazette of the United-States. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1789-1793, April 02, 1791, Page 802, Image 2)
> ...


Bowles is half Cherokee and half Scottish apparently


----------



## Silveryou (May 18, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> Bowles is half Cherokee and half Scottish apparently


He fits well in the general category of Black Dutch imo. What is almost astonishing is the high number of these supposedly native aboriginal Indian _chiefs_ with European background. And their actions should be investigated. Bowles "led the first large Cherokee emigration west across the Mississippi River in 1809"... that should mean something imo

Was it colonisation disguised as forced immigration of native Indians?

Also @Worsaae, note that in the article he is called Bowles and not by his presumed true name Di'wali...


----------



## Will Scarlet (May 19, 2021)

This painting depicts the 'Caste' system that was prevalent in South America when it was under Spanish rule. It's possible that a similar system existed in North America, therefore the word 'Yankee' could have been part of the terminology used for a specific racial mix, like Dutch/Cherokee for example. Although you would expect to hear similar terms that have filtered down describing other racial mixes I suppose, but I can't think of any - maybe our US members know of some?


----------



## Silveryou (May 19, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> This painting depicts the 'Caste' system that was prevalent in South America when it was under Spanish rule. It's possible that a similar system existed in North America, therefore the word 'Yankee' could have been part of the terminology used for a specific racial mix, like Dutch/Cherokee for example. Although you would expect to hear similar terms that have filtered down describing other racial mixes I suppose, but I can't think of any - maybe our US members know of some?
> 
> View attachment 9009​


The Noteentiendos (Don'tunderstandyous) are definitely the funniest


----------



## Alexandra (Jun 1, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I liked the article overall, but I don't like the use of the terminology "white supremacy" for facts happened in the 19th century.


According to my source (not an American one) Lincoln was the one who claimed that white race was superior:

_"There must remain a position of superiority and inferiority," Lincoln also swore, "and like no other man I am in favor of the superiority being assigned to the white race."_

Source: 
Afschaffing slavernij in Amerika

I've noticed that English language sources about this subject avoiding these words. They prefer "unequality". 

Words are very powerful to re-write history.


Will Scarlet said:


> This painting depicts the 'Caste' system that was prevalent in South America when it was under Spanish rule. It's possible that a similar system existed in North America, therefore the word 'Yankee' could have been part of the terminology used for a specific racial mix, like Dutch/Cherokee for example.


To my surprise I found this:

_"The population of the colony of Rensselaerswyck in its early days consisted of three classes: freemen on top, who emigrated from Holland at their own expense; farmers next; and farm servants sent by the patroon at the bottom of the caste system."_

As far as I know there is no caste systeem in Holland so I'm a bit surprised that a Dutch guy implemented it there. 
There is no mention of this in the Dutch version. 
Also "free men" and sent servants are new to me.

Maybe of brings a new light to what was meant with "slavery" at all in the Americans.
_Manor of Rensselaerswyck - Wikipedia
_


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jun 1, 2021)

Alexandra said:


> "There must remain a position of superiority and inferiority," Lincoln also swore, "and like no other man I am in favor of the superiority being assigned to the white race."



That's very interesting, but puzzling at the same time. Superficially at least the Civil War was fought by the North against the South to abolish that kind of white supremacy in the form of slavery. Very odd.



Alexandra said:


> As far as I know there is no caste systeem in Holland so I'm a bit surprised that a Dutch guy implemented it there.



Similarly there was no caste system in Spain, but the Spanish colonisers also implemented one in America. Makes you wonder who they really were...


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 1, 2021)

Alexandra said:


> According to my source (not an American one) Lincoln was the one who claimed that white race was superior:
> 
> _"There must remain a position of superiority and inferiority," Lincoln also swore, "and like no other man I am in favor of the superiority being assigned to the white race."_
> 
> ...


I am sure he spoke about race and the advance of "white" civilization when compared to "black" civilization, even in harsh tones. But focusing on few lines to explain an entire war and doing it in this moment in time with the rethoric "white vs black" is nontheless a sign of a political bias transposed into history. What if Lincoln also said something entirely different but it's not used because it goes against modern narrative?


Will Scarlet said:


> Similarly there was no caste system in Spain, but the Spanish colonisers also implemented one in America. Makes you wonder who they really were...


I think the Black Legend (Black legend - Wikipedia) has something to do with those events. I personally don't believe in the mass killing of Latins by the Spanish through a flu...


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jun 1, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I think the Black Legend (Black legend - Wikipedia) has something to do with those events. I personally don't believe in the mass killing of Latins by the Spanish through a flu...



I agree, in fact the _Legenda Negra_ against Spain is still going on today and also includes the Franco period.

What's interesting is the *Caste War of the Yucatan* which was simultaneous with the American Civil War running from 1847 to 1901:

_"Background to the War

"In Spanish colonial times, Yucatán (like most of New Spain) was under a legal caste system, with officials born in Spain at the top, the Creoles of Spanish descent in the next level, followed by the Mestizo population, then the native "Hidalgos", descendants of the Pre-Columbian nobility who had collaborated with the Spanish conquest of Yucatán, and at the bottom were the mass of native Indios.

With independence there was much rhetoric of a new equality before the law, but little actually changed other than the Creoles taking over the role of the Spaniards at the top of the political pyramid." _(Article)


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 1, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> I agree, in fact the _Legenda Negra_ against Spain is still going on today and also includes the Franco period.
> 
> What's interesting is the *Caste War of the Yucatan* which was simultaneous with the American Civil War running from 1847 to 1901:
> 
> ...


That explains it all in few lines, really


----------



## denverguy2 (Jun 5, 2021)

torgo said:


> Very interesting post. I don't claim to know the absolute truth, but I tend to trust the EIR's (Executive Intelligence Review) take on things more than most, especially back in their hey-day in the 70s and 80s., publishing their notorious Dope, Inc. book (attached) which blew the lid off the international drug trade and the histories, families and agencies behind it.  They explain that the secession of the South was a plot to subvert and split up the US by using the British and oligarchy-backed South. Chapter 2 goes into the history of all of this. Here is a quote:


"I tend to trust the EIR's (Executive Intelligence Review) take on things more than most".

Hello, I am new to this website and this is my first post.  I used to lurk on the old stolenhistory.org site, and I find this all very interesting.  I would like to say that in my humble opinion (which doesn't count for anything, make up your own mind) that the Executive Intelligence Review is not a trustworthy source.  It is one of the publications promoting the views of Lyndon LaRouche, who passed away in 2019 at the age of 96. LaRouche was a genius who had very strong opinions on everything; for example, he really hates the British.  I think it is fair to call the LaRouche Movement a political cult.  They certainly produce some interesting articles and publications, which are worth reading, but I wouldn't cite it as a primary source, and I wouldn't take it as "the truth".   For example, on the LaRouche PAC's homepage, there is an article entitled: "Why the British Launched the Coup Against Trump".  I'm not trying to derail this thread, I just think that if you quote a LaRouche publication that you should acknowledge it.  Webster Tarpley, a former LaRouche associate, also has some very interesting views.


----------



## torgo (Jun 6, 2021)

denverguy2 said:


> "I tend to trust the EIR's (Executive Intelligence Review) take on things more than most".
> 
> Hello, I am new to this website and this is my first post.  I used to lurk on the old stolenhistory.org site, and I find this all very interesting.  I would like to say that in my humble opinion (which doesn't count for anything, make up your own mind) that the Executive Intelligence Review is not a trustworthy source.  It is one of the publications promoting the views of Lyndon LaRouche, who passed away in 2019 at the age of 96. LaRouche was a genius who had very strong opinions on everything; for example, he really hates the British.  I think it is fair to call the LaRouche Movement a political cult.  They certainly produce some interesting articles and publications, which are worth reading, but I wouldn't cite it as a primary source, and I wouldn't take it as "the truth".   For example, on the LaRouche PAC's homepage, there is an article entitled: "Why the British Launched the Coup Against Trump".  I'm not trying to derail this thread, I just think that if you quote a LaRouche publication that you should acknowledge it.  Webster Tarpley, a former LaRouche associate, also has some very interesting views.


Yes, the EIR is indeed a LaRouche publication and I understand your concern with it.  I had a skeptical view of him back in the day, before I did my own research on them and their history.  The LaRouche PAC today is not the same as it was decades ago, as a lot has happened since. LaRouche and his Labor Party were attacked and smeared in the press ("fascist", "cult", etc.)  He was railroaded and thrown in jail under false charges and relentlessly slandered in the 80s in order to prevent him from gaining political office.  It was one of the most effective smear campaigns in US history.  Since all of the drama, the organization has undergone several revisions and was effectively neutered and prevented from doing the kinds of independent investigative reports they did in the 70s and 80s with their own intelligence network.  This research from that era I've found to be excellent and unique, in my opinion and I am open to any refutations of it, but I have not seen any so far.  They really did a good job of exposing the people and organizations behind much of what has happened in the world, and the book Dope, Inc. was a case in point.  So it was essentially another organization entirely back then from what it has been in the last couple decades, where I feel it has been compromised and untrustworthy. Yes, LaRouche blamed the British constantly as the source of our ills, which I think in many ways was accurate but in other ways overly simplistic.  I also did not agree with all of his opinions.  But they did publish many articles explaining the hidden networks in detail, giving the impression that it wasn't as simple as just "the British" behind everything, for example, their articles on much of the power coming from Switzerland.

Here is a documentary on the story of what happened with LaRouche and his organization.


----------



## Onijunbei (Jun 6, 2021)

mega1000 said:


> Before I get into watching these videos and reading these articles fully. I'll have to ask was the South operating as a nation and the North conquered it or at least possibly the American states were supposed to operate as independently as possible, but we are told that America used to be a single nation.


the "South" didnt have the "right" to break away from the Union.  The Union was set up by England for England.  All the estates (states) were given by England, and their consolidation was for the behest of England.  All the incidents that led to the war may have well been planned or staged...but the Land and the organization set up on the Land, was always at the behest of England, on her behalf.


----------



## Alexandra (Jun 6, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> That's very interesting, but puzzling at the same time. Superficially at least the Civil War was fought by the North against the South to abolish that kind of white supremacy in the form of slavery. Very odd.


Perhaps... Just a weird jump in my head.
I mean why would a white (or jewish?) President of a stolen country even say that. 
Or were black Americans up onto something that we don't know and we're not supposed to know?

Is that why they were kept in a sort of hostage in their own country until WW2 happend (i believe that is the big reset of the 20th century) and history was neatly erased and rewritten and Rosa Parks was able to stand up (or sit down- don't remember) in that bus? 

The circumstances did not approve for most blacks after the war, in contrary; they were thrown into poverty. 
But in the meantime the ex slaves managed to reach ages of 120 years old...

(About this Collection  | Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938  | Digital Collections  | Library of Congress)
(This is a strange book anyway...it says that the Yankees were out stealing slaves for example  many ex slaves stayed with their masters after war because they were nice people...)

Nothing about this whole war and aftermath makes sense.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jun 7, 2021)

This post and others related require summarising imo, then the bigger picture may become clearer. Personally I don't have time at the moment, but it's on my list, unless someone else jumps in before I get a round tuit.


----------



## Gladius (Jun 11, 2021)

May I add a question regarding slavery, as it's presented to us as a catalyst for the civil war.






New Orleans auction of 18 enslaved persons from Alabama, 1858 (*)

When I read this sale post, I notice a few things.
The list mentions to the reader if the slave is Black. Examples:

No.9 DAN, Black, aged 23 years
N0.10 LEWIS, aged 35 years
No.7 POLLY, Negress aged 23
No.8 GEORGE, Griff, aged 23

Some are labelled* Black/Negress*, some labelled *Griff*, and *most *are simply not labelled.
"Griff" I found to mean = _light skin, or mixed race._

Why bother making the distinction, if all slaves should be Black? Seems like the non-black slaves are the "default", while blacks/mixed have to be mentioned so.
Do we find an indication that practically any race member could've been under "slave" status prior to the abolishing?

_(* Notice how the source website has copied the text onto the webpage, but omitted the parts that mention race.)_

We also see that slaves are talked of professionally, and some even gracefully if they're excellent.
Interestingly, No.8 GEORGE, 23, is *married* *to his wife* and has four children., oldest being 7.
Articles I've found on the subject, claim that slaves did not have a legal right to marry, and that was in very rare cases.
Mr. George apparently is recognized as a married person. Possibly since age 16.

Could it be there's actually no historical difference between "slaves" , "serfs" and "indentured servitude"?

Does this coincide with the 1861 Emancipation of Russia which took place de facto in *1864*?
Parallel to the Civil War years. We also have Poland's January Uprising 1863-1864 on the same years.
While I don't see wiki linking the uprising to emancipation, I also fail to understand its explanation for the uprising motives or catalysts.
This could be part of the same scenario that created the Confederacy, a secession from an Empire that is changing its social structure.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jun 12, 2021)

Gladius said:


> Some are labelled* Black/Negress*, some labelled *Griff*, and *most *are simply not labelled.
> "Griff" I found to mean = _light skin, or mixed race._



This is interesting and could be related to earlier discussions concerning Castes, where someone postulated that the term 'Yankee' could also denote a particular mixed race origin.



Gladius said:


> Parallel to the Civil War years. We also have Poland's January Uprising 1863-1864 on the same years.



This was also concurrent with the Civil War:

The Circassian Genocide and the American Civil War.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 12, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> This is interesting and could be related to earlier discussions concerning Castes, where someone postulated that the term 'Yankee' could also denote a particular mixed race origin.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Connect it with the flag of Tartars that have a griff on it. 








Connect it with tartars=rus=slavs. 



> The word _slovo_ ("word") and the related _slava_ ("glory, fame, praise") and _slukh_ ("hearing") originate from the Proto-Indo-European root _*ḱlew-_ ("be spoken of, glory"), cognate with Ancient Greek κλέος (_kléos_ "fame"), whence comes the name Pericles, Latin _clueo_ ("be called")



What do these words have in common? Word, glory, praise, hear, called? 


He replied, “Blessed rather are those who *hear *the *word *of God and obey it.”
Luke 11:28
In the beginning was the *Word*, and the *Word *was with God, and the *Word *was God.
John 1:1
He who has ears to *hear*, let him *hear*.
Matt 11:15
*Hear *the *word *of the Lord, O house of Jacob, and all the families of the house of Israel.
Jer 2:4
Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot *hear *My *word*
John 8:43
I will meet there with the sons of Israel, and it shall be consecrated by My *glory*
For the Lord has redeemed Jacob
And in Israel He shows forth His *glory*
That *glory *may dwell in our land.
Everyone who is *called *by My name,
And whom I have created for My *glory*
He said to Me, “You are My Servant, Israel,
In Whom I will show My *glory*.”
and these whom He predestined, He also *called*; and these whom He *called*, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also *glorified*.
For many are *called*, but few are chosen
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build *My Church* (ecclesia/called), and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
_There is_ one body and one Spirit, just as you were *called *in one hope of your *calling*
But you _are_ a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the *praises *of Him who *called *you out of darkness into His marvelous light
And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the *called *according to _His_ purpose

We have another thread with excellent research by @debtforyou Tartary is Memory-Holed Because it is Key to Understanding the Bible, End Times

That links the Tartars with the lost tribes of Israel, Gods Glory.


----------



## myth (Jun 13, 2021)

It was mentioned earlier in the thread that the Lincoln assassination was faked yet I didn't see the research of Dave McGowan mentioned.

*Why Everything You Think You Know About the Lincoln Assassination is Wrong*
The Lincoln Assassination

Also, there was a good interview by Ryan Dawson recently on the horrors of post civil war reconstruction.
Episode 561: The Horrors Of Post 'Civil War' Reconstruction w/ Ryan Dawson​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU3JrHE-KAU
​


----------



## Silveryou (Jun 13, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> where someone postulated that the term 'Yankee' could also denote a particular mixed race origin.


To be fair I implied that Cherokees could be white people, since the Yankees are white and the two names are similar (and also similar to Afrikaans, so it would be interesting to know the opinion of Dutch speakers). It seems that the original story told in the XVIII century was that the Yankees took their name from an Indian local tribe who saw them "agreeable to the Indian custom" (Yankee - Wikipedia). This story was debunked by Sonneck who pointed out the non-existence of an Indian tribe called Yankees.

So, if this is true, then the "Indian legend" could refer to a possible white "Indian" tribe (the Yankees) and the Cherokees could be white too. It seems from the few articles I have read about them on the newspaper I posted that their complexion was white. So I implied a cover-up to transform a white tribe into a "native" one in the aftermath of some events during the middle to the end of the XVIII century itself.

Is this correct? I don't know. It's just an idea. Those interested could search more in depth maybe. Or maybe not!


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jun 14, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> Connect it with the flag of Tartars that have a griff on it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



_'Griff: Meaning: *hooked nose*
Griff as a boy's name is of Latin origin, and the meaning of Griff is "hooked nose".'_ (Article)

_"Griff as a boys' name has its roots in Latin and Welsh, and Griff means "hooked nose; lord, prince". Griff is an alternate spelling of Griffin (Latin): in Greek mythology and medieval legend. Griff is also a variant of Griffith (Welsh): anglicized version of Gruffudd."_ (Article)

_"Definition of griff (Entry 1 of 2)
dialectal, England: a deep narrow glen or ravine.
griff noun (2)
\ ˈgrif  \ variants: or* less commonly griffin* \ ˈgri-fən  \ plural -s _(Article)

"a deep narrow glen or ravine" like the Grand Canyon - so, a tribe of Welsh people with hooked noses left over from Prince Madoc's colonisation of America who inhabited the Grand Canyon.

Some of the images are clearly dragons, not Griffins or Gryphons.



Worsaae said:


> Connect it with tartars=rus=slavs.



Why? More 'Khaoz Etymology'?

_'Max Vasmer, the authority for Slavic etymologies, rejects a connection to *slava "glory, fame," which, however, influenced Slav via folk etymology. This is the -slav in personal names (such as Russian Miroslav, literally "peaceful fame;" Mstislav "vengeful fame;" Jaroslav "famed for fury;" Czech Bohuslav "God's glory;" Latinized Wenceslas "having greater glory"), *perhaps *from PIE root *kleu- "to hear."'_ (Article)


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 14, 2021)

Griffe meaning:
- mixed (a person of three-quarter black and one-quarter white ancestry) 
- or mixed (a person of mixed black and American Indian blood)  
- hook nosed (like a eagle)
- hooked claw (like a lion)
- and a mythical legendary creature that is a mix between a lion and an eagle. 

Note black and white also have biblical meanings, as does a lion and eagle. 
Is that it? The Griffe represents the union of these two tribes? The tribe of the lion and the tribe of the eagle?


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jun 15, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> Griffe meaning:
> - mixed (a person of three-quarter black and one-quarter white ancestry)
> - or mixed (a person of mixed black and American Indian blood)
> - hook nosed (like a eagle)
> ...



Do you have references for this or do we have your imagination to thank for it?

This notion of the 10 lost tribes being in the Americas was promoted by Cromwell's financier, Menasseh Ben Israel's propaganda pamplet 'The Hope of Israel' in 1650: 

"_the ten Tribes... determined to goe into Countries farre remote, in which none dwelt, whereby they might the better observe their Law. And as they passed over some branches of Euphrates,... till they had passed over; and that Country is called Arsareth. From whence we may gather, that the ten Tribes went to New-Spaine, and Peru, and possessed those two Kingdoms, till then without Inhabitants. Genebrardus, quoting Esdras concerning that wandring of the ten Tribes, saith, that *Arsareth is Tartaria* the greater, and from thence they went to Greenland, for that America is lately found to be on that side farther from Sea, than it is upon other sides, being almost an Island, and they might passe from Greenland by the streight of Davis into the Country Labrador, which is now called India, being fifty miles distant from thence, as Gomoras saith in his History. The same journying of the ten Tribes into India, is confirmed by that which P. Malvenda reports, That Arsareth is that Promontory which is neare to Scythia, or Tartary, neare the Sea, called by Pliny, Talis, where America is parted from the Country of Anian by a narrow Sea; which also on that side parts China, or Tartary from America; so that there might be an easie passage for the ten Tribes through Arsareth, or Tartary into the Kingdomes of Anian, and Quivira; which in time might plant the new world, and firme land; which in bignesse equals Europe, Asia, and Africa put together; Alonsus Augustinianus counting from the shoare of the North Sea, from the Country of Labrador 3928 miles, and from Sur, 3000 miles; but Gomaras counts from India by the South, and Sur, 9300 miles; which space is bigge enough for the ten Tribes, that they may there spread in places hitherto unknowne._"

Which is a real geographical mess, but even he didn't equate America with Tartaria because he claims that the 10 tribes had to pass through Tartaria to get to... wherever it was they went - assuming that they're real and not just a myth.

Anyway, I don't see how any of this relates to the Civil War.


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 15, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Do you have references for this or do we have your imagination to thank for it?
> 
> This notion of the 10 lost tribes being in the Americas was promoted by Cromwell's financier, Menasseh Ben Israel's propaganda pamplet 'The Hope of Israel' in 1650:
> 
> ...


I've seen Arsareth on maps in Tartaria. I have it here. 



It is close to the ship, left of it. 

We have a thread by KD, where he hypothesises that Tartaria extended into America and I don't remember if it is in that thread, where he hypothesises that the Americas was already populated and that this is why it took centuries to occupy north America through conquest. 
It is interesting that we have mentions of "griffes" and "negro" slaves before the "civil war". 
As for sources for the previous post, I used a mainstream source here:
Definition of GRIFFE

Griffe also seems to be connected to farming tools (in french) with "hooked claws"


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jun 16, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> We have a thread by KD, where he hypothesises that Tartaria extended into America


 Also there's this one where he hypothesised that America was an extension of India:

SH Archive Replies - Fou-Sang & 1870s board game: Voyage from New York to San Francisco upon the Union Pacific Railroad



Worsaae said:


> he hypothesises that the Americas was already populated



I think that's universally excepted without the need for hypothesise.



Worsaae said:


> It is interesting that we have mentions of "griffes" and "negro" slaves before the "civil war".



Why is that particularly interesting? The Civil War was supposedly fought over the slavery of these people.

I ask again, what relevance does any of this information have to do with the true history of the Civil War please?


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 16, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Also there's this one where he hypothesised that America was an extension of India:
> 
> SH Archive Replies - Fou-Sang & 1870s board game: Voyage from New York to San Francisco upon the Union Pacific Railroad
> 
> ...


Thanks for the link. I will give it a read next week.

Yes, America was clearly populated, but it is not the mainstream view that America had a huge civilisation and that the "civil war" was a part of a long series of wars connected to the 1812 war, that people were put into insane asylums for questioning the new history, that we had mass trains of orphans, that .... so many open questions. It immediately stood out to me that the slave (another word connected to Tartaria, which has maybe changed meaning to distort history) was labeled a "griffe" which might again connect to Tartaria. 
We have a few threads about the true history of "negro" "slavery" where they debunk many of the commonly held beliefs by going through official records, old letters, books etc. What we know about history is clearly distorted and much of how they distort is through the use of changed definitions of words and through lie by omission. 

Why it is interesting? If the civil war was supposedly fought over the "slavery" (a questionable word) of these people (negros, griffes -- both words REMOVED from common language through political means), then it is interesting to find out the meaning of those words, especially alternative meanings, because this could give us an insight into the true history of the civil war. Maybe they were "slaves" because the negros and the griffes were a part of the old Civilization in America/Tartary? Maybe slavery is called slavery because of the identity of those enslaved? I saw a connection and thought I would share.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jun 17, 2021)

_"The Slavic words for "slave" (Russian rab, Serbo-Croatian rob, Old Church Slavonic rabu) are from Old Slavic **orbu*, from the PIE root *orbh- (also source of *orphan *(n.)), the ground sense of which seems to be *"thing that changes allegiance" *(in the case of the slave, from himself to his master). The Slavic word is also the source of *robot*."_ (Article)

*The Civil War in America from The Illustrated London News*

I haven't had time to look at this yet, but The Illustrated London News is/was the mouthpiece of the Kabal. This should be born in mind when reading.



Worsaae said:


> It immediately stood out to me that the slave (another word connected to Tartaria, which has maybe changed meaning to distort history) was labeled a "griffe" which might again connect to Tartaria.



Your first response to the word "Griff" - which was the actual word used to describe the slaves - was that it represented a griffin and was therefore related to the flag of Tartaria?



Worsaae said:


> Connect it with the flag of Tartars that have a griff on it.



Where did the *'e'* come from?



Worsaae said:


> Griffe meaning:
> - mixed (a person of three-quarter black and one-quarter white ancestry)
> - or mixed (a person of mixed black and American Indian blood)
> - hook nosed (like a eagle)
> ...



The link you provided for GRIFFE does not mention the hooked nose/claw (which is GRIFF), or the mythical creature (again GRIFF) and yet you are connecting them all together.

This is confusing... and creative.


----------



## Gladius (Jun 19, 2021)

I had this saved a from a while back, seems relevant.

*1863: Isaac & Rosa, Slave Children from New Orleans*

Photographed in New York. Are they  slaves at the time of the phooshoot, or are they former slave 'refugees' from the south? Interesting nonetheless.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jun 20, 2021)

Gladius said:


> *1863: Isaac & Rosa, Slave Children from New Orleans*
> 
> Photographed in New York. Are they slaves at the time of the phooshoot, or are they former slave 'refugees' from the south? Interesting nonetheless.



That's a really interesting point and one that's related to something that occurred to me.

*The Orphan Trains* - Given that the etymology of the word 'orphan' states that it derives from "thing that changes allegiance," is it possible that the 'orphans' on the trains were emancipated slaves from the South whose parents had changed allegiance and remained to fight and free more of their own kind, having sent their children to safety? In fact, it doesn't even need the etymology to be a possibility, as you say - were they refugees?


----------



## Gladius (Jun 20, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> That's a really interesting point and one that's related to something that occurred to me.
> 
> *The Orphan Trains* - Given that the etymology of the word 'orphan' states that it derives from "thing that changes allegiance," is it possible that the 'orphans' on the trains were emancipated slaves from the South whose parents had changed allegiance and remained to fight and free more of their own kind, having sent their children to safety? In fact, it doesn't even need the etymology to be a possibility, as you say - were they refugees?


It's hard to tell, but I tend to think the children there are properly dressed for the time, they do not look poor. Were they free just recently before the photograph took place?


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 20, 2021)

*1863: Isaac & Rosa, Slave Children from New Orleans*
Harpers Weekly
Source


> According to an article published in _Harper’s Weekly_ on January 30, 1864, the biography of Isaac and Rosa is summarized as:
> 
> *Isaac White* is a black boy of eight years, but nonetheless intelligent than his whiter companions. He has been in school about seven months, and I venture to say that not one boy in fifty would have made as much improvement in that space of time.
> 
> ...


Propaganda?


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jun 21, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Propaganda?



Obviously, but does that make it all false?


----------



## Worsaae (Jun 21, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> *1863: Isaac & Rosa, Slave Children from New Orleans*
> Harpers Weekly
> Source
> 
> Propaganda?


Could you elaborate slightly? I don't have much time this week to dive deep on this subject. Currently researching the scientific method as taught today and the theory behind scientific models in current academic settings, in relevance for the deconstruction of the heliocentric model. Hopefully something fruitful will come of that.

My question goes, and it may be very basic: Are these kids slaves to rebels or union masters? Are these kids going to union or rebel schools? Would anyone know what "improvement" means in this context? That he is repeating rebel/union facts contrary to what his parents taught him? Continuing on the line of reasoning that Will Scarlet proposed; Are these kids "orphans" in the sense that they have changed alliegance from their parents to the "established schools/system"?


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 21, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Obviously, but does that make it all false?


Don't know what you mean Felix. EDIT Oops Will. How embarrassing!



Worsaae said:


> Could you elaborate slightly?


Don't know what you mean either Worsaae.

I went looking for the photograph as it looked staged and found the linked article which I felt was worth sharing. That's it.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Jun 22, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Don't know what you mean Felix. EDIT Oops Will. How embarrassing!



Oh dear. I thought you were better than that JD, although my brother did warn me. Just because it was propaganda does it mean that the slave children were not slave children and there was no slavery in the South and that it was all really about Tartaria and the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel?


----------



## Jd755 (Jun 22, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Just because it was propaganda does it mean that the slave children were not slave children and there was no slavery in the South and that it was all really about Tartaria and the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel?


No.


----------



## SonofaBor (Aug 14, 2021)

dreamtime said:


> That “war” began with the New England Puritans, whose philosophical descendants became the universally despised “Yankees.” These are people mostly from New England and the upper Mid-West originally who believed that they were superior to all others and therefore had a “right” to govern over them, by force if necessary. They have a mindset of what Judge Napolitano calls “libido dominandi,” or the lust to dominate. Today, Hillary Clinton would be what Clyde Wilson has called “a museum-quality specimen” of a Yankee. Yankees are a component of both political parties, but today’s Democratic party is the home of the most extreme ones, who seem to be part Yankee and part Stalinist totalitarian with their university speech codes, their “cancel culture,” their utopian plans to centrally plan all aspects of everyone’s life with their “Green New Deal,” to confiscate private wealth, communist style, with “wealth taxes,” and so on.



Although I think you are generally correct about a certain sense of superiority, I think this superiority belonged mostly to the the elites.  The stolid minions invariably get caught the official narratives pumped out by the "Sea people."

_Moby Dick_ (Melville, 1851_), _describes them Yankee sea people thus_:

And thus have these naked Nantucketers, these sea hermits, issuing from their ant-hill in the sea, overrun and conquered the watery world like so many Alexanders; parcelling out among them the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans, as the three pirate powers did Poland. Let America add Mexico to Texas, and pile Cuba upon Canada; let the English overswarm all India, and hang out their blazing banner from the sun; two thirds of this terraqueous globe are the Nantucketer’s. For the sea is his; he owns it, as Emperors own empires; other seamen having but a right of way through it. Merchant ships are but extension bridges; armed ones but floating forts; even pirates and privateers, though following the sea as highwaymen the road. they but plunder other ships, other fragments of the land like themselves, without seeking to draw their living from the bottomless deep itself. The Nantucketer, he alone resides and riots on the sea; he alone, in Bible language, goes down to it in ships; to and fro ploughing it as his own special plantation. There is his home; there lies his business which a Noah’s flood would not interrupt, though it overwhelmed all the millions in China. He lives on the sea, as prairie cocks in the prairie; he hides among the waves, he climbs them as chamois hunters climb the Alps. For years he knows not the land; so that when he comes to it at last, it smells like another world, more strangely than the moon would to an Earthsman._

The ordinary northerner or American got sold a bill of goods-- that appealed to the earnest will to do the right thing, help the poor, etc. We see this play out today; for aside from the maniac true believers in State orthodoxy, most people who take the jab do so to protect others.

Ordinary people are easily manipulated into "causes." No doubt, the folly and catastrophe of the Civil War was made possible by this weakness, which must be contained as much as directed.

For example, consider Martin Luther-- as the perhaps most successful manufactured opposition (and sea person) in history:

_It  all  began  to  get  out  of  hand  when  the  peasant  and  minor  nobility  took  it  as  a  signal  to  revolt,
backfiring somewhat on Frederick and Charles.   Luther was ordered to come out against the rebels,
telling them to obey the temporal authorities.   Render under Caesar, in other words.   So much for
Luther the revolutionary.  He even bragged:

I, Martin Luther, have during the rebellion slain all the peasants, for it was I who ordered
them to be struck dead.

Charming.  If you ever wondered who Luther really was, now you know. _

_They  admit  Luther's  fake  reformation  took  place  under  the  auspices  and  protection  of  the  secular
powers.   Which is as much to say it was always just a project of the government.   So the governors
used Luther's fake Reformation as yet another excuse to crack down on the peasants and to steal from
the minor nobles.  The usual flow-up economy.  

Here's another big clue everyone misses: after his wedding, Luther and his wife moved into a former
monastery given to them by John, the new Elector of Saxony, brother of Frederick.  Ask yourself this:
how was this a “former” monastery?  Must have been stolen from the Catholic Church, eh, like all the
monasteries  soon  to  be  stolen  in  England.    And  yet  all  the  fake  historians  just  waltz  right  by  that
admission, never reading it how it begs to be read.  Who do top aristocrats give monasteries to?  Poor
Gentile priests of no lineage?  No.  They give them to their cousins, right?  Proving once again Luther
was a close cousin of the Dukes and Electors of Saxony.   And proving he was already fabulously
wealthy: only the already wealthy get to move into stolen monasteries.  These monasteries were huge
and very lush, which is why the aristocrats wanted to steal them.   Yes, there would be a lot of fairly
useless cells, but the gardens were extensive and the decorations were usually costly.  Lots and lots of
portable property, collected over centuries._

Despite and because of their sincere intentions and due to their lack of insider knowledge, people are easily manipulated. The Civil War was a woke war. But the ordinary soldiers were, like soldiers in *every war *of the 20th century, mostly victims and fodder.


----------



## yoxdo (Aug 15, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> I've seen Arsareth on maps in Tartaria. I have it here. View attachment 10855
> 
> It is close to the ship, left of it.
> 
> ...


Interesting so he wasnt embellishing just that everything seems embellished when you change the names of places from names we've never heard before. Nothing about America seems true one would probably be closer to the truth if he just assumed the opposite of what he is told. Arsareth lol who would have thought.


----------



## asatiger1966 (Sep 11, 2021)

JWW427 said:


> Being a Virginian and a son of the Civil War and Revolution, I can only say that all wars are manipulated by the winners.
> Robert E. Lee took communion after the war in a church in Richmond with a black man to everyone's shock and awe. That says it all for me.



Robert E. Lee, was a real in the flesh "Gentleman".


RaeWest said:


> You haven't understood the role of Jews. Every 'nation' in fact is the supposed nation PLUS Jews.  Essential to understand that!



Will you break that statement down into language more understandable to one not familiar with the nuances of the Jews involvement in the Civil War.


RaeWest said:


> You haven't understood the role of Jews. Every 'nation' in fact is the supposed nation PLUS Jews.  Essential to understand that!



Will you break that statement down into language more understandable to one not familiar with the nuances of the Jews involvement in the Civil War.


EUAFU said:


> War is war, by definition crime. Of course, every kind of crime will always happen in a war. Slavery is worse than war.



Slavery is worse than war.

More than one person would take slavery over constant combat. Personal in your face, terrorizing, sickening, dehumanizing combat, out and out roller coaster ride between sheer terror and an adrenaline rush leaving one exhausted and possibly broken. Loss of your very sole is at stake, " if you stay in this hell for long, going home will have no meaning".


RaeWest said:


> You haven't understood the role of Jews. Every 'nation' in fact is the supposed nation PLUS Jews.  Essential to understand that!



Will you break that statement down into language more understandable to one not familiar with the nuances of the Jews involvement in the Civil War.


EUAFU said:


> War is war, by definition crime. Of course, every kind of crime will always happen in a war. Slavery is worse than war.



Slavery is worse than war.

More than one person would take slavery over constant combat. Personal in your face, terrorizing, sickening, dehumanizing combat, out and out roller coaster ride between sheer terror and an adrenaline rush leaving one exhausted and possibly broken. Loss of your very sole is at stake, " if you stay in this hell for long, going home will have no meaning".


jo'bo said:


> I think attaching out rage to most historical events,  is a liberal trait, very nearly everything historical is outragiuous  by modern standards, even stuff from 20 years ago.
> 
> I think a lot of history, ( if it happened at all anything like portrayed) was just an inevitability,  based on events that preceded it and or the prevailing morality  . or complete fluke that could have gone either way on the toss of a coin
> 
> There was only one likely out come from the confederation leaving the union and only one likely out come from the war, given the inequality between the sides. If the confederacy didnt realise  that, they didnt consider it carefully enough



I like the comment but disagree. If the outcome was apparent then why act upon it? I think there were numerous avenues for a different out come. I am from the South and possible biased.


----------



## Gold (Oct 3, 2021)

RaeWest said:


> For example, the Lincoln Assassination seems to have been a psy-op.


Please do elaborate.


----------



## Jd755 (Oct 5, 2021)

asatiger1966 said:


> This attachment may clarify somewhat?


Beautiful.
Getting folk to abandon the latter is the rub.


----------



## asatiger1966 (Oct 6, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Beautiful.
> Getting folk to abandon the latter is th
> 
> 
> ...


Attached may explain a few questions, good fortune to you.

www.annavonreitz.com


----------



## Jd755 (Oct 6, 2021)

asatiger1966 said:


> Attached may explain a few questions, good fortune to you.


When I said beautiful I was referring to the pdf you posted.


----------



## Silencedogood (Nov 21, 2021)

Having extensively studied the "civil war" I can appreciate this thread.  When I taught high school I always referred to it as the "war of the states," because that term made more sense as a war is far from civil.  Additionally, it was clear even from 'accepted' sources that slavery was not cause enough to fight this war.  The big vs. small government argument for the cause does make sense and if you factor in that the south may have had longer memory in regards to true history then they were set for destruction.

I think that the one link we have to this "Tartary" that we seek, may be that they were destined to suffer.  Having ancient knowledge, or even recollection of the true past, would detract from the new narrative thus making them enemies.  Many tales also note how they are barbaric and uncouth which serves to demonize them and justify their destruction, the Yanks provided similar justification towards the south.  Additionally, a free society would seem in line with the global infrastructure of Tartaria and, being of the great size that it was, would rely heavily on a federation type system.  Federalism would allow regions to think for themselves and rule themselves with great autonomy.  An easily controlled populace does not fit into this type of rule.

For the record I believe that Tartary was here in North America or at least it's remnants were.  I believe that the land, and possibly the people, had to be sterilized prior to allowing the new oblivious population to proceed west.  Even the existing east coast fortifications and cities, many of them star forts, had to be explained to either a gullible or a complicit population.  

So, we have to collect our assumptions.  Either the south was descended from Tartaria or not.  They had memories that they shouldn't have or they did not.  They had a Jeffersonian government uncontrolled by the controllers or they did not.  The accepted current narrative of slavery/states rights is true or it was not.  The war happened or it was staged.  One or more of these does not negate the possibility that others may be true.


----------



## Ponygirl (Nov 21, 2021)

Silencedogood said:


> Having extensively studied the "civil war" I can appreciate this thread.  When I taught high school I always referred to it as the "war of the states," because that term made more sense as a war is far from civil.  Additionally, it was clear even from 'accepted' sources that slavery was not cause enough to fight this war.  The big vs. small government argument for the cause does make sense and if you factor in that the south may have had longer memory in regards to true history then they were set for destruction.
> 
> I think that the one link we have to this "Tartary" that we seek, may be that they were destined to suffer.  Having ancient knowledge, or even recollection of the true past, would detract from the new narrative thus making them enemies.  Many tales also note how they are barbaric and uncouth which serves to demonize them and justify their destruction, the Yanks provided similar justification towards the south.  Additionally, a free society would seem in line with the global infrastructure of Tartaria and, being of the great size that it was, would rely heavily on a federation type system.  Federalism would allow regions to think for themselves and rule themselves with great autonomy.  An easily controlled populace does not fit into this type of rule.
> 
> ...


I totally agree with you. Check out the cap of confederate soldiers(just the word confederate tells us everything) it’s the same as what’s on the female liberty statues, so that tells us that it was a matriarcle society. Also, the snake on the flag—the serpent represents wisdom, and the Nummo, the research I’m working on now. 

My research says that the ‘civil war’ was a the last stand of the Tartarian empire. Note the submarines the south had—yet we’re told they were plantation owners. Also note that Russia sent ships and to help the south, wearing uniforms that resemble those of the southerners. 

Sherman’s neckties is a fun thing to look up—apparently Sherman’s cannons, or guns or whatever—had the power to twist rail road tracks around trees.


----------



## asatiger1966 (Nov 22, 2021)

Silencedogood said:


> Having extensively studied the "civil war" I can appreciate this thread.  When I taught high school I always referred to it as the "war of the states," because that term made more sense as a war is far from civil.  Additionally, it was clear even from 'accepted' sources that slavery was not cause enough to fight this war.  The big vs. small government argument for the cause does make sense and if you factor in that the south may have had longer memory in regards to true history then they were set for destruction.
> 
> I think that the one link we have to this "Tartary" that we seek, may be that they were destined to suffer.  Having ancient knowledge, or even recollection of the true past, would detract from the new narrative thus making them enemies.  Many tales also note how they are barbaric and uncouth which serves to demonize them and justify their destruction, the Yanks provided similar justification towards the south.  Additionally, a free society would seem in line with the global infrastructure of Tartaria and, being of the great size that it was, would rely heavily on a federation type system.  Federalism would allow regions to think for themselves and rule themselves with great autonomy.  An easily controlled populace does not fit into this type of rule.
> 
> ...


This might be helpful.


The Jural Assembly Handbook By: Anna Von Reitz Section 3 — This is Not “Opinion” What I am pointing out to you and everyone else is not a topic for “argument”. It isn’t my “opinion”. It is the way the world’s court system has been organized for centuries and just because 99% of Americans are too ignorant to know that and have been deliberately kept too dumbed-down to learn it, does not make it any less true and factual. Now, you have a choice. You can be a landsman and reclaim your country and your “Natural and Unalienable” rights, and you can enforce the Constitution you are owed, and you can enjoy your freedom and you can join your Jural Assembly and you can operate your State or you can sit on your rump and blow your mouth and spin — and the British King will be happy to take all your assets and dump them into a Commonwealth Trust (that he controls and benefits from) and designate you as a “pauper” and a dependent of his government — your choice. If you want Choice A, help establish, staff, and organize a Jural Assembly. If you want Choice B, help establish, staff, and organize a Jural Society. Please note that this is not “American Corruption” — this same situation applies worldwide. The only exceptions are Iran, North Korea, the Holy See, and a handful of Pacific Island Kingdoms. And now for another repeat of a Vital History Lesson for All Americans and All Jural Assemblies: 1. The United States (unincorporated) was formed on July 1, 1776, as a result of the Unanimous Declaration of Independence. The members of this Union were all Colonies and they also operated as “the United Colonies of America”. This is not to be confused with Benjamin Franklin’s private business (also unincorporated) doing business as “the” United States. 2. The United States of America (unincorporated) was formed on September 9, 1776 by declaration of the Continental (that’s land jurisdiction) Congress. This Holding Company is a Federation of unincorporated geographically defined States: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maine, etc. 3. The States of America (unincorporated) was formed March 1, 1781, by Agreement of the States ratified as The Articles of Confederation. This was a Confederacy of States of States created to conduct commercial business in behalf of the Federation States. The members of this original Confederacy went by names like this: The State of Georgia, The State of Virginia, The State of Maine.... 4. The original Confederation adopted and became the recipients of the service contract known as “The Constitution for the united States of America” in 1787. If you can read and know anything at all about English grammar you can observe from this that the word “united” used here as an adjective to describe “States of America” and references their “union” created under The Articles of Confederation. This Confederacy of “States of States” is the actual Party to the 1787 Constitution. Updated: May 22, 2019 Table of Contents Page 8 of 209 The Jural Assembly Handbook By: Anna Von Reitz 5. In 1860-61, the Southern States of States in the original Confederacy left the organization doing business as the “States of America” — “seceded from it” — and formed a new and separate confederacy called “The Confederate States of America”. 6. The entire Civil War was thus a commercial mercenary conflict between the Northern States of States operating under the States of America Confederacy and the Southern States of States operating under The Confederate States of America. 7. After the end of hostilities the British Monarch saw his chance to pull a fast one, claim that the Federal States of States were under “Reconstruction” and then, very quietly, create an incorporated Scottish commercial corporation merely calling itself “The United States of America” [Incorporated] and substituting franchises of this corporation [formed in Scotland in 1868 — we have the paperwork and proof] for the original Federal States of States. Thus, “The State of Florida” owned and operated by Florida for the benefit of Floridians, was moth-balled, and a Territorial franchise corporation calling itself by the deceptively similar name “the State of Florida” owned and operated by the Scottish Government for the benefit of the British Monarch and United Kingdom, took its place — and generations of Americans have been kept none the wiser. Well, now you are all “the Wiser”.

Thank you for your time


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 22, 2021)

Ponygirl said:


> Also note that Russia sent ships and to help the south, wearing uniforms that resemble those of the southerners.



If that's so, it's weird because they also helped the Union North:

SH Archive - 1863 Russian involvement in the US Civil War


----------



## asatiger1966 (Nov 25, 2021)

Ponygirl said:


> I totally agree with you. Check out the cap of confederate soldiers(just the word confederate tells us everything) it’s the same as what’s on the female liberty statues, so that tells us that it was a matriarcle society. Also, the snake on the flag—the serpent represents wisdom, and the Nummo, the research I’m working on now.
> 
> My research says that the ‘civil war’ was a the last stand of the Tartarian empire. Note the submarines the south had—yet we’re told they were plantation owners. Also note that Russia sent ships and to help the south, wearing uniforms that resemble those of the southerners.
> 
> Sherman’s neckties is a fun thing to look up—apparently Sherman’s cannons, or guns or whatever—had the power to twist rail road tracks around trees.



KD once made a comment about a reference in a book stating that some unit had fought the Dutch, followed by many questions about what Dutch or which Holland. I think KD's comment was about shipping bodies back to Holland? My founding document reading found, on the  " www.annavonreitz.com " website that the original constitutional government was eventually broken down into four separate sub-contractors which supplied services to the original government. One of those was named The United States and it was incorporated in Holland, the other was London, Vatican and I forget the third entity.

My University classes taught that there was never a declaration of war, no formal surrender, only Lee surrendering his Army. No charges of treason. The four separate entities were fighting over money and power. In my opinion that made it a mercenary war, and not a war involving the original constructional government.


----------



## Ponygirl (Nov 25, 2021)

asatiger1966 said:


> KD once made a comment about a reference in a book stating that some unit had fought the Dutch, followed by many questions about what Dutch or which Holland. I think KD's comment was about shipping bodies back to Holland? My founding document reading found, on the  " www.annavonreitz.com " website that the original constitutional government was eventually broken down into four separate sub-contractors which supplied services to the original government. One of those was named The United States and it was incorporated in Holland, the other was London, Vatican and I forget the third entity.
> 
> My University classes taught that there was never a declaration of war, no formal surrender, only Lee surrendering his Army. No charges of treason. The four separate entities were fighting over money and power. In my opinion that made it a mercenary war, and not a war involving the original constructional government.


Amazing find. No wonder all the generals came from the same war college—West Point.


Will Scarlet said:


> If that's so, it's weird because they also helped the Union North:
> 
> SH Archive - 1863 Russian involvement in the US Civil War


I must have gotten my armies mixed up. Was it the French and England that wanted to help the south? As someone else put it—maybe this was just all the countries fighting over the conquered Tartarians.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 26, 2021)

Ponygirl said:


> I must have gotten my armies mixed up. Was it the French and England that wanted to help the south?



If you want to get even more confused, consider this:

The Circassian Genocide and the American Civil War.


----------



## bocasdel (May 31, 2022)

Silveryou said:


> I liked the article overall, but I don't like the use of the terminology "white supremacy" for facts happened in the 19th century. This is a modern cultural-Marxist category and it's strange that a supposedly anti-leftist guy uses it. Maybe just an error...


Yes, I concur with you regarding the term: "white supremacy". Like so many words and phrases, it is used in our present reality to further confuse the masses. 

It is important to know that "white", and "black" were not used as racial categorizations until after what we now call the Civil War. Prior to that, these words were used as social categorizations. In other words, one could be dark complexioned and be socially categorized as "white" and likewise, a fair skinned person could be categorized as "black". To put it simply, it was a status thing. 

Now, the question is: what was the basis of determining whether you were "white" or "black"? It was based on where your family was from and whether you were a person of means!

Therefore, there were indeed MANY so-called "black" people in the South who were in the white category regardless of how dark their complexion, and likewise, MANY so-called "white" people who were in the "black" category. That being said, the majority of the people who were in the "black" category were those whose land was appropriated by the newcomers. By "newcomers" I do not mean "white" folks, I am referring to those who came over and set up shop... they were NOT all "white".

This is one of the reasons why it's been so difficult to sort through the lies of the "Civil War". IMHO, the main reason why the South has been demonized after the war is because it was the best method to hide the truth about the Confederacy. What truth? Oh, this is a very touchy subject for the left, right, in-between, "white", "black" and all the other misidentified participants. The Confederacy was exactly what the word means: a league or alliance! The Confederacy consisted of many so-called "black" people in positions of LEADERSHIP. 

The idea and practice of "white supremacy" was concocted after the "Civil War" as a strategy by poor "whites" to take complete control of the social, political, economic and military systems of the South after the war. This process gained momentum in the early 20th century and was codified by the "leftist" after WWI/II.

Our entire reality is one BIG scam! How we question everything about our history except why is it that EVERYTHING is "white"? A key reason for so much difficult in solving our historical riddle is because most of us do not want to face the truth. I think it was W.E.B. DuBois who said: "the problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color-line". I now have a much different understanding of what he said now that I am a bit older.

Do you really KNOW who the "founding fathers" were? Do you really know who the leaders of Confederacy were?


JWW427 said:


> Being a Virginian and a son of the Civil War and Revolution, I can only say that all wars are manipulated by the winners.
> Robert E. Lee took communion after the war in a church in Richmond with a black man to everyone's shock and awe. That says it all for me.


I am not sure what you meant by your above comment: "Robert E. Lee took communion after the war in a church in Richmond with a black man to everyone's shock and awe. That says it all for me.

Well, take a look at and read this "official" document from the Library of Congress archives... just go to page 8728 and read how REL is described. It might explain why it wasn't a big deal for him to do that.


----------



## White_Armor (Jun 2, 2022)

bocasdel said:


> The Confederacy consisted of many so-called "black" people in positions of LEADERSHIP.


Can you give a source on this?


----------



## bocasdel (Jun 2, 2022)

White_Armor said:


> Can you give a source on this?


I attached a document I downloaded from the 1968 90th Congressional session. It took awhile, but you can find for yourself if you want to verify the source. Session 114, part 7 and search for the section that has page 8727.

If you download the document I included in the post and go to the bottom of page 8727 and continue reading about Robert E. Lee, you will see that he is described as “dark” in his complexion. I also read in the same congressional record a description of Ulysses S. Grant, and he is described as fair with freckles. So I don’t think there’s confusion on the part of the ones describing these people what these words mean.

I do have other information on other Confederate leaders but will post when I’m at my computer.

My reason for sharing the information is because I think we really need to dig deeper into what was really going on in the South. I find it quite odd that the one narrative that is consistent even by alternative researchers is that “black” folks were brought here as “slaves” from Africa and were picking cotton on the plantation. I think there’s LOTS of evidence that contradicts this narrative but it would blow too many minds.


----------



## asatiger1966 (Jun 3, 2022)

jo'bo said:


> I think attaching out rage to most historical events,  is a liberal trait, very nearly everything historical is outragiuous  by modern standards, even stuff from 20 years ago.
> 
> I think a lot of history, ( if it happened at all anything like portrayed) was just an inevitability,  based on events that preceded it and or the prevailing morality  . or complete fluke that could have gone either way on the toss of a coin
> 
> There was only one likely out come from the confederation leaving the union and only one likely out come from the war, given the inequality between the sides. If the confederacy didnt realise  that, they didnt consider it carefully enough



In my opinion the southern leadership were as educated as their northern brothers. So with that premise the south were well aware of the outcome we are offered today. Meaning the south had other options that as of now we are not knowledgeable.


----------



## Lupo (Jun 4, 2022)

This is a rough outline of events…
Jews aka central banks are and were behind where we presently find ourselves. 

1213A.D. The Pope and Vatican created the Treaty of Verona claiming ownership of all lands and souls in the world.

1215A.D.  The Magna Carta was created to counter the Treaty of Verona.

1604A.D. The Virginia Company, a Frenchchartered Crown owned company, was created.

1620A.D. The Virginia Company granted a settlement of American land to the crew of the Mayflower to colonize.

1638A.D. The Connecticut colony issued the Fundamental Orders.

1776A.D. The Declaration of Independence was created and notice was given to the international community.

1783A.D. The Virginia Company changed its name to UNITED STATES of AMERICA. [All caps]

1787A.D. Articles Of Confederation was created.

1789A.D. Founders met at Constitution Hall in Philadelphia Pennsylvania and created the Federal Constitution to create a more perfect union. A reporter asked Ben Franklin “What form of government have you brought upon us?”. Ben Franklin responded “A republic”, “If you can keep it”. General Lee standing behind Ben Franklin said “And if you cannot keep it, you will end up with a Democracy”. This was the beginning of the Great American Experiment to see if the people can self govern. From this day forward the Vatican, London, and the Crownworked to subvert and take back the colonies.
1791A.D. The first 10 Amendments to the Federal Constitution became the Bill of Rights.
1812A.D. British soldiers burn our nation’s capitol to eliminate the original 13thamendment Title of Nobilities Act that forbids any nobility from holding a public office or trust. The British lost the battle and could not take the colonies. The Crown decided to take the colonies from within by stealth. British Accreditation Registry (B.A.R.) card holding lawyers with an oathgiven to Britain (allegiance to a foreign power) were instructed to subvert the American government and destroy it from within.
1861A.D. A Lawyer with Title of Nobility by the name of Abraham Lincoln in violation of the Title of Nobilities Act (Original 13th Amendment) became President on March 4th. On March 14th eleven southern states walked out of Congress without adjourningand setting a date to return. This is Sine Die. This is THE day our Republican form of Constitutional government became vacant. After this date America has NO government and all governmental actions are de factoand fraud.
1863A.D. Abraham Lincoln issued General Order 100 stating that “_Until the people return to self governing, the military is to run the country_.” (This is our doorway to return to original jurisdiction). America came to be governed under Lieber Code (Military Law, Martial Law). This is the same Military Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned us about.
1865A.D. On April 14, Abraham Lincoln was eliminated before he could bring us out of Martial Law.
1871A.D. The Military hires the Virginia Company a.k.a. UNITED STATES of AMERICA to provide 19 essential governmental services to the American People.
1928A.D. War Department issues Field Training Manual 2000-25 on Citizenship and how to return to a Republican form of Constitutional government from a Democracy. General Douglas MacArthurstudies under this manual.
1932A.D. Franklin Delano Roosevelt ordersthe Training Manual 2000-25 and all negative references to a Democracy destroyed with no explanation.


----------



## emperornorton (Jun 15, 2022)

Back in the 1850s and 1860s the radical arm of the Republican party branded itself "Wide Awake." Abraham Lincoln was an "honorary member."

The Wide Awakes were ardent supporters of John Brown, whose insurrectionary government, if successful, would have replaced the US constitution with one laid out on Communist lines, limiting citizenship to "oppressed people"...




Sound familiar?


----------



## dreamtime (Jun 17, 2022)

emperornorton said:


> ​Back in the 1850s and 1860s the radical arm of the Republican party branded itself "Wide Awake." Abraham Lincoln was an "honorary member."
> 
> The Wide Awakes were ardent supporters of John Brown, whose insurrectionary government, if successful, would have replaced the US constitution with one laid out on Communist lines, limiting citizenship to "oppressed people"...



Some short overview of their history (from a left-leaning) newspaper: Wide Awakes: the Lincoln-era youth movement inspiring anti-Trump protests

The political divisions of today already existed in the times of the Civil war, and it seems the words used haven't changed a lot.


----------



## SovereignT3 (Jul 17, 2022)

asatiger1966 said:


> This might be helpful.
> 
> 
> The Jural Assembly Handbook By: Anna Von Reitz Section 3 — This is Not “Opinion” What I am pointing out to you and everyone else is not a topic for “argument”. It isn’t my “opinion”. It is the way the world’s court system has been organized for centuries and just because 99% of Americans are too ignorant to know that and have been deliberately kept too dumbed-down to learn it, does not make it any less true and factual. Now, you have a choice. You can be a landsman and reclaim your country and your “Natural and Unalienable” rights, and you can enforce the Constitution you are owed, and you can enjoy your freedom and you can join your Jural Assembly and you can operate your State or you can sit on your rump and blow your mouth and spin — and the British King will be happy to take all your assets and dump them into a Commonwealth Trust (that he controls and benefits from) and designate you as a “pauper” and a dependent of his government — your choice. If you want Choice A, help establish, staff, and organize a Jural Assembly. If you want Choice B, help establish, staff, and organize a Jural Society. Please note that this is not “American Corruption” — this same situation applies worldwide. The only exceptions are Iran, North Korea, the Holy See, and a handful of Pacific Island Kingdoms. And now for another repeat of a Vital History Lesson for All Americans and All Jural Assemblies: 1. The United States (unincorporated) was formed on July 1, 1776, as a result of the Unanimous Declaration of Independence. The members of this Union were all Colonies and they also operated as “the United Colonies of America”. This is not to be confused with Benjamin Franklin’s private business (also unincorporated) doing business as “the” United States. 2. The United States of America (unincorporated) was formed on September 9, 1776 by declaration of the Continental (that’s land jurisdiction) Congress. This Holding Company is a Federation of unincorporated geographically defined States: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maine, etc. 3. The States of America (unincorporated) was formed March 1, 1781, by Agreement of the States ratified as The Articles of Confederation. This was a Confederacy of States of States created to conduct commercial business in behalf of the Federation States. The members of this original Confederacy went by names like this: The State of Georgia, The State of Virginia, The State of Maine.... 4. The original Confederation adopted and became the recipients of the service contract known as “The Constitution for the united States of America” in 1787. If you can read and know anything at all about English grammar you can observe from this that the word “united” used here as an adjective to describe “States of America” and references their “union” created under The Articles of Confederation. This Confederacy of “States of States” is the actual Party to the 1787 Constitution. Updated: May 22, 2019 Table of Contents Page 8 of 209 The Jural Assembly Handbook By: Anna Von Reitz 5. In 1860-61, the Southern States of States in the original Confederacy left the organization doing business as the “States of America” — “seceded from it” — and formed a new and separate confederacy called “The Confederate States of America”. 6. The entire Civil War was thus a commercial mercenary conflict between the Northern States of States operating under the States of America Confederacy and the Southern States of States operating under The Confederate States of America. 7. After the end of hostilities the British Monarch saw his chance to pull a fast one, claim that the Federal States of States were under “Reconstruction” and then, very quietly, create an incorporated Scottish commercial corporation merely calling itself “The United States of America” [Incorporated] and substituting franchises of this corporation [formed in Scotland in 1868 — we have the paperwork and proof] for the original Federal States of States. Thus, “The State of Florida” owned and operated by Florida for the benefit of Floridians, was moth-balled, and a Territorial franchise corporation calling itself by the deceptively similar name “the State of Florida” owned and operated by the Scottish Government for the benefit of the British Monarch and United Kingdom, took its place — and generations of Americans have been kept none the wiser. Well, now you are all “the Wiser”.
> ...


Thank you for mentioning Anna. I attend her conferences and discuss with many others the path to freedom. It involves correcting your status from the fraudulent title of “citizen” that was imposed on the living men and women. Thank you again


----------



## Froglich (Jul 19, 2022)

My take on the Civil War is now Mathisian: all kings, politicians, prime-ministers, dictators, and generals of the last several hundred years who seemingly "mattered", regardless of purported aims or ideology, were and are actors fronting the old-line Ruling Families. This necessarily includes Lincoln, Douglas, and the rest of the CW menagerie. Additionally, most wars are faked to a large extent (particularly in terms of casualty-counts, or battles fought in obscure locations), existing only to provide excuse for periodic wholesale plundering of treasuries. (Contemporary films such as the John Wick series exist as limited-hangout propaganda promoting the idea of these ruling families constantly fighting each other, when in fact they are a seamless and well-ordered singular entity through continuous cousin-interbreeding with select multiracial adventurism if necessary to conquer particularly xenophobic hold-outs, e.g., late-medieval Japan, China, etc.)

You, the booger-eating tax-serf-for-life, are not supposed to know this. You are supposed to argue yourself blue in the face that South Carolina shot first, and that every Southern state had maintenance of slavery listed prominently in their articles of secession (while none cite tariffs, among other excuses conveyed on modern dissembling sites). Or, if you're so inclined to wild-rebel-yell, shake your fist at the carpetbaggers before _pulling your pistols and whistling Dixie_.

But such esoterics are beside the point of it all being political kayfabe in the first place. It keeps you fighting over surface dressing while the orchestrated looting safely continues behind the scenes.


----------



## davtash (Aug 12, 2022)

This book is very albeit southern, mainstream. No acknowledgement at all of what was there before ie. Our famous tartaria. Even in this book which I bought there is no recognition  of where the so called southerners came from eg accents too as well as music. Why did slavery finish in theory in the North first only to be replaced by the substantial  Jim Crow laws? Don't say economics and enlightenment! But try and look at origins without the fictitious civil war. Or was it?


----------

