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

dreamtime

Administrator/Moderator
Staff member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2020
Messages
1,260
Reaction score
3,357
Location
Germany
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:

Also relevant:

 

Silveryou

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
572
Reaction score
1,080
Location
Langobardia
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

Administrator/Moderator
Staff member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2020
Messages
1,260
Reaction score
3,357
Location
Germany
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.

 

Silveryou

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
572
Reaction score
1,080
Location
Langobardia
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

Active member
Trusted Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2020
Messages
36
Reaction score
124
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

Active member
Trusted Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
22
Reaction score
106
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.

1620190282602.png


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
 

Attachments

  • Dope Inc. 1978.pdf
    4 MB · Views: 73
  • eirv19n26-19920626_046-the_us_russian_entente_that_save.pdf
    1,020.3 KB · Views: 48
Last edited:

Silveryou

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
572
Reaction score
1,080
Location
Langobardia
"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

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Messages
345
Reaction score
951
A very well written review and a view of the civil war I haven't come across before.
- 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

Active member
Trusted Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2020
Messages
268
Reaction score
189
Location
Las Vegas
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

Administrator/Moderator
Staff member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2020
Messages
1,260
Reaction score
3,357
Location
Germany
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

Active member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2020
Messages
36
Reaction score
182
Location
Minnesota
Last edited:

JWW427

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2020
Messages
1,016
Reaction score
2,391
Location
Wash. DC.
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.
 

mega1000

Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2020
Messages
94
Reaction score
65
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...
Can you show me the post or where the idea the assassination didn't take place? I would like to check it for myself.
 

dakotamoon

Active member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
35
Reaction score
138
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!
 

mega1000

Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2020
Messages
94
Reaction score
65
I've started to read it, but because its over 40 pages long I'm not going to do it over night. so far the main thing I agree with is why was a known Confederate sympathizer was allowed such freedom up North, as far as why Booth didn't fight in the war it was possible to buy your way out of the draft and maybe he didn't want to risk his life on a cause until the end.
 

Armouro

Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2020
Messages
33
Reaction score
65
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/
 

mega1000

Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2020
Messages
94
Reaction score
65
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.
 
Tips
Tips
Please respect our Posting Rules.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top