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

[RaeWest]

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

 

[Onijunbei]

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 !!!!

 

[Deleted member 37]

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

Icke vs Mathis = Reptilians vs Homosexuals

 

[dakotamoon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Deleted member 37]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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

 

[RaeWest]

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.

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]

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.

 

[Deleted member 37]

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!!

 

[Deleted member 37]

"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]

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]

We know that the Lincoln assassination was fake

How do we know this? Evidence?

 

[BStankman]

How do we know this? Evidence?

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

 

[Deleted member 1432]

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,.