Worth Repeating…

Why It Wasn’t About Slavery

The Morrill Tariff, as it was called, was the highest tariff in U.S. history.” Adams also notes,

Secession by the South was a reaction against Lincoln’s high-tax policy. In 1861 the slave issue was not critical… The leaders of the South believed secession would attract trade to Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans, replacing Boston, New York, and Philadelphia as the chief trading ports of America, primarily because of low taxes.

Charles Dickens writes, “The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern States.” Dickens goes on to say “…Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils… The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.”

There is NO historical proof of an official act by Congress or Lincoln that the United
States waged a war to abolish slavery and until such an act is produced the war over slavery lie remains dishonest history and ignorant hate speech.

According to ALL official acts by Lincoln and the U.S. Congress, Lincoln’s Tax War was totally fought to collect a 40% Federal sales tax on imported products under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861.

Abraham Lincoln stated in his First Inaugural Speech on March 4, 1861:

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” (Paragraph 4)

“The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to COLLECT THE DUTIES and IMPOSTS; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”  (Paragraph 21)

Karl Marx, like most European socialists of the time favored the North. In an 1861 article published in England, he articulated very well what the major British newspapers, the Times, the Economist, and Saturday Review, had been saying:

“The war between the North and South is a tariff war. The war, is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for power.”

On July 22, 1861, the U.S. Congress passed a joint resolution stating the purpose of the war:

“Resolved…That this war is not being prosecuted on our part in any spirit of oppression, not for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.”

This is further proof that the war was NOT fought over slavery. The North did, however, conquer and subjugate the South, and the war they initiated and waged against the South was both unconstitutional and treasonous. It was fought to force the legally seceded South back into the union for the purpose of continuing the collection of excessive tariffs, which economically damaged the South, but was of economical benefit to the northern industrialists.

Where is the logic?

IF slavery was the cause of the War For Southern Independence, and IF the North fought to free the slaves, why then:

1. Was a 13th amendment presented in the U.S. Congress and signed by Lincoln in 1861, that would have prohibited the U.S. government from ever abolishing or interfering with slavery in any state? (Corwin Amendment, 2 March, 1861)

2. Was West Virginia allowed to accede to the union as a “Slave” state after 1863? (West Virginia was illegally and unconstitutionally formed)

3. Was slave labor used to build the Capitol building in Washington D.C.?

4. Was the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, applicable only in areas not under the control of the Union? (The Emancipation Proclamation freed not one solitary person, but was a war measure meant to cause a slave uprising, which did not happen)

5.Was Union Gen. Fremont’s order emancipating slaves in Missouri countermanded by Lincoln and the slaves sent back to their masters?

6. Why did New Jersey uphold its “Lifetime apprentices” rule until 1866?

7. Why were there six slave states in the union (Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska – 1860 Census) during the War For Southern Independence?

8. Was there a U.S. Resolution stating that the war had nothing to do with slavery? (July 22, 1861)

March 1861

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of such state.”

If the war was over slavery, all the South had to do was to ratify the original 13th Amendment, the Corwin Amendment, and slavery would have forever been protected by the Constitution. Why did the South NOT accept this amendment? Because it was about tariffs, not slavery.

“The sole object of this war,” said Grant,

“…is to restore the Union.  Should I become convinced it has any other object, or that the Government designs using its soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolitionists, I pledge you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side.” – Democratic Speaker’s Handbook, p. 33

“We didn’t go into the war to put down slavery, but to put the flag back; and to act differently at this moment would, I have no doubt, not only weaken our cause, but smack of bad faith…” ~ Abraham Lincoln

“Amend the Constitution to say it should never be altered to interfere with slavery.” ~ Abraham Lincoln, 24 December 1860, presenting his stand on slavery to the Senate

“For the contest on the part of the North is now undisguisedly for empire. The question of Slavery is thrown to the winds. There was hardly any concession in its favor that the South could ask which the North would refuse, provided only that the seceding States would re-enter the Union…Away with the pretence on the North to dignify its cause with the name of freedom to the slave! — The Wigan Examiner, an English newspaper

The North invaded to regain lost federal tax revenue by keeping the Union intact by force of arms. In his First Inaugural Lincoln promised to invade any state that failed to collect “the duties and imposts,” and he kept his promise. On April 19, 1861, the reason Lincoln gave for his naval blockade of the Southern ports was that “the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed” in the states that had seceded.

There was a bill before the US congress in 1862 which would have abolished slavery.  It was “defeated”, even though the Southern States were not in the union.


“The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of “maintaining the national honor.” Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these impostors now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man although that was not the motive of the war as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before.”

To read these words and know that they came from the pen of one of the Union’s most ardent abolitionists (Lysander Spooner) is to give one a totally realistic perspective of the Republicans’ false claim that they “warred” to “save” the slaves.


Lincoln provoked the firing on Ft. Sumter by sending the Star of the West, with supplies and troops, after stating that he would not supply the fort.

Lincoln had 35,000 Northern citizens imprisoned who disagreed with his war, and suspended habeas corpus and had the Supreme Court Justice arrested when he ruled against him.

Lincoln closed more than 300 newspapers who did not agree with him, censored all telegraph communications, waged war without Congressional consent, illegally created the state of West Virginia, deported an Ohio congressman, and arrested Maryland legislators and replaced them to keep them from voting for secession.

Because Lincoln was losing the war, he issued his Emancipation Proclamation, which he stated was a war measure to cause slave insurrections.  Which did not happen.

This proclamation freed not one solitary person. Anyone who reads it can see it for themselves.

Lincoln’s war was a war against secession, not slavery.  He could not bear to lose the excessive revenues paid by the Southern states.  The South did not need the North, but the North needed the South’s money, cotton, and needed to control the Mississippi River.

The brainwashed masses have been made to believe that the war was a “moral war” to end the injustices of slavery.  Hogwash!  It was all about power and money.  The rich Northern bankers and industrialists needed the South.  Slavery did not enter into the picture until halfway through the war as the North was losing.  Then they tried to paint the picture of a moral crusade to end slavery.

Why did it take 22 million people of the North four years to defeat 5 million people of the South? The South was outnumbered the entire war. The South was fighting with heart, for a reason. The Southern soldier was fighting to defend his homeland from the illegal invasion of Lincoln. The Northern soldier was just following orders. The South fought with a purposed to escape the tyranny of the North and stick to the Constitution, and return to a limited government and get away from an all powerful centralized government, which our Founders had warned against.

Why did Lincoln pay for 300,000 European socialists (the same ones who had lost the socialist revolution of 1848) to join his army?  He could not win without their help. These socialists saw the opportunity to succeed here where they had failed in Europe.

Lincoln’s army was experiencing massive desertions.  Irish immigrants were told the lie
that the South had intentions of making slaves out of them, so they joined up to fight.

Lincoln waged a total war campaign against the citizens of the South, murdering, raping, looting, and burning were the norm for General William T. Sherman and his ilk.

The victors write the history, and during Reconstruction, Northern teachers were sent in to start the brainwashing procedure on Southern children.  For 150 years, the Yankee lie of the war being about slavery has been fed to our youth, and they have been made to believe their ancestors were traitors and committed treason against the U.S.  They have been taught to be ashamed of their heritage and history.  They have been taught to say the socialist Pledge of Allegiance which rubs in the face of the defeated the victory of the socialist backed North.

Why is it not taught in the schools that the North offered “The Corwin Amendment” which would have forever protected slavery if the South would accept it and rejoin the union?

The South did not care about the preservation of slavery as it was on its way out, and slavery was not why the south seceded. Why is it not taught in the schools that the following U.S. resolution was written stating that the war was NOT about slavery?

Cultural genocide continues to be the order of the day as our Confederate symbols are slandered, ridiculed, and banned.

As Mark Twin said,

“It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled”.

Remain in the Union to Perpetuate Slavery

“…It is almost universally assumed as a fact that the war was waged by the Federal Government for the overthrow of African slavery, and by the South for the maintenance of that institution.  [I]t is easy to show that it did not make war to emancipate the slaves, but that it liberated the slaves to help it to make war.

For the proclamation came at a time when the Federal army that had besieged Richmond in the beginning of 1862 had barely saved Washington from the grasp of the half-starved, half-naked soldiers of the Confederacy.  It was issued when those soldiers stood on the frontier of Virginia, challenging their adversaries to try again the issue left undetermined on the bloody field of Sharpsburg.  It came at a time when the Federal plan of campaign in Virginia for 1862 had failed, shattered at Manassas, shattered at Sharpsburg, and if there be not about it a painful suggestion of servile war as a possible aid to the restoration of Federal authority over the South, it is clear in the announcement that if the South could escape the threatened emancipation of the slaves, and all the consequences of that measure, by returning to the Union.  Emancipation, therefore, was used as a threat to the States that should continue to resist the Federal arms after the 1st day of January, 1863, and protection to slavery by the Federal Government was the reward promised to such States as should cease to resist.”

(The Oration of Colonel Charles Marshall, 3 November, 1870, Southern Historical Society Papers, Vol. XVII, R.A. Brock, editor, 1889, pp. 217-218)

U. S. tariff revenues already fell disproportionately on the South, accounting for 87% of the total.  While the tariff protected Northern industrial interests, it raised the cost of living and commerce in the South substantially.  It also reduced the trade value of their agricultural exports to Europe.  These combined to place a severe economic hardship on many Southern states.  Even more galling was that 80% or more of these tax revenues were expended on Northern public works and industrial subsidies, thus further enriching the North at the expense of the South.

Famous Quotes:

“The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.” –Charles Dickens, 1862

Gen. Pat Cleburne said,
“Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy, that our youth will be trained by northern teachers and will learn from northern books their version of the War, will be impressed by all influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.”

“Governor, if I had foreseen the use these people desired to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox, no, sir, not by me.  Had I seen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand.”– General Robert E. Lee, CSA, as told to Texas ex-governor F. W. Stockdale

Simon Cameron, Lincoln’s Secretary of War, wrote to General Butler in New Orleans:

“President Lincoln desires the right to hold slaves to be fully recognized. The war is prosecuted for the Union, hence no question concerning slavery will arise.”

As General Don Piatt said:

“Lincoln well knew that the North was not fighting to free slaves, nor was the South fighting to preserve slavery. In that awful conflict slavery went to pieces.”


Posted by on June 30, 2015 in Uncategorized



Something the North never understood, and still doesn’t.  Public education has done the rest.


Posted by on June 25, 2015 in Uncategorized


THE Flag


Posted by on June 24, 2015 in Uncategorized



Qaradawi (L) and Estwani (seated on floor).Qaradawi (L) and Estwani (seated on floor).

The photos, when examined in conjunction with documents and emails released by the Clinton Library, reveal an extremely disturbing mosaic. Estwani has a history of consorting with notorious figures, stealthy Muslim Brotherhood jihadists, and U.S. Congressmen from both sides of the aisle. Perhaps most alarming are his multiple visits to the White House during the Clinton administration.

Estwani with Hillary in the White House, during Eid event.Estwani with Hillary in the White House, during Eid event.

Youssef al-Qaradawi was convicted, in abstentia, to hang.

Hillary is running for President of the United States.

When Estwani was visiting the White House, Huma Abedin – the daughter of a Muslim Sisterhood leader – had already been working for Hillary Clinton for four years.  Abedin’s brother was a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies (OCIS) for several years when al-Qaradawi served on the Board.

Estwani in White House with Bill Clinton.

Estwani in White House with Bill Clinton.

Youssef al-Qaradawi was convicted, in abstentia, to hang.

Hillary is running for President of the United States.

When Estwani was visiting the White House, Huma Abedin – the daughter of a Muslim Sisterhood leader – had already been working for Hillary Clinton for four years.  Abedin’s brother was a fellow at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies (OCIS) for several years when al-Qaradawi served on the Board.

Estwani in White House with Bill Clinton.

“Dar Al-Hijra Center in Washington has played a prominent role and was remarkable to educate patrons on the importance and the need to participate in the elections for the selection of the fittest and the closest to the needs and values of the Muslim community.” He added: “The center of Dar al-Hijrah has good relations with some in Congress, whether Republicans or Democrats , and I have repeated visits to the center on several occasions , which was visited by the Republican candidate Tom Davis and he addressed the Muslim audience after Friday prayers that preceded the elections for the House of Representatives.”

And?  America would even permit Clinton (Hillary) to be placed on a ballot for the highest office in the land?

Leave a comment

Posted by on June 18, 2015 in Uncategorized




Pacifism covers a spectrum of views, including the belief that international disputes can and should be peacefully resolved, calls for the abolition of the institutions of the military and war, opposition to any organization of society through governmental force (anarchist or libertarian pacifism), rejection of the use of physical violence to obtain political, economic or social goals, the obliteration of force, and opposition to violence under any circumstance, even defense of self and others.

From the United States Federal Government to the Sixteenth General Assembly of the United Nations a Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World:





The over-all goal of the United States is a free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world which has achieved general and complete disarmament under effective international control; and a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.In order to make possible the achievement of that goal, the program sets forth the following specific objectives toward which nations should direct their efforts:

  • The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
  • The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
  • The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations;
  • The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.


The negotiating states are called upon to develop the program into a detailed plan for general and complete disarmament and to continue their efforts without interruption until the whole program has been achieved. To this end, they are to seek the widest possible area of agreement at the earliest possible date. At the same time, and without prejudice to progress on the disarmament program, they are to seek agreement on those immediate measures that would contribute to the common security of nations and that could facilitate and form part of the total program.

*It should be enough to note that a single sociopath, armed with nothing more than a knife, could exterminate a city full of pacifists. 

Emotional pacifism has been proven incapable of restraining nationalist ambition. 

Pacifism is almost never branded as flagrantly immoral, which it is. While it can seem noble enough when the stakes are low, pacifism is ultimately nothing more than a willingness to die, and to let others die, at the pleasure of the world’s thugs.

Lastly.  Is Peace the true end-all?  Accepting peace as an absence of violence or war begs many questions. Do we really mean to equate a loving, cooperative, or just peace with a peace of bondage, slavery, or injustice?  Do we mean to imply that because there is no conflict, the peace where no one dwells is the same as that among loving and cooperative neighbors?  If absence of war is peace, then do we accept as peace a dictatorship’s use of mass executions, torture, and imprisonment to maintain order?  Is peace the same between hostile states trembling on the edge of war and those with common values, bound by communications, trade, and aid, between whom violence is unthinkable?  Is there not some relationship between peace and conflict, such that the conditions of peace or changes therein make conflict more or less likely?  But if so, does this not imply that peace is an existing “something” to be analyzed, rather than a social vacuum?

Such questions imply a need for treating peace as some kind of existent, as is done in peace as a social contract.

As the Obama administration, full of progressive democrats (aka: Communists), complete their final time in office, look for them to pull everything from their bag of tricks to disarm and dis-empower the American people.  We have gotten the government we deserve.

h/t: R. J. Rummel

At pacifism’s core is a basic good, but with a fatal flaw.  That flaw is that it requires near absolute 100% participation.  It takes only one to create the next Hitler, Mao, or…


Posted by on June 3, 2015 in Uncategorized


For Newcomers

THIS is a one good reason NOT to kill every snake you see. Texas Indigo snake eating a Rattler. The guy who took this pic said “it was still rattling all the way down.”
They don’t hurt humans or dogs!! There ARE snakes that are GOOD to have around, because they target the deadly ones.  In fact, it it’s against FEDERAL LAW to kill an Indigo. There’s only 4 poisonous snakes in the USA… Rattler, Coral, Copperhead & Water Moccasin (Cottonmouth).
Keep this in mind when you get here.

Posted by on May 27, 2015 in Uncategorized


Another song

…with a Lincoln’s War theme.

Will we re-live?

Leave a comment

Posted by on May 24, 2015 in Uncategorized


Just thinkin…

Muslim dating


Posted by on May 23, 2015 in Uncategorized



Just before his death, John Adams penned a warning to contemporary and future Americans that the choices they made with the great power they inherited would either make them the greatest or the worst nation in the world.

Posted by on May 18, 2015 in Uncategorized



The video is Not for everyone, BUT the message at the end is…

h/t Diogenes

“You cannot take any people, of any color, and exempt them from the requirements of civilization — including work, behavioral standards, personal responsibility and all the other basic things that the clever intelligentsia disdain — without ruinous consequences to them and to society at large.”

– Thomas Sowell, “Race, Politics, and Lies” –


Posted by on May 5, 2015 in Uncategorized


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers