Ah Lincoln. Four score and seven bucks ago. One of the most tyrannical leaders ever to befall America. He locked up judges and reporters. He basically locked up everyone who disagreed with him. And while they say he freed the slaves, his opinion of Blacks was quite negative.
I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race – Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln violated the United States contract with the states which allowed for secession.
This was a huge blow to state rights and America became a conglomerate nation, not a consortium of states with a shared military because of it. “A House divided cannot stand” but tyrannical house sure does prosper!
Why did we fight the civil war? Slavery? Or was it just that we had grown too big and too different, just as California and Texas are doing today. One a communist hell hole run by Democrats, the other a bible thumpin gun totin individualist society run tacitly by Republicans, even crappy ones like Ted Cruz.
The south was an agrarian economy and the north was the import/export and manufacturing hub. Their needs were different. As the USA moved closer and closer to abolishing slavery the south got rattled. They should have been patient, the need for slavery would all but go away in 40 years with cotton engines and picking and planting mechanizations. Much like the Hispanicos today pick the strawberries and grapes in California as a form of slave Labor, Texas can’t understand that cause we grow Cattle here. The needs are different. Lincoln said stuff it your needs don’t matter and the south rebelled and claimed their rights of secession and lincoln said stuff it so they raided Sumpter and armed up. Had Lincoln one non chickenbelly general the war would have trounced the south quickly. But the south were smarter and better fighters than the north. Their generals knew what to do. In one clash the two armies camped across from each other while the north spent three months digging a huge tunnel underneath the enemies and filling it with gunpowder. Lincoln’s generals wouldn’t attack and that made Lincoln furious. Until US Grant came into the fray and promptly kicked the southerners butts. Grant nabbed the Mississippi in 1863 and after that it was just a matter of time. Sherman plunged deep into the south and burned down Atlanta. The best thing about Sherman was his middle name – Tecumsuh. Who said we had to fight? Tecum suh.
But once again Lincoln genius which paved the path for ruin was coming up with a scheme to issue greenbacks and treasury bonds directly and not at interest of the bankers. The europeans tried to gouge him asking for 22% interest! Screw you guys I’m outta here said Lincoln, and began the direct issue of bonds and currency. A first step the the fiat hell we are in today. It was a complex scheme and explained below.
Someone shot Lincoln in the theater. They say it was Booth but we really don’t know. Odds are a banker provided the money for it. But we really don’t know. Anyone who tried to step outside the Bankers control ended up dead. Jackson only survived when BOTH pistols of his assassin misfired, that’s like being struck by lightning on the same day 20 years apart. The odds against it are astronomical.
———- Excerpt from The Civil War and the National Banking System – The Birth of National Bank Notes By Kevin Foley,
One of the responses of the federal government to the financing needs of the Civil War was to undertake a radical transformation of the banking and money issuing system that had applied prior to the outbreak of the war. While the Confederacy resorted largely to printing paper currency that amounted to little more than fiat money to finance its operations – with the result being substantial price inflation in the states in rebellion during the war, the Union undertook a more measured approach.
On February 25, 1863, President Lincoln signed what was known as the National Currency Act. Under its provisions a system was established under which the federal government issued charters – essentially a grant of authority to operate under the newly established national bank system — to banks that agreed to meet certain capital and other regulatory requirements. But just how does this relate to the needs of the government to finance its war operations? One of the central features of the National Currency Act was a provision under which federally charted banks participating in the system were able to purchase federal government bonds – as actually any individual or institution could – but the federally chartered banks could then issue their own money, what we call National Bank Notes, that constituted obligations of the federal government and would be redeemed by the government itself in the event of a bank failure. The security for this pledge was the value of the federal bonds purchased by the issuing bank, which was authorized to print National Bank Notes up to 90% of the value of the federal securities left on deposit with the government as security to back the bank issues.
While the right to issue such notes was discretionary with the bank, rather than mandatory, a federal charter was quite literally a license to create wealth and money from nothing. At the same time, the issuing privilege had the effect of creating new money that hadn’t existed before, i.e. it made possible an increase in the money supply to finance war needs. Moreover, it prevented a contraction of local money supplies that might have resulted from capital flowing to Washington to finance the war and being removed from availability for the needs of local area commerce and in addition enabled bankers to collect interest on the same money twice, providing a considerable incentive to actually issue National Bank Notes.
So that was the scheme. And it later would form a basis for issuing currency out of thin air. Now I’m no sayin that’s necessarily a bad thing, but is our asking the fed to do the same thing then pretending we don’t still do it any better? Of course not.
Excerpt from The Right To Secede, by Joseph Sobran, September 30, 1999
Among the Founding Fathers there was no doubt. The United States had just seceded from the British Empire, exercising the right of the people to “alter or abolish” — by force, if necessary — a despotic government. The Declaration of Independence is the most famous act of secession in our history, though modern rhetoric makes “secession” sound somehow different from, and more sinister than, claiming independence.
The original 13 states formed a “Confederation,” under which each state retained its “sovereignty, freedom, and independence.” The Constitution didn’t change this; each sovereign state was free to reject the Constitution. The new powers of the federal government were “granted” and “delegated” by the states, which implies that the states were prior and superior to the federal government.
Even in The Federalist, the brilliant propaganda papers for ratification of the Constitution (largely written by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison), the United States are constantly referred to as “the Confederacy” and “a confederate republic,” as opposed to a single “consolidated” or monolithic state. Members of a “confederacy” are by definition free to withdraw from it.
Hamilton and Madison hoped secession would never happen, but they never denied that it was a right and a practical possibility. They envisioned the people taking arms against the federal government if it exceeded its delegated powers or invaded their rights, and they admitted that this would be justified. Secession, including the resort to arms, was the final remedy against tyranny. (This is the real point of the Second Amendment.)
Strictly speaking, the states would not be “rebelling,” since they were sovereign; in the Framers’ view, a tyrannical government would be rebelling against the states and the people, who by defending themselves would merely exercise the paramount political “principle of self-preservation.”
The Constitution itself is silent on the subject, but since secession was an established right, it didn’t have to be reaffirmed. More telling still, even the bitterest opponents of the Constitution never accused it of denying the right of secession. Three states ratified the Constitution with the provision that they could later secede if they chose; the other ten states accepted this condition as valid.
Early in the nineteenth century, some Northerners favored secession to spare their states the ignominy of union with the slave states. Later, others who wanted to remain in the Union recognized the right of the South to secede; Abraham Lincoln had many of them arrested as “traitors.” According to his ideology, an entire state could be guilty of “treason” and “rebellion.” The Constitution recognizes no such possibility.
Long before he ran for president, Lincoln himself had twice affirmed the right of secession and even armed revolution. His scruples changed when he came to power. Only a few weeks after taking office, he wrote an order for the arrest of Chief Justice Roger Taney, who had attacked his unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus. His most recent biographer has said that during Lincoln’s administration there were “greater infringements on individual liberties than in any other period in American history.”
As a practical matter, the Civil War established the supremacy of the federal government over the formerly sovereign states. The states lost any power of resisting the federal government’s usurpations, and the long decline toward a totally consolidated central government began.
By 1973, the federal government was so powerful that the U.S. Supreme Court could insult the Constitution by striking down the abortion laws of all 50 states; and there was nothing the states, long since robbed of the right to secede, could do about it. That outrage was made possible by Lincoln’s triumphant war against the states, which was really his dark victory over the Constitution he was sworn to preserve.
Interestingly, it was the Czar of Russia who provided the needed assistance against the British and French, who were among the driving forces behind the secession of the South and her subsequent financing. Russia intervened by providing naval forces for the Union blockade of the South in European waters, and by letting both countries know that if they attempted to join the Confederacy with military forces, they would also have to go to war with Russia.
The Rothschild interests did succeed, through their agent Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase, to force a bill (the National Banking Act) through Congress creating a federally chartered central bank that had the power to issue U.S. Bank Notes. Afterward, Lincoln warned the American people:
“The money power preys upon the nation in time of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the republic is destroyed.”
Lincoln continued to fight against the central bank, and some now believe that it was his anticipated success in influencing Congress to limit the life of the Bank of the United States to just the war years that was the motivating factor behind his assassination.
Chase himself appeared on the first one dollar bill. When he was the chief justice he tried to get the paper money taken out of circulation as unconstitutional. Chase Manhattan bank is named after this scoundrel, and can you name who formed and incorporated Chase Manhattan Bank? The man who shot and killed Alexander Hamilton – Aaron Burr.
The Lone Assassin Myth is Born
Modern researchers have uncovered evidence of a massive conspiracy that links the following parties to the Bank of Rothschild: Lincoln’s Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, John Wilkes Booth, his eight co-conspirators, and over seventy government officials and businessmen involved in the conspiracy.
When Booth’s diary was recovered by Stanton’s troops, it was delivered to Stanton. When it was later produced during the investigation, eighteen pages had been ripped out. These pages, containing the aforementioned names,were later found in the attic of one of Stanton’s descendants.
From Booth’s trunk, a coded message was found that linked him directly to Judah P. Benjamin, the Civil War campaign manager in the South for the House of Rothschild. When the war ended, the key to the code was found in Benjamin’s possession.
The assassin, portrayed as a crazed lone gunman with a few radical friends, escaped by way of the only bridge in Washington not guarded by Stanton’s troops.
“Booth” was located hiding in a barn near Port Royal, Virginia, three days after escaping from Washington. He was shot by a soldier named Boston Corbett, who fired without orders. Whether or not the man killed was Booth is still a matter of contention, but the fact remains that whoever it was, he had no chance to identify himself.
From the beginning, several people who saw the body at the barn questioned the official account. The dead man didn’t resemble the fair, raven-haired Booth, a dashing Shakespearean performer who, with his brothers Edwin and Junius, played theaters in Philadelphia, New York, and Washington.
It was Secretary of War Edwin Stanton who made the final identification. Some now believe that a dupe was used and that the real John Wilkes Booth escaped with Stanton’s assistance.
Mary Todd Lincoln, upon hearing of her husband’s death, began screaming, “Oh, that dreadful house!” Earlier historians felt that this spontaneous utterance referred to the White House. Some now believe it may have been directed to Thomas W. House, a gun runner, financier, and agent of the Rothschild’s during the Civil War, who was linked to the anti-Lincoln, pro-banker interests.
Lincoln like Jackson before him had meddled with the Banks.
“You are a den of vipers. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God I will rout you out. If the people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning.” – President Jackson
There followed an (unsuccessful) assassination attempt on President Jackson’s life. Jackson had told his vice president, Martin Van Buren,
“The bank, Mr. Van Buren, is trying to kill me.”
We so easily accept our new banking masters, but our presidents would never have stood for the system of financial enslavement that rules us today.