- Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search


A.W. Mann

Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0


Although Americans have more important things to think and worry about, the Obama administration has revived the race issue and brought it front and center so that people’s attention can be diverted from issues like the Federal Reserve, prosecuting corrupt and treasonous politicians, ending the CIA’s war ventures in the Mideast, etc.  So, it is my hope that we can calm the waters by presenting a more honest and truthful version of history than is currently being peddled by educators and the news and entertainment media.  Since the focus of liberals and leftists is against Whites, it is only fair for Whites to have the right to have their day in court and be given the opportunity of presenting their side of the story.

All Whites are accused of things that the South supposedly did and are also blamed for what the present government does, even though most Whites’ ancestors did not live down South and even though Whites have no control over the U.S. government today.  So, Whites were damned for seceding, and all Whites are damned for somehow regaining control over the government and using it for their own purposes.  No distinctions are made between the pre-“Civil War” government and the post-“Civil War” government.  In a twist of logic, Whites have been targeted by groups like the SPLC as being more likely to be terrorists and more of a threat to the government than ISIS or the Muslim Brotherhood.  However, how can Whites be in control and yet be accused of trying to overthrow the government they are supposedly in control of?  If Whites were in control, we would not be fighting no-win wars in the Mideast or bringing in millions of Muslim “refugees.”  Nor would all of our government’s policies be framed around what is best for the little bandit state of Israeli and Zionist Jews.  Although nobody knows for sure who is in the Shadow Government and Deep State, we know that the Jews have a habit of avoiding the limelight and work in the shadows since they can accomplish more in darkness than in light.  The Protocols of Zion indicate that those who control the money and have the power are Zionists, not Whites.

The term “White supremacy” is typically used to accuse Whites of controlling the government, while anyone who accuses the true controllers is described as being “anti-semitic” (for some reason the Jews never offer to prove that they don’t control our government).   So, it shouldn’t be hard for most people to figure out that the Jewish-Marxist liberals have “minorities” fighting a phantom, a ghost, or strawman in order for these Zionists to escape scrutiny and allow them to continue working behind the scenes for their treasonous New World Order.

Since “White supremacy” and slavery are both issues that stem from the Old South and the “Civil War” period, it is necessary for us to review some history so that we can dispense with some of the fear and hate that “minorities” unjustifiably feel toward Whites.

The word “White” used herein will refer to true Whites, so it is capitalized, meaning that it does not include Jews or anyone who happens to have white skin and can pass as being White.

Myth No. 1:  The law forbade the states from seceding from the Union, so Lincoln was justified in waging war against the South.

The early American colonies only decided to join together as the united States of America in the 1700s because it was understood and agreed at the time that any state could later withdraw at any time if it chose to.  John Codman Ropes wrote in Story of the Civil War:  “’The States which seceded held . . . the theory that the United States was not a single nation, but a collection of nations, which had for many years acted for certain purposes through an agency known as the Government of the United States’” (pp. 17-18).  Thus, when the U.S. was founded, the states at the Convention refused to create a national government (James and Walter Kennedy, The South Was Right!, 6th Ptg., Gretna, Louisiana, 1997, p.312).  The united States of America was created as a confederation of states, each of which printed its own money, had its own laws, etc.  (Could it be that this is where the Southern states got the idea of calling themselves the Confederacy?)  At the close of the Revolutionary War, even King George of England recognized the independence of our states.  “Each state is named as a free and independent state in the Treaty of Paris, signed by the representatives of the British Monarch” (Ibid., p.225). 

Robert E. Lee warned that States’ Rights were essential to a free government and if taken away would result in despotism at home and aggression abroad (Ibid., p.41).  Thomas Jefferson “advocated a form of government that sought the will of the people as opposed to a government that sought to impose the government’s arbitrary will upon the people” (Ray Bilger, The Untold History of America, Vol. I, 1997, p.150).  “From John C. Calhoun we know that the people of the South have traditionally desired a government typified by a strong constitution with maximum freedom and civil liberties reserved to the people” (Ibid., p.151).  “The doctrine of state sovereignty stood as a barrier to the dreams of the federal monarchists  . . . Southerners knew that the demise of state sovereignty would mean the death of American liberty” (Kennedy, p.223).  In other words, they understood that a strong central government would be a threat to liberty and freedom.

However, the bankers continued pushing for a strong central government, a national bank, a national government, etc., because one national government and one Congress are easier to control than many governments and legislatures. So, “Even though the monarchists were defeated in the Constitutional Convention, they never ceased their efforts to give the United States a strong, centralized, consolidated, federal government. They ceased their labors as open monarchists and renewed their efforts as consolidationists (i.e., Federalists) years later [and then] as Radical Republicans, and today as liberals” (Ibid., p.223). 

Baldwin puts this issue in another way:  “To say that Southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain” (Chuck Baldwin, “In Defense of Lee and Jackson,” 8/26/17, p.1,  Even the British agreed with this analogy:

“[T]he contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces.  These opinions . . . are the general opinions of the English nation” (London Times, Nov. 7, 1861).

Kennedy writes:  “The radical party of the North claimed that the South did not have the right to secede and used brute military force to ‘prove’ its point – just as the Chinese communists did in Tiananmen Square and as the communist hard-liners tried to do in Russia” (Kennedy, p.216).  However, “Had the Democrats won [the election in] . . . 1860, the Northern States would have been the seceding States, not the Southern” (Ibid., p.313).  In fact, had Lincoln not sent federal troops and seized the legislature by force, the state of Maryland would have seceded too.

Myth No. 2:  The Northern states obeyed the spirit and the letter of the law; so the Southern states had no cause to secede.

To understand why the Southern states finally decided to secede, one must understand some of the things that they had put up with for many years.  For example, although the states agreed to abide by the Fugitive Slave Law adopted in 1793, Massachusetts and Vermont nullified this law in 1843.  Ironically, it had been the New England states that had wanted this law enacted in the first place, not the Southern states. 

The Northern states routinely obeyed the laws only as long as it was profitable to them to do so, yet they did not believe that the Southern states had the right to disregard any laws or agreements that the North no longer adhered to.  Of course, when one party violates an agreement or contract, the other party or parties are under no obligation to uphold the agreement either (Ibid., pp. 214-215).  Chadwick writes:

“The Republicans did not understand . . . that Southerners believed the Constitution worthless by 1860.  Northerners paid no attention to anything the South said about slavery or the individual rights of Southern states or their residents” (Bruce Chadwick, Lincoln for President, Naperville, Illinois, 2009, p.164).

That the Southerners were reasonable, however, is proven by the fact that at the Charleston Convention in 1860, “’The Southern representatives said that they would stand by the Constitution and the decisions of the Supreme Court for or against the South, and the Northern representatives refused to [even] stand by the decisions of the Supreme Court and the highest tribunal of the land’” (Mildred L. Rutherford, Truths of History, Athens, Georgia, 1907, p.52).

Another reason for secession was that the South had been forced to buy its goods from the North because of the high tariffs imposed on the North on goods coming from England, even though the goods made in England were cheaper and of better quality than those produced in the North (Adrian Krieg, July 4th 2016:  The Last Independence Day, Tampa, 2000, p.37).

“For decades, Northerners had been . . . [plundering] Southerners . . . with high protectionist tariffs.  There was almost a war of secession in the late 1820s over the ‘Tariff of Abominations’ of 1828 that increased the average tariff rate . . . to 45%.  The agricultural South . . . [was] forced to pay higher prices for clothing, farm tools, shoes, and myriad other manufactured products that they purchased mostly from Northern businesses. . . By 1857 the average tariff rate had declined to about 15%, and tariff revenues accounted for at least 90% of all federal tax revenue. . . [But] with the Republican Party in control of Congress and the White House, the average tariff rate was increased, by 1863, back up to 47% . . . . Understanding that the Southern states        . . . had no intention of continuing to send tariff revenues to Washington, D.C., Lincoln threatened war over it [when the Southern states seceded]” (Thomas DiLorenzo, “The Lincoln Myth: Ideological Cornerstone of the American Empire,” 8/22/17,,  pp. 4-5).

Those who think that the South was being unreasonable should realize that the Revolutionary War debts of the states had been transferred to the federal government, and the tariffs, paid mostly by the South, were used to pay down those debts.  Thus the bulk of the burden of paying for the Revolutionary War fell on the Southern states.

Baldwin writes that when the “Civil War” started in 1861, “the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70 percent of the nation’s taxes” (Baldwin, p.2).  Not only did the South pay a disproportionate share of the taxes to the federal government, but most of the taxes were spent on making improvements in infrastructure in the North.  The North also opposed Southern secession because it did not want to lose money from tariffs by the South from shipping its products westward through New Orleans rather than through New York.  So, the issue of tariffs was more important to Lincoln and the Northern states than the issue of slavery.  Lincoln was willing to leave the institution of slavery alone, provided that the South agreed to continue paying these unfair tariffs, but the South put its collective foot down and said NO!  So, this was the primary reason why war was instituted against the South – to prevent its cash cow from getting away.

Prior to secession, however, Jefferson Davis urged compromise and served on the Committee of Thirty-Three.  Only when that failed did he agree to support secession.  “Jefferson Davis, in his farewell address to the United States Senate in 1861, explained that . . . . the act of secession was a final attempt by a state to protect rights that were threatened and that could not be maintained within the Union” (Kennedy, p.213).  Davis did everything humanly possible to avoid secession because he understood the gravity of this decision.  Lincoln himself admitted prior to his presidency in 1847 with “elaborate arguments in favor of the legal right of a State to secede” (Ibid., p.313).  It was most likely because of this that the South expected Lincoln to abide by the Constitution and not wage war against the South for acting on its right to secede.

Myth No. 3:  The South started the war, so the Southerners were the aggressors.

It was not the South who started the “Civil War.”  “Southerners did not desire secession; it was forced on them” (Ibid., p.212).  Hoskins writes that the war was created by the banking establishment which had control over the northeastern states (Richard Hoskins, Vigilantes of Christendom, Lynchburg, Virginia, 1990, p.217).  As Charles Dickens put it in 1862:  “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.”

On March 15, 1861, the Confederate government was assured by Lincoln that Fort Sumter would be evacuated within a few days.  However, on March 28, Lincoln completed his plans for outfitting an expedition to invade Charleston.  On April 5, ships loaded with troops, munitions, and military supplies sailed southward.  During this time, Lincoln reassured the South that Fort Sumter would be peacefully handed over and that there would be no war (Richard Hoskins, War Cycles Peace Cycles, Lynchburg, 1985, p.153).  However, on April 10, South Carolina received a warning of the coming invasion.  An unforeseen, terrible storm on April 12 upset Lincoln’s schedule.  The people of South Carolina were then faced with the choice of allowing Lincoln’s fleet to combine forces with the fort or to bombard the fort before the storm died down.  By making the latter choice, the South was blamed for firing the first shot (Ibid., p.154).  Incidentally, nobody was killed at Fort Sumter.  (Similarly, Hitler attacked Russia before Stalin could carry out his plan to attack Germany.)

The term “civil war” “suggests two sides fighting for control of the same capital and country.   . . . Had the South wanted to take over Washington, D.C., they could have done so with the very first battle . . . . and in all likelihood ended the war before it really began.  But . . . the Confederacy had no intention of fighting an aggressive war against the North.  They merely wanted to defend the South against Lincoln’s aggression” (Baldwin, p.4).  However, the North insisted on calling it a Civil War because they believed that we were a Nation, not a confederation of Sovereign nations, and the bankers were willing to go to war so that their belief would prevail. 

So, technically, the North was the one which was guilty of insurrection and rebellion against the united States of America, not the South.  The South acted defensively to preserve the government that had been formed originally by the colonies.  General Robert E. Lee said:  “All that the South has ever desired was that the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth.”  Proof of this can be seen in the Constitution of the Confederate States which was modelled after our original Constitution but revised for clarity.  It is truly a masterpiece (see Kennedy, pp. 333-363).

The call to arms in the South in the spring of 1861 was responded to enthusiastically as their ancestors had traditionally fought for self-government and independence in and from England and in Europe.  They acted in the knowledge that the government was established on the principle of consent of the governed.

Myth No. 4:  Our founding forefathers did not wish to end slavery.

While Patrick Henry was governor of Virginia, the state outlawed the slave trade!  This was done on October 5, 1778.  Kennedy writes:

“This law not only prevented the importation of slaves, but also stipulated that any slave brought into the state contrary to the law would be then and forevermore free.

“This action of Virginia was the first taken in the civilized world prohibiting the slave trade.  But even this was not the first time Virginia had attempted to stop the slave trade.  Notice that the law was passed after Virginia had declared itself independent (i.e. had seceded) from Great Britain.  The House of Burgesses had many times before attempted to stop the slave trade, only to have its laws overruled by the royal governor. . . [who] was acting on behalf of the king and parliament.  In the months before he wrote the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, a Southerner from Virginia, stated that one of the reasons the people of Virginia felt compelled to secede from the established British government was that the British had forced the state to endure the slave trade” (Ibid., p.73, emphasis added).

“It should be clear why the United States Constitution protected this infernal traffic for twenty years after the adoption of the Constitution.  The commercial interest of the North led the fight to include the provision for the protection of the slave trade in the Constitution.  This provision was inserted into the new constitution over the objections of Virginia and other Southern states. . . It was only after the South had seceded from the union with the North that a clear and unqualified prohibition was written into the Constitution outlawing the slave trade as Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America. . . When was the last time you saw a television program or read a history book which explained that little bit of history?” (Ibid., pp. 73-74, emphasis added).

“In the Old South, there were at least three different views of slavery ranging from those who wished the quick abolition of slavery, such as Robert E. Lee, to those like Jefferson Davis who sought to uplift and educate the slaves to make them ready for freedom, to others who believed that black people could never be made ready for freedom. . . but all honorable people regardless of how they felt about the institution of slavery believed that the black people should be accorded the respect due them as taught in the Bible in regard to slaves” (Ibid., p.83).

“. . . John Adams stated that slavery in the North was not done away with for moral or ethical reasons, but because Northern workers refused to compete with blacks” (Ibid., p.84).  “. . . [T]he North did not free its slave property for any other reason than to rid itself of a people who had become unprofitable to keep and with whom it desired to have little or no social contact.  In both the North and the South, there were different views on the issue of slavery and how to end it.  The only difference is that the North had the opportunity to end slavery without disrupting its economy or social fabric.  This was a luxury the Yankee never allowed the South” (Ibid., p.80).  Private John H. Haley of the 17th Maine Regiment said:

“We of the North couldn’t make it [slavery] pay, so we are convinced that it is the sum of all villainy.  Our plan is more profitable; we take care of no children or sick people, except as paupers, while the owners of slaves have to provide for them from birth to death.  If we of the North were called upon to endure one half as much as the Southern people and soldiers do, we would abandon the cause and let the Southern Confederacy be established.  We pronounce their cause unholy, but they consider it sacred enough to suffer and die for . . . . for the purpose of preserving this [Republican] form of government” (Ibid., p.314).

Rutherford adds:  “’If the South had been permitted to secede, slavery would have died a natural death’” (Rutherford, p.90).  Charles Francis Adams, Jr. wrote:  “’Had the South been allowed to manage this question [slavery], the slaves would have been . . . fully emancipated and that without bloodshed or race problems’” (Ibid., pp. 95-96).

Although I question the accuracy of the following statement, Senator Theodore Bilbo (1877-1947) wrote:  “He [Lincoln] could not easily accept immediate emancipation [of the slaves] since he had long anticipated gradual emancipation which would not be completed until 1900.  His plan also provided for compensation to the slave owners” (Bilbo, Take Your Choice, Repr., Decatur, 1980, pp. 263-264).  If this had been Lincoln’s plan, the South would probably have agreed to it.  In any case, the real issue was tariffs, not slavery!

Although “minorities” today like to flatter themselves that the system of slavery was indispensable to the South and would still be in existence today if the South had won the war in order to assert the superiority of Whites over blacks, the truth is that it would be like wanting to remain in the days of the horse and buggy.  With the invention of machines such as the cotton gin in 1793, work could be done more cheaply and efficiently by machines rather than by slaves.  In fact, the banker “elite” openly admit today that human labor has become obsolete with the invention of robots, so most humans are for the most part neither needed nor wanted for labor any more. All “goyim,” both White and black, are considered to be expendable (“useless eaters”).  This means that Whites and blacks are in the same boat with an enemy in common.  Therefore, although the races can’t be forced to like one another, they should not be fighting against one another, and certainly not over the dead corpse of slavery.  If anything, Whites are separatists, not supremacists, because Whites have no desire to rule over nonwhites in order to prove their racial superiority.  However, in their effort to “prove” their dogma that we are all equal, the leftists forcibly integrate the races, then antagonize them against one another through propaganda, and then blame Whites when racial harmony doesn’t result.  The leftists also accuse Whites of hate, racism, and racial supremacy for resisting integration.  How would these liberals like to prove their dogma-theory by being dropped off among a tribe of cannibals?

Myth No. 5:  Jefferson Believed in Racial Equality.

No phrase has caused more anger, frustration, and despair than the phrase “All men are created equal” which was written in the Declaration of Independence and agreed to by White slave owners and is frequently quoted by leftists.  Liberals have latched on to this phrase as proof that our founding fathers intended to establish “Communism” in our nation but for some reason failed to live up to their promises because of White racism.  However, in the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court we read:  “The general words [regarding equality] . . . would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood.  But it is too clear for dispute that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration . . .” (Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 Howard 393, pp. 409-410).

William Graham Sumner, professor of political science at Yale, said that Jefferson was not talking about negroes when he wrote that all men are created equal (Thomas Gossett, Race: The History of an Idea in America, 2nd Ptg., Dallas, 1964, p.1554).  John Van Evrie agreed with Sumner in his book Negroes and Negro Slavery (N.Y., 1861, p.21) – that Jefferson meant “all men (his own race) were created free and equal.”  Jefferson also stated:  “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [negroes] are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government.”  But leftists are fond of taking things out of context or misinterpreting what Whites have said or written to make Whites appear to be liars, hypocrites, and racists.  By their logic, “with liberty and justice for ALL,” in our Pledge of Allegiance, must be interpreted as meaning allegiance to the whole world rather than just for all who are a part of our nation. 

The fact is that “The theory of equality is a Communist theory . . .” (Stuart O. Landry, The Cult of Equality, New Orleans, 1945, p.42).  “Masonry was the first apostle of Equality” (Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, 1921, p.23).  Liberals know that once they have established the dogma of equality, they can then proceed to democracy, then socialism, and finally international Communism.  So, in the end, both race and nation are extinguished, and everyone will supposedly live in a paradise where all their needs are met, and nobody will ever have to work again.  Needless to say, our founding fathers did not believe in democracy or communism.

Kennedy delves into this subject further:

“To promise an entire population that all will be equal (i.e. enjoy equal wealth, influence, services received, etc.) is to guarantee a communal existence.  Such a thought has always been and continues to be anathema to the individualistic heritage of the South. . .

In the early days of the American Republic, the term referred to equality before God and the law.  It was an open attack against the then-prevalent concept of the divine right of kings.  Later in the American setting, it came to mean equality of opportunity . . . In short, it was and still is good public policy to encourage all to compete in the market place because such free enterprise leads to lower prices and to better quality of goods and services.  [Liberals, being bleeding hearts, say that competition is unfair to those who lose out, but for some reason they don’t attack the bankers.]

“Jefferson did not mean that all people were endowed with the same qualities, characteristics, and talents.  As part of the American aristocracy, he knew that some people possessed skills and talents superior to others. But this fact did not change their standing before God or the law. . .

“Our modern-day liberals have perverted the original concept of equality of opportunity into their current doctrine of equality of results . . . Contrast the liberal’s view with Milton Friedman’s:  . . . ‘Equality of outcome is in clear conflict with liberty.’

“. . . . Modern liberals have plagued Southern society with innumerable sociological schemes and experiments to achieve their goal of human equality.  The rights and liberties of the Southern people have been the preferred sacrifice to appease the wrath of the gods of liberalism.  We have been forced to endure such insults as busing, racial quotas, minority set-asides, affirmative action plans, reverse discrimination, and a discriminatory South-only Voting Rights Act, just to name a few. . . and still we are no closer to appeasing the gods of Yankee liberalism . . . .

“Liberals are driven by an illogical sense of guilt that will not allow them to leave well enough alone, to mind their own business, or even to realize that, although evil exists and they are right to feel sympathy for its victims, they don’t understand everything about it, and that even if they did they do not have the means to correct it.  How often have we heard Southerners bitterly and vainly complaining to the Yankee press that all they want is to be ‘left alone.’  Yet, to liberal minds this is unacceptable . . . . When viewing the reality of the human experience, they realize that life is not fair.  They feel guilty and determine that it is ‘our’ fault, and therefore ‘we owe it to these people’ to attempt to relieve the suffering they feel ‘we’ have caused. . . . To abate their sense of guilt, liberals can justify any amount of taxes, court orders, affirmative action programs, busing, ad nauseam!  American liberals are willing to spend the last dollar belonging to the middle class [but not the bankers’] to abate their sense of guilt. . . After all, according to these liberals, those responsible are only repaying the underprivileged for all the crimes they and their ancestors have committed against them” (Ibid., pp. 248-250, emphasis added).

Most blacks naturally accept the dogma of equality since they believe that the opposite of equality is slavery, and they certainly don’t believe in slavery.  So now that liberals have blacks on their side, liberals use them to achieve their goals, using the dogmas of equality and multiculturalism as weapons to attack the legal foundation of our nation.  Since it is an indirect attack, many people cannot understand what is happening.  For example, Kennedy writes:  “The liberal concept of one man-one vote, or universal franchise, is so deeply entrenched in the liberal dogma of the Yankee government that very few are willing to challenge its legitimacy” (Ibid., p.251).  Kennedy explains:

The necessity of ethical government, led by the most able representatives chosen from society, demands an honest and courageous assessment of voting qualifications. . . John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), an English defender of civil liberties, an early (1865) champion of women’s suffrage, . . . is as far removed from ‘racism’ as the North is from the South.  Yet, . . . [he was] a vocal proponent of requiring specific qualifications prior to the granting of the franchise.  Mill believed that voting was a privilege to be earned and to be held as opposed to being a natural right devolving upon all humanity regardless of condition [oddly enough, Karl Marx agreed with this; see Samuel Roth, Jews Must Live, Repr., pp. 90-91].  Mill drew an implied contrast between representative governments and mob rule that results within an unqualified democracy. . .

“The current generation . . . has witnessed a continuing reduction of voting qualifications, a concurrent decrease in the percentage of qualified voters who actually cast ballots, and a decline of the quality and ethical standards of government. . . If the majority of the voters have an eighth-grade education, then the average officeholder will represent the interest, social values, and aspirations of that majority.  The . . . . electoral process has been relegated to virtual organized mob rule whereby the election is guaranteed to the politician who can promise the ‘mostest to the mostest’” (Ibid., p.252, emphasis added).

Mill said that an ethical government demands that voters be able to read, write, and have an elementary knowledge of history, geography, and math.   He also said that those who are on welfare and are dependent on those who work (i.e. help themselves to others’ money) forfeit the privilege of voting (Ibid., pp. 254-255).  This goes for everyone, including Whites.  (However, this does not let the elitists off the hook for shipping Americans’ jobs overseas and forcing Americans to go on welfare.)

Even Gandhi, a Hindu, when he “was pressed by certain Moslems to reserve a specific number of jobs for minorities regardless of their qualifications, he objected. . . [Although a humanitarian, not a racist, he said]:

“’For administration to be efficient it must be in the hands of the fittest.  There should certainly be no favoritism.  If we want five engineers, we must not take one from each community, but we must take the fittest five even if they were all Mussulmans or all Parsis. . . . [T]hose who aspire to occupy responsible posts in the government of the country can only do so if they pass the required test’” (Ibid., p.250).

When better qualified people are barred from the market place and are denied the opportunity to compete, resentment builds, which encourages strife.  Government interference does not improve relations between divergent elements of a society.  If the government does not respect people’s right to earn what they get through their own talents, skills, intelligence, and initiative, then the government has the power to advance in life those who have not earned it, which thus kills incentive to become more knowledgeable or more skilled.  This effectively arrests progress, and it also leads to bribery and corruption in government. 

The privilege of voting is open to all who have earned the right.  Voting was never meant to give people the opportunity to gain control of the government so as to be able to sponge off of it.  Those who live responsibly should be allowed to be the ones who vote in order to hold the government in check since they are the ones who pay the government’s bills.

Americans are free to believe in equality if they wish, but it is dishonest to say that our founding fathers believed that all people are inherently equal in intelligence, talents, etc.  and therefore the courts are obligated to enforce this dogma in every aspect of our lives.

Myth No. 6:  The “Civil War” was necessary to end the institution of slavery.

That the Northern abolitionists (federalists) and bankers had an ulterior motive in wanting to abolish slavery is evident.  While they pretended that they wanted to uphold the Constitution, their goal was to destroy our Republican form of government by consolidating power in the hands of a central federal government and establishing a democracy instead.  Ironically, while the leftists believed in diversity when it concerns races and cultures, they preferred central government over the “diversity” of state governments. 

While the bankers and wealthy Northerners complied with the letter of the law not to import African slaves at that time, this did not stop them from participating in the international slave trade, primarily to Brazil and Cuba.  Fehrenbacher writes:

“By the 1850s, New York [the banker stronghold] in particular had become notorious as the place where more slave-trade voyages were being organized, financed, and fitted out than anywhere else in the world” (Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Slaveholding Republic, N.Y., 2001, p.202).

During this time, the bankers financed abolitionist groups that condemned slavery in the South.  However, if the South had been dead set on maintaining the institution of slavery, why did the Confederacy on its own initiative outlaw the slave trade in the Confederate Constitution at Montgomery, Alabama on March 11, 1861 before the war even started?  Article I, Sec. 9 outlawed the importation of slaves from Africa into the South.  Furthermore, most of the important figures in the South wished to go one step further and return the slaves to Africa where they could have their freedom.  Lincoln held out the possibility of compensation and colonization of blacks in Central America or the Caribbean until the end of 1862.  But this was radically opposed by the bankers, and most blacks did not want to return to Africa.  And so we find that “Lincoln supported an amendment to the U.S. Constitution preserving the institution of slavery . . . a month before the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina” (Baldwin, p.2).   Lincoln “clearly stated that the purpose of the war was to ‘save the union’ and not to interfere with Southern slavery” (DiLorenzo, p.5).  In his Inaugural Address, Lincoln stated:  “’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’” (Rutherford, p.72).  Hapgood wrote in Abraham Lincoln, the Man of the People (p.273) that Lincoln said:  “’If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it’” (Ibid., p.70). 

Both Lincoln (a Republican) and Stephen Douglas (the main Democrat candidate) stated that they saw no reason to eliminate slavery in the South.  While Lincoln wanted to prevent slavery from being extended into new territories, Douglas wanted to leave that decision up to each state.  The Southern states knew, however, that each non-slave state that entered the Union would just give the North more power in Congress than the South than they already had, which power they could use to continue depending on the South to fund the North through high tariffs. 

When Lincoln signed his Emancipation Proclamation, 300,000 slaveholders were fighting for the Union army (Baldwin, p.2).  This Proclamation excluded the 450,000 slaves in Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri, 275,000 in Tennessee, and tens of thousands in portions of Louisiana and Virginia under the control of federal armies. 

Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation for the following reasons:

1.     He hoped that Southern men in their army would be forced to return home to protect their wives and children from negro insurrection.

2.     He wanted to prevent foreign nations from recognizing the Confederacy (Rutherford, p.75).

3.     He cared little about abolition but wanted a military victory. 

Lincoln’s plan backfired, because the blacks did not turn against the Whites.  In fact, it was not uncommon for slave owners to receive the following response when offered their freedom:

“’Thomas Elkins of Effingham County, Georgia, before 1860, offered to free his slaves and send them back to Africa at his own expense, and the slaves begged to let them remain with him.  Among these slaves were the sons of African kings and princes’” (Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman, Time on the Cross, 3rd Ptg., Boston, 1974, pp. 96-97).

In contrast, many of the Northern states passed laws forbidding free blacks from settling in their states, including Lincoln’s home state of Illinois (1857) and Indiana (1853) (Kennedy, p.55).  Massachusetts allowed blacks to be flogged if they were in the state longer than two months.  While the South was required to allow blacks to vote at the end of the “Civil War,” Ohio in 1867 refused to allow them to vote until the 15th Amendment was ratified in 1870.

Myth No. 7:  All Whites in the South owned slaves and were wealthy because of slavery.

Most blacks in America today have fallen for the leftist propaganda that “ground zero” of the institution of slavery was in the Southern United States.  However, Kennedy writes:

“In studying the slave trade, we note that only six percent of all the Africans taken from Africa were brought to the United States.  A full 94 percent of them were sold into slavery in the Caribbean and in South American countries. . . . But the fact that the South was not a major market for the North’s black cargo never kept the profit-mindful Yankee peddlers from doing business in African slaves.  Some of the more prominent families of New England were engaged in the slave trade and built huge fortunes in the process” (Ibid., pp. 68-69, emphasis added).

Chadwick writes that “Only 25 percent of Southerners owned slaves” (Chadwick, p.161).  Approximately 150,000 aristocratic planters were slave holders in the South, many of whom were colored.  In New Orleans alone, over 3,000 free negroes owned slaves.  The Cherokees, Seminoles, and Creeks were also large slave holders (Edward Byron Reuter, The Mulatto in the United States, Boston, 1918, p.158).  Some of the plantations in the South were owned by the bankers in the North!  Mary, Abraham Lincoln’s wife, inherited slaves, so even she was a slave owner.  Thus we see that there were more slaveholders in the North than in the South.

As I pointed out in my other articles on slavery (see “Slavery is not a Legacy of the White Man” – Parts 1 and 2,, the primary slaveholders in the South were Jews.  Seventy-five percent of Jewish households in the South owned negro slaves, while only six percent of Whites owned them, and of this six percent, three percent owned five or less slaves and worked beside them to make a living (Kennedy, p.83).  So, a very small number of Whites owned slaves, and most of those who did treated them quite well, contrary to Northern propaganda. 

Frank L. Owsley “discovered that the larger part of the ‘plain folk’ (those white Southerners who were not a part of the plantation system) were not class conscious, and they were not in open competition with the larger planters for land or resources. . . ‘Relatively few of the plain folk . . . seem to have had a desire to become wealthy.’  Their contempt for materialism was a natural part of the cultural heritage of the Celtic people from which the majority of them sprang. . . [Although very few were wealthy] even fewer were poor enough to suffer want.  They were a cordial and hospitable people who enjoyed life.  They even had a system of social security whereby they shared work when a member of society became ill or injured” (Ibid., p.21, emphasis added).  “One song that slave children sang stated ‘I’d rather be a nigger than a poor white man’” (Ibid., p.100). 

Dr. Grady McWhiney in his book Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South “noted that Southerners were different from their Yankee counterparts in that . . . [the Southern] society was leisure-oriented and dominated by a system of open-range grazing with support from low-intensity crop cultivation.  This stood in contrast to the money-grubbing Yankee culture that patterned its culture after the English . . . which insisted upon high-intensity cultivation and valued hard work and economic profit. . . [So] the War for Southern Independence was not so much a war of brother against brother as it was a war of culture against culture” (Ibid., p.23, emphasis added).  The major opposition to Lincoln’s agenda of a mercantilist empire modeled after the British empire had always been from the South . . .” (DiLorenzo, p.6, emphasis added).  Were Northerners to admit this, most of their misrepresentations to blacken the reputation of Southerners would fall apart.

Since many of the Scots and Irishmen in the South had been brought to America as slaves by Englishmen, they were poor and had no interest in enslaving others.

Myth No. 8:  All blacks in the South were abused in slavery and could not own property.

Many Northerners got the wrong idea about slavery in the South from reading Harriet Beecher Stowe’s book, Uncle Tom’s Cabin.  It should be noted that the sadistic villain in her book was not a Southern slave owner but a Yankee overseer.  Slaves were valuable property which few Southern households could afford, and those who had them could not afford to abuse them.

Kennedy writes:

“The Yankee myth of history conveniently chooses to ignore Northern crimes against blacks while concentrating upon the supposed crimes of the evil and vile Southern slave owners.  Yet, can anyone imagine a Southern slave owner treating his slaves as cruelly as the Yankee merchants treated their captives?  Any good farmer knows that he cannot stay in business if he allows half of his stock to die each year.  If not for humanitarian reasons, then for simple economic reasons, the Southern slave owner treated the Negro better than the Yankee did.  After all, Southerners had to pay hard cash to the Yankee for their slaves.  Southern slave owners could not buy Negroes with cheap rum the way the Yankee slave traders did” (Kennedy, pp. 70-71).

Because most Southern slave owners treated their slaves decently, there were far fewer revolts in the South than there were in South America.  Since there were on average only six Whites on each plantation, they would have been outnumbered by the slaves and unable to avoid being killed, even though armed, if there was a rebellion (Fogel and Engerman, pp. 242-243).  The slaves, of course, were well-fed, nursed in sickness, and cared for in old age.  During winter months, work was done at a leisurely pace.  Jefferson Davis’ plantation was a model, surpassed only by his brother’s, for treating blacks with compassion and for giving them a great deal of self-government.

Most critics in the North of slavery had never been down South, so most of their charges were based on hearsay.  No doubt they believed that Southerners treated their slaves the same way as in the West Indies where they were worked 16 – 20 hours a day.  But slave owners in the South knew that unhappy slaves made poor field hands, and pushing them to the point of rebellion would have wiped out any potential gains made by planters.  Profit margins were slim, and planters didn’t usually break even financially until slaves were 27 years old (Ibid., p.153).  Planters set up accounts for their slaves which they could draw on for purchases, and some of the slaves were able to purchase their freedom within a decade.  “. . . [T]he average pecuniary income actually received by a prime field hand was roughly 15 percent greater than the income he would have received for his labor as a free agricultural worker” (Ibid., p.239).  From time to time, slave owners had to borrow money from their slaves, with their permission, to make ends meet, so this was an additional reason for remaining on good terms with their slaves.

Finally, “It was a common belief among the Yankees that the Southern blacks were all slaves and could own no property.  The fact that many Southern blacks were free men and women of color with as much freedom as black people in the North (if not more) was shocking to the Yankees.  But even more shocking was the fact that many of these free blacks were slave holders themselves” (Kennedy, pp. 133-134).

Myth No. 9:  All Northerners supported Lincoln and his war against the South.

DiLorenzo identifies the people that Lincoln worked for and supported war against the South: 

“Northern Whigs like Lincoln were the party of the corporate plutocracy who wanted to use the coercive powers of government to line the pockets of their big business benefactors (and of themselves) . . . This was really an Americanized version of the rotten, corrupt system of British ‘mercantilism’ that the colonists had rebelled against.  Its planks included protectionist tariffs to benefit Northern manufacturers and their banking and insurance industry business associates; a government-run national bank to provide cheap credit to politically-connected businesses; and ‘internal improvement subsidies,’ which we today would call ‘corporate welfare,’ for canal-, road-, and railroad-building corporations” (DiLorenzo, p.6, emphasis added).

Unlike the rich businessmen in the North, the common people opposed war.

Ida Tarbell wrote in Life of Lincoln:  “’In the winter of 1862-1863, many and many a man deserted the army.  They refused to fight.  Mr. Lincoln knew that hundreds of soldiers were being urged by parents and friends to desert. . . The people were weary of war, weary of so much waste of life and money.  Open dissatisfaction was shown in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin which broke out in violence over the draft for more men’” (Rutherford, p.68).

John A. Logan wrote in Great Conspiracy (Springfield, Illinois, June 1863, p.551):  “’There was open and avowed hostility to Lincoln in Philadelphia, New York, Boston and strong opposition in New Jersey.  So violent was the hostility to war in Massachusetts and New York, the call of volunteers was unheeded, and when the government demanded a draft, the people gathered in crowds and fearful riots ensued.  In New York City the opposition was so violent, the rioters so numerous, the city was terrified for days and nights.  The houses in which the draft machines were at work were wrecked and then burned to ashes.  The order for draft was rescinded by the government at Washington and the people urged to disperse and to retire to their homes on the promise that there would be no more drafting’” (Ibid.).

Lincoln’s war was so unpopular that he had to recruit 200,000 men from Germany who could not speak English and did not know what the war was about (Hoskins, Vigilantes, p.218).

Myth No. 10:  The South committed atrocities against Northern POWs in their prison camps.

General Lee offered to exchange prisoners of war, man for man, with General Grant but was turned down, presumably because it would prolong the war.  “Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton’s statistics testify that while there were 50,000 more of prisoners in Southern prisons than in Northern, the mortality among Southern men in Northern prisons was far greater” (Rutherford, p.21).  General Butler frankly put on the record why General Grant refused to exchange prisoners:  “’. . . [T]he Confederate prisoner was too dangerous to be exchanged’” (Ibid., p.27).  Thus, the Northern generals were more concerned with imprisoning Southerners than they were about the lives and welfare of their own men.

“There was never any trouble about lack of provisions at Andersonville [in the South] . . . There was an abundant supply of the rations that the soldiers and prisoners needed, but the trouble came because of the over-crowded condition of the stockade.  It was made for 10,000 and in four months 29,000 were sent.  There were 6,000 sick in the hospitals at one time and no medicine – the first time in the history of wars when medicine was made contraband of war” (Ibid., p.22).  When Dr. Gardner of New York petitioned the American Medical Association at its convention in Chicago in 1863, arguing that making them contraband rebounded on their own soldiers who were prisoners of the Confederates, he was hissed from the hall. 

One would assume that since the North had plenty of food and medicine, and since they believed the cause they were fighting for was just, that they would have treated their prisoners better than the South who were short of supplies, but that was not the case.  Captain Walter MacRae of North Carolina describes how the Southern POWs were treated in the North.  No sanitary facilities were provided.  “They had to eat, sleep, and care for their wounded [outside] in the same place where garbage and sewage were dumped.  Their only supply of water was from holes they dug in the sand. . . Their food consisted of provisions that had been condemned by the Federal government as unfit for Yankee troops.  These ‘rations’ consisted of worm- and insect-infested hardtack, a one-inch square, one-half-inch-thick piece of pork, and eight ounces of sour corn meal. . . When some of the POWs protested the conditions of the rations to Colonel Hollowell, he replied in true Yankee fashion, ‘. . . there was meat enough in the crackers, bugs and worms’” (Kennedy, p.137).

In contrast, the Northern POWs were fed daily about five times the amount of food that the Southern POWs got, namely three quarters of a pound of fresh meat, a half-pound of hard bread or one half pint of meal, and a fifth pint of beans (Ibid., p.138).  In fact, the Northern POWs were treated so well that 65 percent of them went over to the Southern cause and signed an oath of allegiance to the Confederacy (Ibid.).

Myth No. 11:  The armies of the North fought honorably while the armies of the South fought dishonorably.

By the mid-1800s, international law had evolved to the point where “the laws of war condemned the waging of war on civilians. . . The Lincoln regime reversed that progress and paved the way for all the gross wartime atrocities of the 20th century by waging war on Southern civilians for four long years.  Rape, pillage, plunder, the bombing and burning of entire cities populated only by civilians was the Lincolnian way of waging war” (DiLorenzo, p.7).  Rutherford writes:

’Lincoln’s order that . . . all medicines [and surgical instruments be] declared contraband of war, violated every rule of civilized war and outraged the conscience of Christendom.

“’Lincoln never hesitated to violate the Constitution when he so desired.  The Chief Justice testified to this.  Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus in 1861; he allowed West Virginia to be formed from Virginia, contrary to the Constitution [Art. IV, Sec. 3 says that any new state made of any portion of an existing state shall not be allowed in the Union without authorization from the legislature of the state from which it came; Virginia never made that determination]; he issued his Emancipation Proclamation without consulting his Cabinet and in violation of the Constitution.’. . .  ’Had he been humane, he would not have allowed 38,000 men and women – editors, politicians, clergymen of good character and honor – imprisoned in gloomy, damp basements for no overt act, but simply because they were Democrat suspects (Life and Times of Hannibal Hamlin, p.393). (Bancroft’s Life of Seward, Vol. 2, p.254)’” (Rutherford, pp. 66-67, emphasis added).

“. . . Lincoln’s invasion and levying of war upon the Southern states is the very definition of treason in the Constitution [Art. 3, Sec. 3]” (DiLorenzo, p.5).  Lincoln “illegally suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus . . . and had the military arrest and imprison without due process tens of thousands of Northern-state citizens, including newspaper editors, the Maryland legislature, the mayor of Baltimore, the grandson of Francis Scott Key who was a Baltimore newspaper editor, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, his chief critic in the U.S. Congress, and essentially anyone overheard criticizing the government. . . More than 300 Northern newspapers were shut down for criticizing the Lincoln regime . . .” (Ibid., p.6, emphasis added). 

General Sherman was perhaps Lincoln’s worst General.  He enjoyed “exterminating” civilians and destroying every tree and building in his path.  In 1864 he ordered “his artillery officers to use the homes of Atlanta [that were] occupied by women and children as target practice for four days . . . The remaining residents [in the city] were then kicked out of their homes – in November with the onset of winter.  Ninety percent of Atlanta was demolished . . .” (Ibid., p.8).

General Sherman also separated White women from their children and shipped them all north, never to see their loved ones again.  When they arrived up north, the newspapers advertised them like commodities for hire to work at a price “at no more than a subsistence level, making them virtual white slaves for the Yankees” (Kennedy, p.124).  After the war, the U.S. government never made any attempt to reunite the women with their children (Ibid., p.123).

General Sheridan’s official report said:

“I have burned 2,000 barns filled with wheat and corn, all the mills in the whole country, destroyed all the factories of cloth, killed or driven off every animal, even the poultry that could contribute to human sustenance.  Nothing should be left in the Shenandoah but eyes to lament the war” (Rutherford, p.34).

Gregg’s History (p.375) said:

“’The devastation of the Palatine hardly exceeded the desolation and misery wrought by the Republican invasion and conquest of the South.  No conquered nation of modern days . . . suffered from such individual and collective ruin . . .’” (Ibid., p.37).

Lincoln was not only aware of what his Generals were doing in the South, but he honored them for what they did.

In contrast, “’General [Robert E.] Lee, for fear his soldiers should pillage while foraging in Pennsylvania, had the roll call three times daily’” (Ibid.).  “. . . Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. [Stonewall] Jackson were two of the finest Christian gentlemen and two of the most noble and honorable men – Christian or otherwise – this country has ever produced.  Both their character and their conduct were beyond reproach” (Baldwin, p.5). 

Southern General John B. Gordon told the women in York, Pennsylvania:  “If the torch is applied to a single dwelling or an insult to a woman by a soldier in my command, point me the man and you shall have his life” (Rutherford, p.38).  When General Early was urged to burn York, Pennsylvania in retaliation for what the North had done to the Shenandoah, he said “We do not make war on women and children” (Ibid.).  Jefferson Davis himself stated:  “In regard to the enemy’s crews and vessels you are to proceed with the justice and humanity which characterize our government and its citizens” (Ibid., p.37, emphasis added).  Although Davis was urged by friends and by his Cabinet to retaliate against the outrages committed by Sherman and Sheridan, he was immovable that the innocent should not be made victims for the crimes of such monsters.

Thus, the Southern soldiers fought with honor, heroism, and gallantry according to the code of military chivalry.  They refused to stoop to the level of the Northern Generals and their soldiers, despite the mistreatment of Southern POWs and innocent Southern civilians. 

“Fire, sword, and starvation were employed against the hated ‘rebels’ regardless of their age, race, sex, or status as noncombatants.  This is the legacy left by the invader, a legacy of death and destruction.  When we understand the enormity of these acts perpetrated on the civilians of the South, we wonder why a few monuments are not raised in memorial to those who had to stand in the path of the Yankees and suffer at home as well as those who stood in the line of battle” (Kennedy, p.132).

The one exception of the Southern generals was the Jew and top Mason, Albert Pike.  Author William T. Still writes: 

“Satanist or Luciferian, there is no doubt that Pike was bloodthirsty.  During the American Civil War, Pike was a brigadier general, fighting on the side of the Confederacy.  He was sent to Oklahoma and given the title of Indian Commissioner by the South.  His mission was to raise an army of the most savage of the Western tribes.  His band became so barbarous [taking scalps etc.], however, that Jefferson Davis disbanded the unit” (Still, New World Order, Lafayette, Louisiana, 1990, p.122).

The following quotes will give the reader a better idea of Pike’s character:

1.     Montague Summers, a Catholic priest, said:  “In the 19th century both Albert Pike of Charleston and his successor Adriano Lemmi have been identified upon abundant authority as being Grand Masters of societies practicing Satanism and as performing the hierarchical functions of ‘the Devil’ at the modern Sabbat.”

2.     William Guy Carr, a Commander in the Royal Canadian Navy, wrote:  “There is plenty of documentary evidence to prove that Pike, like Weishaupt, was head of the Luciferian Priesthood of his day.”  “While Albert Pike was Sovereign Pontiff of universal Freemasonry and Head of the Illuminati during the 1870s, he revised and modernized the ritual of the Black Mass . . . The celebrant of the Black Mass plays the part of Satan. . . . Lucifer is worshiped . . . . A Black Mass is usually followed by a Bacchanalian orgy” (Carr, The Red Fog Over America, Boring, Oregon, c. 1955, pp. 233-234).

3.     David L. Carrico writes in his book, Lucifer – Eliphas Levi – Albert Pike and the Masonic Lodge (Evansville, Indiana, 1991):  “Pike was one of the original architects of the Ku Klux Klan, which contrary to common belief was not at its inception primarily a racist club for semi-literates.  The white robes, cross burnings, conical hats, and use of such titles as ‘grand dragon’ and ‘imperial wizard’ derives from the strange lore developed by [Eliphas] Levi.”

So, Pike was an exception, and his actions should not be considered to be typical of White Southerners.  “After the Civil War, Pike was tried and found guilty of treason and sent to jail.  Masons went to bat for him to President Andrew Johnson, himself a Mason.  By April 22, 1866, President Johnson pardoned him. . . [but the] press was not informed of all this for nine months” (Still, p.123).  Ironically, however, Northerners as well as all Masons still honor him, and a statue of Pike still stands in Washington, D.C. today, undisturbed by blacks and leftwing radicals.

Myth No. 12:  Southern blacks welcomed the Northern armies as liberators and welcomed the chance to rebel and/or get revenge on their masters.

“Schooled in the curriculum of modern ‘politically correct’ history, the average American cannot understand the idea of blacks being anything other than antagonistic to the South” (Kennedy, p.86).  One thing that bothered the Yankee was that the slave population did not rise up in open rebellion against their white masters. . . If this had happened, the war would have lasted no more than a year or so.  But the Yankee invaders did not receive the cooperation from the blacks that they had counted on!” (Ibid., p. 133, emphasis added).

“Not only did blacks not riot against the whites of the South, but many black men volunteered to fight alongside their white friends and neighbors in the Confederate army.  Unlike the blacks in the North, who were conscripted by Lincoln and forced to fight in segregated units, thousands of blacks in the South fought of their own free will in a fully integrated Southern army” (Baldwin, p.4).

Had Whites treated their slaves hatefully, this would have been the perfect opportunity for blacks to turn on their masters.  Note, however, that the black males in the South who were conscripted into the Union army were treated worse than on a Southern plantation.  “. . . [T]he Yankees had to resort to force in order to obtain the black soldiers they wanted” (Kennedy, p.102).

Kennedy dispels the notion taught by Northern educators and media outlets that White Southerners hated blacks and remained aloof from them:

“The Yankee historian Frederick Law Olmsted noted the closeness of the relationship between slave and master when he visited Virginia in the early part of the 1800s.  Olmsted observed a white woman and a black woman seated together on a train.  Both ladies had their children with them, and the children were eating candy from a common container. . . This close relationship . . . was a common sight in the South” (Ibid., p.87).

Ironically, although the White southerners treated the blacks better than the Northerners, blacks today discharge their venom against Southerners and the Confederacy.  Since blacks were a part of Southern culture, there was little racial segregation there, yet the liberals have succeeded in making it appear that the North liberated them and treated them better than the Southerners did.

Myth No. 13:  The Northern armies treated Southern blacks with kindness and respect.

“Many people believe that the Yankee was a great liberator of the black people. . . [N]othing could be further from the truth.  What the Yankee brought to the blacks was thievery, rape, and murder. . . . In Alabama, Yankee colonel John B. Turchin allowed his men to do as they pleased in the town of Athens” (Ibid., p.100).  Since the Yankee soldiers believed that slaves on the southern plantations were used for sex and breeding by the slave owners, they believed the negro women were legitimate prey for their lust.  Some of Turchin’s soldiers stayed in the negro huts for weeks, “debauching the females” (Ibid., p.101).  “The reality of a black race with high moral standards was incomprehensible to the Yankee invader” (Ibid., p.140).  While in New Orleans, Union General Benjamin Butler stated that “any officer of the United States could and should treat the ladies of the city [both black and White] as if they were prostitutes ‘plying their trade’” (Ibid., p.129).  It was not uncommon for the Yankee soldiers to kill those who resisted their sexual advances.

Despite the Northerners’ abundance of everything, the Northern armies left Southerners, both blacks and Whites, to starve and almost destitute of clothing.  Confederate soldiers, while short of every necessity, gave all they could spare to help black and White civilians who had been deprived of everything (Ibid., p.144).

Myth No. 14:  Reconstruction after the War was a time of rebuilding and healing for the South.

The war ended with the death of 850,000 Americans with more than double that number maimed for life – physically and psychologically.  Had the war just been about freeing the slaves, the money Lincoln spent on the war could have purchased the freedom of all the slaves (DiLorenzo, p.7).

On December 15, 1865, the U.S. government confiscated all the railroads, ships, lands, and money of the Confederate States under the Acts of Treason.  Charles Francis Adams, the grandson of John Quincy Adams, summarized the viciousness of the North against the South:

“’The Southern community was not only desolated during the war, but $3,000,000,000 of property confiscated after the war.  I am not aware that history records a similar act super-added to the destruction and desolation of war’” (Rutherford, p.90).

In addition to this, Kennedy writes:

“. . . [T]he Yankee invaders lost no time in destroying all schools and colleges [in the South] . . . All books and personal libraries were carried North or put to the torch.  Homes, railroads, bridges, courthouses with all their records, and every means of production of food and wealth, were destroyed. . . We find [in Mississippi] that the first years after the war, before Carpetbagger rule, one of the largest expenditures of money by the state was for the purchase of artificial arms and legs for Confederate veterans.  While the South was being taxed to pay for the support of the Union veterans, her own former defenders were not given a dime of support from the common treasury of the ‘reunited’ country.  After the war the South did not get a Marshall Plan to help rebuild her economy as did Germany and Japan after World War II; instead, she got twelve years of cruel military rule and ‘Reconstruction’ exploitation and oppression” (Kennedy, p.145).

In the book I’ll Take My Stand, Frank L. Owsley “pointed out that, after the South had been conquered by armed aggression and humiliated and impoverished by peace (Reconstruction), there began a second war in which the North attempted to destroy the spirit of the Southern people” (Ibid., p.19). All Whites who had served in the Confederate armies were also disfranchised and were forbidden to ever again hold any position in government. 

The carpetbaggers who stirred up trouble were Rothschild (banker) agents. The black legislatures that the Northern “elite” placed in power continually increased the taxes so that Southerners were paying over half of their income.  Black tax collectors, accompanied by heavily-armed carpetbaggers, collected the taxes, and if people had no cash, they helped themselves to anything of value.  They boasted that they would soon dispossess the Southerners of all their land (Hoskins, Vigilantes, pp. 249-250).  They soaked up wealth that had taken the Southerners many years to accumulate.  The carpetbaggers grabbed the best land for the northern tax-exempt syndicates which could then be sold to European immigrants for high prices.

To prevent Southerners from retaliating against being overtaxed and dispossessed, the carpetbaggers disarmed Whites.  Whites lived in terror, and none of the women were safe.  Heavy shipments of weapons were brought in regularly for the blacks.  As policemen, the blacks would arrest without cause, beat people up without provocation, and no redress was possible (Ibid., p.252).  It was considered to be treasonous to speak of States’ Rights.  As a result, many Whites packed up and moved westward to escape this tyranny.

In a speech before Congress called “Plunder of 11 States,” Rep. Dan Vorhees of Indiana stated on March 23, 1872:

“From turret to foundation you tore down the government of eleven States.  You left not one stone upon another.  You not only destroyed their local laws, but you trampled upon their ruins. . . You not only said who should be elected to rule over these States, but you said who should elect them.  You fixed the quality and the color of the voters.  You purged the ballot box of intelligence and virtue, and in their stead you placed the most ignorant and unqualified race in the world to rule over these people. . . .

“In 1861 Georgia was free from debt.  Taxes were light as air.  The burdens of government were easy upon her citizens.  Her credit stood high, and when the war closed she was still free from indebtedness.  After six years of Republican rule you present her, to the horror of the world, loaded with a debt of $50,000,000 and the crime against Georgia is the crime this same party has committed against the other Southern States.  Your work of destruction was more fatal than a scourge of pestilence, war, or famine.     . . .  I challenge the darkest annals of the human race for a parallel to the robberies which have been perpetrated on these eleven American States” (Kennedy, pp. 365-366).

Myth No. 15:  Although the War is over, since the North was the victor, the North has the right to resume the war against the South’s cultural heritage.

Historian Lee Kennett wrote in his biography of General Sherman that “’had the Confederates somehow won, had their victory put them in position to bring their chief opponents before some sort of tribunal, they would have found themselves justified . . . in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants’ . . .” (DiLorenzo, p.8).

Professor Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995), “perhaps the most famous academic libertarian [and renowned economist and historian] in the world during the last half of the 20th century       . . . [wrote in an] essay entitled ‘Just War’ . . . that the only two American wars that would qualify as just wars . . . were the American Revolution and the South’s side in the American ‘Civil War’” (Rutherford, p.8).

One of the most perplexing quandaries of our time is how one can be loyal to and obey the original Constitution and obey the edicts of the post-“Civil War” Federal Government at the same time.  Since the North won the war, Southerners as well as Northerners are expected to comply with the Federal Government’s interpretation of the original Constitution, even though that interpretation is incorrect.

The Federal Government today bears the same characteristics of the government that defeated the South in the 1860s.  This government was established by fraud, corruption, political coercion, and blatant military aggression, and its continued existence depends on maintaining the myths that crimes against the people in the South never occurred and that the present government is legitimate.  The North “brought about the end of constitutional protection of the rights and liberties of the Southern people in particular and of all Americans in general” (Kennedy, p.182, emphasis added).  The government today has not hesitated to resort to the same criminal actions toward Americans in general that it used against Southerners (unconstitutional acts do not become constitutional by virtue of repetition, custom, or passage of time).  Blacks and other “minorities” must not confuse the belligerent, aggressive attitude of this Federal Government with the legitimate government that was founded in 1776.

Although Jefferson Davis was charged with treason, Lincoln’s government did not wish to risk trying Davis in court and losing what it had won in battle.  Chief Justice Chase stated:  “If Jefferson Davis be brought to trial, it will convict the North and exonerate the South” (Rutherford, p.58). When the trial was pending and it was learned that Rawle’s book View of the Constitution (used at West Point) would be used in his defense, it was decided not to have the trial (Ibid., p.59).  This action alone admitted that the South had been invaded unlawfully.

What made Davis so intolerable to the Yankees after the war was his refusal to admit any guilt or to apologize for his actions or for the cause he led.  Davis proudly proclaimed:  “I am happy to remember that when our army invaded the enemy’s country, their property was safe.”  He told his army veterans that they must maintain pride in their cause as well as in their soldierly conduct.

Davis continued to believe that secession was a right inherent in state sovereignty and that evil had befallen the South because of the usurpation of undelegated powers by the Federal Government.  To set the record straight, Davis wrote a two volume history of secession and his presidency called The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government (1881).  His book advocated what Yankees considered totally unforgiveable – a history of the South written by and for Southerners, letting their children know that their cause had been just. 

At a meeting in August of 1870 between the Union General William S. Rosecrans and Robert E. Lee and many distinguished Confederate soldiers, the General asked Lee to “make a statement on behalf of the Southern people proclaiming that they were now glad to be back in the Union and loyal to the old flag.  General Lee refused to make any statement” (Kennedy, p.41).  However, Governor Stockdale of Texas made the following statement in that meeting:

“The people of Texas will remain quiet and not again resort to forceful resistance against the Federal Government . . . But . . . [the people] have none of the spaniel in their composition.  No, sir, they are not in the least like the dog that seeks to lick the hand of the man that kicked him; but it is because they are a very sensible, practical, common-sense people and understand their position.  They know that they resisted the Federal Government as long as any means of resistance was left and that any attempt at resistance now must be in vain, and they have no means and would only make bad worse” (Ibid., p.42).

Lee privately told Governor Stockdale after the meeting that “’Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand’” (Ibid., pp. 42-43).

Despite all the suffering Southerners had to go through, both Whites and blacks, in most cases robbed or dispossessed of everything they owned, leftists today are not satisfied with that.  They want to completely erase the memory and respect for the Southerners who fought bravely and honorably for their homeland, for the principles of the Constitution, and for their culture. 

For liberals, the days of Reconstruction are not over.  Liberal and leftist politicians, educators, newspaper editors, and clergy are still afraid that the South may rise again, so they do not believe that the South is done atoning for its “sins.”  Since they believe the maxim “to the victor go the spoils,” they believe it is their right to teach their version of the “Civil War” (over 150 years later) which justifies the invasion, conquest, and oppression of the people of the South.  Southern children are taught that they are better off for having lost the war for Southern independence.  Col. Richard Henry Lee wrote:

“It is stated in books and papers that Southern children read . . . [that] the South rebelled without cause against the best government the world ever saw; that . . . their leaders were rebels and traitors who fought to overthrow the Union and to preserve human slavery and that their defeat was necessary for free government and the welfare of the human family.  As a Confederate soldier and as a citizen of Virginia, I deny the charge and denounce it as a calumny.”

Shortly after World War I, the sons of Confederate Veterans, having fought for the nation in the Spanish-American War and World War I, still found themselves defending the South from Northern slander, so they wrote The Gray Book (Kennedy, p.18). 

The Confederate rebel flag is still viewed as a symbol of rebellion against the Federal Government.  Too many blacks view this flag as a symbol of slavery.  However, Kennedy points out:

“Even though the Confederate flag never flew over a slave ship, and even though the United States flag did fly over slave ships, it is the Confederate flag that the left-of-center wordsmith refers to as the ‘flag of slavery.’  What kind of justice is this?  Never let it be forgotten that the means of Northern industrial growth had its origin in the slave trade.  Every nickel of profit that Northerners have made from that time to this day is tainted by the blood money of the slave trade” (Ibid., pp. 69-70, emphasis added).

The Marxist liberals know that “It is easy to dominate a people without cultural pride, but people who are proud of their cultural heritage are not easily dominated and exploited!  From this fact arises the irresistible question – if cultural pride is good for some groups, why is it denied to Southerners?” (Ibid., p. 296).

“All empires have been faced with the problem of how best to keep the conquered people quiet, docile, and pacified. . . Thus arises the need to dominate the cultural history of a conquered people.  Cultural genocide, as practiced by the Northern liberal majority against the Southern people, arises from the necessity to maintain political control of a conquered people” (Ibid., p.297).

“Yankee hatred for Southerners even extended to the dead.  Arlington Cemetery has witnessed the spectacle of United States troops standing guard to prevent Southern ladies from placing flowers on the graves of Southern dead!” (Ibid., p.296).

When self-righteous Yankees, or liberals, are challenged to explain why the North had a right to deny self-determination to the Southern people, they usually raise the issues of slavery, Andersonville, or “White supremacy.”  In the liberal’s mind, everything is blurred until the war against the South translates into war against all Whites.  In typical Communist fashion, liberals have collectivized their attacks against all Whites, not just against Southern Whites, since the “Civil War” was supposedly fought against White racism and not just against eleven states that seceded.  Therefore, liberals find it reasonable to look to government for assistance in displacing all White institutions – language, history, laws, literature, customs, and religion – since all are tainted by “White racism.”  One only has to be White to be guilty of racism.  If this was done to the Jews, they would yell “anti-semitism” and accuse us of a hate crime.  But when the assault is against the White race, no protests are allowed.


The Southern people were robbed of both their liberties and their wealth.  But that wasn’t enough.  The Northern “elite” wanted to rob them of their spirit, history, and culture also. 

The government itself was turned upside down, placing limits on the states rather than on the Federal Government.  Instead of corrections in the law being made at the local level, these decisions were now made by the all-powerful national government, even though punishing corruption was far easier at the state level than at the national level.  Gone was the concept of government in which authority arose from the people and extended to their agent, the state.  Still, many nonwhites today mock our founding fathers’ pledge of July 4, 1776 of their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.  Did we lose in the “Civil War” what we had gained in the Revolutionary War?  Can we honestly say that we are more free with the consolidation of state governments into one powerful Federal Government?  It has come to the point where the desire to uphold the Constitution is considered to be an act of racism.

Since voting was extended to blacks in 1870 and to women in 1920, the form the government has taken certainly cannot be blamed on White men.  The government of the White man did not survive the “Civil War.”  So it is dishonest to claim that the Federal Government is run by White racists today or that it represents “White supremacy.”  Nonwhite voters must accept the lion’s share of the responsibility for what the government has become (and for their own “oppression”), especially when they have fought tooth and nail against every meaningful White effort (such as electing Ron Paul as president) to correct the government and get rid of corrupt officials.  In short, the government that we have is what the public has earned and what it deserves.  If Americans continue to persist in demanding equality (of outcome) and socialistic democracy, they will end up with a full-fledged Communist dictatorship, because that is the final result of the government established after the “Civil War.” 

If, after understanding from history that the South fought to uphold the Constitution, Americans still insist that it was the banker-controlled North that fought to uphold the Constitution, not the South, there isn’t much more that we can say.  And if nonwhites persist in blaming Whites for all their problems and oppose everything Whites stand for instead of the banker “elite” who control our money, the odds are slim that we can succeed in foiling the plans of the Marxist One Worlders. 

The so-called racist Constitution of 1776 is the only thing that has stood in the way of those who want a Zionist-controlled world government.  Therefore, blacks who join in with the liberals in attacking our Constitution are in effect attacking their savior and protector.  There is nothing more efficient in battle than convincing your enemies to attack themselves.  Victory is then assured.

The oft-repeated saying is therefore true -- united we stand, divided we fall.