What Lincoln and Other Yankees Knew:(Civil War, Church, Slavery and Cigarettes...)

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
To begin understanding how these (description in thread title/subject) are used in tandem with each other, and to expose the true nature of our federal system in place today, Let me start with the Thirteenth Amendment.

What Lincoln and Other Yankees Knew:
THE EVIDENCE THAT
PRE-CIVIL WAR U.S. SLAVERY
WAS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL:



The false story that most readers have heard is that the Thirteenth Amendment was somehow needed to abolish slavery. It was not needed. The real issue was slavers' false claims about the original Constitution. Abolitionist Gerrit Smith said the Thirteenth Amendment: “I never liked [it]. It implies or, at least, seems to imply, that the [original] Constitution did not forbid the greatest of crimes—whereas by the canon of legal interpretation (,and no other was admissible,) it did [already] forbid it. I should [would] have preferred an Amendment, that simply disallows a Pro-Slavery interpretation of an already Anti-Slavery Constitution.”—Letter to Senator Charles Sumner (5 February 1866).


Should you click the link above and read the article, and click on the multitude of source links along the way to the excerpt above, you will find all the information to piece together a senario.

My interpretation of the story in short, is that prior to the civil war, but following ratification of the United States Constitution, reasearch had proven in the late 15th or earlty 16th century that the habit of smoking tabacco cause stunted growth, longer schooling, lazyness, unkempt and unclean personal hygene, Cowardess, lower school grades, lying, authoritive defiance, subsequent use of liquer, pot and then hard drugs such azxs opium, coc aine and heroin.

Regarding the civil war and its outcome, slavery was the main cause of the south's succession and with the south's loss to the north, the motto "come retalliation (or revenge)" the pro-slavers have infultrated government to it's highest levels and meanwhile, using tobacco as a weapon of war and focusing on blacks, hispanics and then whites, (whites were taken slave as well back then, mostly women,), exposing them at a young age to tobacco knowing most of them would end up in correctional institutions and/or programs for addiction, They have taken their revenge and are expanding to this day by usurping government through corruptions of all kinds and by any means including murder while using tobacco to seduce children into addiction and criminality and incarserating them in institutions that to this day are ever-expanding profitable scheme.

The statistics of tobacco being detrimental to cognition, health and a host of other effects (some listed above), and the supression of these findings known for centuries now, have aided in this attack on the Republic.

Many religious denominations have allied with those using tobacco as a weapon of war as well. You will find details in the massive information and the sources as you read on.

If Alice had arrived in this wonderland, she would see it dwarfs the one she knows.

I hope through the link above, you can take in in depth the veracity of this historical view and the supressed information found within, and follow this mindboggling rabbit hole to a better understanding of the truth.




posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
The Civil War was NEVER, about slavery. It was about states rights. you read history book that where made 100 years ago and there you will find the truth.

“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.”


Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864

edit on 6-12-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


The Civil War was about slavery. The right for Democrats to own slaves in the South. There was the Wig party and the Democrat party. The Democrat party was all for slavery. The Wig party was split on slavery. The Republican party was born of like minded individuals for abolishing slavery. Lincoln was the first Republican candidate/President. A vote was taken to abolish slavery and 96% of Democrats voted against abolishing slavery, took their toys and went south to create the Confederate states of slavery. It was absolutely without a doubt about slavery. The only states rights issue was their right to own slaves. The truth hurts but it is what it is. You probably did not know that Republicans wrote the Civil Rights bill in 1870 and it was passed in 1875. The Democrats ignored it and countered it with the creation of the KKK.. JFK was murdered by his own party for pushing a more concrete version of the GOP bill. Al Gore sr was filibustering the bill when JFK was killed, ending the filibuster. History is not being told as it actually happened.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


They really should have freed the slaves and then fought the Civil War, if that's the case.

Back on topic. I don't really understand this thread. Wasn't the constitution written by slave owners? Kind of hypocritical of them?

And then you go on to say that the "south has risen again" in a covert way, by poisoning generations of kids with tobacco? Like the redneck illuminati or something? I must have not gotten enough sleep last night.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by camaro68ss
The Civil War was NEVER, about slavery. It was about states rights. you read history book that where made 100 years ago and there you will find the truth.

“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late… It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects for derision… It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.”


Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864

edit on 6-12-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)


To be sure, I have read the history you describe as well.

I am outlining this particular article and to be sure as well, the sources cited do establish that these events and happenings are documented fact and are thereby evidence of this view, or digressing to the alternate history you provide, these things, in part, were exploited to skew our educational Curriculum in favor of views that undermine individual rights and others, inalienable, etc... not to mention the Republic itself.
edit on 6-12-2012 by imd12c4funn because: typo



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jessejamesxx
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


They really should have freed the slaves and then fought the Civil War, if that's the case.

Back on topic. I don't really understand this thread. Wasn't the constitution written by slave owners? Kind of hypocritical of them?

And then you go on to say that the "south has risen again" in a covert way, by poisoning generations of kids with tobacco? Like the redneck illuminati or something? I must have not gotten enough sleep last night.


The article and sources provide the proof that all of this is true. However, this is not to say that omissions of other aspect could show bias. I am still reading source information from the tip of this iceberg as well.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jessejamesxx
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


They really should have freed the slaves and then fought the Civil War, if that's the case.

Back on topic. I don't really understand this thread. Wasn't the constitution written by slave owners? Kind of hypocritical of them?

And then you go on to say that the "south has risen again" in a covert way, by poisoning generations of kids with tobacco? Like the redneck illuminati or something? I must have not gotten enough sleep last night.


Originally the constitution has the abolishment of slaver in it but the slave states would not sign off on the document. To create the union to fight the brits they dropped the the abolishment to get the last few states to sign.

Note in the words. “All men created equally” it does not say all white men, it says ALL MEN. The founding fathers were very smart with their words. They took the hit on slavery up front to unite the states but wrote it in the constitution “that ALL men are created equally” so they could come back to it and abolish slavery.

Your all feed liberal talking points in the modern day schools. Pick up a history book from the 1900’s and you will not believe the information todays school leave out.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that 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 forever 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 the 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. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."
-Abraham Lincoln

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."
-Abraham Lincoln

My family has a collection of history books on all subjects from 1870's to the 1920's. These books are written by those there in the flesh. Ill take first hand accounts over 150 years of progressive telephone.
edit on 6-12-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.”

This is actually what I was commenting about. If they weren't fighting to keep slavery, and it wasn't an "all or nothing" situation, they should've given it up and fought the war for everything else. Just an opinion. If they didn't want to go down in history as pro-slavery, as they seemed to recognize that they were going to.. But I see what you're getting at now.

The quotes you supplied and your posts have been very enlightening. Thanks.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jessejamesxx

It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.”

This is actually what I was commenting about. If they weren't fighting to keep slavery, and it wasn't an "all or nothing" situation, they should've given it up and fought the war for everything else. Just an opinion. If they didn't want to go down in history as pro-slavery, as they seemed to recognize that they were going to.. But I see what you're getting at now.

The quotes you supplied and your posts have been very enlightening. Thanks.


Little do you know Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, wanted the slaves free, he even wanted a black regiment under his command and petitioned for it.

todays history makes you think everyone in the south owned slaves. This is not true. only the top 1% in the south owned slaves. No regular southern country boy was going to war for the rich to lose his life over a slave and at that time, for someone else's property.

The war was about the north, with an ever growing population, holding more power via vote over the southern states. it was about subjugation, it was about states rights and LIBERTYS. The north, having completely different values then the southern states, having the ability to inact laws and taxes over lands and people that had no say because of there lower population and how the electoral system worked. The north used the power of the federal system to tax any state as it sees fit.

In the souths eyes, the north was the new king of england, taxing them into servitude. The real reason for war runs deep.

heck when the war first broke out, the northern boarder states to the south owned slaves. YES, some Union states owned and had the right to own slaves.
edit on 6-12-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
did my own topic on just slavery

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Camaro is correct. The original issues that began the Civil war WAS NOT slavery. That came when Lincoln needed to rally more northern support to continue the war. This is the "real" history. The truth has been romanticized and it is sad. Let the truth be what it is and leave it alone...it is popular and wonderful to believe the fairy tale, but the truth is what it is.

There is a famous saying and it not only applies to forgetting, but changing...

"Those that do not know history are destined to repeat it" Edmund Burke - (1729 -1797)
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana (1863 - 1952)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
I have a B.A. in History and a Ph.D. in Psychology. The Civil War was about Slavery. The event which prompted the South to secede was the election of Abraham Lincoln, who was thought to have antislavery sentiments. All other considerations besides Slavery were entirely secondary. Take into account that the words "North" and "South" were at the time nothing but code words for Free and Slave. The South today continues to suffer the psychological fetters of having to live in denial of the evil which was done during the time of slavery. This is why southerners are retarded with respect to their ability to join the civilized societies of the world, and why they so fear the United Nations, which they fantasize will finally be the agent of what they believe in their own hearts is their long deserved punishment, an imaginary event which they both dread and secretly long for. And know also that the word "southerner" is today applicable to anyone, irrespective of where they live, who believes that the South had the slightest shred of morality underlying its motivations in the Civil War.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   


My interpretation of the story in short ...


Three glaring errors struck me ... two substances mentioned weren't even discovered until 1874 and 1898 started as cures and weren't abused to much later, and a substance that wasn't illegal until 1934 and wasn't an abused substance prior to that either. Since all of these came well after the Civil War ...

The paragraph is full of erroreous stereotyping, some of which is completely in error.

How can so many errors be made in one paragraph?



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by deerislander
 


Just LOL



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by deerislander
 


Some of the hardest people to deal with are the "educated" because they THINK they know everything already.

wiki.answers.com...



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by imd12c4funn
My interpretation of the story in short, is that prior to the civil war, but following ratification of the United States Constitution, reasearch had proven in the late 15th or earlty 16th century that the habit of smoking tabacco cause stunted growth, longer schooling, lazyness, unkempt and unclean personal hygene, Cowardess[a female cowards?], lower school grades, lying, authoritive defiance, subsequent use of liquer, pot and then hard drugs such azxs opium, coc aine and heroin.


research at the time also showed these drugs to be very effective in treating MANY illnesses. Heroin wasnt synthesized till the late 1800s. Im sorry, but who are these researchers? You sound like the government talking about the "gateway drug", but we all know that is bull#. seriously cowardice and lack of hygiene? do you actually believe this stuff or are you just giving us a summary?



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by imd12c4funn
 


S&F! You might be right. I have always got a kick out of people calling marijuana the "gateway" drug. Before anyone puffs on a joint or takes a drink - they will already have had their first cigarette. So that's just a lie. Cigarettes are your gateway drug. Anyone can see that if you lower your self worth and respect for your body to the extent that you will smoke cigarettes and suck nicotine into your lungs for the fun of it...you are instantly more likely to do ANYTHING.
Tobacco, a slave dependent industry was a very important product to the young America and why the tobacco leaf in used in the motif of the Capital building. It still has a huge lobby and they are the core of the republican party. Daughters of the American Revolution come to mind. Old families. The Heritage Foundation and the web they have encompassing everything political. Are they powerful enough to change laws or bribe and coerce politics to suit their wishes? Of course they are. We couldn't run this successful and thriving Plutocratic, Oligarchy without them.
edit on 6-12-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant

Before anyone puffs on a joint or takes a drink - they will already have had their first cigarette. So that's just a lie. Cigarettes are your gateway drug.


Wrong, and wrong. First off, that is quite a generalization. Second ,I did not smoke a cigarette till AFTER taking my first "puff" or my first drink. I am sure there are many that can say the same.

Today I do not smoke cigarettes, I do not puff on joints and I do not drink.

People like you reassure me that humanity is truly doomed.

Do us all a favor and don't reproduce.





new topics
top topics
 
4

log in

join