Abraham Lincoln and the Union

Abraham Lincoln saved the Union. That much is a historical fact. The fact that he failed to save the Union from the Illuminati Banksters and their Satanic Psychopathic friends is not from lack of effort on his part. The secession of the Southern States has been romanticized as the pursuit of States Rights. In reality, the landed aristocracy that made up 1% of the population was addicted to both cotton and the slave plantation for its social status.

Slave States fulfilled the Illuminati ideal where 1% of the population governs over the other 99%. The Southern aristocracy was the South's Philosopher Kings. The fact that these individuals founded the Palladin Right of Freemasonry, The Scottish Right of Freemasonry, the Knight Riders and Ku Klux Klan, is evidence of their alliance to the Satanic Psychopathic Illuminati.

Because of the plantation system, blacks outnumbered whites in some areas (Like South Carolina and Mississippi). (Source) Following the Civil War, blacks were protected in their political rights and elected their own to the State Legislatures during Reconstruction. When Northern troops withdrew, blacks were brutally suppressed and subjected to ridiculous Poll Taxes and Tests (One of the questions asked of prospective black voters was "how many bubbles are there in a bar of soap?").

Lincoln's plan for the freed black slaves was to compensate the Plantation owners for their release. This was rejected by Southern Aristocrats. Yet, Lincoln stated his primary goal was to preserve the Union.

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free." (Source)

While it is commonly accepted that Lincoln was fighting to Preserve the Union, very few have addressed the Southern aristocrats motives for destroying it. I quote the following from the State of Georgia's letter of Secession:

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic." (Source)

And Mississippi:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin." (Ibid)

South Carolina, where blacks outnumbered whites by a majority, tried to couch its fears in the language of States Rights.

"The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue." (ibid)

Fighting to protect an institution that profited a mere 1% of the population would fail to rally Southerners that did not participate in the plantation system. The States Rights argument was put forth for pure propaganda purposes. No State had the right, natural or otherwise, to create laws or institutions that contradict the Freedoms espoused in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Plantation slavery was an Illuminati creation. Worldwide slavery of all races is an Illuminati goal.

The Illuminati Banksters sought to divide the United States into spheres of European influence. The Russian Czar prevented this from occurring when he sent the Russian Fleet to monitor the situation with the threat of war if France and England came to the open assistance of the South.

Lincoln was assassinated by the Illuminati because of his desires to free the United States from all Illuminati Bankster interference. The Russian Czar also was assassinated for defying the European Conspiracy to segment these United States, and return them to colonial status.

The Federal Reserve System was created as an end-around American Sovereignty. We would be permitted to continue with our professed Independence as long as we submitted to paying tribute to the Crown through the use of their interest bearing currency. In essence, they have managed to transform these United States into one massive plantation system that would have made the Southern Aristocrats green with envy.

The modern Police State is quickly replacing the branding iron and the heavy shackles with surveillance cameras and "Homeland Security". Terrorism is now defined as professing a belief in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States. Wage slavery has replaced plantation slavery.

Maybe the Southern Illuminati Aristocracy did win the Civil war after all. At the very least, they and their allies seem to have met most of their objectives through other means.

> Paul:

> I disagree with your conclusions about the War Between the States (AKA American Civil War; AKA Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression).

> Lincoln created a new government if you will because before the War Between the States is was common knowledge that the sovereign states had a right to leave the 'union'. Indeed, before Lincoln's war of aggression against fellow Americans the correct verb to use in referencing this grouping of states was "united States of America are". Before the barbaric war that Lincoln carried out, this collection of states was in a limited union with limited federal government. States retained much of their separate identities--- their sovereignty. (Sort of like the European Union of today in which nation states such as Germany, France, etc remain some what sovereign nations. Not the best example because the modern nation states have surrendered so much of their sovereignty to the EU that they are on a fast track to become a 'single entity' unless they collapse economically before then. ) After Lincoln's conquest of the southern states in which he used brutal strategies that only a barbarian would employ such as, but not limited to, Sherman's March to the Sea in which all people in the south suffered and continue to suffer from the destruction. It brings to mind the burning and sacking of Rome as a historic example of barbaric efforts to force once free states to accept a central and all powerful federal government. Lincoln did not 'save the union' as the historical slogan goes but rather he changed the united States of America from smaller sovereign nation states into a collection of crushed states where the federal system grabbed power and demanded obedience through federal brute force dominance.

> By pure brute force, Abraham Lincoln, morphed what was the united States of America into his desire for federal dominance into a 'new nation' known as the United States of America.

> Beyond ignoring the rights of states to dissolve their link to the federal union system, Lincoln's contempt for the Constitution is shocking. He destroyed printing presses to crush any northern papers that might challenge his barbaric war practices. He raided meetings where people spoke out against the cruelty of his war. He had people drafted into the Union Army which was unconstitutional but which would set the stage for future presidents to use this unconstitutional, federal infringement upon civil liberties to draft people into their war machines. People whom he did not like were rounded up and simply disappeared into his network of prisons. Stomping on fundamental rights to be secure in one's person. (Yet again setting the stage for future presidents to grab people off the streets and holding them against their will. Renditions are carried out by the US government around the world. Men and women are snatched up off streets of foreign cities and disappear into the dark pits of American secret holding centers. I believe we can look to Lincoln for setting this ghastly precedent in our nation.)

> Who was it that imposed unbearable taxation on southern goods? The northern controlled federal Congress which the southern states begged for more than 15 years for relief. Where did those massive tariffs come from but the desires of what I call the uber lords.

> The uber lords wanted to divide up the lands of America and so they funded both sides of Lincoln's War of Aggression. No clean hands in the north that is for certain! Nor can the northern states boast of being free of slavery either as they allowed slaves to be kept but one couldn't buy more of them.

> Lincoln clearly stated before he became president that he had no desire to get rid of slavery. It was not his position as president to dictate to the states on this issue. Only after the southern states left the union did he send his raging war machine upon the southern states, but not because they were slave holding states. Indeed the war was nearly over before he issued his so called proclamation freeing African slaves. (So called because the authority to do so is yet another constitutional stomping by Lincoln.) Indeed slavery was still allowed to be practiced in other parts of America / American territory post Lincoln's proclamation / War of Aggression.

> Then there is Lincoln's brutal treatment of Native Americans. Lincoln takes the shame for having the single day in which the largest number of executions have ever taken place in America when he ordered the hanging of thirty-six Sioux men in Minnesota. (It all started because northerners had invaded the home lands of the Sioux peoples.)

> After the war, Lincoln's War of Aggression left a nightmare in its wake. My own family members on the poor side in South Carolina pre-War of Aggression was in abject poverty for decades to come after War. And, yes, we were attacked by The Mob (AKA the KKK) but there were other groups who roamed the deep south that preyed upon Native Americans and whites. Little is written about this politically incorrect history but with some effort it can be found. I find it amazing that while my relations fought along side George Washington against the British, they were not deemed human beings to be allowed to vote in the newly formed united States of America. No, not even after they fought honorably to defend the united States of American in the War of 1812 , we still were not seen as full human beings. Even taking their pleas to the courts for the right to vote (1832), only resulted in the judge declaring that my great, great, grandfather was a honorable man but he had no right to vote. (Freedom from England for some but not for all people who fought and died for liberty.) Along comes the northerners to put strangle holding tariffs on the south, and when the south finally balks, the northerners come down upon the south with a mighty fist of rage.

> The uber lords in England were having a field day with the prize being what was ever left of America. One wealthy family was funding both sides of Lincoln's war with the hopes that which ever side prevailed it would be an economic gift to one of the family's two sons. No matter what happened the uber lords would win.

> Lincoln's rage and contempt for human life did not die in Ford's Theater. No, his hatred was taken on the road when General Sherman, yes the same brutal man who sacked the south -- burning and raping, moved out west to Indian Territory. There Sherman found a nice little spot to continue to practice the techniques that Lincoln foisted upon modern humanity. Sherman went to the sovereign Navajo people and began a barbaric round up of Navajos. People killed themselves rather than being taken prisoners by Sherman. About 1/3 of the Navajo people were caught and forced marched for three long months from north western New Mexico to present day eastern New Mexico. [Known as the Long March and not to be confused with Pres. Andy Jackson's the Trail of Tears] There the Navajos were put in nothing less than a concentration camp with forced labor. They were told to farm with water from the local river that had so much saline it killed the land. They built shelters for the US Army while the Navajo people had none. There is an infamous canyon on the Navajo Nation called, Canyon de Muerte [Translated Canyon of the Dead] where hundreds of Navajos perished under the aggressive hands of Sherman who was trained under Lincoln.

> Another monster created by Lincoln was [General] Armstrong Custer --- an amoral human being whose cruelty was nursed upon the slaughtered blood of southerners until he too took his twisted contempt for human beings out west to be visited upon Indigenous Peoples.

> Lincoln created a new form of government in which a powerful central government had no concern about sending its own armies against its citizens. He morphed the power into a central system that has made it easier for the uber lords to work towards a one world government. He showed that his objective to destroy the south was more important than the very principles upon which this union (small capital) was formed by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, etc. Lincoln in his power hungry position used his position to terrorize a nation be they northerners or southerners -- all dissenters were picked up and whisked away by the Lincoln secret police system. Not content to crush the political machinery of the south, he sent in Sherman to destroy the lives of the common folks. Lincoln did not 'save' the united States of America -- it was a coup -- a militarily imposed change in government in which power was centered in a federal system.

> I find the real Abraham Lincoln to be one of America's most frightening presidents we have had. The number of "firsts" that he did that set the stage for future presidents is scary.

Mr. Drockton,

I thoroughly enjoyed your article on Abraham Lincoln and the Union. Several years ago, when I was an active member of Mensa, the editor of our local publication (the Mencinnatian)printed an article I wrote entitled "The Planter's War". The Planter's War, of course, is the name that English history textbooks have traditionally given to the conflict we call the American Civil War. I had a computer crash a while back, but I will try to find it if you wish to read it.

I simply cannot comprehend the fart-headed arguments modern Southerners give to rationalize and justify the treachery of their ancestors. No Confederate of the time believed the war had nothing to do with slavery. This irritating canard only developed after the general consensus that slavery was an odious institution, and could not be intellectually defended.

A case in point is the red herring that the Union and Lincoln were bad to "native" Americans (actually American aborigines). The slave-holding Southern aristocrats were the drivers behind the Indian Removal Act, so that vast new lands could be made available for plantations full of Negro slaves. Then, the "native" Americans, in Oklahoma, ~30 years later, took promises of more land from the Southerners (land to be stolen from White Northerners who had not worked to steal the Indian's land in the first place) in return for their support of the "confederacy". This really pissed of the Union when things were said and done, and it should have. Indians weren't the smartest people, I guess. Had they sided with the Union, things would have been dramatically different, no doubt.

Of course, Southerners today make no mention of the hopeless poverty that White Southerners, outside of the tiny ruling elite, lived in. At the time of the outbreak of the War, Northern Whites had a standard of living approaching an order of magnitude greater than their counterparts in the South. Slavery, as DeToqueville described it, was even more destructive to the masters. Challenge Southerners to read DeToqueville's account of his travels down the Ohio river and what he observed on one side as opposed to the other. Black slavery was nothing but a technique of a depraved and hostile elite to destroy the wages and standard of living of the cousins, for the benefit of a tiny few for a little while, with societal chaos and privation the ultimate result. The same group of sh*ts letting the Mexicans in, and turning around and keeping them illegal, is at it today for the same reasons (H1B is also a slave technique).

Otto von Bismarck correctly called Lincoln the American National Saint for what Lincoln did to the bankers. Contrast this with the "confederate" government's deals with foreign powers. The "confederacy" dealt with at least 5 foreign powers (France, England, Austria-Hungary, Spain, and Mexico) promising these foreign powers the property of other Americans in return for their help in the war. In the case of France and Spain, the "confederacy" promised them both (at different times) Texas and Louisiana in return for their entrance in the war on the South's side. Keep in mind that after Vicksburg and the Union occupation of New Orleans, Texas and most of Louisiana were effectively on the far side of the moon and no longer of value to the satanists in Richmond.

As for Sherman's March, the Southerners deserved it. Period. One reaps what one sows. Who should believe that those who started a war in which hundreds of thousands died, started for the most evil of reasons, be spared the horrors they brought about? The South drew first blood at Ft. Sumter. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Sherman's March was the atomic bomb of the War. It resulted in no guerrilla activity for the same reasons the atomic bombs negated any possibility of guerrilla stuff in Japan later. Additionally, Sherman and his primary opponent, Gen. Joseph Johnston, became good friends after the war, and Johnston, to the day he died in the 1890's, would not allow anyone to say an unkind word about Sherman in his presence.

Who should believe that an elite that deliberately kept it's own people uneducated, so that they would be less likely to consider thoughtfully what was being done to them, should be respected and honored?

If one sees a van drive down the road with tinted windows, with 20 Mexicans and a White guy driving, should we think that the White driver is a friend of working White men and a defender of European civilization?

As for the stupid assertion that only blacks can work in the Southern sun, I laugh. In reality, due to shorter and milder winters, White skinned men can work more hours per year in south Mississippi (even with time taken out for siesta) than in Iowa.

http://hidhist.wordpress.com/lincoln/thomas-j-dilorenzos-the-real-lincoln-a-rebuttal/

Best regards,

Tom Crush