THE CIVIL WAR
It was not about slavery
For one hundred and fifty years, Establishment historians have slandered and vilified the South over slavery and the Civil War. There is an increasing drum-beat on television news referring to slavery, and, while they do not always mention the South in their pronouncements, there is no question that they intend for their audience to make the connection.
Both the news media and our increasingly federalized educational system have systematically deceived the American people as to what that war was all about. There has never been a war that has been more written about—and more falsified—than the Civil War. In this little booklet we will look at the way the American people have been propagandized and deceived about that war.
With the flood of books that have gone out, you can be sure they have their names and dates and details right. It would be too easy to catch them falsifying those facts. It is the causes and consequences of the war they refuse to tell the truth about. If they were to tell all they know about those matters, it would become too clear to deny that there has never been a more unjustified war than that war was.
The Right of Secession
The Foundation of our Government
Southern leaders were accused of treason for seceding from the Union. Not only did the Southern states have the right to secede; the right of secession is the most fundamental principle of our government.
If the states do not have the right to secede, our nation does not have the right to exist in the first place. Our very nation is based on the right of secession. The Declaration of Independence is a secessionist document. It declared the right of the thirteen colonies to secede from the British Commonwealth, and form their own government.
That is what the Founding Fathers did in 1776, and it is what the Southern states did in 1861. You cannot convict Robert E. Lee for treason without convicting George Washington. Our Establishment historians know that—they just don’t want you to know.
For eight years, the Continental Army fought and died; they froze and starved, to prove they had the right to secede from a tyrannical government in London.
The men who crafted our government were no fools. They would never surrender one form of tyranny for another. After all they had suffered at the hands of the British, they would never enter any union from which they had no right to withdraw.
In ratifying the Constitution, every single state recognized the right of the various states to secede—if they felt they were being mistreated. Five of the states put that in writing in their Ratification Resolutions, and the other eight recognized those resolutions with that provision in place. So, one way or the other, every state recognized the right of secession.
New England Threatened to Secede
Nobody ever questioned the right of any state to secede until Lincoln questioned it. In 1803, on the heels of the Louisiana Purchase, and the state of Louisiana entering the Union, New Hampshire threatened to secede, “to dissolve the Union, and to form a government of their own.”
The War of 1812 hindered New England commerce, and in 1814, at the very height of the war, they called the Hartford Convention for the purpose of considering seceding and signing a separate peace treaty with Great Britain.
They threatened to secede and ally themselves with Great Britain at a time when that nation was doing all they could to wipe our nation off the face of the earth. New York was no different, they were forever talking about seceding and becoming a free trade zone. Thomas Jefferson suggested that if they wanted to leave, they should go ahead and do it.
Still, Establishment historians want us to believe that when they marched their troops south, making war on their own countrymen, they were only trying to “preserve the union.” So much for New England loyalty to the Union.
Our System of Checks and Balances
There is much said about the system of checks and balances within our government. They talk about how the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branches balance each other, and hold each other in check. They do not dare point out that the final check is the right of any state to secede— if the entire establishment takes advantage of them. Without that ultimate right, the other three checks do not mean a thing.
The Founding Fathers knew that it was possible for all three branches to tyrannize over the people, so they reserved the right to simply withdraw—and that is what the Southern states did in 1861.
Southern Opposition to Slavery
Slavery has always been obnoxious to Southern people. Far from supporting slavery, the vast majority of Southern people have always been opposed to slavery, and they did everything in their power to outlaw it. Why would they not?
Think about it, if you will. Cotton brokers paid the same price for a bale of cotton—whether it was produced by slaves or free men. That meant that, as long as slavery existed, the labor of free farmers in the South, whether they were white or black, was worth no more than slave labor.
Other than the slaves themselves, nobody ever suffered because of slavery the way the Southern people did.
As many as 98 per cent of all slave ships sailed out of New York and New England. The South had virtually no slave ships.
Only six per cent of the Southern people ever supported slavery; those were the slave owners. But with the help of Northern politicians and Northern slave traders, rich plantation owners were able to force slavery on the people of the South.
There was no reason for those other ninety-four per cent of Southerners to support slavery—and every reason for them to do all they could to get rid of it.
Thomas Jefferson, a Southerner, tried to declare against slavery in the Constitution. But New York and New England were getting rich on the slave trade, and John Adams and the New England radicals refused to ratify the Constitution if it denounced slavery.
And why should Adams and his New England radicals allow the Constitution to forbid slavery. The slave trade was their cash cow. Even today, much of the old money in New England is directly traceable to the slave trade.
Far from being a war to free slaves, the Civil War was fought for the purpose of enslaving all Americans. It was fought to lay the groundwork for imposing big government— political and economic slavery and corporate welfare— on us all.
Two Opposite and Radically
Different Cultures
The New York/New England culture has always been radically different from that of the South, and their leaders have always held contempt for the South— with its easy-going, laid-back ways. The New England contempt for Southern people was a large factor in the war. They still have that air of superiority, and that Yankee arrogance is poisoning our relations till this day.
The people of what is now called the Mid-West were caught in a conflict not of their making. They were caught in the middle between two different and opposing forces.
The good and decent people of what was then called the North did not want war any more than the people in the South did—but the North had leaders who wanted war. War would make them rich—and all they would have to do is sacrifice a few hundred thousand lives.
Slavery Enriched the North
New England Yankees were the greatest advocates of slavery. No sooner had the New Englanders gotten settled in, than they made war against the Indians. Massachusetts passed a law authorizing slavery in 1641, and they captured as many as 1000 Pequot Indians and shipped them to the West Indies as slaves.
Far from sympathizing with the plight of the slaves, Lincoln bore such contempt for Negroes that he believed they should not be allowed to live in the same country as white people. He tried to send them all back to Africa, or South America—anywhere except America.
Northern Hostility to Negroes
We have been told that if a runaway slave could just get across the Ohio River, he would reach the promised land. The fact is that most of the Northern states forbade Negroes to vote, or sit on a jury, or testify in a trial—even if they were the victim of a crime. Many of them forbade Negroes to own land, or establish permanent residence.
One Ohio politician dared freed Negroes to try to enter Ohio. He said the people of Ohio would line the Ohio River, with their muskets at their shoulders to see to it that did not happen.
New York is the only state to copy the European model and convict Negroes and burn them at the stake. They burned two Negroes names Quack and Cuffee in New York City in 1741.
When New Yorkers heard about the Emancipation Proclamation they rioted for a week. By the end of the week they had massacred close to one thousand Negroes. They killed them in the streets, and in their homes, and anywhere they could find them.
Still our federalized school system tells us those were the same people who marched south and sacrificed their very lives to free slaves—and there are those gullible enough to believe it.
We are told that northern politicians wanted to prevent slavery from being introduced in the West. That is true; they wanted all Negroes to be barred from living in the West. Northern politicians wanted a lily-white western work force.
The Emancipation Proclamation
The Emancipation Proclamation did not free the first slave—and it was never intended to. The brilliant lawyer that he was, Lincoln crafted the Proclamation so that it only applied to the states that were in rebellion—that is, to the areas where the Federal troops did not have the power to enforce it.
It did not apply to the border states. And as for the states in rebellion, he, very tediously, listed every county in those states where the Federal troops were in control—and the Proclamation could have been enforced—and he exempted those counties. How cynical can you get?
John Charles Fremont issued his own Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves in the area in Missouri in which his troops were in control—Lincoln countermanded the order, and removed Fremont from his command.
When Establishment types are confronted with the facts, they admit the Proclamation was never actually intended to free any slave, and they finally admit that the two reasons were (1) to take the high moral ground, and dissuade England and France from entering the war on the side of the South, and (2) to bring an early end to the war by provoking a slave insurrection.
On the first point they were successful; France and England stayed out of the war. On the second point they failed. John Brown and Nat Turner had already started insurrections of their own, and they both failed. The Proclamation did not incite the slaves to rise up.
Only One Successful Slave Insurrection
In the Western Hemisphere
The one thing Establishment types do not talk about is the fact that there has been only one successful slave insurrection in the Western Hemisphere. That was in Haiti; it began in 1794 and lasted for ten years.
Until 1794, Haiti was one of the richest spots on the planet. The world had developed a sweet tooth, and sugar plantations made the Haitian planters rich—and then their slaves rebelled.
At that time Haiti was a French colony. The slaves massacred the French soldiers. Napoleon would not put up with that, and he sent in huge numbers of troops, enough to put down the rebellion. The Haitians slaughtered them too. That is why Napoleon agreed to the Louisiana Purchase. He decided it was time to cut his losses and get out of the Western Hemisphere.
But driving out the French did not satisfy the Haitian rebels. When their people became exhausted from killing, their leaders kept driving them on to massacre the white plantation owners. By the time the insurrection ended, the white population of Haiti had been exterminated. Today—two hundred years later—the population of Haiti is still 99.9 per cent non-white.
When Establishment types admit that the real purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was to provoke a slave insurrection, it would not hurt to remind them how the only successful slave insurrection in the Western Hemisphere turned out.
It would not have helped to remind men like Sherman, and Grant, and Sheridan. They were West Point men. They knew all about Haiti. With their deep-seated hatred for Southern people, they knew exactly what they were doing—and what they were trying to bring about.
The Southern people were not ignorant. They knew about Haiti. There were Southerners still living who remembered, and those who did not remember had learned their history. They knew what it meant to say that Lincoln and his people were trying to provoke a slave insurrection.
Virtually every Southerner would have gladly ended slavery—if it could be ended without bringing on such genocide as it brought in Haiti.
Why Southern Slaves did not Rebel
There was a reason slaves in the South did not do what the slaves in Haiti had done. Many of them fought against the Federal invaders, right along-side of their masters.
If you want to know why Southern slaves did not do what Haitian slaves did, the answer is simple enough. For the most part, slaves in the South were treated far better than those in Haiti, and Barbados, and South America.
Barely six percent of the Southern people owned slaves. Some plantations had huge numbers of slaves, but most of those six percent owned no more than two or three.
Their owner worked in the fields right beside them. They did the same work, and at lunch time, they ate at the same table. Their children played together and, more often than not, they attended the same church.
There was always the owner and property relationship, but it would not have always been easy, just by watching, to know which was which. That is why, when the war began, many of the slaves fought just as hard as their master did, and why they fought so hard to take care of him on the battlefield.
If you get away from Yankee propagandists, you will discover that, for the most part, southern slaves were well fed, well clothed, and generally well cared for. In a recent booklet we gave the testimony of one old slave as to how he was treated. It is far different than the story Harriet Beecher Stowe told in Uncle Tom’s Cabin.
There can be no denying there were some plantation owners like Simon Legree. Those men brutalized their slaves. Southern people are ashamed of those who mistreated their slaves, but they were the exception rather than the rule.
Bankrupting Haiti—and the South
The French could not put down the slave insurrection, but international trade is such that they were able to impose 150,000,000 gold francs as reparations on Haiti. It took Haiti until 1947 to pay it off. By then, the French had drained Haiti of so much capital that they have been penniless, and destitute ever since.
What the French did to Haiti by imposing massive reparations, New York and New England politicians were doing to the South by imposing tariffs. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives is based on population, and that every bill relating to finance must originate in the House. They control the purse strings.
The North has always had more population than the South, and they used that power to impose tariffs that forced the South to buy over-priced Northern products, or pay exorbitant tariffs on imported goods.
Then after they had collected their profits, and their Southern tariffs, they used the money to pay for Northern projects. If you have ever read about how the North had the advantage in the war, because the railroads and factories in the North were so much better than those in the South, that is the reason. The North had plenty of Southern money to work with.
If you want to know what Lincoln and his people had in mind for the South, just look at Haiti. If that system of tariffs had continued long enough, it would have done to the South what French reparations did to Haiti. It would have left the South as penniless and as unable to carry on commerce as Haiti is till this day.
The Second American Revolution
The real reason for the Civil War is very simple. It was a Second American Revolution. From the very beginning, there were politicians in Washington who hated what they called “the chains of the Constitution.” Especially, they hated the Bill of Rights, those first Ten Amendments to the Constitution.
There was a reason the Bill of Rights had to be handled as amendments. The New England radicals would never have ratified a constitution that guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, or freedom of the press.
Especially, they would never have ratified a constitution that limited the power of the central government. Federalists like Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams wanted freedom—but they wanted it for themselves. They wanted to throw off the tyranny of London and replace it with a similar tyranny in Washington—with themselves in charge.
In spite of the fact they had fought so long and hard to escape the tyranny of the English king and the English Parliament, they wanted a cozy relationship with London. They wanted what London had—they wanted absolute power.
They wanted a powerful central bank—controlled by them of course—and they wanted a system of tariffs to protect their overpriced products.
They wanted to duplicate the English system called mercantilism— Americans call it corporate welfare. They wanted the power to dole out fat government contracts to themselves and their rich friends.
And they wanted an empire—one like England had. If England had an empire, why could America not have an empire? Why could America not build a mighty army and a mighty navy, sailing around the world, conquering weaker people, making them colonies of America, and exploiting their resources. Why could America not become the world’s policeman?
That was one of the main reasons there was such a push for war. It always comes down to money and power.
The Civil War devastated the Southern economy, but it made Northern industrialists and Northern businessmen fabulously rich—and all it cost was 600,000 lives.
New England Tyranny
The New England Congregationalists were never friends to religious liberty—not unless it was their own. They would never have ratified the Constitution if it guaranteed freedom of religion, freedom of the press, or the right of assembly.
New Englanders had always been the fiercest enemies of freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. They flogged Baptists and Quakers for their religion. If Baptists and Quakers dared to put up a meeting house, there was a good chance the officials in Boston would allow them to finish, only to expel them and take the meeting house for themselves.
They would often break up their meetings, and arrest the preacher, and bring him to trial. Sometimes they would take a Baptist preacher to the town square, string him up, and flog him with a cat-o-nine tails. Sometimes they cut off the Quakers’ ears.
They beat the Baptist preacher, Obadiah Holmes, until, for six weeks, he had to sleep on his knees and elbows. He could not bear for any part of his body to touch the bed. They drove Roger Williams from his home, and into the Massachusetts wilderness in the dead of winter. He would have frozen and starved if friendly Indians had not taken him in.
The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibited the establishment of religion—but it only bound the Federal government. It did not bind the states. New Englanders still harbored such hostility to religious freedom that Congregationalism (the Puritans) continued to be the state religion in Massachusetts for another fifty years after the Revolution.
They trumped up charges against eccentric women and hanged them for witchcraft. They only stopped when some of the families of the Salem leaders began to be charged.
All of this was before the Revolution and before the Constitution. There is no way the Southern states would have placed themselves at the mercy of these people. They would never have entered a compact with them without reserving the right to withdraw. That would have been a foolish thing to do, and the Southern people were not fools.
The Supremacy Clause—and the Tenth Amendment
Much is said about the Supremacy Clause—it gives federal law supremacy over state law. That is true, but our Establishment historians never point out that much of what the Supremacy Clause gave—the Tenth Amendment took away.
The Supremacy Clause gives federal law priority over state law, but the Tenth Amendment limits federal authority to those specific, limited, and enumerated, powers delegated to it by the Constitution. That Tenth Amendment provides that all other authority is “reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
The Founding Fathers had had enough of tyrannical central government. They knew American politicians had as much potential for evil as English politicians ever had, and they would tell their new government how much power they would allow them to have. They listed specific areas in which they granted power to the federal government, and told them that beyond those limits their business was none of Washington’s business. That is called state’s rights.
From 1861 until 1865, corrupt Washington politicians trumped up a claim about “preserving the union,” and they sacrificed 600,000 American lives to prove they were going to make everything their business.
In that sense the Civil War was a campaign to do away with the Tenth Amendment. They killed off 600,000 people to accomplish what, otherwise, would have required a constitutional amendment passed by three fourths of the state legislatures.
Nameless, Faceless Bureaucrats
One illustration should show how effectively the Civil War abolished the Tenth Amendment. In the 1920’s when the Prohibition Movement tried to outlaw the sale of alcoholic beverages they discovered that a law passed by Congress would was not enough. That was not one of those enumerated powers delegated to the Federal Government; so, their hands were tied.
It took a Constitutional Amendment passed by three fourths of the state legislatures. When prohibition turned out to be a mistake, it took another Constitutional Amendment and passage by three fourths of the state legislatures to change it back.
Today, nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrats prohibit the sale of anything and everything without telling anybody what they are doing until they have already done it. Some of their regulations make no sense at all, but Congress never utters a word.
All these lawsuits calling on the Supreme Court to decide whether a particular law is constitutional are a joke. Very nearly everything the bureaucracy does is beyond those limited powers granted by the Constitution.
Elected representatives come and go, but career bureaucrats go on forever. Ronald Reagan was elected on the slogan that, “The government is the problem,” and he vowed to take on the bureaucracy—he failed.
We now have a shadow government of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who effectively run the government. They have begun to be called the deep state.
And all it took was killing off just over half a million of our people.
Alexander Hamilton and John Adams would be proud of their handiwork. Washington has finally seized absolute power.
The South Was Fighting for
The Constitution and Freedom
Establishment historians do not dare point out that the South was fighting for freedom—the Federal troops were fighting for unlimited power for Washington politicians—and ultimately for unchecked power for unelected, unresponsive Federal bureaucrats. That battle is going on as fiercely today as it was from 1861 till 1865. They are careful not to point out that 600,000 men died fighting over the Tenth Amendment.
That is the main reason they talk so much about the war being over slavery; that is simply a smoke screen to conceal the real reason they were fighting.
Bringing English Hostilities
To America
So much for the goals of the war, we would do well to look at the source of the hostility that led up to the war. New York and New England were settled largely by Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Normans from England. That is the reason it is called New England. Most of the Celtic people from Scotland, Ireland, and Wales settled in Mid-West and in the South.
For fifteen hundred years the Celtic population in Great Britain has suffered—and often been brutalized—at the hands of the English. That struggle is going on till this day. England has its own independence movement—people who, even now, would like to do what the thirteen colonies did; they would like to be done with England and their authority.
The Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Norman population of England has a hostility to the Scots, Irish, and Welsh that goes all the way back to fifth century England. The Angles, the Saxons, and the Normans have always thought the Celts are a backward people. Even today New Yorkers and New Englanders make very little effort to conceal the fact that they still have that attitude toward Southern people. Our laid-back, easy-going life style offends them.
The Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Norman people of England have had that attitude toward their Celtic people for hundreds of years. It began in the fifth century when King Vortigern invited the Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes to come to England as mercenaries to help defend his people against the Scots and the Picts. When the mercenary kings Hengist and Horsa, gained enough power, they decided the Britons were a backward people, not worth defending. They seized their property and drove them into the fringes of the island where they are to this day.
In the year 787, the first Vikings landed on the east coast of England, and began their reign of terror. English historians love to glamorize and romanticize the Vikings “They were such brave, valiant warriors.” Of course, they brag about what great fighters they were. They are the descendants of the Vikings. It was the Vikings who drove the native Celts off their land and claimed it for themselves—and for their English (Angle-ish) descendants.
Anybody interested in learning the truth will discover that the Vikings were cold-blooded killers. They killed for the thrill of killing. They continued what the Angles and the Saxons had begun.
The Vikings were the Al Quaeda, and the Taliban of that day. They did exactly the same thing in Northeastern Europe the Muslims did in the Middle East and in Southeastern Europe—and at the very same time.
The Normans (Norsemen) were the descendants of Vikings who did in France what other Vikings did in England. In 1066, the Norman King William (William the Conqueror) prevailed at the Battle of Hastings. He proclaimed himself King of England (Angle-land) and continued the conquest and abuse of the native Celts.
English Genocide Against
Their Celtic Population
At one point English soldiers wantonly butchered the residents of the little Scottish village of Glencoe. The Scots lodged and fed the soldiers in their own homes, and shared their hospitality, and then, at 5:00 one morning, on signal, the English soldiers crawled out of bed and slaughtered their hosts. Some of them fled into the mountains to escape the massacre, only to freeze to death in a bitter snow storm.
The mistreatment of the Celts in Great Britain has been sporadic, to be sure, but it can be traced from the arrival of the Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes in the fifth century until this day. Whether their targets were Welsh, Scots, or Irish, they had very little patience with the Celts. They acted as if they were more like vermin to be tolerated than fellow human beings to be appreciated and helped.
Somebody might see a starving, mangy, cur dog, and allow that, “somebody ought to shoot that dog and put him out of his misery.” For hundreds of years the Celts have been the starving dogs of Great Britain.
In the mid 1600’s, the English Parliamentary Army massacred the Irish city of Drogheda. Oliver Cromwell promised that he would spare them if they would surrender. They surrendered and he slaughtered all 3,400 habitants of the city. He did the same thing a few weeks later at Wexford. After all, why should he not put them out of their misery—they were just Irish. He shipped thousands of them to slavery in Barbados.
By the way, Cromwell and his Model Army were massacring Celts in Ireland, and selling them into slavery, at the same time their Bostonian cousins were capturing and enslaving Pequot Indians in New England.
In the 1840’s, the English seized on the Irish Potato Famine to starve the Irish. The potato crop had totally failed, but there were enough other crops to, at least, mitigate the starvation—if the English had not stripped so much food from Ireland to feed the English.
Under Charles Trevelyn it was English policy that there were too many Irish—and they needed to reduce the Irish population enough for the land to support them. So, it was official English policy to starve them.
The English systematically starved the Irish—to reduce the Irish population—less than twenty years before their Yankee cousins in New York, and New England launched their campaign of genocide against the South in the Civil War.
These are just a few instances. A huge volume could be written about the hundreds of years of genocide by the English against their Celtic population, but our Establishment historians keep quiet—or they touch on it ever so lightly.
Sherman’s Mangy Dog Attitude
The genocide Federal troops forced on the South was largely a continuation of the genocide the English people have waged against their own Celtic population for more than a thousand years.
Sherman had the same mangy dog attitude toward the Southern people. He said, “To the rebels, death is a mercy,” and he talked about exterminating the Southern people.
Very few of the men on either side knew what the war was really all about. The people were kept in the dark. Without any trial or charges ever being placed against them—more than 300 Northern newspapers were closed down, and their editors were arrested and held in prison—for the duration of the war—for trying to inform the people as to what was going on. Any Northerner could be arrested and whisked away to prison—without a trial— for publicly expressing opposition to the war.
There was no difference between the morals of the rank-and- file soldiers on either side, but some of Lincoln’s generals were some of the most cruel and sadistic who ever led an army.
Lincoln’s darling, Phil Sheridan, boasted that, when he finished with the Shenandoah Valley, a crow would have to carry his lunch. He came close to making good on his boast. He lighted the Virginia sky with burning homes and barns. Sherman did much the same in his March to the Sea. He swore he would “make Georgia howl.” There is no way to justify the way he left Georgia people homeless and starving.
There is no way to justify Federal troops burning southern cotton mills just for the sake of burning cotton mills. There could be no other motive than the visceral, wild eyed hatred some of the Federal generals harbored for Southern people and Southern culture.
With poor widows and children on their knees crying and pleading for mercy, there is no way to justify Federal troops burning Southern homes with every pot and pan, every plate and spoon, and every scrap of food inside. There is no way to justify their stripping off children’s coats and throwing them in the fire—not in the dead of winter.
After they had stolen all the livestock they could take, there is no way to justify Federal troops killing all the cows and mules and horses they did not take. There is no way to justify burning their barns with their seeds, and their plows, and all their hoes and shovels inside. There is no way to explain it, except that those sadistic Federal generals intended for southern people to starve.
After all, they were only rebels, and Sherman was sure that, “to rebels, death is mercy.”
The Geneva Convention
Much is said nowadays about the Geneva Convention. It forbade the very things the Federal generals were ordering their troops to do—at the very time they were doing it—and with their commander-in-chief egging them on.
It forbade invading armies to destroy such private property as was not part of the war effort. It forbade them to make war on non-combatants— to make war against old people, and women and children. The Geneva Convention did not even slow the Federal troops down.
It would be an overreach to claim that the Geneva Convention was called as an effort to reign in the Federal troops, but it is worthy of note that the first Geneva Convention convened at the very time of the Siege of Atlanta, and it immediately preceded Sherman’s March to the Sea.
But Sherman did not care about any Convention; he had vowed he would “make Georgia howl,” and nobody was going to tell him how to go about it.
The Ongoing Civil War
One more point before we close. The Civil War did not end at Appomattox Courthouse when Robert E. Lee handed his sword to Ulysses S. Grant. The war just changed its face. The shooting has stopped, but the war is raging as hotly today as it ever did—and the stakes are just as high.
From 1861 till 1865, Federal troops waged war to overthrow the Constitution. Today, the descendants of the leaders of that day are using their new-found power to wage war on the very fabric of American society. They are working to undermine the very cement that holds our nation together.
The foundation of our civilization is marriage, the family and the home. It is free enterprise, and personal responsibility. Those principles are under as fierce attack today as the Constitution was one hundred and fifty years ago.
There are forces at work to destroy the very institution of marriage. Sexual perverts are treated as a special protected class. A person can be put out of business if he refuses to pander to perverts and their demands.
Barak Obama issued an order that he would cut off Federal funding to any state that did not allow boys— who want to be girls— to use the girls’ rest rooms, and girls’ locker rooms. He ordered that perverts must be given access to our little girls—and he got away with it.
We are seeing more and more every day the real reason for that war. It was a war to concentrate all power in the Federal government. It was to give Federal officials the power to do anything they want to do.
And that attack is being led by the descendants of those who waged their war of genocide against the South one hundred and fifty years ago. New York, and New England, along with their leftist allies on the West Coast, are leading the fight against the very moral fabric of our nation.
Those revolutionaries are as determined to overthrow the moral foundations of our country as their ancestors were to overthrow the Constitution one hundred and fifty years ago.
Our Southern People Should Be
Proud of our History
There is no reason for Southern people to be ashamed of our history. If there is anybody who needs to hang their heads in shame, it is the heirs of those hot-headed New England firebrands who forced that war on the American people.
It is those who, for four hundred years, have done all they can to destroy the very foundation of civilized society.
THE END