{"id":210679,"date":"2020-07-21T07:53:41","date_gmt":"2020-07-21T07:53:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=210679"},"modified":"2020-07-23T06:23:22","modified_gmt":"2020-07-23T06:23:22","slug":"lincoln-was-a-racist-and-the-civil-war-was-not-about-slavery","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=210679","title":{"rendered":"Lincoln Was A Racist and the \u201cCivil War\u201d Was NOT About Slavery"},"content":{"rendered":"

Paul Craig Roberts \u2013 paulcraigroberts.org July 20, 2020<\/strong><\/h1>\n

Some black Americans have created a black version of the KKK.\u00a0 They have even adopted similar terminology.\u00a0 The leader is called \u201cGrand Master Jay.\u201d\u00a0 The job of the organization, NFAC, is \u201cto protect the black community\u201d from white people.<\/span><\/p>\n

The KKK\u2019s job was to protect the white Southern community, which was under attack by Reconstruction.<\/span><\/p>\n

The NFAC sees the plight of the American black exactly as the white liberal elites want blacks to see it\u2014oppression and abuse by whites.\u00a0 This keeps the American people divided and power safe in the hands of the corrupt elites.<\/span><\/p>\n

Grand Master Jay wants black people to secede from the US just as the Southern States seceded.\u00a0 As Abe Lincoln believed, Grand Master Jay believes that blacks and whites can\u2019t live together.<\/span><\/p>\n

If the NFAC cannot get a piece of the US set aside for blacks as a black country, Grand Master Jay\u2019s \u201cother aim is for an exodus to Africa, to establish our destiny and build our own nation,\u201d another of Abe Lincoln\u2019s intents for black Americans.<\/span><\/p>\n

Grand Master Jay echoes many prescient observers, such as George Orwell, when he says: \u201cWhen a people are denied knowledge of their culture and history of self, they have nothing to be proud of.\u201d https:\/\/www.rt.com\/usa\/495109-nfac-black-militia-blm\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

His statement is one with which many white Americans would agree.\u00a0 Our history has been taken away from us by falsification by white liberals.\u00a0 The falsification of American history is institutionalized in the educational system and is ongoing as the New York Times\u2019 1619 Project.<\/span><\/p>\n

Falsification is especially the fact in the case of the so-called Civil War.\u00a0 The name itself is a falsification.\u00a0 A civil war is when two sides fight for control of the government.\u00a0 The southern states that seceded did not fight for control of the US government.\u00a0 They fought because they were invaded. The northern states fought to prevent secession.\u00a0 Nothing in historical documents is more clearly established.\u00a0 Yet the War of Northern Aggression is falsified as a war to free black slaves from southern racism, despite Abe Lincoln\u2019s many assurances to the contrary.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"That the War to Save the Union had nothing whatsoever to do with ending slavery is totally clear from everything Lincoln said prior to his presidency and during his presidency.\u00a0 The evidence is overwhelming.\u00a0 Consult the War Aims Resolution, Lincoln\u2019s letter to Horace Greeley, Lincoln\u2019s speedh in debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln\u2019s First Inaugural Address, the Corwin Amendment, the Emancipation Proclamation.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the US Constitution slavery was not a federal issue.\u00a0 It was a state issue until the 13th Amendment in 1865. The issue between the North and South was not slavery. On the surface the issue was the tariff.\u00a0 The deeper problem was that the North and South had different cultures.\u00a0 They were really different nations.\u00a0 The South was agricultural.\u00a0 The North was industrial.\u00a0 The South wanted free trade.\u00a0 The North wanted protection from British manufactures. Northern elites wanted the South to subsidize northern industry with higher prices.<\/span><\/p>\n

The northern elites also wanted empire.\u00a0 They did not want a second country competing for the lands west of the Mississippi River.\u00a0 The northern elites were determined that the South remain part of the United States.<\/span><\/p>\n

The issue between North and South was whether secession was constitutional\u2014a state\u2019s right or an act of treason or rebellion.\u00a0 The South took the Founding Father\u2019s position that the union was a voluntary act that could be repealed by a state.\u00a0 Lincoln took the position that the union was permanent and any attempt to leave the union was an act of rebellion that could be ended by military force.<\/span><\/p>\n

The legal\/constitutional argument was between the Jeffersonian South and the Hamiltonian Lincoln.\u00a0 The 10th Amendment gave states the right to secede.\u00a0 Lincoln countered with the argument that the union implied perpetuity unless destroyed by rebellion.\u00a0 This is why southerners were called \u201crebels.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The South wanted their secession to be constitutional in order to deprive the North of a pretext for invasion.\u00a0 This made it impossible for the Southern states to argue that they were seceding because of the tariff.\u00a0 The tariff was a federal issue.\u00a0 The Constitution gave the federal government the right to pass tariffs.\u00a0 So the real reason the South was leaving the union left the South with no constitutional argument.\u00a0 On the other hand, slavery was a state\u2019s right guaranteed by the Constitution.\u00a0 This caused the South to seize on the noncompliance of some northern states with the federal law requiring the return of run-away slaves and make a constitutional issue out of it. This argument then appeared in some of the secession documents of the southern states.\u00a0 See:\u00a0 https:\/\/www.paulcraigroberts.org\/2018\/11\/13\/a-civil-war-lesson-for-the-uneducated\/<\/a>\u00a0 and\u00a0 https:\/\/www.paulcraigroberts.org\/2017\/08\/23\/know-called-civil-war-not-slavery\/<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

It is clear enough that the Constitution was on the side of the South, but the northern elites valued the empire and centralized power more than they valued the Constitution and states\u2019 rights. In an attempt to weaken support in the North for war against southern secession, the South concocted an argument that the refusal of some northern states to return fugitive or run-away slaves, as required by Federal law and the US Constitution, meant that northern states had already violated the union and therefore the South\u2019s leaving was not the cause of the breakup of the union.\u00a0 This argument was strained, because Lincoln gave assurances that he intended to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law.<\/span><\/p>\n

The claim that the war was fought over slavery has no more basis than this concocted argument by southerners attempting to prevent Lincoln\u2019s invasion of the Confederacy.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"The honest, truthful, and accurate Lincoln scholar is Thomas J. DiLorenzo.\u00a0 He is a northerner from Pennsylvania who has the southern trait of despising liars.\u00a0 His just published book, The Problem with Lincoln<\/em> (Regnery, 2020) will walk you through Lincoln and his war in ten chapters totaling 161 pages and ten appendices totaling 56 pages.<\/span><\/p>\n

In order to prepare readers for a later review essay of DiLorenzo\u2019s book, below I quote from some of the official documents in the appendices.<\/span><\/p>\n

The War Aims Resolution passed the House on July 22, 1861 and the Senate on July 25, 1861. The two US Representatives and the three US Senators who voted against it were expelled from Congress.\u00a0 The declaration of war against the Confederate States of America states: \u201cthis war is not waged upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpse of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, asked President Lincoln what the purpose of the ongoing war was. On August 22, 1862 Lincoln answered:\u00a0 \u201cMy paramount object in this struggle is<\/em> to save the union and is not<\/em> either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any<\/em> slave 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.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

By January 1, 1863, General Robert E. Lee had delivered defeat after defeat to a succession of Union generals leading far larger armies than the South could muster. With the North tiring of war and discouraged by defeats, Lincoln tried to foment a slave rebellion within the Confederacy that would compel Confederate soldiers to leave the army and return to protect their women, children, and homes.\u00a0 The Emancipation Proclamation (January 1, 1863) failed to foment a slave uprising. The proclamation states that it is an act believed to be warranted by \u201cmilitary necessity\u201d and \u201cas a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing\u201d the southern rebellion. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in territories controlled by the Confederacy and, therefore, was meaningless.\u00a0 No slaves were freed in terrorties controlled by the Union. Lincoln\u2019s own Secretary of State ridiculed the proclamation for freeing slaves in territories we do not control and leaving them in slavery in territories we do control.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the time between his election and his inaugeration, Lincoln got a constitutional amendment\u2014the Corwin Amendment\u2014passed by the House and Senate and its ratification by states underway. The amendment reads: \u201cNo amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said state.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

The Corwin Amendment was a bribe to the South to stay in the union. It passed the same day that the tariff that drove the southern states out of the union passed.\u00a0 Lincoln\u2019s message to the South was clear: stay in the union, pay the tariff, and slavery is forever protected from federal intervention. The South left the union because the South was more concerned with the tariff than with slavery.<\/span><\/p>\n

In his Inaugural Address (1861) Lincoln states: \u201cI 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.\u201d Lincoln goes on to say that this has forever been his position as many of his similar and never recanted declarations make clear. Moreover, he adds, those who nominated and elected him see it the same way and placed the sanctity of states\u2019 rights in the Republican platform.<\/span><\/p>\n

In debate with Stephen Douglas (September 18, 1858), Lincoln stated: \u201cI am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way 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 in as much 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.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

[Black Lives Matter Aligns With Lincoln and White Supremacy Against Miscegeny \u2014 https:\/\/www.paulcraigroberts.org\/2020\/07\/20\/black-lives-matter-aligns-with-white-supremacy-against-miscegeny\/<\/a> ]<\/span><\/p>\n

Lincoln\u2019s policy was to expel blacks to Africa or to a South American country. DiLorenzo cites Phillip Magness\u2019 \u201cLincoln and Colonization:\u201d \u00a0\u201cUlysses S. Grant made a serious push to annex the Dominican Republic, intending in part to create a refuge location for freed slaves.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

If you consider the hard facts of Lincoln\u2019s own words over the years, you can see how totally corrupt are so-called \u201cLincoln scholars.\u201d\u00a0 These frauds have invented a false history whose purpose is to serve the ego and moral self-righteousness of white liberals, almost all of whom are Democrats but who worship a Republican president that they concocted.\u00a0 No such Lincoln exists as the one fabricated by \u201cLincoln scholars.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Consider also that if something as transparent as the so-called \u201cCivil War\u201d can be misrepresented in US education for decades, what cannot be misrepresented by the elites who rule us by controlling the explanations?<\/span><\/p>\n

After reviewing DiLorenzo\u2019s new book, we will have a look at a newly published monograph by John Remington Graham that presents us with the thesis that the War of Northern Aggression was instigated by powerful banking interests for the purpose of creating a large national debt that would enable bankers to rule by controlling the flow of money and credit. The bankers understood that war required the fomenting of hatred, and they underwrote the fomenting of hatred of the South by the North.\u00a0 Graham provides strong circumstantial evidence, and it is a thesis that warrants research.<\/span><\/p>\n

Source<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Paul Craig Roberts argues that the popular image of Abraham Lincoln is a myth, perpetuated by Hollywood, lazy historians and powerful banking interests<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":131,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[61,15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-210679","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-Commentary","category-Hidden_and_Revisionist_History"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210679","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/131"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=210679"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210679\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":210682,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210679\/revisions\/210682"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=210679"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=210679"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=210679"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}