Do you know what the Smith-Mundt Act was? It was a 1946 anti-propaganda law enacted to restrain the state and network media from spreading indoctrination, lies, fear programs, false information to the public. After WWII everyone recalled how the Nazis started out with their silver tongues of socialism. The Smith-Mundt kind of held the worst propaganda in check. From 1946 till 2013. In 2013, hot off his re-election, Obama and the corrupt Uni-Party Congress repealed the Smith-Mundt Act. That removed all our citizen protections. It is literally legal for the state and media to deceive us now.

It's worse than that. They are actively part of the coup and the steal. They know the truth but are tasked with mind wiping and controlling the masses, which they do.

Amen! This is why I have no love lost for Lincoln.- He set up the system of censorship of ideas by denying freedom of the press.

We want them in prison for patently false statements, accusations, and stories.

For corruption, conspiracy, fraud, and taking bribes.

For treason, conspiracy to commit treason, and for election interference. Many of these crimes carry the equivalence of life sentences, or the death penalty.

Therefore, when they are convicted, hang em or shoot em.

Well, I wish he would have followed through with sending all the freed slaves back to Africa, not just some. He did fall short on that.

No other nation had to fight a civil war to end slavery. The slave owners were simply compensated for their losses. Lincoln seemed to have wanted war to beat down the south.

“If it be not in slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? In the original constitution of the Union it was provided that "all duties imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" also that "no tax or duty shall be laid upon articles exported any state. No preference shall be given any regulation of commerce or revenue to ports of one state over those of another." A general export duty upon rice would have levied substantially on South Carolina. If duty had been levied on tobacco, Virginia would have had to pay it. Where the climate varied so much and the whole Union was, as it then was agricultural, no export duty have been borne evenly by all. But as were then no manufactures, duties on imports affected all alike. These were then small, varying only from five to about seven and a half cent. The war with this country in eighteen thirteen prevented the import of manufactures. An extension of manufacturing enterprise within the states themselves was the result, and in the North not only took the lead by virtue its climate, coal, free labour, water power, and above all, its energetic and laborious spirit enterprise, but its lead was so complete as to virtually a monopoly. Thus to the other of contrast between North and South it added that one became manufacturing, the other remained agricultural. After the war manufactures were poured in from abroad, the young home trade suffered, protection was then an undetected fallacy, the very prosperity of English trade was commonly ascribed to it.

The United States, with the full assent and aid of those of the South, therefore set up a moderate protective tariff. Usual results followed. The protected interests clamoured for more and more assurance of the comfort of monopoly; and as political morality also declined, the moderate protective system decayed into corrupt political bargains between special interests, to impose for their own profit heavy taxes upon other interests. In the year twenty three a large increase to many existing duties was proposed for the benefit of the manufacturers. The South felt then that it was called on to pay tribute for the benefit of the North and resisted the proposal. It was carried against them by a peculiar sort of political jobbery that secured a majority of five in the House of Representatives and four in the Senate. In twenty eight there was another struggle of the same sort in which the State of Pennsylvania took the lead, and on behalf chiefly of the textile fabrics of the North, a general bounty was, in fact to be paid by the agricultural interest. In the debate in the House of Representatives one of the chief speakers even then said, "If the union of these states shall ever be severed, and their liberty subverted, the historian who records those disasters will have to ascribe to measures of this description. I do believe that neither this government nor free government can exist for a quarter of century under such a system of legislation." For a quarter of a century the system was persisted in; then shortly came the end that is before our eyes.

In thirty two the tariff came again under revision. Excessive duties had produced surplus of income; reductions were, therefore, to be made, and the manufacturing interest strove that there should be no reduction of the bounties upon manufactures. The agriculturists fought then for a fair share of the relief to be accorded, but without success. In vain had Mr Hayes of South Carolina exclaimed in debate, "Remove, I earnestly beseech you, from among us this never failing source of contention. Dry up at its course this fountain of the waters of bitterness. It is in your power to do it this day by doing equal justice to all. And be assured that he to whom the country shall be indebted for this blessing will be considered as the second founder of the republic."

The injustice of the North caused the assemblage of a Convention, called by the people of South Carolina, which proceeded to declare the tariff null and void on the ground that "Congress had exceeded its just powers under the constitution, which confers on it no authority to afford such protection, and had violated the true meaning and intent of the constitution, which provides for equality in imposing the burdens of taxation upon the several States." Jackson, a Southerner, himself opposed to the tariff, was then President. While he strongly condemned the revolt of South Carolina he introduced a bill to remove the grievance. This lay dormant in the house till news arrived that South Carolina, ready to secede, was arming a militia and preparing for extremities. Then Mr Clay, interposed as a mediator, and a measure of his, satisfactory to South Carolina, which provided for a large but gradual reduction of the duties upon manufactures- a reduction spread over ten years- was pushed through the house with unprecedented rapidity, by an evasion of the rules. At the end of the ten years, government expenses had so largely increased that the settlement was repudiated, and from that day to this, protection has enriched Northern manufacturers at the expense of the Southern agriculturists. Disguised often under the name of revenue, all American tariffs since the year sixteen have been protective, and the immenso excess of this protection has been in favour the manufacturing interest of the North. It is true that here and there a Southern interest has taken advantage on its own behalf of a system that it was found impossible to overthrow. The duty on sugar, for example, has been higher than it would have been but for consideration of the interests of Louisiana. But the profit of a few districts bears little or no relation to the loss of the whole South by a system that compelled it to pay a heavy fine into the pockets of the Northern manufacturers as the price of its equal participation in the privileges of the constitution. The price is heavier than that. While the cost is raised of what it buys, the value of what it sells is lowered, because the American tariff is a check on the convenient, and to each side profitable, way of payment, by exchange of commodities. The South was sending to this countrv alone agricultural produce to the value of thirty millions a year, and its whole trade was fettered for the benefit other interests within the Union that it has cast off as a hopeless clog upon its progress.

The last grievance of the South was the Morrill tariff, passed as an election bribe to State of Pennsylvania, imposing among things, a duty of no less than fifty per cent. the importation of pig iron, in which that state is especially interested. As the freight of Glasgow iron to New York itself adds fifty per cent. to its price in America, the protection is no less than a hundred per cent. in favour of the Pennsylvanians. Protection in its most extravagant form is the characteristic this tariff. On the same article there will be both a specific and an ad valorem duty. We will illustrate by a few sentences from Mr Spence's account of the Morrill tariff the ridiculous complexity arising from the selfishness of this impediment to trade:

"As the Morrill tariff illustrates in a manner many of the views expressed and has hardly been analysed as its merits deserve, it may he well to look a little closely into this latest specimen of American legislation. The effect of doing so will be astonishment that such a law could be passed at the present day. The outrageous amount of the duties imposed on articles of prime importance at a time when all other civilised countries are reducing duties, and removing impediments to trade, will not excite more surprise than the blunders, the petty favouritism, the absence of all rule or system, the want of all legislative capacity which it displays. It would be difficult to contrive more ingenious machinery for dealing injustice, restricting commerce, perplexing merchants, creating disputes, inviting chicanery, or driving officers of the customs to despair.

A specific duty has the advantage of being definite simple and free from risk of fraud, but as prices fluctuate, it may become much more light or onerous in relation to the cost of the article than it was designed to be. An ad valorem duty escapes this evil, but is without those advantages. To attach to one article two duties, one on the specific, and the other on the ad valorem principle, is a contrivance by which to obtain the evils of both with the advantages of neither. It is incredible that any one reflecting on the subject could fail to see the impolicy of imposing the two on the same article, yet the Morrill tariff does this not in a few instances, but generally throughout the range of manufactured goods. "

...If a measure like this were passed by collusion of interests- which the American legislator familiarly recognizes as” log rolling”- “You help to roll my log, and I’ll help to roll yours”- if it were so passed and its doubtful fate by delay, lobbying, and a final rush, so much the more was it disgraceful to the Union, much the more might it disgust those to whom it was the crowning injury in a course of injurious legislation. Congress has met again and added to the measure, making it more, not less, protective and restrictive. That it disgusts the best half of the North heartily hope; we see also that it has the last threads which bound the North and South together. The severance, already far advanced, needed but one little stroke along the whole line of division. In each year since 1837, the North has taken at least eight million of pounds, for the avowed purpose of protecting its own manufacturers and shipping. Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state has declared that would submit to this extortion only while it had not strength for resistance. When the day resistance came, the dishonest compromise attributed to Mr Seward is a suggestion to the Southerners of Mexico and Cuba for themselves, and Canada for the North. The secession, six months after it was complete was unresisted by the North, and the departure South Carolina from the compact was not as departure of an English county from its loyalty, but of a sovereign state with its own legislature laws and law courts, its own civil and military organizations. Whether secession be a constitutional right it is not worth while discuss by refinements of interpretation. The whole argument turns on a nice distinction between fact and law. What question is this where every feeling and interest of one side calls for political partition, and every pocket interest calls on the other side for union, with violence enough to breed a civil war, horrible almost beyond precedent. The conflict is between semi independent communities, differing in many cases as widely as possible in manners, laws, and interests, and all jealous of their freedom.

Each state has been the country of its citizens, a country not seldom larger in itself than France or Germany. Of all these countries, over a vast region the people declare the Union is no longer advantageous to them. And all this, as the Oxford professor of international law has well observed, “ in a country which has treasured the right of revolt as the charter of its own freedom, and regarded the exercise of it as restrained only by motives of prudence, and needing no public justification except out of ‘a decent respect for the opinions of mankind;’ a country- the only one in the world which has made the theory of a social compact the basis of its institutions; which was the first to promulgate formally the doctrine that ‘all just governments derive their power from the consent of the governed,’ and has never ceased to applaud every application of that doctrine”