Is This a Comms picture and story?? See link and comments below!
(media.greatawakening.win)
🤔💭 Theory 😲💡
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (59)
sorted by:
Hmmmmm this French connection has me thinking... soooo going to take a stab here.
I've always been convinced that presidential elections have been stolen since John Adams was swindled out of being reelected in 1800. He wrote that he had been "turned out by the Votes of S. Carolina, not fairly obtained." From my research South Carolina was expected to be close, but still a possible win for Adams/Pinckney due to Federalist support. They expected to at least pick up a few Electors as split votes were common back then. Lots of letters discussed SC's situation and how the Electors were chosen by the legislature. There were definitely some shenanigans in play. At first, it seemed that the majority of those elected to the SC legislature and the Electors would be favorable to Federalists. Then all of a sudden, the majority switched... Déjà vu?
Lots of interesting letters between Charles Pinckney, the cousin of Adam's running mate Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Democratic-Republican leaders/operatives like Madison and Monroe. Yes, there were lots of Pinckney's, even apparently confusing Adams while he was the minister to England. In short, Charles Pinckney was a shit to the highest degree. Dirty stuff happened in SC and GA, and it seems he was responsible. These two letters of his are quite incriminating.... https://founders.archives.gov/?q=%22general%20ticket%22&s=1111311111&sa=&r=5&sr= https://founders.archives.gov/?q=Correspondent%3A%22Pinckney%2C%20Charles%22%20Correspondent%3A%22Madison%2C%20James%22&s=1111311111&r=6
There's also a possibility that Adams had misremembered or misspoke and actually meant the discrepancies in Georgia. Again, Déjà vu? There was a lot of dirty business in the GA Yazoo scandal.
Interestingly, early on Adams was tipped off about scheming from certain Federalists, from his own party (sort of): The Truth is, Sir, that a cabal exists whose object is to have Mr Ellsworth elected President: Hamilton, Sedgwick, & Harper are at the Head of this intrigue, & Dayton, Wolcot, Pickering Hillhouse as others have embarked with great zeal in the project. And yet, once Hamilton & Co realized that Jefferson would be a worse result, Hamilton determined that "To support Adams & Pinckney, equally, is the only thing that can possibly save us from the fangs of Jefferson."
The key issue in the election of 1800 was the situation with England and France. Hamilton & Co wanted to go to war against France and support England. Jefferson & Co wanted to go to war against England and support France. Adams, in following Washington's lead and advice, wanted to preserve peace and avoid war with either. There was definitely motive to remove Adams, who was actually quite liked by the common people at the time, and even to an extent with Congress (which drafted and approved the Alien and Sedition Acts, Adams just signed them into law... hawks from both parties presumably wanted the president to use the laws more strongly to censor/punish those who opposed their war aims). The media campaign against Adams (and Jefferson to that matter) was arguably the worst in US history prior to the one against Trump.
The Electoral system should have prevented widespread fraud. Less votes to count. No secret ballot. Electors were held accountable to the local community they represented. The move towards increased democratization skirted the safeguards. If was already broken by the Jacksonian Era.
1860 election was clean, sort of. Lincoln won because the Democrats were divided on candidates. The only thing not clesn about 1860 election, was that 10 slave states refused to put Lincoln on the ballot... and he still won because of the new electoral dominance in free states due to natural population growth and immigration. States didn't "secede" but rather butthurt factions formed and engaged in insurrection and rebellion. Interesting connection back to 1800 and that shit Chatles Pinckney is the family connection to the Rhetts... those SC fireeaters of Beaufort County were the main puppet masters who conspired to start the rebellion in 1860 (they tried earlier during the nullification crisis, but failed to gain enough support)
Well, that Presidential election was "mostly" clean, or rather, the actual winner, won. I've not really looked into the Congressional elections or state level elections but I'd lean on the side of shadiness occurring in them. Spielberg's "Lincoln" fictionalizes an alleged disputed election in PA (can't find documentation to verify the details, either way it's a great movie scene).
Most of the so-called "secession votes" weren't even done by the state legislatures let alone the people of the state. I think TN was a rare exception. Granted, how reliable are those turnout numbers? Say you're a Unionist in TN... just think how much intimidation occurred to get you to stay home or vote for ̶s̶e̶c̶e̶s̶s̶i̶o̶n̶ rebellion (no imagine if you're a free black, or a slave... not like they got much say in the matter!). And none of it really matters much, because an illegitimate vote is nonetheless, illegitimate. The US Constitution outlines the process for legal secession within the United States. Loyal Virginians followed that process to cut ties with rebellious Virginians, thus creating the state of West Virginia. Majorities don't make right, rather as Lincoln so correctly put it "right makes might." The reason why there's no "secession" mechanism in the Constitution for an entire state to "leave" the Union, is because that was never envisioned to be a possibility. The states entered into a compact, yes, but that was to form a perpetual Union. Calhoun's theory of unilateral withdrawal was ahistorical. Webster, Fremont, Lincoln and plenty others destroyed it in debate. The rebels simply had no Constitutional justification. They simply made it up. They didn't like that they were losing the game, complained that the rules weren't being followed (even though they were, and ironically it was the slaver rebels actually committing crimes), and when they couldn't get an umpire in that would cheat for them, they threw a tantrum and tried to quit the game. They could have made a general natural rights argument a la Declaration of Independence, but they didn't. Keep in mind that the DOI acknowledges said natural right justification to sever political ties, BUT the Founders (specifically Adams and Wilson) made stronger political claims e.g. that it was Parliament and eventually the King who violated English Law and granted the Americans independence by treating them as a foreign power, thus abdicating their authority in the Colonies.