Hudson's river derives its name from Henry Hudson, an Englishman by birth, but, who, at the time of this discovery, was in the service of the Dutch East India Company. Hudson left the Texel on the '20th of March, 1609, with the design of penetrating to the East Indies, by sailing a north-westward course. Failing in this, he proceeded along the shores of Newfoundland, and thence southward as far as Chesapeake and Delaware bays. Thence returning north-ward, he discovered and sailed up the river, which now bears his name. [pg 72/600]
From Bladensburg, Gen. Ross urged his march to Washington, where he arrived at about 8 o'clock in the evening. Having stationed his main body at the distance of a mile and a half from the capitol, he entered the city, at the head of about seven hundred men, soon after which, he issued his orders for the conflagration of the public buildings. With the capitol were consumed its valuable libraries, and all the furniture, and articles of taste and value, in that and in the other buildings. The great bridge across the Poto-mack was burnt, together with an elegant hotel, and other private buildings. [1814 burning of DC, around Aug 23rd]
The population of the United States, according to the census of 1830, was twelve millions eight hundred and fifty-six thousand one hundred and sixty-five. Of this number, two millions ten thousand four hundred and thirty six were slaves. [pg 584/600]
12,856,165 total population
2,010,436 were slaves (15.6%)
Here's how to look at it a little more correctly. Maybe only 1% or less of the U.S. population owned slaves. And this was confined to the wealthy landowners primarily in the South. The term 'slave' may include those who worked as domestics, drivers, cooks, farm workers, mechanics, blacksmiths, ditch diggers and plantation workers.
"By 1830 slavery was primarily located in the South... Fully 3/4 of Southern whites DID NOT own slaves. Of those who did, 88% owned 20 or less."
"In the lower South the majority of slaves lived and worked on cotton plantations. Most of these plantations had fifty or fewer slaves, although the largest plantations had several hundred."
Thanks for posting this. The winners get to write the history and the CW was not fought over slavery until Lincoln realized it would help his war against the civilians who were allowing Lee's starving, barefoot army to keep fighting. The figures for some states in the south were far lower. I've read that only 11% in Virginia owned slaves and most of those were wealthy owners of large plantations. The 89% who didn't weren't fighting so the rich guy down the road could keep his slaves. The fact that the industrial north was waging an economic war against the agrarian south was a more likely reason.
Fact 2) Much of the south made it very clear in their declarations of secession why they left. Slavery. Spelled out very clearly and directly. Others gave very little reason at all, except maybe "states rights". But given the context of the above, and speeches made by their governors before seceding, I think the reason is less allusive than we sometimes pretend. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
Were there other reasons? Sure. But to say "it was not about slavery" is really just repeating the fake narrative of the left that tries to hide from their past.
Just because people say things doesn't mean they are telling the truth. This is especially true for politicians.
All wars are propaganda wars. Most people in the south didn't own slaves. They were motivated to go to war for two different reasons (that I have found):
to fight against a tyrannical government that was infringing on states rights and subverting the Constitution (a Treaty between Sovereign states). This was a true motivation. That was exactly what the civil war was.
to protect the economic viability of the states. People were told that if the states lost their slaves, everyone's life would collapse. This was probably less true, but it was plausible, and thus motivational to some. It also made great headlines that "official history" can selectively pull from.
So while yes, there were statements of slavery being essential for the economy, and while yes, that was a motive, it wasn't the only one, and was a use of propaganda to convince people to kill each other, "to protect their way of life."
Many of the People didn't buy it for a second. They recognized it as propaganda and felt that they would work out their economy just fine. However, they still fought over the first, because it was a tyrannical government under Lincoln, and it was a violation of the Treaty (Constitution).
Once you get past all the bullshit and propaganda from the press and the politicians, you see that the Civil War was really fought for two reasons:
One was to subjugate Sovereign States, destroying the concept of individual freedom. This was a move towards a one world government, just like the creation of the European Union, run, funded, and managed by the same people in both cases.
The other was to indebt the United States to the Banks who funded both sides. This led directly to the Gilded Age, where the entirety of government was compromised (instead of just most of it), and eventually to the complete takeover of the government by the Banks (Federal Reserve).
This is where we are today. The Civil War was how we got here.
Just because people say things doesn't mean they are telling the truth. This is especially true for politicians.
In this case, both sides seem to agree on the motives. In addition, these people are long gone. We only have their own words left to judge them by. So you cannot ignore what both sides said to be true, call it propaganda, and then declare your own truth. Based on what that is more credible than original source material?
Most people in the south didn't own slaves.
This sounds like the same logic some democrats use when trying to explain how they are personally against abortion, but vote for politicians who support it because reasons. You are either truly against it or your are not.
So while yes, there were statements of slavery being essential for the economy, and while yes, that was a motive, it wasn't the only one...
Which I already acknowledged.
One was to subjugate Sovereign States, destroying the concept of individual freedom.
On the flip side, you have states that wanted to change the definition of what a human was so they could selectively apply the constitution. While I err on the side of states rights myself, there is a point that is too far and there really is no union any longer. Defining who gets to be human and have the rights of the constitution apply to them is definitely far on the other side of that line.
The founding ideals of the USA could not in any way survive along side slavery. At some point there HAD to be a reckoning.
Based on what that is more credible than original source material?
Based on other source material. A TON of other source material. I gave you my assessment of having done an investigation into the matter. The source material that gave me my impression is extensive. Making a full case with all of the evidence is a book length work. Consider my statements the "abstract." Some of that evidence will be in later parts of my report.
You are either truly against it or your are not.
This is the Prison of Two Ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are forced into one side or the other. The whole "left-right" thing was created by the Cabal to control everyone. Real decisions by the individual are made based on a complicated decision making process. This decision making process is guided by propaganda and "laws" (again, all created by the Cabal). The propaganda and laws provide out's for cognitive dissonance (ignore or justify certain pieces of evidence) to guide decisions down one of the two provided paths.
This is how division is created, and how society is propelled forward down the path the Cabal intend. Mostly, society isn't guided by the differences in policy, but by where they agree; the things that the "two sides" don't argue about at all. (See the Aldritch plan (right) v. the Federal Reserve Act (left) e.g.)
you have states that wanted to change the definition of what a human was so they could selectively apply the constitution.
The Constitution is not what you think it was. It is a common error to conflate the DoI, which made flowery statements and the Constitution, which was a signed Treaty. The Constitution made perfectly clear that not all people were created equally. It is rife with such statements, made into law. The states didn't "want to change the definition of what a human was," they just didn't want to be subject to a Treaty violation. If I can find the link to the piece of (period) evidence that explains this clearly I will post it. I was looking, but I can't find it. I know I have it in my work somewhere.
The founding ideals of the USA could not in any way survive along side slavery.
The "founding ideals" and the "founding" are fundamentally at odds. The "ideals" were the packaging. The packaging lied about what was inside. It was flawed from the very beginning, intentionally, to lead us to today. We don't realize this because the ideals are shoved at us constantly. We don't look at what's really in the laws themselves. When we do, and we see things that don't look right, we justify it with "that was just a product of the time," or "things have changed," etc., exactly as cognitive dissonance demands. But when you look at the actual "changes," you find even worse fuckery. For example, the 14th amendment ensured that the "3/5ths compromise" that was built into the constitution couldn't happen again, but it subsequently made everyone a slave to the all powerful government.
Agree. The democrats of the south were very adamant about keeping slaves, and this shouldn't be forgotten. It's written in almost every document that details their secession from the US
Try reading a little history not aimed at brainwashing you. I suggest Paige Smith. Frankly, my state's legislature voted for secession with many legislators crying over the loss of the republic. And they considered the invasion of their state a major factor. And finally, read again what I wrote. I said slavery wasn't the issue UNTIL Lincoln saw a use for it.
The statistical amount of slaveowners among the southern population is not the point. The larger geopolitcal context gets ignored in these debates about whether there was just cause of the South.
The Southern economic core, centered mainly in the cotton planting oligarchs loyal to profit, was in an economic alliance with the British Empire via Free Trade and cheap labor. It was coordinated among a City of London-Wall Street-New Orleans nexus, with NOLA representing like 12% of all U.S. banking capital.
The southern slave states grew to represent the world’s fourth biggest economy through the support of the British Empire both financially and also in the logistical support needed to import mass slavery into the Americas.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was to ensure the spread of slavery west of Mississippi.
This was all another example of post-Revolutionary War strategies by the British Empire encouraging financing and supporting any means to undermine the Republic. In that mid 19th century era their specific target became the Union Nationalists including the new Republicans, still maligned today as tyrannical federalists.
So it should be a shocker to absolutely no one who looks into these things that during the entirety of the Civil War the British Empire cheerfully supplied the South with battle ships, weapons and finances to providing logistic and diplomatic support internationally. British Canada housed the Confederacy’s intelligence headquarters which deployed spying, money laundering, and terrorist operations against the Union during the entire war.
In my mother's generation, born in 1934, it was common to have servants, even for the middle class. Growing up my mom's family had a cook and a man who acted as butler, took care of the horses, drove the kids to school, etc. and a housekeeper as well. My cousins had a woman who was a nanny and housekeeper all through their growing up years. She was dear to them. My Aunt was a full time mom. (And lovely in every way. Mrs. Beaver in real life!) These weren't wealthy people in a big fancy house.
Yes. This is why I get irritated whenever I hear the term middle class. It's double speak. When politicians talk about cutting taxes for the middle class, they mean the kind of people who could have afforded slaves, or, later on, the kind of people who had butlers and nannies, but not a full staff. (IE Mr Scheffield from the Nanny).
Fairly certain that it's doable to get 26 other states to ratify this amendment. If we're only going by states with Republican-majority legislatures that have yet to cast a vote, it's 23. Convince Virginia to change their vote, and it's 24. That would leave only two left, and with the states remaining having Democrat-led legislatures, it means those two states would most likely have to flip (the easiest of those I think are Michigan and Minnesota barring any election fuckery to happen next cycle).
Of course, that's all dependent if these state legislators aren't led by a bunch of cowards.
Please donate a copy to Project Gutenberg (gutenberg.org); they have only one book by this author currently, "Great Events in the History of North and South America."
PG provides copies of ebooks made from out-of-copyright books free to everyone, all volunteers and donations. (I've done editing work for them on occasion, it's time-consuming) We all need to work together to preserve texts like this!
Page 367: an interesting take on Washington 's victory :
Under Washington, as our leader, we won our independ- ence ; formed our constitution : established our government. And what reward does he ask for services like these? Does he ask a diadem ? Does he lay his hand upon our national treasury ? Does he claim to be emperor of the nation that
had risen up under his auspices ? No—although " first ia
war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen,"
—
he sublimely retires to the peaceful occupations of rural life, content with the honor of having been instrumental in
achieving the independence, and securing the happiness of
his covmtry.
There is no parallel in history to this ! By the side of
Washington, Alexander is degraded to a selfish destroyer
of his race ; Cesar becomes the dazzled votary of power ; and Bonaparte, a bafiied aspirant to universal dominion.
A lot has changed since 1833. For instance, it is John Cabot who is credited with the discovery of North America when he reached eastern Canada in 1497.
Her: he's probably talking to other girls
Him: I'm just downloading Abraham Lincoln's personal history book.
You have my meme heart bro! ❤️
Please archive offline. I have not read the whole thing, but some very interesting stuff in here.
600 pages, published in 1833. Lincoln appears to have written his name and 1862 Springfield on page 3.
https://ia600902.us.archive.org/34/items/historyofunitedst00agood/historyofunitedst00agood.pdf
12,856,165 total population 2,010,436 were slaves (15.6%)
Thanks for this Pede
Yes, the PDF for download makes for great reading when away from WIFI.
15.6% of the population. That's a LOT more than I ever thought we had.
It reminds me of how I read that if a family had two or fewer servants in 1900, it was classified as "lower-middle class."
For having two, one, or zero servants.
Here's how to look at it a little more correctly. Maybe only 1% or less of the U.S. population owned slaves. And this was confined to the wealthy landowners primarily in the South. The term 'slave' may include those who worked as domestics, drivers, cooks, farm workers, mechanics, blacksmiths, ditch diggers and plantation workers.
"By 1830 slavery was primarily located in the South... Fully 3/4 of Southern whites DID NOT own slaves. Of those who did, 88% owned 20 or less."
"In the lower South the majority of slaves lived and worked on cotton plantations. Most of these plantations had fifty or fewer slaves, although the largest plantations had several hundred."
Source: PBS.org - Antebellum slavery 1830-1860
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2956.html#:~:text=In%20the%20lower%20South%20the,largest%20plantations%20have%20several%20hundred.
Thanks for posting this. The winners get to write the history and the CW was not fought over slavery until Lincoln realized it would help his war against the civilians who were allowing Lee's starving, barefoot army to keep fighting. The figures for some states in the south were far lower. I've read that only 11% in Virginia owned slaves and most of those were wealthy owners of large plantations. The 89% who didn't weren't fighting so the rich guy down the road could keep his slaves. The fact that the industrial north was waging an economic war against the agrarian south was a more likely reason.
Fact 1) The Republican Party was founded, and detailed in many publications as well as its founding platform, to end slavery and polygomy. https://www.ushistory.org/gop/convention_1856republicanplatform.htm
Fact 2) Much of the south made it very clear in their declarations of secession why they left. Slavery. Spelled out very clearly and directly. Others gave very little reason at all, except maybe "states rights". But given the context of the above, and speeches made by their governors before seceding, I think the reason is less allusive than we sometimes pretend. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
Were there other reasons? Sure. But to say "it was not about slavery" is really just repeating the fake narrative of the left that tries to hide from their past.
Just because people say things doesn't mean they are telling the truth. This is especially true for politicians.
All wars are propaganda wars. Most people in the south didn't own slaves. They were motivated to go to war for two different reasons (that I have found):
So while yes, there were statements of slavery being essential for the economy, and while yes, that was a motive, it wasn't the only one, and was a use of propaganda to convince people to kill each other, "to protect their way of life."
Many of the People didn't buy it for a second. They recognized it as propaganda and felt that they would work out their economy just fine. However, they still fought over the first, because it was a tyrannical government under Lincoln, and it was a violation of the Treaty (Constitution).
Once you get past all the bullshit and propaganda from the press and the politicians, you see that the Civil War was really fought for two reasons:
One was to subjugate Sovereign States, destroying the concept of individual freedom. This was a move towards a one world government, just like the creation of the European Union, run, funded, and managed by the same people in both cases.
The other was to indebt the United States to the Banks who funded both sides. This led directly to the Gilded Age, where the entirety of government was compromised (instead of just most of it), and eventually to the complete takeover of the government by the Banks (Federal Reserve).
This is where we are today. The Civil War was how we got here.
THAT was why the Civil War was fought.
In this case, both sides seem to agree on the motives. In addition, these people are long gone. We only have their own words left to judge them by. So you cannot ignore what both sides said to be true, call it propaganda, and then declare your own truth. Based on what that is more credible than original source material?
This sounds like the same logic some democrats use when trying to explain how they are personally against abortion, but vote for politicians who support it because reasons. You are either truly against it or your are not.
Which I already acknowledged.
On the flip side, you have states that wanted to change the definition of what a human was so they could selectively apply the constitution. While I err on the side of states rights myself, there is a point that is too far and there really is no union any longer. Defining who gets to be human and have the rights of the constitution apply to them is definitely far on the other side of that line.
The founding ideals of the USA could not in any way survive along side slavery. At some point there HAD to be a reckoning.
"THAT was why the Civil War was fought."
Based on other source material. A TON of other source material. I gave you my assessment of having done an investigation into the matter. The source material that gave me my impression is extensive. Making a full case with all of the evidence is a book length work. Consider my statements the "abstract." Some of that evidence will be in later parts of my report.
This is the Prison of Two Ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are forced into one side or the other. The whole "left-right" thing was created by the Cabal to control everyone. Real decisions by the individual are made based on a complicated decision making process. This decision making process is guided by propaganda and "laws" (again, all created by the Cabal). The propaganda and laws provide out's for cognitive dissonance (ignore or justify certain pieces of evidence) to guide decisions down one of the two provided paths.
This is how division is created, and how society is propelled forward down the path the Cabal intend. Mostly, society isn't guided by the differences in policy, but by where they agree; the things that the "two sides" don't argue about at all. (See the Aldritch plan (right) v. the Federal Reserve Act (left) e.g.)
The Constitution is not what you think it was. It is a common error to conflate the DoI, which made flowery statements and the Constitution, which was a signed Treaty. The Constitution made perfectly clear that not all people were created equally. It is rife with such statements, made into law. The states didn't "want to change the definition of what a human was," they just didn't want to be subject to a Treaty violation. If I can find the link to the piece of (period) evidence that explains this clearly I will post it. I was looking, but I can't find it. I know I have it in my work somewhere.
The "founding ideals" and the "founding" are fundamentally at odds. The "ideals" were the packaging. The packaging lied about what was inside. It was flawed from the very beginning, intentionally, to lead us to today. We don't realize this because the ideals are shoved at us constantly. We don't look at what's really in the laws themselves. When we do, and we see things that don't look right, we justify it with "that was just a product of the time," or "things have changed," etc., exactly as cognitive dissonance demands. But when you look at the actual "changes," you find even worse fuckery. For example, the 14th amendment ensured that the "3/5ths compromise" that was built into the constitution couldn't happen again, but it subsequently made everyone a slave to the all powerful government.
Agree. The democrats of the south were very adamant about keeping slaves, and this shouldn't be forgotten. It's written in almost every document that details their secession from the US
Try reading a little history not aimed at brainwashing you. I suggest Paige Smith. Frankly, my state's legislature voted for secession with many legislators crying over the loss of the republic. And they considered the invasion of their state a major factor. And finally, read again what I wrote. I said slavery wasn't the issue UNTIL Lincoln saw a use for it.
There's the little thing about states rights also
The statistical amount of slaveowners among the southern population is not the point. The larger geopolitcal context gets ignored in these debates about whether there was just cause of the South.
The Southern economic core, centered mainly in the cotton planting oligarchs loyal to profit, was in an economic alliance with the British Empire via Free Trade and cheap labor. It was coordinated among a City of London-Wall Street-New Orleans nexus, with NOLA representing like 12% of all U.S. banking capital.
The southern slave states grew to represent the world’s fourth biggest economy through the support of the British Empire both financially and also in the logistical support needed to import mass slavery into the Americas.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 was to ensure the spread of slavery west of Mississippi.
This was all another example of post-Revolutionary War strategies by the British Empire encouraging financing and supporting any means to undermine the Republic. In that mid 19th century era their specific target became the Union Nationalists including the new Republicans, still maligned today as tyrannical federalists.
So it should be a shocker to absolutely no one who looks into these things that during the entirety of the Civil War the British Empire cheerfully supplied the South with battle ships, weapons and finances to providing logistic and diplomatic support internationally. British Canada housed the Confederacy’s intelligence headquarters which deployed spying, money laundering, and terrorist operations against the Union during the entire war.
In my mother's generation, born in 1934, it was common to have servants, even for the middle class. Growing up my mom's family had a cook and a man who acted as butler, took care of the horses, drove the kids to school, etc. and a housekeeper as well. My cousins had a woman who was a nanny and housekeeper all through their growing up years. She was dear to them. My Aunt was a full time mom. (And lovely in every way. Mrs. Beaver in real life!) These weren't wealthy people in a big fancy house.
People who are really working class have been told they are middle class.
"That's a LOT more than I ever thought we had."
"We?"
We=Americans
Don't be That Guy.
Yes. This is why I get irritated whenever I hear the term middle class. It's double speak. When politicians talk about cutting taxes for the middle class, they mean the kind of people who could have afforded slaves, or, later on, the kind of people who had butlers and nannies, but not a full staff. (IE Mr Scheffield from the Nanny).
Bonus Stuff:
1842 (Fifth Edition) of 'The True Republican' (Lincoln's copy with his signature); This document shows TONA Amendment XIII on page 279/456: https://archive.org/details/truerepublicanco00infren/page/278/mode/2up
A 13th amendment before the Civil War?
Someone's got some explaining to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titles_of_Nobility_Amendment
I see.
Fairly certain that it's doable to get 26 other states to ratify this amendment. If we're only going by states with Republican-majority legislatures that have yet to cast a vote, it's 23. Convince Virginia to change their vote, and it's 24. That would leave only two left, and with the states remaining having Democrat-led legislatures, it means those two states would most likely have to flip (the easiest of those I think are Michigan and Minnesota barring any election fuckery to happen next cycle).
Of course, that's all dependent if these state legislators aren't led by a bunch of cowards.
Ah thank you! I found it!
Please donate a copy to Project Gutenberg (gutenberg.org); they have only one book by this author currently, "Great Events in the History of North and South America."
PG provides copies of ebooks made from out-of-copyright books free to everyone, all volunteers and donations. (I've done editing work for them on occasion, it's time-consuming) We all need to work together to preserve texts like this!
Can they grab copies off that link or you have to push it out to them?
IIRC you need to complete a form and then they enter it into a queue for someone to run OCR on it, if you cannot.
Page 367: an interesting take on Washington 's victory :
Under Washington, as our leader, we won our independ- ence ; formed our constitution : established our government. And what reward does he ask for services like these? Does he ask a diadem ? Does he lay his hand upon our national treasury ? Does he claim to be emperor of the nation that had risen up under his auspices ? No—although " first ia war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen," — he sublimely retires to the peaceful occupations of rural life, content with the honor of having been instrumental in achieving the independence, and securing the happiness of his covmtry. There is no parallel in history to this ! By the side of Washington, Alexander is degraded to a selfish destroyer of his race ; Cesar becomes the dazzled votary of power ; and Bonaparte, a bafiied aspirant to universal dominion.
Thank you
A lot has changed since 1833. For instance, it is John Cabot who is credited with the discovery of North America when he reached eastern Canada in 1497.
Yes. Interesting entry in this history about the Vikings discovering, but "abandoning claim".
This is awesome. I am going to download when I get home.
Did y'all ever hear Lincoln 's quote about Niagara falls?
...something about a race of ancient giants that inhabited these lands.
This in Incredible! I am downloading!!
Thanks for this, patriot!
WoW! Made many copies and sent to friends and family.
Wow.. What an awesome find! Thank you Meme! 👏
Thank you so much for this! I love these old historical documents.
…