Tuesday With Mike | Mike Defends Abraham Lincoln

➡ The speaker is hosting a show with Mike, where they discuss differing views on historical events. Despite feeling unwell, the speaker is eager to hear Mike’s perspective, particularly on the topic of the U.S. Civil War. They discuss the role of slavery, the influence of powerful groups, and the importance of looking at original source history to understand the truth. The speaker emphasizes the complexity of history and the need for an open mind.
➡ The author discusses the common misconceptions about the American Civil War, particularly the belief that the secession was due to Lincoln’s tyranny and not slavery. He argues that the secession movement started long before Lincoln’s presidency and was driven by the issue of slavery, not tyranny. The author also points out that the Southern states clearly stated in their declarations of secession that they were seceding because of the issue of slavery. He concludes by saying that the belief that the secession was due to Lincoln’s tyranny is a myth that has been perpetuated over time.
➡ The text discusses the controversy surrounding Abraham Lincoln’s stance on slavery during his election in 1860. Despite accusations of being an abolitionist, Lincoln was not for immediate abolition but hoped for the gradual extinction of slavery. His name did not appear on ballots in several southern states due to a campaign against him, fueled by false claims that he would take away slaves. The text also discusses the post-Civil War narrative that downplayed slavery as the main cause of the war, and the misconception that slaves were content with their condition.
➡ The text discusses the complexities of the Civil War, focusing on the North-South divide, slavery, and the role of external forces. It highlights that the division wasn’t clear-cut, with people from both sides fighting for the opposite cause. The text also discusses the increase in the slave population, the illegal importation of slaves, and the moral issues surrounding slavery. It further explores the political implications of abolition, the role of the Rothschilds, and the constitutional debates around slavery.
➡ The text discusses the misconception that tariffs, specifically the Morrell Tariff of 1860, led to the secession of the Southern states in the U.S., arguing that secession enabled the tariff, not the other way around. It also highlights that the secessionist movement had been growing for 30 years prior to the tariff and continued even when tariffs were low. The text further discusses the role of slavery in the secession, stating that it was the real issue behind the secession, not tariffs. Lastly, it addresses the myth that President Lincoln didn’t care about slavery, arguing that while he was against slavery, he didn’t want to cause a war over it, hence his support for the Corwin Amendment, which guaranteed slave rights.
➡ During the Civil War, four Union states were allowed to keep their slaves. This was because Lincoln’s main goal with the Emancipation Proclamation was to prevent Britain and France from supporting the Confederacy, not to free the slaves. The Proclamation was a war tactic, and it didn’t apply to the four Union states to avoid a refugee crisis during the war. After the war, these states banned slavery. Lincoln was also accused of arresting opposition journalists and politicians, but this was due to their attempts to undermine the war effort. Lastly, Lincoln and the Republican party were not responsible for initiating federal progressivism, as the period after the Civil War until 1900 was America’s golden age with no central bank, income taxes, or three-letter agencies.
➡ The text discusses the historical roles of various political figures and parties in the United States, including Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Wilson. It also explores the influence of Marxists and the evolution of the Republican party. The text delves into the racial tensions and the manipulation of the black community by Marxists post-slavery. Lastly, it discusses the role of the KKK and its transformation over time, as well as the creation of the National Rifle Association to protect the rights of freed black slaves.
➡ The text discusses a movie based on Ronald Maxwell’s book, Killer Angels, which was filmed on an actual Civil War battlefield. The speaker appreciates the authenticity of the film but notes that it doesn’t fully capture the brutality of the Civil War, particularly the high casualty rates and devastating injuries. The conversation then shifts to a discussion about a book by Mike King, which presents a unique perspective on the Civil War, suggesting that both the North and South were victims of powerful, conspiratorial groups. The speaker expresses interest in this viewpoint and plans to read the book.

The untold history channel. It is Tuesday night, the 20th or 25th of February. I’m still under the weather, but it’s all good. I’m here saving my strength so that we can do the Tuesday with Mike show. And tonight’s going to be a little interesting because this is a topic that Mike and I really don’t see eye to eye on very much. But I, you know, I. I’ll say this. I wasn’t alive then. And the information that I’ve read, just because it’s different from Mike’s opinion, it doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m right. I’m, you know, I always retain an open mind because we don’t really know what history was, you know, other than the information that we have garnered from ourselves.

So I am going to listen very intently tonight and probably not. Not. Not be pushing back much. I just want to. I want to hear kind of like, you know, Mike’s side of the story here. So it’s going to be a little bit different from the article I think I read about a week ago talking about the. The whitewashing of. Of. Of the tyranny of Lincoln. So it’s. I think it’s going to be entertaining. So, anyway, how you doing tonight, Mike? Sorry for that. That. That loud. Better than you are, apparently. Clearly. Yeah, I don’t know, man.

I. I caught something about. It feels like I caught some about a week ago. It started coming on on Friday, and that you. That really sick, heavy chest where you’re just coughing, and it’s just like a dry hacking cough. That’s unproductive. Well, my cough really wasn’t productive until. Until yesterday. So I’ve been. I’ve been dealing with this for four days, and now it’s kind of going up into my head, so I sound a little nasally and whatnot. But yeah, but anyway, I’m still. I’m still good to do the show. Yeah, Well, I got to do my social distance here.

Six feet. Yeah, exactly. I’m gonna mute myself a little bit here. So I don’t. Coughing people. Yeah. I don’t talk too much. No. But anyway. Well, let’s. Let’s jump into this because this is gonna be. This is going to be interesting. So. And you want to give a plug to your book real quick. Well, yeah, I did. That’s on the opening page of the PDF I sent you, actually, almost a year ago. It’s called dixieland deceived. On this. On this very topic here, the grand conspiracy behind the U. S. Civil war. And, and you know, I, I believe there were many moving parts at work, both in the north and the south, also in Europe.

And, and that’s really the crux of the story to bring about this disaster. But, you know, I have like, you know, I haven’t, I have a different view on this. I, I don’t see the Southern people as the perpetrators of this. That’s why the title of the book, Dixie Lynn Deceived, but with the deception coming from the parties that I hold responsible for the disaster. And I see that as a troika of the, the plantation oligarchs, the, the British plutocrats and the House of Rothschild, which was absolutely pro confederate. So you put these forces together and I, I, I, I see this as an ex, more of an external assault on the United States in an effort to bust it in half by these various parties whose interests may not have been perfectly aligned, but they all have a hand in it.

And you know, what I want to address is something that’s often referred to as lost cause ideology. In the year subsequent to The Civil War, 10, 15 years later, there emerged, particularly in the south, their side of the story, which, you know, to me superficially had seemed compelling. I always had like, a certain sympathy for the South. I was never pro north or pro South. I, to me it was something where, you know, both parties had a point, certain points in the truth type of thing. But my, my thinking on that has evolved and I, it’s important, as I begin my book and my presentation, I think it’s important to distinguish or to define rather what we mean by the South.

And I don’t define it as the Southern people in this context, but rather a small, very small group of plantation oligarchs who were the richest, biggest men really in America. I, I, I, I, I have to say I, I would agree with a lot of that. And you know, you know, you go back, we go back and we talk about where the slave, who, who the slave traders were. You know, I mean, you know, the, the myth, there is one other myth here that, you know, that white people went to Africa and went into the jungle and got the slaves.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. The, you know, the slave trade was primarily run by members of the tribe. You know, I mean, that was, they, they ran the entire thing. Conversos. So, you know, and so, and then, and the, and the major plantation owners in the south were predominantly owned by also members of the tribe. So yeah, yeah, there are quite a few of them. And you know, we talk about Bernard Baruch often his. His dad, Simon Baroque, had a plantation. Plantation, yeah. But it’s this type of thing which was kind of like a curse on this country from the beginning.

And. And the thorny thing about it is it was always there. It was kind of inherited. Thomas Jefferson once referred to slavery as having a wolf by the year or a tiger by the tail, I guess you could say. Yep. What do you do with it? And it’s. Yeah, no, that. That founders grappled with. But, you know, all the big ones, Washington, Madison, Jefferson, although they own plantations and slaves, they at the same time opposed this institution. But their vision is one day would die out by attrition. I tend to believe. I tend to believe from a lot of the stuff that I’ve read that it was.

The institution of slavery was slowly dying out in the form of. It was much, much more cost effective to pay a labor, you know, like a wage instead of owning a human being and being responsible for all of their needs. And that was. That kind of was becoming a little bit more fashionable. But it, but the, you know, anyway, it just. It didn’t materialize in time for, you know, before the. Before the war started. But. And, you know, I’ve also come to the realization that, you know, history is extraordinarily gray. It is not black and white.

And, you know, it’s. It is possible that two things can be correct or two things can. Can be right at the same time. So, you know, I’m. Like I said, I keep an open mind. So I’m kind of. I’m kind of curious to hear your. You know, because I’ve never read the Dixieland Deceived, and I’m, you know, I’m. I’m kind of anxious to hear your side of the story. So let’s. I guess, let’s jump in. Oh, yeah. I mean, I don’t have a historical geographic. I don’t consider myself a Yankee or Dixie, you know, but. But.

But an American. And, And I simultaneously, I mean, I. I always, like, admired the Confederacy from days of watching Gone with the Wind and, and the Southern culture and the heritage and Southern hospitality and the people in that sense. So I don’t have any hostility towards the Southerners, but I. I do believe that I taken a very objective view of this. Not because I’m a New York. I mean, my people come from Europe in the 20th century anyway. Right. So I don’t have any ancestors who shed blood on either side, but just. And I’m real. I’m real big on looking at original Source history, trying to immerse myself in the stuff that was written on both sides back in that day and, and certain what’s true, what’s not.

That’s kind of how I put together my book on World War II and how I like, okay, Churchill says this, Stalin says this, Roosevelt says this, Hitler says this. And when you piece it all out, you see the big three were all lying. So. Right. It could be a little tedious, you know, doing that out. It’s sort of like having a court trial, but going back in history and doing it. But, you know, I’m glad you said that. I’m glad you said the court trial thing because, you know, I’ve often looked at World War II as, you know, the story of World War II, or at least the German side of World War II.

And again, I’m not trying to go back there, but the German side of World War II is essentially a defense attorney that is telling. It’s telling a, you know, a Western whitewashed story of Germany’s side. So that, you know, oh, well, this is what Germany. As opposed to actually, you know, guys like David Irving, who I have a tremendous amount of respect for, who actually, like you said, went back and he read the diaries of the guys, you know, and he wrote. I consider his rent iteration of history much more authentic because he went back and actually learned German and read the diaries and talked to the people and the widows and the, and the people that they served with.

So, so anyway, enough rambling. Anyway, I address so many points in the book, but just to take nine of them here, I, I call these myths, Confederate myths, to be more precise, that were born out of this Lost Cause ideology that emerged after the, after the war. And it’s sort of interesting, it might be the first time in history where the, the winners just kind of allowed the conqueror to keep their own view of history. As, you know, that’s not the case in Germany. Sure. Now, throughout the south, historically, this, this doctrine persists to this day, and, and I think it’s fallacious.

And here’s just nine major points I want to address. I don’t, I don’t have to read them now because I’m going to go through them one by one. Right. So I might as well just start number one here. All right. Confederate myth, number one. And this again emerged after the war, as I’m going to demonstrate. But the myth is, and, and it’s, it’s repeated very often today. Not just, I don’t want to just say it’s Southern history or Confederate history. I believe a lot of libertarians and conservatives have latched on to this because they can identify with the idea of an overbearing central government.

And, and so it kind of clicks when they, when, when they hear that. But upon closer inspection, I don’t believe that’s the, the truth. This statement that the secession was due to Lincoln’s tyranny and not slavery. First important thing to note is let’s go back, do a little history. Lincoln was not the only one who had to deal with the secession crisis. It began under Andrew Jackson and his, his mortal enemy, John C. Calhoun, who was the, the legislative father of the second central bank, by the way, which Jax was in the process of killing. Calhoun was from South Carolina.

And at that precise moment in time he says he becomes, he’s, then he becomes a senator. He was originally Jackson’s vice president. Right. He says, we’re not going to collect the tariffs. And Jackson says, yes you will. And, and he actually introduced the bill. And Jackson, mind you, is a southern plantation owner and a slaveholder. And it was called the Force Bill. And the Union was ready to go to war. South Carolina. But Jackson made an appeal to the Southern people. He was an absolute hero down South. He was more popular in Calhoun. So they made a deal, they lowered the tariff, they backed off and everything was preserved.

But Jackson later said his one regret was that he did not hang John C. Calhoun. And then John C. Calhoun continued to promote the secessionist movement, which at that time was just, you know, in its infancy. He may not even have had the support majority of people in South Carolina. And during the crisis, no other southern state supported them. So they were southern unionists. So they had the slavery, they’re pro Union and they took Jackson’s side, but he continued. And by the time Zachary Taylor becomes president again, he’s a general, he’s a Southerner, owns a plantation, owned slaves.

And he had a contentious meeting with Calhoun’s people. This is like, closer to like the late 18, 1850 ish. And he says, I’ll hang any secessionist just as easily as I hang. I hung spies during the Mexican American War. They took a very hard line. And he died very shortly thereafter. I believe he was poisoned. So the, this whole secessionist movement grew and grew and grew unabated from 1930 ish all the way up to 1830 ish, all the way up to the Civil War. So it’s not something that just began on under Lincoln and it, it just, it continuously grew.

And the Calhounists began to spread their doctrine and even buy up newspapers. So you know, by the time you get to even a Civil War now you a country that was once united, of course you had different regions and cultures, but people thought themselves as Americans throughout that period after the War of 1812, right up through Andrew Jackson. Okay, so, so you had this, a very pro American Union attitude. But over a period of 15, 20 years this regionalism grew. So it didn’t start with Lincoln, but these two men being both Southerners and slaveholders, they were able to kind of suppress that because you couldn’t point to them and say those damn Yankees because they were one of us and they were totally pro Union and they both threatened to hang Southern secessionists.

So I think that’s a little important historical context to, to establish before we get to the big show. Now we go to 1854. It’s the founding of the national Republican platform. Right. The old Whig party had busted up and one of the issues of slavery. But if you read the platform, it’s not a very long document and it would, it deals almost exclusively but one issue, expansion of slavery into the new territories. We’re not, we, we’re not going to have that. That, that’s a, that’s a federal concern and, and we don’t want any expansion of slavery.

And, and Lincoln is one of the founding members of the party and that’s really the heart of their platform. And right away they became, they were attacked and nicknamed the Black Republicans throughout the Sen. So it was a very harsh campaign against the, the new Republican Party. But if you read the actual platform, which is what I always preach, go to the original sources if you can. There’s no, nothing in there inherently hostile towards the south but the people of the south nor threatening the institution of slavery where it existed. It’s all about the territories. Okay.

Right. Which I think was they, that, that, that the, it was the Missouri, it wasn’t the Missouri Compromise, the this and the Corwin Amendment. Wasn’t that the. If I’m getting well that that comes, that comes later on after the secession and I’ll, I’ll mention that in, in my presentation. But now by the time Lincoln comes around it’s 1860, it’s the party’s still brand new but he, he’s elected in, in 1860. There’s such a hostility towards the Republican Party in the south that they don’t even campaign there. They don’t even send ballots down there. And Lincoln said this is not a sectional party like the way you guys are painting us.

But you’re so hostile towards us. But nonetheless he was able to win the. Win the election. It was a four way election in 1860. Right. You had a pro union Southerner and then you had Stephen Douglas who’s a pro union Democrat. Then Breckenridge is essentially a crypto secessionist Democrat and, and then you had Lincoln so split four ways. He’s elected in 1860 and he hasn’t done anything. And it’s critical to get this time frame down because I think most people assume Lincoln becomes president and they don’t get along in the south breaks free. Now seven Southern states seceded in the interim period between Lincoln’s election and and his inauguration.

So the session the secession had nothing to do with Lincoln’s acts or policies because he’s not president yet, hasn’t done anything and they seceded. And if we go to the next panel again original source history. The seven Southern states that seceded were very clear in their own declarations of secession that they’re doing it because of the issue of slavery in particular. The, the expansion of slavery doesn’t say anything about tyranny or, or does anything about tariffs or any of the other pretext they used to use in the past. All slavery, slavery, slavery. This is their own words.

Just to give an example. This is the South Carolina Declaration of Secession. The state of South Carolina having resumed their separate and equal place, blah blah, should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act. An increasing hostility on the part of the non slaveholding states to the institution of slavery has led to a disregard of their obligations. In many of these states the fugitive is discharged from service or labor. Fugitive slaves when they would arrive in the north through the Underground Railroad. The Southern states demanded that the. The Northern states. That was the fus.

That was the Fugitive Slave Act. Yeah that. That was the fugitive slaves. And, and that’s kind of ironic because they talk about states rights but now you want to impose on a Northerner you gotta, you got to return our slaves. But again goes back to slavery. For 25 years this agitation has been increasing. All of the states north have united in the election of a man. It’s Lincoln to the high office of President. United States whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He has declared that government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free. Of course they don’t give you the context here because, because what Lincoln said is long term.

He was very clear both as a presidential candidate, prior to that as a Senate candidate. He lost that race prior to that as a congressman going way back to his 20s, very anti slavery, but he always said it’s got to die out by attrition. Nothing. So he was not an abolitionist. The abolitionists were like, they wanted instantaneous abolition. So he was absolutely not an abolitionist. So he was talking in the long term that this institution has to die out. And he saw banning the institution from spreading to the new territories as a step in that process, as did some of America’s early founders.

Well, must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This, this is their words. They’re complaining. They said that ultimately they want extension of slavery. We’re not going for that, we’re seceding. The. I find it interesting that in the election of 1860 that Lincoln didn’t even appear on the ballots in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South, North, Carol, south and North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee. He didn’t even appear on those ballots. Yeah, so, so all the votes that he got were basically the. From, from the northern states. Yeah, well, they, they had whipped up such a campaign of hatred against the black Republicans.

And you can see this in old newspapers, major newspapers like the Charleston Mercury, the New Orleans newspaper, I mean, it was like the fake news of the day, saying the Republicans are going to take away all the slaves. They want miscegenation. I mean, outrageous stuff. So they, they whipped up what I call Lincoln derangement syndrome. Very not unlike some of the hatred we see directed at Trump. It just wasn’t even practical to attempt to, to run in the South. And by this time they were infecting the people at large who are non slave owners with this idea of, you know, Lincoln the tyrant.

But he hasn’t been elected yet, Remember that. He’s not even been elected and they’re publishing stuff like this, which is all slavery. He’s going to take away our slave, which is not true, by the way. The only thing that’s true in here is that Lincoln did indeed foresee and hope for the eventual extinction of slavery. But as far as like pressing abolition, he was, he was very clear on that. No way. You know, he had the identical position on this matter as someone like Thomas Jefferson or Washington or Madison. It’s like, you know, we’re stuck with it.

What do we do? In time it’ll have to die out. Absolutely not a radical abolitionist, but at the same time he was, he wanted to die out gradually, but nonetheless, they accused him of being an abolitionist. Right. And then the next page, this is Mississippi. I’m not going to go through all the states, but it’s all the same flavor. These seven states. This one’s very harsh. We declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery. The greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.

These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions. And by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the drop sun, tropical sun. So we need these black slaves because the sun don’t bother them. These products have become necessities of the world. And the blow at slavery as a blow at commerce and civilization, there’s no choice left for us but submission to the mandates of abolition, which is a lie. Nobody wanted abolition. The abolitionists did. But they were like fringe. They had no power or dissolution of the Union.

And we do not overstate the dangers to our institution slavery. The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution. It was manifested in the ordinance of 1787. So they’re even complaining about things that the original founders did because the northwestern territories in the ordinance, they prohibited the expansion into the new territories. So I mean, there’s no question about it. And you go to Georgia, you go to Texas. I got all the receipts. It’s slavery, slavery, slavery. And then when the other four states join after Fort Sumter, they’re a little less. They’re more like upper north states.

They refer to euphemisms like more like states rights or the slave states or the coercion. But that was after the fact. This is before Trump, Trump Lincoln is even inaugurated. So seven states are gone and Lincoln hasn’t done anything yet. And, and they made it abundantly clear that their issue was, was slavery. All right, I guess there’s another one. It denies the property in slaves. It refuses the admission of new slave states into the Union. It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law. It has made combinations to carry out schemes of emancipation in states wherever else slavery exists.

That’s actually a total lie. And all of these were false. As well as all the Southern newspapers. Nothing was ever done or even proposed to touch slavery where it existed for the simple fact that it, the union of the country was more important than the issue of slavery. The loss of property, utter subjugation awaits us in the Union. I mean, all the drama here, we must secede from the Union. So that’s Mississippi and, and the rest follow the same type of language. But after the Civil War, when the new history was written, all this kind of got downplayed and it became, oh no, do a slavery.

It was states rights or it was tariffs or, or this and that. But this was the hot button issue that had been brewing for years. I mean there was, there was basically a civil war within a civil war in Kansas prior to this. Yeah, that’s what it is called Bloody Kansas. Yeah. So there’s no whitewashing the fact that slavery was, was a major or the expansion of it was a, was a major factor with the plantation oligarchs. All right, well then here we’re gonna, I guess we’re gonna jump in number two. Number two, slavery was benign and the blacks were happy being slaves.

You know, anybody after a period of time can acclimate to their condition. Because I hear this argument often. Well, blacks were, were happy. I mean what are you going to do? You have, you accept your condition after a while. But how benign could it have been when there was a hundred thousand southern blacks over a 40 year period escaped along the Southern railroad? And for everyone who escaped, how many more would like to have attempted but didn’t have the balls? Because if you got caught, you got a whooping or war worse or worse. So again, this is, you know, we can’t.

Now mind you, I’m, you know, man, I’m not some lit part saying oh you bad southerners, look what you did. Now I don’t even judge slaveholders of that era poorly in certain cases because it’s just something that existed since time immemorial. You inherited it. And Washington and Jefferson and Lincoln and all of them spoke about how do we get rid of this thing. We don’t know what to do with it. And so I, I don’t judge people. You can’t take people out of the context of history and make moral judgments on them necessarily. Even though is wrong, let’s not lose sight of the fact that this is.

You’re owning a human being and you’re owning his children and it’s just plain wrong. And, and the only thing that keeps them in line is the threat of violence and it escapes. That’s, that’s what you get. So that stuff did happen. Yeah. And I think, you know, to your point, I think too often, you know, the left in particular, what they do is they want to judge the ancestors, they want to judge our ancestors based on modern understanding of morality, not, not the morality of the day. So. Or what was considered normal of the day. So you know, you can’t do that.

You, it’s like, you know, when you like when you, you know, when you’re reading, when you’re reading the pieces from that period of time, the, the language that they use, the words may have had a different meaning than what they mean now. And, you know, I. That’s, that’s how a lot of these lefties try to, you know, twist the Constitution, you know, the general welfare clause. Okay, well, that means. Welfare means that, you know, we have to give government handouts. You know, that’s not what it meant back then. So anyway, you know, the reason I put this illustration, though, is not to pass judgment on anyone who ever owned a slave.

There were actually black slave owners. There was a handful of black slave owners, too. But it’s important to understand how some people were coming to this realization, we got to let this thing die out somehow. We don’t want it going into the new territories. And yes, there were some people who didn’t want it in the new territories because they wanted it to be all white, but there were also people who had a moral indignation about it as well. So, you know, it’s a mixed bag. You had people in the north who were pro slavery. They want.

They wanted to go into the new territory, start their own plantation. And then similarly, you had people in the south who were abolitionists. So it’s not a clean line. 100. And, you know, the, you know, they’re, they’re, they’re. People don’t know this, but there are a few people know this. But, I mean, there were a lot of people who, in the north who went to the south to fight for the Confederacy, and there were a lot of people in the Confederacy that went north to fight for the Union. I mean, it wasn’t just. It’s not as.

It’s, it’s not a simple line, you know. You know, you know, just a line of demarcation of Mason Dixon. It didn’t. Didn’t work that way. Yeah, so what. What else? There are 4 million slaves, by the way, at the. According to the 1860 census, which was a 500,000 increase over 1850. So even though there was no traffic coming in from Africa, the babies were being born and 10% classified as mulattoes. Actually, there kind of was. There still were. There still were. I mean, you know, the 1809 act in the Constitution, they made it so that you couldn’t do importation of slave.

You know, you can only import slaves for 20 years after the ratification date of the, of the Constitution. And Congress passed that bill, but the slave ships were still coming into Ports up in Connecticut and I believe. And they were still, they were still selling the slaves to the southern and the, to southern states and down into the Caribbean again. That was all, you know, tribal members that was running that whole operation. Rhode Island. Yeah. The Jews of Newport. Yeah. So. But now 10 are mulattos. That’s 400 out of 400,000 out of about 4 million. I don’t think the Southern, I don’t think the southern bells were shacking up with black guys back then.

So, you know, this is, again, this speaks to the growing abhorrence that many people in the north or even in the south we’re starting to have. It’s like, well, how do you get them 400000 mulattos, that’s a form of rape, whether it’s violent or not. I mean, she’s your slave and you’re impregnating her. And every slave that’s born, you’re increasing your net worth. So I, I can definitely understand the disgust of abolitionists. And had I been alive at the time, I, I don’t think I would have been an abolitionist. I think I would have taken Lincoln’s position that, you know, abolition will mean civil war.

The country falls apart. We got to go with the long game. I mean, it sucks. If you’re a slave, you got to wait a whole nother generation. That was Frederick Douglass’s argument. He says, well we gotta, they have to wait another generation. But you could just imagine what a problem this was. And they all wrote about it. Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln. How do we get rid of it? Easier said than done. Which, which is why again, you know, we have to refrain from being holier than thou like the liptards are. And, and they tar Southerners. No, I’m not about that, but none nonetheless.

It’s a shitty institution. I think we all agree. Right, well, you know, and, and to your point about it being an external, you know, the, the secession being more externally driven. You know, I was. One of the articles that I’ve, I’ve been meaning to, to read online is it goes and it talks about how the, the, the, the northern abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison were just, I mean they were rabid, they were rabidly anti slavery, but they hadn’t actually gone down to the south to see what the conditions were. They were just rabid anti slave based on things that were being to it.

But, but I, I, you know, just kind of, you know, connecting dots, if you will. From the standpoint of it being an external threat, then what that to Me, what is that? Hey, it was, it was also being, it was being. That was, that was an external force to divide, like, just like kind of like what we’re dealing with today. Yeah. So. Well, you know, the, the Southern, these, the Confederates, they were able to use the abolitionist rhetoric as a straw man. It was a straw man because the abolitionists were not that powerful politically speaking. But, but nonetheless, that certainly fueled the flames because they’re, they’re talking about, they’re talking about civil war, essentially.

If you just said we’re abolishing slavery, we’re passing an act of Congress, President Civil, that’s guaranteed civil war. I mean, the civil war came anyway. But if you took, you know, you took the abolitionist route, it would have been a guaranteed civil war. So it was very, you know, I don’t doubt many of them were sincere, but I’m sure there’s probably some agitators in the north and I get into it in my book, the Rothschilds are involved in this. I’m not going to get too much into that in the presentation, but you know, the route child had a presence here and they absolutely had an interest in seeing the country split in two.

Now they, they, they didn’t, they didn’t create, they didn’t control the plantation oligarchs or, or engineer the secession itself, but they do what they do. They’re, they’re there to capitalize because ultimately, if you could split the country in two because we didn’t have a central bank, you could put one in each. And they had allies, political, powerful political allies directly linked to the Rothschilds in the north, the August Belmont, chair of the Democrat Party and in the South. So there’s a whole angle there, but you’ll have to read the book for that. Myth number three, the south only wanted the Union to obey the Constitution.

Well, a couple things about the Constitution. First of all, Article 1, Section 10, if we’re, if we’re going to quote the Constitution, it says no state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation. And then the original articles of the original Constitution was the Articles of Confederation and what? And perpetual union. So it was, it was understood that the federal government had certain authorities. The idea is not to overstep them. Then you’re violating the Constitution and all bets are off. In that case, frankly, if, if this was the Obama years and Southern states wanted to break off, I would join them because you have to have the compact work both ways.

Right. So the qu. The question is what rights were denied? And, and Lincoln in his inaugural address, he Says this. He says is there any possibility he’s addressing South. Is there any possibility that any portion of the ills that you fly from have no real existence? All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights are maintained, has any right written in the Constitution been denied? I think not. Think if you can of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. So in your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine is the momentous issue of civil war.

And I’ve grappled with this question and, and I don’t nobody’s answered it to my satisfaction to. The only thing they could come up with is that it was not constitutional to bar the extension of slavery into the new territories. And I don’t think that’s a sound argument. And Lincoln in his famous Cooper Union address which put them on the map dug up a bunch of old quotes from Washington and Jefferson. He made it clear that they did not want to expand, that they wanted to limit it. And indeed that’s why Jefferson actually it was under Jefferson that they cut off the African slave trade.

So that was the idea. No expansion cut off the slave trade. And already at that time back then a lot of the distinguished gentlemen upon death would release their slaves. Washington freed his slaves. I think Jefferson did, Andrew Jackson did. So that’s, that’s what they had in in mind. Well and that, and that is consistent with what the Constitution said is like they only allowed, they, they were only going to allow slave the, the importation of slaves for 20 years post and that and the, that was the act that came in, in 1809. So they, the Congress signed that act in 1809 that you couldn’t import slaves anymore.

So that, that would be consistent with what you know, like you said guys like Jefferson and Washington had in mind. And that was the big issue in the Lincoln Douglas debates. Lincoln and Douglas ran for Senate and then, then they ran for president against each other. Was Douglas believed let the states decide or let the people in the new territories decide if they’re going to have slavery. And Lincoln argued no, that that that’s a federal prerogative. So that that was the big issue. But once the war broke out, Stephen Douglas was totally pro Lincoln. They closed ranks.

So I do not see anything in the Constitution that was denied and certainly not while Lincoln was president elect. Okay, the next panel. Okay. The British newspapers were totally pro Confederate. Okay. Why? Well, because they saw the United States as an up and coming manufacturing power. And, and this is historic you know, Britain’s like, they always got to be like the hottest chicken school. Anybody challenges them, they freak out. They went to war against Holland and France. They put down Spain, later on Germany. That’s what they do. So they viewed the United States, the young United States, as a rival.

And keep in mind we shared a common border with Great Britain in the form of British Canada back then. And they didn’t like the manufacturing competition and, and they railed against something called the Morrell Tariff which was passed in 1860. And there’s a misconception out there that this contributed to secession. But the reality is not only is there not one mention of tariffs in those declarations of secession, any of them, but the only reason the tariff passed is because 14 Southern senators had already bolted. They would not have had the votes. So the tariff did not cause a secession.

The secession enabled the tariff. The logic is totally backwards. So anyone who argues this is, is needs to check their dates. The chronology is critical here. And then I would also point out what Andrew Jackson said. Boy, is this prophetic. This is our boy Andrew Jackson, Trump’s favorite president. After that crisis had passed with Calhoun, they lowered the tariffs. Jackson wrote the tariff was only a pretext in this Union and Southern Confederacy. The real object, the next pretext will be the slavery question. He said that in the early 1830s, boy did he nail it. And that’s, and that’s exactly what happened.

And just a couple bullet points here again. The secessionist conspiracy predated the morel tariff by 30 years. And even at points where the tariff was historically low, the, the, the, the secession movement continued to grow. So it had nothing to do with this. As I said, tariffs are not mentioned in any of the declarations of secession. Point number three, the northern ports actually collected more in tariff revenue than the South. The north end more population. New York City alone had more imports than all the south combined. Boston was a huge port. Philadelphia, Baltimore, of course Baltimore, the goods could go either way, north or South.

So that was really a red herring issue anyway. But the British hated the, the manufacturing growth United States and later on they hated this morale tariff with a passion. You can see it all in the newspapers. They’re totally sympathetic to the south because of this. The pro Confederate Rothschilds and the British openly condemned the Morel tariff. 20,000 Southern factories and growing also stood to benefit. So this is another, I won’t say myth, but I obviously the north was heavily much more industrial than the south. But when you do it like per capita, like population wise, it’s like they had four or five times the, the factory manufacturing sector than the south had.

But the south was no slouch here, 20,000 Southern factories and growing. So it also stood to benefit. But again, this is all a moot point anyway because it, it didn’t have anything to do with the tariff. And the secession statements confirmed that. It’s exactly as Jackson said. Once this tariff stuff passed, they’re going to start with the slavery question. And, and everybody had a problem with this. Polk had to deal with it. Zachary Taylor had to deal with it. Okay, then you had, you had a series of very weak presidents after Taylor suddenly died, probably poisoned.

Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan. At every turn, they were trying to appease, pacify the south. And, and Buchanan had direct links to the House of Rothschild. I get into that in my book. But still it never abated. They want us to session for secession’s sake, to, to grow their vision all the way from coast to coast and then even down in Mexico in the car, in, in the Caribbean. So tariffs did not play into this issue. And, and even if it had, just for the sake of argument, you’re gonna bust up the country, get all these people just for that, you know, I mean, Ron Paul and Donald Trump disagree on tariffs, you know, but there’s so much more to unite them.

And in my view, the Union was a blessing for both north and South. Things like tariffs and even slavery should not have come into the picture were it not for the constant maneuvering and agitation of the plantation oligarchy. They really did, when you, you learn about them, they really did view themselves as the aristocracy of the south. And it was, it was very aristocratic structure in, in that sense down there. And I don’t think Johnny Rabb had any interest at all in slavery, slaves that he would never own or tariffs that he would never pay, because most goods imported at that, at that time into the country from Britain and France would generally be on the pricey side.

It wasn’t like you had all Walmarts and everything, right? So this is something that kind of stirred my passion because I’m a populist. I, I despise the idea of people who got money and power and influence and smarts manipulating the lesser people. And I, and I believe, you know, they got Johnny Rabb all fired up. The Yankees are coming. It was not in Johnny Reb’s interest. And indeed a hundred thousand of them ultimately fought for the Union. And then there were desertions. There was a draft in the South. It was a draft in the north too, on both sides, the militaries were about 90 something percent 95ish volunteer.

And then towards the end of the war to kind of beef up the numbers they, you know, they resorted to the draft. They were both conducting drafts by 1863 but there were mainly volunteer armies on both sides. But there was a draft. So yeah, but that, that, that’s my view of the matter. I don’t see this at all of being in the interest of the average southerner, only like the top, I mean it’s like the top 1 2%, all the 80% of slaves and then you got maybe another 15% they might owned one or two for some help around the house that that percentage would be higher in the deep south.

But still it was a minority of households that actually held slaves or had any interest in whether or not it expanded into the new territories. Myth number five is that Lincoln did not care about the blacks for slavery. I hear this come up often, that the only reason he did the Emancipation Proclamation is just to give a moral component to the war. But there’s, and often what the lost cause ideology Confederate historians will cite is things that as Lincoln had said during debates or the Corwin amendment which Lincoln supported which was proposed during that interim period while he was president elect but not yet inaugurated corn because we covered all these secession declarations that said you’re going to take our slaves, abolition, we’re out of here.

While the Corwin amendment essentially called them on their bluff. The Corwin Amendment which passed Congress but it never made it to the states because the, the south didn’t have any interest in coming back, basically said we recognize your rights of existing slavery. The federal government will not touch it. That was the case anyway. But now they were going to enshrine in Constitution Lincoln gave it its blessing. So you know, people want to hate on Lincoln. They’ll say oh what? See he didn’t, he wasn’t, he supported the Corn amendment. He wasn’t anti slavery. He was willing to let them guarantee their rights to keep slaves.

That is not fair to say that because again the position was simply this. I hate slavery, I despise slavery. And he’s got statements and writings going back to when he was in his 20s. But I don’t want to bust up the country over it, no way. So there is no contradiction between him supporting the Corwin amendment to guarantee slave rights and being opposed to slavery on moral grounds. The two do not contradict each other at all. I would probably, I don’t know what position I would take back then. I don’t think I could see myself as an abolitionist because I would not want a war again.

It’s a tight spot. But he was absolutely anti slavery and there’s tons of receipts on this. Long before the war, I was a young man, but it was always with the caveat, we’re stuck with it. Best we could do for now is stop it from going to new territories. And I. That goes right back to what you said about Thomas Jefferson who said slavery was like a wolf holding a, holding a wolf by its tail. You don’t ear. You don’t. You, you know, you don’t wanna. You don’t like it, but you don’t dare let it go.

Yeah, tough not to crack. And by this time you got 4 million. And Lincoln at one time, he said in a speech, I, ideally we could send them after they’re liberated. We could set up a home in Liberia which was already established. How would we get 4 million over there? In ships? So it was, it was just a tough nut to crack. But point is, he absolutely hated slavery. He just really could not. He had. This is the reality of politics. So that’s why he supported the Corwin amendment to avoid the war. Another knock against Lincoln is that there were four states in the Union which were slave states, but they remained in the Union.

Delaware, Maryland, what are two other ones? Kentucky, Missouri, Missouri. They remained. And actually, actually New Jersey too. New Jersey was the last state to free their slaves. Well, that they had like a grandfather deal something clause in New Jersey. So. Yeah, but I’m just. Even though they abolished slavery, all the northern states abolished slavery. New Jersey had a grandfather clause. So for a certain amount of time. But anyway, these four states were exempt from the Emancipation Proclamation. Well, the British newspapers have field day with that. And it’s important to know, before I get into that point, that Lincoln’s main motivation for the Emancipation Proclamation was not the free to slaves because you don’t control the South.

It’s a toothless declaration. So why are you doing it? Because there was a lot of maneuvering between the Confederate leaders to get the British to recognize the Confederacy helped. And what they did, they helped the Confederacy immensely. There’s a whole story there. Blockade running, weapons on the down low. Ultimately they were hoping to get the British in and the French on their side. And Lincoln knew this. This was a brilliant play because Britain advanced slavery 30 years earlier. France too. Well, the, the, yeah, Britain. Britain abolished the slave trade in 1807 and then they actually abolished slavery with the abolition act of 1833.

So which it was. It was very much frowned upon. Right. Among the people and even among the, the, the upper classes. And slavery bad. Right. And now he drops his card on him and it puts him in a corner like, okay, well, what. He clearly is going to free the slaves. How are we going to keep supporting the South? They did continue. Right. It’s very. It greatly complic things. So this was indeed political. It was a war tactic. It was a war tactic because it had no teeth until you win the war. What does it mean? It means nothing.

And then as far as the four Northern slave slaves, I mean, what are you going to do in the middle of the war? Create a refugee crisis. So, of course, it didn’t apply to those four states, but as soon as the war ended, they all banned slavery anyway. So that’s an important context to understand why the four Union states were permitted to keep their slaves during the war. Not, not that I’m, I guess I’m kind of making your point, but when West Virginia broke away from Virginia and became a state, they actually entered the state as.

They entered the United States as a slave state. Oh, is that so? Yeah, well, that was. During that. There was a long period of time where it’s like you had to do one on one. One. One free, one slave. One free, one slave. Right. That was. So, yeah. Did anyone enter along with West Virginia at that time? Was that just. No, no, no. I mean, so. Because obviously, Virginia was the largest state at the time, and when. But the people. It was already a slave state. Yeah, right. And when. But the people in the people in that app.

That, that, that portion of Appalachia, I guess they didn’t, they didn’t want to go along. They wanted to stay with the north, and so they broke away, it became West Virginia and applied for statehood. So, I mean, a lot of. There’s a lot of people who’ve been talking about, let California secede and, you know, and then. And then the whole bunch of California will break away from. From California and then reapply to California. Reapply as, As a new California, kind of like the West Virginia model. So. But, you know, well, hopefully when, you know, Trump. Trump is done, we’ll have one entire normal country again.

Right. We won’t have to worry about splitting up. Exactly. We’re. We’re coming up here on 55 minutes, and we’re only about halfway through here. Do you want to power through this or do you. Real quick. Yeah, real quick. Frederick Douglass, abolitionist, came to become a friend of Lincoln and he admired him initially was critical of him because Lincoln was not an abolitionist. But again he writes that he, he truly did a post slavery. He says Lincoln was unsurpassed in his devotion to the welfare of the white race. But he was also in a sense, hitherto without example, emphatically the black man’s president, the first to show any respect to their rights as men.

So I just, you know, we need to dispel this thing. That link was a racist and he didn’t care about slavery. It’s not true. Myth number six, Lincoln the tyrant arrested opposition journalists and politicians. That’s not a myth. Yes, that happened. But again there’s context. There were elements in the north they’re known as the copperhead Democrats. You can read all northern newspapers were linking them to the Rothschilds, the copperheads. August Belmont was the head of the Democrat party and he was, he was considered a copperhead. But some of the copperheads, they kept it on the down low like August Belmont.

He wanted the country split and he’s the chairman of the Democrat party in the North. But here’s an example of the type of fake news that these subversive newspapers were publishing. Not to express a legitimate opinion on the war and how it’s going along and whether we should stay in it. There was no problem with that. Even some of Lincoln’s allies at time began to waver. Now this was deliberate undermining of the war effort. While you’ve got 96% of your troops or volunteers are out there fighting, dying and, and this is done to pull the rug out from under them.

So here’s just one example and there’s so many. This is the New York World Democrat newspaper. And the caption on this was there were many of the accredited leaders of the black Republican party. They printed a fake news that there was a big Republican event in New York state and all the Republican politicians were dancing with black girlfriends and it shows them making out and kissing. This wasn’t satire. They actually presented this. And you know people were a little naive back then because they kept hammering Lincoln and they used the Emancipation Proclamation because this cut both ways.

Now they were saying, oh he, he’s basically an nword lover. He’s sending all these boys to die for. For the Negroes. He wants miscegenation. This, it was really bad fake stories about Lincoln’s is. We have just learned through sources Lincoln intends to draft 400000 new troops. And people went nuts when they hear that. So New York draft riots. The Draft riots were incited by this type of fake news. By the way, this is not unlike the journalists that Trump has put in jail. Oh yeah, a lot of big names are gone for sure. Oh, Lester Holt just retired today.

You know, Joy, Joy, I, I love the joy. Oh, so many of them are gone. But it, it was really bad what these copperheads were doing and, and the head of the copperheads was this guy here, chairman. It’s amazing. How did this guy become chairman of the Democrat party in 1860? And he served in that capacity till 1871. August Belmont. His real name is Schoenberg, Prussian Jew, Rothchild agent. And I don’t mean secret agent. He was, he was a big banker. Rothschild sent him here to look after his interests. He goes down to Cuba, takes care of some business for the Rothschilds, comes up to New York, sets up shop big.

The Belmont Stakes. The horse race is named after him. Interesting. And he is the in law. His father in law is John Slidell. So he’s in New York. John Slidell is a senator, Louisiana, who went to Britain in an effort to get British recognition for the war. So it’s one little incestuous click. The British elite Rothschild agents in the north, in the south. So there’s many moving parts here. You got the plantation oligarchy, the Rothschilds, the British people in the north, the south. There’s a headline from a Long island newspaper a couple years ago, history article.

August Belmont, the German Jewish immigrant who led the opposition to Lincoln in 1864. So he’s trying to undermine the war effort and the pretext is we want to stop the bloodshed. They don’t give a Rothschild cares about bloodshed. No, they wanted the country split into stick a central bank in each. That was their interests. Okay, so number seven, I hear this one a lot, that it was the Republican party in Lincoln that initiated federal progressivism. Because what they ended World War II represented was the beginning of this intense centralization of the federal government that we live with today.

So they pitted on Lincoln as the founding father of that. No, because actually after the Civil War and the Reconstruction period up until 1900, that was America’s golden age. All of the Republicans who came afterwards, whether it’s Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, James Garfield was assassinated, Benjamin Harrison, McKinley, all of them hard money, gold standard, no central bank, no income taxes, tariffs. We didn’t have any of the three letter agency agencies back then. Right. No income tax, no payroll, none of that. That begins with the progressive error. It’s got nothing to do with Lincoln and The post Civil War Republicans, because the first policies came down from Wilson.

Yes, it was Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican who set up Wilson. But we don’t count him as a republic. We know about Teddy. He’s Rhino. The Republicans hated him. The only reason he ever he got to the head of the Republican party is because they killed McKinley and Hobart. So these are the gentlemen that did this. Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson. And then by the time you get to the 40s and the 50s now the Republican party was like half rhino anyway. It was pretty much all rhino after, after, after Eisenhower. Yeah. So the irony is it was always the Lincolnian Republicans who followed Lincoln.

They were the ones trying to stop these guys all the way up until McKinley. So. And this is Belmont’s party. This is Belmont’s Northern Democrat party. So they are Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson. Don’t blame the Republicans for that. Well, here’s, here’s another one. This is one of my favorites. They linked Lincoln to the communists. Why did he. I even said, I’ve even heard people say Lincoln was a closet commie. No, there’s a book Walter Kennedy, Lincoln marks in the gop. There’s another one. Lincoln’s Marxists. This is very manipulative and dishonest. First of all, there were, there were a lot of liberals and radicals who came to this country in 1848.

Many of them were Germans. They were basically chased out of Germany because they were revolutionaries. Some of them were nationalists, some of them were left leaning. But they came here and they were, but they were all like abolitionists. Some of them might have been troublemakers. They, they were like among the first to enlist. And that caused a lot of resentment in Missouri. People like you just got off the boat. They started calling them Hessians, you know, but that’s nothing Lincoln’s doing. There’s one guy ended up, had a position in his administration. Not a communist, but he was from Germany.

But you often hear about the letters that Marx and Lincoln exchanged. But there’s a context to that. Marx wrote that letter unsolicited. He’s supporting the Union. Why he’s supporting the Union because he’s thinking ahead. I mean, the, you can’t get a better lower class proletariat to incite in the slave class. And indeed, what, what happened after the slaves were freed? It took several decades. Initially, the blacks were conservative and they all, they were all Republican up until really, until FDR came along. But they went to work on them. At the turn of the century. Jacob Schaff and Bernard Baruch were supporting the NAACP and All that stuff.

So that, that’s what he had in mind. And then Lincoln wrote back, thank you for the nice note or something like that. So one of these books, it asked rhetorically in the description, why did Karl Marx and other socialists find Mr. Lincoln’s war worthy of their support? Because they wanted to get their hands on the blacks and make them a nice proletariat. That, that’s the basis of the communist revolution. Well, yeah, and that’s, you know, I, I’ve, I have looked everywhere to try to find that the racial tension for a 20th century book by Israel Cohen.

And I mean the Internet has been scrubbed of that document. So. Yeah, I’ve read, I’ve read that. Yeah, yeah, that’s standard procedure, you know, because in Europe it was the working class United States. Yeah, working class. I mean as soon as they got the slaves freed, they, they want, they went after them. Well, took about 30 years, turn of the century, they were going with the NAACP and they wanted to undermine Booker T. Washington. So that’s, that’s, that’s the interest of the Marxists. You got 4 million instant proletarians you can mess with when you take over America.

Well, they, and, and, and this is a, this is a point that I would, that I would very likely agree with you on because the, you know, you know, you, you look at essentially the Democrat party and, and it’s, and how its preponderance is, is black. That’s, it is, that’s predominantly because they have, yeah. Their mentality has almost been shifted to that of Marx. Very socialistic. They destroyed their family structure. Yep. They rendered all their, their women dependent. Yep. It was a very, very powerful acquisition for them in terms of adding to the ranks of the proletariat.

So that’s a, that’s, that’s a, that’s interesting. That’s very interesting. And then finally the, the post war KKK was a crime fighting civic group. This is portrayed actually in the classic black and white film Birth of a Nation. Oh yeah. I don’t doubt that they’re gonna have in post war crime and, and some vigilantism going on. But you, you dig into this. They were continuing the war against the Republican party in the south by terrorizing Republican voters. Not just black, but also white. It got so bad in Louisiana that President Grant had to invoke the Insurrection act.

And this prolonged the occupation in my view, because you had this continued. I mean they didn’t resist against the Union soldiers because they didn’t have the muscle anymore. But what they were able to do to in essence kind of continue the war in a different way is intimidation of Republican voters. And there were quite a few poorer whites and as well as loyal union whites who were receptive and wanted to work with the new Republicans, but they were, they were, they’re very scared. So it was intimidation going on, there’s no doubt about that. Potentially reminiscent of like the, you know, how the, how they use terror tactics in the French Revolution and in the Bolshevik Revolution.

Yeah, I mean, you, you scare, you scare people and, you know, you. Well, I mean, I mean, if you’re, if you’re talking about tribal members and the ones that are responsible for this, because that, I have heard that, that the KKK was primarily a basically a, you know, an ideological, like a Zionist type institution, you know, just like the NAACP and all those other things. So. Well, you know, now there’s a second version of the KKK which emerges long after this period where this ideology takes place. Every emerge is now after the turn of the century and.

But now they’re promoting something different because they want to get away from this history. And they’re actually America first. Pro American, but not terrorist. Okay. So it’s like, you know, the government kept an eye on them, but they were not, they were not terroristic and they were not attacking blacks. So this would be like the KKK, the 1920s. That’s right. Yes. The original guys were badasses. Right. And they, they killed some people and they intimidated people. And those people needed protection, especially the whites. They tagged any white person in the south who was pro union or was willing to let bygones be bygones and reconcile and get to see, they tagged them with an epithet called scatterwags.

And so they had to live branded as traitors. So they’re, they’re afraid too. So no, it was not the glorious civic group portrayed in the Birth of a Nation or even in Margaret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind. It’s not in the movie, but it’s in the book, so. Well, there’s a whole, there’s a whole lot more in my book. We learn about the British role in the Rothschild role. So if I, if I remember correctly, the, the National Rifle association initially was created back in the 1870s as a, as a mechanism to allow, or to, to, to allow the freed black slaves to actually possess firearms and protect themselves.

It was because they were now citizens so they could have, they had the right of firearm ownership. And so I never knew that about the big bad nra. Well, I got this this. At this time, I call it the negotiating rights away. So I’m not. They’re not. The GOA is. Is. Is a great. In terms of protecting firearms rights. But. But in any event, I gotta say, you know, you have given me some things to think about, things that have not been presented to me in the way. So this is a very. This is a very unique show because, you know, I.

Again, I came into this, you know, kind of polar opposite of this mentality, and you’ve given me some things to seriously contemplate and research. Well, read my book. I’ve had quite a few because of my approach. You know, I don’t come out like a lit tart condemning the South. I. I’ve had. I’ve had some good old boys write reviews saying that I flipped their thinking on this issue. And that’s very gratifying to me. I. I think if you read my old book, you know, you’ll at least come around at least much in a way, to my view of this matter.

There’s a. Somebody wants to know, did you. Do you like the movie Gettysburg? Ted Turner did a cameo. Yes, he’s the one who. He’s the one who produced it. Okay. I remember that. I remember that flick. Yeah. I thought that was 1993. It was Ronald Maxwell’s. It was based off Ronald Maxwell’s book Killer Angels. Yeah, yeah. And I’ve seen it multiple times. I actually own the director’s cut. Seen it. I could probably recite the lines of that movie. I’ve seen it so many times. I thought it was very accurate. I loved the fact that it was actually filmed on the site of the battlefield.

And many of the actors who showed up were actual Confederate or, you know, Civil War reenactors. So, you know, it was. It was as real as you can get. But. But even then it was. It was. So it wasn’t anything close to reality from the standpoint of. Of. Of wounds, you know, and you listen to Shelby Foote talk about the battlefield wounds in. In the Civil War, you know, he said. He said they had 30% casualties in the Civil War in every battle. And he said, you know, in today’s world, 30 casualties would be looked on as a bloodbath.

You know, we. In our modern wars, you know, we have maybe like a half a percent casualties. You know, 30% is medicine had not caught up with. Right. The guns at that time. Well, and. And not only that, but also, too. They didn’t. You didn’t have the antiseptic. Well, that I read somewhere a lot of them died, you know, from the wounds. Well, yeah, the disease was the chief killer. Disease was the chief killer. But the, you know, the, the weapons were so far ahead of the tactics that, I mean, they were essentially, they were using Napoleonic tactics with, with weapons that were really more of like, you know, maneuver warfare.

So, you know, with the mini ball, which, you know, expanded and then went with. Into a rifled barrel, you know, you had a.58 caliber round coming down, and if you got hit anywhere, I mean, that’s why there were so many amputations, because it didn’t. It literally like crushed. It disintegrated the bone. So. Yeah, I mean, the civil. Yeah, I’ll tell you, have to have so much the, the, you know, the bravery that the men in the Civil War. Yeah, I mean, I, I, in, in many respects, I, I kind of think that was one of the most brutal wars in human history.

Yeah. Yeah, that, that was bad because of that, because of that reason. And then by the time World War I comes around, they at least know to stay in the trenches. Right, but then you had the gas, and that’s a whole. Yeah, and, and I mean, you know, and I shouldn’t, you know, not, not that I want to say, you know, it, it actually kind of progressed up with, from, from the Civil War, the American Civil War to, you know, to World War I and then into World War II. I mean, it was just, you know, the, the, the, the weaponry kept getting more and more advanced and, you know, it was just, it’s absolutely horrific.

But, you know, if you look, I never forgot that scene. It remains a classic scene from Gone with the Wind where all the Confederate soldiers are stretched out throughout the street crying in agony. You know, and they’re, and they’re doing it. They’re doing a triage. That was like quite a scene from back then. Yeah, it’s, it’s, it was. I mean, it’s just this, it’s, it’s horrific. That’s the only word that. It’s the only word you can really, really use to, to describe it. But. Well, Mr. King, you want to plug your books. Well, that’s Dixieland Deceived.

That particular one is available at Amazon. My author page there is Mike King or Mike S. King, Dixie Land Deceived, or, or if you want to get the whole PDF package that’s in the PDF versions at the website, Real News in History Dot com. You can go back slash Ron with a small R. I’ll throw in the newsletter for you. But that is definitely. Some people have told me it’s my best book. And that’s because I, my claim to fame originally was the Bad War, but I, I think this, this one is very unique. Well, the Bad War was unique in that I think when people read a Civil War book, they’re either expecting the retarded liberal version.

Right. Evil, evil Southerners. And we went on a glorious crusade to free slaves. A little more and more nuanced than that. And then other people say, oh well, it was the, the War of Northern Aggression. This is a third position really, in which I, I see both sides as the victim of a tiny clique of interlocking conspiratorial groups who had a lot of power, not necessarily all part of one entity, but definitely overlap. The plantation oligarchs, the British plutocrats and the House of Rothschild. It’s all in there. Yeah. Come out of that. Well, and, and you know, for in fairness, my, with, without reading your book, I, I prejudged you as being pro Lincoln, not from the standpoint of, you know, like being on the side of the north or I guess me being on the side of the north, you know, and, and you know, coming at it from a bias with trying to, to judge that.

I never, I had never considered that you looked at this from the standpoint that both the north and the south were victims. And I hadn’t, that’s, that’s, that is not something that I had considered. Yeah. And that’s, that’s a very interesting thing to consider. Yeah. Yeah. So you’ve opened my mind a little bit and I’m gonna have a look at my book. I think, believe me, there’s a lot, there’s a lot more, especially when you get into the Rothschild and the secret society stuff going on. So. But in my view, Lincoln is a tragic figure and you know, he really, really agonized over this.

And then, and then his son dies during the war. Yeah. Both of his sons get sick and, and I speculate with a lot of people suddenly got sick and died. Zachary Taylor, Lincoln’s boys, Stephen Douglas. So I, I think these people are assassinated. They might have even killed his son, I don’t know. But his grief was just horrible. And yet he’s got to carry on with this. Well, that’s, you know, I mean, there’s, there’s a, there’s a, there’s so much, you know, again, I, I, I don’t pretend to know the truth. I never, I never ever, ever say that, you know, and I, I always try to remain open minded to things because like we talked about before we even went live, it’s like, you know, the truth is very gray.

It’s not black and white. And, you know, there are many times where two things can be right at the same time. And anyway, you just, you. I’m, you’ve. I’m. I’m not. I’m under the weather and I’m actually. But, but I’m. But I’m thinking you’ve actually stimulated my brain to think a little bit on this, much more so than I otherwise would have. So thank you for tonight. This. Now, now I’m gonna have. I’m not gonna get any sleep tonight. Thank you. We’ll get, get well first and then, and then tackle my book. It’s in the PDF package.

I think you got the message. Yeah, I can, I, I, I grab it. So. Yeah. All right there, Mr. King. Well, thank you for tonight and look forward to seeing you next week. Okay, Ron. All righty. Have a good night. Good night, everybody. Okay, good night, everybody.
[tr:tra].