Overthrow: 100 Years of U.S. Meddling & Regime Change

55 Comments

1. This mostly started with yeah Teddy Roosevelt who was a tough white guy New York Police commissioner and rough White Western man a fan of the grisley bear.

   Teddy Roosevelt pretty much led our effort to become a colonial power in Asia starting the Spanish American war supposedly to end European colonialism in Cuba the Western hemisphere, it ended with us acquiring the Spanish mud Asian colony of the Philippines. We’ve been fu48573 ever since.

   Teddy Roosevelt was a big prominent of American entry into World War I going along with the nonsense of making the entire world SAFE FOR AMERICAN STYLE DEMOCRACY.

   I want to puke.

   Teddy Roosevelt started this/these endless wars when he was the USA Assistant Secretary of the Navy. I never learned who was the Secretary of the Navy.

   The Camp of the Saints reverse migration invasions, the great replacement always comes when once White Empires like the British Empire collapse.

   Sigh.

   • TR did support America’s involvement in WWI but maybe it was because his son Quentin was a fighter pilot in the US Army Air Service. He was shot down behind enemy lines and the Germans displayed extreme chivalry in response to his death. I wish the Central Powers won that war. The world would have been a much better place.

2. This is a terrific article.

   https://www.unz.com/article/weapon-of-mass-psychosis/

   In this is included every aspect of the reality we live in that initially drew me to the dissident right. In straightforward presentation, sans the autism and screeching that characterizes the writing that’s become all too common lately on what is now the fringe right.

   1) Race realism and the logical conclusions reached when you acknowledge inherent differences between peoples.

   2) The essential recognition that we are a race besieged by enemies lacking coherence or legitimate greivance, not the least of whom are race traitors who’ve embraced the tools of our enemies for personal gain out of craven cynicism or pathological neuroses.

   3) That Jews are a major component but far from being the only or largest component of the unholy alliance of non Whites and race traitors, unworthy both of being considered as anything special as a people (evangelicalism), or assumed unrealistically of being masterminds of the octopus that is the left, which is strangling our culture, feeding on the rot of its dying body, rather than what they are, just another opportunist group of cynical neurotic carrion feeders, criminals/grifters that are indistinguishable from our own ruling class, so not worth undue consideration in their own right.

   4) That Leftism is nothing but a vehicle for the craven pursuit of power unmoored from history or reality, and easily set on its heels by simple appeals to common sense, something that normal Whites have in abundance.

   5) That this vehicle to power is driven by the cynical, but powered by the base desire to exercise every petty deviance by corrupt and incompetent peoples, none of whom are capable of creation, only of destruction of themselves and everything good around them.

   That this simple and comprehensive understanding of our enemies still exists somewhere amidst the shambling corpse of the Altright gives me some hope that at some point folks will get their shit together and stop obsessing over things that don’t concern us, like Ukraine (just like fucking Yankees always seeking novelty anywhere but at home) and get started with some meaningful activism, open White Advocacy and grassroots organization without the absurdity of the bazaar of grifters/intellectuals that was the Altright, that died of self inflicted wounds at Cville under the light of tikitorches.

   Affected neutrality is gay. Its time to choose our own interests, and pursue them vigorously.

   • It’s not a terrific article. It’s pure defensiveness, from top to bottom. Let me see if I can say this here, at Occidental Dissent, for–oh, maybe the ten thousandth time: If you put the word “racism” in quotation marks, you don’t counter it; you strengthen it.

     In all the years I’ve been visiting Occidental Dissent, only one commenter other than me, as far as I can recall, has made that point, a point so obvious that the failure of nearly all pro-whites to recognize it is a troubling indication that their race is unfit for the matters political on which its flourishing–indeed, its survival–depends.

     Sometimes, I wonder why I keep rooting for you people.

3. “Russia sent warnings to President Biden, demanding him to halt shipment of weapons to Ukraine or risk “unpredictable consequences.”

   Now this is scary.

   Biden’s ((handlers)) are very dangerous.
   (They’ll do just anything to provoke Russia.
   (((They))) never know when to leave well enough alone.)

4. Every country the US invaded for the purpose of building “democracy” has turned out far worse for that country and the people living there.

5. It is a great injustice that Mohammad Mosaddegh, having seized British oil, was not rewarded with a bullet through his head.

   • That oil belonged to Iran, not BP, Bonoponti. And the CIA’s Operation Ajax in 1953 eventually led to the 1979 revolution.

6. Biden is so unpopular that they may not be able to rig the election for him again without it obviously and blatantly looking like a fraud election. The globalists did a good job in convincing everyone that the 2020 election had integrity and questioning that integrity meant you are a fascist that wants to destroy democracy.

   If Trump comes back into power, it will be funny to see the lib shits go ape shit again. We had a good economy under Trump, immigration was cut in half, the border was somewhat under control. I liked Trump’s pro-police and pro-security rhetoric. It’s actually more important for Trump to return to the oval office not because of Trump himself but so he can pass the torch to someone who can be a better Trump than Trump.

   Nationalists need to stop picking a bone with Trump and his allies. Yeah, sure, Trump, Desantis, and some elements of MAGA are zionist, but Jews (especially left wing Jews) hate them. They do the zionist thing to be mainstream. I hate all the infighting going on with nationalists, you have some nationalists who are pro-NATO and pro-EU and then the rest of nationalists against them. You have nationalists who are pro-Trump and you have nationalists who are anti-Trump. You have nationalists that are pro-Ukraine and you have nationalists that are Pro-Russia.

   Can we all just agree that we do not want open borders, no more wars, no globo homo?

   Ok, well, Trump is for 2.5 out of 3 of those things, name me another politician who has a shot at being president who agrees with any of those 3 points besides Trump and Desantis.

   • Trump is a kike-sucker. Not one more Southern boy dead for tiny hats.

     For whites in North America to have self-determination, ‘murica must die.

7. Anyone who supports the Washington-London-Tel Aviv axis is basically viewed as an Antifa in countries like Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Pakistan etc. America is pretty much equated with Atheistic, materialistic degeneracy in those places. Both Republican and Democrat politicians support Woke liberal CIA/NGO groups in anti-Israel or anti-America countries.

8. I seem to recall a certain OD commenter, and others of similar persuasion, expressing those same sentiments as to the 2020 election. Funny how this same commenter is always right in his assessments on the political economy of the Empire of Evil. You should listen to your elders more often. Wisdom comes from experience.

   • The difference between Trump and Obama was that Trump caved to the neocons like Lindsey Graham and began the process of arming Ukraine. Obama, Trump and Biden have all escalated the situation there

     • I seriously doubt Cheetohead “caved” to the warmongering neocons. His 2016 campaign was a ‘con’ directed at folks like us (marks) to convince that he was against the war-racketeering machine – to borrow a Smedley Butler concept. His greatest skill having always been at grifting, Zion Don was quite adept at fooling lots of people – not just the terminally retarded – into falling for his lies. The “caving” to Lady G you describe was merely the revelation of his true colors. About the only figure I know of in the non-woke blogosphere who caught onto his con-job back in 2016 was Ann Barnhardt.

       I fell for it, you fell for it and Vox Day fell for it as well. Day has all but flatly admitted Trump was a fraud now – over a full year after he tossed his Jan. 6 followers under the Church of Woke bus. At the end of the day, Trump was a typical Republican – still driving us towards the cliff of doom, but slowing down to 60 mph rather than the “Biden” pedal to the metal.

9. I know if Yankee authors included this in their books they would not have may books sold or be invited on talk shows…

   But the very first big “regime change” made by this bully Yankee Empire came when the uppity South decided they would become independent (tyrants don’t appreciate thoughts like this) and get out from under the financial yoke of the Yankee North whose economy was based on the North ripping off the South. The tyrant Abraham Lincoln and the Yankee Empire refused to even recognize the Confederate States of America as a legitimate nation while they tried to literally destroy it and its people.

   An independent South was a tremendous economic threat to the North. The South wanted to become much more profitable and not have to support the North at the same time. The South provided the North with cheap raw materials and the Southern people were forced to buy the North’s overpriced inferior manufactured goods (protected by tariffs) plus pay 85% of the taxes of which 75% of the tax money was spent up in the North. Lincoln and the Yankee Empire knew they had a steal of a deal by keeping the South subservient to the North and they had to win or else their economy based on ripping off the South would be ruined.

   Southerners seceded to govern themselves. They expected to live in peace, but Lincoln could not allow that and the reason was 100% economic.

   If it wasn’t, Northerners like The Chicago Times would not have said things like:

   In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow. If protection be wholly withdrawn from our labor, it could not compete, with all the prejudices against it, with the labor of Europe. We should be driven from the market, and millions of our people would be compelled to go out of employment…

   The Northern economy was largely based on manufacturing for the South and shipping Southern cotton…

   Without the South, the North was dead economically.

   Without the North, the South, with 100% control of King Cotton, would ascend to dominance in North America, and Lincoln knew it.

   Southerners were already paying 85% of the taxes yet 75% of the tax money was being spent in the North. Secession meant turning all that money inward, back on the South.

   Southerners wanted desperately to manufacture for themselves to get out from under the North’s inferior goods that were greatly overpriced because of tariffs. In the meantime Southerners could buy from Europe at much lower prices than they had been paying.

   The Morrill Tariff, passed by greedy, economically ignorant Northerners in the U.S. Congress after the Cotton States seceded, raised the rate for entry into the North to as high as 60%, as compared to the South’s low 10% tariff for the operation of a small federal government in a States Rights nation. This threatened to shift the entire Northern shipping industry into the South overnight as Northern ship captains beat a path to the South where free trade reigned and protective tariffs were unconstitutional.

   The loss to the North of their captive Southern manufacturing market, together with the damage to their shipping industry by the Morrill Tariff, was a one-two punch they would not be able to recover from. That’s before even considering the loss of the 85% of tax revenue the South had been paying…

   With everything Southerners had to gain economically by independence, it is absurd to say they seceded to protect slavery.
   — Kizer, Jr.,Gene, “Robert E. Lee and Me”, Abbeville Institute, 04/06/2021

   And here’s the type of people that these Yankees wanted to run their conquered territories in the South which came to power during the North’s “Reconstruction” of the South.

   RADICAL MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

   These are the photographs of sixty-three members of the “reconstructed” Legislature of South Carolina. Fifty of them were [Blacks] or [mixed Black-Whites]; thirteen were white men. Of the twenty-two among them who could read and write only eight used the vernacular grammatically. Forty-one made their mark with the help of an amanuensis. Nineteen were taxpayers to an aggregate of $146.10. The other forty-four paid no taxes, and yet this body was empowered to levy on the white people of the state taxes amounting to $4,000,000.

   https://docsouth.unc.edu/fpn/wright/wright250.gif

   –Wright, Louise Wigfall, A Southern Girl in ’61: The War-Time Memories of a Confederate Senator’s Daughter, New York: Doubleday, Page & Company, 1905.

   Secede now!

   May God Save the South!

   • “With everything Southerners had to gain economically by independence, it is absurd to say they seceded to protect slavery.”

     Inasmuch as everything Southerners had to gain economically by independence was predicated on the protection of slavery, that sentence itself is the absurdity.

     • The means of emancipation proposed by abolitionists was immediate freedom brought about by race war. without compensation to slave owners or training of slaves to support themselves. In other words, they proposed the total wreckage and ruin of the Southern economy, resulting in poverty and desolation for both white and black. Is it any wonder that our ancestors wanted to escape union with these wicked fools? Sadly, our ancestors lost, and most of what they feared came upon them.

       • As I said here, at Occidental Dissent, many years ago, there was certainly political opportunity for the South to fashion, with anti-slavery factions, a compromise that would have addressed the concerns you’ve mentioned. The leaders of the South were no more interested in such a compromise than were the strictest abolitionists.

     • The institution of slavery did not end until the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865. However, Lincoln had authored his own 13th Amendment in March of 1861, a month BEFORE the shots were fired at Fort Sumter. It read: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person’s held to labor or service by laws of said State.”

       Why would the southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln, and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the southern (and northern) states which goes to prove the those Southern states that seceded did not do so to preserve slavery.

       The problem was Lincoln wanted the southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, a whopping 70% of the entire nation’s taxes. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution. AND THE SOUTH SAID NO!

       • Better to just buy them out and ship them back, as the Brits did.

       • First of all, I’m not sure it’s accurate to say it was Lincoln who “authored” that proposed amendment. Regardless, if it is your view that the leaders of the South—whose secession was already under way, whose provisional Confederate government had already been established—took seriously any such proposal that emerged in the frantic scramble to negate that secession and that passed, barely, through the Congress on, if I’m not mistaken, the very morning of Lincoln’s inauguration; if, that is, you think the South was convinced by Lincoln’s subsequent pro forma transmission of that proposal to the states WITHOUT HIS ENDORSEMENT but after his having said only that he “[had] no objection” to its purport; if, that is, you think the South, was convinced that the mere emergence, into the light of day, of such a PROPOSED amendment—one that had not even been adopted—on the very morning of the inauguration of a man whose support of the Republicans’ opposition to the expansion of slavery could not, I’m pretty sure, have been clearer; if, that is, you think the leaders of the South were convinced, in early 1861, by the mere existence of that proposal that the continued existence of slavery in their region was not imperiled and that, accordingly, they needn’t lead that region out of the Union; if, as I say, that is your view—well, then, I’d say you’re probably mistaken.

         • Yeah, apparently, the issue of slavery, being of little importance, I suppose the Southerners weren’t paying much attention to President Lincoln when he said he had no problem with it, so they just didn’t notice. And of course the proposed amendment, whether the Southerners took seriously Lincoln’s uncaring attitude about slavery or not, that he had no problem with slavery, was never adopted because the ensuing war happened, but it was not about slavery as the lying jews tell us whenever niggers are offended.

           The war of northern aggression was about the always belligerent US gov in the North, robbing the Southern states which were in fact bled dry with the economic warfare tactics of tariffs. They were also forced to pay very high prices for the steel the South needed which was produced only in the north. The real truth about the war is the South wanted to secede over these issues. It was never about slavery until the lying US gov in the North won the war and began to rewrite History.

         • I will say again: The Congress, in a desperate effort to negate the secession, came up with that proposed amendment—just barely—in the final hours of the Buchanan administration. All that Lincoln did was say that he didn’t object to it, and his saying that was not inconsistent with the Republican platform, which, I’m pretty sure, did not address the abolition of slavery but, rather, spoke about the authority of the government to limit its spread and about elimination of the slave trade, which the Republicans felt had reappeared. He transmitted it, pro forma, i.e., without comment, to the states for their consideration, as, I imagine, he was essentially required to transmit it, by the Constitution. Even if the leaders of the South had reason to believe, as I doubt they did, that such an amendment—proposed while they were halfway out the door—might be adopted in short order, they had no reason to believe that such an amendment, thus adopted, would mean the end of the tremendous political pressure against Southern slavery, pressure of which the election of Lincoln was an enormous symbol. It was a complicated political situation, in which Lincoln had to deal with a Congress in turmoil, and the South had no reason to take that accommodation, that proposed amendment, seriously, as I doubt Lincoln himself took it.

         • Doubletalk! Once again, secession wasn’t about slavery anyway, as I have explained above whether YOU “doubt” that the proposed amendment was taken seriously or not. Why would you think Lincoln was not serious about allowing slavery to remain intact?

           From Lincoln’s fourth debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858:

           “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

           In a letter to Alexander Stevens who later became the Vice President of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote this, “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.”

           Hear Lincoln again: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” He also said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so.”

         • Lincoln would not have taken that proposed amendment seriously for the same reason that no Southern leader whose head was not completely up his ass would have taken it seriously, i.e., because there was no reason to think that, even if it were to be adopted, any such amendment—thrown together at five or six in the morning on Lincoln’s inauguration day, while Buchanan was still in the White House—would bring to an end the peril that Southern slavery would face from abolitionism if the South were to remain in the Union. The Republican platform was express in stating the Republicans’ view that the national government had the authority to limit the spread of slavery; and any such amendment notwithstanding, the abolitionists, while Lincoln was in the White House, would have exercised all their formidable skills to surround the South politically and cut it off from every kind of nutriment, political, economic, or other.

           If you had been among a group of Southern leaders that morning, would you have said, “Well, hold on a second, men, let’s pause a moment and weigh everything. Yes, there might be other problems we have with the Union, but this proposed amendment might just solve the main problem. Let’s take a look at it”? If I were duplicitous, I myself might have said it to them, because I would have enjoyed helping them commit suicide, but no friend of the South would have.

           The South, as I’ve said, was already halfway out the door that morning, and Congress’s passage of that proposed amendment did not cause it to hesitate for even a single step. Lincoln would not have expected it to. Yes, from the day he announced his candidacy for the presidency, Lincoln scrupulously did not move against Southern slavery, but he knew what his status as president would signal for it. The South knew that, too.

     • @JBP:
       Inasmuch as everything Southerners had to gain economically by independence was predicated on the protection of slavery, that sentence itself is the absurdity.

       Slavery was not the main issue (it has been pointed out to you that Lincoln would allow for slavery permanently in order to preserve the Union), the North even still had slave states during the war and even admitted a slave state during the war. (The Yankees were the ones who admitted the last slave state into the Union!)

       The Yankees even admitted at the beginning that they, at least, were not fighting over slavery. (They changed their tune later in order to keep Britain and others out of the war.)

       On July 22, 1861, the now Northern only Congress passed a joint resolution stating the purpose of the war:

       “Resolved…That this war is not being prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, not for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or ESTABLISHED INSTITUTIONS [i.e. slavery] of those states, but to defend the maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several States unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease.”

       Then after Lincoln saw that he was losing the war, he played the race/slave cards.

       “It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their independence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery…and the world, it might be hoped, would see it as a moral war, not a political; and the sympathy of nations would begin to run for the North, not for the South.”
       — President Woodrow Wilson, “A History of The American People”, page 231

       Just admit it. JBP. You have been brainwashed by the Yankee abolitionists’ propaganda up in the North.

       • “The Yankees even admitted at the beginning that they, at least, were not fighting over slavery. (They changed their tune later in order to keep Britain and others out of the war.)”

         The question, friend, is what the South was fighting over.

         • Actually the South did not want to fight at all but simply just wanted to leave the Union and go their own way…It was the North who invaded the South to force them to remain in the Union for economic reasons. The Yankees knew that they had a steal of a deal and they wanted to preserve the North’s advantage they had in this ripping the South off to get rich to boost their pro-North economy. The South paid in 85% of the taxes. The percent of those taxes that was spent in the North was 75%. Is that a rip off or not?

           Lincoln, when asked why not let the South go in peace, replied:

           “I can’t let them go. Who would pay for the government”? “And, what then will become of my tariff”?
           — Abraham Lincoln to Virginia Compromise Delegation March 1861

           Posting this again:

           Southerners seceded to govern themselves. They expected to live in peace, but Lincoln could not allow that and the reason was 100% economic.

           If it wasn’t, Northerners like The Chicago Times would not have said things like:

           In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow. If protection be wholly withdrawn from our labor, it could not compete, with all the prejudices against it, with the labor of Europe. We should be driven from the market, and millions of our people would be compelled to go out of employment…

           The Northern economy was largely based on manufacturing for the South and shipping Southern cotton…

           Without the South, the North was dead economically.

           Without the North, the South, with 100% control of King Cotton, would ascend to dominance in North America, and Lincoln knew it.

           Southerners were already paying 85% of the taxes yet 75% of the tax money was being spent in the North. Secession meant turning all that money inward, back on the South.

           Southerners wanted desperately to manufacture for themselves to get out from under the North’s inferior goods that were greatly overpriced because of tariffs. In the meantime Southerners could buy from Europe at much lower prices than they had been paying.

           The Morrill Tariff, passed by greedy, economically ignorant Northerners in the U.S. Congress after the Cotton States seceded, raised the rate for entry into the North to as high as 60%, as compared to the South’s low 10% tariff for the operation of a small federal government in a States Rights nation. This threatened to shift the entire Northern shipping industry into the South overnight as Northern ship captains beat a path to the South where free trade reigned and protective tariffs were unconstitutional.

           The loss to the North of their captive Southern manufacturing market, together with the damage to their shipping industry by the Morrill Tariff, was a one-two punch they would not be able to recover from. That’s before even considering the loss of the 85% of tax revenue the South had been paying…

           With everything Southerners had to gain economically by independence, it is absurd to say they seceded to protect slavery.
           — Kizer, Jr.,Gene, “Robert E. Lee and Me”, Abbeville Institute, 04/06/2021

           And Jefferson Davis makes it very clear that the fight was to allow the South to decide its own destiny and separate itself from the Union and NOT just leave over one issue of SLAVERY!!!. I know you Yankees have been brainwashed on the war was all about slavery and reject all arguments to the contrary but below is the top man in control of the South during the war using the words INDEPENDENCE and SLAVERY in the same argument telling you what the South was fighting for. (I know your brain will not retain this thought for long.)

           “… I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on … unless you acknowledge our right to self government. WE ARE NOT FIGHTING FOR SLAVERY. WE ARE FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE.“
           — President Jefferson Davis, In interview by journalist James R. Gilmore accompanied by Colonel James Jaquess of the Seventy-third Illinois, 07/17/1864. This interview appeared in an article in the September 1864 issue of The Atlantic Monthly, under the title “Our Visit to Richmond.”

           more of the context:
           “No, I cannot [leave untried any means that may lead to peace]. I desire peace as much as you do. I deplore bloodshed as much as you do; but I feel that not one drop of the blood shed in this war is on my hands,—I can look up to my God and say this. I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, and for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves; and so the war came, and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize his musket and fight his battle, unless you acknowledge our right to self-government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence,—and that, or extermination, we will have.”
           — President Jefferson Davis, In interview by journalist James R. Gilmore accompanied by Colonel James Jaquess of the Seventy-third Illinois, 07/17/1864. This article appeared in the September 1864 issue of The Atlantic Monthly, under the title “Our Visit to Richmond.”

           Jefferson Davis wanted to meet with the North and settle who owed what to whom to avoid a war but Lincoln was for war and refused to negotiate a peaceful separation.

           True to our traditions of peace and our love of justice, we sent commissioners to the United States to propose a fair and amicable settlement of all questions of public debt or property which might be in dispute. But the Government at Washington, denying our right to self-government, refused even to listen to any proposals for a peaceful separation. Nothing was then left to do but to prepare for war.
           — President Jefferson Davis, Second Inaugural Address, Virginia Capitol, Richmond, 02/22/1862.

           When the South’s land was invaded by Yankees they had to either fight to drive out the invaders or else become slaves/servants/subjects to the invaders’ mission of conquest which has been our status for the last 160 years. So the fighting was actually an automatic reaction based on the Yankee aggressions as they came into the South’s land to wage war.

           Secede now!

           May God Save the South!

         • Mr.Bonaccorsi, sir, if I may take the liberty, I would like too answer your question, ” is what the south was fighting over” people can say secession, slavery, states rights, tariffs, other issues also, I believe the reason they fought and this applies too the north and south both, simply for no other reason, than they basically did not like each other, the south disliked the north, same as we dislike like the other side now, too put it mildly, now as then, with some prodding and agitation from elements that prosper from hate and death, hostilities could once again resume, I just thought you might like another opinion, too your question,

         • @JBP

           Adding to what TS stated.

           A View of the Yankee People by a Confederate officer captured at Gettysburg, writing to some friends on another subject when his mind turned to the Yankees.

           “They believed their manners and customs more enlightened, their intelligence and culture immeasurably superior. Brim-full of hypocritical and puritan ideas, they preach, pray and whine. The most parsimonious of wretches, they extol charity; the most inveterate blasphemers, they are the readiest exporters; the worst of dastards, they are the most shameless boasters; the most selfish of man, they are the most blatant philanthropists; the blackest-hearted hypocrites, they are religious fanatics. They are agitators and schemers, braggarts and deceivers, swindlers and extortioners, and yet pretend to be of Godliness, truth, purity and humanity. The shibboleth of their faith is, “The union must and shall be preserved”, and they hold on to this with all the obstinacy peculiar to their nature. They say that we are a benighted people, and are trying to pull down that which God himself built up. “Many of these bigots express great astonishment at finding the majority of our men could read and write; they have actually been educated to regard the Southern people as grossly illiterate, and little better than savages. The whole nation lives, breathes and prospers in delusions; and their chiefs control the spring of the social and political machine with masterly hands. “I could but conclude that the Northern people were bent upon the destruction of the South. All appeared to deprecate the war, but were unwilling to listen to a separation of the old union. They justified the acts of usurpation on the part of their government, and seem submissive to the tyranny of its acts on the plea of military necessity; they say that the union is better than the Constitution, and bow their necks to the yoke in the hope of success against us. A great many, I believe, act from honest and conscientious principles; many from fear and favor; but the large majority entertained a deep-seated hatred, envy and jealousy towards the Southern people. They know, yet they pretend not to believe it, that Southern men and women are their superiors in everything relating to bravery, honesty, virtue and refinement, and they have become more convinced of this since the present war; consequently, their worst passions have become aroused, and they give way to frenzy and fanaticism. We must not deceive ourselves; they are bent upon our destruction, and differ mainly in the means of accomplishing this end. However, much as sections and parties that hate each other, yet, as a whole, they hate us more. They are so entirely incongruous to our people that they and their descendants will ever be our natural enemies.”
           — The Virginia Flaggers, 04-16-2022.

         • @JBP

           The old Union became a conquering empire that conquered the southern states and we are still held by force against our will as the Yankee Empire tries to flood us with Yankee transplants and 3rd world people to basically “genocide” the Southern culture and slander and advocate destruction of everything related to the South. Here are the thoughts of a descendant of President John Tyler seventy years after the war.

           
           “The old Union was a union of consent; the present Union is one of force. For many years after the war, the South was held as a subject province, and any privileges it now enjoys are mere concessions from its conquerors, not rights inherited from the Constitution. The North, after the war, had in domestic negro rule a whip which England never had over Ireland. To escape from it, the South became grateful for any kind of government. The present Union is a great Northern nation based on force and control by Northern majorities, to which the South, as a conquered province, has had to conform all its policies and ideals. The Federal authority is only Northern authority. As of today, the Executive, the Cabinet, the Supreme Court, the Ministers at foreign courts are all Northern men. The South has as little share in the government, and as little chance of furnishing a President, as Norway or Switzerland.”
           
           — Lyon Gardiner Tyler, descendant of President John Tyler, 1935

           Secede now!

           May God Save the South!

         • I’ll let some prominent secessionists speak for themselves, Banned …

           “The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be ‘to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.’

           “These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

           “We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

           “For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that ‘Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,’ and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

           “This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

           “On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

           “The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

           “Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

           “We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.”

           Excerpted from
           https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
           (Confederate States of America – Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union — Adopted December 24, 1860)

         • Years ago, Terry, before I’d come to Occidental Dissent and before I’d really given any thought to whether there are significant differences between Southerners and Northerners, I’d have had no understanding at all of this comment of yours; but after my years here, I’m inclined to think there’s much to what you say. It’s impossible, I suppose, to wonder how great would have been the friction between the two peoples if there’d been no slavery and thus no rancorous contention about it, but it doesn’t strike me as preposterous that there would have been at least some friction even without that.

           For whatever it might be worth to you, I’ll say that most of the persons in my own circle of friends and relatives are probably unaware of any such differences, as anything of great significance, anyway. One younger person who is in my circle and who spent time in the South in the course of schooling is aware of the differences, I think, but I’m pretty sure that that person is really the only one. In fact, I think it would be fair to say that, recently, when I remarked to an elder of mine, here in the Philadelphia area, that there is a great difference between Southerners and Northerners, that elder was incredulous. Of course, that particular elder of mine tends to think everything I say is borderline crazy. By that elder, my remarks on just about anything are merely politely tolerated.

         • “They believed their manners and customs more enlightened, their intelligence and culture immeasurably superior. Brim-full of hypocritical and puritan ideas, they preach, pray and whine. The most parsimonious of wretches, they extol charity; the most inveterate blasphemers, they are the readiest exporters; the worst of dastards, they are the most shameless boasters; the most selfish of man, they are the most blatant philanthropists; the blackest-hearted hypocrites, they are religious fanatics. They are agitators and schemers, braggarts and deceivers, swindlers and extortioners, and yet pretend to be of Godliness, truth, purity and humanity. The shibboleth of their faith is, “The union must and shall be preserved”

           Who could possibly like these people from whatever part of the country they hail? And in all these years since the War of Northern Aggression, the antiwhite and corrupt US government, and the arrogant fiends who run it, have not changed one iota.

           Bonacorsi said: The question, friend, is what the South was fighting over.

           Of course, answered a number of times before the question was once again repeated, and responded to with longwinded doubletalk. So, I’ll have to repeat it again. Believe me. I understand why you refuse to get the answer through your head. I, myself, like you, have had the disadvantage of being educated in Philadelphia. 🙁

           The problem was Lincoln wanted the southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, a whopping 70% of the entire nation’s taxes.

           For decades before the war, the South, through harsh tariffs, had been supplying about 85% of the country’s revenue, nearly all of which was being spent in the North to boost its economy, build manufacturing, infrastructure, railroads, canals, etc. With the passage of the 47% Morrill Tariff the final nail was in the coffin. The South did not secede to protect slavery, although certainly they wished to protect it; they seceded over a dispute about unfair taxation, an oppressive Federal government, and the right to separate from that oppression and be governed “by consent”, exactly the same issues over which the Founding Fathers fought the Revolutionary War. When a member of Lincoln’s cabinet suggested he let the South go in peace, Lincoln famously replied, “Let the South go? Where, then, would we get our revenue!”

         • @JBP: Confederate States of America – Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union…

           So, JPB, you’ve discovered a secession declaration, I see. I wonder how many times a South basher has dropped some of those “little gems” on me. I used to challenge them and post something like: OK, now you produce ALL the secession declarations of ALL the states that seceded for it must be unanimous if the war was ALL about slavery. I think most never made another post after that. I think several did try to justify their position but they never won the argument with secession declarations.

           But this author (see below) has done his homework and makes some good points of why “Secession Declarations Do Not Prove the War was over Slavery”:

           ACADEMIA’S ABSOLUTE PROOF that the War Between the States was fought over slavery is based primarily on the declarations of causes for the secession of four of the first seven Southern states to secede: South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas.

           However, those four declarations prove nothing of the sort.

           There were 13 Southern states represented in the Confederate government. That 13 included Missouri and Kentucky, which were divided states that did not actually secede. They remained Union slave states – two of six Union slave states – the entire war (WHAT! UNION SLAVE STATES! I thought the war was fought over slavery with the Union fighting to end slavery! Man, they should have started with their own country).

           In fact, three of the six Union slave states – New Jersey, Kentucky and Delaware – had slavery several months after the war. It took the second 13th Amendment in December 1865 for slavery to end in those three Union slave states.

           Remember, the first 13th Amendment was the Corwin Amendment that left black people in slavery forever, even beyond the reach of Congress, in places where slavery already existed. It was passed by the Northern Congress, ratified by several states and strongly supported by Abraham Lincoln before the war made it moot.

           The Corwin Amendment was the true feeling of the North on the slavery issue though it is only one small piece of the irrefutable evidence that the North did not go to war to end slavery.

           Back to the six Union slave states: The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately exempted them as well as slaves in already captured Confederate territory. That prompted Lincoln’s secretary of state, William H. Seward, to state “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”

           It also gave Charles Dickens a good laugh at Lincoln’s phoneyness and hypocrisy, especially since all of Lincoln’s life he favored sending blacks back to Africa or into a place they could survive. See Colonization after Emancipation, Lincoln and the Movement for Black Resettlement by Phillip W. Magness and Sebastian N. Page (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2011).

           All 13 states represented in the Confederate government produced a legal document such as an ordinance of secession that withdrew the state from the Union. Tennessee’s was called a Declaration of Independence.

           Most of the ordinances of secession were straight-forward documents referring to a state’s ratification of the Constitution then withdrawing the state from it, as well as proclaiming its sovereignty, etc. Alabama and Arkansas did go a little beyond pure legalese in discussing some issues but nothing like a declaration of causes.

           Only four of the 13 Confederate states issued declarations of causes. Nine did not.

           Those four declarations are the basis for the entire argument against the South because politicized academia and the ignorant news media simply ignore substantial evidence they don’t agree with.

           They ignore the six Union slave states, the Corwin Amendment, the War Aims Resolution (war is being waged for Union, not to end slavery), Lincoln’s very clear statements that the war is about preserving the Union, and a ton of conclusive evidence that slavery was not the cause of the North’s invasion of the South.

           The North was interested in its economic dominance and wealth, not ending slavery, and Northerners sure did not want a bunch of desperate freed slaves to come North and be job competition. That’s why so many Northern and Western states had laws forbidding free blacks from living there or even visiting for long including Lincoln’s Illinois.

           Anti-slavery in the North in 1856 and 1860 was political, to rally votes so Northerners could control the federal government and continue their bounties, subsidies and monopolies for Northern businesses, and their high tariffs like the Morrill Tariff. Remember, they were the “Federals” in the war because they wanted to establish the supremacy of the federal government over the states, which they would then control with their larger population.

           Northern anti-slavery should be labeled, more accurately, “anti-South” – political agitation against the South – not anti-slavery. It was not a moral movement for the benefit of the black man.

           Even the slavery in the West issue was based, not on concern for blacks, but the opposite: Northern racism. They didn’t want slavery in the West because they did not want blacks near them in the West.

           It all started with the Wilmot Proviso. U.S. Representative David Wilmot of Pennsylvania on Augusut 8, 1846 introduced a proviso prohibiting slavery in the territory won from Mexico after the Mexican War. Wilmot admitted his racist motivation was to keep blacks out of the West. He said, among other things: “The negro race already occupy enough of this fair continent. Let us keep what remains for ourselves . . . for free white labor.”[1]

           Lincoln said the exact same thing in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, that the West was to be reserved for free white labor from all over the world. No blacks allowed.

           The four declarations of causes are statements as to why states seceded, what their grievances were, and such. They are not declarations of war. Southerners expected to live in peace. After all, Yankees threatened to secede five times before Southerners finally did.

           Nobody questioned the right of secession, not even Horace Greeley during the time that South Carolina was seceding in December, 1860. Greeley strongly supported the right of secession (“let the erring sisters go”) until he realized it would affect his money then he wanted war like the rest of the North.

           Wars are always fought over money and power, never because one country does not like the domestic institutions in another. Would you send your precious sons off to die to free servants in another country? Hell no.

           Lincoln sent his hostile naval forces to Charleston and Pensacola to start the War Between the States in April, 1861 because a free trade South with European military alliances and 100% control of the most demanded commodity on the planet – cotton – would quickly rise to dominance in North America. The North would not be able to beat the South in a war in such a situation.

           That’s why Lincoln wanted to use his enormous advantages at that point in history, and fight.

           He wanted to establish the North as the dominant cultural and economic region of our great country, and he did. It’s been that way for over 150 years though many of the big cities of the North and West today are on a death spiral thanks to woke liberal policies that encourage violent crime and discriminate against the law-biding. Recent mass thefts in San Francisco, New York and other bastions of liberal wokeness by mobs of violent criminals have forced businesses to board up and leave rather than serve the public. That is a clear sign of a sick, decaying culture.

           The four declarations of causes all mention several reasons for seceding. All mention the many constitutional violations of the North. The North was untrustworthy.

           All mention Northern terrorism against the South such as John Brown who wanted to murder Southern men, women and children with a bloody slave insurrection like they had in Haiti. Brown was funded by the “Secret Committee of Six” out of Massachusetts. They gave him $679,000 in 2017 dollars. Seven of Brown’s raiders who escaped Harper’s Ferry were protected by Iowa and Ohio whose Republican governors would not extradite them to Virginia to stand trial as the Constitution required. Brown was celebrated and glorified in the North for wanting to murder Southerners.

           Of course, this shocked the South and caused it to realize that Northerners were already at war with them, so they debated the issue and voted to secede.[2]

           The most widely quote phrase in the secession debate in the South in the year prior to states seceding comes from the Declaration of Independence:

           Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

           South Carolina’s Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union, adopted December 24, 1860, is a fascinating constitutional and early American history lesson. It proves South Carolina’s sovereignty and the sovereignty of all the states. The caps are in the original document. Here’s part of it:

           Under this Confederation the war of the Revolution was carried on, and on the 3rd of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the independence of the Colonies in the following terms: “ARTICLE 1– His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz: New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.” / Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.

           Georgia’s declaration goes into great detail on the economic causes of secession. As Georgia’s famous senator, Robert Toombs, said, the North was a suction pump sucking wealth out of the South and depositing it into the North constantly. The Georgia declaration states:

           The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the South not at all.

           That is a powerful statement as to why the Union was critical to Lincoln and the North, but was the opposite of the States’ Rights philosophy of the Founding Fathers and the South.

           Even Mississippi’s declaration that begins with an assertion that it is identified with slavery as the basis of its economic well-being makes several critical points. It affirms the constitutional violations of the North but states about the North:

           It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better. / It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives. / It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security. / It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system. / It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

           Texas’s declaration of causes includes:

           By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States. / The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

           Read these declarations and especially know your own state’s if you live in South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia or Texas. Northern constitutional violations are extremely important. If you can’t trust the North to obey the Constitution, you can’t trust them with anything.

           Northern support for terrorists like John Brown was a huge issue. The North was already at war with the South. Would you allow yourself to be ruled by people who sent murderers, thieves and arsonists into your peaceful towns to kill your family and neighbors, destroy your property, poison wells, and encourage the unimaginable horror of slave insurrections with rape and murder from which there would be no survivors like in Haiti?

           The economic theft also mentioned was huge. Southerners were paying 85% of the taxes yet 75% of the tax money was being spent in the North.[3]

           Nobody in the North, ever a single time, suggested a workable plan for gradual, compensated emancipation such as the Northern states, themselves, and all other nations on earth except Haiti, used to end slavery.

           The reason why is that Northerners were not about to spend their hard earned sweatshop money to free the slaves in the South who would then go North with crime and violence, and be job competition.

           They would rather do as they did and just pass laws that forbid black people from settling or even visiting Northern and Western states for long.

           The four declarations of causes indicate that slavery was one of the causes of secession for four states, but only for those four.

           The other nine did not issue declarations of causes, and four of the Southern states, in which 52.4% of white Southerners lived, unquestionably seceded over nothing to do with slavery.

           Those four states — Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina — rejected secession at first but after Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the South, they were horrified by the prospect of violent federal coercion. They were utterly disgusted that the federal government would illegally and unconstitutionally invade sovereign states, kill their citizens and destroy their property to force them to obey a Northern sectional majority.

           Another thing that proves the war was not about slavery: when Lincoln called for his immoral invasion, there were more slave states in the Union than in the Confederacy.

           There were nine slave states in the Union, soon to be 10 with the admission of West Virginia as a slave state into the Union during the war, ironically, just weeks after the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect.

           There were only seven slave states in the Confederacy.

           The nine Union slave states on April 12, 1861 when the war started were Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina.

           The seven Confederate states were South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.

           Nothing the North or dishonest academia or anybody else says matters anyway. The South had the right to secede and did so properly.

           Among the conclusive evidence of the right of secession is the reserved right to secede demanded by New York, Rhode Island and Virginia before they acceded to the Constitution. All the other states accepted the reserved right of secession of New York, Rhode Island and Virginia, thus they had it too, since all states entered the Union as exact equals.

           Southerners seceded democratically with conventions of the people to decide the one issue of secession just as the Founding Fathers had used conventions of the people to decide the one issue of accepting or rejecting the United States Constitution.

           The Founding Fathers established the precedent of using conventions of the people to decide single, important issues. Southerners followed it to the letter.

           Southerners wanted to be free to govern themselves just like the colonists had wanted when the British became tyrannical with their taxes that were minuscule compared to the 85% Southerners were paying in 1861, of which 75% of the tax money was being spent in the North.

           Southerners expected to live in peace but, as stated, Lincoln and Northern business leaders and banks knew that a free-trade South with 100% control of King Cotton, and British trade and military alliances, would quickly be unbeatable in a war. The South would then rise to dominance in North America.

           Lincoln started his war so he could throw up his naval blockade and chill relations between the South and Europe.

           This is confirmed by Lincoln’s own commander inside Fort Sumter, Major Robert Anderson, who was at ground zero on April 12, 1861, when the war started.

           Of all the participants in the drama, Anderson, alone, was in the best position to judge who started the war.

           When Anderson was informed that reinforcements would be sent after the South had been lied to over and over with the false promise that Fort Sumter would be evacuated, he wrote back to Secretary of War Cameron and Lincoln:

           . . . a movement made now when the South has been erroneously informed that none such will be attempted, would produce most disastrous results throughout out country. . . . We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced. . . . (emphasis added)

           Major Anderson sees that the war “is to be thus commenced” by Abraham Lincoln, president of the North, the first sectional president in American history whom over 60% of even Northerners voted against in 1860.

           Lincoln, whose goal was to establish the Northeast as the dominant economic and cultural section of our country, succeeded, though over a million people had to die, which included 750,000 soldiers, with another million maimed.

           [1] Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men (Chicago: Open Court, 1996), 90.

           [2] Samuel W. Mitcham, Jr., It Wasn’t About Slavery, Exposing the Great Lie of the Civil War (Washington, DC: Regnery History, 2020), 98-101.

           [3] Mitcham, It Wasn’t About Slavery, 103.
           — Abbeville Institute, “Secession Declarations Do Not Prove the War was over Slavery”, Gene Kizer, Jr., 02/25/2022

         • In trying to respond thoroughly to your post, Banned, I myself am going to have to post quite a bit of material. In the hope of enabling Mr. W., our host, to post it more easily, I’ll post it in parts, of which the present post is Part 1.

           You write:

           “So, JPB, you’ve discovered a secession declaration, I see. I wonder how many times a South basher has dropped some of those ‘little gems’ on me. I used to challenge them and post something like: OK, now you produce ALL the secession declarations of ALL the states that seceded for it must be unanimous if the war was ALL about slavery. I think most never made another post after that.”

           Although I will address in the present post only other parts of your remarks, I will happily present, in my posts to follow, the relevant passages from the secession documents of the three other states you mention: Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas. You will find that they are like the South Carolina document in making it clear slavery was the cause of secession.

           Now–as to your other remarks (or remarks you quote or cite) …

           You write (or quote):

           “WHAT! UNION SLAVE STATES! I thought the war was fought over slavery with the Union fighting to end slavery! Man, they should have started with their own country.”

           How many times must I repeat this? I have not said the North fought to end slavery; and as you yourself are aware, Abraham Lincoln himself did not say the North was fighting to end slavery. Lincoln’s sole stated cause, as far as I’m aware, was preservation of the Union.

           REGARDLESS, the question we’re discussing—and which, apparently, I must restate YET AGAIN—is: What was THE SOUTH fighting for? Why, in other words, did the South secede?, Why did it fight to make good that secession when the national government, rather than recognize that secession, declared the South in a state of rebellion and sent armies to thwart that proclaimed secession? That is the sole question with which I’m concerned in this our exchange, and I will appreciate your sticking to it.

           You write (or quote):

           “Even the slavery in the West issue was based, not on concern for blacks, but the opposite: Northern racism.”

           So, what? YET AGAIN: The question is WHY DID THE SOUTH SECEDE.

           You write (or quote):

           “The four declarations of causes are statements as to why states seceded, what their grievances were, and such. They are not declarations of war. Southerners expected to live in peace. After all, Yankees threatened to secede five times before Southerners finally did.”

           Again: Irrelevant. The South declared its secession. The national government declared the South in rebellion and sent armies to thwart that proclaimed secession. THE SOUTH FOUGHT in an effort to make the secession good. That’s the question: WHAT WAS THE SOUTH FIGHTING FOR? Again: Please stick to that question.

           You write (or quote):

           “The four declarations of causes all mention several reasons for seceding. All mention the many constitutional violations of the North.”

           Again: I’ll be posting the relevant passages from the secession documents of Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas.

           You write (or quote):

           “Georgia’s declaration goes into great detail on the economic causes of secession.”

           As I’ve said, I’ll be posting the relevant passages from Georgia’s document of secession.

           You write (or quote):

           “The four declarations of causes indicate that slavery was one of the causes of secession for four states, but only for those four.

           “The other nine did not issue declarations of causes, and four of the Southern states, in which 52.4% of white Southerners lived, unquestionably seceded over nothing to do with slavery.

           “Those four states — Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina — rejected secession at first but after Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the South, they were horrified by the prospect of violent federal coercion. They were utterly disgusted that the federal government would illegally and unconstitutionally invade sovereign states, kill their citizens and destroy their property to force them to obey a Northern sectional majority.”

           To say it once more: I’ll be posting the remaining secession material (from Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas). Everything else in your passage I’ve just excerpted above is nothing but the throwing up of dust, as is—I shall speak bluntly, Banned—virtually everything you say.

           You write (or quote):

           “Another thing that proves the war was not about slavery: when Lincoln called for his immoral invasion, there were more slave states in the Union than in the Confederacy.”

           Once again: I have not said the North was fighting about slavery; and Abraham Lincoln did not say the North was fighting about slavery.. The question, YET AGAIN, is why did the South secede and why did it fight to make that secession good? PLEASE STICK TO THAT QUESTION.

           You write (or quote):

           “The South had the right to secede and did so properly.”

           Again: Irrelevant. We’re not talking about whether the South had the right to secede. We’re talking about WHY THE SOUTH SECEDED. PLEASE STICK TO THAT QUESTION.

           You write (or quote):

           “Southerners seceded democratically with conventions of the people to decide the one issue of secession just as the Founding Fathers had used conventions of the people to decide the one issue of accepting or rejecting the United States Constitution.”

           Yes—and the national government did not recognize that secession. Again: The question we’re discussing—and on which you seem incapable of focusing—is WHY the South seceded and fought to make its secession good. PLEASE STICK TO THAT QUESTION.

           You write (or quote):

           “Of all the participants in the drama, Anderson, alone, was in the best position to judge who started the war.”

           First: I don’t know that it’s true that “Anderson, alone,” was in that best position. Second: It’s irrelevant “who started” it. We’re talking, again, about WHY THE SOUTH SECEDED AND FOUGHT TO MAKE GOOD ITS SECESSION. Third, I really don’t know enough about the events at Fort Sumter to get into the details of what happened there.

           You write (or quote):

           “Back to the six Union slave states: The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately exempted them as well as slaves in already captured Confederate territory. That prompted Lincoln’s secretary of state, William H. Seward, to state ‘We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.’

           “It also gave Charles Dickens a good laugh at Lincoln’s phoneyness and hypocrisy, especially since all of Lincoln’s life he favored sending blacks back to Africa or into a place they could survive.”

           On what Constitutional basis did Messrs. Seward and Dickens think President Lincoln entitled to free slaves in the non-secessionist states or in secessionist territory that the Union had captured? Lincoln’s emancipation of the slaves in the secessionist states was justified—validly or not—by military necessity. Lincoln, as far as I’m aware, never claimed any Constitutional authority to abolish slavery; and, in fact, he disclaimed it.

           Okay—I think that’s enough. Before I move on to the secession documents, in my posts to follow, I must tell you I am not going to give any more of my time to any of your remarks that don’t bear on the question WHY THE SOUTH SECEDED.

           END PART 1

         • Okay, Banned, this will be my Part 2, in which I’ll present the relevant passages from the secession document of—let’s see, we’ll go in alphabetical order: Georgia.

           “The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation.

           Presented after that opening paragraph is an argument to the effect that the North embraced anti-slavery as an expedient, a pretext, to reacquire economic favors from the national government. First of all, THAT IS IRRELEVANT. We’re talking about WHY THE SOUTH SECEDED, not whether the anti-slavery sentiment by which the South was vexed was sincere.

           Second, it’s interesting that this secession document says that very thing, i.e., that that document more-or-less expressly says that the non-slaveholding states were seeking to reacquire those economic favors, which, as the secession document itself maintains, those non-slaveholding states were no longer enjoying:

           “But when these reasons [by which the non-slaveholding states had gained these favors] ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded– the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

           “All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success.”

           From later in the document:

           “The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

           “With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

           “The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

           “For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us. We offer the practice of our Government for the first thirty years of its existence in complete refutation of the position that any such power is either necessary or proper to the execution of any other power in relation to the Territories. We offer the judgment of a large minority of the people of the North, amounting to more than one-third, who united with the unanimous voice of the South against this usurpation; and, finally, we offer the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our country, in our favor. This evidence ought to be conclusive that we have never surrendered this right. The conduct of our adversaries admonishes us that if we had surrendered it, it is time to resume it.”

           From later yet:

           “,,, For twenty years past the abolitionists and their allies in the Northern States have been engaged in constant efforts to subvert our institutions and to excite insurrection and servile war among us. They have sent emissaries among us for the accomplishment of these purposes. Some of these efforts have received the public sanction of a majority of the leading men of the Republican party in the national councils, the same men who are now proposed as our rulers. These efforts have in one instance led to the actual invasion of one of the slave-holding States, and those of the murderers and incendiaries who escaped public justice by flight have found fraternal protection among our Northern confederates.

           “These are the same men who say the Union shall be preserved.

           “Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere; because they give sanctuary to thieves and incendiaries who assail it to the whole extent of their power, in spite of their most solemn obligations and covenants; because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity.

           “Approved, Tuesday, January 29, 1861”

           Everything there, Banned—and if you think I’ve omitted any relevant passages, please let me know—indicates that slavery was the sole cause of the secession.

           END PART 2

         • In this my Part 4, my final part, I will turn to the secession document of Texas. This one is interesting because it does mention a cause other than slavery—ALMOST.

           ‘The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

           “By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

           “The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.”

           Now, notice that: Texas seems to be complaining about something other than—i.e., in addition to—anti-slavery. It says, “The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico ….”

           However—we encounter later in the document the following:

           “They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for FOR THE SOLE REASON THAT SHE IS A SLAVE-HOLDING STATE.” (Emphasis mine.)

           So—even that objection, that the security of Texas was not being guaranteed by the national government, was rooted in the slavery question.

           Also in the document:

           “In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color– a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

           “For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

           ‘By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments. They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a ‘higher law’ than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

           “They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

           “They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.

           “They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.

           “They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.

           “They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.”

           That last statement, about legislation that is allegedly unequal and partial, doesn’t say anything as to the animus that has driven any such legislation.

           The document concludes:

           “[F]inally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.

           “In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

           “We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

           “That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

           “By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

           “For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons– We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America.”

           That’s it, Banned. If you think I’ve omitted, from any of these secession documents, any passages that indicate that anything other than slavery was the cause of secession, please post it; but I will no longer reply to any of your statements—your ramblings, frankly—on any other subject.

           END PART 4

         • So, JBP, you’ve discovered several more secession declarations…but that’s it. And by the way, most Southerners at that time did not even own slaves and you can’t produce any other declarations unless you make them up. So you conked out at 4 but I am sure you have been brainwashed enough to claim it was ALL about slavery (it really became all about slavery for the nutty North — one big Yankee lie to hide their real motives).

           Again where are ALL the unanimous declarations from ALL the states that seceded. Again, most Southerners did not own slaves. You failed. Try again next civil war. Maybe you will be right next time — all Southern states could announce that they are seceding because of slavery — of being enslaved by the Yankee Empire federal system — they want freedom after 160 years of Yankee rule.

         • I have presented the relevant passages of the secession documents of all the states whose secession documents explained why they were seceding, Banned. That’s all I’m required to produce.

           You have, in my view, nothing of substance to say, and any attention of mine given to remarks of yours from this point will be a wasting of my time. Accordingly, I shall give no more attention to remarks of yours. I will not reply to them in any way.

       • In this Part 3, Banned, I’ll continue in alphabetical order, to the secession document of Mississippi:

         “In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should 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 tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.”

         “The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

         “The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

         “The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

         “It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

         “It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

         “It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

         “It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

         “It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

         “It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

         It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

         It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

         “It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

         “It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

         “It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

         “It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

         “It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

         “Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

         “Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.”

         I believe the entire document, which is concerned with nothing but the threat to slavery.

         END PART 3

         • @ JBP
           “The question, friend, is what the South was fighting over.”

           “Again: The question we’re discussing—and on which you seem incapable of focusing—is WHY the South seceded and fought to make its secession good. PLEASE STICK TO THAT QUESTION.”

           “I must tell you I am not going to give any more of my time to any of your remarks that don’t bear on the question WHY THE SOUTH SECEDED.””

           Sir, the three statements/questions above all came from you.

           Which is it: Secession or Fighting?

           When it comes to secession: Four states mentioned slavery in their declarations of causes, the other nine did not. “[F]our of the Southern states, in which 52.4% of white Southerners lived” later left after Lincoln declared war and called for volunteers to invade the seven cotton states which shows clearly that the secession of these four states had nothing to do with slavery at all.

           When it comes to fighting: The North was initially fighting to preserve the Union and the South was fighting because the North was bringing the war to them and invading their land trying to force them back into the Union.

           Conclusion: Slavery was not the main cause/reason/aim/justification/etc/etc for secession or for fighting. It was a case of tyranny (Lincoln) vs sovereign states’ rights (Southern states) which continues to this day.

           Secede now!

           May God Save the South!

   • The South had all the cotton yet the textile mills were located in New England. Can someone explain this to me?

     • More fast flowing rivers to power the mills,
       more mechanics and manufacturing to build and equip mills,
       more densely populated to provide a nearby workforce,
       more cheap immigrant labor.
       Closer to major markets and capital.

       • And, probably, more of an inherited disposition to live the landholding life of the English gentry. That, I suspect, is what it really comes down to: It’s what the South wanted.

         • Two very good responses, gentlemen. But after WWI the textile industry did leave New England and moved to the South, probably because of cheaper labor and an improved Southern transportation/industrial infrastructure. So it could be argued that the Depression started 10 years earlier for those mill towns in the Northeast.

         • New England had lots of excess capital, from whaling and the China Trade, looking for application. Mills are capital thirsty. Nice fit.

10. Overthrow: 100 160 Years of U.S. Meddling & Regime Change

11. I want to live in a country without Jews and Muslims. They have their own countries we deserve ours. Nogs, pajeets and gooks are a different issue. If you closed immigration to the Northwest and walled off Portland and Seattle they wouldn’t really be a problem.

    • I love how the crusaders would detour through Spain and Southern France to take out pockets of the Satan worshippers. They understood clearly that we can’t coexist with them.

      • Are you referring to the Cathars or the jews and Saracens?

        • It seems they were many detours. I don’t have a list and I’m not a histotisn. A spanish town recently cucked and changed it’s name from “hill of dead jews” to something boring. There is one if these in France too.

12. Maybe this might help a little to bring the Yankee Empire’s meddling and regime changing to an end…

    160 years overdue…

    
    Russian air defense [shoots] down plane with Western arms for Ukraine near Odessa – top brass

    ?perational and tactical aviation destroyed 67 areas of concentration of Ukrainian military personnel and hardware in the past 24 hours

    MOSCOW, April 16. /TASS/. Russian air defense units have brought down a military transport plane carrying Western arms outside Odessa, Russian Defense Ministry Spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov said on Saturday.

    “Near Odessa Russian anti-aircraft defense forces have shot down a Ukrainian military transport plane, which was delivering a large shipment of arms supplied to Ukraine by Western counties,” he said.

    In addition, according to Konashenkov, operational and tactical aviation destroyed 67 areas of concentration of Ukrainian military personnel and hardware in the past 24 hours.

    Russia’s missile troops hit 317 military facilities, including 274 strongholds and areas of concentration of the enemy’s manpower, 24 command posts and two field fuel facilities of Ukrainian troops. Two Ukrainian drones were shot down outside Lozovaya and Veselaya.
    

    Secede now!

    May God Save the South!

13. Maybe this might help a little to bring the Yankee Empire’s meddling and regime changing to an end…

    160 years overdue…

    
    Russian air defense [shoots] down plane with Western arms for Ukraine near Odessa – top brass

    ?perational and tactical aviation destroyed 67 areas of concentration of Ukrainian military personnel and hardware in the past 24 hours

    MOSCOW, April 16. /TASS/. Russian air defense units have brought down a military transport plane carrying Western arms outside Odessa, Russian Defense Ministry Spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov said on Saturday.

    “Near Odessa Russian anti-aircraft defense forces have shot down a Ukrainian military transport plane, which was delivering a large shipment of arms supplied to Ukraine by Western counties,” he said.

    In addition, according to Konashenkov, operational and tactical aviation destroyed 67 areas of concentration of Ukrainian military personnel and hardware in the past 24 hours.

    Russia’s missile troops hit 317 military facilities, including 274 strongholds and areas of concentration of the enemy’s manpower, 24 command posts and two field fuel facilities of Ukrainian troops. Two Ukrainian drones were shot down outside Lozovaya and Veselaya.
    

    Secede now!

    May God Save the South!

14. Interesting news from the Ukraine. The Ukrainian soldiers have been using facial recognition software from Clearview AI, the doxing company that Ricky Vaughn (Douglass Mackey) worked for. The same software was used to dox many of the people from Charlottesville.