[CTRL] [3] The Abolitionists & the Illuminati

[Kris Millegan]

 -Caveat Lector-

from:
http://www.servtech.com/~grugyn/bk2a-5wl.htm
<A HREF="http://www.servtech.com/~grugyn/bk2a-5wl.htm">The Abolitionists &
the Illuminati
</A>
-----
A sampling. As always, Caveat Lector.
Om
K
--[3]--

This evidence indicates that, during the time between the First and
Second Great Awakenings, Freemasonry had been implementing its own
program of socialization of the American negro population by means of
the nascent African Episcopalian Church, Prince Hall Lodge, and later a
growing number of negro colleges and universities. The American
Colonization Society had merely been part of this much larger plan,
which included the foundation of permanent negro institutions here in
the United States. Indeed, parts of this plan have been carried through
to the present day, where Prince Hall Lodges account for five percent of
Freemasons worldwide. It is clear, however, that the Masonic plan for
the American negroes also envisioned the institution of some form of
racial segregation.

And this was the bone of contention. This is why the issue had to be
pushed to its inevitable conclusion in the Civil War. The Illuminati had
their own agenda for the American negroes: one involving the institution
of civil rights and social integration leading to racial and cultural
amalgamation. The first step in this process was that the negro race be
organized into a social wedge -- a political tool -- a voting bloc
 allied with the socialists, the Communists, the Unitarians, the
Utopians and the Transcendentalists ... and also with the feminist
 followers of Susan B. Anthony and Lucretia Mott.

During the 1848 Womens' Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, NY, a side
agreement was concluded between the feminist and Abolitionist leaders
that their first priority would be emancipation of the negroes and
passage of a civil rights law (Amendments XIII, XIV and XV and the Civil
Rights Act of 1866), securing the negro male vote, and then the
coalition would pursue the issue of Women's Suffrage (Amendment XIX),
which was deemed the longer-term objective. This was formalized two
years later at the 1850 Convention of Women's Rights, pursuant to a
resolution for merger that was presented by Mrs. Wendell Phillips and
supported by Parker Pillsbury. Part of the rationale behind this
agreement involved the Abolitionists' fear that, should they secure
Women's Suffrage first, it would empower only white women, who might
break the coalition and abandon their negro allies. This did, in fact,
partially occur in 1860, when Lucretia Mott and her followers split with
Susan B. Anthony and the feminist mainstream over that very issue of
priorities.

>From the Illuminati perspective, this was all well and good, since the
Feminist-Abolitionist coalition only served to intensify the demand for
immediate action on the slavery issue before the coalition came apart:
hence their demand for the total and complete abolition of this
"peculiar Southern institution" and the creation of "civil rights",
which was precisely the issue that the Illuminati needed to precipitate
their war. They further wanted to achieve emancipation as soon as
possible in order to derail the Episcopalian-Masonic plan of
"Europeanization" of the negro populations in both America and Africa.

Strange bedfellows: Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Episcopalians,
white and black, socialists, Utopians, Congregationalists, Unitarians,
Spiritualists, Transcendentalists and, of course, the Feminists, all
bound together under the banner of Abolition, which is an extreme form
of socialism, and all of them singing variations on the theme of
perfectionism. Bearing in mind that the original name for Weishaupt's
lodge was The Order of Perfectabilists, one can here perceive the third
objective of the Illuminati being accomplished: to spread the doctrine
of Illuminism, with its specific appeal to that class of intellectuals
who are most prone to self-righteousness when bashing the heads of their
enemies, or outlawing the freedom of their critics, and all of this was
occurring at that seminal moment when the churches were giving birth to
academe.

What was happening was that there was indeed a movement of enlightenment
taking place, a time of discovery, an expansion of the intellectual and
ideological frontiers of Western thought and civilization, but it never
developed into a true "awakening". It was all a sham, for the Illuminati
had positioned themselves in the vanguard of the dialectic, and
intentionally spread disorder and confusion. In this way, they were able
to "moderate", or direct, the discussion in the directions that suited
their purpose. Against this backdrop, the Preamble to the Declaration of
Independence represents one of the oddest blunders in all of legal
history:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal
, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness."

I refer to inclusion of this "equality polemic" in the Declaration of
Independence as a blunder because, in the first place, it was irrelevant
to either the issues or the outcome of the Revolutionary War, for which
it had been allegedly created. The Patriots of the American Revolution
were fighting for Independence, not Equality. The Declaration was
composed after the War had begun, specifically to rally the common
people around the Freemasonic leadership that had already been chosen.
 The colonies, or states, emerged from that war with essentially the
same government and institutions as they had entered into it. They had
merely substituted a colonial tax for British taxation, a federal
government for the British Crown, and the American Grand Lodge for the
British Grand Lodge. In point of fact, the British colonial rule had
never seriously intruded on the colonists' perceived rights of "life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness" beyond certain vexatious
mercantile policies; to the contrary, the American colonists had enjoyed
a far greater degree of personal freedom in ordinary life than did
contemporary Englishmen. In other words, "equality" was not an issue of
America v. Britain; it was an issue of class struggle (Bourgeoisie v.
Proletariat) and economic competition (capitalist v. socialist). It
ultimately served to channel the American experience into a choice
between international capitalism and international Marxism.

To illustrate the paradoxical nature of "equality" as an element of
independence, consider its antithesis:

"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created
unique, ..."

Is this not fully appropriate for a movement that was to create a new
republic? And yet, how different might have been the course of history,
had the Declaration emphasized uniqueness instead of equality. As a
philosophical point, the concept of equality is infinitely debatable. As
a rhetorical device, it is supremely exploitable. As a point of law, it
is redefinable. But as a moral issue, and this is how this was taken, it
opened the door to a dialectic that was destined to rend the fabric of
American life.

The concept of human equality is more than a paradox. It is the central
theme of Illuminist propaganda, reflected in the motto of the French
Revolution: "Liberty, Equality and Brotherhood". While the words carry
an emotional populist appeal on the surface, they set in motion a chain
of argument that leads inexorably to social dissolution. If all men are
created equal, so the argument goes, how can women and negroes be
excluded? Should not "all men" be interpreted as "all people",
regardless of race, religion, national origin, socio-economic
background, age, language, culture, lifestyle, sexual orientation,
physical challenge or political persuasion?
"Charles Sumner had equally mischievous plans for post-bellum society:
to elevate the Declaration of Independence that it might "stand side by
side with the Constitution, and enjoy with it coequal authority." "Full
well ... I know that in other days, when Slavery prevailed ... there was
a different rule of interpretation," Sumner conceded. This different
rule of interpretation, "which it pleased our Fathers to call
constitutionalism," was far too restrictive to allow the kind of
innovations of which the scheming Sumner dreamed.

"The war, he claimed, had established "a new rule of interpretation by
which the institutions of our country are dedicated forevermore to Human
Rights, and the Declaration of Independence is made a living letter
instead of a promise." Thus the statement that "all men are created
equal," condemned by John Randolph of Roanoke as a "most pernicious
falsehood," was to become the central organizing principle for the
republic. It is to this polluted source that we may trace the scores of
crusaders for Equality from forced busing to affirmative action which
have been visited upon us ever since."

Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
The Abolitionists
http://www.dixienet.org/spatriot/vol2no5/abolish.html

We are not suggesting that the Illuminati actually invented these
concepts of equality or world citizenship. In fact, the idea of
"equality" can be traced back to the ancient Greek republics, the
"brotherhood of man" to Amenhotep IV and the cult of Aton-Re, and
"world-citizenship" to Alexander the Great, Saul of Tarsus and also to
the late Roman Empire. What we are suggesting is that, as these concepts
resurfaced in the 18th and 19th centuries, the Illuminati functioned as
agitators, turning the discussion into an argument, dividing
institutions into disparate factions, and setting the stage for
revolution. The Illuminati were agitators, not originators.
"An additional common thread in the American radical tradition was the
concept of world citizenship. The notion that all people are brethren.
The concept of a universal brotherhood fit with Garrison's notions of
perfectionism and conscience ... Garrison thrust himself outside the
framework of the nation-state and saw himself and his followers as
citizens of the world and in keeping with this philosophy and his
perfectionist ideas, one should treat all people in the world as your
brother. Like other aspects of the revolutionary tradition the concept
of world citizen came from the 18th century and was passed on to the
19th century which redeveloped concepts and gave them new life. (Lynd
pg. 132). Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine all wrote
and debated world citizenship. Franklin and Jefferson used the
[argument] that citizenship of the world was a natural right to support
emigration. They argued everyone has the right to leave an oppressive
country or greedy landlords. Granville Sharp used biblical arguments to
support the notion that we are all of a universal brotherhood. Other
famous Dissenters such as Price and Priestly introduced world
citizenship concepts into their own writing in support of natural rights
and the American Revolution. Garrison in turn borrowed heavily from
these concepts and the masthead of his radical abolitionist newspaper,
the Liberator, even read, "Our country is the world, our countrymen are
mankind"

Garrison used the argument of universal unity of all men as a powerful
argument against slavery. He maintained all men are equal regardless of
nation, color or creed because we are all one. Garrison also was true to
this concept in the support of including all people in movements against
oppression. In particular he supported the emerging women's movement and
spoke in favor of allowing their participation in abolitionist causes.
Concepts of the oneness of human kind is but another example of the
ideas of revolutionary predecessors being reborn in subsequent radical
movements.

David C. Phelps
The American Radical Tradition

Virtually all of the rhetoric of the American socialist agenda -- from
Abolition and Reconstruction through the Women's Suffrage movement at
the turn of the century, the Temperance movement of the 1920s, the
"Melting Pot" of the 1930s and 1940s, the Civil Rights movement of the
1950s and 1960s, multiculturalism, the United States as "world
policeman", multinationalism, globalism and the world "Human Rights"
movement of the 1970s through present -- can all be found in the
"radical tradition" of the late-18th and early-19th centuries, together
with the arguments supporting one-world government and the eradication
of nation-states. The flower children of Woodstock were the penultimate
expression of a 250 year-old tradition, and their authorship of the
"political correctness" movement today can be comprehended only in terms
of gross hypocrisy under a higher manipulative force. Taken together,
these ideologies represent the political and social application of
Illuminist doctrines, which ideals are not necessarily wrong, but which
have been nurtured and directed in an intentionally destructive way.

At this point we come to the final element of the anti-Masonic
coalition, the faction which, more than any other, has carried with it
the most dire consequences for the future of Western Civilization.
Because it attacks the fundamental ideal of masculine and feminine roles
in society, it undermines not only the family, but also the culture and
the strength of the individual. It leads inexorably to the emasculation
of the male and the consequent feminization of society; and just as the
gelding of bulls is necessary for the herding of cattle, the
feminization of society is a prerequisite to the establishment of a
totalitarian socialist state.

At this stage in the argument, we must not let ourselves get sidetracked
into the complex issues of matriarchy and feminism. These will be
considered later, and are of such consequence that they deserve a
separate discussion in its own setting. For now, we will only touch upon
the feminist movement insofar as it played a crucial role in the success
of the Abolitionist conspiracy.

This is not to say that the feminists were themselves conspiring to
commit treason, but that they were the dupes, a gathering of naive petty
bourgeois women and socialites who were taken in by exotic charlatans
like Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth. The feminists were, for the
most part, pampered uptown ladies who desperately needed to feel
important, having little else to do with their lives, and bored with
traditional charity work, they became enormously effective as
organizers, fundraisers and proselytizers for the Abolitionist cause.
Their role was critical, and their involvement in growing numbers served
to create a false front for the movement, distracting public attention
from the violent methods the Abolitionists often employed. They gave the
movement credibility and social respectability; they made it
"politically correct" to be an Abolitionist, and yet they seemed to have
absolutely no idea of what they were really doing. Perhaps it was the
sheer silliness of these women, organizing afternoon tea parties and
evening soirees so that their friends could ogle Frederick Douglass,
that led their political opponents into a mocking self-security.
Consider the following excerpt from the New York Herald published in
1850:

"It is the philosopher's omnibus bill -- it is the putting all in a lump
the several experiments of reform of the Tribune reformers, with a good
deal of new matter, new principles, and fundamental ideas, as put forth
on the platform of the Woman's Rights Convention, recently held in
Worcester. Let the world rejoice. Lucretia Mott, Abby Kelly, Garrison,
Phillips, Mrs. Ross, Fred. Douglas, Sojourner Truth, and the Widow
Mercy, sitting in council day and night, backed up, heart and soul, by
our glorious Greeley, have solved the problem of the age. They have
squared the circle of society, and resolved the arcana of its perpetual
motion. From our published reports of the proceedings, the speeches, the
declarations, and the resolutions of the Worcester Convention, it will
be seen that their platform is made up of all the timbers of all the
philosophers and spiritual advisers of the Tribune, founded upon the
strong pillars of abolition, socialism, amalgamation and infidelity,
compassing all the discoveries in heaven and earth. The new dispensation
of Lucretia Mott and the philosophers, proposes:

1.To dispense with Christianity and the Bible. After an experiment of
nineteen centuries, they declare the system to be a humbug.
2.To abolish the existing political and social system of society as part
of the false machinery of the age.

3.To put all races, sexes and colors upon a footing of perfect equality.
The convention having proved by phrenology and biology that the sexes
are equal in point of intellect, and that color is a mere difference of
complexion, it is proposed to abolish the only distinction of sex by a
universal adoption of breeches.





"Most assuredly, this grand reformation involves, as incidentals, the
abolition of slavery, black and white, the doctrine of amalgamation to
its fullest extent, fun and refinement, as was never dreamed of, even by
Davis, in his revelations, or by Graham, from the inspiration of bran
bread and turnips."

New York Herald, October 29, 1850
http://www.assumption.edu/HTML/academic/history/WWHP/NY_HeraldIV.html

The three "dispensations" enumerated above were taken directly from the
"Seven Objectives" of the Communist Manifesto, published two years
earlier by Karl Marx in England. What makes this so ironic is that the
establishment knew what was happening ... and they just couldn't believe
it. The working-male voting population refused take the threat
seriously. Perhaps in 1850, mainstream news editors could treat the
Feminist-Abolitionist coalition as a joke. Eleven years later, 364,501
men from the North and 133,821 men from the South would shed their lives
on the battlefield, and a million more die from infection and
mutilation, enduring most grievous wounds, and yet millions more and
their families suffer starvation and disease, leaving a third of this
country in war-torn ruins and a whole generation of European-American
manhood maimed for life.

And for what?

Completing our overview of the Illuminati involvement in the Civil War,
an issue far too long unaddressed, we turn our attention to the Southern
states. One must begin with an understanding of how slavery actually
existed in the ante-bellum South, and how this was not nearly so bad a
condition as it has been made to appear, by both the Abolitionist
zealots at the time and modern liberal academicians.

When Thomas Jefferson made his first trip to France, just prior to the
American Revolution, he was appalled by the conditions he saw in the
ghettoes of Paris. The filth, squalor and depravity of working
conditions among the poor went far beyond anything in the experience of
genteel Southern plantation life, where the slaves were at least living
in a physically healthy environment. In Europe, orphan children were
regularly being abducted and sold into slavery, chimney-sweeps and coal
miners often had to work naked, starvation and disease were rampant.
There were no health and safety regulations in the factories and
sweatshops, and industrial accidents, maimings and maulings were
commonplace. An injured worker was simply thrown out to beg, steal or
starve. Many laborers suffered from lead and mercury poisoning, black
lung disease and tuberculosis. People were being forced to live like
rats. These same conditions were already beginning to appear in the
United States, where industrialization was taking place:
"In 1855, Frederic Law Olmsted, the landscape architect who designed New
York's Central Park, was in Alabama on a pleasure trip and saw bales of
cotton being thrown from a considerable height into a cargo ship's hold.
The men tossing the bales somewhat recklessly into the hold were
Negroes, the men in the hold were Irish. Olmsted inquired about this to
a shipworker. 'Oh,' said the worker, 'the niggers are worth too much to
be risked here; if the Paddies are knocked overboard or get their backs
broke, nobody loses anything.'

"Before British slavers traveled to Africa's western coast to buy Black
slaves from African chieftains, they sold their own White working class
kindred ("the surplus poor" as they were known) from the streets and
towns of England, into slavery. Tens of thousands of these White slaves
were kidnapped children. In fact the very origin of the word kidnapped
is kid-nabbed, the stealing of White children for enslavement. According
to the English Dictionary of the Underworld, under the heading kidnapper
is the following definition: 'A stealer of human beings, esp. of
children; originally for exportation to the plantations of North
America.' The center of the trade in child-slaves was in the port cities
of Britain and Scotland:
'Press gangs in the hire of local merchants roamed the streets, seizing
"by force such boys as seemed proper subjects for the slave trade."
 Children were driven in flocks through the town and confined for
shipment in barns ... So flagrant was the practice that people in the
countryside about Aberdeen avoided bringing children into the city for
fear they might be stole; and so widespread was the collusion of
merchants, shippers, suppliers and even magistrates that the man who
exposed it was forced to recant and run out of town.' (Van der Zee,
Bound Over, p. 210).


"Little has changed since the early 1800s when the men of property and
station of the English Parliament outlawed Black slavery throughout the
Empire. While this Parliament was in session to enact this law, ragged
five year old White orphan boys, beaten, starved and whipped, were being
forced up the chimneys of the English parliament, to clean them.
Sometimes the chimney masonry collapsed on these boys. Other times they
suffocated to death inside their narrow smoke channels. Long after
Blacks were free throughout the British Empire, the British House of
Lords refused to abolish chimney-sweeping by White children under the
age of ten. The Lords contended that to do so would interfere with
'property rights.' The lives of the White children were not worth a
farthing and were considered no subject for humanitarian concern.

"Moreover, in the 18th century in Britain and America, the Industrial
Revoution spawned the factory system whose first laborers were miserably
oppressed White children as young as six years of age. They were locked
in the factories for sixteen hours a day and mangled by the primitive
machinery. Hands and arms were regularly ripped to pieces. Little girls
often had their hair caught in the machinery and were scalped from their
foreheads to the back of their necks.

"White Children wounded and crippled in the factories were turned out
without compensation of any kind and left to die of their injuries.
Children late to work or who fell asleep were beaten with iron bars.
Lest we imagine these horrors were limited to only the early years of
the Industrial Revolution, eight and ten year old White children
throughout America were hard at work in miserable factories and mines as
late as 1920.

"Because of the rank prostitution, stupidity and cowardice of America's
teachers and educational system, White youth are taught that Black
slaves, Mexican peons and Chinese coolies built this country while the
vast majority of the Whites lorded it over them with a lash in one hand
and a mint julep in the other.

"The documentary record tells a very different story, however. When
White Congressman David Wilmot authored the Wilmot Proviso to keep Black
slaves out of the American West he did so, he said, to preserve that
vast expanse of territory for 'the sons of toil, my own race color.'
 This is precisely what most White people in America were, 'sons of
toil,' performing backbreaking labor such as few of us today can
envision. They had no paternalistic welfare system; no Freedman's Bureau
to coo sweet platitudes to them; no army of bleeding hearts to worry
over their hardships. These Whites were the expendable frontline
soldiers in the expansion of the American frontier. They won the
country, felled the trees, cleared and planted the land. The wealthy,
educated White elite in America are the sick heirs of what Charles
Dickens in Bleak House termed "telescopic philanthropy" -- the concern
for the condition of distant peoples while the plight of kindred in
one's own backyard are ignored."

Michael A. Hoffman II
The Forgotten Slaves: Whites in Servitude in Early America and
Industrial Britain
http://www.hoffman-info.com/forgottenslaves.html

By way of contrast, the Southern task-system of slavery was almost
idyllic, and this was the system that predominated until widespread use
of the cotton gin finally led to the large-scale cultivation of cotton,
by means of the gang-labor system, which constitutes our sole image of
what slavery had been like. That was a late development. Under the
long-established task-system, each slave was allotted a daily chore, and
a "task" standard, as a unit of labor, had evolved that was remarkably
consistent throughout the South. Typical "tasks" were to hoe and weed a
half-acre of tobacco, or to split twenty-five logs into a hundred rails,
or to harvest and mulch a half-acre of corn. The typical daily task
could be completed by an industrious worker in about four hours, and any
time left over was his own, to spend as he pleased. It was generally
left to the slave to determine when, during the day, he would complete
his allotted chore.

Under the task system, if a slave wanted to perform additional "tasks"
for his own profit, it was customary for the master to provide him with
the land and tools he required. It was not uncommon for a slave to
accomplish one task a day for the master and one for himself; indeed,
some slaves were able to do three tasks a day, and profit handsomely. In
this way, some were able to amass considerable wealth, and it was not
uncommon for slaves to own fine horses and several head of livestock.
Many slaves were able to buy back their freedom, and some of these
eventually became slaveowners themselves. Modern liberals may find it
appalling, but there were negroes who owned slaves in the ante-bellum
South, and a few owned plantations of significant size.

When the Northern carpetbaggers and industrialists began moving into the
South during reconstruction, they found the negro labor force virtually
unemployable. The former slaves were used to working only six or seven
hours a day, and lackadaisically at that. They would lounge about
whenever a foreman turned his back, because they could not comprehend
why things were not getting easier for them after the Emancipation. A
great deal of the negro dissatisfaction following the war was due to the
fact that, for them, life had indeed become much more difficult.

The conditions of slavery have been grossly misrepresented to us from
the time of Frederick Douglass to the present day. By the time John
Brown's raiding party had converged on the federal arsenal at Harper's
Ferry, they had concluded a sweep of the surrounding countryside, where
he had expected several hundreds of slaves to join. They had, in fact,
gathered less than a dozen. The following excerpt tells us a lot more
about conditions in the South than Uncle Tom's Cabin:
"Many other outrages were perpetrated by members of the Union League and
the Loyal League, which was a branch of the parent organization. The
Union League was founded in Ohio [by the Cincinnati-Cleveland branch of
the Illuminati, ed.] in 1862 to bolster the morale of the Union Army,
which suffered several defeats during that time. The League sent agents
into the South to distribute leaflets to Negroes with orders to molest
women and children to the point that their Confederate soldiers would
leave the army to protect them. Sue Davis recorded that a faithful
slave, Alex, brought such a paper to her mother to read it to him [i.e.
Alex couldn't read, ed.]. After he heard it, Alex declared that he would
die before harming her or the children. Alex asked for a shotgun
belonging to Davis, and sat at the front of the Davis house with the gun
and an axe to guard the house during Davis' absence. Scenes like this
were enacted all over the South."

Limestone County After Appomattox 1865-1870
Published Fall, 1985 by historian and genealogist Faye Acton Axford of
Athens, Limestone Co. AL.
http://rentsv1.uokhsc.edu/bbonner/appomatto.htm

Neither was there was a mass emigration of slaves from the South
following the Emancipation Proclimation of 1863. Towards the end of the
war, large numbers of negroes did begin to follow the Union armies;
these were mostly scavengers, rummaging through the devastation left in
the wake of the advancing Union forces. Other negroes gathered in
"contraband camps" near the Union supply depots, waiting for food relief
that had been promised them by the Union League. There was no
corresponding program of food relief for the starving white population.
Corruption in the Union Army was rife. As we shall see, the supply d
epots of the Union Armies were also fronts for "fencing" looted property
from the South. The captions we read to the old photos of "contraband
camps", telling us how these were overcrowded with terrified former
slaves pleading for Federal protection, fearful that their masters would
come and whip them, were all part of the Abolitionist period propaganda.
That is how the photos were published in 1866, bearing misleading
captions, and that is how they have been reproduced to this day.

The issue of slavery was a bolus, an excuse, the occasion for the
Illuminati to instigate a war. By the mid-19th century, the deep South
had become the last bastion of "conservative" Freemasonry, for here life
continued very much as it had always, and Southern institutions were
largely unaffected by the ideological battles that had been raging in
the North. Susan B. Anthony and Karl Marx were virtually unknown in the
South, nor had the doctrines of Unitarianism, spiritualism, feminism and
socialism taken hold. In the "solid South" there were no radical
Republicans or Free Soil Abolitionists, and Anti-Masons, Know-Nothings
and Whigs were relatively rare. To this day, the South is marked by a
tacit acceptance, if not approval, of the old Freemasonic system.

This situation is underscored by the fact that, once the Southern
secession had occurred, the Confederate States adopted a constitution
that was virtually identical to the Constitution of the United States of
America from which they had seceded: the only changes being the
inclusion of most of the Bill of Rights under Article IX rather than as
an addendum, and a few amended words and paragraphs as appropriate to
the conditions of the war. Clearly, by choosing the Constitution of the
United States of America as their model, instead of the earlier Articles
of Confederation, the Confederate leaders were putting a cap on
secessionist argument, while keeping a door open to reconciliation and
reunification with the North, as if the secession were only a bluff.
They had entirely avoided the earlier Antifederalist arguments, creating
instead a Federalist government of their own that represented no change
whatsoever from the status quo. I was completely amazed when I read the
Constitution of the Confederate States of America for the first time,
because I had always assumed that it would more resemble the Articles.
Isn't that what the South still claims it had been fighting for --
States' Rights? It now appears the Confederacy itself had been a sham.

This discontinuity between the Antifederalist ideal of Confederation and
the reality of the (Federalist) Confederate States of America provides
further evidence that the South had always been under the control of
Freemasonry, since we already know that the Masons were essentially
Federalist. The Southern leaders, by suppressing the earlier
Antifederalist argument, were endeavoring to preserve the "Masonic"
Constitution which had been won at the 1787 Philadelphia Convention.
This implies, perhaps even confirms, that the real power struggle had
all the while been occurring in the North, between Freemasonry and the
Illuminati, over who would control the central government in Washington,
the District of Columbia -- and that the South was merely the object
upon which the lesson of war was to be demonstrated, in order to achieve
the final capitulation of Freemasonry to that Higher Power: He-Khabbalot
Yahudim.

We have already determined that the lodges had been endeavoring since
the 1830s to preserve the peace between North and South, to assert that
the disposition of slavery was a states' right, and to broker a
compromise between the plantation owners and the Abolitionists. There
were perhaps 2,400 large slaveowners in the South, a tiny minority, and
about an equal number of radical agitators among the Abolitionists in
the North. Why couldn't the two sides be appeased?

Part of the answer lies in the complexity of the situation. The
Abolitionist movement was not a single group of people, but a coalition
of socialists, utopians, feminists, freedmen, anti-Masons and numerous
religious splinter-groups, all of them seizing upon the issue of
Abolition as a rallying-point and cry of moral rectification, the
rhetorical object with which they whipped their followers into a
religious frenzy. But this still does not account for the catastrophic
breakdown that finally occurred. The very fact that such a precarious
coalition, consisting of some of the oddest bedfellows ever, was able to
remain intact for the better part of two generations points to the
existence of a single, and very powerful, unifying force.

Abraham Lincoln had been a brokered candidate, not a popularly elected
one. On the first ballot of the 1860 Republican convention he received
only 102 votes to Seward's 173, and it was not until the third ballot,
when all but 8 of the uncommitted delegates had gone over to Lincoln's
camp, that he won the convention with a plurality. Those delegates came
at a price, and it was the Republican Party, which had been founded by
William Seward (who had also founded the earlier Anti-Mason Party) and
Thurlow Weed, who were calling the shots, and themselves acting upon
instructions from a higher power. The Republican Party organizers were
on somebody's payroll. The Southern Freemasons were well aware of this
fact, and that is why the Southern states declared before the election
that they would secede if Lincoln became president. They were calling
"foul!" and they were being ignored.

Freemasonry was making its last desperate stand against the Illuminati,
backed into a corner and at a strategic disadvantage. It was check and
mate. It is very likely that Abraham Lincoln was completely unaware of
the extent of the Masonic-Illuminati struggle at the time of his
election, for it was later reported that shortly before his
assassination he had expressed an interest in joining the Lodge,
something which he never lived to achieve. Perhaps, just before his
death, he realized how he had been used.
"Leaders are not assassinated for the things that they have done; they
are killed for something that they intend to do, or because they are
standing in someone else's way."

Grugyn Silverbristle

It is the nature of politicians to negotiate before taking risks, and to
avoid taking risks when there is a chance that they might lose. In order
for the Southern States to risk their own destruction in a one-sided
war, there was something else that turned up missing. Somewhere they had
been counting on outside help, an ally, a promise that never
materialized. The South had been fatally betrayed before the first shot
was fired.
"One of these agents of the Illuminati was Aaron Burr. From 1800 to 1819
he worked hard to have the New England states secede from the Union. His
work was a failure so he moved on to New York, South Carolina and New
Orleans. He worked with Edward Livingston, John Slidell and Judah
Benjamin to push for secession. Livingston, Slidell and Benjamin became
Senators and during the war Slidell was the Confederate envoy to France.
Benjamin was the one who proposed the move for secession in 1860, and he
served as Attorney General, Secretary of War and Secretary of State
during the war. When the war was lost he fled to England where he became
a lawyer ("The War Between the States," video).

"Some of the other top Illuminati agents who helped start the War of
1861 were William [?] Van Rensselear, Pierre Beauregard, William Yancy,
Henry DeSaussure, Thomas Cooper, Caleb Huse, William Garrison, Edwin
DeLeon, Thomas Higginson, John Quitman, James Bulloch, the Lamar family,
Albert Pike and Giuseppi Mazzini, the head of the Illuminati who
succeeded its founder Adam Weishaupt.

"Rensselear founded the Knights of the Golden Circle (a.k.a. Sons of
Liberty) and Beauregard, brother-in-law of Slidell, was a general in the
KGC. The latter directed the attack on April 12, 1861 of Ft. Sumter
(Ibid.). Yancy led the walkout of the Democratic National Convention
which split the Democratic party assuring Lincoln the presidency. This
trick was used again in 1912 giving Woody Wilson the presidency, and in
1980 to give Ronald Wilson Reagan the election, and also in 1992 putting
William Jefferson Blythe IV in the White House.

"DeSaussure of Switzerland, who headed the pro-British Federalist Party,
helped found South Carolina College in 1801. It became a pro-secession
school (Ibid.). Thomas Cooper of England came to Pennsylvania where he
became an abolitionist. He served six months in prison for sedition and
then moved to South Carolina. DeSaussure hired him to be president of
So. Carolina College in 1820. Seven years later he was the first in the
South to call for secession ... (Ibid.).

"Edwin DeLeon, a graduate of S.C.C., co-founded the Young American
movement in America with Mazzini. During the war he was an adviser to
Jefferson Davis.

"Huse bought weapons from England for the South and his newspaper, the
Newbury Port Herald, hired Garrison who later started a radical
abolitionist newspaper, "The Liberator." He publicly burned a copy of
the Constitution and visited with the head of the Illuminati, Giuseppi
Mazzini (Ibid.).

"Higginson of Newbury Port, Massachusetts, financed much of the
abolitionist movement and called for the state to secede. He also
[raised money for] John Brown and hired British mercenary Hugh Forbes to
train Brown's men.

"Quitman of New York moved to Mississippi in 1821 where he carried out
the war plans. In 1834 he promoted the Nullification movement by which
states could reject any Federal Law not acceptable to them. The
principle is correct, but he pushed it to cause division -- not to
protect state sovereignty.

"Bulloch also of New York worked for Quitman as a ship captain. After
his ship, the Black Warrior, was captured in 1854 he headed the
Confederate Secret Service in Europe (Ibid.).

"The Lamar Family headed the secession movement in Texas and succeeded
in removing Sam Houston as governor. They wrote the Mississippi
Ordinance of Secession (Ibid.).

"Albert Pike, also of Newbury Port, moved to Arkansas where he became a
prominent member of the secessionist movement. He was chosen by Mazzini
to head the Illuminati operations in America and moved to Charleston,
South Carolina, in 1852. During the war he was made a brigadier general
...

"Mazzini was not only the head of the Illuminati, he was the leading
revolutionist in Europa. He was determined to establish a New World
Order on the rubble of the old order and created a plan to accomplish
his goal. He detailed his plan for world domination in a letter to Pike
on January 22, 1870."

Slavery & the War of 1861
http://www.sure.net/~dove/conspire.htm

Perhaps the most influential of all was Judah P. Benjamin, who had been
the first Jew elected to the United States Senate. He was also the first
professing Jew appointed to a cabinet position, albeit in the
Confederacy, where he served as Attorney general, Secretary of War and
finally Secretary of State. After Appomattox, Benjamin fled to England
and hid under the aegis of the Rothschilds. One can almost hear him
saying, "I did my job just as you instructed. Everything worked
perfectly." Also missing from the above list is August Belmont, the
self-proclaimed agent for the Rothschilds in the United States, who
served as Treasurer for the Democratic Party in 1860, when Yancy led the
walkout.

It is ironic and coincidental that Jews turned out to be the prime
beneficiaries of the war-profiteering. As clothiers to the Union Army,
they needed cotton, and the War Department helped them get it. They were
the major brokers in the cotton exchange before, during and after the
Civil War. What better way to ship stolen artwork and silverware than to
pack it in bales of cotton? Jews were the pawnbrokers and retailers in
San Francisco, New Orleans, London, New York and Philadelphia, to name a
few points in the contraband ring.

Strangely, even the Southern Freemasons never did seem to fully catch
on. By enshrining their cause after the War, they had elevated Judah to
the level of an icon. Some three years after Appomattox, during
Reconstruction, when visited by ambassadors of Imperial Wizard Gen.
Nathan Bedford Forrest, Mr. J.P. Benjamin "borrowed some money that he
gave to the Klan", implying that he cosigned for a loan. Obviously, he
was the one who arranged the money, from his new safe-haven in London.
Perhaps amazed at his own success in duping the Southern Masons, was
Judah trying to buy his way back in?

No nation enters a war with the intention of losing. What promise could
have been made to the Southern states to aid and abet, thereby inducing
them into secession? It might have been financial aid from the Hofjuden
 (and there was certainly enough trade between England and the
Confederacy) or political support from England and France. The natural
channel for such communiqu�s would have been through the B'nai B'rith
 (organized in 1843) and the Lodges of Freemasonry. In such manner is
the victim assured of a favorable outcome. But as early as 1782, at the
nefarious conference at Wilhelmsbad, the European Lodges had already
embraced the Illuminati agenda, as it had been presented to them. That
is to say, they were already in the Illuminist-Federalist-Socialist
camp. During the Napoleonic Wars and the ensuing rise of the House of
Rothschild, the supremacy of the Banking Power over Freemasonry had
become established throughout Europe, and especially in England where,
like fish in a net, the lodges were being drawn into league with
He-Khabbalot Yahudim. By the time of American Reconstruction, 1867, the
Jew Disraeli would be Prime Minister of Great Britain. It is conceivable
that the South was not aware of the extent of the plot against them.

Equally significant, there may have been more support for the Southern
secession in the North than historians generally acknowledge. No one had
expected Abraham Lincoln to move as swiftly as he did in shutting down
newspapers, rounding up political prisoners and imposing martial law in
the North. As we shall see, the majority of states might well have
seceded, had it not been for Lincoln's preemptive strikes against the
border states of Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana,
Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas and the western territories. The Union Army
literally seized whole state legislatures to prevent them from passing
ordinances of secession.

The Civil War was the darkest hour, the greatest failure and the
critical turning point in American history. It represents the final and
absolute defeat of the American people; it is the very antithesis to the
idea that government derived its authority from the consent of its
citizens. It is the complete abrogation of the ideals of independence
and autonomy. The federal government, a/k/a the District of Columbia,
had established herself as the Seat of Power, the Supreme Law of the
Land. Henceforth, the town would derive its authority from the county,
and the county from the state ... and the state from the Constitution of
the Federal Government, the District of Columbia, and she herself might
as easily become a mere "District" within a still larger geographic
demarcation.

Not least among the far-reaching outcomes of the Civil War was the
Fourteenth Amendment, which was essentially a decree under martial law
that has never been legally ratified. In effect, the Fourteenth
Amendment federalized the definition of citizenship. This is the
"forgotten dialogue" of the American Experience -- the discussion that
never occurred. It is the question of whether the honor and privilege of
citizenship ought not be bestowed at the local level, as opposed to the
federal, and that this ideal is fundamental to preserving the character
and heritage of a Republic:

"Suppose a man is born in the City of Rochester, County of Monroe, State
of New York. He is already a citizen of these by right of birth. Now
suppose he moves to the town of Topton, County of Swain, Commonwealth of
North Carolina, under his right of free travel. Does this automatically
give him the right to vote in Topton affairs -- or Swain County, or
North Carolina -- simply by reason of his being there? Do not the people
of Topton have a right to decide among themselves whether they will
extend to this newcomer the responsibilities and privileges of
citizenship? Isn't there something yet that this man must earn, a sign
that he has proven himself worthy of being accepted within the
community?

"I should expect this man to be treated as a sojourner from Rochester,
the place of his birth and "naturalization", and that this is where he
should turn if, for example, he should need public assistance. Those are
still his people, are they not? Why should they hesitate to welcome him
back?

"If the people of Topton decide to accept the newcomer as a citizen of
their town, indicating that he has permanently resettled there, this
would now signify that they willingly assume responsibility for his
welfare, should he become ill. That decision should of course be honored
by Swain County and also the Commonwealth of North Carolina. In other
words, citizenship within a town represents a "social contract" that is
freely entered into by both parties. It would then be up to the people
of Monroe County and New York State whether they wished to maintain the
emigrant's citizenship within their own jurisdictions. And I think a
town ought to always remain a place of refuge for those who were born
there, but that is a moral issue for them to decide among themselves,
and not something to be imposed. Is there anything irrational in this? I
think not.

"What does appear irrational is that the District of Columbia should
wield such power, that a man -- or a woman, alien or a large group of
people for that matter -- can migrate to whatever place they wish, and
immediately lay claim upon the wealth and resources of that area,
without so much as asking the local residents what they think. What I
find irrational is the idea that the Federal Department of Justice can
arbitrarily bestow "American citizenship" upon millions of aliens
halfway around the world, and resettle these in our homeland, wherever
they choose. What I find wholly objectionable is the attitude that one
can obtain citizenship as easily as going to a welfare office and crying
poverty or oppression, and not even speaking English. Or as easily as
buying a bus ticket or paying the rent. That the criterion for receiving
the honor of citizenship is either money or destitution, but wholly
unrelated to character."

Grugyn Silverbristle

We are now at the very heart of the Argument: the concept of
locally-bestowed citizenship, and the idea that the "social contract" is
something that should be freely entered into by both parties at the
local level. This concept is fundamental to a republic. What we have
today, where "citizenship" and "Civil Rights" are arbitrarily granted by
the Department of Justice, administered solely by political appointees
and farthest removed from the will of the people, is fundamental to an
empire. The Civil War represents the final defeat of the Republic of the
United States.

"Prior to the war, the courts always ruled that the allegiance which the
people had to the federal government was derived from their state(1)
Citizenship. After the war, the fourteenth amendment was adopted (at
least allegedly), and the courts have ruled that it declares that people
owe complete, direct, and immediate allegiance to the federal government
first, and their "state" citizenship is secondary. The basis of this
amendment is that the "states" referred to are within federal
jurisdiction - the 50 States(2).

"The power to draft is based on citizenship. Prior to the war the
federal government never had, and never claimed, the power to draft into
the regular army, but only to out [of] the state(1) militias. Beginning
with the war, the federal government has drafted people into its armies,
and done so on the basis that they were its citizens.

"Since the federal government was a foreign power with respect to the
states(1), and could only come within their borders to execute the few
governmental powers granted to it, it never had or claimed the power to
take land by eminent domain [within the sovereign states(1), ed]. If the
federal government wanted land, the state(1) had to take it under its
eminent domain power, and then transfer ownership to it. Since the war,
the federal government has exercised eminent domain over land itself,
and on the basis that the States(2) are within its territory.

"Bouvier's Law Dictionary, which was published before the war, said that
a "state," within the meaning of the federal constitution, was "one of
the commonwealths which form the United States of America." Every
edition of Black's Law Dictionary (which was first published in 1891)
says that a "state" is, "One of the component commonwealths *OR* states
of the United States of America." It is identifying two classes of
states: 1. Component commonwealths, and 2. States of the United States
of America. The former is the old terminology from before the war. Since
that expression identifies all of them (and not just the four states[1]
that use the term 'commonwealth' in their official title), the "states
of the United States of America" referred to must be identifying
different "states" altogether.

"The research for the origins of the States(2) ultimately led to the
year 1863. I found that Congress, through sections 4 and 5 of the
Enrollment Act of March 3rd, 1863 (12 Stat. 731, et seq.) created
military districts under a form of martial law, and I later, through a
local congressman, received information from the Congressional Research
Service showing, beyond all reasonable doubt, that these sections were
never repealed. Section 4 creates the districts, and section 5 assigns a
provost-marshal to each of them. The 1990 edition of Black's Law
Dictionary gives the following in its definition of Provost-Marshal: "In
military law, the officer acting as the head of the military police of
any post, camp, city of other place in military occupation or district
under the reign of martial law." Interestingly, this act is also the
first one, at least that I'm aware of, that uses the term "United
States" in the singular, and it is also the first one to refer to the
district of Columbia and the territories as being within the "United
States." This was only the beginning. Since the Civil War many other
laws and governmental-type agencies have come along to further separate
us from our rights, such as the Federal Reserve (private control of the
money supply), FDA (no health freedom), Emergency War Powers (more
military jurisdiction imposed upon citizens and constitutional provis
ions suspended), income tax (control of property and business),
NSA/CIA/DIA (speaks or itself), just to name a few. I realize that those
who believe in the power structure, who believe in Clinton/Dole/Powell
etc. won't like what I'm saying, but I feel compelled to rely on facts,
not faith in the system..."

Scott Eric Rosenstiel
Martial Law in America Today

------------------------------------------------------------------------



Continue to next chapter, The Civil War
-----
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
Omnia Bona Bonis,
All My Relations.
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End
Kris

DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing!  These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically  by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.

Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html

http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Om