HOME PAGECOVID PLANDEMICBooks Exposing Jew PowerExposing Jew Power BookBANKSTERSBANKER'S WARSThe ROTHSCHILDSEdmond de RothschildRed Dragon - RothschildsLondon Crown Corp.PLANET ROTHSCHILDFederal Reserve JEW BankI.R.S. THE FACTSUSS LIBERTY TruthJEWS BEHIND THE NETMEDIA CONTROLJew Hollywood ControlJEW Porn IndustryJews & HomosexualityJEW CONTROL LISTSJEWS Exploit USAJEWS Vanquished USAJew Power RevealedNAME THE JEWCOMMUNISM Is JUDAISMJoe McCarthy Was RightCommunism By BackdoorHow to Boycott IsraelHolocaust Fraud ExposedJews Control ImmigrationEUROPA The Last BattleJews Genociding WhitesE.U.. WHITE GENOCIDE.Cloward-Piven StrategyHOLODOMOR TRUTHJew White House ControlLBJ Blackmailed-BribedHalsell on IsraelNixon's Jew ProblemJewed-Up Joe (Biden)Jew Puppet TRUMPRed China Created By JewsUSA Sold Off to ChinaJew Gun ControlORWELL & HUXLEYTALMUD REVEALEDPROTOCOLS Of ZIONHate Speech aka LOXISMBenjamin Freedman SpeechRosenthal RevelationsA Rabbi Speaks TruthBERNAYS PROPAGANDAWikipedia PropagandaZIONISMZio-History RevealedZionist-Christian IdiocyZionist Crimes HistoryJudea vs. RomeJewish Jesuits OriginChabad ExposedSayanim and HasbaratFrankfurt School JEWSADL - ACLU - SPLC9/11 TRUTH bookSOLVING 9-11 Bollyn book9/11 BUSH'S RoleSOROS the Errand Boy9/11 RABBI DOV ZAKHEIM9/11 LARRY SILVERSTEIN9/11 Jew Art Students9/11 Pentagon Infestation9/11 Donald Rumsfeld9/11 DICK CHENEY9/11 WTC Building 79/11 WTC Building 69/11 Ptech9/11 THERMITE9/11 Commission Fraud9/11 Traitors - SuspectsPATRIOT ACT911 and Oded Yinon Plan9/11 Ultimate Documentary911 Articles, Links, Etc.9/11 Further Reading911 VIDEO Collection9/11 A and E For TRUTH911 PILOTS.ORGAid Wasted on IsrealAnti-JWO OrganizationsAssassiation MonoplyJews killed Gen. PattonJews Killed the KennedysJEWS Killed ForrestalJews Killed HardingJews Killed TraficantJews and the MobAIPAC ExposedJEW LOBBY A LISTBILDERBERGERS 2018FORD'S JEW WARNINGBrave New World-HuxleyIron Curtain Over AmericaBehold A Pale HorseMartin Luther On The JewsThe Turner DiariesYOU GENTILESSynagogue of SatanTHE OCTOPUSConflict of the AGESWAR IS A RACKETConquest of the WorldFor Fear of the JewsAmerican Jew in IsraelShame The DevilWorld Revolution-WebsterPawns in the GameRobison's Warning 1798Silent Weapons Quiet WarsKKK HistoryJEW History ReligionNOAHIDE LAWSCIRCUMCISION FRAUDEINSTEIN The FraudFALSE FLAGSFASCISMIsrael Nuclear ProgramIsrael's Samson OptionIsrael's Quiet WarsJew's 3rd World WarsJEWS SPY ON USAJUSTICE FOR GERMANYTHE HOLOCAUST LIESHOLOCAUST DENIALANNE FRANK FRAUDThe Mengele MythCODOH DebateDachau ExperimentsJEWISH EXPULSIONSUnz HOLOCAUST DENIALHOLOCAUST LIES SitesAUSCHWITZAuschwitz CommandantUSA Concentration CampsRemember Ernst ZundelMeet Fred LeuchterMeet David IrvingMeet Robert FaurissonMeet Germar RudolfMeet The RizolisFree Ursula HaverbeckWir Sind MonikaFree Alfred SchaeferJUSTICE FOR GERMANYJews Genocided ArmeniansDr. Chuck BaldwinJews Genocided RussiansSolzhenitsyn On RussiaJews Genocided PalestineJews Genocided UkrainSTEINLIGHT PLANTHE ANTI HUMANSCarter on PalestineRachel Corrie MurderedLindbergh and DisneyThe USA CorporationJEW OrganizationsMASON OrganizationNAACP & The JewsOK. City BombingREVILO P. OLIVERCromwell and the JEWSSlavery & The JewsAmerican Civil WarTHE Confederate JEWSpanish-American WarSpanish Civil WarWW I Hidden HistoryBalfour DeclarationTreaty of VersailleGerman American BundRobert E. EdmondsonSedition Trial 1944FATHER COUGHLINSIR OSWALD MOSLEYNur für DeutscheDer SturmerJews Genocided LatviansJUSTICE FOR GERMANSGerman Villiany MythGermany Must Perish bookIsrael Must Perish parodyTRANSFER AGREEMENTKrystallnacht 1938Why Germans Were AngryPearl Harbor TruthMcCollum MemoFDR Rainbow 5 War PlanWORLD WAR II TRUTHWWII ExplainedTHE BAD WAR (WWII)The Nameless WarThe War On WWII LiesNAZI WORD ORIGINSWASTIKA HISTORYWINSTON CHURCHILLChurchill DebateGreatest Story Never ToldMEIN KAMPFHitler's Zweites BuchHitler The ArtistHitler's SpeechsHitler Defied BankersHitler Not Jew ControlledHitler Peace RejectedWhy Hitler Declared WarWhy Hitler InvadedDunkirk TruthGerman White PaperHitler's Final TestamentNon-German SSWAFFEN SS StoryGerman Soldiers SpeakD-DAY 6/6/6, 1944DRESDEN HOLOCAUSTHELLSTORMRape of GermanyPost War StarvationGerman ExpulsionsIke's Death CampsOTHER LOSSESNuremberg FarceQuotes About JEWSEzra Pound on JEWSWaco TyrannyWEBSITES OF INTERESTRECOMMENDED SITESPATRIOT PORTALRenegade TribuneGeorge Lincoln RockwellTHE WHITE RESISTERPaul Craig Roberts - IPESearch For Truth U.K.MOSSAD WATCHEuroFolkRadio.comJEW WATCHCarolyn YeagerDr. William PierceDr. David Duke SiteREAL JEW NEWSKnow More NewsChristogena ProjectThe Daily ArchivesFuckTheJewsVideosJEW WATCHRED ICE TVGOYIM TVHistorical ReviewIF AMERICANS KNEWSMOLOKO MEMESSMOLOKO.COMWAKE UP NEW ZEALANDMEME COLLECTIONVIDEO COLLECTIONINFORMATIVE VIDEOSOpen Letter To AmericansWisdom of the Bar FliesA Pilot's Memoirs

Click on this text to learn the truth about slavery in general


Forty Acres And A Jew

All of the Jews Who Banked Off the Slave Trade in America Part 1 of 2





Forty Acres And A Jew

All of the Jews Who Banked Off the Slave Trade in America Part 2 of 2








Click on this text for the truth about WHITE slavery




"For almost 150 years the United States has been conducting an interesting experiment.  The subjects of the experiment:  black people and working-class whites.

The hypothesis to be tested: Can a people taken from the jungles of Africa and forced into slavery be fully integrated as citizens in a majority white population?

The whites were descendants of Europeans who had created a majestic civilization.  The former slaves had been tribal peoples with no written language and virtually no intellectual achievements.  Acting on a policy that was not fair to either group, the government released newly freed black people into a white society that saw them as inferiors.  America has struggled with racial discord ever since.

Decade after decade the problems persisted but the experimenters never gave up.  They insisted that if they could find the right formula the experiment would work, and concocted program after program to get the result they wanted.  They created the Freedmans Bureau, passed civil rights laws, tried to build the Great Society, declared War on Poverty, ordered race preferences, built housing projects, and tried midnight basketball.

Their new laws intruded into peoples lives in ways that would have been otherwise unthinkable.  They called in National Guard troops to enforce school integration.  They outlawed freedom of association.  Over the protests of parents, they put white children on buses and sent them to black schools and vice-versa.  They tried with money, special programs, relaxed standards, and endless hand wringing to close the achievement gap.  To keep white backlash in check they began punishing public and even private statements on race.  They hung up Orwellian public banners that commanded whites to Celebrate Diversity! and Say No to Racism.  Nothing was off limits if it might salvage the experiment.

Some thought that what W.E.B. DuBois called the Talented Tenth would lead the way for black people.  A group of elite, educated blacks would knock down doors of opportunity and show the world what blacks were capable of.

There is a Talented Tenth.  They are the black Americans who have become entrepreneurs, lawyers, doctors and scientists.  But ten percent is not enough.  For the experiment to work, the ten percent has to be followed by a critical mass of people who can hold middle-class jobs and promote social stability.  That is what is missing.

Through the years, too many black people continue to show an inability to function and prosper in a culture unsuited to them.  Detroit is bankrupt, the south side of Chicago is a war zone, and the vast majority of black cities all over America are beset by degeneracy and violence.  And blacks never take responsibility for their failures.  Instead, they lash out in anger and resentment.

Across the generations and across the country, as we have seen in Detroit, Watts, Newark, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, and now Ferguson, rioting and looting are just one racial incident away.  The white elite would tell us that this doesn't mean the experiment has failed. We just have to try harder.  We need more money, more time, more understanding, more programs, and more opportunities.

But nothing changes no matter how much money is spent, no matter how many laws are passed, no matter how many black geniuses are portrayed on TV, and no matter who is president.  Some argue its a problem of culture, as if culture creates peoples behavior instead of the other way around. Others blame white privilege.

But since 1965, when the elites opened Americas doors to the Third World, immigrants from Asia and India, people who are not white, not rich, and not connected have quietly succeeded.  While the children of these people are winning spelling bees and getting top scores on the SAT, black youths are committing half the country's violent crime, which includes viciously punching random white people on the street for the thrill of it that has nothing to do with poverty.

The experiment has failed.  Not because of white culture, or white privilege, or white racism.  The fundamental problem is that American black culture has evolved into an un-fixable and crime ridden mess. *They do not want to change their culture or society, and expect others to tolerate their violence and amoral behavior.  They have become socially incompatible with other races by their own design, not because of the racism of others - but by their own hatred of non-blacks.*

Our leaders don't seem to understand just how tired their white subjects are with this experiment.  *They don't understand that white people aren't out to get black people; they are just exhausted with them.  They are exhausted by the social pathologies, the violence, the endless complaints, and the blind racial solidarity, the bottomless pit of grievances, the excuses, and the reflexive animosity.* The elites explain everything with racism, and refuse to believe that white frustration could soon reach the boiling point."---

"You can't legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.  What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.  The government can't give to anybody anything that the government doesn't first take from somebody else.  When half of the people get the idea that they don't have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
Anthony Bryan

Click on this text to listen to and watch Professor Tony Martin describe the JEWISH involvement in the Slave Trade


Howard Zinn, in his faux history book, presented a much
sanitized treatment of the African slave trade without
mentioning Jewish participation... of course.
Howard didn’t even mention the first Jewish Senator in the United
States (from Florida 1845-1851/1855 to 1861), David
Levy Yulee, who was a vociferous advocate of slavery.

Yulee resigned from the U.S. Senate when Florida
succeeded from the Union and became a member of the
Confederate Congress. He was a slave holder himself and
used slave labor to build and maintain his Florida sugar
plantation that was destroyed during the Civil War (now
the Yulee Sugar Mill Ruins State Historic Site).

To be fair I’ll now use a Jewish authority on the subject
of slavery rather than sources such as
Professor Tony Martin, or the Nation of Islam’s Louis
(both are probably better sources)...

The following passage is from Rabbi/Dr. Marc Lee
Raphael’s book "Jews and Judaism in the United States: A
Documentary History"
(New York: Behrman House, Inc.,
Published 1983), page 14:

"Jews also took an active part in the Dutch colonial
slave trade; indeed, the bylaws of the Recife and
Mauricia congregations (1648) included an
imposta (Jewish tax) of five soldos for each Negro
slave a Brazilian Jew purchased from the West
Indies Company. Slave auctions were postponed if
they fell on a Jewish holiday. In Curacao in the
seventeenth century, as well as in the British
colonies of Barbados and Jamaica in the eighteenth
century, Jewish merchants played a major role in
the slave trade. In fact in all of the American
colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or
Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated.
This was no less true on the North American
mainland; where during the eighteenth century
Jews participated in the ‘triangular trade’ that
brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies and
there exchanged them for molasses, which in turn
was taken to New England and converted into rum
for sale in Africa. Isaac Da Costa of Charleston in
the 1750’s, David Franks of Philadelphia in the
1760’s, and Aaron Lopez of Newport in the late
1760’s and 1770’s dominated Jewish slave trading
on the American continent."
The following passage is from Rabbi/Dr. Raphael’s book
found on pages 23-25 regarding Jews involved in New
World commerce and the African slave trade:

"During the sixteenth century, exiled from their
Spanish homeland and hard-pressed to escape the
clutches of the Inquisition, Spanish and Portuguese
Jews fled to the Netherlands; the Dutch
enthusiastically welcomed these talented, skilled businessmen.
While thriving in Amsterdam, where they became
the hub of a unique urban Jewish universe and
attained status that anticipated Jewish
emancipation in the West by over a century, they
began in the 1500’s and 1600’s to establish
themselves in the Dutch and English colonies in
the New World. These included Curacao, Surinam,
Recife, and New Amsterdam (Dutch), as well as
Barbados, Jamaica, Newport, and Savannah (English).

In these European outposts the Jews, with their
years of mercantile experience and networks of
friends and family providing market reports of
great use, played a significant role in the merchant
capitalism, commercial revolution, and territorial
expansion that developed the New World and
established the colonial economies. The Jewish-
Caribbean nexus provided Jews with the
opportunity to claim a disproportionate influence
in seventeenth and eighteenth century New World
Commerce, and enabled West Indian Jewry, far
outnumbering its coreligionists further north, to
enjoy a centrality which North American Jewry
would not achieve for a long time to come.

Groups of Jews began to arrive in Surinam in the
middle of the seventeenth century, after the
Portuguese regained control of northern Brazil. By
1694, twenty-seven years after the British had
surrendered Surinam to the Dutch; there were
about 100 Jewish families and fifty single Jews
there, or about 570 persons. They possessed more
than forty estates and 9,000 slaves, contributed
25,905 pounds of sugar as a gift for the building of
a hospital, and carries on an active trade with
Newport and other colonial ports. By 1730, Jews
owned 115 plantations and were a large part of a
sugar export business which sent out 21,680,000
pounds of sugar to Europe and New World
markets in 1730 alone.

Slave trading was a major feature of Jewish
economic life in Surinam which was a major
stopping-off point in the triangular trade. Both
North American and Caribbean Jews played a key
role in this commerce; records of a slave sale in
1707 reveal that the ten largest Jewish purchasers
(10,400 guilders) spent more than 25 percent of the
total funds (38,605 guilders) exchanged."
Rabbi/Dr. Raphael’s research is confirmed by other
sources I examined and his choice of words confirms a
historic reoccurring pattern. When he writes, “In
European outposts the Jews, with their years of
mercantile experience and networks of friends and
family providing market reports of great use,
played a significant role in the merchant
capitalism...etc.” ...he is talking about what I call tribal-cronyism.
When he writes about, “While thriving in Amsterdam,
where they became a hub of a unique urban Jewish
universe ...etc.”, he is again talking about tribal
cronyism that is now centered primarily in New York
City, U.S.A.

According to a recent United Jewish Appeal/ Federation
of New York (UJA) study, eight counties in the greater
New York area is the contemporary urban Jewish
universe where the largest Jewish community in the
world, outside of Israel which surpassed New York in
2006, thrives. New York has more Jews than Tel Aviv.

The present Jewish population in New York is around
1,635,000; after dropping from a peak of 2,500,000 in the
1950s. There has been a Jewish migration to many other
states since the 1950s; mostly to California (presently
with 1,219,000) and Florida (with 638,000 Jews)... New
Jersey has 504,000... Illinois has 297,000...Pennsylvania
has 294,000... Massachusetts has 277,000...and so on
until we notice Wyoming with 950 Jewish
residents...and trailing last are North Dakota with 400
and South Dakota with only 395 Jewish residents.

The first Jewish presence in New York dates to the
arrival 23 Jewish refugees in 1654, which fled from
Recife, Brazil, after the Portuguese conquered New
Holland and brought The Spanish Inquisition with them.

Major immigration of Jews to New York began in the
1880s with the increase of anti-Semitic actions in Central
and Eastern Europe. A new wave of Russian Orthodox
Jews began arriving in the 1980s through the 1990s
tipping the scales to the overall Orthodox Jewish side,
versus liberal Jewish population representation.


Click on this text to hear Segregation On Steroids - Louis Farrakhan






An African-American apologizes for misattributed

perceptions of white racism against

blacks perpetrated by Jews

Hello and welcome to my website:
We Thought They Were White.
My name is Dontell Jackson,
and like many African-Americans, I was brought up in a culture deeply infused with
propaganda designed to lay the blame for all of the black race's ills on the white man.
It was not until I began looking into the actual history of blacks, whites, and other races
in America, that I came to realize that many if not most of the resentment that
African-Americans harbor regarding our long history of abuse and exploitation has been
intentionally misdirected by those who are most responsible for it, to shift the blame away
from themselves as a people onto the white race who they regard as their enemies.

The reality is that the white race had little to do with the slave trade that took our
ancestors away from Africa and sold them into bondage in the New World. That
crime was committed not by White Europeans, but by Jews who were engaged in
transatlantic commerce between the Old World and the Americas where they hoped
to establish a New Jerusalem from which to rule the world by way of exploiting all
races who were not members of their tribe of "chosen people." In their efforts to
accomplish that goal, the white race has been hoodwinked and
manipulated as unsuspecting pawns almost as much as the black race has been.

Blacks have been purposely misled by the Jewish people who, in previous centuries,
built their fortunes in the transatlantic slave trade, and who continue to manipulate
and exploit us even today. Because most black people make no distinction between
Jews and whites, it is easy for the Jews to evade justice and escape the blame for
the wrongs that they have inflicted on our people for centuries by convincing blacks
that it was the white man who did it. In most cases the vast majority of the white race
had nothing to do with slavery or other crimes that have been committed against our
people. Whites were and continue to be exploited and manipulated by the Jews,
the same as blacks, and their race is even more hated by the Jew, where blacks
are simply disregarded by the Jews with indifference, as are other races. We are all
simply pawns to the Jews who have no other use for us beyond being a source of
profit to them and a weapon that can be used to help destroy whites, who they see
as their sworn enemies, by encouraging us to breed with them until there are no
longer any whites left.

I would like to invite all of my black brothers and sisters to join me in untangling the lies,
deceptions and half-truths that have been foisted upon us as a race, and to explore the
true history of what has been done to us as a people by those who were more than happy
to encourage us to think these wrongs were committed against us by whites, when in
reality those crimes were carried out by Jews.

Please feel free to share the information that I have presented on this site with as many
of your friends, relatives, and associates as possible, so that we as a people can gain
greater freedom through knowledge of the truth which is the only thing that can set us free
from the state of subjugation, manipulation, and exploitation at the hands of those who
have and who continue to deceive us. Let us educate ourselves as a people by sharing
this knowledge of the truth among all of our race so that we can at last break free
of the bondage of the lies and superstition that have enslaved our minds and our spirits.



Not Fighting for Slavery


David Martin

March 19, 2019


There is no chain so heavy or yoke so oppressive as that which men will unwittingly place

upon their own necks, or bend their necks to receive, while being beguiled and led

along by liberty shriekers under their pretended banner of freedom. – William Watson


On February 16, I sent the following email to the 14 members of the history faculty at my

alma mater, Davidson College, as well as to one emeritus history faculty member. They

were all open copied. At the same time, I blind copied 148 members of my class. At

the closing of the email, I identified myself as a member of the graduating class of 1965:


My freshman English professor at Davidson, James Purcell, introduced me to noted

journalist, H.L. Mencken, in the fall of 1961 in the thick assigned compendium called

Readings for Liberal EducationI have been a fan ever since.  More than anything,

Mencken has given me insights into American history that I have not found from those

whom Mencken called “the timorous eunuchs who posture as American historians.” 

You might be interested in my own variations on a theme by Mencken.

(link to assigned book not in original email)


For good insights on the American scene, one might fare better reading the

work of the Frenchman, Laurent Guyénot, than that of any practicing American

historian I know of.  Guyénot has the good sense to take my historical work seriously. 

I fear, though, that Guyénot’s work might not be very well received at an

institution that would employ William Kristol to teach ethics, of all things.


The arch-neocon warmonger Kristol was made Vann Professor of Ethics in Society at

Davidson at the beginning of 2019-2020 school year, giving him a position from which

he could continue to poison national discourse, after the perennially

money-gushing magazine he edited, the Weekly Standard, finally threw in the towel.  

I heard nothing from anyone for a few days, and then finally this short email came

in from the emeritus professor:

Thanks for sharing Mencken’s–and your–thinking about the Gettysburg Address.


Interesting, but not a point of view that I agree with.  To me, the North was fighting

(even if many soldiers didn’t know it) for the values expressed in the Declaration of

Independence that all people are created equal, while the South was fighting above

all to perpetuate an institution (slavery) that contradicted that basic American value.


I don’t think we need to have further correspondence,

as we are unlikely to persuade each other differently.


Needless to say, this solitary, expressly close-minded profession of faith in the conventional

wisdom regarding President Abraham Lincoln’s protracted, extremely bloody, though

eventually successful, precipitant military response to the secession of a few Southern

states from the Union in 1861 hardly did anything to raise my opinion of the American

history profession. Readers will notice, furthermore, that my email was really directed more

toward my ground-breaking work on the death of our first Secretary of Defense James

Forrestal, which is what the Guyénot article is about, and the respondent had nothing

to say about that. He also failed to address himself to a single point that I

made about the very devious, though slick and inspiring, Gettysburg Address.


What Were They Dying, Killing, and Maiming For?


Reading carefully, one will notice, actually, a small concession on the emeritus professor’s

part. “Even if many soldiers didn’t know it,” he says, the “it” being that the Union soldiers

were putting their lives on the line to bring an end to the institution of slavery in the United

States. It looks like he might actually know a thing or two about American history, and what

he surely knows is that virtually no one at the time, North or South, saw that as what

they were fighting over. The Northern leaders, most especially the commander in chief,

Abraham Lincoln, didn’t tell them that that was what the war was about. “I have no purpose,

directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in States where it exists.

I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so,” he had

stated in his inaugural address.


That brings us to the primary subject of this article, the 1887 memoir of the British citizen

and native Scotsman, William Watson, who was an engineer and businessman and a

longtime resident of New Orleans. He was well-connected in the city, an opponent of

slavery, like virtually all of the Confederate generals and other officers who gave up their

commissions in the United States Army to lead the soldiers of their home region, and like

my own ancestors in the foothills of North Carolina. He could have been an officer, he

tells us, but for the fact that he would have had to give up his British citizenship, which

was required by Confederate law. As it was, he was a high-ranking noncommissioned officer

who rose to an important leadership position in his military company. He gives us this

account from the Battle of Farmington, Tennessee, after they had overrun a Union position:


Several hundred prisoners were taken, some fine heavy siege guns, several hundred

stands of arms, and a large quantity of camp equipage fell into our hands. The

advance of the enemy on our right flank was checked, and they would be compelled

to change their tactics in that direction.


We remained on the field for some time awaiting orders. The place where the enemy

had camped was being cleared and the ground was strewn with debris. Knapsacks,

clothing, newspapers, letters, and other small articles lay scattered about. I packed up

and examined some of the letters. They were mostly all headed with some patriotic

motto, and a great many printed cards were enclosed or lay scattered about bearing

emblematic figures and inscriptions, such as female figures pointing to Fort Sumter

with the words: “Sumter first, peace afterwards.” Others with the emblem of the

Union—the eagle and the motto, “E pluribus unum,” with the words: “Fight for the Union

and the Union only,” and many similar representations, but never one having

the slightest reference to the question of slavery. (emphasis added)*


From what else I know, that sample is very representative. The Northerners were fighting

to restore the Union, as though it were something sacred, very much that holy entity in their

eyes as captured by Lincoln in his brief Gettysburg oration, and their immediate casus belli,

as President Lincoln had played it to the hilt, was the “vicious assault” on American lives

and property (though as with the Iranian retaliation for the killing of General Qasem Soleimani,

no one was killed) by the Southerners in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.


Even less than the Northern soldiers saw themselves fighting for the cause of abolitionist

fanatics, as most people North and South regarded them at the time, Southern soldiers

were not fighting to preserve slavery. It’s quite understandable in the case of one of my

great grandfathers who fought in General Robert E. Lee’s Army and was captured first

at the Battle of Hanover County Courthouse, was paroled after some period of time as

a P.O.W., rejoined and was captured again at the Battle of the Wilderness, spending the

remainder of the war in the Yankee hell hole of P.O.W. camp at Point Lookout, Maryland.

The residents of his home county of Yadkin were virtually all subsistence farmers; slavery

was virtually non-existent there. His case was representative of much of western North

Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, and also of northern Georgia and Alabama,

and even of northern Mississippi and Louisiana and much of Arkansas and Texas.


But what of the soldiers from the lowlands where slavery was prevalent? Watson lived in

the heart of the Deep South and he fought alongside soldiers from the region. Here is

what he has to say about them:


I may here state with some authority that the greater part of the men of the Southern

army, who really fought the battles of the South, did not fight to maintain slavery, and

the question of slavery was never before their eyes. So far as my observations

went, slavery was only a minor point of little or no interest to a large portion of the

population, and could never of itself have led to secession and war. Any interference

in that or any other law of the State which did not conflict with the Federal Constitution

involved a principle of much greater importance, almost unanimously cherished by

the Southern people, which was, the sovereign rights of individual States to make

and maintain their own laws, and it was upon this principle alone that slaveholders

and politicians got the large body of the people to follow them.


He then goes on to explain how, in his view, they were maneuvered first by Southern

“fire-eating bullies” into secession from the Union upon the election, by only about a third

of the total vote in an election split four ways, of a regional Presidential candidate in 1860

(Lincoln did not receive a single vote in my great grandfather’s generally anti-slavery

home North Carolina county nor in the entire state of Mississippi.) and then into the

devastating war by cynical Northern politicians.


Wherefore Warfare?


The really big question, though, is not what the contestants on both sides perceived

that they were fighting for or even what they were actually fighting for, but why they

were fighting in the first place. Never in my education nor in any public discussion that

I can recall is a separation ever made between the hasty actions of a few Southern

states in the wake of the disastrous outcome—in the view of those states’ leaders at

the time—of the 1860 presidential election and the horrendous war that followed soon

after. One great value of Watson’s memoir is that it permits us to see the situation at

the time that it occurred through the eyes of a very articulate and well-informed person.

The fact that he was not native to his New Orleans home also lends a greater-than-average

objectivity to his point of view. Neither he nor many around him believed that the

ill-considered—in his view—actions of seven Deep South states meant that they were

inevitably going to war over it. Even the leaders of the secession movement dreaded

such a possibility, not just because war is a truly horrible thing, but also because the

imbalance of population and resources was so great that it would be a war that they would

be very unlikely to win. Here Watson describes the general view as Lincoln was taking office:


As to what Mr. Lincoln’s policy might be there was nothing to indicate, and it was

the subject of much speculation among the bulk of the population within the seceded States.


No one thought that he would adopt a coercive policy; it was now too late for that.


It had been pointed out by [outgoing President James] Buchanan in his message

to Congress, that the executive of the United States had really no power under the

constitution to coerce sovereign States.


The States had seceded separately from the Union, each remaining for a time a

separate and independent Government, and afterwards formed themselves into

a Confederacy, and all without any protest or hindrance on the part of the Federal

Government. They had the sympathy of the Middle States, and also of a large number

of the Northern Democrats. They were now well organized and had become powerful,

and the President could not but see that any attempt at coercion would lead to further

secession, and meet with the most determined resistance, and

must result in civil war and bloodshed. (emphasis added)


As we can see, at that point the very idea that Lincoln might choose policies that could only

result in a war between the North and the South was pretty close to unthinkable. In the

opening days of the Lincoln administration, the seceded states had also sent negotiators

(Commissioners) to Washington offering, among other things, appropriate payment for

federal properties within their territories. Although little initial progress had been made,

people saw the parlay as a hopeful sign.


The future Confederate soldier Watson, perhaps like my future-soldier forbears and much

of the population of the South and even the nation at large, saw what those seceding Deep

South states were engaged in was a quixotic venture. Free of them, the remainder of the

country would then be able to get rid of the anachronistic form of labor that they had inherited

once and for all. Meanwhile, says Watson:


[The seceding states] would find themselves almost alone in maintaining their peculiar

institution in the face of the civilized world. They would be surrounded and hemmed in

by the free States of the more powerful Union, and they would have no fugitive slave

law to protect their institution. The largest portion of the population being non-slave

holders, their sympathies would be with the old Union of which many of them were

natives, and they were bound to it by strong ties of traditional attachment. In short,

there was a great probability of these States again seeking admission severally

back into the United States.


Alas, patience did not prevail and the hopes of the Watsons of the country were dashed.

Who did the dashing? On this subject, writing in 1887, not professing to be any sort of a

scholar, Watson comes up with what seemed to be a plausible answer, but he and lots of

other people were clearly wrong:


It was the opinion of many quiet but wise and intelligent men in the South, that although

Mr. Lincoln might be an honest, upright, and simple man, and had no bad feeling or

intention towards the South, still he had as an adviser in Mr. Seward, a subtle and deceitful

man possessed of great ability, and having an intense hatred toward the South.


Not Seward’s Folly, or Malevolence


The fact of the matter, we now can see in greater retrospect, is that Lincoln’s chosen

Secretary of State, William H. Seward, former Governor of New York and Senator from

that state, as an outspoken and principled opponent of slavery might have gained the

reputation in the South as a hater of the region, but he was no Thaddeus Stevens, and it

was inaccurate to characterize him that way. Neither could one say that about Lincoln,

but when it comes to those other adjectives, we shall see in the light of how the

hopes for peace were dashed, Watson has Seward and Lincoln reversed.


Watson places the onus for the firing of the first shot at Fort Sumter heavily upon Seward

as the supposed power behind the Lincoln throne and, of course, upon Confederate President,

Jefferson Davis, where it belonged to a degree, but perhaps not to the degree that he and

most of the world to this day believe. The subject under discussion here by

Watson is the resupplying of the federal island fort in Charleston’s harbor:


It was therefore very natural that [Army Chief of Staff] General [Winfield] Scott, a

military man of great ability, should advise the withdrawal of the troops as a military

necessity while an opportunity still existed, for had hostilities broken out the Federal

garrison would have been prisoners of war and so much loss to the United States.

But Mr. Seward knew his own game; he had effectually measured

the patience, and sagacity of Jefferson Davis and his cabinet.


While it seems inexplicable that the Confederate leaders should without any apparent

necessity act so precipitantly, and incur the onus and responsibility of the war by

bombarding the fort and actually commencing hostilities, I have never heard any

satisfactory reason given for the rash act. Of course, the excuse set forth by the

Confederate leaders was the importance of the fort and the great danger to be apprehended

to the Confederate cause should the Federal Government be able to send an expedition

to force an entry into Charleston harbor and occupy and strengthen Fort Sumter.


But there was not the slightest grounds for this apprehension, and the Confederate

commanders had no such apprehensions. The time was now gone past for this.

It would have been impossible for the Federal Government to have got ready an

expedition in less than three months which could with any chance of success attempt

to force a passage into Charleston, whilst it was well known that the garrison could

not hold out for more than ten days at the very utmost.


The military argument, which from his own ample Civil War experience Watson was

on good grounds for making, was that Fort Moultrie, which was on a spit of land more

seaward than Fort Sumter and which the Union had been forced to abandon upon South

Carolina’s secession, effectively guarded the harbor. The Confederates had loaded it up

with cannons and it would have required an overwhelming force that the Union could not

muster to dislodge them. More Watson:


It was evident that Mr. Seward, who was the real head of affairs at Washington, saw

very well that the vanity and pugnacity of Jefferson Davis and his cabinet, and the

defiant and warlike attitude of the Confederate leaders, would soon overcome their

patience and wiser judgment, and cause them to commit themselves by striking a

blow somewhere which would thoroughly rouse the indignation of the North and make

the war against the South popular.


Nor was he wrong in his conjecture.


The Confederate government, if they now wished to avoid the responsibility of striking

the first blow, acted with a rashness quite uncalled for and amounting to stupidity.


Watson was wrong to include Davis’s entire cabinet in his indictment. Seward’s counterpart

in the new Confederate government saw the rashness and stupidity ahead of time:


One of the few Southern statesmen who understood what the master politician and

experienced trial lawyer from Illinois was up to was Confederate Secretary of State

Robert Toombs, who, before Fort Sumter, warned that firing on the fort “is suicide,

murder, and will lose every friend at the North.” Toombs was right. The bombardment

of Fort Sumter, even though it injured no one, helped to end the secession movements

in the middle states as well as the support for secession among many Northern opinion

makers. (Thomas DiLorenzo,

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, pp. 121-122)


Jefferson Davis, in his own book, A Short History of the Confederate States of America,

appears to validate Watson’s and Toombs’s view of his judgment as he attempts to justify

opening fire upon Fort Sumter:


To have waited further strengthening of the enemy by land and vessel forces, with

hostile purpose, now declared, for the sake of having them “fire the first gun,” would

have been as unwise as it would be to hesitate to strike down an assailant who levels

a deadly weapon at one’s heart until he has actually fired. He who makes the

assault is not necessarily he who strikes the first blow or fires the first gun.


Let him try telling that to the court of public opinion, and as we have seen, the analogy

that he has made is a very bad one from a purely military standpoint. And then it gets

worse for him, again, in his own words:


The Federal garrison was generously permitted to retire with the honors of war.

The event, however, was seized upon to inflame the minds of the Northern people.

The disguise which had been worn in the communications with the Confederate

Commissioners was now torn off, and it was craftily attempted to show that the South,

which had been pleading for peace and still stood on the defensive, had, by this

bombardment, inaugurated a war against the United States.



Could the man have been so deluded as not to have anticipated that Lincoln would play

it that way and that he would be very successful in doing so? It saddens me to think

of my forbears having to live under such leadership. But at that point, in North Carolina,

they were not yet under Davis’s leadership, but Lincoln’s. Lincoln’s subsequent actions

would take care of that, though. Here we return to Watson’s narrative describing the very

predictable response to the Fort Sumter bombardment:


The Lincoln newspapers of course made the most of it. The Northern people,

few of whom knew the position or understood Mr. Seward’s game, were fired

with indignation, and the bombardment of Fort Sumter was declared to be the

opening of hostilities and the commencement of war.


Mr. Seward took care to take the tide at the flood. He did not give the Northern

people time to reflect, or allow any pro-Southern papers time to comment on

his shuffling game or plead any extenuating circumstances on behalf of the

Confederates, few as there were to plead, but followed up the news of the bombardment

so quickly with an exposition of Mr. Lincoln’s policy by his proclamation and

declaration of war that it was obvious he must have had it all prepared and

ready before the bombardment took place. He at the same time turned to the

commissioners whom he had kept waiting for an audience and gave as his reply—

“No compromise with traitors.”

Mr. Lincoln’s proclamation, which was issued immediately after the bombardment

of Fort Sumter, was a declaration of war against the States said to be in rebellion

against the United States, and a call for 75,000 men to crush the rebellion. To

each State outside of the Confederacy was issued an order to furnish its quota of

men. And an imperative demand was made upon these states in rebellion to lay

down their arms and submit to the authority of the United States within 10 days.


The purport of the proclamation was so sweeping and imperative and so

menacing in its tone, that it caused the greatest excitement not only within the

Confederate States but throughout the whole of the Southern States. It seemed

to outdo even the arrogance and pugnacity of Jefferson Davis and his cabinet.

It left no opening for any peaceful settlement, and it entirely ignored the existence

of any loyal or peaceful citizens within the Confederate States. It made no appeal

to them. It held out to them no guarantee or protection of amnesty. It gave them no

alternative but unconditional surrender or the sword.


It was that proclamation that forced the hands of Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina,

and Tennessee, who threw in their lot with their adjoining fellow Southern states. None

of the Fort Sumter provocation nor its aftermath was Seward’s doing, though, as we

see from this summary of the spurned wise advice that he offered to Lincoln on the matter:


Secretary of State William H. Seward eloquently argued for abandoning Sumter.

Seward based his case on the impossibility of peacefully provisioning the fort.

Since the attempt would involve military action, it would “probably initiate a civil

war.” While he would defend the Union by force if necessary, civil war was, next

to disunion itself, a national calamity. The fundamental question for Seward,

then, was how to restore the Union by a peaceful policy that would not provoke civil war.


Seward’s solution was to allow the secession crisis to subside by avoiding new

provocations. Southerners were fundamentally devoted to the Union, but this

sentiment had temporarily been silenced by fears associated with Lincoln’s election.

Conciliatory policies, however, by denying to the disunionists new offenses, would

permit loyal southerners to regain their governments and restore the Union. For

evidence of the beneficial effects of conciliation, Seward pointed to the stalling

of secessionist momentum after the initial surge.


Seward especially emphasized the good effect of conciliatory measures on the

upper South, whose continued loyalty would help patriots in the deep South return

to the Union. Time must be provided “for reason to resume its sway.

Time will do this, if it be not hindered by new alarms and provocations.”


As for Fort Sumter, Seward contended that even if held, it had no military value for

the United States. It was only as a symbol, “a monument” of the government’s

“authority and sovereignty.” He would continue to hold it as long as it could be

done without involving problems greater than the advantages of continued

possession. But, he warned, sending reinforcements or supplies would entail

using military force, and would appear as though the government initiated

conflict without adequate justification.


Seward stated that he would, in certain circumstances, advocate the use of force.

But he “would not provoke war in any way now.” And he would not initiate war “to

regain a useless and unnecessary position on the soil of the seceding States,”

or one which could not be defended when in federal hands. (emphasis added)


Watson—and his Southern friends—would have been surprised to discover how close

Seward’s views were to his own, and how decent and reasonable the man comes across

in his recommendations. The culprit was Abraham Lincoln, himself, or whoever was

pulling his strings, and that person or group of people was clearly not Seward.


Dishonest, Diabolical Abe


It has long been known, as laid out in the DiLorenzo book previously cited, that Lincoln

successfully baited the South into firing the first shot of the war and then quickly

capitalized upon the fact, but only more recently has California trial lawyer

Joseph Ryan revealed Lincoln’s full perfidy in pulling off the deed: “Lincoln, the sly

country lawyer,” he writes, “tricked the Confederate government into believing that he

intended to use naval warships to invade the harbor. The hook for Lincoln’s trick was

the U.S.S. Powhatan.”


Here is the problem that Lincoln faced, as Ryan explains it:


How, in riling the country to war, was Lincoln to hide the fact that he was the

aggressor? How to make it seem that South Carolina was the aggressor and

that Lincoln’s government was merely defending itself from such aggression.

How, in other words, to provoke South Carolina into bombarding the fort

without, apparently, any provocation?


And here was his solution. The Powhatan was the flagship of a flotilla of four warships

that Lincoln ordered to fight its way into Charleston’s harbor and provide provisions for

Fort Sumter. Those were the orders that went through the normal channels of the Navy

Department. The final assault was not to be made until the word came down from the

flagship’s commander, Captain Samuel Mercer. But Lincoln had been informed that

the Navy Department, much like the current Trump administration is laced with Deep

State operatives, was thoroughly infiltrated by sympathizers with the South, and the

word of Lincoln’s orders would reach Jefferson Davis and his boys well before the ships

reached Charleston. This, then, was the “deadly weapon” that Davis perceived to

be leveled at his new nation’s heart. At the same time, Lincoln sent a lieutenant with

sealed orders for Capt. Mercer, not to be opened until the Powhatan was at sea and

completely out of reach of the Confederacy’s spy network. Those orders changed the

destination of the Powhatan from Fort Sumter to the other federal fort in Southern

territory, Fort Pickens, at the harbor of Pensacola, Florida. Fort Pickens was not the

political flashpoint that Fort Sumter was. It was easily defended and was of far less

strategic importance. General Scott had no problem with doing what was militarily

necessary to hang onto it, as Lincoln had indicated in his inaugural address he was

determined to do. Most importantly, the Southern leaders had apparently

accepted it as something that they could tolerate, de facto, if not in principle.


The three ships left floating at sea near Charleston were never to receive the attack

order. Lincoln had no intention of firing his deadly weapon. His purpose was only to

persuade the Southern leaders that that was his purpose, forcing them to make the

move that made the most military sense to them, to force the surrender of Fort

Sumter while the forcing was still relatively easy, with immediate menace looming.


Accepting the case that Ryan makes, Jefferson Davis does not appear to be quite

as foolish as William Watson and lot of us thought he was, but he

was foolish, nonetheless, in his apparent inability to see the big picture.


The man who is revealed by the Fort Sumter episode as a conniver extraordinaire

was Abraham Lincoln, who was hell bent on war as the response to the secession of

those Southern states. If there were people pulling his strings, it does not appear that

they were in the executive branch of the government. It was almost certainly not Seward.

But why was Lincoln so determined to resort to bloodshed, not as a last resort, but

right off the bat?


At this point, I think what I believe to be the general consensus of those generally

unreliable professional historians of the country provides one good answer. He and

a lot of the people around him thought that it would be a relatively quick and easy

affair. Had matters progressed the way Lincoln expected, the seceding states would

have been quickly bludgeoned back into the Union well before he would have had

to resort to the showy war measure known as the Emancipation Proclamation, which

proclaimed freedom for the slaves only where the federal government had no power

to bring it about, in Confederate held territory.


For the other big reason, we turn to John V. Denson’s 2006 article,

Why Did Lincoln Invade the South?

He examines the little known Hampton Roads Peace Conference between high officials

of the federal and Confederate governments in February of 1865. Its purpose was to

negotiate either a temporary or permanent burying of the hatchet in order to do something

about the French encroachment into Mexico in violation of the Monroe Doctrine. I

commend the entire article to your attention, but here is Denson’s summation. From

the Union side, we were really back to the terms of Lincoln’s first inaugural

address, as though there had never been any Emancipation Proclamation:


In summary, the South wanted independence, not the protection of slavery, and

the North wanted reunion rather than abolition of slavery. This is what President

Lincoln had stated in the very beginning before the war and again what he had stated

near the end of the war.


It was generally recognized in both the North and the South by 1865 that slavery

was a dying institution, not just in America, but throughout Western Civilization.

It was also obvious to both the North and the South that slavery would be hard to

maintain in a separate Confederate South without the constitutional and statutory

fugitive slave provisions which had required free states to return escaped slaves.

In fact, many abolitionists had advocated Northern secession before the war as

a means to end slavery by depriving the Southern states of the benefits of the fugitive

slave clause in the Constitution and the laws relating thereto. The offer of the North

to pay for the freed slaves was merely an added inducement to rejoin the Union but

Lincoln had always been willing to accept slavery where it already existed if the

South would remain in, or later, rejoin the Union. The right of a state to secede clearly

had been accepted in the North and the South at the time of the formation of the

Union and up until the time of the War Between the States. For example, the New

England states frequently asserted the right of secession and threatened to use it

on five occasions: in 1803 because of President Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase;

in 1807 over the Embargo Act; in 1812 over the admission of Louisiana as a state;

in 1814 at the Hartford Convention because of the War of 1812; and finally, in 1845

over the annexation of Texas.

The War Between the States was not a noble war to abolish slavery, but instead

was a war of conquest to require the Southern states to continue paying the taxes

which paid for the federal government and to change the system of government

given to us by our Founders and instead replace it with a strong national government

thereby removing most of the political power from the states and the people. When

the famous British historian, Lord Acton, wrote to Robert E. Lee after the war,

in a letter dated November 4, 1866, he inquired about Lee’s assessment of the

meaning of the war and the result that would follow. Lord Acton’s letter stated,

in part, that:


“I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign

will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption

of Democracy . . . Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty,

our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at

Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.”


Lee replied in a letter dated December 15, 1866, and stated, in part, what the

result would be:


” . . . [T]he consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive

abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of the ruin which has

overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.”


Good and Bad Leaders


General Lee was one of the leaders that the war veteran Watson, like a lot of other

people at the time and later, held in very high esteem. He contrasts him with Davis

in that he feels that Lee would have had the good sense to concede defeat and

save a lot of lives when it had become clear that there was no hope for victory.

In this case, Watson’s opinion was based upon Lee’s reputation, not upon any direct

experience. Watson served in the West, never under Lee in the East. He does speak

highly of two Confederate generals under whom he did serve, Benjamin McCulloch

and James McIntosh. Jefferson Davis, however, in order to resolve the conflict between

western commander McCulloch and the commander of the Missouri forces, Gen.

Sterling Price, sent General Earl Van Dorn to assume command over both of them.

Van Dorn then managed to get both McCulloch and McIntosh killed in what Watson saw

as both the ill-conceived and executed Battle of Pea Ridge. As Watson described

McCulloch and McIntosh, their losses to the Confederate military leadership were right

up there with the deaths of Stonewall Jackson at Chancellorsville and Albert Sidney

Johnston at Shiloh. That’s another thing Watson probably held against Jefferson Davis.

It’s beyond the scope of his book, but when the notorious womanizer Van Dorn was

shot to death by a cuckolded husband in Tennessee, Watson probably regarded it as

no great loss to the Confederate army.


Watson also differed sharply with Davis over the general who has given his name

to both the U.S. Army’s Fort Bragg in North Carolina and the coastal resort town in

Northern California, also named Fort Bragg after the frontier fort that was once there.

We are speaking of General Braxton Bragg. Watson describes him as an almost sadistic

martinet, while Davis saw him as a fine disciplinarian. As bad as Bragg was, he was

probably several notches up the humanitarian scale in Watson’s eyes than “Beast Butler,”

that is, General Benjamin Butler, the man Lincoln appointed as military governor when

Union forces conquered New Orleans.


When he is writing about things beyond his direct experience, like in his assessment

of the role of Secretary of State Seward in starting the war, one might take Watson’s

observations with something of a grain of salt, but I, for one, felt that I got a better grasp

on the reality of the War between States from Watson than from almost anything that

I have encountered from our professional historians. I might say the same thing for the

more recent writings of the practicing attorneys Joseph Ryan and John V. Denson

and the Ph.D. economist, Thomas DiLorenzo, a man whose credentials the current

writer shares. For their part, the professional historians, when it comes to the War,

I have found to be hardly more reliable than they are about James Forrestal’s death.




*All quotes from Watson’s book and further on from Jefferson Davis’s book lack

page number citations because they are from the Kindle edition. If you want to find

the quotation in its context, you can search a selection from the quote on the Kindle,

if you have one. Amazon has made it cheap and easy to become a relative expert

on the War between the States by providing a number of first-hand accounts of the war

for the bargain basement price of $.99.






By the way...


"Blacks had it worse then any other race when it comes to slavery" really? The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.
Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.
From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.
During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.
Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.
As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.
African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African. The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.
In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves. This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.
England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia. There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.
There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry. In 1839, Britain finally decided on it’s own to end it’s participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.
But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.
Irish slavery is a subject worth remembering, not erasing from our memories.
But, where are our public (and PRIVATE) schools???? Where are the history books? Why is it so seldom discussed?
Do the memories of hundreds of thousands of Irish victims merit more than a mention from an unknown writer?
Or is their story to be one that their English pirates intended: To (unlike the African book) have the Irish story utterly and completely disappear as if it never happened.
None of the Irish victims ever made it back to their homeland to describe their ordeal. These are the lost slaves; the ones that time and biased history books conveniently forgot.
Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.
Don't forget.





  1. Jul 06, 2010 · Minister Farrakhan - Southern Slavery - COTTON - Part One ... Jewish involvement - Compromise of 1877 - Part 2 ... PT 1. The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan details stories of his relationship ...

  2. Jul 06, 2010 · Minister Farrakhan - Southern Slavery - Jewish involvement - Compromise of 1877 - Part 2 ... Southern Slavery - Jewish involvement ...

  1. Jul 06, 2010 · Minister Farrakhan - Southern Slavery - Jewish involvement - Compromise of 1877 - Part 3 RIGHTEOUSDISORDER. ... Minister Louis Farrakhan handles the Donahue audience!

  1. Fake Jews & Black Slaves (The Black Holocaust): Min ...


    Oct 24, 2012 · The Hon. Minister Louis Farrakhan smashes back with the facts regarding the Black Holocaust. Continue to support the Nation of Islam and the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan. Please subscribe to ...

  1. Farrakhan on Jewish owners and slavery - YouTube


    Minister Farrakhan - Southern Slavery - Jewish involvement - Compromise of 1877 - Part 2 ... The Shocking Jewish Role in Slavery Part I: What Jewish Historians Say

  1. 1 Compromise of 1877 - YouTube


    Jun 15, 2015 · Minister Farrakhan - Southern Slavery - Jewish involvement - Compromise of 1877 - Part 2 - Duration: 10:01. ... Jim Crow part 4 | The Gilded Age ...

  1. Favorites - YouTube


    Minister Farrakhan - Southern Slavery - Jewish involvement - Compromise of 1877 - Part 2 by RIGHTEOUSDISORDER. 10:01. ... Part 1: Master Fard Muhammad and India ...


“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political

equality of the White and Black races. 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 from living together on terms of social

and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there

must be a 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.” ~ Abraham Lincoln, 1858