photo_2022-10-29_18-38-26 » wahoo51's Timeline Photos

Unreconstructed

https://confederatehonorhome.files.wordpress.com/2020/08/how-lincoln-destroyed-the-united-states.pdf

October 30, 2022

Unreconstructed

https://marionbushwackers.com/sitepad-data/uploads//2022/04/RECONSTRUCTION-HORRORS-Why-the-1st-KKK-Had-to-Be-Formed.pdf

October 30, 2022

Unreconstructed

https://marionbushwackers.com/sitepad-data/uploads//2022/05/About-20000-Negroes-Joined-The-Original-KLUKLUX-KLAN-KKK-%E2%80%93-A-Hidden-Side-of-History__.pdf

October 30, 2022

Unreconstructed

Where, Then, Did Jim Crow Come From? What is known as “Jim Crow” began in the antebellum North and spread southward after Reconstruction. In a region already hostile to black participation in social and political life, New York in the 1820’s proscribed free black votes by raising property requireme... View More

October 30, 2022

Unreconstructed

How the Yankees Felt About the Blacks From “The Truths of History”, pg. 99 ... View More

October 30, 2022

Unreconstructed

Racial Animosity By Jeff Melton ... View MoreRacial Animosity By Jeff Melton If there is one thing that the enemies of the South most claim is that Southerners are “racists”, and claim that the South has always harbored racial animosity towards others (particularly blacks). This is constantly fostered through the media and other outlets used by the enemies of the South. Part of this has to do with slavery, which was discussed earlier, and the Jim Crow laws (which were first used in the northern states—something ignored when such discussions are started by the South’s many enemies). Prior to the war, the relations between blacks and whites in the Old South was cordial. There were certainly not wide-spread racial riots in the Old South. Quite the contrary. At the time of the war, when the men were off fighting against the Yankee invaders, the blacks still at the plantations could certainly have done what they wanted, without much in the way of resistance. However, they did not do so. However, not all blacks in the Old South were slaves. In fact, there were many black slave owners in the Old South. There were free blacks who worked in various trades, and some owned farms. There were no reports in the Old South of problems between black and white citizens during those years, although modern Yankee propagandists would suggest otherwise. In the North, however, there were few black citizens. There was always a very small percentage of blacks in Northern States, and they were always treated poorly. There was constant conflict in Northern States over unskilled labor trades, and blacks were mistreated consistently by the Northern citizens. Confederate Sentry 12 Confederate Society of America Volume 17 Number 1 Jan. 2009 While the Northern apologists like to point to the free soil movement, and try to link it with abolitionism(another subject for another time), the free soilers were not interested in keeping slavery out of the new territories because of any hatred towards the institution of slavery itself. Their opposition to slavery in the new territories was because they wanted to the new territories to be for whites only. There are many pamphlets and speeches by some of their proponents that make this quite clear. They wanted the new territories to be free from the presence of any blacks, whether free or enslaved. However, it has been commonly asserted by the Yankee apologists that the free soilers were opposed to slavery on moral grounds. Such is not borne out by the evidence—if it is allowed to come to the surface. The problem, of course, is that those in control of the dissemination of information fight tooth and nail to keep the truth away from the light of day. So, if the race relations were cordial in the South prior to the war, how did they deteriorate? This was a process that was started by the meddling Yankee invaders. First, the effect of the war, and the constant revisionist refrain that it was a war against slavery (something that those who fought the war were aware was not the case). Following the war, reconstruction took its toll on the Southern people. Not only were Southern men disenfranchised unless they took oaths to the Yankee empire, but the Yankee invaders placed black puppets in the role of State governments. Widespread corruption followed, with the full support of the military governors and their associates. The white population, disenfranchised and trying to rebuild, had their property confiscated by outrageous taxation and corruption. To make matters worse, the Yankee government supported Union Leagues, which intentionally stirred by racial tensions—already becoming a problem due to the foregoing factors—and continued to oppress the white population in the South. These Union Leagues were just thugs, who propped up these illegitimate Yankee-run governments and punished those who sought to oppose their illegal actions. Given this landscape, it is no wonder that, when the first phase of Reconstruction finally ended in the Southern States (although, certainly, Reconstruction has continued, in a different form, in the Southern States since that time), and the Yankee-controlled puppet governments were no longer supported by the Yankee military, one of the first orders of business was to get rid of these corrupt governments and re-institute home rule. This also happened in Wilmington in 1898. But has the North been a place of positive race relations in modern times? Hardly. During 1863, draft riots took place in opposition to the very notion that any soldiers would be sent to the South to fight to free blacks. In New York, these riots resulted in the deaths of some blacks who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were lynched. Of course, to hear Yankee modern “historians” tell it, lynchings never took place in the North. In 1942, riots took place in Detroit, when blacks moved into certain neighborhoods. Yet, what Southerner hasn’t seen movies and books that claim that such things only happen in the South? While much has been said about the reaction in Southern cities to forced bussing and integration of the schools, one thing that is not told is that integration occurred in Northern cities after it occurred in the South. The Yankees were eager to integrate Southern schools, and were drunk in their own arrogance and perceived superiority; but they were not happy about integrating their own cities. When the federal government forced bussing and integration in the North, cities like Boston erupted in race riots. So, while the Yankees like to claim a moral high ground to spout out their own arrogant, self-serving hypocrisy, they seldom tell the truth about their own storied history in race relations. And perhaps they would do well to take the Biblical admonition of not casting the first stone.

View Less

October 30, 2022

Unreconstructed

Did John Wilkes Booth Have a Body Double? Posted on April 8, 2022 by Al Benson Jr. Stories and accounts still persist as to whether someone else is buried in John Wilkes Booth’s grave. A few years back I did an article about a David George who died in Enid, Oklahoma as an old man. Someone used what ... View MoreDid John Wilkes Booth Have a Body Double? Posted on April 8, 2022 by Al Benson Jr. Stories and accounts still persist as to whether someone else is buried in John Wilkes Booth’s grave. A few years back I did an article about a David George who died in Enid, Oklahoma as an old man. Someone used what they call the Facial Recognition Technique on him and compared his photo to that of John Wilkes Booth. The test seemed to point to the fact that there was only a one percent chance that George was not Booth. This Facial Recognition Technique is supposed to be pretty positive at identifying people. But I expect the results of this test will be routinely ignored by both historians who have built their careers by giving us politically correct “history” and by the “news” media, because this presents a situation where some of our history may well have to be corrected and rewritten and careers may be changed. History is often messy while establishment “historians” work to provide us with certain Pollyanna visions of what went on that somehow do not satisfy. I am going to quote some of the material I have come up with, including the links that were listed, so folks can check out the same stuff I did–provided it is still on the internet. I can’t guarantee that, but check anyway. A link I checked out was https://www.mail-archieve.com that had something to do with the learning channel. It stated, from an article posted on April 24, 2002, that: “Sunday night on the Learning Channel was a documentary on the Lincoln assassination including some documents just released by the family of Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton. These documents show that Stanton searched through Northern prisons until he found a person with the initials J.W.B. Who he found was a fellow of similar looks and age of John Wilkes Booth. His name was James W. Boyd. And furthermore he had the initials of J.W.B. tattooed on his left arm. Then Stanton managed to have all the telegraph lines shut down in and around Washington DC for six hours after the shooting of Lincoln…What the Learning Channel came up with was a hypothesis that perhaps the soldiers who shot John Wilkes Booth only thought they had shot him. The initials of J.W.B. tattooed on this guy’s arm might have proven to them that they actually had John Wilkes Booth instead of the other guy.” Another article I came across noted that James William Boyd had been a captain in the 6th Tennessee Infantry Regiment. He was captured in 1863 and was a prisoner of war until early 1864. At that point he asked permission to be released so that he could return home to care for his seven motherless children because his wife had passed away while he was in prison. Edwin M. Stanton approved Boyd’s request in February of 1865. After that, his whereabouts remains a mystery. He was supposed to meet his son in Brownsville, Texas but he never showed up, nor was he ever heard from again. If he did end up in John Wilkes Booth’s grave then it is not really surprising that he contacted no one. Another article on https://worldhistory.us/american-history/ noted the testimony of Lieutenant Edward Doherty, who was supposed to be commanding the soldiers who went after Booth at Garrett’s Farm. The article noted: “Lieutenant Doherty is testifying. Herold had run out of the flames in terror, surrendering to the soldiers. With a shot, the target of the manhunt is laid low. Herold cries out ‘Who is that that has been shot in the barn?’ Doherty says to him ‘You know well who it is.’ Says Herold, ‘No, I do not; he told me his name was Boyd.’ Doherty says ‘It is Booth and you know it.’ Says Herold ‘No, I do not know that it was Booth.’ Of course Herold’s statement to Judge Bingham, on April 27th. on the Monitor Montauk, corrects this misstatement. Several things stand out. First, remarkably, Herold’s is the only statement of all the conspirators that makes it into the official record. Herold never seems to understand what he is confessing to. However, it is clear that detectives are standing around him to make sure the details are correct. He states that he met Booth while coming home, rather than thundering over the bridge after him. This may fit the detectives’ plan to craft a unified tale…In conclusion, most historians deny Boyd’s existence, through no fault of their own. The thoroughness with which the official record was cleansed means that those who do not consult primary sources rarely spot the inconsistencies that come out in official accounts. Boyd, the wounded soldier trying to get home, slips between the cracks.” And finally, an article on https://www.henrymakow.com by researcher Mark Owen, originally published in January 2011. Mr. Owen stated: “John Wilkes Booth did not die in Garrett’s tobacco barn in 1865 as is currently supposed…James Boyd, a former Confederate agent working for the War Department was the man shot and killed in Garrett’s barn. He bore a passing resemblance to Booth aside from his red hair and mustache. Booth’s hair was jet black and he had shaved off his mustache at the home of Dr. Samuel Mudd…Not a single friend of Booth was called in to identify the body… When the blanket covering the body was lifted (Dr.) May stated, ‘There is no resemblance in that corpse to Booth, nor can I believe it to be him.’ May later changed his statement to conform with the official proclamation that Booth had been captured and killed.” So that’s now two people we had that “changed” their first statements as to who the corpse was, David Herold and Dr. May. All I can say is that there was lots of “statement changing” going on here–and for whose benefit??? Mark Owen provided a couple more tidbits regarding this. He said “Each of the 26 detectives that worked on the case received several thousand dollars apiece after signing quitclaims, stating that they had no further interest in the case. This was a big payday 150 years ago.” I have no doubt that any further interest they might have had in this case was bought and paid for. One more statement from Mr. Owen was rather interesting. He said: “In 1922, two Civil War veterans swore an affidavit stating that the body removed from the Garrett farm was not Booth. Joseph Zeigan and Wilson Kenzie said that they had served with the cavalry troop which had surrounded the barn. The man dragged from the barn wore a Confederate uniform and on his feet were yellow brogans, the service foot gear of Johnny Reb. The two veterans were sworn to secrecy.” Of course, by 1922, there was small possibility there would be anyone left to harass them should they speak out. Another site that carried some of this same information was http://www.beyondthefold.chieftain.com So as you can see, there is just enough information out there to cast serious doubt on the “official version.” In the intervening 150 years since the Lincoln assassination there have been several disconcerting events in our history and most of the official versions leave serious doubts anymore. The government has been caught lying to us so many times that it’s hard to take them seriously anymore. We have been lied to about Lincoln’s assassination, the assassinations of the Kennedys, the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., the Gulf of Tonkin situation that got us into the Viet Nam War, the situation with the U.S.S. Liberty attack by Israel, and so much more that the government lies simply beggar description anymore. If we really want the truth we have to look for it ourselves. Trusting the feds to tell us the truth is, at best a crap shoot, and, at worst, sheer insanity! Update: I noticed that two of the sites I listed here would not come up when I clicked on them. The other two did come up. I don’t know if these sites have been removed from the internet or what but you might try them separately from the article to see if you can get them. I ran a diagnostic test on my computer to see why they didn’t come up and the test gave me back no reason for not being able to pick them up so try running them separately from the article to see if you can get them.

View Less

October 30, 2022

Unreconstructed

Northern Hostility Toward the Negro “Closely interwoven with the Northern fear of [Southern political] dominance was fear of the Negro himself, and the [Wilmot] Proviso, commonly called the “White Man’s Resolution” by the free-soilers, seems to have expressed a Northern desire to keep the territor... View MoreNorthern Hostility Toward the Negro “Closely interwoven with the Northern fear of [Southern political] dominance was fear of the Negro himself, and the [Wilmot] Proviso, commonly called the “White Man’s Resolution” by the free-soilers, seems to have expressed a Northern desire to keep the territories free not only of slaves, but of the black race. The rhetoric of the free-soil movement is replete with expressions of hostility toward the Negro. One of the most notable instances occurs in James Russell Lowell’s allegorical treatment of the territorial issue in his enormously popular “Bigelow Papers.” In this poem Lowell represents the Negroes as “long-legged swine” who ruin the territories, making them uninhabitable for the northern farmer. Anti-Negro expressions also found their way into free-soil platforms, albeit in muted form. The Barnburners Utica [New York] Convention called for preserving the western land “for the Caucasian race,” or in the more popular parlance of Thomas Hart Benton “keeping the territory clean of Negroes.” One free-soiler assured the House of Representatives that he had little concern for “the degraded and degenerate blacks.” Northern hostility toward the Negro is likewise revealed in the vehement response to a proposal by Governor William Smith of Virginia to export the State’s freedmen to the North. In his speech representing the great dangers involved in rejecting the Wilmot Proviso, [New York Congressman] George Rathbun referred incidentally to Governor Smith’s proposal. “What do we say [to it]?” asked Rathbun. He gave the answer: “That there is no territory in the free States belonging to them [the Negroes]; that there is no place for them. As far as New York is concerned, should the refuse part of the population of Virginia reach our territory, we will carry them back to Virginia.” Smith’s proposal caused such consternation in Ohio that the Democratic minority in the State legislature was almost able to force through a law prohibiting Negro immigration altogether. One Democratic congressman from Ohio . . . appealing to the fear and hatred of the Negro in the North, used Smith’s proposal as a justification for bowing to the will of the South on the Proviso question. In the North, where the Negro population was relatively small, the means of assuring white supremacy was to exclude the Negro, and when he could not be physically excluded, he was excluded from civic life. The key to the strong emotional commitment in the North to free soil was the overwhelming fear of the extension of an alien race, as well as of an alien institution, to the point where it would directly affect the Northern people. The Wilmot Proviso had such a strong appeal precisely because it expressed the Northern determination to prevent the spread not only of slavery but of the despised Negro as well.” (Democratic Politics and Sectionalism, the Wilmot Proviso Controversy, Chaplain W. Morrison, UNC Press, 1967, excerpts pp. 70-73)

View Less

October 30, 2022

Unreconstructed

https://confederatehonorhome.files.wordpress.com/2020/10/secession-wasnt-and-still-isnt-treason.pdf

October 30, 2022