The Lincoln Assassination Conspiracy Narrative

SaiGirl
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 9:42 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 123 times

The Lincoln Assassination Conspiracy Narrative

Unread post by SaiGirl »

Phil Crane dissects the alleged “assassination attack" on Lincoln's Secretary of State William Seward.

Apparently, Seward was in bed recovering from an earlier carriage accident.


SaiGirl
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 9:42 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 123 times

Lincoln, Seward and "Waving the bloody shirt"

Unread post by SaiGirl »

This is why it mattered. And continued to matter up until the end of the century, when Teddy Roosevelt's "Rough Riders" conducted a "reconciliation" PR campaign, as part of their recruitment drive for the war in Cuba.
Former Confederate and Union officers got together to back the war with Spain. National unity was the theme.

Teddy even recruited black soldiers for his expeditionary force.
Maintaining unit cohesion and discipline was a major effort on Teddy's part, to overcome the old bitterness of the "Civil War".
Black cavalry men had to be drilled, trained and commanded by former officers who had once served with the Confederacy as well as the Union.

Plus he had family connections to both the Union and Confederacy.

Until that moment (1898), Republican politicians in the north never hesitated to exploit the "bloody shirt" of the "Civil War" to advance their careers and agendas.
"Memorial Day" originates from this period; with the same purpose of engineering a reconciliation between north and south.

Most of the presidents between the "Civil War" and 1900, had served as Union officers during the war; their veteran status was almost a prerequisite for a political career.

McKinley was the last president to have served in the "Civil War".

He was "assassinated" by a "lone nut anarchist" in 1901; to be succeeded by his Vice President, Teddy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waving_the_bloody_shirt
SaiGirl
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 9:42 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 123 times

How God ordained the Confederacy.

Unread post by SaiGirl »

None of this war could have happened without the sermons and published op-ed newspaper articles of the preachers, ministers, bishops and deacons.

The Confederacy was implied by God's divine law, as expressed in Holy Scripture.

(As was also the struggle to "preserve the Union" or "abolish human slavery".)

https://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/wilson/menu.html
SaiGirl
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 9:42 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 123 times

Consequences of the Mexican War (1846-48)

Unread post by SaiGirl »

Grant served two terms as President, then lost everything in the failure of of some bad investments,.
And like so many other celebrities of the era, he was forced by circumstances to sell his life story as a serialized memoir.

Like Lee, Longstreet, Sherman, Sheridan and so many other top commanders on both sides of the “Civil War”, he had served in the Mexican war (1846-48) that resulted in the annexation of vast new territories, by conquest and surrender, almost as big as the “Louisiana Purchase” .

And these were to enter the Union as new states.
But the question was: As “slave” or “free”?

That was why so many northerners opposed the war.
They worried that slavery would be extended into these new states, and so drive out “free labor” (wage labor and small scale homesteading).

Nevertheless, as loyal officers in the army (and navy), these northerners served “with heroic distinction” alongside their southern comrades.

In this excerpt from the memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant, the former president and general called the Mexican War unjust and voiced his lasting objection to it. As you read this passage, consider why Grant believed the United States won that war against Mexico, but then paid the terrible price of a civil war.

QUOTE
=====================================
U.S. Grant, Memoir on the Mexican War (1885)

. . . Generally the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation [of Texas] was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war [with Mexico] which resulted as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.

Texas was originally a state belonging to the republic of Mexico.
=====================================
UNQUOTE

https://wwnorton.com/college/history/am ... %20to%20it.
SaiGirl
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 9:42 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 123 times

"Dred Scott", Roger Taney and the "Fugitive Slave Act"

Unread post by SaiGirl »

https://www.telegram.com/story/news/loc ... 776067007/

If you've never before heard of Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney or the "Dred Scott Decision" or the "Fugitive Slave Act", then you've never learned a goddamned thing about what caused the "Civil War".

Either your high school failed you, or you failed yourself.

That would be no surprise, because most Americans don't know dipfuck about the most basic details of their own nation's official "history"; let alone the actual reality behind the narrative.
They simply never had the time or interest.

So why should it matter what raft of bullshit they believe now?
SaiGirl
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 9:42 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 123 times

NYC draft riots and bombardment of the city

Unread post by SaiGirl »

In the aftermath of Gettysburg, the New York City riots against military conscription led to the very first bombardment of downtown New York (by US Navy cannon offshore).

This was without precedent, as the British never did this during the 1776-1783 war for independence; and only burned Washington as payback for the prior American destruction of York, Ontario during the "War of 1812".

What triggered the US Navy bombardment of NYC was supposedly the imminent threat that the rioters were likely to massacre every "free Negro" living in the city, as a form of protest against the "Civil War".

https://mpt.pbslearningmedia.org/resour ... tary-film/
SaiGirl
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 9:42 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 123 times

It was the West that "won": Not "north" or "south"

Unread post by SaiGirl »

Northerners would never have volunteered to go and fight, just to "free the slaves".
Some were ideologically motivated, but they were in a minority.
Many more would have been induced to enlist in order to "suppress the insurrection" and "preserve the union".
But as the war dragged on, enlistments declined, and forced conscription was ordered.
Thousands of Irish and German immigrants were drafted, practically right off the boat from Europe.
Freed blacks were now, for the very first time, enlisted in the Union army.

Southerners enlisted to "preserve our way of life".
And one of the cornerstones of that was traditional (and Divinely ordained) subordination of the black race to the white.
Most did not own any slaves.
And as the war dragged on, increasing numbers deserted.
For the Confederacy, time was never on their side.
They knew that the longer the war lasted, the greater their likelihood of defeat.

It was Grant's victory in the west, and the general support of Westerners for the Union, that was decisive.
Southerners lost the "slavery" argument in the West, where "free labor" and "free soil" were the dominant ideologies.
Westerners were the strongest nationalists of all; seeking to reunify the country around settlement, development and statehood for the western territories, and total removal of the indigenous tribes.

The Southerners had failed to establish a foothold for profitable plantation slavery ("King Cotton") in the west. And so their defeat in the resulting war was inevitable, short of intervention by the top European imperial powers Britain and France.

The Russian Imperial Navy supported Lincoln and provided a counter balance to the British Royal Navy, thus allowing the Union navy to successfully blockade and economically cripple southern commercial shipping.

Farragut occupied New Orleans. Grant battled for control of the Mississippi to "split" the Confederacy.
And finally in 1864, Sherman's devastating new 'total war" strategy rendered a miles-wide wasteland of homelessness and starvation, from Atlanta to Savannah.

Could the South have continued to pursue a scattered guerrilla style resistance. to Northern victory?
That's what Jesse James, Coleman Younger, Bob Anderson, Quantrell and some others believed.
But that bitter hope was doomed.

SaiGirl
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 9:42 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 123 times

Re: The Lincoln Assassination Conspiracy Narrative

Unread post by SaiGirl »

In a literal sense, the southern founders of the "Confederacy", at the outbreak of secession and the resulting "war" (insurrection), ensured that their own words would convict them of going to "war" over race.

If one were to acknowledge race as an inherent objective reality ("essentialism").
Or conversely, to reject it and dismiss it, as a cultural /political / ideological / tribal construct.
That's the dialectics of "race'.

The objective reality makes the word itself so broad and so generic as to be ultimately MEANINGLESS, with respect to the individual and free will.

For southerners, the choice was easy. Right there in their Bible.
With God's curse on "the children of Ham", in the story of Noah's drunkenness.

Militant defense of the "southern way of life" (status quo with "Fugitive Slave Act"), was commanded by the Divine Will. As their preachers thundered to them from the pulpit.
Attachments
Alexander Stephens.jpeg
SaiGirl
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 9:42 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 123 times

What the generals thought of each other.

Unread post by SaiGirl »

Most of them had seen action in Mexico or against native tribes during the Indian wars,

SaiGirl
Posts: 337
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2020 9:42 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 123 times

The West: Opposed to both slavery AND black citizenship

Unread post by SaiGirl »

When California entered the Union in 1850 as a "free state", residents were allowed to keep their slaves for three years. After that, the slaves were required by law to leave the state.
Settlers in the west generally opposed slavery (preferring "free labor" and "free soil") but they also wanted the former slaves to be expelled from the territories along with the native tribes.

https://www.aclunc.org/sites/goldchains ... rnett.html

The Supreme Court's "Dred Scott" decision determined the following:
1) Blacks were excluded from citizenship (equality under the law) by the Constitution.
2) Whether slave or free, they had no rights under law that any white man was bound to respect.
3) If enslaved, it meant that they were PROPERTY (like land or livestock) and therefore, under the 5th Amendment, all states and the Federal government were to enforce basic property rights by pursuing and returning escaped slaves; no matter where they might flee - to Mexico, Canada or a "free state".
4) Therefore any exclusion of slavery from the new territories, legislated by Congress was unconstitutional and rendered null and void.

All this rendered the carefully crafted "Missouri Compromise of 1820" and the "Compromise of 1850" null and void as well. This made a "civil war" over slavery inevitable, as it could not be voted away ("popular sovereignty") or legislatively eliminated in the new states.
Thank you Taney Supreme Court! You created John Brown.

California and Oregon were confronted with the dilemma of avoiding slavery but also excluding blacks.

https://californiahistoricalsociety.org ... d-slavery/

Conclusion: America was predominantly anti-slavery but considered blacks and Indians to be "aliens".
Post Reply