While matriculating at American public schools, one never questions to any great degree that which is taught by the authority figures in the classroom, much less analyze the content of textbooks with any significant scrutiny. What if everything you thought you knew about American history, specifically the American civil war, turned out not to be an objective recording of actual events, but a complete fabrication?
PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION
One shall begin justifying the aforementioned thesis with an in depth analysis of the well documented photographic history of the American civil war. Midway through the 19th century, photographic technology and the art of photography in general were still in a nascent phase, or so we are led to believe. In other installments found on Newsspellcom.org, one has detailed the trickery and deceit employed by news agencies and the corporate owned mainstream media with regard to officially published photographs. After all, everyone by now has heard about, or even utilized some form of photo-shop computer software. During the era of the American civil war, did there exist perhaps similar, albeit more primitive techniques utilized with regard to the photographic record of this important and epic event in US history? What reason can be given for believing the ancestors of the current class of bankers and industrialists owning the US corporation possessed greater moral scruples?
One could surmise, indeed, they did not.
From initial cursory observation, most of the civil war photos available at Google images and elsewhere, seemed to have several characteristics, even oddities, in common. Without exception, all of the photographed war casualties seemed to lie vertical on their back, with all extremities in similar, if not the same positions, almost as if they were posed, or staged. In several examples online, one notices that all casualties, whether Union or Confederate, died on their back, all with one hand placed uniformly on the chest cavity, one knee sticking up, and no sign of blood from an entry or exit wound caused by a musket ball. Observing more closely, one will witness what appears to be several identical men from various battles lying in different positions and even in different locations.
Upon closer scrutiny, this more than appears to be the case.
One example in particular, claimed to have been photographed at the Battle of Gettysburg, the same soldier can be seen lying out in an open field, and then observed in yet another location propped against the wall of a trench, as if he had been moved like some Hollywood movie prop for a staged photo opportunity. Now, before one begins to scoff at such anomalous, or even seemingly preposterous assertions, one was able to unearth documented and corroborative observations of the time period in question from verified historians. In 1975, historian William Frassanito, was put on record as having examined a plethora of photographs taken by Alexander Gardener, a prominent 19th century figure in the ongoing development of the art of photography. What he came to learn, seemed odd, even stunning. He learned, that Gardener’s photographic assistant, J. Watson Porter, had documented some interesting facts as to how Gardener and other notable war photographers were able to procure prime battlefield position, framing what came to be recognized as some of the most iconic photographs of the civil war period. 
In Porter’s war dairies, some of which were later published as part of a Gardner sketch book around the close of the war in 1865, Frassanito discovered many photographers of the era in addition to Gardener, including Timothy O’Sullivan, Mathew Brady, and Egbert Guy Fox, were in fact notorious for staging civil war photographs.
In fact, Frassanito was shocked to learn that though there were large numbers of newspaper reporters assigned to cover the war, there are no actual photographs of the Battle of Gettysburg, or any of other major battles from the entire war in existence.
Further investigative digging unearthed a Washington Post article entitled “The mysteries of the Civil Wars photographic giant”.
In the article, Michael E. Ruane writes:
“Today, such staging of photographs may seem unethical, but 19th century sensibilities may have been different. Gardener and other photographers of the time period were known to think of themselves as artists,” he wrote. “When photography was invented, it was thought it was going to replace art. Thus, a photograph could be composed, just like a painting. And so, it was thought to be not unethical to hire the services of assistants, who in posing as uniformed war casualties, considered themselves to be part of the history making process for the sake of posterity.”
Furthermore, Frassanito was truly stunned to find that not only were there no photographs of the actual battles documented to have occurred during the civil war, but the only documentation of such consisted of paintings and those photographs theatrically staged by professional photographers such as Alexander Gardener and his colleagues.
Goes to show, folks, that those working in the 19th century media were perhaps more circumspect about the staging of history.
PRIMARY WEAPONRY: THE RIFLE MUSKET
Secondly, there is the subject of the particular and primary weaponry utilized during the alleged civil war conflict. Per historical record, the primary weapon used by the average Union or Confederate infantryman was the single loading rifle musket. Contrary to Hollywood having tinkered with actual history, the repeating, or lever action rifle was not developed until much later, and did not exist as a deciding factor in the outcome of the war documented between the years of 1861-1865. Like the alleged weaponry said to have been used by JFK ‘assassin’ Lee Harvey Oswald, the Italian made Carcano, the rifle musket was not an accurate weapon, lacking the requisite range, loading capacity,, and ammunition trajectory to have been a truly effective and decisive long range weapon on the front lines of the American civil conflict. These chief factors made the weapon useful for only marginal purposes in close quarters combat, but rather useless as a strategic tool with which to drive back or divert enemy battle lines.
A rare historical tomb, composed by Earl J. Hess, provides corroboration of this thesis. Hess contends that the impact of the single loading rifle musket was much more limited than previously supposed, and was primarily confined to marginal operations such as skirmishing or sniping. Hess argues further, that the rifles potential to alter battle line operations was nullified by inadequate training , the soldiers preference for short range firing, and the difficulty of observing the enemy at a distance. Additionally, he notes that bullets fired from the musket followed a parabolic trajectory; that at mid-range, flew well wide or above the enemy. The idea then, that almost one quarter of one million casualties resulted from the violent exchanges of poorly trained opposing factions, armed only with primitive single firing musket rifles and equally unreliable artillery, over less than a four year period, more than strains rational credulity. ![Raging Falcon - 3D[1343692]](https://i0.wp.com/worldnewsspell.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/raging-falcon-3d1343692.jpg?resize=700%2C700&ssl=1)
INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION VS. SOCIAL ALTRUISM
It is not altogether unreasonable to conclude, freeing Southern plantation workers from the chains of bondage had little to do with shaping the social and political American climate during the mid-nineteenth century. Those regular visitors to Newsspellcom.org, are by now well familiar with the concept of the US government as a corporate entity, owned and operated by multi-national bankers in cooperation with legacy family lineages possessing vast industrial and commercial financial holdings.
To these elites, the flow of commerce is always the primary consideration, the rest is merely for appearances. That’s right folks, the Emancipation Proclamation merely represented the results of a negotiated business contract between Northern industrialists and Southern plantation owners.
Thus, it does not strike one as historically profound to observe that mid-19th century America was in the midst of great industrial expansion, particularly in the geographical section of the Northeast. Post war census data from the years 1865 until 1890 indicate the populations of all Northeastern American cities had almost tripled. This population growth was due chiefly to the migratory influx of former Southern plantation workers moving into the North, but also due to the nascent increase in European immigration. Cities such as Boston, New York, and Philadelphia were becoming booming industrial centers, and so those legacy banking families, Rockefeller’s, Mellon’s, Carnegie”s, DuPont’s, Vanderbilt’s, and Guggenheim’s, were in dire need of drawing from vast, cost effective labor pools in order to more than meet the growing demands of industrialized economic capital. Since these same legacy industrialists and bankers are also responsible for composing what appears in the American history books, it stands to reason they couldn’t expect it to reflect very well to simply admit the actual reason for allowing Southern plantation workers to migrate to the North was to bolster the needs of economic prosperity.
Surely, using the created myth of an epic conflict like the American civil war would serve a much better purpose. In the elites keen understanding of the proletarian mentality, nothing rings more heroically noble, mythic, or echoes more loudly into the ears of historical posterity, than the grand stories of a great war handed down to future generations. 
As for the elites political puppet in Abraham Lincoln, building him up into the mythical figure of a towering martyr, would better serve in psychologically bonding together the geographical, political and social disparities of North and South into a cohesively patriotic whole as the nineteenth century drew closer to the twentieth.
Joseph Campbell once wrote myths represent the very fabric of a nation, and the myth of the American civil war, has, for more than one-hundred-fifty years, served as a very robust thread in the weaving of the American historical mosaic.
Another weapon that was allegedly used in the “Civil War” was the Gatling gun. Since they claim that the South was far less advanced than the North in technology and industry, and since this weapon was allegedly in the possession of the Union, the armies of the Confederacy stood no chance to defeat the armed Union forces with their flimsy weapons.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MlQIf2cb46s&feature=emb_title&noapp=1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatling_gun
Here’s the man credited for the invention of the Gatling gun. He was also a Freemason.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jordan_Gatling
https://www.geni.com/people/Dr-Richard-Gatling/6000000062758319958
The whole matter could’ve been easily settled in a week with these superweapons, which can simultaneously kill hundreds more than rifles. Yet we are expected to believe that the Confederate soldiers made the war last for four years despite the fact that they stood no chance of surviving the Union army’s advanced weapons of mass destruction? That alone proves this was fake.
That is an excellent point. The Union troops – if history texts are to be believed – had clear strategic advantages in both weaponry and manpower, against which the “Confederacy” had no or little chance of sustaining any semblance of threatening challenge, much less for a four year period. I do believe, the entire “Civil War” historical scenario was a grand simulation utilized for the purpose of concealing the standardized legal classification of “employees” or persons/corporations into employees-at-will, granting such persons the legal privilege – if they so desired to exercise it – of getting out of their labor contracts to choose another employer. Up until that point, most employees were signed to long-term or lifetime contracts – with no hope of organizing into unions to gain leverage over employers for better wages – and had no viable way of seeking legal recourse to choose another employer or to renegotiate the terms and conditions of their labor agreements with their employers. Legal implementation of standardized labor status – employee-at-will – allowed the labor (energy) of each employee to be equally taxed by the US corporation on behalf of the Crown Temple in the City of London. This legal implementation also forced landowners to legally register all employees with the US corporation and also facilitated a more standardized form of legal taxation of both their land and of their employees. In essence, the Civil War – as, I believe, was also the case the American Revolutionary “conflict”, a century earlier – was merely a grand smokescreen for the renegotiation of legal terms and conditions between Southern land owners and the US corporation.
The Civil War was also a massive heist of taxpayer monies, as usual. Wars are costly productions, and that’s especially true for large ones, and someone has to foot the bill for them, after all, for the costs of orchestrating them and compensation. It was basically a massive public-private partnership scheme, in which there was a transfer of wealth from the public sector to special interests like banks and arms contractors who provided money and weapons for it.
https://www.treasurydirect.gov/kids/history/history_civilwar.htm
And to further demonstrate this point, that’s around the time when what we now know as the IRS first came into being. Formed in 1862 as the “Commissioner of Internal Revenue” by President Abraham Lincoln, it initially operated as a tax collection agency to fund the war effort. He also established the first income tax, which solely provided revenue for the war effort, although it was temporary.
The tax expired a decade later when the U.S. Congress didn’t renew it, although federal income taxes remained until 1894, when the Supreme Court ruled it to be unconstitutional in “Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.” Since then, America didn’t have a federal tax on income for almost 20 years until the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913, which re-legalized the levy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Service#History
The expiration of the tax also coincided with the passage of the 1871 Organic Act, which reorganized the corporate municipality of the District of Columbia. It was part of a larger set of laws passed by the 41st Congress, one of which stipulated payments to the British crown, per an 1863 treaty made between the two countries during the Civil War (Britain also provided support to the Confederacy, as the British Empire was heavily dependent on cotton imports from the Antebellum South for fabric production). The treaty is mentioned in a paragraph above the title “An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia”.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=016/llsl016.db&recNum=0454
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/br1864.asp
This too extends into the prison industrial complex, a creation of the 13th Amendment, which was passed shortly after the war ended. For quite some time it has operated as yet another private-public partnership swindle that launders billions in taxpayer revenues annually to for-profit prisons through lucrative contracts and direct handouts. It is a classic example of this parasitic, widespread socio-economic phenomenon that is corporate welfare, a product of decades of privatization efforts and
“Many private prisons throughout the United States are provided local, state, and federal economic development subsidies — which may include tax advantaged financing, property tax abatements, infrastructure improvements, and personnel training and development resources.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233209390_Economic_Development_Subsidies_and_the_Funding_of_Private_Prisons
https://inthepublicinterest.org/how-private-prisons-take-tax-dollars-away-from-fixing-our-criminal-justice-system/
All of which is quite factual and verifiable. The Civil War wasn’t at all about freeing or emancipating slaves, it was executed to turn us all into slaves to the Crown Temple bankers of whom Abe Lincoln was but yet another puppet.
And speaking of (chattel) slaves, they were taxed, too, which is very fitting since taxation and slavery are synonymous with each other: one is financial, the other manual. So not only were they “taxed” for their physical labor, but they were taxed for their financial worth, as well. I’m sure the “Founding Fathers” received a payday from their physical debtors as a “thank you” for their hard work.
“The U.S. Constitution granted Congress the authority to tax slaves as property in Article I, Section 9, stating:
The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person. (Bowditch 121)
Despite the Framers’ failure to use the word “slave,” it was well-understood that the migration or importation of “persons” referred to slaves. As William I. Bowditch pointed out in his book Slavery and the Constitution:
A person who is imported does not import himself, but is imported by some other person. He is passive. The importer is the free agent; the person imported is not a free agent … Whenever we hear an importation spoken of, we instantly infer an importer, an owner, and property imported … On our construction, Congress had power to lay a tax on persons imported as property or slaves, but had no right to tax free persons migrating. (p. 121)”
https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/property-taxes-slaves
And another thing that blows the “Founding Fathers'” argument against the British about “taxation without representation” is the fact that they themselves didn’t provide equal and proper representation to their taxpaying base, ditto.
For example, until 2009, the District of Columbia had no representation in Congress concerning the tax-and-spend policies they implement, and hadn’t enjoyed that “right” since 1801 when an act of Congress denied D.C. residents “a voice in the very government institutions that line the streets of the capital.”
For this they were made to pay the price for their non-existent democratic representation, which was $3 billion to federal agencies, an amount “more than 49 out of the 50 states” at the time. In fact, they didn’t even have federal voting rights until the 1960s, nor did they enjoy their own separate governing body until the ’70s.
https://silverchips.mbhs.edu/content/taxation-without-representation-26600/
Yes, the information you’ve outlined is well-verifiable but is curiously if not purposely omitted from American public school history texts. According to Black’s Law dictionary, the term person, in the context of legalese as opposed to vernacular, is synonymous with a corporate property or corporation. In fact, according to the text of The History of the American Bar, the US constitution documents a system of private (Admiralty) law based on the concept of stare decisis and is not meant for legal application to the common man, but only for the “elected” representatives of Washington D.C., which is a sovereign principality connected to the Crown Temple in the City of London and the Vatican in Rome.
And one of the beneficiaries behind this massive scam were the Payseurs, rumored descendants of French Bourbon royalty, who also supported another massive heist that was the American Revolution, resulting in France being put under tons of debt to the moneyed aristocracy, not to mention countless projects that maintain a perpetual cycle of debt, which equates annual profits. They owned weapons manufactures who sold arms to the Union and Confederate armies during the Civil War, thereby bilking taxpayers on both sides. They held shares in the company that produced the Gatling gun.
And to add further insult to injury, the American people were billed for compensating financially ex-slave owners for losing their ‘assets’ during the war. That included the former slaves themselves basically paying “tributes” to their oppressors. And this was passed by a man who prided himself as the “emancipator of slaves”, when in fact he sold them out to the very people who reportedly oppressed them for centuries. It’s estimated that when this was first passed in 1862, each former slave-owner was compensated $300, which would be $8,350.93 in today’s money. That meant altogether they were paid $930,000 in 1862 dollars, which in today’s money would be $25 million. Grift pays very handsomely when the circumstances are most favorable to such a scam.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot7jaYEDySA
“Titled “An Act for the release for the release of certain persons held to service or labor in the District of Columbia,” it freed the 3,100 women, men and children who were still enslaved in 1862. The act also allowed for slaveowners to be compensated up to $300 for each individual they had legally owned. In addition, newly-freed African Americans could receive up to $100 if they chose to emigrate to another country.”
https://emancipation.dc.gov/page/ending-slavery-district-columbia
(I find it interesting that this act was passed on April 16th, 1862. Federal taxes in the United States are normally filed on April 15th, a day shy of the 16th. Meanwhile, Lincoln created the IRS to collect taxes, some of which paid for this doozy. President would be “assassinated” almost three years later to the day of this law’s passage. Convenient, eh?)
The U.K. treasury played a similar scheme three decades earlier, when they extorted from the British taxpayer £20 million in compensation to Britain’s ex-slaveowners, the largest at the time. Inflation adjusted, that is £2 billion today. In other words, as we’ve seen before, many blacks in the western hemisphere were sold from physical bondage to financial bondage through fraud by the parasites.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQFL-5xf55c
And here’s the plot-twist to this entire diabolical scam: the Rothschilds and the Montefiores were behind the arrangements by funneling loans to fundraise this heist, which then had to be paid back by the debt slaves of Britain.
“Nathan Rothschild and his brother-in-law Moses Montefiore led a syndicate underwriting the issue of three new series of securities to raise £15 million: we don’t know how much they distributed or sub-underwrote. A further £5 million was paid out directly in government stock.”
https://taxjustice.net/2020/06/09/slavery-compensation-uk-questions/
And the thing is, a lot of the stories about slavery doesn’t even make sense. Take the story of the slave trade, which I’ve shown before makes no sense. There’s no way many would’ve survived the reportedly horrific conditions inside the slave ships for months without proper care. So, we’ve all been swindled for a gigantic lie, as usual.
In one word, the “Civil War” hoax was a cover for America’s “Great Reset” – that is the restructuring of the corporate U.S. system and the allocation of power and resources into the hands of the industrialists running America, Inc., which accelerated the industrialization of the “country” and which removed America’s heavy dependency on agriculture backed by involuntary servitude.
Plus, slavery was becoming less desired as a method of extracting valued resources (cotton, gold, money, etc.) and maintaining cost efficiency for the ruling classes via “free labor”. It wasn’t very profitable when the slaves were aware of their enslavement and they were forced into doing hard labor against their will. It was more profitable if the slaves believed they were free and were content with their enslavement without realizing what’s going on. People are more willing to work for the system and spend more money if they believe they have freedom. So they basically replaced one form of bondage with another.
The old system of slavery continued under the guise of the prison industrial complex, sanctioned by the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution, which reads thus:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, ***except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,*** shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-13/
“Modern day prison labor in the United States is rooted in the Thirteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and has created a system of slavery that we are more comfortable with. Because of a loophole in the Thirteenth Amendment, Black Americans have historically and presently been subjected to structural disadvantages that reinforce cheap labor from the vestiges of slavery. Incarcerated Americans have been deemed “slaves of the state” which led to the current situation for incarcerated Americans, including the loss of constitutional and voting rights, egregious underpayment for labor, prevention from unionizing, and the list goes on.”
https://sites.lib.jmu.edu/civic/2020/09/17/slaves-of-the-state-13th-amendment-mass-incarceration-and-the-prison-industrial-complex/
We have seen in your article on the Tupac hoax (whom we’ve discovered to be also related to fake revolutionaries, among other things) how corporate America benefits immensely from exploiting the prison population for cheaply made products that they can then sell in abundance to us. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
https://worldnewsspell.com/2021/03/08/death-resurrection-of-tupac-shakur/
You’ve encapsulated a solid analysis. Regarding “Tupac Shakur” and the creation of the genre of “gangster” rap popular music, I do believe there were ulterior motives, most of them sinister, for one, the continuing degradation of the nuclear family among both black and white working and middle classes. This social breakdown benefitted the pharmaceutical industry as well as the illicit global narcotics cartels controlled – here, domestically – by CIA and, overseas, by other similar “intelligence” agencies controlled by the Jesuit order at the Vatican. But I also believe there is merit to the hypothetical nexus between the creation of the profitable private prison system and the heavily promoted genre of music known as “gangster” rap.
Very true. By creating a demoralized society, people are more susceptible to committing crimes which then leads to mass incarceration, therefore increasing the slave force in prisons and boosting the profit margins of corporations that depend on prison labor. Brilliant strategy, we must admit. A frightened population with a loose moral compass is much easier to control than a fearless society with strong principles.
Yes, it was a brilliant and multi-faceted plan. But, as I’m sure you’ve observed, the tragic results have now come to fruition: the fundamental demoralization of a frightened population. The ruling elites have an ownership mentality with the ability to plan decades, if not centuries, ahead complete with contingencies and on multiple levels. Whereas, a majority of those among the proletariat – belonging to a slave mentality – are content to exist on a subsistence or survival level, while thinking of nothing other than the satisfaction of petty desires. For those, and for the illusion of “protection” from the state as well as the illusion of material comfort, the proletariat have – time-and-again – proved willing to trade, in both thought and behavior, their sovereignty, dignity, and independence.
Also correct.
My next article may, by some, be considered controversial. I’ve discovered the “late” Kobe Bryant is still alive and playing in the NFL. Also, I can promise an equally controversial revelation concerning Lebron James and former NBA star “Pistol” Pete Maravich.
This also ties into schemes like Civil Asset Forfeiture (CAF), which is another form of legalized theft by the corporate state so as to generate massive profits for its owners. The amount accrued by this illicit program is in the tens, if not hundreds, of billions nationwide. CAF has rapidly increased in recent decades due to the phoney War on Drugs, which was really an attempt to crush competition in the drug industry and to monopolize the production and sale of drugs to the market under the thumb of the U.S. corporation.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pHcYNm1wUUI
https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/what-is-civil-asset-forfeiture.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_forfeiture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States
These sorts of schemes are most indicative of the fact competition in every significant profitable market exists only for the ruling families, the majority shareholders whom, long ago, monopolized the drug trade and other natural resources. Today, this monopoly ownership exists under the monolithic umbrella of monikers such as Blackrock.