You may never look at America the same after reading

So today I will present you all with how the American Republic fell in 1861 with the rise of a totalitarian government.

This has been possible with my recent study of semiotics and etymology. Without divulging into those subjects, none of this would have come to fruition (for me).

First a short disclaimer; I will be talking about the Civil War in (somewhat) detail. I'm a millennial whom grew up in a big city for my entire life. I felt that was important to mention because what I'm about to say may be taken as a being a "Southern Apologist". I think we can all agree that the confinement and forced labor of a human being is wrong. But that's not to say if we were alive then, would we still have felt that way? People love to say, if I was a German living in 1939 Germany, I would be adamantly against Hitler! Would you though? Why did all the other Germans not have that mutual feeling? You survive with the times and go along to get along, that's the truth. True bravery is a very, VERY scarce characteristic in human beings. That isn't even to say your willingness to fight. But your willingness to speak up. The reign of terror in France only took place because no one was willing to say "this is madness". Instead, it became a mexican standoff, who will send who to the guillotine first. Remember Robespierre's friend, Danton? (THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT A "CURRENT" CIVIL WAR EITHER!)

Anyway, that was slightly longer than "short". So lets get to the meat and potatoes.

The year is 1861 and the civil war broke out after the election of Lincoln and the subsequent succession of Southern States.

This lead to some very questionable constitutional crisis', aside from the argument of succession. (side note, I think Ulysses did a swell job summarizing it) First and foremost was Lincolns arrest and detention of dissents, presumably innocent aside from the fact of dissension and opposition. Furthermore to that point, he suspended the writ of habeas corpus, your right to see a judge and have a trial. Essentially meaning you can be arrested for dissent and held indefinitely.

And after the supreme court ruled against Lincoln in the suspension of habeas corpus, Lincoln went as far as attempting to arrest the Supreme Court lead justice, Roger Taney.

Do the powers implied by the constitution, as understood by Lincoln, mean the president could violate the constitution if attempting to preserve the republic against foreign or domestic enemies?

Shutting down tabloids and newspapers, military tribunals for dissenters, implementation of martial law in various locations, just one of the many constitutional crisis' Mr. Lincoln ran into.

The South claimed succession. Lincoln claimed them insurrectionists.

I mean, this is a silly history lesson, right? Perhaps, if you decided to stop reading now.



Fasces:

The name derives from the plural form of the Latin fascis (“bundle”). The fasces was carried by the lictors, or attendants, and was characterized by an ax head projecting from a bundle of elm or birch rods about 5 feet (1.5 metres) long and tied together with a red strap; it symbolized penal power.

Would anyone like to tell me what Mr. Lincoln is resting his hands on?



And could you tell me what George Washington is resting his elbow on?



What about the "Peoples House"?

Maybe we should talk about the Fasces. The word, as mentioned before, comes from the Roman word for "Bundle". These "bundles" were carried by lictors. Lictors were civil servants in Rome whom acted as bodyguards to the wealthy. Romulus was the first to appoint 12 lictors who'd attend to him. Roman lictors were responsible for following their patrons everywhere, from the house to the bathrooms, carrying their "bundle" of sticks/fasces. Lictors had a duty and authority to carry out arrests and punishment. They COULD, at their masters command, arrest Roman citizens and either beat them with the bundle portion or decapitate with the axe portion.

The old world order was the monarchs of Europe. The new world order, Novus Seclorum Ordo, was the rise of fascist post-revolution America and France, with the ultimate act in the death of the Tsar. This is the "great work", the symbology of the pyramid structure. However, the capstone on the pyramid which is on all our US dollar bills is incomplete, which means "a great work;incomplete". This new world order, Davos, ect, this is the completion of the great work.

I won't expunge too much on the semiotic nature of the dollar bill as most people will always have their own narrative of what it means.

If you're a history buff, we can most certainly get into the Jordan Maxwell conversations in the comments from 1861 onward. I just wanted to draw everyones attention to something that's been hidden in plain sight ever since you were born and most likely had no idea.

Anyway, I'll leave this off as I leave off all my other threads.

Love you all immensely

ETA: I will end this with a quote from Grant, (tl;dr get to the bolded text)

Doubtless the founders of our government, the majority of them at least, regarded the confederation of the colonies as an experiment. Each colony considered itself a separate government; that the confederation was for mutual protection against a foreign foe, and the prevention of strife and war among themselves. If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted. The problem changed on the ratification of the Constitution by all the colonies; it changed still more when amendments were added; and if the right of any one State to withdraw continued to exist at all after the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation of new States, at least so far as the new States themselves were concerned. It was never possessed at all by Florida or the States west of the Mississippi, all of which were purchased by the treasury of the entire nation. Texas and the territory brought into the Union in consequence of annexation, were purchased with both blood and treasure; and Texas, with a domain greater than that of any European state except Russia, was permitted to retain as state property all the public lands within its borders.

It would have been ingratitude and injustice of the most flagrant sort for this State to withdraw from the Union after all that had been spent and done to introduce her; yet, if separation had actually occurred, Texas must necessarily have gone with the South, both on account of her institutions and her geographical position. Secession was illogical as well as impracticable; it was revolution. Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship--on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror--must be the result.

Applause!

Thank you for an actual ATS thread deserving of massive credit!
This is an important topic, and one worth studying.

There is another old thread here, All Roads Lead To Rome, that has a weath of information that everyone should read.

This is exciting! Bring back the good stuff!

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Two thumbs for this thread!

Very nice thread and history lesson. I get so tied up in other research, I haven't had the time to go back into American History proper.

Always a pleasure to learn a little more about the foundation of the issues we see now.

Thanks for sharing!

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

I've read about the symbology on the dollar bill, our coins, eagle, flag- all of it throughout the years, but never anything like this! There's no way ( in my mind) it could all just be coincidence.

Thank you for this thread!

originally posted by: AnnihilateThis
Very nice thread and history lesson. I get so tied up in other research, I haven't had the time to go back into American History proper.

Always a pleasure to learn a little more about the foundation of the issues we see now.

Thanks for sharing!

May I quote one of my FAVORITE poets ever, who inspired one of my favorite fictional authors ever (HP Lovecraft):

"The best place to hide is in plain sight"
-Edgar Allan Poe

originally posted by: havok
Applause!

Thank you for an actual ATS thread deserving of massive credit!
This is an important topic, and one worth studying.

There is another old thread here, All Roads Lead To Rome, that has a weath of information that everyone should read.

This is exciting! Bring back the good stuff!

Thank you for the lead! Long formatted, but you couldn't do justice in a mere few paragraphs. My thread doesn't even do justice to the subject I'm attempting to discuss. I will add that to my bookmarks to go over tomorrow after work.

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Thank-you for a history lesson that textbooks overlooked. You've just given me an idea to look up what is allowed for forcing a change of government.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Thank-you for a history lesson that textbooks overlooked. You've just given me an idea to look up what is allowed for forcing a change of government.

As I mentioned, Ulysses Grant summed it up pretty great, I quote him:

Doubtless the founders of our government, the majority of them at least, regarded the confederation of the colonies as an experiment. Each colony considered itself a separate government; that the confederation was for mutual protection against a foreign foe, and the prevention of strife and war among themselves. If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted. The problem changed on the ratification of the Constitution by all the colonies; it changed still more when amendments were added; and if the right of any one State to withdraw continued to exist at all after the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation of new States, at least so far as the new States themselves were concerned. It was never possessed at all by Florida or the States west of the Mississippi, all of which were purchased by the treasury of the entire nation. Texas and the territory brought into the Union in consequence of annexation, were purchased with both blood and treasure; and Texas, with a domain greater than that of any European state except Russia, was permitted to retain as state property all the public lands within its borders.

It would have been ingratitude and injustice of the most flagrant sort for this State to withdraw from the Union after all that had been spent and done to introduce her; yet, if separation had actually occurred, Texas must necessarily have gone with the South, both on account of her institutions and her geographical position. Secession was illogical as well as impracticable; it was revolution. Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough, either by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable. But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy, stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship--on the issue. Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror--must be the result.

The rise.

ETA: Added Grant quote to OP

S&F nice thread.

I never knew about the Fasces. I also lived in DC twice. Guess I missed that one. There is so much symbolism in DC.

Just to add;

“The Founding Fathers consciously cultivated an association with Republican Rome during the early years of the United States, and fasces used in the Chamber are an enduring symbol of that association. Fasces also reference the new philosophy of democracy that they envisioned for America. Like the thin rods bound together in fasces, the individual states achieve their strength and stability through their union under the federal government. The flag remains behind the Speaker’s chair, but it now punctuates a polished marble wall rather than panels of decorative cast iron floral reliefs”

“Fasces appear in the Oval Office, the House of Representatives, at the base of the Lady Freedom statue on the Capitol, on the U.S. Senate Seal, and in the copy of Jean-Antoine Houdon's sculpture of George Washington inside the Washington Monument.”

I stopped looking at the U.S. as a "free country" or anything at all it has claimed to be a long, long time ago.
Now, we're just a giant, crappy garage sale for the Globalists.

I been telling people for years that the US died when lincoln was selected by the bankers.

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Thanks for your time on this very well done.

I never knew that about the fasces and thats what is represented in those works of art depicting presidents throughout American history. Now I got a question for you:

During your studies have you ever came across early renditions and sketches of these works of art leading up to the final statues? I am curious if the fasces there are representational from the artist or a condition that needed met by the clientele?

If it was an artistic liberty I am curious to see what else they had in mind in subsequent drafts leading up to the final piece, or if it was a condition I wonder why and what on either side of the spectrum they were trying to say. There had to be some common ground as the people involved these final pieces needed this symbology.

Again thank you for your time you are welcome to one of my beers Jimmy

This is a great post!!! I just found my summer reading material. Thanks !!!a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Thanks for the effort, interesting topic!

Having found your way here trough etymology, is it telling you didn't mention that fascism is derived from fasce? Or did you hope for people to make that connection for themselves?

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n
People are often surprised when they learn about the shenanigans of Lincoln and his bend toward centralization of government. It's a shame our schools don't teach history. Instead, they prefer state sponsored propaganda.

Nice little presentation on the fasces and lictors too.

You may get gigged on a few of the words you used, but I wouldn't be too concerned, it's obvious (so far) everyone knows what you meant.

Lincoln saved the Union...


...but he lost the Republic.

a reply to: Brotherman

Hmm very interesting question indeed. When i get home later i will surely do the research

Thanks for this! Brings additional meaning to Lincolns letter to Horace Greeley.

originally posted by: Lazarus Short
Lincoln saved the Union...


...but he lost the Republic.

EXACTLY RIGHT.

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Lictirs were not always authorized to insert axes in their fasces. Generally that was a sign of unrest where it was thought they might actually need to back up the symbololic nature of their authority.