Whistlin Dixie XXVIII

ლელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელე� ლელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელ� ლელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელელ� and to illustrate how that the event that was called the Civil War in America was a contrived event which was carried on by the banking cartel in London and the banking cartel in America combined and we also know that during that time that the banking cartel had one of their young members one uh Mr Rothschild James Rothschild James Solomon Rothschild was in America for well over a year uh possibly even longer than that walking around taking care of all of the what would you call it putting the plan together maybe sending information back to Europe but anyway I think the thing that we have been able to do here is to put together a series of events which as we read both Lincoln's speech and also the Supreme Court decision from Minnesota in the late 30s was that if you can put a series of events together to show that they were working toward a common end then therefore you have proof of a conspiracy because conspirators do not make public their moves or their motives or their plans so anyway we have talked about Uncle Tom's Cabin we have talked about the Missouri Compromise we have talked about a couple of other events but today I want to devote the greatest portion of the time into the story of Dred Scott versus Sanford in a Supreme Court decision in 1857 so uh that was quite instrumental and it goes against the grain in so many ways I mean you can't ignore this and especially as well as it is laid out by John Remington Graham in his book and it just really it gets into quite a bit of detail and I'm going to draw heavily from that today and again I'll recommend that book for you but anyway this was all contrived to take over America again after Andrew Jackson in the 30s had in essence said let's kick out this national bank we will not renew it and so then almost immediately I'm sure that the banks got busy to figure out how to do this so and you know we looked at some pretty good history yesterday or in the last I'm not sure what order you might be listening to them in but in number 27 we got into this into quite some detail but now let's take a good careful look at the Dred Scott v Sanford case well as I said previously a lot of what I'm about to give you comes from John Remington Graham's work and I believe it's titled Blood Money the Civil War and the Federal Reserve although it wasn't officially the Federal Reserve when this happened but uh doesn't detract from the information that is there and as troubles in the Kansas territory began to flare up a fateful case arose before the United States Supreme Court now it's imperative that we have some kind of working knowledge of the background of this to completely understand the fact that this was a plank in their conspiracy to bring war to the United States and to create a huge debt from which only they would profit and they I don't know if you caught it in the last couple that we did but in those we had a huge issue you know with the fact that the debt that we were paying the interest that was being paid by the United States was almost twice what was being paid on the same amount to the government of England so we were being double-dipped with that interest and uh but anyway let's kind of get in here in 1834 an army surgeon named John Emerson took his slave Dred Scott on a tour of duty to Fort Snelling then part of the Wisconsin territory within the limits of the Louisiana purchased where slavery had been prohibited by the Missouri Compromise now while at Fort Snelling Dred Scott met and married a female slave named Harriet whom this Dr. Emerson had purchased from another army officer who was also stationed there now from that marriage two daughters Eliza and Lizzie were born some years later after the death of Dr. Emerson whom Dred Scott seemed to have a great affection for Dred Scott sued Dr. Emerson's heir and widow before the circuit court of Missouri seeking title to his freedom and the freedom of his wife and children Scott's case was considered in Missouri as open and shut but you're going to be surprised for in Rachel v Walker an 1836 decision the Missouri Supreme Court held that when even a military officer of the United States takes his slave into territory made free by the Missouri Compromise there to reside during a tour of duty the slave will become forever free and was entitled to judgment accordingly that case was based on previous decisions of the Missouri Supreme Court going back to the earliest days of statehood in which slaves were adjudged forever free after their masters took them to live in any state where slavery was prohibited by the Northwest Ordinance or by the constitutions of states which had been formed out of the Northwest Territory these decisions of the Missouri Supreme Court were like countless others handed down by eminent judges and high courts throughout the South this is critical folks during the antebellum period more slaves were emancipated in the South than in the North and free men in the South were incomparably better off than free men in the North the law governing the emancipation of slaves can be traced all the way back folks to 1771 in a case called Somerset's case and that Lord Mansfield held that slavery was contrary to natural law therefore not protected by the common law wow would be that our wonderful federalist would have figured that out in 1787 huh but it says that it was only sustainable under a positive act of parliament and that therefore when a slave was brought by his master to England untouched by any statute allowing such bondage the slave became forever free transportation by the master onto free soil meant freedom to the that slave or slaves Mansfield's judgment was in turn based on earlier judgments of the king's bench from and after the Norman conquest the feudal system became entrenched in England and part of this social and legal structure was the institution of billionage under which white Anglo-Saxon people of the realm had been for hundreds of years held in bondage not materially different from the bondage of the black African race in North America oh we get into the when whites were slaves hmm billionage was phased out by the judges of the common law faithful to the demand in the 29th article of the Magna Carta under King Henry the third now there is a Latin phrase there but I will just tell you what I'm not really good with pronouncing Latin so I'll tell you what it says in English no free man shall be denied the benefit of customs which make him free real simple by ancient custom every statute rule and plea was construed and applied whenever possible in favor of liberating a person from bondage and making them free if a lord conveyed a freehold to his billion the guarantee automatically or the grantee I'm sorry automatically became a free man if a billion sued his lord in a court of common law and the lord answered to the merits without first interposing a plea to disability on account of bondage the billion automatically became a free man here's another one the case of pig p-i-g-g versus cali c-a-l-e-y which was from 1618 and this in the billionage felt the frowns of the common law for the last time and disappeared in history without an emancipation proclamation a wall killing hundreds of thousands of people or it didn't need a constitutional amendment so when Jefferson first penned language which appeared in the northwest ordinance of 1787 and later used in the Missouri Compromise and the 13th amendment Jefferson wrote that and I quote neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should be lawful because he meant to prohibit billionage as well as slavery we need to know this he also intended to spare whites as well as black from any capitalization of labor on any pretext ancient and or modern in any event the circuit court of Missouri granted Scott and his family their freedom as a matter of course on established law and rudimentary principles a southern judge in a southern court on southern jurisprudence freed those slaves effortlessly and quickly and dread Scott was and his family were a part of that it is hard to understand why and I think here's where we get into the conspiracy to understand why Irene Emerson took an appeal why did she want to appeal this so the ruling had been made the facts were clear the law was settled against her the appeal was certain to be quite expensive and time-consuming assuming and we should be careful about ever assuming this assuming the honest administration of justice it was obvious that she would not prevail now mrs Emerson was not young by this time and she was too old to weather that constant experience especially after the judgment of the circuit court which was a cloud on the master's title the fair market value of Scott and his family as slaves was probably less than the cost of taking the case up to the Missouri Supreme Court throughout this folks this entire thing for it was not worth to put that much money in for the risk that you were involved in and of course dread Scott was a poor black man with no resources to speak of he was evidently represented before the court by a lawyer doing him an act of kindness which you know but Irene Emerson was not wealthy neither was John Sanford her eventual successor in title the parties in the litigation were ordinary folks and totally unable to afford major litigation that would last for almost 11 years people it just flat doesn't make sense the case was of a kind which if pushed would have to aim at reversing judicial trends going back hundreds of years it was the kind of case that could consume many years in the careers of high powered and very expensive attorneys and such attorneys started to come aboard for Ms. Emerson after the initial routine encounter before the circuit court of Missouri now who was paying for these all these fancy lawyers as things turned out the cause was pending before one tribunal or another as I stated before over the course of 11 years who's paying for this the history of the case after the judgment of the circuit court of Missouri is just oh man you want to talk about a mess a routine affair hardly worth notice was dilated by straining the legal system into a production just as inflammatory as was Uncle Tom's cabin the case was obviously bankrolled by wealthy interests on both sides and by the time the case found its way into the federal courts for there is no other possible way to explain what happened the investors in this cause must have aimed at exciting passions violent enough to ignite a war certainly nobody who was pouring their money into this affair gave a hoot in hell about Dred Scott had philanthropy been the concern the freedom of Scott and his family could have been easily purchased and just granted their freedom then you wouldn't have to pay for all these these court yeah it's just ridiculous it is impossible to believe that those who were funding this obviously expensive legal procedure procedures did not understand the political dynamite involved in the fuse they were lighting and their time in the courts achieved the kind of mischief which they must have foreseen mysteriously two of the three members of the Missouri Supreme Court wholly disregarded a massive corpus of southern jurisprudence which they did not even cite or mention then held that Scott and his family were still slaves thus reversing the circuit court which had liberated them yes it appears in Dred Scott v Emerson which is a Missouri case in 1852 Chief Justice Hamilton Gamble wrote a learned dissent copiously laying down the law as given by the Emperor Justinian and Lord Coke up to the very recent past history in Missouri now he protested and I quote in this state it has been recognized from the beginning of the government as a correct position in law that a master who takes his slave to reside in a state or territory where slavery is prohibited thereby emancipates his slave unquote the justice then cited and expounded no less than eight reported decisions by the Missouri Supreme Court all of which were also cited by Dred Scott's counsel and they were all exactly to the point he expounded the first case Winney w-i-n-n-e-y v Whitesides which was an 1824 case then he observed and I quote the principle does settle runs through all the cases subsequently decided for they were all cases in which the right to freedom was claimed in our courts under a residence in a free state or territory and where there had been no adjudication upon the right to freedom in such state or territory unquote well the justice then added that the Missouri Supreme Court and I quote so far from standing alone on this question is supported by the decisions of other slave states including those in which it may be supposed there was the least disposition in favor of emancipation unquote he then went into discussing decisions in Louisiana Mississippi Virginia and Kentucky all of which supported the decision in Missouri to free Dred Scott and his family even counsel for Mrs. Emerson conceded all of the decisions of the Missouri Supreme Court under which Scott and his family were entitled to their freedom he didn't deny him as if it were an argument for slavery counsel lamented one Mr. Justice Tompkins who was a great apostle of freedom and thought the evil should be restricted as much as possible talking about slavery the same observation could have been made concerning the judges of the king's bench who had ordained on the basis of the Magna Carta that billions and slaves should be deemed free whenever any legal reason could be advanced in that on their behalf and to support that position a majority of the Missouri Supreme Court were not confused they did not overlook the unambiguous precedents which established the law all questions of property and slaves and conflict of laws had been definitively settled so there was absolutely no honest way to distinguish or overrule the precedents that were established and laid out in this case the problem was not prejudice or ignorance because a trained lawyer or a judge should know how to read a dozen or more cases all ruling in the same manner and just simply apply them to the facts admitted on the record there is only one plausible explanation for the misconduct of the two appellate judges who ruled against Scott and his family it had to be just straight out raw corruption induced by bribery or you know whatever and you know that has never been that's not new that's not new to our era of people this bribery and what have you has been going on with judges since day one folks but uh and it certainly hasn't ceased at any point in time but this flaw in justice is condemned even people in holy scripture and over passing centuries judges have been impeached and there were times in history when judges were even hanged for accepting bribes in cases yet even at that we've never been able to eradicate human nature but by a winding and fantastic path which divide the law and any other basic principles the case of dred scott was recommended before a circuit court of the united states and it finally reached the highest court of the land on a writ of error and there it was twice argued most people don't know that it was decided finally in dred scott v sanford on a vote of seven to two that scott and his family were after all still slaves and they were slaves said the majority incredibly because the missouri compromise was unconstitutional now folks you want to talk about a stretch that's why the missouri compromise was unconstitutional so they're still slaves well the missouri compromise was simply an extension of the northwest ordinance as had been enacted by congress in 1789 an exercise of undoubted constitutional powers at the time to any territory west of the mississippi river in his opinion of the court chief justice roger b tawny ignored the judgment of lord mansfield in 1771 and the decisions of high courts across the southern states following lord mansfield's judgment chief justice tawny was fully aware of the judgments of the king's bench the cases given reference by judge gamble of missouri and a good many other like cases reported from judicial records in the southern states yet not one time in that decision or during that case did chief justice tawny mention them believe it or not tawny was one of the greatest lawyers of his age as attorney general of the united states he had written the message of president andrew johnson andrew jackson i'm sorry accompanying his veto of the charter for the second bank of the united states his last formal opinion in ex parte merriman which was an 1861 case forbidding lincoln to suspend the writ of habeas corpus was one of the most courageous and magnificent judicial acts in american history people where did what happened with this man well that makes a for a very good question yeah folks we can't forget for a moment you know that with that uh ex parte merriman ruling that after uh chief justice tawny issued that ruling abraham lincoln issued an arrest warrant for the chief justice of the united states he was going to put the chief justice in in jail like he did so many others at what was known as the american bastille he was going to put him in prison and hold him for making a ruling which and was absolutely constitutional so well anyway let's try to jump back to that one and it just doesn't make any sense but you know if you're going to as my grandfather used to say if you're gonna catch a man you need two things for bait both of them or one of them either way but you need one of the two to bait the trap one's money and the other is a woman so did these men fall prey to money or sex or both but it seems difficult to imagine how such an extraordinary man like tawny could have been corrupted but let's not forget that sir francis bacon as lord chancellor of england had been impeached and convicted of bribery and if such a great philosopher as sir francis bacon could be corrupted well i think folks i think we know that uh oh that almost anybody what was it uh the old saying was everybody's for sale you just have to find their price but obviously judges can be led astray by inducements more subtle than cash and envelopes or promises of favor even a great man on the bench can be secretly and privately flattered or duped into doing what is expected of him or his political passions can be inspired into rendering a dubious judgment within out without an actual offer of consideration but i don't think in any way that happened in genteel circumstances rich powerful and influential men could have made known their wishes to tawny in a very refined language accompanied by deference to his high position in the government it could have been done so smoothly that the stink of corruption might not have been apparent even to some of those participating at the time but i don't know how that could have happened i mean this one is so obvious it's absolutely incredible and that's probably why we're never taught about it no one teaches us about this stuff because you know if you begin to see a pattern you can put points together well but we all know cases have been fixed to suit ends other than justice throughout the history of man but you know an admirer of chief justice tawny might protest that surely this great man was not bribed and the answer to such a protest must be that tawny was probably not bribed yeah i don't think so but here's the crazy thing he was quite wealthy and he quite possibly might have been too old for the temptation of a woman but the case surely was discussed by great men in his presence suggestions must have been dropped and he must have understood what was desired by men whom he respected on account of their wealth of standing who knows for there can be no doubt that rich powerful and influential men in the united states thought it would be a good thing to get rid of the missouri compromise not only by a legislative appeal but even better by a judicial ruling and it is now known and no longer concealed that during the deliberations of the court on the fate of dred scott and his family at least two members of the court were being actively lobbied by the president-elect james buchanan now i know you haven't been taught this it is no longer the well-kept secret it once was that the president-elect communicated first with justice john katron and then urged justice robert greer to be sensible in joining with others on the court and finding the missouri compromise unconstitutional so were the bankers killing two birds with one stone here folks others on the court must have also been told what was expected of them in any event tawny katron greer and others on the supreme court did exactly what the powerful and the influential men wanted the crazy thing about this is as we talk about you know trying to build a case for a conspiracy but after these men on the supreme court had been used like pieces of furniture on the legal stage for 11 years and then dred scott was found to be a slave he and his family right after the decision this is what really you know blows the whole thing apart right after the decision by the u.s supreme court dred scott his wife and two daughters were freed by their master sanford so sanford fights this case for all of these years invest all this money then when the supreme court says okay they're slaves he says okay you're free explain that one to me lucy because i'm having some difficulty with it it is therefore quite obvious that the soul of the case had been collusion for the bankers ulterior motives the effect of the judgment was to outrage across was to cause just outrage across the north including accusations of corruption which were surely not far from the truth and i think they were spot on and hatred of the south for enslaving dred scott in the beginning which completely missed the point for the south had actually freed scott his wife and his daughters a southern court the situation was and it was the federal court that put him back into slavery it just the situation was by then agitated to the point at which people from the two sections could joyfully pick up guns and start killing each other was that not a step in getting the civil war going as the bankers wanted it is impossible to believe that those who created this situation with all of their money all of their resources did not foresee and desire the trouble they had produced by persistent effort over several years 11 to be exact well folks i'm not going to take too much time in this whistling dixie but there is one other subject i'd like to cover i think dred scott is extremely important but there's another thing that just never made sense to me in this entire thing and that was why as strong as the democratic party was in america in those times north and south as strong as the democratic party was why did they split in 1860 to allow to allow abraham lincoln to be their elected president does that not also fit into the machinations of the wealthy to put together a war which would create a stupendous debt which would take 60 to 70 years to pay for and i think you possibly remember uh before when i said that one month of the civil war consumed all of the money that the entire revolutionary war consumed an awful lot of money being bannered around here an awful lot of crooked trading going on in the union at that time quite a bit of crooked trading some of it which happened in up north in minnesota where we ended up with a group of american indians trying to take back the supplies that they had been promised under the lincoln administration and of course that goes into a story in and of itself again folks it just doesn't make sense you know we had stephen a douglas who was probably one of the prime candidates from the north you know he had run against lincoln and defeated lincoln in the senatorial race in uh 58 i believe it was and he was a very strong candidate and john breckenridge from kentucky was probably as fine a candidate as anyone could possibly expect i mean just a man of increasing well i don't say increasing but a man of fantastic virtue now douglas was the leading democrat running for president but he was ardently opposed by southern delegates because of his wheeling and dealing for the kansas nebraska act and it had given the south which had given worthless concessions in a minor part of the louisiana purchase in exchange for a transcontinental railroad between chicago and san francisco and the southerners wanted it from new orleans out to california and of so so uh stephen douglas had sold them out now true it is that the cheated southerners should have listened to sam houston good old sam houston and if they would have listened to him they should never have given up on their demands for a transcontinental railroad between new orleans and san diego for a worthless opportunity to make kansas a slave state made no sense whatsoever southern legislatures had been short-sighted and had helped to upset a solemn agreement embodied in the missouri compromise on which the stability of the union apparently depended and so if the political deal behind the kansas nebraska act had been a formal contract all legal and proper a suit brought by them in equity to rescind it would have been barred by unclean hands of course the entire judicial system is has unclean hands but the political deal behind the missouri compromise was not a formal contract all legal and proper it was an understanding among politicians resting on mutual trust and it was a swindle total corruption never mind that those who had been swindled had not themselves been innocent victims douglas the primary swindler had been found out and so could not thereafter claim to be a gentleman in the eyes of those whom he had wronged the south just didn't trust douglas southern delegations at the convention in charleston south carolina prevented the nomination of justice of douglas i'm sorry over 57 different ballots and the southern representatives walked out over failure of a resolution denying the power of territorial legislatures legislatures to prohibit slavery the resolution was wrong in principle because it contradicted lord mansfield and the many points that i made earlier and the resolution was utterly meaningless because especially with the pending entry of kansas into the union as a free state the federal territories could nowhere accommodate slavery even if nowhere prohibited by law by this gesture of theatrical indignation the southern delegates walking out of the democratic convention in charleston literally and totally guaranteed the election of lincoln as president well now is there any way possibly maybe that we could say hey that had to be engineered by the wealthy aristocracy and the banking interest of london well if those southern delegates had stayed in charleston and if they perhaps would have displayed some kind of discipline and a strategy as truly caring about the south they could have secured the nomination of the aforementioned john breckenridge of kentucky and they could have submitted him as a vice president running mate for stephen douglas now what a ticket that could have been had breckenridge been on the ticket with douglas the democrats would have been unbeatable so it makes sense that you wouldn't have wanted that ticket together you know kind of like 52 when taft and douglas macarthur were running against nixon and eisenhower huh but anyway breckenridge had already established quite a reputation he was the youngest man ever to have been vice president and he was certainly served under president james buchanan breckenridge was a statesman of the highest order universally respected wherever he went people like breckenridge the united states suffered because political fate never allowed breckenridge to rise to perhaps the fullness of his potential if breckenridge had been elected with douglas there would have been no withdrawal of the southern states from the union and breckenridge would have become president when douglas unexpectedly unexpectedly died in june of 1861 breckenridge would have been a president of quite note i believe he possibly could have guided the country to build transcontinental railroads for the south as well as the north and to nudge slavery into extinction in a matter mutually beneficial to the white race and the black race and if you read through the literature folks you will find that quite a few members in the south for years decades years robert e lee many others had worked diligently to free the black man from slavery worked very hard and there was even i'm trying to think of his name now but he was a wealthy planner and he wanted to free his slaves but he couldn't do it in the south so he went to ohio bought a large farm and put took his slaves to ohio granted them their freedom and gave them the property to farm on their own and the people of ohio ran them out of the state now why is it that only my ancestors get blamed with this stuff when history is resplendent with these cases one after another why do we have the 15th amendment people we have the 15th amendment because under the reconstruction acts blacks could vote in the south but the northern states still didn't allow it still did not allow them to vote and so we had to get an amendment to the constitution the 15th amendment to make that happen we've covered that a little bit more but as we looked at this but i thought for a moment about jumping into a article something that i had written something that i am very very very proud of and it's actually here on substack if you want to read it it's not a podcast it's actually written but over 20 years ago i sat down and i wrote an article titled let me see if i get the title exactly right the american indian and the great emancipator well a couple of days after that article was published at the sierra times my good uh i got a uh on my computer i get this notice from the united native america dot com website and they asked me for permission to place that article on their website and i told them i would be more than honored should they do so and this was about lincoln's ordering the death the mass execution of 39 santee sue for political purposes here's a man who supposedly cared about people of color but he hanged 39 santee sue and then let's look at also at what he did to the navajo the long walk you can't talk to a member of the navajo nation today that will not tell you in detail about the long walk of how forces under union forces went into the canyon de shea area killed all of the animals cut down all of their fruit trees raped their women and then marched them to bosco redondo this all happened under lincoln you know that great that guy that just you know loves people of color you know that guy and this you know one of the things i found when we were living on the navajo indian reservation was that every navajo i ever met could tell me in very short order about the long walk and how it was ordered and what happened and how many of their people died on that trip on that forced march how many of their women were raped i even had a navajo a good friend navajo daniel yazzi who told me he said you see a navajo with facial hair that's because their ancestors were raped at bosco redondo i had never thought of that but that's the way it came across and he very possibly was right but they knew and they know their history they know about that but i walked into a classroom in red valley arizona on the navajo indian reservation and asked the history teacher there's a gentleman that i knew navajo gentleman and i asked him i said oh you're teaching today about the long walk and he said yes he said i'm teaching my class today and he said we've been we'll probably talk about it the better part of the week and i said well you know roy who ordered that uh uh i don't know he said i pointed up to the wall and i said well you've got his picture on the wall over there and he said what i said yes abraham lincoln ordered that now here's a man teaching school good man good navajo guy but he didn't know because he hadn't been taught why is all of this kept from us people why do we not know these things it just does not make sense except for the fact that we have been lied to over and over and over and over again either lied to or it's just simply left out of all communications ah well folks we're nearing the end of briskly dixie 28 i just want to thank you folks so very much for tuning in to my substats and listening to true history from documented sources and i hope that you will learn as i have done over the years because i think it would be unfair if i didn't tell you that 40 plus years ago i was in the same place most everybody else is 40 years ago i was everybody else is 40 years ago i was just like my friend the navajo school teacher i didn't know that lincoln had ordered the long walk i had never heard of the long walk i didn't know about the murder of the santee sue the hanging of 39 people whose trials they had no defense whatsoever their trials lasted less than 10 minutes each and they ordered to be executed this history is compelling and it's very important that we know it therefore i will do the very best that i can to make sure that as much of it as i have in my possession is brought forward in these in these podcasts and in the printed word too i will also post a lot of printed articles on my subset so folks god bless i hope everything is beautiful for you as we approach the new year thank you and god bless you