Lincoln is given credit for abolition, but was he an abolishinist?

[Captain Obvious]

He was an abolitionist. But he did not run an abolitionist campaign. South Carolina seceded because they were expecting Lincoln to try to free the slaves. They seceded before he even took office. Lincoln said he wouldn't free the slaves, but the South rebelled anyway. Lincoln fought to preserve the union, and not necessarily to free the slaves, but he was not ambivalent about slavery. He abhored it, but left it to the states to decide (sound familiar?).  But the war was still all about whether states had the right to decide to have slaves for themselves. that is why the southern states seceded: states rights to choose to have slavery. The south fired on federal forts in the south, and Lincoln responded.

It was not about tarrifs. Rothchilds did not start it. I don't know why people always get this wrong. When Lincoln was writing to Greeley, he was saying that he was not fighting to free the slaves. He wasn't. He was trying to keep the Union together. That doesn't mean he didn't care about slavery, or that it was about industry or tarrifs.

[Captain Obvious]

"Looking at these things, the Republican Party, as I understand its principles and policy, believe that there is a great danger of the institution of slavery being spread out and extended, until it is ultimately made alike lawful in all the States of this Union; so believing, to prevent that incidental and ultimate consummation, is the original and chief purpose of the Republican organization.
...
"The chief danger to this purpose of the Republican party is not just now the revival of the African slave trade, or the passage of a Congressional slave code, or the declaring of a second Dred Scott decision, making slavery lawful in all the States. These are not pressing us just now. They are not quite ready yet.
...
"From the adoption of the constitution down to 1820 is the precise period of our history when we had comparative peace on this question - the precise period of time when we came nearer to having peace about it than any other time of that entire one hundred and sixty year...Then it would be worth our while to stop and examine into the probable reason of our coming nearer to having peace then at any other time. This was the precise period of time in which our fathers adopted, and during which they followed a policy restricting the spread of slavery, and the whole Union was acquiescing in it. The whole country looked forward to the ultimate extinction of the institution."
...
"I believe that this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall. I do not expect the Union to dissolve; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, north as well as south."

-Excerpts from speech in Columbus, Ohio, Spet. 16, 1859 (I typed this from "Lincoln - speeches and writing. Starting on page 31)

Now, you are in the south and you know your economy depends on slavery, and here this speech...and then the guy gets elected! What do you think is going to happen? South Carolina tried to kick out Fort Sumpter. So we have some in the south attacking federal forts...and you don't believe that the US can remain part slave and part free, and now some states are taking about rebellion and secession. Time to preserve the union. That was Lincoln's purpose. But the whole reason for a conflict was over slavery.

[donnay]

Here is an excellent book and book review!

An honest look at Abe: Abraham Lincoln is usually regarded as a saintly figure, but a detailed book about Lincoln shows that much of what historians say about him is pure fiction.(Book review)

Publication: The New American

Publication Date: 20-MAR-06
Author: Dwyer, John J.

COPYRIGHT 2006 American Opinion Publishing, Inc.

The Real Lincoln, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, New York: Three Rivers Press, 2002, 361 pages, paperback (2003 ed.). (For ordering information, see the ad on page 38.)

Have you read Thomas DiLorenzo's landmark book The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War? If not, ask yourself these five questions: 1) Was Lincoln America's greatest president? 2) Did he save the Constitution? 3) Was he the preserver of the Founding Fathers' vision for America? 4)Was he the great emancipator of and friend to the black race? 5) Was he a devout, professing Christian the final years of his life?

I know I am venturing into sacred territory for many patriotic Americans with such questions, and I assure you that I do so with soberness and concern at the reaction it may generate. The stakes for our country, and the lessons we draw from its past as we assess how to properly govern it today, however, are too important not to do so. So, I am compelled to suggest that if you were tempted to answer yes to even one of those questions, you purchase The Real Lincoln. An eye-opening read awaits you.

Among other things, DiLorenzo demonstrates in the book Abraham Lincoln's obsession with building and expanding an imperial American colossus; his contempt for the rule of law--local, federal, or international; his efforts to drain civil power from the states who formed the union and centralize it in the seat of national government; his heartfelt wish to free the slaves--then deport them to Africa and elsewhere; and his rejection of the Just War principles formulated through centuries of Christian thought by such theologians as Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin.

Indeed, over the past four years or so, DiLorenzo and The Real Lincoln have stirred up a hornet's nest of frothing, apoplectic liberals and neo-conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, as they vainly attempt damage control of the bleeding myth of Lincoln, the "Redeemer President."

In fact, you yourself might be saying along about now, "Hey, I know who Abraham Lincoln is, and why is this Dwyer character seeking to tarnish him?" Well, allow me, with respect, to touch on just one of the many examples where Lincoln the myth resides far from Lincoln the real man: Lincoln the supposed friend to the blacks.

He certainly expressed his enthusiasm at the prospect blacks might gain their freedom, as long as it did not infringe on the successful governance of the Union--and as long as they were then shipped out of America to Africa, South America, or islands in the Caribbean. Yes, that is right, as long as they were deported to distant lands and continents.

DiLorenzo provides page after page of quotes from Lincoln himself and his associates that offer irrefutable proof of the man's decades-long hope that freed blacks be removed from this country. "Send them to Liberia, to their own native land," he said. He approvingly quoted his mercantilist mentor Henry Clay as saying that "there is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to Africa her children" since "they will carry back to their native soil the rich fruits of religion, civilization, law and liberty," and that sending all blacks back to Africa would prove a "signal blessing to that most unfortunate portion of the globe." After signing the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln told Congress: "I cannot make it better known than it already is, that I strongly favor colonization." Eliminating every black person from American soil, Lincoln proclaimed, would be "a glorious consummation," and their peaceful "deportation" would allow "their places [to] be ... filled up by free white laborers."

According to DiLorenzo, famed abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison certainly understood Lincoln's intentions to colonize blacks in other lands when Garrison declared, "President Lincoln may colonize himself if he choose, but it is an impertinent act, on his part, to propose the getting rid of those who are as good as himself."

Regarding another misunderstood topic, even my high-school history students know something smells when Pulitzer Prize-winning authors and others write books that highlight Lincoln's "kindness, empathy, generosity, and humility," then ignore or justify his jailing tens of thousands of Northern citizens, and his "total war" campaign against the civilian population of the South, which destroyed roughly half of all their property, caused thousands of them to die by starvation, sickness, and numerous other causes, and killed one-fourth of their white male population between the ages of 16 and 60.

The renowned political commentator and University of Dallas literature professor M.E. Bradford said before his too-early passing that for Americans to understand the causes, events, and consequences of the War Between the States--and the many contemporary problems stemming from it--the towering idol of Lincoln must first be brought down. I remember my own dear mother, God rest her soul, fondly recalling the two ribboned badges she and her classmates received in Sunday School more than a half-century before, and which they had proudly worn--one of Jesus and one of Lincoln.

No one has more effectively set about Mel Bradford's mandate than Tom DiLorenzo. And the man possesses imposing credentials. He has been a professor of economics for nearly 30 years, the last many of them in the Sellinger School of Business and Management at the prestigious Loyola College in Maryland. Specializing in economic history and political economy, he has authored over a dozen books and around 100 articles in academic journals. He is also widely published in such popular outlets as the Wall Street Journal, Reader's Digest, USA Today, National Review, and Barron's. The Real Lincoln is a bestseller many times over. His latest book is How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold Story of Our Country's History, from the Pilgrims to the Present (Crown Forum/Random House, August 2004).

Since the 2002 release of The Real Lincoln, DiLorenzo has accomplished that rare feat of shoving an issue of enormous significance--yet scarce understanding--into the arenas of both academic and popular discourse. Unquestioning devotees of Lincoln--who still abound in academia, media, and Internet alike--may complain, accuse, marginalize, slander, or bay at the moon, but truth is in the process of being revealed to be on the side of those who believe Lincoln to be quite a different man than the one that has been presented by American historians.

A mountain of primary source documentation is blessedly available, and DiLorenzo's work is awash in it, footnoted every step of the way, with bonus quotes included in recent editions of the multi-printing book that vanquish challenges from his critics. However many or few Americans eventually learn the truth about Abraham Lincoln, that truth is available to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

Leaving further discovery to you of the treasures found in The Real Lincoln, I'll close with this dramatic endorsement of DiLorenzo's thesis from Walter E. Williams, the well-known conservative black columnist, and Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University: "The War Between the States settled by force whether states could secede. Once it was established that states cannot secede, the federal government, abetted by a Supreme Court unwilling to hold it to its constitutional restraints, was able to run amok over states' rights, so much so that the protections of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments mean little or nothing today. Not only did the war lay the foundation for eventual nullification or weakening of basic constitutional protections against central government abuses, but it also laid to rest the great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that 'Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.' The Real Lincoln contains irrefutable evidence that a more appropriate title for Abraham Lincoln is not the Great Emancipator, but the Great Centralizer."

John J. Dwyer, the history chair at Coram Deo Academy near Dallas, is the author of The War Between the States: America's Uncivil War.

[gEEk squad]

Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He didn't want slavery to spread to the Western Territories. His reasoning for this was "free white labor." It had nothing to do with freeing slaves where slavery already existed. He believed that blacks were inferior and advocated shipping them back to Africa or to Central America.

[Unintelligable Name]

Sorry OP but Lincoln couldn't care less about slaves being free for the sake of being free. He wanted them gone completely if anything, as in no Blacks anywhere. I can do without sourcing that, as a few minutes on Google alone will answer any questions you have the subject.

[Revolt426]

The whole reason for the Civil War was essentially a De-Facto war with the British Empire during it's exisistance at that period in time.

Prime Minister of Britain, Lord Palmerston was attempting to cut the United States in half by promoting the Confederacy, funding them, offering them Free Trade agreements and Military advisors. People must remember that until the aftermath of World War 2, Britain and the US were arch nemisis'.

infact, Palmerston was ready to assist the confederacy with actual British Military at one point if one of Lee's Battles with the North Resulted in victory for the Confederacy. Palmerston was also assisting the Dutch in shipping slaves to the Confederacy, with East India Company like tacticts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Temple,_3rd_Viscount_Palmerston#American_Civil_War

Lord Palmerston
American Civil War
Lord Palmerston's sympathies in the American Civil War (1861-5) were with the secessionist Southern Confederacy of pro-slavery states. Although a professed opponent of the slave trade and slavery, he also had a deep life-long hostility towards the United States and believed that a dissolution of the Union would weaken the United States (and therefore enhance British power) and that a southern Confederacy "would afford a valuable and extensive market for British manufactures".[7]

At the beginning of the Civil War Britain had issued a proclamation of neutrality on 13 May 1861. Lord Palmerston decided to recognise the Confederacy as a belligerent and to receive their unofficial representatives (although he decided against recognising the South as a sovereign state because he thought this would be premature). The United States Secretary of State, William Seward, threatened to treat any country which recognised the Southern separatists as a belligerent, as an enemy of the Union and the North. Lord Palmerston ordered that reinforcements be sent to Canada because he was convinced that the North would make peace with the South and then invade Canada. When news reached him of the Confederate victory at Bull Run in July 1861 he was very pleased, although 15 months later he wrote that "the American [Civil] War...has manifestly ceased to have any attainable object as far as the Northerns are concerned, except to get rid of some more thousand troublesome Irish and Germans. It must be owned, however, that the Anglo-Saxon race on both sides have shown courage and endurance highly honourable to their stock".[8] When news came of the Confederate defeat at the Battle of Antietam a week later, this made Palmerston reject Napoleon III of France's offer to recognise the Confederacy.[8] Palmerston continued to reject subsequent attempts by Confederate supporters to persuade him to recognise the South as he thought the military situation did not warrant it. The tide eventually turned in the United States' favour when the Confederacy was defeated in 1865.

After the seizure of the British ship Trent by a United States Navy vessel under Captain Charles Wilkes in November 1861 to prevent two Southern separatist diplomats making their way to Europe to campaign for support for the Confederacy against the United States, Lord Palmerston ordered the Secretary of State for War to send an extra 3,000 troops to Canada and demanded the release of the two diplomats. Lord Palmerston called Wilke's actions "a declared and gross insult" and in a letter to Queen Victoria on 5 December 1861 he said, "Great Britain is in a better state than at any former time to inflict a severe blow upon and to read a lesson to the United States which will not soon be forgotten."[9] In another letter to his Foreign Secretary the next day, he expected there was going to be war between Britain and the North:

It is difficult not to come to the conclusion that the rabid hatred of England which animates the exiled Irishmen who direct almost all the Northern newspapers, will so excite the masses as to make it impossible for Lincoln and Seward to grant our demands; and we must therefore look forward to war as the probable result.[9]

However, the United States of America's government decided to hand back the prisoners. Lord Palmerston was convinced that the reinforcements he had sent to Canada had persuaded the North to acquiesce.

Lord Palmerston received a law officer's report he had commissioned on 29 July 1862 which advised him to detain the CSS Alabama because it was being built for the South in the port of Birkenhead and it was therefore a breach of Britain's neutrality. Further, the cotton famine in industrial regions of the North was beginning to bite, just at the time when British popular opinion was starting to harden against the Confederates. The ship had left the port after the order had been sent on the 31 July but departed too soon for it to be detained, and it went on to damage Northern shipping. The United States government accused the British government of complicity in the construction of the ship and, in the so-called Alabama claims, demanded damages from Britain. Lord Palmerston refused to pay damages or to refer the dispute to arbitration. It was not until after his death that his successor (Gladstone) agreed to these demands and paid the United States $15,500,000 in gold as damages.


[edit] Electoral victory and death
Lord Palmerston won another general election in July 1865, increasing his majority. He then had to deal with the outbreak of Fenian violence in Ireland. Lord Palmerston ordered the Viceroy of Ireland, Lord Wodehouse, to take drastic measures, including a possible suspension of trial-by-jury and a monitoring of Americans travelling to Ireland. He believed that the Fenian agitation was caused by America. On 27 September 1865 he wrote to the Secretary for War:

The American assault on Ireland under the name of Fenianism may be now held to have failed, but the snake is only scotched and not killed. It is far from impossible that the American conspirators may try and obtain in our North American provinces compensation for their defeat in Ireland.[10]

He advised that more armaments be sent to Canada and more troops sent to Ireland. During these last few weeks of his life, Lord Palmerston pondered on developments in foreign affairs. He began thinking of a new friendship with France as "a sort of preliminary defensive alliance" against America and looked forward to Prussia becoming more powerful as this would balance against the growing threat from Russia. In a letter to Russell he warned him that Russia "will in due time become a power almost as great as the old Roman Empire...Germany ought to be strong in order to resist Russian aggression."[11]

In early October Lord Palmerston caught a chill and a violent fever. His last words were, "That's Article 98; now go on to the next." (He was thinking about diplomatic treaties.)[12] Another apocryphal version of his last words is: "Die, my dear doctor. That is the last thing I shall do". He died at 10:45am on Wednesday, 18 October 1865 two days before his eighty-first birthday. Although Lord Palmerston wanted to be buried at Romsey Abbey, the Cabinet insisted that he should have a state funeral and be buried at Westminster Abbey, which he was, on 27 October 1865. He was the fourth person not royalty to be granted a state funeral (after Sir Isaac Newton, Lord Horatio Nelson, and Arthur Wellesley (the Duke of Wellington).

http://www.abjpress.com/tarpb3.html
Webster Tarpley:

A NEW ROMAN EMPIRE
It is 1850. Lord Palmerston is engaged in a campaign to make London the undisputed center of a new, worldwide Roman Empire. He is attempting to conquer the world in the way that the British have already conquered India, reducing every other nation to the role of a puppet, client, and fall-guy for British imperial policy. Lord Palmerston's campaign is not a secret. He has declared it here in the Houses of Parliament, saying that wherever in the world a British subject goes, he can flaunt the laws, secure that the British fleet will support him. "Civis Romanus sum, every Briton is a citizen of this new Rome," thundered Lord Palmerston, and with that, the universal empire was proclaimed. .....................

Shortly after that, the British will back Napoleon in his project of putting a Hapsburg archduke on the throne of an ephemeral Mexican Empire - the Maximilian Project. These projects will be closely coordinated with Palmerston's plans to eliminate the only two nations still able to oppose him - the Russia of Alexander II and the United States of Abraham Lincoln. Lord Palmerston will be the evil demiurge of the American Civil War, the mastermind of secession, far more important for the Confederacy than Jefferson Davis or Robert E. Lee. And in the midst of that war, Palmerston will detonate a rebellion in Poland against Russian rule, not for the sake of Poland, but for the sake of starting a general European war against Russia.

But when the Russian fleets sail into New York and San Francisco, when Lee's wave breaks at Gettysburg, when the Stars and Bars are lowered over Vicksburg, the British Empire will be stopped - just short of its goal. Just short - and yet, British hegemony will still be great enough to launch the two world wars of the twentieth century, and the third conflagration that will start in 1991. And as we look forward for a century and a half from 1850, British geopolitics, despite the challenges, despite the defeats, despite the putrefaction of Britain itself, will remain the dominant factor in world affairs.

PALMERSTON'S THREE STOOGES

How do the British do it? How can a clique of depraved aristocrats on this tight little island bid to rule the entire world? Don't believe the stories about the workshop of the world; there are some factories here, but Britain lives by looting the colonies. The fleet is formidable, but also overrated, and very vulnerable to serious challenges. The army is third-rate. But the British have learned from the Venetians that the greatest force in history is the force of ideas, and that if you can control culture, you can control the way people think, and then statesmen and fleets and armies will bend to your will.

Take our friend Lord Palmerston. Pam has the Foreign Office, the Home Office, and Whitehall, but when he needed to start the 1848 revolutions, or when the time will come for the American Civil War, he turns to a troika of agents. They are Lord Palmerston's Three Stooges. But instead of Moe, Larry, and Curly, these Three Stooges are named Giuseppe Mazzini, Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, and David Urquhart. These Three Stooges - far more than the Union Jack, Victoria, the bulldog breed, the thin gray line of heroes, and the fleet - are the heart of what is called the British Empire.

We will get to know Lord Palmerston's Three Stooges better. But first, one thing must be understood. Moe, Larry, and Curly often had to work together on this or that project. But their relations were never exactly placid. [Slapstick episode from a "The Three Stooges" movie is shown to the audience.] You understand: Their stock in trade was infantile violence. So do not be surprised if we find Palmerston's Three Stooges lashing out with slanders, knives, and bombs against each other, and even against their august master, Lord Palmerston himself.

Under Lord Palmerston, England supports all revolutions - except her own - and the leading revolutionary in Her Majesty's Secret Service is Giuseppe Mazzini, our first Stooge. ..........................

Mazzini's American contacts are either proto- Confederates or strict abolitionists, such as William Lloyd Garrison. During the American Civil War, Mazzini will favor both the abolition of slavery and the destruction of the Union through secessionism - the London line. This subversion will be showcased during the famous tour of Kossuth in the United States, next year and the year after. Kossuth will be accompanied by Mazzini's moneybags, the Tuscan Freemason Adriano Lemmi. On the eve of the Crimean War, with Palmerston doing everything to isolate Russia, Kossuth's line will be that the "tree of evil and despotism" in Europe "is Russia." Kossuth will try to blame even the problems of Italy on Russia. Despite Kossuth's efforts, the United States will emerge as the only power friendly to Russia during the Crimean conflict. Kossuth will call for the United States to join with England and France in war against Russia - Lord Palmerston's dream scenario.

Kossuth will refuse to call for the abolition of slavery. Kossuth will get on well with the slaveholders, since he will also be attempting to mediate a U.S. seizure of Cuba, which meshes perfectly with the secessionist program.

Mazzini is the zookeeper for all of these theme parks. But there are other zookeepers, and still more theme parks in the human, multicultural zoo. The custodians are Palmerston's two other Stooges, David Urquhart and Napoleon III.

[Revolt426]

More Tarpley:

So what you had under presidents like Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan [were] Confederate traitors - like Jefferson Davis - members of the British Scottish Rite Freemasons, proto- Confederate slave holders, traitors, the scum of the earth; they could make great careers in the United States Army. And, of course, later on this was the same Jefferson Davis who became the president of the Confederate States of America, that despicable puppet state.

Don't be fooled by the Confederacy. Don't be fooled by that Sir Walter Scott aura of chivalry, and J.E.B. Stuart wrapped up in God knows what he's palmed off as the ethos of the Confederacy. This was based on human slavery, this was one of the most despicable proto-fascist states that has ever been seen on the face of the earth. Davis was the president.

People like Ulysses S. Grant, that you see here, could not make a career in the army. It's interesting to see that while Jefferson Davis was getting promoted, generals like Sherman and Grant were forced out of the U.S. military service. They had to go into business - into the private sector - to try to earn a living.

Here's a typical Confederate. We've talked a lot about him. Judah P. Benjamin, [who] was the secretary of the treasury of the Confederate States of America. At the end of the Civil War, he fled to Britain, where he lived. This is precisely the kind of British imperialist agent that you find in the upper reaches of the Confederate government. He is of course an agent in particular of the Rothschild family of London, and this mixture of what you would have to call Zionism and Confederacy today is what animates an organization like the Anti-Defamation League. That's exactly what this is. The ADL today continues the characteristic mentality of Judah Benjamin.

And then you look in the Union officer corps. How about this guy? He thinks he's Napoleon, or he's checking if he's still got his wallet. That's George McClellan, who in 1861-62 was the commander of all the Union armies. And here he is at Antietam.

This is the battle where McClellan had a good chance to destroy the Confederate Army under Lee. But he refused to do that. McClellan refused to attack on many occasions, because he wanted a negotiated peace. He said, "I can sit down with Robert E. Lee and work this out, and Abraham Lincoln doesn't really belong in this, because he doesn't understand these things the way I do." This is an interchange where Lincoln is basically telling him, "Why didn't you pursue Lee? You could have destroyed him on the battlefield, and you refused to do it. Now the Civil War's going to go on for three more years."

Here's the way this was viewed in a carton of the day. This is pro-McClellan propaganda. Here's Lincoln on the one side, and Jefferson Davis on the other, and here's George P. McClellan who's trying to reconcile them, mediating between them if you will. And of course he was the Democratic presidential candidate in 1864, and if it hadn't been for Sherman at Atlanta and Phil Sheridan in the Shenandoah Valley and the naval battles off Cherbourg, France and Farragut at Mobile Bay, then McClellan might have won, and that would have been the end of the Union - because that was the idea, that the negotiated settlement would leave the Confederate States of America in existence as a British puppet state.

[user111]

STATES RIGHTS!!
I grew up in the south and all this reminds of a story my grandfather told me once.
He said " we thought them Yankees wanted our women and we couldn't have that,and when we found out it was over our ethnics,we just turned around and went home,so in fact the Yankees never did win".
But either way,it was always taught to us by family and in school that it was fought over states rights and not slavery and as stated here that Lincoln was not anit slavery.
I find it strange that our present leader seems to want to be seen like Lincoln.Lincoln was no saint.

[snafu]

The founding fathers loved slaves.

[Revolt426]

STATES RIGHTS!!
I grew up in the south and all this reminds of a story my grandfather told me once.
He said " we thought them Yankees wanted our women and we couldn't have that,and when we found out it was over our ethnics,we just turned around and went home,so in fact the Yankees never did win".
But either way,it was always taught to us by family and in school that it was fought over states rights and not slavery and as stated here that Lincoln was not anit slavery.
I find it strange that our present leader seems to want to be seen like Lincoln.Lincoln was no saint.

You are right, it had not much to do with Slavery at all. infact he didn't even care much about Slavery. The Issue was the US being cut into two pieces.

Lincolns Goal was to preserve the Union no matter what because he knew if it were cut in half it would be subject to "foreign" Imperialism and coup's.

[donnay]

You are right, it had not much to do with Slavery at all. infact he didn't even care much about Slavery. The Issue was the US being cut into two pieces.

Lincolns Goal was to preserve the Union no matter what because he knew if it were cut in half it would be subject to "foreign" Imperialism and coup's.

Then in 1913 foreign Imperialism was born--the Federal Reserve Coup.