By 1848, the United States occupied all of the territory that would make up the lower 48 states. The number of American deaths suffered in all the wars up to that point numbered less than 50,000. The remaining states, Alaska and Hawaii, were acquired without warfare. Alaska was purchased from Russia, and Hawaii was peacefully occupied. Why, then, after establishing the modern day America at such a low cost in life, did the United States become involved in a series of bloody, senseless wars that left over one million American soldiers dead on battlefields from Gettysburg to the Ardennes in wars that have not made the United States any bigger or richer in natural resources than it was in 1848? American involvement in a long series of often fratricidal wars results from a combination of incompetent, egomaniacal two-party politicians, war profiteers, a deceitful, slanderous press, and the influence of Jews in America. The first example of a truly useless war was the American Civil War.

During the 1850s Abolitionists preached that murder and warfare should be used to settle the issue of slavery. One Abolitionist, John Brown, actually advocated the murder of plantation owners by their slaves. Brown proceeded to murder several of his fellow Americans when he took over an armory at Harpers Ferry, hoping to use those weapons to start a race war in the South. (Apparently, the adage "two wrongs don't make a right" was not part of the Abolitionist world view.) Today, we would recognize the Abolitionists as predecessors of the modern liberal movement.

It should be noted that there was absolutely nothing stopping the Abolitionists from boarding trains in Boston or New York, traveling down to the South, using their own money to buy slaves, and then setting these ex-slaves free in the Carribean. In fact, Abolitionists could easily have made slavery unaffordable simply by showing up at slave auctions often enough to drive the price of slaves up sufficiently high so that employing laborers from Europe would be more economical for plantation owners than using slaves. (Similarly, in the 1960s, liberals could have hired nothing but Blacks at liberal-owned companies if they were upset about integration, and, if they truly believed that Blacks were equal to Whites.)

Abolitionists and liberals, however, are hypocrites. They don't believe in using their own money to solve problems on which they obsess. The Abolitionists did not want a rational, patient solution to the slavery problem such as phasing out slavery over twenty years. The Abolitionists did not recognize that the "evil" of slavery was much, much less significant the enormous evil of White men killing other White men, which is what they were advocating. Abolitionists believed in giving overwhelming power to the Federal government to crush whatever they oppose regardless of the amount of damage to the nation.

The Bible tells us to judge a tree by its fruits. Thanks to the Abolitionist Movement and Mr. Lincoln, America lost 600,000 White men in a needless war. America went much further down the road to Federal tyranny. America effectively abolished the 10th Amendment, which had previously given state governments significant autonomy, and, thanks to the Abolitionists, all the big cities in America in the year 2001 have large crime-infested regions due to the presence of the descendants of ex-slaves. The extremist, irrational ancestors of modern day liberals destroyed the promise of a peaceful America with only White people as citizens, that still existed in the 1850s, and placed our nation on a road, where political disagreements are solved by long bloody wars, and where White people of any political philosophy cannot safely walk the downtown portion of their city after dark. Before America's racial problems could be resolved by the voices of reason, America was thrown into the Civil War, the first of a long series of wars in which White people slaughtered their brothers and undermined the freedoms, which the original Constitution once provided. The Civil War was largely caused by unfair taxation on the Southern states, the increasingly oppressive nature of the Federal Government, a campaign of slander against the South by the Northern press, and the great ego and political ambition of Abraham Lincoln.

The South simply wanted what the original 13 American colonies wanted, a fair central government that did not oppressively tax them and interfere with their Rights. When the Abolitionist Republican candidate, Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 election with a mere 40% of the vote in a three-way race (an even lower percentage that Bill Clinton's 1992 election), the Southern states peacefully seceded from the United States and formed a separate government.

Abraham Lincoln had an option available to him, which could have literally saved hundreds of thousands of lives. He could have "folded up his ego" and withdrawn from the 1860 election. 60% of Americans did not want Lincoln to be President. This would be enough to convince most normal people that they should not have that job. Lincoln, however, was determined to ignore the will of the vast majority of Americans and to disregard the determination of the South to be free of a Federal tyranny. Lincoln placed his own ego and legacy before the good of the nation. It was more important for Lincoln to be President than for America to remain at peace.

For the first few months of Lincoln's Presidency, the South attempted to maintain peaceful relations with the North, while insisting, quite reasonably, that the North evacuate troops from forts in Southern territory. Lincoln not only refused to evacuate troops from Southern territory, he aggressively made efforts to run ships through Southern blockades to resupply these forts. The continued presence of Federal troops in Southern territory was clearly an act of agression by the North and a provocation to start a war, but most "court historians" do not want to portray Lincoln as the warmonger that he unquestionably was.

Lincoln deliberately maintained troops in the South knowing full well that this action would lead to war. Lincoln wanted to provoke the South to take military action against these forts because most Northerners wanted peace. In this case, a scheming, ambitious politician forced his nation into war, by repeatedly provoking an adversary until they finally felt war was inevitable and attacked. Lincoln did not want to go down in history as such an unpopular President that the nation split in two. Lincoln would rather build a better sounding legacy ...on the bones of hundreds of thousands of his fellow Americans. While Abraham Lincoln represents an early example of a self-centered American politician, who cared amazingly little about avoiding a fratricidal war, there was a more sinister force at work in America at that time. This new evil was the appearance of extreme dishonesty and hate-filled propaganda in the press, and the forces behind this. In fact, Lincoln himself stated that Harriet Beecher Stowe had contributed greatly to causing the Civil War.

Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote the most hate-filled, slanderous book about the American South "Uncle Tom's Cabin". Mrs. Stowe had never actually set foot in the South. As usual with liberals, why should they have to know anything relevant to be experts. (Isn't Hillary Clinton a Senator from New York after being an Arkansas crook for much of her life?) Mrs. Stowe simply multiplied the slander against the South in the liberal rags of the time by a factor of ten, producing a thoroughly dishonest piece of slander called "Uncle Tom's Cabin".

What was the real situation of Blacks in the 1850s? For one thing, their lives were considerably better as slaves in America compared to their "free" cousins in Africa. In Africa, Blacks faced death in endless tribal warfare, often at the hands of cannibals. Diseases like Yellow Fever and malaria killed most Blacks by age 30 in west Africa. In America, Blacks were well fed, and, because they were slaves, they received medical treatment (something sadly lacking to this day for many White workers in America). During the 1930s, a study was done of ex-slaves, many of whom were still alive in their 70s and 80s. The ex-slaves were asked how conditions were under slavery, and virtually every ex-slave responded that conditions were very tolerable if they worked and that they were only punished if they misbehaved, a stark contrast to the lie-filled fiction produced by Harriet Beecher Stowe. The fact that these ex-slaves had lived into their 70s, 80s, and even 90s is a testimony to the healthy working conditions for slaves.

In contrast, White workers in the coal mines of Pennsylvania were paid pathetically little (the term "wage-slaves" arose from the paltry salaries of most White workers in the nineteenth century). White coal miners were lucky to live beyond 40. Many of them died young in accidents or died of "black lung disease" not living long enough to see their grandchildren. A famous quote, dating from the Civil War, was that "The only difference between the North and the South is that the South treats its slaves better."

An extremely significant point about the Abolitionist movement and its chief propagandist Harriet Beecher Stowe is that the husband of Harriet Beecher Stowe was a Jewish rabbi. Throughout history, whenever a political Movement arises such as Communism, the Abolitionist movement or liberalism, which rejects rational solutions to problems, but instead advocates that White people oppress other White people to impose irrational solutions backed by force, it is always, always the case that Jews are a significant factor in these movements. Benjamin Franklin's warning about the Jews financially enslaving Gentile Americans did not foresee the long, bloody Civil War that Jewish-Abolitionist propaganda and lies would cause America to suffer. The Civil War was just the first of the Fratricide Wars that the United States has had to suffer thanks to the presence and influence of Jews in America and the corrupt politicians, who become their willing accomplices.