Slavery Was Useful

BRITAIN AND BOOTY:
The bulk of this chapter will be taken from a book about the War of 1812. I must deconstruct the generalities and interpret the meaning as it relates to our investigation of hegemony and cronyism or Synarchy. Officers in the wars of these times got a percentage of the booty their underlings took. They also were frequently aligned with the enemy or other side as you can see in the movie Braveheart. The Black Market in modern wars has a lot of the same kind of thing. This incentive to go to war has a lot of impact on us still. The British had just taken about 2,000 slaves or runaways from near Baltimore to be part of the workforce in the Canadian Maritime Provinces. As we have noted already, the American Enlightenment Experiment had come about when Nobles in America saw their British cousins were freeing their slaves. It was not the only reason to secede but it was probably more important than the reasons usually presented in American immigration exams or schools. Sometimes it is cheaper not to have to care for your workforce if you have a system that keeps them in place.

New Orleans, located a hundred miles up the Mississippi River, was a particularly tempting target. With a population of almost 25,000, it was the largest city west of the Appalachian Mountains. It was also the principal outlet for western commodities, and millions of dollars of produce was blockaded in the port. Scottish naval officers like Cochrane were known to have a keen eye for booty, and the British brought large cargo ships with them to carry off their plunder. (1) Indeed, British prisoners of war and deserters claimed that the watch-word and countersign on the morning of the Battle of New Orleans was beauty and booty. (2)

Initially British officials saw this campaign as a means of taking pressure of Canada. But by the time the operation got under way, the objective had changed. General Rosswho was supposed to lead the expeditionwas instructed To obtain command of the embouchure [mouth] of the Mississippi, so as to deprive the back settlements of America of their communication with the sea and to occupy some important and valuable possession, by the restoration of which the conditions of peace might be improved, or which we might be entitled to exact the cession of, as the price of peace. Ross was to encourage the free inhabitants to revolt but was to make no binding promises about the future. [Y]ou must give them clearly to understand that Great Britain cannot pledge herself to make the independence of Louisiana, or its restoration to the Spanish Crown, a sine qua non of peace with the United States.(3)

As a preliminary to the main expedition, in May of 1814 Cochrane dispatched a shipload of arms to Indians on the Apalachicola River in Spanish Florida. (4)

So we are able to ask a lot of questions at this juncture I hope.

We know that the race card was being used by Britain in this war and there are reasons to think that the founding of the United State had more to do with slavery in the first place than any Tea Party or taxes. Britain had outlawed slavery a decade before the US was created. Slavery in Greece was worse than at any time in the US or elsewhere, although Columbus (an agent of the Holy Alliance and Hibernian or Alumbrados forces) certainly did more than most Greek states in this regard. He was engaging in mass genocide on purpose so I do not consider it mere slavery.

That is not the whole reason for the creation of the United States and there could be a good argument made for the forces of the so-called New World Order acting to make the US what it has become. I have shown the Indians are often agents for the Synarchists or elite and secret societies in many books and you can find the Sioux acting on behalf of them in this book. Joseph Brant and Sitting Bull are part of the same continuum including the Mediwiwin Society which was Masonic before the arrival of the explorers and some people think Abraham Lincoln was a Melungeon. I think the Bairds are similarly connected to the Huguenots we will see a religious Baird of the 19th Century wrote extensively about. But all of this intrigue is just the icing on the cake or superficial factoids of public sensationalism. The fact is far more sophisticated and the forces of power are using a play both ends against the middle or Hegelian Dialectic.

The British were able to enter Pensacola with the assistance of the local Spanish officials. But the Spanish did not like Major Nicholls recruiting slaves and calling on all slaves to rebel against their imbecile governments. He then tried to take Mobile which had been taken by the Americans in 1813. I ask you to think long and hard about Jean Lafitte and his role as a Spanish agent at this juncture. Was he really just a businessman engaged in slavery? Why did he work with the Americans and were the Spanish not unlike the French in their sale of the Louisiana Purchase at a high level? I remind you that the Spanish Government was a mere vassal state for the Vatican since long before Rodrigo Borgia held the Papal Bull addressing incest over the heads of Isabella and Ferdinand.

Most important to consider is a secret arrangement between Britain and Rome that apparently was last expressed at the Treaty of Verona. This agreement is called the Holy Alliance and some people think the Maritime Laws are part of it. I am sure they are a mere and simple example of the whole gambit however. It is connected with the Treaty of Tordesillas and the make up of the New World Order. The elite have in fact managed both sides for far longer than this and therir are certain families who have used nations as mere fronts for a very long time. It goes back long before what we call history. Same people - all the time - in every century for at least the 5,000 years James Joyce referred to as a 'nightmare' as quoted by Campbell in Gimbutas' Language of the Goddess.