The civil war was about slavery the same way modern wars are about spreading democracy
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
26 comments:
I have an American history book from 1880 and it is fascinating. One interesting topic was that the jews funding the railroads pre civil war very intentionally made the lines run east/west not north/south, to maintain the cultural divide that existed between north and south.
Imagine one day you decided to fill every inch of your house with highly flammable materials, thoroughly drench every surface with lighter fluid, turn the gas stove on to fill the entire house with gas, and then walk into the middle of your living room and light a single match.
Then, after your house has been razed to it's foundation, and the fireman asks you "how did the fire start?" you reply that the fire started all because you lit a single match.
While you would be technically correct that the act of lighting the match STARTED the fire, it would be preposterous to claim that the house burned down as a result of the match.
As if you had not filled your house with a series of increasingly dangerous fire hazards, once the match was lit, it simply would have fizzled out and then that would have been the end of it, and you would still have a house to live in to boot.
Then, after your house has been razed to it's foundation, and the fireman asks you "how did the fire start?" you reply that the fire started all because you lit a single match.
While you would be technically correct that the act of lighting the match STARTED the fire, it would be preposterous to claim that the house burned down as a result of the match.
As if you had not filled your house with a series of increasingly dangerous fire hazards, once the match was lit, it simply would have fizzled out and then that would have been the end of it, and you would still have a house to live in to boot.
It seems to me that the “Civil War” was really fought over economics (the South was tired of the North telling them what to do), State’s Rights (10th Amendment, etc.), and perhaps most importantly over the system(s) that would be deployed in the new States in the West. Were the new States coming online in the USA to adopt a system of governing and an economic approach similar to the Southern States, the North would lose its control over the Federal Government. The North obviously did not want that. The Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott Decision both went the wrong way, for the North. It seems to me that the North panicked and started the war with the Fort Sumpter False Flag Attack.
One of the most hotly contested territories in the Civil War, for example, was Missouri. That’s no accident. That was about the cultural and systems differences of North v South, who would control shipping in the Mississippi River, and who would control the access to the West, etc.
One of the most hotly contested territories in the Civil War, for example, was Missouri. That’s no accident. That was about the cultural and systems differences of North v South, who would control shipping in the Mississippi River, and who would control the access to the West, etc.
Yes, economics. I forget all the details but, the South was selling it's cotton to England but the North needed it to support their factory economy. The South had stripped the fertility from their farm land so they needed to expand into the new states. The North didn't want that bc it would give the South disproportionate power in Congress. England and France jumped in for economic reasons as well
No, it wasn't about slavery. Remember how niggers were treated afterwards, like subhumans who had to be in other, separate places? Does that sound like people are willing to go and die for?
"Oh yes, I hate niggers, but if I die in a war for them, they may be freed from slavery while being far, far, far, far away from me! You don't understand, Jessica, that's totally worth it!"
It was about the common things... politics, economy, jewish bankers, etc.
"Oh yes, I hate niggers, but if I die in a war for them, they may be freed from slavery while being far, far, far, far away from me! You don't understand, Jessica, that's totally worth it!"
It was about the common things... politics, economy, jewish bankers, etc.
you could go read the books leading up to the 1860s and see what they were talking about. people who lived it wrote down what happened and why. you can just go read it.
I'd tell you, but if you're a Southerner you might think I'm attacking you personally and I'm not. Southerners in foundational USA got tricked. There's no shame in it we all get tricked sometimes. But mortgaging your states to The City of London jews and wanting to fill the entire USA with domestically-bred niggers is, let's say, not good for the health of a young nation.
I'd tell you, but if you're a Southerner you might think I'm attacking you personally and I'm not. Southerners in foundational USA got tricked. There's no shame in it we all get tricked sometimes. But mortgaging your states to The City of London jews and wanting to fill the entire USA with domestically-bred niggers is, let's say, not good for the health of a young nation.
The emancipation proclamation wasn't even signed until 1863, *2 years* after the war started, and only then was signed as an act of war attempting to spread confusion and mayhem in the southern states. Lincoln wanted to send all the niggers back to Liberia. Black people were literally the last thing that war was fought over.
Yes however that would be an easy understatement and many people play mental gymnastics to say it was only about slavery when that simply isn’t true however the major player that kept European powers out of it was that it was to fight to free niggers who should’ve been shipped out when the Union won but that would’ve never happened. The civil war was fought for states right to own niggers and this is always forgotten the dividing culture and rules besides slavery heavily pushed onto Dixie that’s the one that affected the average southern man
No,"tariff's" were the cause of "succession".
That was one reason. There were multiple reasons, but the biggest was the failure of the federal government to recognize states' sovereignty in their affairs. The repeated overreach of congress into state matters was absolutely the biggest reason. Tariffs and slavery were just symptoms of what were much, much bigger issues of abuse and overreach. The South was left with no recourse but to separate and secede, which was absolutely legal according to the precedent and legal doctrine at the time.
The Civil War was 100% fought over secession.
The issue of secession arose 100% because of slavery.
That's really it. It shouldn't be that hard to grasp, but accepting it requires the ability to understand two things at once, which is often beyond the ability of leftists when they smell an opportunity to virtue signal.
The issue of secession arose 100% because of slavery.
That's really it. It shouldn't be that hard to grasp, but accepting it requires the ability to understand two things at once, which is often beyond the ability of leftists when they smell an opportunity to virtue signal.
Slavery was last straw in deciding, it wasn't wholly because of.
OK, fair. My contention is that it wouldn't have happened if not for the issue of slavery. I think slavery was a necessary wedge, without which, the South would never have resorted to secession, despite other grievances. Agree or disagree? I'm willing to learn here.
The south was beginning to industrialized. Birmingham was the "Pittsburg of the South". The ore was starting to flow from the Smokey Mountains, and the coal was flowing from the Cumberland Plateau. The north could not tolerate their resource slave, the south, gaining economic independence. Furthermore, the north was afraid of losing it's cheap labor supply to the western states.
>Northeastern states, fearing a labor drain, were opposed to the quick and cheap sale of public lands in the West, and southern states — in order to check the power of the North — aligned themselves with the western states that favored such sales to entice settlers.
Homer Caret Hockett, The Political and Social Growth of the American People, 1492 to 1865 (Macmillan, 3rd Edition, 1940), 571.
The war was fought to keep the south from industrializing. It was fought to keep the cotton flowing to northern textile mills. It was fought to keep the south dependent on northern steel. It had nothing to do with slavery.
This is especially obvious when you see that every 70 or so years the US government (the north) comes back through and destroys everything again. 70 years after the Civil war, the the US government created the TVA and use it and the Corps of Engineers to flood all of the fertile bottom land and force everyone to try and grow their crops on the rocky hill tops. "Corn don't grow on ol' Rocky Top."
70 years after the new deal you had mass immigration starting with Regan and it never stopped since. Chicken processors popped up all over the south and instead of hiring locals, they imported illegals by the bus load. Now Spanish is the spoken language in southern elementary schools. Soon that will be middle schools and high schools. Hispanics are already the largest population under 15, and the march of time will make them the largest populations at every other age group too.
So yeah, the north won, and every white man lost.
>Northeastern states, fearing a labor drain, were opposed to the quick and cheap sale of public lands in the West, and southern states — in order to check the power of the North — aligned themselves with the western states that favored such sales to entice settlers.
Homer Caret Hockett, The Political and Social Growth of the American People, 1492 to 1865 (Macmillan, 3rd Edition, 1940), 571.
The war was fought to keep the south from industrializing. It was fought to keep the cotton flowing to northern textile mills. It was fought to keep the south dependent on northern steel. It had nothing to do with slavery.
This is especially obvious when you see that every 70 or so years the US government (the north) comes back through and destroys everything again. 70 years after the Civil war, the the US government created the TVA and use it and the Corps of Engineers to flood all of the fertile bottom land and force everyone to try and grow their crops on the rocky hill tops. "Corn don't grow on ol' Rocky Top."
70 years after the new deal you had mass immigration starting with Regan and it never stopped since. Chicken processors popped up all over the south and instead of hiring locals, they imported illegals by the bus load. Now Spanish is the spoken language in southern elementary schools. Soon that will be middle schools and high schools. Hispanics are already the largest population under 15, and the march of time will make them the largest populations at every other age group too.
So yeah, the north won, and every white man lost.
well, there's also the issue of allowing the south to seceed which was an option.
By holing troops in Charlston, reinforcing them, and strategically inciting conflict to win political capital back home, the war was successfully started.
By holing troops in Charlston, reinforcing them, and strategically inciting conflict to win political capital back home, the war was successfully started.
That's what I mean about the war being fought over secession. Lincoln made it absolutely crystal clear that his only concern was to secure the Union.
>My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
The North and South could have just split. But the North chose to wage war because the division was more intolerable to them than war. They fought not to free slaves, but to quell rebels.
>My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.
The North and South could have just split. But the North chose to wage war because the division was more intolerable to them than war. They fought not to free slaves, but to quell rebels.
No doubt slavery was last straw on a series of insults, and probably no secession (and no war) if the slavery wedge not been driven. And Lincoln started the war only to keep the Union and was agnostic on the issue of slavery (until it became advantageous militarily.) Lincoln even tried to offer slavery back to the Govorners (who were now effectively kings) if they were to cancel plans. In a letter to the Gov or Florida, it was outlined. However the letter was not answered in time because in a book by Lincoln's cabinet member, there details Lincolns strategy to antagonize at Charlston, with the union newspapers under his control (they would write propaganda how the South "fired the first shot.") That was exactly what Lincoln needed to convince congress to raise troops. He wanted a Union so he executed on his plan for war by starting a planned scirmish in Charleston
Having studied both much and little, I have personal theories that are not often championed:
and that is A) certain writers in major newspapers, then, was like todays FOX and MSNBC. B) The reformed whig democrats were like today's international Marxists, and C) the abolutionists were somewhat like today's woke social juatice warriors.
So you had newspapers inflaming the public, unwittingly or with intent to start conflict. (We vs them)
Politicians that hated the south and state run currency, who either looked the other way at harm, or sought to directly punish the south through legislation. (Aside from the south not being adequately represented in the first place.)
And the political winds (soros-like vestments?) were being heavily influenced by the monies flowing into revolutionary idea of ending slavery overnight. Doing it overnight sounds good on paper yet the effect would be harsh and immediate. To give an example of impact, would be like turning off social security overnight. Not that extreme. But you get the idea. In the movie Ghostbusters, "dickless" wants to shut the power off to the containment unit. Peck: "**Forget it**, Venkman. You had your chance to cooperate, but you thought it'd be more fun to insult me." So they threw the breaker and accidentally unleashed the ghosts and all hell. Except in actual history, everyone knew without a doubt that secession came next. The abolutionists were the tool to get that done (and history looks kindly on them for having worked with politicians to do it wrecklessly with a BANG).
The idea to flip it off like a light switch at a time when tempers flared, however, is what costs us 750,000 lives.* The well-funded abolutionists were, like blm, unwitting pawns in a larger ploy.
...
> *750k estimate see hacker_cw_dead.pdf
...
For criticisms of Lincoln, read Thomas DeLorenzo, which is a whole different beast, but to Lincoln's credit he did try to restore the union non-violently by offering to undo slavery (a major point history books fail to mention time and time again), and only started the war when other avenues were explored. The major Port in Charleston, however, was too big of a trade artery to give up economically and militarily; so Lincoln decision was made to fight then, before bargaining was thoroughly investigated. And to be honest. The stench of power is so stinky that I don't think any govorner would have given their crown back under negotiations. It wasn't only about slavery. They were euphoric free countries again. So Lincoln knew if the South took the port then they would have had the upper hand. The chips fell where they did but this all goes back to who funded the abolutionists to lobby for an achilees heel attack to get this desired outcome. Even if you are against social security, no sane person would try to kill it overnight. Everyone knew it would have needed to be done tactfully, perhaps with tax breaks, a burning candle, or other concessions that history is full of.
Having studied both much and little, I have personal theories that are not often championed:
and that is A) certain writers in major newspapers, then, was like todays FOX and MSNBC. B) The reformed whig democrats were like today's international Marxists, and C) the abolutionists were somewhat like today's woke social juatice warriors.
So you had newspapers inflaming the public, unwittingly or with intent to start conflict. (We vs them)
Politicians that hated the south and state run currency, who either looked the other way at harm, or sought to directly punish the south through legislation. (Aside from the south not being adequately represented in the first place.)
And the political winds (soros-like vestments?) were being heavily influenced by the monies flowing into revolutionary idea of ending slavery overnight. Doing it overnight sounds good on paper yet the effect would be harsh and immediate. To give an example of impact, would be like turning off social security overnight. Not that extreme. But you get the idea. In the movie Ghostbusters, "dickless" wants to shut the power off to the containment unit. Peck: "**Forget it**, Venkman. You had your chance to cooperate, but you thought it'd be more fun to insult me." So they threw the breaker and accidentally unleashed the ghosts and all hell. Except in actual history, everyone knew without a doubt that secession came next. The abolutionists were the tool to get that done (and history looks kindly on them for having worked with politicians to do it wrecklessly with a BANG).
The idea to flip it off like a light switch at a time when tempers flared, however, is what costs us 750,000 lives.* The well-funded abolutionists were, like blm, unwitting pawns in a larger ploy.
...
> *750k estimate see hacker_cw_dead.pdf
...
For criticisms of Lincoln, read Thomas DeLorenzo, which is a whole different beast, but to Lincoln's credit he did try to restore the union non-violently by offering to undo slavery (a major point history books fail to mention time and time again), and only started the war when other avenues were explored. The major Port in Charleston, however, was too big of a trade artery to give up economically and militarily; so Lincoln decision was made to fight then, before bargaining was thoroughly investigated. And to be honest. The stench of power is so stinky that I don't think any govorner would have given their crown back under negotiations. It wasn't only about slavery. They were euphoric free countries again. So Lincoln knew if the South took the port then they would have had the upper hand. The chips fell where they did but this all goes back to who funded the abolutionists to lobby for an achilees heel attack to get this desired outcome. Even if you are against social security, no sane person would try to kill it overnight. Everyone knew it would have needed to be done tactfully, perhaps with tax breaks, a burning candle, or other concessions that history is full of.
Toast message
Link: https://youtu.be/-pZG7snE7tU?si=dSEvRmZRrIholNam