+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: About that "Civil War"...

  1. Link to Post #1
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

    Default About that "Civil War"...

    How We Know The So-Called “Civil War” Was Not Over Slavery

    Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy
    Wed, 23 Aug 2017 16:00 UTC


    When I read Professor Thomas DiLorenzo's article the question that leapt to mind was, "How come the South is said to have fought for slavery when the North wasn't fighting against slavery?"

    Two days before Lincoln's inauguration as the 16th President, Congress, consisting only of the Northern states, passed overwhelmingly on March 2, 1861, the Corwin Amendment that gave constitutional protection to slavery. Lincoln endorsed the amendment in his inaugural address, saying "I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

    Quite clearly, the North was not prepared to go to war in order to end slavery when on the very eve of war the US Congress and incoming president were in the process of making it unconstitutional to abolish slavery.

    Here we have absolute total proof that the North wanted the South kept in the Union far more than the North wanted to abolish slavery.

    If the South's real concern was maintaining slavery, the South would not have turned down the constitutional protection of slavery offered them on a silver platter by Congress and the President. Clearly, for the South also the issue was not slavery.

    The real issue between North and South could not be reconciled on the basis of accommodating slavery. The real issue was economic as DiLorenzo, Charles Beard and other historians have documented. The North offered to preserve slavery irrevocably, but the North did not offer to give up the high tariffs and economic policies that the South saw as inimical to its interests.

    Blaming the war on slavery was the way the northern court historians used morality to cover up Lincoln's naked aggression and the war crimes of his generals. Demonizing the enemy with moral language works for the victor. And it is still ongoing. We see in the destruction of statues the determination to shove remaining symbols of the Confederacy down the Memory Hole.

    Today the ignorant morons, thoroughly brainwashed by Identity Politics, are demanding removal of memorials to Robert E. Lee, an alleged racist toward whom they express violent hatred. This presents a massive paradox. Robert E. Lee was the first person offered command of the Union armies. How can it be that a "Southern racist" was offered command of the Union Army if the Union was going to war to free black slaves?

    Virginia did not secede until April 17, 1861, two days after Lincoln called up troops for the invasion of the South.

    Surely there must be some hook somewhere that the dishonest court historians can use on which to hang an explanation that the war was about slavery. It is not an easy task. Only a small minority of southerners owned slaves. Slaves were brought to the New World by Europeans as a labor force long prior to the existence of the US and the Southern states in order that the abundant land could be exploited. For the South slavery was an inherited institution that pre-dated the South. Diaries and letters of soldiers fighting for the Confederacy and those fighting for the Union provide no evidence that the soldiers were fighting for or against slavery. Princeton historian, Pulitzer Prize winner, Lincoln Prize winner, president of the American Historical Association, and member of the editorial board of Encyclopedia Britannica, James M. McPherson, in his book based on the correspondence of one thousand soldiers from both sides, What They Fought For, 1861-1865, reports that they fought for two different understandings of the Constitution.

    As for the Emancipation Proclamation, on the Union side, military officers were concerned that the Union troops would desert if the Emancipation Proclamation gave them the impression that they were being killed and maimed for the sake of blacks. That is why Lincoln stressed that the proclamation was a "war measure" to provoke an internal slave rebellion that would draw Southern troops off the front lines.

    If we look carefully we can find a phony hook in the South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession (December 20, 1860) as long as we ignore the reasoning of the document. Lincoln's election caused South Carolina to secede. During his campaign for president Lincoln used rhetoric aimed at the abolitionist vote. (Abolitionists did want slavery abolished for moral reasons, though it is sometimes hard to see their morality through their hate, but they never controlled the government.)

    South Carolina saw in Lincoln's election rhetoric intent to violate the US Constitution, which was a voluntary agreement, and which recognized each state as a free and independent state. After providing a history that supported South Carolina's position, the document says that to remove all doubt about the sovereignty of states "an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."

    South Carolina saw slavery as the issue being used by the North to violate the sovereignty of states and to further centralize power in Washington. The secession document makes the case that the North, which controlled the US government, had broken the compact on which the Union rested and, therefore, had made the Union null and void. For example, South Carolina pointed to Article 4 of the US Constitution, which reads: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." Northern states had passed laws that nullified federal laws that upheld this article of the compact. Thus, the northern states had deliberately broken the compact on which the union was formed.

    The obvious implication was that every aspect of states' rights protected by the 10th Amendment could now be violated. And as time passed they were, so South Carolina's reading of the situation was correct.

    The secession document reads as a defense of the powers of states and not as a defense of slavery. Here is the document.

    Read it and see what you decide.

    A court historian, who is determined to focus attention away from the North's destruction of the US Constitution and the war crimes that accompanied the Constitution's destruction, will seize on South Carolina's use of slavery as the example of the issue the North used to subvert the Constitution. The court historian's reasoning is that as South Carolina makes a to-do about slavery, slavery must have been the cause of the war.

    As South Carolina was the first to secede, its secession document probably was the model for other states. If so, this is the avenue by which court historians, that is, those who replace real history with fake history, turn the war into a war over slavery.

    Once people become brainwashed, especially if it is by propaganda that serves power, they are more or less lost forever. It is extremely difficult to bring them to truth. Just look at the pain and suffering inflicted on historian David Irving for documenting the truth about the war crimes committed by the allies against the Germans. There is no doubt that he is correct, but the truth is unacceptable.

    The same is the case with the War of Northern Aggression. Lies masquerading as history have been institutionalized for 150 years. An institutionalized lie is highly resistant to truth.

    Education has so deteriorated in the US that many people can no longer tell the difference between an explanation and an excuse or justification. In the US denunciation of an orchestrated hate object is a safer path for a writer than explanation. Truth is the casualty.

    That truth is so rare everywhere in the Western World is why the West is doomed. The United States, for example, has an entire population that is completely ignorant of its own history.

    As George Orwell said, the best way to destroy a people is to destroy their history.

    Apparently Even Asians Can Be White Supremacists If They Are Named Robert Lee

    ESPN has pulled an Asian-American named Robert Lee (Lee is a common name among Asians, for example, Bruce Lee) from announcing the University of Virginia/Wiliam & Mary footbal game in Charlottesville this Saturday because of his name.

    ===========================================






    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  2. The Following 24 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Baby Steps (24th August 2017), Bill Ryan (24th August 2017), BMJ (3rd September 2017), Cidersomerset (24th August 2017), Daughter of Time (25th August 2017), enigma3 (24th August 2017), Ewan (24th August 2017), Foxie Loxie (24th August 2017), Franny (25th August 2017), genevieve (25th August 2017), ghostrider (24th August 2017), gord (1st September 2018), Harley (25th August 2017), Ivanhoe (25th August 2017), Jad (24th August 2017), joeecho (24th August 2017), justntime2learn (24th August 2017), Matt P (24th August 2017), Melinda (24th August 2017), Nasu (25th August 2017), Satori (24th August 2017), seko (7th September 2017), Spiral (7th September 2017), uzn (25th August 2017)

  3. Link to Post #2
    UK Avalon Member Cidersomerset's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th May 2011
    Location
    Bridgwater somerset UK
    Age
    63
    Posts
    22,333
    Thanks
    33,460
    Thanked 79,637 times in 18,693 posts

    Default Re: About that "Civil War"...

    All civil wars are usually very bloody affairs from ancient Greece/Rome to modern Syria/Iraq.
    There are many documentaries about the US civil war , and slavery was definitely a focal point
    that sparked the secession of the Southern states that led to the formation of the confederacy.
    Rebellion in the eyes of the federal government that led to the first shots at Fort Sumter.

    This is not a subject you can put into a few sentences as can be seen by the current debate
    in the mainstream and the inequalities still felt by many communities. Slavery as an institution
    was declining in the 19th century and by 1888 Brazil was the last major country in the western
    hemisphere to abolish it , so it is possible that it would also have died out in the Southern
    states as well due to growing international pressure and changing attitudes. Though serfdom,
    caste systems and other types of bondage and slavery continued around the world and is still
    alive and well today in various forms.

    These short vids give a view and sample of the complex debate that still divides opinion,
    though no one should support slavery in any of its forms past and present and far right
    and left groups are being manipulated in the current political climate in the US imo....

    Origins of the American Civil War
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin...ican_Civil_War
    ========================================================

    The True Cause of the Civil War by Judge Napolitano



    Published on 9 Aug 2015
    Judge Napolitano on Lincoln setting about on "the most murderous war in American
    history" How Lincoln violated the constitution and started a unnecessary war to
    increase his own power. He also discusses how Lincoln got away with political prisoners.

    The Truth About The Civil War
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn_UM9ZcOV4Published on 17 Nov 2016
    Abraham Lincoln was gay. The Civil War was not about freeing the slaves. Lincoln
    was actually quoted as being abhorrently racist. Get the truth about the Civil War
    in this episode of Historic Truths w/ Steve R. Pieczenik.
    SEE MORE AT: http://StevePieczenik.com

    Was the Civil War About Slavery? Yes....
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4
    Published on 10 Aug 2015
    What caused the Civil War? Did the North care about abolishing slavery? Did the South
    secede because of slavery? Or was it about something else entirely...perhaps states'
    rights? Colonel Ty Seidule, Professor of History at the United States Military Academy
    at West Point, settles the debate.

  4. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Cidersomerset For This Post:

    BMJ (3rd September 2017), Ewan (24th August 2017), Foxie Loxie (24th August 2017), genevieve (25th August 2017), Hervé (25th August 2017), joeecho (24th August 2017), justntime2learn (24th August 2017), Matt P (24th August 2017), Nasu (25th August 2017), Satori (24th August 2017), uzn (25th August 2017)

  5. Link to Post #3
    United States Avalon Member ghostrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th February 2011
    Location
    Sand Springs Ok
    Age
    58
    Posts
    7,427
    Thanks
    9,893
    Thanked 28,794 times in 6,634 posts

    Default Re: About that "Civil War"...

    Nobody wants a small group of people 1,500 miles away, whom you've never met, telling you what you can and cannot do in your own community/home/church/school etc ... Control vs freedom is always the issue...
    Raiding the Matrix One Mind at a Time ...

  6. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to ghostrider For This Post:

    Blacklight43 (24th August 2017), BMJ (3rd September 2017), Hervé (25th August 2017), Nasu (25th August 2017), uzn (25th August 2017)

  7. Link to Post #4
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: About that "Civil War"...

    Central Bankers Engineer all Wars

    henrymakow.com September 7, 2017



    War is a racket.

    In his 1912 book, Philip Dru, Administrator, Colonel Edward Mandell House has a character say of the US Civil War: "Cynical Europe said that the North would have it appear that a war had been fought for human freedom, whereas it was fought for money."

    It was fought "for money" but not in the sense of accumulating it. Like the US Civil War, many wars are fought to force all nations to accept the Rothschild credit monopoly.

    "Money" is virtual, a mental concept, an accounting system. Our currency is like a coupon. Money is a medium of exchange. The Central Banking Cartel creates itout of thin air, as a debt to itself, something our government could do interest and debt-free. But our government belongs to them, not us. The aim of the New World Order is to expand this racket into a total political, cultural and economic monopoly. This is the real meaning of Communism. This is why our national, racial, religious and gender identities will always be under occult assault.


    (Both Trump and Kim Jung-Un are Freemasons.)

    In this excerpt from The Unseen Hand (1985) Ralph Epperson described how the bankers started the American Civil War to force the US to accept their bank. Our society is being consumed by a cancer. A faction of every religion, nation or people has been infected. They have gone over to Satan and assumed the identity of their group. They are Freemasons, i.e. opportunists and traitors willing to enslave us for personal advancement. We have been unwittingly inducted into their multifaceted satanic cult, i.e. Freemasonry, Jewish Cabalism, and are becoming their mental slaves.

    In 1909, Paul Copin Albancelli wrote: "Masons repeat what they have heard from the preachers of the Occult Powers: the journalist ..the publisher..the pornographer...the professor...The state of mind created and filled in the lodges..is the profane medium met everywhere and the mind is altered by it. And as Freemasons perform this duty as propagandists without revealing themselves as Masons, the activity which they exert is not recognized as Masonic." ("The Jewish Conspiracy Against the Christian World" pp.173-174)

    But this knowledge should be liberating. They cannot dupe us when we understand the true nature of our predicament.
    ----------------------------------------------------

    by Ralph Epperson
    The Unseen Hand p.155ff
    (Excerpts by henrymakow.com)

    "According to John Reeves, in an authorized biography entitled The Rothschilds, the Financial Rulers of Nations, a pivotal meeting took place in London, in 1857. It was at this meeting that the International Banking Syndicate decided that (in America) the North was to be pitted against the South under the old principle of 'divide and conquer.' This amazing agreement was corroborated by MacKenzie in his historical research entitled The Nineteenth Century."


    (Masonic logo on US currency.)

    The plotters realized that once again the American people would not accept a national bank without a reason for having one, and once again the plotters decided upon a war. Wars are costly, and they force governments into a position where they must borrow money to pay for them, and the decision was made once again to force the United States into a war so that it would have to deal with the issue of how to pay for its costs. ...

    The bankers first had to locate an issue to use in causing the southern states to secede from the United States. The issue of slavery was ideal. Next the bankers had to create an organization that could promote secession amongst the southern states so that they would divide themselves away from the federal government. The Knights of the Golden Circle [Freemasons] was created for that purpose.

    Abraham Lincoln began to see the drama unfold as he was campaigning for the Presidency in 1860. He saw the war as an attempt to split the Union, not over the issue of slavery, but just for the pure sake of splitting the Union. He wrote: "I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. If it (the Union) cannot be saved without giving up that principle, I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than surrender it."


    U.S. Civil War officers displaying the Masonic sign of the brotherhood of Jahbuhlun. Left is Major Robert Anderson of the Confederate Army and at right is General George McClellan, Union General of the Army of the Potomac.

    The Knights of the Golden Circle were successful in spreading the message of secession amongst the various Southern states. As each state withdrew from the United States, it left independently of the others. The withdrawing states then formed a Confederation of States, as separate and independent entities.

    The independence of each state was written into the Southern Constitution: "We, the people of the Confederate States, each state acting for itself, and in its sovereign and independent character..."

    This action was significant because, should the South win the war, each state could withdraw from the confederation, re-establish its sovereign nature and set up its own central bank. The southern states could then have a series of European-controlled banks, the Bank of Georgia, the Bank of South Carolina, etc., and then any two could have a series of wars, such as in Europe for centuries, in a perpetual game of Balance of Power politics. It would be a successful method of insuring that large profits could be made on the loaning of money to the states involved.

    Eleven southern states seceded from the Union to form the Confederacy. But in a rather enigmatic move, the flag adopted by the Confederacy had thirteen stars on it. As mentioned before, the number thirteen has significance to the Freemasons. ...

    Abraham Lincoln, now President of the Northern States, once again reported to the American people that the war was a result of conspiratorial forces at work in the South. He told the North that: "combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary machinery of peacetime government had assumed control of various Southern states."


    (Good and honest leaders are shot down)

    Lincoln was receiving great pressure from certain of the banking establishment to float interest-bearing loans to pay the costs of the war. Salmon P. Chase, after whom the Chase Manhattan Bank, owned by the Rockefeller interests, is named, and Lincoln's Secretary of the Treasury during the Civil War, "threatened the (rest of the) bankers that, if they did not accept the bonds he was issuing, he would flood the country with circulating notes, even if it should take a thousand dollars of such currency to buy a breakfast."

    So Abraham Lincoln decided not to borrow money from the bankers nor to create interest bearing money by creating a national bank that would loan the government the needed money by printing large quantities of paper money. Lincoln issued the "Greenback" in February, 1862.

    This money was not only unbacked by gold, but was debt free. Lincoln was playing a deadly game. He had crossed the international bankers. The war was being fought to force the United States into a position of having to create a national bank, run independently by the European bankers, and Lincoln had turned his back on them by issuing his own Fiat Money.
    ---
    Related:
    Freemasonry and Communism Through the Ages
    Humanity is under Occult Attack
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Ewan (7th September 2017), gord (1st September 2018), Nasu (7th September 2017), Spiral (7th September 2017)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts