It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was the American civil war our first 'false flag'

page: 2
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Do you understand where I was coming from?


Do you feel it is f'd up intentionally or do you believe that it's just democracy is destined to fail?


To be fair, I suppose both could be true!



S&F anyways, I got to learn something new.




posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 08:05 PM
link   
The War Between the States is the single most important event for Americans to study.

The First False Flag might have been the War of 1812.

New England did not want the War of 1812 and threatened to secede because of all the trade it lost to Britain directly and other trade put at risk by the wartime conditions. New England refused to pay any of the war debt and so the Second Bank of the United states was chartered in 1816, to monetize the war debt.

This bank was the one killed by Andrew Jackson in 1836.

On the topic of Lincoln and The War to Prevent 10th Amendment Secession, Thomas DiLorenzo has written a few books and appeared on CSPAN and at Mises.org.

DiLorenzo tells about Lincoln as a front man for the Northern Interests. Lincolns job was to advance statist, at the time Republican, power over the country. This meant mostly, enforcing the tariff and subsidizing the trancontinental railroad cartel.

Planned or not, the war

ended state independence
created the first ever draft of soldiers
created state fiat currency
created federal government supremacy over all
created federal government spending
the first income tax (later ruled unconstitutional)
raised the tariff.

The War Between the States set a precedent for all nations and later politicians in Europe would use it justify central authority. Hitler in particular.



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs




Do you feel it is f'd up intentionally or do you believe that it's just democracy is destined to fail?


Democracy is mob rule. Which is the problem. Where mob might makes 'right'.

Where we American's fail is living up to our ideals. Far too many think shades of gray is the 'right' way.

As this country is suppose to be a constitutional republic, and the mob finally gets that through their thick heads.

America might change. and when 'we the people' finally wake up' that our government creates more problems than they solve.

And we Americans finally understand the words of the Declaration of Independence.



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,


www.archives.gov...

My fellow Americans need to wake up to the fact that our 'representatives' do too much snip under the false pretense of taking care of them.

Where America fails is living up to our founding beliefs.
edit on 17-1-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: neo96

Do you understand where I was coming from?


Do you feel it is f'd up intentionally or do you believe that it's just democracy is destined to fail?


To be fair, I suppose both could be true!



S&F anyways, I got to learn something new.


With democracy, a behind the scenes power needs only a plurality to rule.

With a Constitutional Republic, at least 2/3 majority are needed just to make a specific change, and no one rules.

Democracy is a bad sign.
edit on 17-1-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Of course, you can't discount that the end result of the war was the rise of the primacy of the Federal over the State. The importance of the 9th and 10th Amendments were largely ground into dust. Also, the 14th Amendment was and is the only Amendment that was ratified by a process different than all the others.

And today, the 14th is the hammer by which so many other freedoms are pounded away.


I just read the 14th Amendment. It is a lot bigger than I thought. It does everything short of declaring the 9th and 10th Amendments null and void explicitly.

The Bill of Rights seems to be more of a warning than a guarantee.

An increasing governmental power oppression detector kind of warning.
edit on 17-1-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs




Do you feel it is f'd up intentionally or do you believe that it's just democracy is destined to fail?


Democracy is mob rule. Which is the problem. Where mob might makes 'right'.

Where we American's fail is living up to our ideals. Far too many think shades of gray is the 'right' way.

As this country is suppose to be a constitutional republic, and the mob finally gets that through their thick heads.

America might change. and when 'we the people' finally wake up' that our government creates more problems than they solve.

And we Americans finally understand the words of the Declaration of Independence.



We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,


www.archives.gov...

My fellow Americans need to wake up to the fact that our 'representatives' do too much snip under the false pretense of taking care of them.

Where America fails is living up to our founding beliefs.


That's an excellent post. Anyone who has read about the civil war knows it was fought for states rights. We've been fighting for them ever since. Don't ever concede that this a democracy. It's a republic, if you can keep it.



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
It was indeed a false flag it was fought to take the right of states to sovereign rule or self governing. That is what the south was fighting to keep. They lost as that message was replaced two years into the war that it was about slavery.

The original co equal govt that was established in 1776 by the founders was killed off by the 1830's by the banking industry after our first bank was established in the 1780's.
edit on 17-1-2015 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   
The ending slavery issue had nothing to do with wanting to do the right thing it was first and foremost a two fold war strategy.
1) it was used to reinvigorate support for the war in the north.at the time there was rumblings in high places for ending the war and letting the southern states leave the union.The timing for the release of the immancipation proclamation is very suspect.it was announced shortly after the battle of Antietam, even today it is ranked as the single bloodiest day in American history.Surely the demands in the north for ending the war would have reached a fever pitch after a battle such as Antietam,lincoln knew he had to pull a rabbit out of his hat and do it right quick in order to muffle the cries for peace at any price.
2) it was a strategy to even further deprive the south of the manpower and money that it needed to continue the war.
The thinking was that the freed slaves would all leave the south and come north.With no slaves to work the fields ten`s of thousands of soldiers would have to be taken from the armies and sent to farm food (for eating) and cotton for money to continue the war. cotton was still making it`s way to Europe in spite of the federal blockades of southern ports.

Before you continue thinking that freeing the slaves was done for completely humanitarian reasons consider this.
Free workers in the north were working under absolutely hellish conditions in northern sweatshops for almost no pay and no benefits.
One has to wonder how the business owners and politicians of the north, who allowed free men and women to labor in these deplorable conditions, could have supported freeing the slaves for completely unselfish humanitarian reasons.

To label secessionist traitors or rebels isn`t correct because they weren`t trying to overthrow the government of the united states they were simple trying to leave.
Lincoln was the first republican nominated to run for president by the newly formed republican party, and was the first elected republican president.It`s possible that he was trying to make a big splash and show the country and the world that the republicans weren`t going to be just another one of the dozens of johnny come lately political parties.
Maybe taking a closer look at the founders of the republican party might shed some light on the real reason for the civil war.
I think it`s a safe bet that we have never been told the real reasons.


edit on 17-1-2015 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Democracy was meant to fail because it is hierarchial and they all fail sooner or later



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
It was indeed a false flag it was fought to take the right of states to sovereign rule or self governing. That is what the south was fighting to keep. They lost as that message was replaced two years into the war that it was about slavery.

The original co equal govt that was established in 1776 by the founders was killed off by the 1830's by the banking industry after our first bank was established in the 1780's.


Several sources have stated that the official cause of the War Between the States in mainstream history was the tariff until the 1960's. In that decade slavery was cited more often and became the default explanation for the war.

I think most people have never heard of a tariff, and could not explain what it does to an economy.

A tariff protects an industry by making foreign products pay extra to sell here. But that also means the home industry can charge a higher price than it could if no tariff was in place. So the tariff makes prices higher than the free market price.

The South was selling on the world market and so had to pay tariffs. The North was selling mostly to the home market and was receiving the benefit of the tariff. When the tariff was hiked up 100% was when the South seceded.
edit on 17-1-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Again it was the banks who benefitted and wanted more control over the nation as a whole. It was still a move to take power away from individual states and the people.

In the end the cause is not important as long as the banks get to rule everything



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   
A few of Lincoln's quotes about slavery.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races."

"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."

Lincoln didn't care about the slaves. But all the history books paint him as a savior.
edit on 17-1-2015 by justin366 because: Had something to add



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   
before I even read this thread: This is why I love ATS. The synchronicity of inquisitive, unafraid, like minds! I s*** thee not, I pondered the same question during my morning routine today, and intended to search ATS for opinions. Wow. Will reply when I'm done.



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Feels the same way on this side of the water, brother.



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Again it was the banks who benefitted and wanted more control over the nation as a whole. It was still a move to take power away from individual states and the people.

In the end the cause is not important as long as the banks get to rule everything


Its easier to get a handle on one big new government than on 36 older and more experienced governments.

That's why they want the one world government.



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   
''The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be credible.' - Mark Twain.



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: justin366

Holy Snip!



While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.] My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness-and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend Col. Richard M. Johnson. [Laughter.] I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject,) that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.] I will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made except in the State Legislature-not in the Congress of the United States-and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home and placed in the State Legislature to fight the measure. [Uproarious laughter and applause.] I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on this subject.


www.nps.gov...

The 'Great Emancipator' !!!

Just wow.



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 10:32 PM
link   
150 years ago, the Civil War began
I'm proud to live in an America no longer divided by politics.




posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Again it was the banks who benefitted and wanted more control over the nation as a whole. It was still a move to take power away from individual states and the people.

In the end the cause is not important as long as the banks get to rule everything


The bankers didn't benefit because Lincoln didn't borrow money to finance the war from the banks. He created the "greenback."

Probably what got him killed.

(Btw, the first false flag was the Boston Tea Party.)



posted on Jan, 17 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Interesting read, but I think what you miss in that excerpt is that Lincoln was a politician, much like today, pandering to his specific audience in a way that modern media doesn't afford many politicians today to get away with...As was noted in that exact same debate on the same page of your link by Douglas..



I had a copy of it and intended to bring it down here into Egypt to let you see what name the party rallied under up in the northern part of the State, and to convince you that their principles are as different in the two sections of the State as is their name. I am sorry that I have mislaid it and have not got it here. Their principles in the north are jet-black, in the center they are in color a decent mulatto, and in lower Egypt they are almost white. Why, I admired many of the white sentiments contained in Lincoln's speech at Jonesboro, and could not help but contrast them with the speeches of the same distinguished orator made in the northern part of the State. Down here he denies that the Black Republican party is opposed to the admission of any more slave States, under any circumstances, and says that they are willing to allow the people of each State, when it wants to come into the Union, to do just as it pleases on the question of slavery.


And their is no doubt that his entire career and life were consistently opposed to the institution of slavery..


At the age of 28, while serving in the Illinois General Assembly, Lincoln made one of his first public declarations against slavery.

www.nps.gov...

Now admittedly he did not believe in equality between the races for most of his life, but he did fiercely oppose slavery as being inconsistent with democracy. That might sound complicated, but it isn't. In his view for most of his career, African Americans were inferior, but the institution of slavery was a separate issue and one which crippled America's legitimacy both at home and internationally.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join