Was the American civil war our first 'false flag'

Right, and Left never change:

Although he supported the war effort in 1861, he blamed abolitionists for prolonging the war and denounced the government as increasingly despotic.

en.wikipedia.org...

Same snip. Different day. Different century. Different war.

Republicans, and Democrats have always been effed up.

Just gonna throw this out there.

Is not gun control the suspension of a persons right to habeas corpus?

noun, Law. 1. a writ requiring a person to be brought before a judge or court, especially for investigation of a restraint of the person's liberty, used as a protection against illegal imprisonment.

dictionary.reference.com...

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
neo96

originally posted by: neo96
First answer people will say is slavery. Do you think they are correct ?

Was everyone in the South a slaver owner ?

For the Southern 1% At the time to have gotten to rich off the backs of slavery. Seems to me victory would have been all, but guaranteed for them.

What do you mean by 1% ?? Are you saying that only 1% of the population in the South that time were slaveholders? Out of 9.1 million citizens of the Southern slave holding state, 390,000 were slaveholders. That's 7.5% of the population of the South. Let's not forget that behind those slaveowners were wives, sons, daughters, their fathers and mothers, entire families whom were financially dependent. 49% of Mississippi families owned slaves. 30% in the Confederacy if you rounded it up to all the states:
www.civil-war.net...

1% of the national population, North and South together, owned slaves.

390,000 divided by 9.1 million is 4.3 % not 7.5%.

95.7 % of the population of the South had no slaves. All were subject to a tariff that sucked off as much wealth from farmers (Northern as well as Southern) as could be got easily. And the tariff was doubled in 1861.

Every Southern congressman had voted against the tariff for 30 years. The South was completely powerless to oppose the tariff in congress, and yet it paid 65% of the Federal Budget, each Southerner in effect paying a double tax, of which only 10% came back to the South.

If the South had been allowed to peacefully separate, its economy would have boomed and the Federal Government would have lost 60% of its income, and all of its power.

That is why the North Invaded and Conquered the South.

I think this sums up the facts very nicely. Thank you for putting it together!

The Civil War = The Great Compromise of 1787





The civil war was cause by "The Great Compromise"
July 16, 1787, passed July 27th as "The Connecticut Compromise."
Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, both of the Connecticut delegation are to blame.


How can this be true?

There were two plans. America gets just the senate and the house, or America gets the senate, the upper, and the lower houses. In the plan with "just the house" and no upper or lower, the house is filled by state population. Northern smaller states feared control by the populous southern states. The south, showing weakness, compromised and the house was split with the new upper portion having a fixed number of reps per state. This is effectively the same thing as doubling down on the Senate portion of the separation of powers.

So the north started the series of definitions that the south would be blamed for fighting for. Namely states rights. By doubling down the number of representative bodies elected by state and not population it becomes possible that what state a citizen is from represents 2/3rd's of their political influence, as opposed to who they are. The interesting thing to notice here is that "states rights", a mere ten years after the constitution, were pitted against population levels and not against central government. After The Civil War "states rights" are only discussed in comparison to Federal authority.

Bluntly put a Civil war is how one reverses Balkanization.

Slaves counted for the lower house. The north forced a federal law on the south that slaves only counted as 3/5th's of a person for determining representation in the lower house. Apparently doubling down on the senate, by making an upper house wasn't enough of a 2/3rd's. Another 3/5th's was taken from a minority population. The south is still slapped in the face with the 3/5th's person rules to this day. As though secretly they passed the law against themselves because it tickled them to denigrate slaves in this way.

So how does a Civil war reverse balkanization?

Well not just any rabble of a unranked mob can pull this off.

First you need the best military commanders in the World to run both sides. Here is a list of people
who were all in a social club together in occupation of Mexico called

The Aztec Club of 1847.

Joseph E. Johnston
William T. Sherman
P.G.T. Beauregard
Joseph Hooker
Robert E. Lee
Ulysses S. Grant

and a company of other officers who appeared on both sides of the Civil war. They formed The Aztec club during the occupation of Mexico during the Business interest driven Spanish American war. Remember we had to avenge Davy Crocket.



Say, wasn't he a senator?




Slavery. This is just an emotionally charged word
for Class difference. Prior to Civil war there is class difference.
After the Civil war it's about the same, but slowly gets worse.


Corruption Specifically the buying of politicians. Prior
to the Civil war this is unacceptable. After the Civil war its
standard. The population reacts by spreading the saying "a
good politician is one who stays bought".


Commerce Yes, things get much much better for
commerce. America enters a period known for Robber
Barons. Sole Proprietorship, and partnerships never
recover. Except in the legal profession.

So what lessons do I draw from history.

In this case I find that America seems to
operate on the principal that a decision is
made, and then history are those subsequent
events where everyone else is notified of those
decisions. Sensationally, depressingly, or bloodily.

Take "Net Neutrality" from 2007-2009. This one was presented as this sudden political move that must be stopped. But the decisions that lead to Net Neutrality were made in 2001 by the Supreme Court when they made
a ruling on the common carrier clause in relation to the cable companies. Tech insiders knew the implications and were all scrambling to reposition. Net Neutrality was a back handed way of informing the population of the real decision and new order of things and getting them to endorse it as though it was their own idea. Sensational.

Take the "Dot Com" bust. The one that wrecked great fear on investment capitol going for internet companies. All these dirt companies cause the really valuable plans to go unfunded. They were bought up for cheep, patents and everything. And then brought back by large business interests. Do you really think You-tube technology wasn't in existence until a big well funded site that could host all the bandwidth made it available free.


Conclusion.
If you are an American citizen but have no state or federal
politicians working for you then you still have your 1/3rd
influence through the lower house. Oh wait, I forgot to
mention. That's only in the Legislature. Which
is also only 1/3rd of the government vs.
Executive and Judicial. Maybe you
should exercise one of your
old forgotten freedoms
for a change. What
about the freedom
to agree with
someone.

We do
still have
the numbers.


Mike Grouchy

The issue here is not about slavery but what the war was really fought over and if this war was indeed a false flag event.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

If one were to define 'false flag' as waging war under a false pretense?

Then I say the civil war was a false flag.

The first test of weather something is a false flag or not, there has to be publicity. The surest evidence of publicity are groups of civilians behaving according to the message.




During the first Battle of the US Civil War
civilians would ride out of town to picnic and watch the war.









Here is an actual photo of a picnic from the Bull Run battle.






Mike Grouchy

Basically the only reason for the war was to keep the South under Northern control.

It was a war to make the US one country instead of 34+ countries.

The False Flag idea, or deception as to the real cause for something, fits.

Something in the North caused the war, for the benefit of that thing in the North.

The government was a tool to that end.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Basically the only reason for the war was to keep the South under Northern control.

It was a war to make the US one country instead of 34+ countries.

The False Flag idea, or deception as to the real cause for something, fits.

Something in the North caused the war, for the benefit of that thing in the North.

The government was a tool to that end.

After saying plantations were bad, they turned around and created more called reservations.

Did worse to the native Americans.

FALSE FLAG indeed.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Basically the only reason for the war was to keep the South under Northern control.

Something in the North caused the war, for the benefit of that thing in the North.

To that end here is a look at ...

Bankers:

The British went on a paper currency. The problem is that no government can figure out the market faster than the market itself. Currency speculators work across boarders. What is needed is a small group of financial types who's sole job is to value the currency. But this group would have to be completely immune to political pressure or influence.

Later when thirteen little colonies are forming their own government they too encounter the same problem. Currency goes through fluctuations and variations so intense that the entire history of America, up until the founding of the fed, can be called the "era of currency wars." With the post Civil War era being particularly nasty and the Confederate bills being equal to Counterfeit. That translated to a high crime with prison time.

The bankers leave a strong footprint on the clean up after the war.


State currencies are out.



Treasury notes are in.



620,000 lives lost in the wash, maybe as much as 1,100,000.



Before the Civil War banks would publish their holdings in the daily papers. Fiat currency would have been considered fraud, in the criminal sense. One could look up each bank in town and see how much they had, it was part of their honorableness in public society that they were open and kept no secrets, a sign of integrity. Whereas these days the concept of a money laundering bank is so common it is dull.


Mike Grouchy

a reply to: mikegrouchy

Before the Civil War banks would publish their holdings in the daily papers.

That is cool. I didn't know that.

Crypto-currency is something like that now. The Crypto-currency idea is great, someday it will be the normal money.
Sometime in the next 10 to 10,000 years

It is still in start up mode right now, and subject to fluctuations of other than from its use as a store and way to spend wealth. A big player could seriously smash any one crypto if it wanted to. And the government could be oppressive about it too. I will diversify my way into them.

Normal money will change its value as the amount of money tied up in loans vs. money held as cash changes.

Just like the interest rate should naturally do.

originally posted by: mikegrouchy

Before the Civil War banks would publish their holdings in the daily papers.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Crypto-currency is something like that now. The Crypto-currency idea is great, someday it will be the normal money.
Sometime in the next 10 to 10,000 years

That's quite a range of possibility.

I hope that if crypto-currency is to succeed that it could do so without the traditional sacrifice of a billion souls. Has humanity evolved far enough that it can make the transition to a planetary currency without the spilling of copious amounts of blood. The history of the petrodollar says no.

This may be a topic for another thread, but thanks for the comment!


Mike

a reply to: mikegrouchy

I hope that if crypto-currency is to succeed that it could do so without the traditional sacrifice of a billion souls. Has humanity evolved far enough that it can make the transition to a planetary currency without the spilling of copious amounts of blood. The history of the petrodollar says no.

The history of gold, and silver says no.

Fiat currency is no different.

And that snip was going on without bankers.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

1% of the national population, North and South together, owned slaves.

390,000 divided by 9.1 million is 4.3 % not 7.5%.

95.7 % of the population of the South had no slaves.

Playing with the numbers to fit your views I see, I expected nothing less on here. As I stated before, 30% of families in the South financially benefited from slavery. I know, you'd like to argue that only those single slave owners benefited from slavery, and continue to conveniently leave out the many people who were dependent off those slave owners. From the wife to the children, to the businesses that benefited indirectly. It's rather silly to believe slave owners were the only ones that profited in the South.

Let me just repeat one obvious fact people like you continue to look over. The fact that out of 9.1 million people in the south, there were 3.1 million slaves. 2 in 5 people in the South were slaves. Don't come here and try and convince me that slavery wasn't an institution the southern economy heavily depended with this obvious fact looking you in the face because that argument is a load of bull.

All were subject to a tariff that sucked off as much wealth from farmers (Northern as well as Southern) as could be got easily. And the tariff was doubled in 1861.

Here comes the tariff excuse and mighty deceptive from you might I add. First of all, the Confederate States of America declared independence in December of 1860, so why are you using tariff rates in 1861, to argue as a motivation for secession for the south in 1860? Does this make any sense to you.

The Tariff of 1857, passed by the pro south democratic majority in congress, set tariffs to their lowest rates since 1816. So tariffs leading up to the first secessions of the confederacy were at their lowest rates in over 40 years:

Passed with some hope to elude the impending economic crisis, the Tariff of 1857 was the lowest tariff enacted by Congress since 1816.

historyengine.richmond.edu...

Now I trust you were referring to the Morrill Tariff right? Which only passed in congress (both the house and senate) and was adopted in March 1861, 3 months after secession of the first Confederate States.
history1800s.about.com...

Do you want to know how it passed? It passed because of absence of Pro-southern democrats in senate following secession months prior. You cannot blame secession of the south on something that had not existed in the first place, and wouldn't of existed with the presence of the South in congress at the time.

Every Southern congressman had voted against the tariff for 30 years.

What are you talking about? The majority of them voted for the 1857 Tariff. 80% in the House alone. Google it buddy. And why not? It was the lowest in 40 years.

The South was completely powerless to oppose the tariff in congress

Powerless? For the majority of the 1850's leading up to secession, the Democrats held a firm majority in congress. For example, the 35th Congress in 1857 consisted of 62% Democrat in the senate and 55% democrat in the house. The Democratic party was heavily southern. Even during the congress leading into the first civil war, the 36th congress, while majority Republican for the first time in years, democrats still held enough power to block legislation coming in. Laws concerning tariffs were the least of their worries.

If the South had been allowed to peacefully separate, its economy would have boomed and the Federal Government would have lost 60% of its income, and all of its power.

The motivations of Lincoln was clear, he wanted a united Union. He couldn't care less about slavery putting aside his abolitionist allies. Regardless, the motivations for the south was otherwise. As for the South having any 'right' to secede or a 'right' to independence, well they lost the war, that's that. History is not fair sorry.

I don't expect to have honest debate with you given your apparent twisting of history (which I'm use to from apologists don't you worry!) so I'll leave you be in the comfort of other fellow apologists here. I'll give you correction of my percentage calculation of slave owners, but I'll also leave you wth the facts at hand. I don't expect you to bother with them though.

a reply to: neo96

Surely when your whole constitutional system is build around the need to compromise the Civil War is the ultimate by product of a lack of compromise and what today is called hyper partisanship. I do think that the politically correct crowd has done a great disservice in rewriting American history to suit their own political agenda and they are giving WW2 the same treatment.
Surely it would be a good idea for both sides of the political sides to dial back the hyper partisan if not out right hatred?

originally posted by: intrepid
My understanding is that slavery WAS the issue but not because it was for humanitarian reasons. The South had almost free labor. The North didn't. So basically it was about economics. Getting rid of slavery was just a byproduct. Sounds a lot nicer though.

And their you have it laid out for you ladies and gentlemen. IMO it is easy for us Non Americans to take a more objective view of the conflict because it isn't apart of our heritage. In the same vain an American with an interest in military history might give a more objective view of the Gallipoli Campaign than my fellow Australians and Kiwis hold.

Wars do have unintended victors from the Slaves that had sustained the Southern states and who would be freed in the course of the American to Turkish Nationalism born at Anzac Cove .

I always thought that it was a war funded and instigated by the wool mill owners of England. People like Sir Titus Salt. Who at that time controlled the wool and cotton industries of the world. The south were under cutting them as they had slaves picking cotton for nothing. So they had their good friend Mr Wilberforce stir the pot and financially aided the north against the south. This is just my opinion but who knows? A false flag? hmmm

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: generik

In fact slavery is not really an American problem, so much as a British problem left over from their rule, that the US was left to deal with.

What a ludicrous statement to make.

Once The U.S. gained independence it had every means to abolish slavery, but it didn't. It kept it running.
In fact it took The U.S. more than 30 years to abolish slavery after Britain did so.

I do believe the rest of the statement that you left out of your quote delt with that. It is not a "ludicrous" statement at all. The British allowed it and made it legal (at first only allowing blacks, or at least non whites that power, it was not for awhile that white people had that right) If it had not done so it would not have existed to be an issue, for the US to deal with. Likely even more important is that if it was not for a black man taking it to court after refusing to free a black indentured servant, it very likely would not have happened. So yes it WAS a problem created by the British as it WAS the British court who allowed it to happen in the first place.

Now just how easy is it to take something away that is a legal and excepted practice, especially one that greatly benefits the rich who had a lot of control of politicians and thus the government then as they do today? It matters not who got rid of it first, it matters more who created it in the first place. In fact I would hazard a guess that if not for the civil war and thus the removal of politicians directly representing those who profited the most, as well as the use as a rallying cause in a time of need, slavery would have been aground a lot longer.

Civil War Propaganda.

a reply to: generik


With independence came responsibility.

The ball was handed over to The U.S.from September 3rd 1783. You can't have your cake and eat it.