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: 8
30
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 12:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: TheJourney
So, here's the thing. The civil war wasn't really about slavery. That's just the real truth of the matter. Lincoln had said he didn't really care about slavery one way or the other,


Yah...but he said the precise opposite...consistently...his whole career..

He prioritized preserving the union over slavery, but was strictly opposed to slavery his entire career, as were the Republican Party.



The Republican Party was a collectivist, big government party. It was always for a high tariff, a central bank, and government spending for anything. It was basically the Whig Party, Lincoln was a Whig as a Congressman.

The Democrats, both Southern and Northern, were small government states rights voters.

Coincidentally, or not, the Democratic party was about to completely out number and out vote the Republican Party. Most immigrants were freedom loving Democrats.

If not for the war, the states rights small government party would have dominated the US Government after 1870 or so.




posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: TheJourney
So, here's the thing. The civil war wasn't really about slavery. That's just the real truth of the matter. Lincoln had said he didn't really care about slavery one way or the other,


Yah...but he said the precise opposite...consistently...his whole career..

He prioritized preserving the union over slavery, but was strictly opposed to slavery his entire career, as were the Republican Party.



The Republican Party was a collectivist, big government party. It was always for a high tariff, a central bank, and government spending for anything. It was basically the Whig Party, Lincoln was a Whig as a Congressman.

The Democrats, both Southern and Northern, were small government states rights voters.

Coincidentally, or not, the Democratic party was about to completely out number and out vote the Republican Party. Most immigrants were freedom loving Democrats.

If not for the war, the states rights small government party would have dominated the US Government after 1870 or so.


Here is a lecture from Murray Rothbard which fills out my claim about the Democrats.



It is the first video of a semester of lectures. Some where during the series of videos, Rothbard says the Democrats were in a position to win both houses and the presidency twice. In the 1800's, the Democrats were the party of Jefferson. The Democrats were fanatically in favor of small government and sound (gold based) money.

The first time, the War Between the States shut out the Democrats by splitting the vote before the war, and with the Southern Democrats out of the government, the Republicans had a majority throughout the war and Reconstruction.

The second time, 1892-1896, there was a depression and both parties moved away from sound money and towards fiat money. William Jennings Bryant gave is famous "Cross of Gold" speech, and about then the Jeffersonian Democratic Party died. The Democrats had no sound money candidate in that decade as the Progressives took over both parties by 1900.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
Sorry I couldn't resist.

Just to highlight one important fact here again that tends to be browsed over. The argument in this thread is that the institution of slavery wasn't a significant enough issue to have sparked the civil war. This is why the OP argued that only 1% of the US population consisted of slaveholders. He and so many others here conveniently forget that the argument is actually whether the institution of slavery was an important enough issue to the South to secede for. The fact is, there were 3.1 million slaves in the south back then and 390,000 slave holders. That's 38% of the population in South whom consisted of slaveholders and slaves. That's close to 40% of the population in the Confederacy.



a reply to: Semicollegiate



as did everyone who bought Southern products


Buying a product for consumption isn't comparable to the business owner earning money off it. Apples and oranges.



The North also profited greatly from slavery.


Where's your stats? They may have profited but how much more than the South? That's not to say the North went to war to rid of slavery in the first place. The South seceded to preserve it out of fear the North would.


The North shipped slaves in, and sold them.


The slave trade in the United States ended in 1807 with the Slave Trade Act 1807 so it's not relevant to the civil war. Now one could argue there were still slaves smuggled into the US following that act? But not at the same levels experienced towards the end or post 18th century.



Slavery was an institution that was phased out peacefully everywhere else in the world.


And it would've been peacefully phased out in the South eventually had they not seceded (probably well towards the end of the 19th century). They did however secede to preserve it:

Slavery is the first thing to be mentioned in the South Carolina declaration of immediate causes to secession in December 24, 1860. Slavery is mentioned 6 times, tariffs are not mentioned at all, although taxes are, in relation to slavery that is: avalon.law.yale.edu...

Slavery is mentioned first in the Mississippi declaration of immediate causes of secession, it is mentioned 3 times. There is no mention of tariffs or taxes: avalon.law.yale.edu...

Slavery is mentioned first in the Texas declaration of immediate causes of secession, it is mentioned 3 times. There is no mention of tariffs or taxes:
avalon.law.yale.edu...

There's more from other states, declarations of grievances:
avalon.law.yale.edu...

You want to know their reasoning for secession? Go to the declaration of grievances. Simple.


In 1860, Lincoln was elected with a Republican plurality in the Senate and the Morrill Tariff had already passed the House. Enough Senators could be bought, or maybe brought into the new tariff boosted industrial power base, to pass the Morrill Tariff.


So just to clarify here. Are you saying had the South not seceded and with the presence of Southern representation in congress, they still would not have had enough to stop the Morrill Tariff from passing? It's interesting you think the Republicans would've 'bought off' representatives at the time as you were arguing before that every southern representative voted against the tariff since the start.

I'd like you to clarify again for me so we're clear here. You argue there were not enough representatives in congress at the time to stop the Morrill Tariff? And can you also link to the Morill Tariff being touted as the main cause that sparked secession at that time by government officials. Thanks.




Lincoln pushed troops into Fort Sumter, the tariff collector of South Carolina's largest port


Where's your evidence that Fort Sumter was a Tariff collector? I've heard this one before.




From the South's point of view, the tariff then, like Obama Care now (the vote buyers have been pushing it since the 1960's), was just a matter of time. The tariff was for the "greater good" of the Union. And the tariff was lawful.

The future western states would probably not be slave states because either they were too dry for agriculture, like New Mexico, or the white settlers didn't want to compete with slave labor as in Kansas and Nebraska. The Southern slave states would have permanently lost their majority in the Senate at some future time.

The encroachments against slavery were not lawful in 1860, without an amendment to the constitution. As countries, at the International level, the Confederacy and its autonomous states would not want to be seen as outlaws, and secession was lawful, or else the 9th and 10th Amendments have no meaning.

Secession was also not aggressive. The North started and maintained the war until the South was ruined and occupied.

The North was the aggressor nation, it was a war of choice.

So who chose to invade and conquer? A plurality President? A population that could not tolerate slavery one more split second?

We don't know for sure, so it was a false flag in some sense.


What a pile of nonsense. The twisting of logic you utilize to try and blame the North for the South refusing to stop owning other human beings is disgusting. The Civil War was not a false flag. It was a war of ideals. The largest? The Southern ideal that owning black people was ok.


Your denial of logic has the North, suddenly, with slavery disappearing all over the world, deciding to ruin the national economy and die by the hundreds of thousands, to free people whom they never liked.

Slavery is a cloud of dense fowl smoke that progressives spew out to avoid the fact that Lincoln was a dictator backed by the Northern Establishment.

Caesar Lincoln made the central government that big money exploits and progressives suck blood with.

The War Between the States was about power and money, just like all other wars.


Baloney. Stop trying to make everything some conspiracy. There was NOTHING "sudden" about the Civil War. The debate over slavery had RAGED FOR YEARS. I am not the one twisting anything. The historical record shows plainly that slavery was the number one cause of the Civil War. Trying to say otherwise is completely disingenuous.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Unfortunately We never truly seceded from the Crown and Royal Bloodlines of Europe so yes. You could somewhat call it a false flag or rather a global social engineering experiment.

Ever notice Hegel is consistently used to such a degree that it is practically invisible? Comes in a rainbow of colors and flavors.

How to disable it?

Problem (minus) Reaction = The Solution. Unfortunately this equation is so simplified it cannot fit into your complex mind that really isn't all that complex.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: superluminal11


Unfortunately We never truly seceded from the Crown and Royal Bloodlines of Europe so yes. You could somewhat call it a false flag or rather a global social engineering experiment.

Ever notice Hegel is consistently used to such a degree that it is practically invisible? Comes in a rainbow of colors and flavors.

How to disable it?

Problem (minus) Reaction = The Solution. Unfortunately this equation is so simplified it cannot fit into your complex mind that really isn't all that complex.


Ah. The ubiquitous hand waving of "Super secret bloodlines conspiracy that I can't even remotely prove" and "You're just too stupid to get it." Well played. That is sooooo much easier than having to carry a burden of proof with actual evidence.
edit on 22-1-2015 by jaffo because: grammar and content



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
Sorry I couldn't resist.

Just to highlight one important fact here again that tends to be browsed over. The argument in this thread is that the institution of slavery wasn't a significant enough issue to have sparked the civil war. This is why the OP argued that only 1% of the US population consisted of slaveholders. He and so many others here conveniently forget that the argument is actually whether the institution of slavery was an important enough issue to the South to secede for. The fact is, there were 3.1 million slaves in the south back then and 390,000 slave holders. That's 38% of the population in South whom consisted of slaveholders and slaves. That's close to 40% of the population in the Confederacy.



a reply to: Semicollegiate



as did everyone who bought Southern products


Buying a product for consumption isn't comparable to the business owner earning money off it. Apples and oranges.



The North also profited greatly from slavery.


Where's your stats? They may have profited but how much more than the South? That's not to say the North went to war to rid of slavery in the first place. The South seceded to preserve it out of fear the North would.


The North shipped slaves in, and sold them.


The slave trade in the United States ended in 1807 with the Slave Trade Act 1807 so it's not relevant to the civil war. Now one could argue there were still slaves smuggled into the US following that act? But not at the same levels experienced towards the end or post 18th century.



Slavery was an institution that was phased out peacefully everywhere else in the world.


And it would've been peacefully phased out in the South eventually had they not seceded (probably well towards the end of the 19th century). They did however secede to preserve it:

Slavery is the first thing to be mentioned in the South Carolina declaration of immediate causes to secession in December 24, 1860. Slavery is mentioned 6 times, tariffs are not mentioned at all, although taxes are, in relation to slavery that is: avalon.law.yale.edu...

Slavery is mentioned first in the Mississippi declaration of immediate causes of secession, it is mentioned 3 times. There is no mention of tariffs or taxes: avalon.law.yale.edu...

Slavery is mentioned first in the Texas declaration of immediate causes of secession, it is mentioned 3 times. There is no mention of tariffs or taxes:
avalon.law.yale.edu...

There's more from other states, declarations of grievances:
avalon.law.yale.edu...

You want to know their reasoning for secession? Go to the declaration of grievances. Simple.


In 1860, Lincoln was elected with a Republican plurality in the Senate and the Morrill Tariff had already passed the House. Enough Senators could be bought, or maybe brought into the new tariff boosted industrial power base, to pass the Morrill Tariff.


So just to clarify here. Are you saying had the South not seceded and with the presence of Southern representation in congress, they still would not have had enough to stop the Morrill Tariff from passing? It's interesting you think the Republicans would've 'bought off' representatives at the time as you were arguing before that every southern representative voted against the tariff since the start.

I'd like you to clarify again for me so we're clear here. You argue there were not enough representatives in congress at the time to stop the Morrill Tariff? And can you also link to the Morill Tariff being touted as the main cause that sparked secession at that time by government officials. Thanks.




Lincoln pushed troops into Fort Sumter, the tariff collector of South Carolina's largest port


Where's your evidence that Fort Sumter was a Tariff collector? I've heard this one before.




From the South's point of view, the tariff then, like Obama Care now (the vote buyers have been pushing it since the 1960's), was just a matter of time. The tariff was for the "greater good" of the Union. And the tariff was lawful.

The future western states would probably not be slave states because either they were too dry for agriculture, like New Mexico, or the white settlers didn't want to compete with slave labor as in Kansas and Nebraska. The Southern slave states would have permanently lost their majority in the Senate at some future time.

The encroachments against slavery were not lawful in 1860, without an amendment to the constitution. As countries, at the International level, the Confederacy and its autonomous states would not want to be seen as outlaws, and secession was lawful, or else the 9th and 10th Amendments have no meaning.

Secession was also not aggressive. The North started and maintained the war until the South was ruined and occupied.

The North was the aggressor nation, it was a war of choice.

So who chose to invade and conquer? A plurality President? A population that could not tolerate slavery one more split second?

We don't know for sure, so it was a false flag in some sense.


What a pile of nonsense. The twisting of logic you utilize to try and blame the North for the South refusing to stop owning other human beings is disgusting. The Civil War was not a false flag. It was a war of ideals. The largest? The Southern ideal that owning black people was ok.


Your denial of logic has the North, suddenly, with slavery disappearing all over the world, deciding to ruin the national economy and die by the hundreds of thousands, to free people whom they never liked.

Slavery is a cloud of dense fowl smoke that progressives spew out to avoid the fact that Lincoln was a dictator backed by the Northern Establishment.

Caesar Lincoln made the central government that big money exploits and progressives suck blood with.

The War Between the States was about power and money, just like all other wars.


Baloney. Stop trying to make everything some conspiracy. There was NOTHING "sudden" about the Civil War. The debate over slavery had RAGED FOR YEARS. I am not the one twisting anything. The historical record shows plainly that slavery was the number one cause of the Civil War. Trying to say otherwise is completely disingenuous.


Slavery was one reason for the South to secede.

Slavery was not the reason that the North invaded the South.

Slavery was not the reason for the war.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
Sorry I couldn't resist.

Just to highlight one important fact here again that tends to be browsed over. The argument in this thread is that the institution of slavery wasn't a significant enough issue to have sparked the civil war. This is why the OP argued that only 1% of the US population consisted of slaveholders. He and so many others here conveniently forget that the argument is actually whether the institution of slavery was an important enough issue to the South to secede for. The fact is, there were 3.1 million slaves in the south back then and 390,000 slave holders. That's 38% of the population in South whom consisted of slaveholders and slaves. That's close to 40% of the population in the Confederacy.



a reply to: Semicollegiate



as did everyone who bought Southern products


Buying a product for consumption isn't comparable to the business owner earning money off it. Apples and oranges.



The North also profited greatly from slavery.


Where's your stats? They may have profited but how much more than the South? That's not to say the North went to war to rid of slavery in the first place. The South seceded to preserve it out of fear the North would.


The North shipped slaves in, and sold them.


The slave trade in the United States ended in 1807 with the Slave Trade Act 1807 so it's not relevant to the civil war. Now one could argue there were still slaves smuggled into the US following that act? But not at the same levels experienced towards the end or post 18th century.



Slavery was an institution that was phased out peacefully everywhere else in the world.


And it would've been peacefully phased out in the South eventually had they not seceded (probably well towards the end of the 19th century). They did however secede to preserve it:

Slavery is the first thing to be mentioned in the South Carolina declaration of immediate causes to secession in December 24, 1860. Slavery is mentioned 6 times, tariffs are not mentioned at all, although taxes are, in relation to slavery that is: avalon.law.yale.edu...

Slavery is mentioned first in the Mississippi declaration of immediate causes of secession, it is mentioned 3 times. There is no mention of tariffs or taxes: avalon.law.yale.edu...

Slavery is mentioned first in the Texas declaration of immediate causes of secession, it is mentioned 3 times. There is no mention of tariffs or taxes:
avalon.law.yale.edu...

There's more from other states, declarations of grievances:
avalon.law.yale.edu...

You want to know their reasoning for secession? Go to the declaration of grievances. Simple.


In 1860, Lincoln was elected with a Republican plurality in the Senate and the Morrill Tariff had already passed the House. Enough Senators could be bought, or maybe brought into the new tariff boosted industrial power base, to pass the Morrill Tariff.


So just to clarify here. Are you saying had the South not seceded and with the presence of Southern representation in congress, they still would not have had enough to stop the Morrill Tariff from passing? It's interesting you think the Republicans would've 'bought off' representatives at the time as you were arguing before that every southern representative voted against the tariff since the start.

I'd like you to clarify again for me so we're clear here. You argue there were not enough representatives in congress at the time to stop the Morrill Tariff? And can you also link to the Morill Tariff being touted as the main cause that sparked secession at that time by government officials. Thanks.




Lincoln pushed troops into Fort Sumter, the tariff collector of South Carolina's largest port


Where's your evidence that Fort Sumter was a Tariff collector? I've heard this one before.




From the South's point of view, the tariff then, like Obama Care now (the vote buyers have been pushing it since the 1960's), was just a matter of time. The tariff was for the "greater good" of the Union. And the tariff was lawful.

The future western states would probably not be slave states because either they were too dry for agriculture, like New Mexico, or the white settlers didn't want to compete with slave labor as in Kansas and Nebraska. The Southern slave states would have permanently lost their majority in the Senate at some future time.

The encroachments against slavery were not lawful in 1860, without an amendment to the constitution. As countries, at the International level, the Confederacy and its autonomous states would not want to be seen as outlaws, and secession was lawful, or else the 9th and 10th Amendments have no meaning.

Secession was also not aggressive. The North started and maintained the war until the South was ruined and occupied.

The North was the aggressor nation, it was a war of choice.

So who chose to invade and conquer? A plurality President? A population that could not tolerate slavery one more split second?

We don't know for sure, so it was a false flag in some sense.


What a pile of nonsense. The twisting of logic you utilize to try and blame the North for the South refusing to stop owning other human beings is disgusting. The Civil War was not a false flag. It was a war of ideals. The largest? The Southern ideal that owning black people was ok.


Your denial of logic has the North, suddenly, with slavery disappearing all over the world, deciding to ruin the national economy and die by the hundreds of thousands, to free people whom they never liked.

Slavery is a cloud of dense fowl smoke that progressives spew out to avoid the fact that Lincoln was a dictator backed by the Northern Establishment.

Caesar Lincoln made the central government that big money exploits and progressives suck blood with.

The War Between the States was about power and money, just like all other wars.


Baloney. Stop trying to make everything some conspiracy. There was NOTHING "sudden" about the Civil War. The debate over slavery had RAGED FOR YEARS. I am not the one twisting anything. The historical record shows plainly that slavery was the number one cause of the Civil War. Trying to say otherwise is completely disingenuous.


Slavery was one reason for the South to secede.

Slavery was not the reason that the North invaded the South.

Slavery was not the reason for the war.


Those are statements of opinion. Unfortunately, the factual record clearly refutes them. Sorry.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

Baloney. Stop trying to make everything some conspiracy. There was NOTHING "sudden" about the Civil War. The debate over slavery had RAGED FOR YEARS. I am not the one twisting anything. The historical record shows plainly that slavery was the number one cause of the Civil War. Trying to say otherwise is completely disingenuous.


There was also debate, for decades, about (The Republicans were similar to Whigs, Lincoln was a Whig as a Congressman)

Central banking -- Republicans in favor - Democrats against

nullification -- Republicans against -- Democrats in favor

states rights -- republicans against -- Democrats in favor

inflationary money -- republicans in favor -- Democrats Against

Import tariff -- Republicans in favor -- Democrats against

government spending on internal improvements -- Republicans in favor -- Democrats Against

Central governmental power -- Republicans in favor -- Democrats against

There were many issues debated for decades, first the Federalist vs the Democrats, then Whigs vs Democrats and finally Republicans vs Democrats. The Federalists, Whigs and Republicans had some differences, but in the debates above they all had the same goal: a stronger federal government, a central bank, and federal government spending.

Slavery was only one issue in the platform.





edit on 23-1-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: jaffo

Baloney. Stop trying to make everything some conspiracy. There was NOTHING "sudden" about the Civil War. The debate over slavery had RAGED FOR YEARS. I am not the one twisting anything. The historical record shows plainly that slavery was the number one cause of the Civil War. Trying to say otherwise is completely disingenuous.


There was also debate, for decades, about (The Republicans were similar to Whigs, Lincoln was a Whig as a Congressman)

Central banking -- Republicans in favor - Democrats against

nullification -- Republicans against -- Democrats in favor

states rights -- republicans against -- Democrats in favor

inflationary money -- republicans in favor -- Democrats Against

Import tariff -- Republicans in favor -- Democrats against

government spending on internal improvements -- Republicans in favor -- Democrats Against

Central governmental power -- Republicans in favor -- Democrats against

There were many issues debated for decades, first the Federalist vs the Democrats, then Whigs vs Democrats and finally Republicans vs Democrats. The Federalists, Whigs and Republicans had some differences, but in the debates above they all had the same goal: a stronger federal government, a central bank, and federal government spending.

Slavery was only one issue in the platform.






And it happened to be the #1 issue addressed by each of the initial seceding States. Because it was the largest and front reason for the conflict. Slavery was the cause of the Civil War. Period.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: jaffo

Baloney. Stop trying to make everything some conspiracy. There was NOTHING "sudden" about the Civil War. The debate over slavery had RAGED FOR YEARS. I am not the one twisting anything. The historical record shows plainly that slavery was the number one cause of the Civil War. Trying to say otherwise is completely disingenuous.


There was also debate, for decades, about (The Republicans were similar to Whigs, Lincoln was a Whig as a Congressman)

Central banking -- Republicans in favor - Democrats against

nullification -- Republicans against -- Democrats in favor

states rights -- republicans against -- Democrats in favor

inflationary money -- republicans in favor -- Democrats Against

Import tariff -- Republicans in favor -- Democrats against

government spending on internal improvements -- Republicans in favor -- Democrats Against

Central governmental power -- Republicans in favor -- Democrats against

There were many issues debated for decades, first the Federalist vs the Democrats, then Whigs vs Democrats and finally Republicans vs Democrats. The Federalists, Whigs and Republicans had some differences, but in the debates above they all had the same goal: a stronger federal government, a central bank, and federal government spending.

Slavery was only one issue in the platform.






And it happened to be the #1 issue addressed by each of the initial seceding States. Because it was the largest and front reason for the conflict. Slavery was the cause of the Civil War. Period.


Lincoln said in his inauguration in 1861


"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

en.wikisource.org...

Chattel slavery was disappearing in the West because with modern capital machinery and consumerism it was less profitable, and with the ideals of the Enlightenment it was socially and politically cumbersome.

Some of the declarations of dedication to slavery by the South were meant to assure the customers that business as usual would resume as some future time. The South had the misfortune of seceding at a time of surplus in their commodities, especially cotton. Had there been a world wide shortage of food, fiber, or cotton, the South would have received an intervention by the international community.

The war was not about slavery it was about power-- economic and political.


Lincoln told the South that secession was illegal.



...we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. ... It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

en.wikisource.org...

The Lincoln power base, (the we above), blockaded and invaded the South and the invasion started the war.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   
There was a global recession in 1857 which may have been "the winter of our discontent" that allowed the military complex to create a US civil war.

On August 24, 1857, the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company failed, beginning a nation-wide financial crisis.
That may have been "the first world-wide economic crisis".

Even though it was the northern companies that ran the slave trade and shipped the slaves from Africa, the northern states did not have as much stoop labor as the big southern plantations. Slavery existed in the north until the Civil war, there are African burial grounds for northern slaves.

The wages paid for stoop labor after their emancipation often did not afford the former slaves much of a better life style, although they were then free to pursue employment with a different plantation.

I'm sure the revenue flow increased taxation for the southern plantation owners which was probably the true goal.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cauliflower
There was a global recession in 1857 which may have been "the winter of our discontent" that allowed the military complex to create a US civil war.

On August 24, 1857, the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company failed, beginning a nation-wide financial crisis.
That may have been "the first world-wide economic crisis".

Even though it was the northern companies that ran the slave trade and shipped the slaves from Africa, the northern states did not have as much stoop labor as the big southern plantations. Slavery existed in the north until the Civil war, there are African burial grounds for northern slaves.

The wages paid for stoop labor after their emancipation often did not afford the former slaves much of a better life style, although they were then free to pursue employment with a different plantation.

I'm sure the revenue flow increased taxation for the southern plantation owners which was probably the true goal.


Ha ha ha...yeah, the massive "military industrial complex" of pre-1860 America. Lol, seriously? Can we put this thread in the nonsense bin yet?!



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: jaffo

We should stick this thread in some sort of bin. Slavery was not the reason for the US Civil War? Um, that goes against every history book I've ever read about it. It ignores Dredd Scott, the Fugitive Slave Laws, Bleeding Kansas, umpteen events from the 1850's and above all the chaos of the election of 1860.



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   


Ha ha ha...yeah, the massive "military industrial complex" of pre-1860 America. Lol, seriously? Can we put this thread in the nonsense bin yet?!
a reply to: jaffo

Military complex, you know where they taught the Generals from both sides hint hint..



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cauliflower



Ha ha ha...yeah, the massive "military industrial complex" of pre-1860 America. Lol, seriously? Can we put this thread in the nonsense bin yet?!
a reply to: jaffo

Military complex, you know where they taught the Generals from both sides hint hint..



Sorry, you didn't back up your assertion at all there. "Hint hint" is not a valid proof or argument. The idea that there was a "military industrial complex" running ANYTHING in America at the time in question makes no sense and is supported by no facts.



posted on Jan, 30 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cauliflower



Ha ha ha...yeah, the massive "military industrial complex" of pre-1860 America. Lol, seriously? Can we put this thread in the nonsense bin yet?!
a reply to: jaffo

Military complex, you know where they taught the Generals from both sides hint hint..



What, you mean West Point?



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 02:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Cauliflower
There was a global recession in 1857 which may have been "the winter of our discontent" that allowed the military complex to create a US civil war.



Ha ha ha...yeah, the massive "military industrial complex" of pre-1860 America. Lol, seriously? Can we put this thread in the nonsense bin yet?!


Wow, so your position is actually that everyone's contribution to this thread has been worthless because... after inserting "huge" and "industrial" into "military complex" yourself, you failed (no reason given) to recognize that a military complex had existed before 1860 in America?

What a strawman. Even if it made sense, it wouldn't negate the value of the thread nor even refute the point in the comment you misquoted, since you can easily replace the phrase that was bothersome (to you) -- "the military complex to create" -- with "Lincoln to create" and/or "the population to support".

Besides, with "lol" constituting your whole argument, how can anyone guess what you found strange about the idea of a military complex in pre-1860 America? The revolutionary war claimed 25K American lives, nearly 1% of the population. By the 1860's there was military "complex" enough at least to spend a few years at war and kill 30 x that number, nearly two and a half percent of the population. Huge is right.

This might also help:

www.bing.com... 59f1c1f14c8483c3a6b8d2e01fa5

[ military-industrial complex
NOUN
a country's military establishment and those industries producing arms or other military materials, regarded as a powerful vested interest. ]

Military (industrial) complexes pre-date taxation. They probably even pre-date money. For example, the Persian Empire of a few thousand years BC had a significant military industrial complex. So pre-1860 is far from incredible. A constant state of war is not a prerequisite. No modern weaponry is required. It needn't even be a very old civilization. Nor must the military be ever-expanding or even the dominant consumer of labor. You just need conditions in which some significant labor force is channeled into supporting military strength. Typically, victory seeks (in part) to protect or expand that labor resource (i.e. industry -- such as farming, textiles, manufacturing, transportation, recruiting, training, etc.) and accordingly the three-word expression you supplied yourself carries the implication of a symbiotic relationship. (The expression you were misquoting, however, just means "military organization".)

With no other details in your post, what it looks like is pretending to ridicule something that's not even disputable, then pretending that doing so (with just three lazy letters -- lol) negates all (let alone any) of the educational substance others took the time to research and share in this thread. Mere scoffing is worse than no response to the thoroughness with which your insistence on slavery as The Cause Of The War -- "Period" -- was soundly and repeatedly refuted -- with evidence. From what little effort it took, I'm guessing there was no smiley available to represent covering one's ears and shouting "I can't hear you".

Reading this thread has been very worthwhile. I appreciate the various perspectives, external sources, and fair logical analyses. I learned much here that I hadn't known about the civil war. It's also interesting that after all these years, some people still feel threatened by anything other than a superficial story of good vs. evil.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Cauliflower



Ha ha ha...yeah, the massive "military industrial complex" of pre-1860 America. Lol, seriously? Can we put this thread in the nonsense bin yet?!
a reply to: jaffo

Military complex, you know where they taught the Generals from both sides hint hint..



What, you mean West Point?


Fine. I'll ridicule it more clearly: The idea that any cohesive entity that we would recognize as a "military industrial complex" existed prior to or immediately after the Civil War or that said entity created a "false flag" to start said conflict is laughable and completely unsupported by facts and logic. That clear enough for you?



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Slavery did not even come up until late in the war. It was something to elevate spirits to give a war weary nation the sense they were fighting for a cause beyond power and control between the north and the south. When Garibaldi was asked to lead the union troops he made the request that the war would be about abolishment. Lincoln refused.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 09:07 AM
link   
gen'l PGT Beauregard who commanded the shelling of fort Sumpter did NOT support slavery. While running westpoint he was asked to fight for the Union but decided to play for the home team

I don't see how this war was a "false flag", I see it as a Banker war designed to help wreck capture and loot the north american continent


December 18, 1860 - Lincoln's Letter to Stephens. Abraham Lincoln writes Georgia's Alexander "Little Alec" Stephens, one of the South's most outspoken Unionists, to assure him that he (Lincoln) will not interfere with slavery in the South, directly or indirectly.
www.thelatinlibrary.com...


After months of negotiations broke down over the fate of the U.S. garrison at Fort Sumter, surrounded by Confederate-held Charleston, South Carolina, Confederate General Pierre Gustave Toutant (P.G.T.) Beauregard (1818–1893) offered Union Major Robert Anderson a final chance to surrender the fort. Anderson refused and inquired if Beauregard, his former student at West Point, would fire on the fort without warning. With a note written at 3:20 a.m., Beauregard alerted Anderson that he would commence firing in one hour.
www.loc.gov...


After the war he spoke in favor of civil and voting rights for the freed men, making him unpopular among his fellow Confederates. Yet, he proved effective helping develop a "New South" of business and industry. Beauregard was not at heart a supporter of slavery, nor did he really want to see the federal government destroyed. It was local loyalty to his home state Louisiana rather than to the federal government that swayed his decision to fight for the South.

www.newworldencyclopedia.org...



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join