The Real Cause of the Civil War You Have Never Heard of..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Josh.. you're diving into a ignorant conspiracy theory dude.

Slavery was frowned by most the world. England patrolled Africa's coast at war with slave traders. In 1920s the league of Nations banned it. Apart from England, many other nations help protect smaller allies from being slaves.. no one would buy their slaves. Slavery was dying already. It was an international act of aggression and war. Southerners in Congress also voted to end it. You're giving these guys WAAAAAAY too much credit. What about Confederate Masons who helped push end of slave trade? I think they out number Fire Eaters way more. It's one of those things that's so laughable.

And please stop speaking as a deleget to all the historians. If you think slavery was why we wwent war you have brain trauma. What about the rest of the world who LAUGHS at you? Like Charles Dickens?

Are you sir, a Historian?

a reply to: Iostsheep

A) we know who the fire eaters were. I listed them in the OP.. it wasn't a broad "tea party " type movement.. it was a couple handfuls of southern aristocracy and robber barons..



B) the taxes were not high.. just like in the revolutionary war with the Boston tea party. The actual taxes leveled were nothing....

They were all super low and slaves were only taxed at 1/5 their value... the value of slaves in the US was higher than all other commodities combined.. that tax break was WAY bigger than The import tax in question..


C) how would any of those quotes undo every single state specifically siting "protecting slavery and the supremacy of the white man" in there official declarations of succession???????

What would any quote from anyone do to trump their official reasons?? It wouldn't...


D) what evidence do you have the south would have soon ended slavery on their own????

People always say that but they had more money wrapped up in slavery than all other items in America north and south....


There entire social system and economy was 100% based around slavery....

Who gives that up without a fight?!?!

All that wealth vanishes completely the second slavery is abolished...


There was no policy to begin stopping slavery that was inacted...

AND THEY ALL SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT WAS A MAJOR REASON FOR SUCCESSION IN THEIR OFFICAL DECLARATIONS!!!



F) the 5-6% only counts the head of house hold.. the real number of counting families and overseers is WAY higher..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

1.) head of household. . dude, go to a National park. You see a ton of homes with no sign of what you're claiming.

2.) The ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD seen it otherwise. Even future presidents like Woodrow Willson. Guy was a big time scholar said:
“It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their independence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery.”

“The contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces. “

—London Times, November 7, 1861.
“Every man should endeavor to understand the meaning of subjugation before it is too late…It means the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern schoolteachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit objects of derision…It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up, we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties.”

—Maj. General Patrick R. Cleburne, CSA, January 1864.


As for the South, it is enough to say that perhaps eighty percent of her armies were neither slave-holders, nor had the remotest interest in the institution. No other proof, however, is needed than the undeniable fact that at any period of the war from its beginning to near its close, the South could have saved slavery by simply laying down its arms and returning to the Union.”

—Confederate Lt. General John B. Gordon, later a distinguished Governor and U.S. Senator from Georgia.

They (the South) know that it is their import trade that draws from the [Southern] people’s pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars [$1.5 to $1.7 billion in 2012 dollars] per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests. These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the union.”

New Orleans Daily Crescent, 1861.

“The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form.”

—President Jefferson Davis, CSA.

It goes on...and on...and on...and on... THE ENTIRE WORLD DISAGREE WITH YOU.

and yes, there was a growing group to abolish slavery as a international thing. Fire Eaters are morons who didn't understand basic foriegn policy or fact that Europe had a union to push to end slavery. It was dying out dude. Besides... why try to get more slaves from Africa when you have Indian territories just next state over? All of Oklahoma could of been enslaved. Who would they "internationally" trade them too? It was dead or dying.

You wanna say "oh, you don't mention the 2nd part about slavery". You're victim and bully here. It's protection of intetest, of course slave owners wanted slavery. DUH! of course theyd like to go get em more negroes, didn't mean it would be allowed not just by America.. but by most of civilized war! LMAO! I know slavery would have ended because listen to slaves! Slaves say was dying out, non slavers said was dying out..50 years later it was banned by League of Nations... it was DEAD AND DYING. Abolitionist in North was weak few.. North didn't want end slavery either.. but guess what? IT STILL HAPPENED.

1.) England and all of Europe is stupid and don't have a say or know what's going on.
2.) South sympathizers are deemed "Lost Causes"
3.) Highest scholar to ever become president at time was Woodrow Willson, but he's an idiot.

or

option B.
We're all crazy because yanks changed our history. What's easier to believe? 1/2 of historians in America of wrong and entire rest of world is wrong and all people who write before, during, and after world is lying.. or is dupped by a handful of MORONS (Fire Eaters)

It's so crazy! lol

Look, think of it like a court.
On prosecution side, north claim slavery was cause

On the defendant side, south claim it's state rights, slavery, taxes.. It's a lot of things.

Who decides? A jury. Why? Because they have 0 affiliations and or political biased. Who's the jury? Europe and Canada. Who do they vote in favor? The South.

But were the crazy ones, right?

a reply to: Iostsheep

1) What are you talking about???

The 5-6% of the south being slave owners only counts a plantation as one slave owner... all the over seers, slave traders and family members would all be directly commanding slaves and profiting from their labor.


So the point that "only 5% of the population owned slaves , isn't being honest in its portrayal of the south..



Soldiers fight for billions of different reasons, wars are fought for the reasons of the politicians who started it...politicians who couldn't care less what the soldiers think...

2) give me a minute and I'll start quoting the slave states OFFICIAL DECLARATIONS OF SUCCESSION...

I'm at work now..

Because Woodrow wilsons (a total garbage human being if memory serves) later quote doesn't trump the slave states official declarations.....

4) I nternational trends dont mean anything .. point to something that shows the south was planning on ending it....

They had made zero move to begin freeing the slaves..

It was considered..

"A wolf we grabbed by the ear.. yea we shouldn't have grabbed him, but now that we did we can never let them go.. "

It about 90% sure that was Jeff Davis..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I am talking about the fact the entire south didn't live as pack rats dude. These people had at times 10+ children who got married and moved away. If go to any national park with not people, not plantations, it disproves that stupid arse saying we all lived as packrats. Not everyone lived in a mansion. Most went to college and became something else. The thought they even argue that is ignorant.

Despite any of it, when option was given to keep slaves they kept firing! OBVIOUSLY it wasn't about that. You can hate his politics (Woodrow Wilson) but even though I don't know you, probably trumps your IQ. Guy didn't become the sucess he was for being a moron.

You can name off all decorations all you want, I read them too, but they obviously wasn't fighting to end slavery because Union still had slavery. READ THE QUOTES ABOVE. It is STUPID to think they continued fighting knowing they could lay down guns and keep their slaves. FROM MOUTHS OF GENERALS. People who after the war joined Congress and ran government jobs.

Before he even became president it was in the Charleston Mercury newspaper. People don't read state declarations, politicians do. PEOPLE read the paper and fight wars. C.M. publication was SILENCED by Union for being "too recessionist". ENTIRE WAR was fought on RECESSION. For A LOT OF THINGS.


Wikileaks: . The passage of the tariff was possible because many tariff-averse Southerners had resigned from Congress after their states declared their secession.

It was low? Yes until around time of Civil War it spiked upwards of 40-50% of your total income!

upload.wikimedia.org... 16%29.png

Newspapers are reporting it as criminal all over the south! Who in right minds would pay that? Yeah, it WAS low but not during time of Abraham Lincoln. It was addressed year before he was even inaugurated. He passed it, people went nuts.

a reply to: Iostsheep

You should watch "ken burns:the civil war.." and maybe any lectures you can find by Shelby foote..

He was the most respected confederate historian on the planet befire his fairly recent death.

There were 2 lies told after the civil war..

1) the federal government fought a war to free the slaves...

2) the south did not sucede because they feared the north interfering with slavery..

People point to falsehoods in the first lie and pretend that is proof the second lie is true.. ..

The south seceded because lincoin was elected an was going to make all the new western states, free states. If he did the slave state majority would vanish. Wich hypothetically would give the federal government and free states the ability to abolish slavery.

Something the federal government nor lincoin wanted to do.


But that very specific group of of fire eaters had already begun setting up the framework to reopen the international slave trade to supply the new states with slaves..


So they orcastrated a power play to seize power..


Basically all the confederate figures we hear about were imho patsies...

If your going to orcastrate a rebellion. It is way smarter to put someone else on the throne.. that way they take the hit if you fail.

This wasn't ancient Egypt.. there is an extensive paper trail. We have oodles of letters and official documents.. there isn't any disagreement except amongst the lost cause propagandists.

a reply to: Iostsheep

It isn't stupid to keep fighting if it was a power play. They formed a new government.. the people didn't vote every month to continue the war..

A handful of politicians made the calls...

... plus they didn't believe him before sucedeing, why would they believe lincoin after they did????


On no planet is 16% high and in no time..

They are only paying taxes on 20% of their slaves...


That alone is 5 times the import tax, and slaves were crazy valuable.... inmean come in your buying a human being and his descendants.. . That isn't cheap..



That was just propaganda...


The same way the Boston tea party was propaganda .. look into that as well..

The tax on tea was NOTHING.. the founding fathers just figured out they didn't need the crown anymore..

Everyone in every time, in every civilization hates taxes...it's low hanging fruit when complains about your government.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

There is a lot that is in debate, most of crap you hear in schools is total myths. Half stuff about railroad is myths. Black Confederate myth. Half crap if not more portrayed of Lincoln is a myth. One thing Lost Cause did was blow your own myths out of water. The what is far left now and been doing it consistently to try and make a tyrant some sort of afro-loving Martin Luther King. Reason most are upset is their fragile little feelings being hurt because most have valiantly lied for past years. Even the very idea of Lost Cause is formed by them. It's not that Robert E. Lee was some type civil rights activist, but entire Lost Cause propaganda machine claims to started after war.. however you could find traces of what they claimed to be facts. Such as Robert saying slavery was evil and immoral.. you want twist it as they're saying he's a good guy. It's opposite, but shows that it was dying in South as well.

Most of the North, at very beginning of the war, in major newspaper spoke of disgust. The South seceeded because of Tariffs and protect their economical lifestyle. It is obvious for many reasons that the South would not beat the North. New York Times wrote how Abraham knew sending supplies to Fort Sumter would provoke war and make South the aggressors, he would use slavery against them. He than said first Morill Terrif wasn't enough and was going to spike again and force it on South. Man at the Fort even told Abraham they would attack if they didn't leave.

The fact that south wanted slaves out west is also ignorant because the west did have slaves, they were Mexicans and Indians and Chinese. They didn't want BLACKS outwest. The tiny set of abolitionist in North and Quakers migrated in hopes not to be around them.

You're obversing one group, a small batch of morons with very little power pulling strings in South? It's outlandish, man. Only big shots pulling strings was the North. You look at that chart at how it spikes up to 40%, has nothing to do with slaves, but taxes. Everyone in all corners of the Earth seems to get that but you. It was addressed in council's in Georgia and South Carolina. Really, biggest reason was over money. The Union needed that Southern money. That's why he provoked the attack.

South did not want to go to war. It wasn't even a "country" or any offical spokesmen at time, it was mainly in hands of individual states, with full entire branches of the former union government. The tariffs that they passed, regardless of blindness to its percentage and historical proof of way more taxation than that, even at 20% it's double what it is now. People claim corporate and income tax is high here in Tennessee, if it was 20% the state would completely freak out.

No state in their right mind would provoke and challenge the North. Their size was incredible. South has little to no navy, troops in comparison. After Abraham tried to force their surrender by emancipation of slaves, why not give up? It makes seriously no sense. France and England shunned anything to do with slavery, but not dumb enough to think Civil War was about slavery. Left theory is always some fourtuneteller theory how France and England caused propaganda in own country for no reason and used it as strategy to divide the country. Abraham Lincoln divided it. It's what ifs... what ifs.. "you're a conspiracy theorist" or "Lost Cause Propagandists", what if.. It's like a Creed Song.

What if the North and West who still had slaves at time would force south later down road to end slavery..

What if South invaded the west and force slavery on them...

What if France and England rallied neo-confederate views in hopes to dumb down their own population...

What if it was a joint conspiracy to infiltrate south and overtake North or South...

What if this group of 20 nobodies and couple some bodies were propagandists of the entire thing...

You guys should be theorist. Others just look at the evidence and overwhelming proof. Again, any goof would see that Fire Eaters wouldn't had been successful after 50-80 years. It was not only dying out in concepts that it would violate treaties and international laws by people who bought their goods, but through agricultural breaks throughs and innovations that would rendered it a dying thing.

The real patsy is South, to be the racist ones while north gets off smelling like a rose, teaching us how Abraham couldn't tell a lie, freed slaves, sitting around by campfire with marching band of ex-slaves while he tells them stories of their equal rights and southern racist oppression while encrypting secret codes in blankets to free the rest. Give me a break. Most the historians today are covering their arses for teaching myth after fable after half truths with sugar coat to top it in an obvious attempts to pacify the black community and play racist blame game.

Emancipation came three different times, one offering terms of surrender, yet they still do not budge. Not some splinter cell of of secret society but very highly educated people and graduates at west point and all sorts of walks life filled those positions. The fact say they instigated a war on slavery, refused 3 surrender terms, and was dying all over place wouldn't finally say screw it? It's so ridiculous most of country and entire world is laughing.

My favorite past time is listening to you guys debunk facts and common sense with conspiracies while half still believe in a long line a myths and union propaganda. Internet dropped big ol bomb on bullcrap and trying make a conspiracy out of that too.. "ooh, he's a lost cause guys!" I was a lost cause when those people fed me bull# for 18 years.

I heard one fancy historian claim, "oh reason people think it's state rights and not slavery is bs. bs as in Bad Scholarship." lmao Yea buddy, it's called your left wing propagandists bullcrap. Not only that, but most deny basic constant evidence of how many blacks served in war, even previously to when was allowed, Shelby Foote actually throws wrench into that theory too by mentioning of black Confederates.. I bring the black Confederates into it because of countless amounts of evidence by black historians and white historians and newspapers and a ton of detail regarding the black communities reponse to Yankee tyranny. Oh it's so "Lost Cause" to think a giant significant number of blacks were neo-conservatives too.. it can't be just fact that one point, we suceeded, your factories bellied up and stock market crashed, and South was saving grace to crooked federal government that rather kill 1/3rd of population just to keep slaves any way, and fact everyone white or black or yellow or red would have picked up a gun to shoot a oppressive yanky and keep crooked asses out Dixie and blacks despite freedom in North still couldn't find love for them, so next just say their all racist and make mythical hero like Honest Abe.

and the politically correct names. Jeesh, Nazi, Neo-Nazi, Confederate, Neo-Confederate.. oh were holocaust deniers.. I swear, you libreal SJW are in for rude awakening if ever open brains up little.

a reply to: Iostsheep

What?!?!!

Mine is the mainstream historical view....

Any accredited historian DOES AGREE with the variables I listed....

They stopped buying slaves from Africa because they already had a breeding population in the states and Caribbean islands...

England wasn't messing with southern slavery.

"The rest of the world was doing it" isn't evidence the south was...


The Europeans had not based their entire economy and life style around slavery...

For example.. apartide and segregation lasted till what the 1970s...

the south tending slavery would be the same as the US just trash canning all our cars because of global warming...

a reply to: Iostsheep

Robert E Lee's father in law left him 5 slaves in his will, but with the stipulation they were to be freed 5 years after the father I. Laws death..

Lee went to court (and I believe won) to stop their release once the the 5 years had expired..

Appearently he was broke, so you know morality takes the back seat to finances...


Thank you for that perfect example to highlight my point....

Even the ones who talked a good game, were not willing to risk their wealth over it...


Lee was nothing resembling an abolitionist...

a reply to: Iostsheep

I find it hilarious you think you are clever for seeing the fallacies in one sides argument, while falling hook line and sinker for the others...

And also the fact your claiming my views are the conspiracy theory, when my view is the historical view, while your are only pushed by the conspiracy theorists of the historical community..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

i live and was born in the south and it had nothing to do with slavery. it was about money rich southern democrats were deathly afraid of losing money and they blamed yanks for it with their factories and the like.

a reply to: proteus33

I live in Memphis and was born and raised in Vicksburg, MS.. we were propagandized by the lost cause movement..


Literally NO historian would EVER agree that the civil war wasn’t over slavery.. your right in the sense it was about money, but it was about the money slavery was making everyone..

By 1860 the average young able body male slave was worth about 1,000$, That is equivalent to 50,000$ today...a young female would cost you about 700$.

Plus you got to work them , rent them out and then sell any children for around $1,000 a pop..

And there were 4 million slaves.. that means that collectivly the slaves were worth more than every other material possession in America.. North and south.

So I think people forget the math behind it all when they say it wasn’t over slavery or slavery was gonna die anyway..


That is like saying every American would be willing to just set their cars free without a fight.. or that we were just about to decide on our own to stop using cars.



Asking a historian if it was about slavery would be like asking an astrophysicist if we went to the moon.. he would scoff at you and chuckle as he walked away....

The civil war was not 1000 years ago.. it wasn’t 500 years ago..

We still have everyone’s letters and speeches and such..

The south likes to pretend it wasn’t over slavery and the north lines to pretend they fought a war to end slavery.. both are lying..


The south seceded out of really a totally irrational fear of the BRAND NEW Republican Party ending slavery..because lincoln nor the infant GOP had any desire to try and end slavery in the south.

The north didn’t fight to free the slaves they fought to maintain the union..

All the “war of aggression” stuff is just laughable..

The democrat party (slave states) had held a legislative majority for decades.. partially due to the 3/5 law were the southern states got more legislators for their slave population, even though the slaves couldn’t vote.

The Haitian slave revolution where they just killed basically every white on the island and then the John Brown raid split the domacrat party on the eve of Lincoln’s election.

the BRAND NEW GOP won ONLY because of that democrat party split..

Then the south left the union before lincoln even took office.

The republicans (free states/north) didn’t even take power yet lol.



EVERY single state specifically said they were leaving to protect slavery and white supremacy in their official documents.