It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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 really about slavery?

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 08:03 PM
Lincoln's primary goal was to preserve the Union. He even stated that he would keep and allow slavery in states where it was already established. HOWEVER, by 1862, the North had not acheived an easy nor early victory, and many in the North were starting to grow weary. They were ready to let the South go its own way.;
Lincoln needed to rally the North and re-energize the effort with some great moral cause. Suddenly, slavery went from being one of the causes to the cause of the war. The Emmancipation Proclammation of late 1862-63 sloidified this effort... while freeing slaves in the Southern states, it did not free slaves in the north...yes, there were slaves up north.

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 08:32 PM
Slavery, though a contentious issue, was not the cause of the Civil War. It was money. The cash crop of the south was cotton. Because the federal government regulated trade between the states northern moneyed interests basically bought legislation that prevented the southern states from dealing directly with foreign countries that wanted to buy cotton. Because of this northern interests acted as middlemen taking a big bite out of the proceeds of cotton sold to other countries. This was a big finger in the eye of southern farmers who wanted to deal directly with foreign countries.

The south had a right to be mad as hell about the trade situation and the thought of an abolitionist president (though Lincoln wasn't) made things worse. To compound the problems England, who controlled the cotton trade going into Europe, wanted a monopoly and was instrumental in agitating southern fears. If they could ally themselves with the south providing arms, money and ships then after the war the south would be indebted to them.

England had been a thorn in the nations side from the days of the revolutionary war. The Rothschild banking dynasty had taken control of the Bank Of England and had been behind every attempt to establish a central bank in the US. The secessionist movement in the south was another opportunity to inject economic control in the US so they loaned money and provisioned the southern states.

Meanwhile large banking interests in New York that were under Rothschild control merely had to wait until the war had depleted the the federal treasury to begin loaning money at astronomical interest rates to the north which in the end, had the plan worked, would have left the entire US under the thumb of the Bank Of England.

Czar Alexander II of Russia had been a witness to the Rothschild rape of Europe and England and intervened on the Unions behalf. Had he not made it clear that should England enter the conflict directly it would mean war with Russia England was prepared to do so.

It is my belief that Lincoln saw the trap and knew full well who was instigating the war in the south. If he had any doubts beforehand he certainly didn't after his failed attempt to borrow money from northern banks to finance the war. With 12,000 British troops sitting on the border in Canada and the British navy patrolling off the eastern seaboard the game was obvious.

I also believe that this is what got Lincoln assassinated. Had he lived I believe that he had a house cleaning planned for the big northern banks. Rothschild got to Lincoln before Lincoln could get to Rothschild.

In all the research I've done over the years I still have one question that has never been answered to my satisfaction. Why did the south fire on Ft. Sumter in the first place? Lincoln had made it perfectly clear that his aim was to stop the spread of slavery but to honor the states rights where it existed. There was just no really good reason to take the plunge into war.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a merely a ploy to throw the south into financial disarray as the slaves walked off the plantations because at the time it did appear that the south could win the war. It was about the last card Lincoln had left to play.

For all the bad Lincoln is accused of he was looking past the southern states at who was really pushing for war and stopped them in their tracks. He had no intention of punishing the south and I do believe that had it not been for foreign intervention he would have permitted the secession to happen. I also believe that had he lived we would not be in the pickle we're in with the Federal Reserve. I don't think that there would have been a Rothschild controlled bank left on the continent.

Read what Lincoln wrote and read his speeches. These are not the words of a man with an axe to grind. We're still 50 states strong and as f**ked as we may be we are still viewed by most of the world as freedom's last hope.

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Wang Tang
Abraham Lincoln did not start the war with the goal of abolishing slavery. About halfway through the war, he decided that the only way to win the war was to free the slaves. But slavery certainly was the main issue from the very beginning, even though freeing the slaves didn't come until halfway through the war.

Slavery was not the direct cause of the civil war, but it WAS indirectly the cause of the civil war. What directly caused the war was the Secession of the South, justified by Senator John Calhoun's idea of State's Rights. State's Rights was not the cause of the Civil War, it was only justification.

The real reason why the South wanted to secede was the Free State, Slave State Issue. In 1854 Congress thought they had solved the problem with the Kansas-Nebraska Act which stated that all new states would use popular sovereignty to decide if it would become a Slave or Free State. Popular Sovereignty was when the people of the state would all vote on whether to make the state free or slave.

When Kansas attempted to vote on becoming a Free or Slave state, people from Nebraska would come over to Kansas just to vote to swing the vote a certain way and then go back to Nebraska. This caused outrage from both sides, notably John Brown, who went around killing slave supporters.

The economy of the industrial North was also much more productive than the rural South, and there were many more Southerners migrating North than Northerners migrating South. Then, when Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860, the South, feeling politically powerless, and losing citizens to migration, seceded from the Union.

So yes, slavery 100% was the issue.

Nah maybe 10%.... 90% was under the high tariffs imposed by the federal government. Northern Industrialists wanted control over the south, land tax etc....

The only real war over slavery was 6 months before the civil war, and that was with John Brown, he didn't start the civil war, the US hung him...

The US Civil War was caused by Abraham Lincoln election and the republican party, they wanted control over southern states, they didn't want them to become a sovereign nation....

[edit on 12-1-2010 by imitator]

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 09:34 PM
The War for States Rights in fact was all about slavery.

Not freeing the black slaves.

But changing there status and everyone else’s to property of the new de facto corporate government.

It was about replacing constitutional law with the United States Codes.

The fact that April 15th was the day that Lincoln was assassinated and April 15th is Tax Day should tell most observant people something right there.

After the war using various instruments like Birth Certificates, Marriage Licenses, Voter Registration Cards, Driver’s Licenses and Social Security Cards we are all established through these contracts as not just property of the state but our own property becomes the property of the state too.

Congress has almost unlimited power to regulate commerce and we are all as human beings serialized to the Department of Commerce through these various documents that eventually end up there, and through the U.S. Census which periodically keeps track of us all.

Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant and a despot who pioneered the use of de facto instrument of debt currency called the green back that eventually is what the Federal Reserve became all about. An entirely fictitious paper currency attached to nothing of intrinsic value but only a perceived value that not only enslaves us but almost the entire planet.

Yes, the Civil War was all about slavery, our slavery, and making us slaves to the corporate government and its unconstitutional creations and contracts that override it.

Get yourself free brothers and sisters, just find a way to get yourselves free before it is too late for us all.

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 09:41 PM

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 09:49 PM

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
Lincoln's primary goal was to preserve the Union. ...yes, there were slaves up north.

Slaves "up North"? There were slaves in WASHINGTON DC and the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply.

"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." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 10:00 PM
reply to post by pumpkinorange

I'm well aware of your references and Lincoln's quotes, my comment was to those that think that slaves were only in the South. There are some well educated people here, and then there are those that don't understand what was so bad about Hitler. You are obviously of the former and not the latter.

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 10:20 PM
This is what I can recall as to the reasons that lead up to the American Civil War:
When the United States of America broke away from Great Britan, the question of slavery was brought up by the contential congress. As part of a compromise for the southern states that had the largest number of slaves, the issues was dropped. When the constitution was set up there was the compromise of counting a slave as a percent of the population to prevent a state with a large slave population from having too much control over the federal government. Until the outbreak of the civil war, every time the question of ending slavery was brought up, the southern politicans held enough sway in the House and Senate to defeat the measures. The economies of the times saw a division in the country. The nothern states were more industrial in nature, and the southern states were more agricultural in nature. With the invention of the cotten gin, lead to a boom in the economy of the south, and a shift from planting crops to planting cotton on huge plantations. During that time frame there were compromises where states were being formed, and being admitted into the union. But instead of allowing the new states to be able to have slaves, they were being admitted into the Union as free states, combined with restraints on the movements of a family along with his slaves from state to state, started to bring sounds of discontent. The discussions of seccession started, as those who were for slavery, were feeling more and more confined, and the newer states were being admitted to be free states. The southern states were also looking at the federal government of overstepping its bounds, bringing up more of the state rights versus that of the federal government. When Lincoln was nominated, and looked to be elected as president of the United States of America, the thought of the southern states was that Abraham Lincoln was anti slavery. After the southern states broke away, Lincoln went to war to preserve the union and the country. It was not until the Gettysburg address that the issue of the moralality of the war was brought home, and the emancipation proclimation to declare the end of Slavery as a practice and institution.

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 10:41 PM
reply to post by sdcigarpig

That was a good synopsis, but it was actually the Battle of Antietem or Sharpsburg in Sept of 1862 that prompted Lincoln to introduce the Emancipation Proclamation. Although the battle was a "draw", it was the only highnote Lincoln had at the time.

posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 10:48 PM
Lincoln stated that if he could defeat the south w/out abolishing slavery, he would.

posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 12:14 PM

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by captaintyinknots

I was not aware of that. Could you provide a link so that I could pursue that line of though in more detail?

There is not one central link I can provide. It is something that kind of has to be pieced together, which is why i say 'some people think', because you do have to take a leap or two to get there.

The British Museum has in their posession two cheques made out to Karl Marx, signed by Nathan Rothschild, which funded the writing of the Communist Manifesto. For te record, they also funded Nietcheanism, which was the basis for Fascism.

Also, On 22 October 1806 in London he married Hannah Barent-Cohen (1783–1850), daughter of Levi Barent-Cohen (1747–1808) and wife Lydia Diamantschleifer and paternal granddaughter of Barent Cohen and wife, whose other son Salomon David Barent-Cohen (d. 1807) married Sara Brandes, great-grandparents of Karl Marx.

Marx was one of the first Europeans to support the North.

So, on the one hand Marx was funded by the Rothschilds, and on the other he was opposing their support of the south. All the while being a member of the bloodline.

Sorry, this is all very muddled, there is so much to get through. I have found more info on this subject recently as I have started to study the Rothschild bloodline. Marx was definitely in their pocket.

Send me a u2u, and I will try to get you some links. It is so hard to synopsize this one small part of the grand picture.

Marx was one of the first from Europe to claim that the South started the war.

[edit on 13-1-2010 by captaintyinknots]

posted on Jan, 13 2010 @ 09:23 PM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

You have a fairly good idea of what happened, but Lincoln had good intentions, thats why he was assassinated in the first place

Just like there was an attempt on Andrew Jackson and a successful attempt on JFK.

Lincoln was going to use the green back to pay back the bankers he borrowed money from.

Paying paper off with paper isn't exciting cause, paper is worthless.

And the Civil War did make financial slaves.

posted on Jan, 14 2010 @ 05:25 PM

Nah maybe 10%.... 90% was under the high tariffs imposed by the federal government. Northern Industrialists wanted control over the south, land tax etc....

The only real war over slavery was 6 months before the civil war, and that was with John Brown, he didn't start the civil war, the US hung him...

The US Civil War was caused by Abraham Lincoln election and the republican party, they wanted control over southern states, they didn't want them to become a sovereign nation....

Yes, the tariff issue was probably the biggest issue, but the root of the tariff issue was slavery. The South's cotton empire was fueled by slave labor, while the North's industrial economy was run by free workers. Without slaves, the Southern economy falls apart, and the North can take it over.

posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 12:52 AM
reply to post by Wang Tang

slave labor did fuel the south, but it fueled the North as well, just not on a large scale. The major reason for the tariffs was keeping the south from becoming industrialized, all this before the war......

The root of slavery was DURING the war to attack the southern economy, it was more about the southern economy than slavery. The south wanted to become a sovereign "industrialized" nation.... Had the north did nothing about southern secession, the south could become a more powerful industrialized nation than the north.

It's all about control, and here we are today, still slaves to the feds.... Maybe one day the truth shall set us free

Do not believe their lies, they are still at war with us.............. the south shall rise again.

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 11:18 AM
reply to post by captaintyinknots

Thanks for that information. It is thought provoking.

posted on Jan, 18 2010 @ 12:49 PM

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by Quickfix
reply to post by halfoldman

Not entirely true. lincoln tried to borrow the money, and the world bank(not their name back then) offered him intereswt rates of 25% and up. He refused and started printing his own money to pay for the war.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in High Places will follow, and the Money Power of the Country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war"-Lincoln

Any proof that Lincoln started printing his own money?

Cause as I figured it, Lincoln Borrowed the money and the civil war created some of the most debt. Since Lincoln was assassinated the debt stuck and everyone was screwed over.

The Civil War was a major turning point for the bankers.

There is a reason why we pay taxes on April 15th the day Lincoln died.

It is because Lincoln was going to pay the debt off with Green Backs and never got a chance.

The Free Masons chose April 15th to kind of remind us, you all failed, Lincoln was going to help you, but now you have to suffer, and suffer with us (free masons) laughing at you because you are to stupid to figure out what to do.

posted on Jan, 21 2010 @ 11:27 AM
It was about State's rights and Slavery.

posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 01:59 PM
reply to post by halfoldman

This is what I know in a nut shell. No the civil war was not about slavery. The south for what ever reason wanted to leave the union. Lincoln Know this would have been a disaster because the north got a majority of their supplies like food from the south said no you cant do that. Lincoln Knowing that his army would not beable to defeat the south enlisted the help of the slaves by granting them their "freedom" if they fought for the north. He then rode on that princaple to demonize the people of the south.

Like all wars it was about money. It just so happened to help my people. In reality Lincoln was a racist, womenizer. He just belived in the idea of a whole country from sea to sea more then he did in slavery. If he thought he could have won the war and kept slavery then he would have.

posted on Feb, 3 2010 @ 02:07 PM
Of course the American civil war was one of the many Illuminati plots to divide and conquer.What better way to get all the Money & power?

posted on Feb, 23 2010 @ 08:53 AM
reply to post by walsbg22

Wow,I've never read or heard that theory!

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in