Five myths about why the South seceded

reply to post by Southern Guardian


History is full of a cruel and violent succession of events that we can often best understand by understanding the context of the times.

I don't know how old you are but Saudi Arabia did not end slavery there until I was 8 years old in 1972, and slavery has been a official and accepted part of society for several thousand years up until really just 1972.

Free range slavery still exists today, where people in statist systems are basically economic slaves, who are free to a certain extent to labor for their own upkeep, keep a portion of what they earn, but must surrender a significant portion of that in taxes back to the state that creates the paremeters and rules that govern and decide and enforce their limited freedoms, and another portion of it back to the corporations that control the goods and resources required to phsyically survive and shelter, and to insure the individual in cases where they might become a liability or burden to the state and it's corporations.

So I think it's important to understand while humanity has made some signifigant progress it still has some major problems with giving citizens in the statists system complete freedom, and indeed recent reports show that freedoms are trending downward in most nations including our own with more and more restrictive laws ending past liberties.

While yes it's an improvement over harsher systems in times gone by, the truth is that the societal constructions that make up how individual states govern their citizens are something that the citizens generally have always been taught to accept as 'natural' and that's just the way it is.

The battle for rights and to end feudalism and slavery and religious oppression has been one that has been taking place in increments for thousands of years, and it hasn't been an easy one, and there have been times when it's often taken one step forward to take three steps backwards.

Slavery was a formal part of the Constitution for all the States when the original thirteen colonies were granted the privelege by the existing fuedal system to merge into a sovereign entity that would be recognized by them.

While the North slowly industrialized the south remained mostly an agrarian society of farms and plantations.

Farming was made more profitible through the system of slavery, industry was made more efficient through a system of economic incentive, therefore one part of the nation developed according to its own needs and thinking at a faster evolutionary pace as a result, it could in essence think different and afford to think different because it arrived at a place with a new system of industry the world had never known before that made that not only possible but a nessecary part of that transformation, while the South languished behind, in part in all fairness because it was a more temperate climate where some crops could only be grown.

So the system of slavery which like it or not had never been considered morally wrong before then, still had an economic viability to it that made it morally right.

One must also cosnider the religious attitudes in general, the mostly muslim or tribal African slaves were not Christian, just like the Native Indians were not Christian and anyone who was not Christian suffered an appaling lack of status in Christian's eyes as a result.

In otherwords, because you weren't born a Christian, well, you aren't quite human, so that all factored into the equation too.

You also have to understand that Christianity itself was also slowly morphing from how Rome then the Angeligcans and Protestants intdented it to be, more and more branches of the religion were developing on their own with out the government interpreting the religon for them to construct society and as it started developing on it's own some of the sects were beginning to embrace concepts of universal equality among men fast than others were, in other words slowly realizing that just because some one did had a different skin color and wasn't originally born christian that they still should be treated with christian principles.

So a lot of transformation was taking place within society based on a lot of different social and economic aspects that varied from state to state.

The number one thing in fact that likely allowed the Union to win was the fact that it had more rapidly and thoroughly industrialized and could more efficiently fight a prolonged war, it had also developed a much more diverse commerce system and economy and could pay to fight a more prolonged war, so the South in many ways, in fact really was disatvantaged by its much more antiquated and conservative agrarian system as well as its more fundamental conservative religious beliefs.

These were the societal constructs of the day, and these things weren't considered evil by the standards that they were educated and conditioned too, and it also happened to be the way of life they are accustomed to, and well most people don't appreciate having to change the way of life they are accustomed to.

I am looking at it in the context of it's day, based on the realities on the ground of it's day, not on how you or I have been taught to view these things well over a hundred and fifty years later based on the constructions of a society that has been in and is still in a constant state of transformation.

Slavery was an ugly system that a lot more people than just the people who owned them were perpetuating and that included blacks in Africa who were capturing and selling each other into slavery as part of their own political system, the merchants buying and shipping them, the people auctioning and selling them.

I have no doubt that some of my ancestors were slaves, because no matter what color you are or where you are from, only the royal and noble blood lines have never been subjected to living as slaves, so most of us evolved from ancestors that at some point in time were slaves, somewhere in the world under some system in some state.

I know illegal slavery exists still to this day, people are kidnapped and sold to wealthy people in far away places who do live in the kind of environment where they can hide that they are keeping people as unpaid captive servants against there will, I know that a few people in the United States are still getting caught for having bought human beings in this process and keeping them against their will.

But I also know that their is an alternative lifestyle here and throughout the world where people volunteer to in essence become slaves to another willingly because they want to live a life where they are responsible for nothing, have to make no decisions and have structure and discipline simply because its how they would prefer to get through this life.

I even know that a fair number of Slaves here in America did not want to be freed and were terrified at the prospect of giving up the only way of life that they had ever known and finding a place they could live that was their own and a way to feed and clothe themselves, and I know that the Government did very little to help them in this awful transition, and that it was made more awful because many of them had to make that transition in an environment where they weren't welcome, and weren't helped, and weren't viewed as equals.

So as noble as it might seem that some people imagine the war was fought to free the slaves, in reality this total neglect of them once they were free and the lack of support provided to them in that transition clearly displays that they were nothing more than political chips and pawns in a grand power play that no one really cared about because if they had been cared about help would have been provided to help them transition into a free and integrated society.

So even the North in it's alleged kindness was incredibly calaous and cruel in the process, that in many cases only added insult to injury to those who were slaves.

The system was imperfect then, and the system is imperfect now, and none of us, no matter what color or party have the rights, freedoms, opportunity and respect we all should fairly have, and sadly that's not getting better but getting worse.

I also know the Southern States did want to break away in the 1820's, it's documented, and it wasn't over slavery, it was over the debt and how it was being handled.

I also know through research I and many members have been conducting in my All Roads Lead to Rome thread, through letters that we have discovered tucked away in a Southern University from the London Bankers to the President of the United States and the Governors that several of the Southern States and at least one of the Northern States were in critical default on their loans and stock and bond payments and it was at a crisis level for both the North and the South at that time.

So I know there is so, so much more to this story than Slavery, I know it, because I know there is so much more to all of our history, combined history than we have been told, and I have been working tirelessly to uncover it and share it, in my own attempt to make the world a better place not then, for them, but now for all of us.

I know more importantly that there is a huge temptation to avoid our responsibility to improve our positions in this world by pointing to a period in time that was even worse, or pointing to a nation or state that is presently worse, and declaring our self in fine shape and in no need to try to make the improvements we desperately need and deserve, so I reject the emotional temptation to form self defeating opinions and view processes through that emotional lense, that distorts what really transpired in the past and what really transpires in the future.

The truth of it is while slavery might be an emotionally offensive thing to people who would reject it and get free of it, it certainly isn't to those who would impose it through force on others, if your enemy is not thinking in emotional terms but cold calculating ones, well they are going to beat you every time, because you are never going to muster the presence of mind in your emotionally heightened state that they enjoy in a cold calculating one.

What really did occure is then obscured by these emotional hot button lines that divide the discussions about them.

The South did not break away over slavery, and the North didn't fight for it's return over slavery either, pretending otherwise because it makes one side seem more virtuous and proper is a falacy, because the truth is if the North meant well, the blacks would not have suffered what they did another 100 years without equal rights and without equal protections and without equal opportunity and they surely did and since the victorious party was in control, well that my firend is on the victors.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

History is full of a cruel and violent succession of events that we can often best understand by understanding the context of the times.

It certainly is, as I already pointed out towards our territorial conquests of Northern Mexico and among native american lands where thousands of people lost their lives. History is indeed full of violent events, it is just a reality, it is an indication of how we as humans evolved and to what point at what time.

My issue here is not about people living their lives based on the depressive past. We should learn, not dwell. My issue comes into play when people attempt to play down evident events of past to add as evidence to an argument. That to me is dishonesty.

Slavery was a formal part of the Constitution for all the States when the original thirteen colonies were granted the privelege by the existing fuedal system

This didn't make it right or in anyway justified, something you still fail to understand. It is also hypocritical for you to argue that slavery was constitutionally acceptable of the time, while arguing that the federal government was stripping southerners of their rights. It is a contradiction.

The South did not break away over slavery,

That is yours and others opinions here on this forum, you have offered nothing really of evidence beyond that.

North didn't fight for it's return over slavery either,

Lincoln and his federal counterparts were concerned about maintaining the Union. I am well aware of this.

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Then it seems we are in agreement. The Civil War was fought because the southern states tried to secede from the Union. It can be argued that the reason they wanted to secede was slavery; it can be argued that the reason was tarrifs, economic policies, Congressional representation, etc. or a combination of factors. But what is clear is that the reason the Civil war was fought over a state's right to secede, regardless of the reason they may wish to leave the Union.

No, it can't be argued. The seceding states announced that they were seceding over slavery. I understand that this makes a lot of Lost Causers very antsy, and they want something that is somehow more "noble" to the modern observer, but no, that was it. It was slavery. They said so, all over the damned place.

Bottom line is, once you are in the clutches of the United States, you will never be free to leave. Proponents of the North American Union in Canada and Mexico should pay close attention to that fact.

Are there any such proponents? So far all I've ever seen are opponents, who seem to have invented it our of thin air, just so they can have something to rail about.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian


This didn't make it right or in anyway justified, something you still fail to understand. It is also hypocritical for you to argue that slavery was constitutionally acceptable of the time, while arguing that the federal government was stripping southerners of their rights.

Imho having listened impartially to this intra US discussion with great interest, you have misrepresented PT's argument and reasoning in this sentence, compounded with an accusation that he fails to understand something pretty basic and unnecessary to the discussion, right or wrong regards slavery is irrelevant now, you are discussing 150 year old arguments the structure and reasoning is important now not the ethics.

To clarify I am not pro state rights, racist, right wing, Southern or in any way against you or your point of view, I just believe that the US civil war was a creation and tool of the European elite by which I mean religions, royalty and bankers.

If, as England intimated it wanted, possibly being perfidious as was its want, the South had peacefully seceded the Euro Cartel would have financially induced a war between North and South 30/40 years later that would be on a par with the 14/18 European Civil War.

As always in affairs of man follow the money and prestige.

reply to post by mnemeth1

I contend the EXACT OPPOSITE is true, and it is the only logical position supported by the evidence. Slavery was a cover for states rights, and not vice versa.

That is exactly what the Southerners I have talked to said. This includes my two very old neighbors who are civil war historians and whose father fought in the civil war. Those two guys can tell you where ever battle was fought in the neighborhood and a lot of other stuff not in the "official history"

reply to post by schuyler

He's obsessed with race, and he's a typical left wing college professor....

Enough said look at what the left wing educators did to the REAL history of the First American Thanksgiving. The actual history does not support the socialist theme so it had to be changed into the drivel that is now taught to every school child.

In his 'History of Plymouth Plantation,' the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent." The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, "all had their hungry bellies filled," but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first "Thanksgiving" was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.... mises.org...

...William Bradford was the governor of the original Pilgrim colony, founded at Plymouth in 1621. The colony was first organized on a communal basis, as their financiers required. Land was owned in common. The Pilgrims farmed communally, too, following the "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" precept.

The results were disastrous. Communism didn't work any better 400 years ago than it does today. By 1623, the colony had suffered serious losses. Starvation was imminent.

Bradford realized that the communal system encouraged and rewarded waste and laziness and inefficiency, and destroyed individual initiative. Desperate, he abolished it. He distributed private plots of land among the surviving Pilgrims, encouraging them to plant early and farm as individuals, not collectively.

The results: a bountiful early harvest that saved the colonies. After the harvest, the Pilgrims celebrated with a day of Thanksgiving -- on August 9th.
Unfortunately, William Bradford's diaries -- in which he recorded the failure of the collectivist system and the triumph of private enterprise -- were lost for many years. When Thanksgiving was later made a national holiday, the present November date was chosen. And the lesson the Pilgrims so painfully learned was, alas, not made a part of the holiday.

Happily, Bradford's diaries were later rediscovered. They're available today in paperback. They tell the real story of Thanksgiving -- how private property and individual initiative saved the Pilgrims.... freedomkeys.com...

PRIMARY SOURCES FOR "THE FIRST THANKSGIVING" AT PLYMOUTH

There are 2 (and only 2) primary sources for the events of autumn 1621 in Plymouth : Edward Winslow writing in Mourt's Relation and William Bradford writing in Of Plymouth Plantation www.pilgrimhall.org...

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

You also have to understand that Christianity itself was also slowly morphing from how Rome then the Angeligcans and Protestants intended it to be, more and more branches of the religion were developing on their own with out the government interpreting the religon for them to construct society and as it started developing on it's own some of the sects were beginning to embrace concepts of universal equality among men fast than others were, in other words slowly realizing that just because some one did had a different skin color and wasn't originally born christian that they still should be treated with christian principles.

AHHHhhhh....

That explains something I was wondering about. The "Church" was no longer under the control of the elite. (Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury

The Committee for Economic Development, as early as 1945 decided to do away with America's agrarian society and by 1974 they had by and large succeeded in doing so. The human cost of CED’s plans were exacting and enormous. CED’s plans resulted in widespread social upheaval throughout rural America, ripping apart the fabric of its society

The reason is obvious and succinctly put by Lenin, the founder of the Russian revolution:

' The Socialist Revolution in the US cannot take place because there are too many small independent farmers there. Those people are the stability factor. We here in Russia must hurry while our government is stupid enough to not encourage and support the independent farmership.'

The really interesting fact is Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson added Churches to section 501c3 of the tax code in 1954. The effects of 501c3 were devastating because of the restrictions placed on 501c3 churches. 501c3 churches are prohibited from addressing, in any tangible way, the vital issues of the day. In other words Johnson muzzled the only voice rural society had. The voice of the American people has since been replaced by United Nations/Corporate directed international NGOs thanks to Maurice Strong.

By destroying the fabric of US society and removing independent farmers, the elite have returned us to a state where we are completely dependent on the Government's "Good will" for survival. The last moves in this game were played out in the last couple of years.

The just passed Food Safety Law does away with independent farmers and Food Sovereignty. Do not fool yourself this law WILL include private gardens eventually if its wording does not do so already.

Obamacare's change in the 1099 tax law hamstrings our life blood, the small businesses who employ half of American workers . "Small businesses contribute much more to the U.S. economy and society as a whole than can be calculated just from the spending and profit that they generate. These businesses tend to be more economically innovative than larger companies; more able to respond to changing consumer demand; and more receptive to creating opportunities for women and minorities; and activities in distressed areas...."


FARMING IN THE USA.

1900
41 percent of workforce employed in agriculture

1930
21.5 percent of workforce employed in agriculture;
Agricultural GDP as a share of total GDP, 7.7 percent

1945
16 percent of the total labor force employed in agriculture;
Agricultural GDP as a share of total GDP, 6.8 percent

1970
4 percent of employed labor force worked in agriculture;
Agricultural GDP as a share of total GDP, 2.3 percent

2000/02
1.9 percent of employed labor force worked in agriculture (2000); Agricultural GDP as a share of total GDP (2002),
0.7 percent

Source: Compiled by Economic Research Service, USDA. Share of workforce employed in agricul ture, for 1900-1970, Historical Statistics of the United States; for 2000, calculated using data from Census of Population; agricultural GDP as part of total GDP, calculated using data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. www.ers.usda.gov...

Never curse a farmer with your mouth full

reply to post by Southern Guardian

This didn't make it right or in anyway justified, something you still fail to understand. It is also hypocritical for you to argue that slavery was constitutionally acceptable of the time, while arguing that the federal government was stripping southerners of their rights. It is a contradiction.

Actually I will address the two latter points first and then the former last.

It is also hypocritical for you to argue that slavery was constitutionally acceptable of the time

Slavery was not only constitutionally acceptable at the time, it was a legal, lawful practice and an integral and vital part of the commerce system, so this is a fact, and there is nothing untoward, false, shady or hypocritical in stating a fact.

Because it was an integral part of the commerce system, changing it had real implications that would and did have a significant impact on not just commerce but everyone using or taking part in that system of commerce.

Because the slaves were in essence primarily employed in the harvesting of commonly used commodities, the price of those commodities were fixed based on that cost of producing them with cheap slave labor. So in essence once you began harvesting those commodities in a more expensive way this cost naturally has to be passed on in the pricing structure in order to continue to make it a economically profitible venture.

So now like it or not, you the consumer in a state or a nation that does not use slave labor is going to have to pay an appreciable amount more of your earnings for this commodity.

So in essence even people who did not morally approve of the system benefited from the system, and would not benefit from the ending of the system economically because that would require them to pay and surrender more of their own wages and earnings to obtain these commodities in the future.

This is in part what enable slavery to thrive as a viable aspect of commerce, one that everyone but the slaves benefited from.

Further because the Southern States were burdened with tremendous international debt, and the commerce they were conducting to pay those debts were slave labor based, changing to a different more cost intensive system would only make it harder to pay that debt, through added costs and production levels that likely would decrease in the transition, as someone using 300 trained slave hands, now had to advertise for, hire, and train 300 paid hands to do the job, while having to float the cost of that massive unforseen out lay that would reguire paying for it, prior to recieving the profits that the cost would be charged against.

These are all aspects of the system that looking at through an emotional prisim neglects and the people perpetuating this system weren't looking at it through an emotional prisim, they were looking at in this context.

Slavery was a legal, lawful, and institutionalized part of the commerce system.

while arguing that the federal government was stripping southerners of their rights. It is a contradiction.

This is where your argument not only becomes a false one but a very poorly thought out one.

The Federal Government was not stripping JUST southerners of their rights, but northerners too. So in essence you are making it seem like this was a selective process that just hurt, and was just aimed at the people who were rebelling against what the Federal Government was doing.

So once again you are trying to not only take out of true context what was occuring but your are basing it unspokenly on the suggestion that the right the Federal Government was trying to take away from the South was to own slaves and that it was a progressive and noble step that everyone should have welcomed.

Yet at the same time you readily concede that the Federal Government was not trying to take away this right, did not fight the war to try to take away this right, because the overwhelming evidence certainly indicates on all accounts that this is such a true statement you have to concede it.

So in order to make your emotional based argument you have had to resort to your presumption because Lincoln came from an abolinitionist state, and belonged to an abolitionist party, and the timing of the secession happened at the same time, that it was over a profound fear that Lincoln would try to take away the right to own slaves, therefore it must have been about the Federal Government taking away a right, that only Southerners were excercising.

Now in all fairness I can see where you might be inclined not just for the sake of your argument but from simple logic to believe that as an unspoken truth, but you are basing that assumption on only that portion of the facts generally known and made available to the public.

Now here is the Lincoln part of the equation and American politics you don't know and most people don't.

Letters we have uncovered from the London Bankers to the President of the United States clearly make it evident that the Bankers begin their correspondence with them to reach certain basic understandings before they get elected.

In other words the Bankers are heavily involved in the pre election and election process because ultimately the Bankers are relying on the President to make sure each State's Governor makes sure each State pays it's individual and seperate lines of credit payments, and stock and bond investments, and if they are late, slow to pay, or unwilling to pay, that the President's function is to ensure that payment for the benefit of the over all enterprise of all the other states and the district of Columbia who's own credit rating is partially based and largely based on each state's continued willingness to pay and pay in a timely way.

In other words Mississippis refusal to pay, could impact the decision to give Indiana the money it wants for a massive infrastructure improvement, and not just the money it wants, but the immigrants it will need to labor at it, because the European lords and states could control the flow of immigrants to the State enterprise, by literally if need be kicking them off the land and forcing them to borrow money for their passage to America to labor at that specific enterprise to pay back their passage, or refusing to let them off the land there, even if they wanted to go voluntarily.

This is what was really going on in America throughout it's expansion and hidden by the politicians many of whom were the principles in the infrastructure improvements and the commerce and markets being developed here.

Now to really understand how this system worked you have to understand how the banking system of the day worked.

The Bank of Mississippi might loan the state of Mississippi 5,000,000 to build it's roads or dredge a portion of the Mississippi River to make it passable for certain vessels of commerce. However it's only the Bank of Mississippi because the bank was erected by the London Cartel in Mississippi to in essence process and oversee the entire transaction.

It appears to be Mississippi's bank, it's not, it's London's bank, set up in Mississippi to handle Mississippi's banking!

However once this bank fulfilled it's main function, catering to this one massive state transaction and processing the repayment it also if having excess capital might decide to make investments in the nearby territory of Florida to help it expand.

Some of the earliest and biggest Banks who would invest outside of their original state enterprise where the Banks in the North East, particuarly a couple of key banks in New York and in Pennsylvania.

These banks became notorious through the use of penalties and late fees, for manipulating the debts of the State.

What caused most of the same Southern States who attempted to first break away under Jackson in the 1820's who later did break away under Lincoln in the 1860's was the manipulation of the individual State's debts through this practice of manipulation, that sometimes included altering the value of the currency that bank would issue, which was worth x amount when issued for the project but was often then worth y amount less when it came time to make critical payments, so your 100,000 payment now is a 120,000 payment etc.

In other words they had the power to make the debt grow with no regulatory prohibition preventing that, and since they were the only sources of money and loans, this gave them an obscene amount of leverage to suck the lion share of profits out of the enterprises that the States were borrowing money to set up.

The Banks in the North were even more vicious than others, and many of the loans the South had outstanding were due to these northern banks.

So yes, the Southerners who had long been trying to change and regulate this system were looking to see whether Lincoln was going to be a stooge for the Bankers as all of his predecessors since Jackson had been, or if he was going to offer them any hope in regulating this system.

Now so you can understand what a strangle hold the banks had on everything, even Lincoln himself would have to resort to issueing his own currency the Green Back in order to pay for and prosecute the war locally to the full ability he felt he needed to to win it. However so you understand how sinister the largely unknown details of our banking enterprises were, and Washington's relationship with them, you could not actually use the Green Back dollar to pay taxes or levies to the Federal Government because the Federal Government could not use it to pay it's own debts to these banks!

This my friend is what the Civil War was really about, the last ditch effort to undo the lie the forfathers told about our debt and real financial agreements with Europe.

Further proof in how this was an economic war, a war of economics and banking was the declarartion to free the slaves, which in fact was aimed at cutting into and eroding the profits of the Southern Plantation Owners, making them poorer to mount a new rebellion, or to resist occupation, and making them more dependent on the banking system that they had failed to change, as the only way to finance the transition from a slave based sytem to a paid labor based system, after basically being bankrupt of what ever independent wealth they had in their prosecution and defense of the war.

It was also a master stroke of genious because it allows someone like you to believe something good came out of the war.

Yes the blacks were elevated in status on paper, but hardly in deed, they were still second class citizens trapped in a strange and foreign land who viewed them as outsiders and inferior in most regards to one degree or another in most places, by most people.

However all of us Southern and Northern alike were stripped of rights we once had through the amendment process that followed, which elevated the businesses the corporations that these banks fund and create to control our resources and commerce to have greater rights than people, and to make us all incorporated entities of our respected states, and the states incorporated entities under the District of Columbia, and an end of the Sovereign Citizen Concept and Common Law that was originally all white males right to basically becoming an unpaid employee of the incorporated states that would have to live under the ever increasing United States Codes, and the Federal Government taking a dictatorial position of authority over the States and their own ability to independently regulate commerce and laws and limit the Federal Governments power.

The War was a disaster in essence for everyone, where everyone North and South lost their existing way of life, one could argue it was for the better for the Slaves but it would be a hundred years until they truly began to realize those benefits, but it was an epic disaster for everyone else's freedoms and was the start of the huge Military Industrial Complex that in reality threatens peace and freedom everywhere in the world today.

All masked by this fiction and debate over slavery, all often seen through it's false and dishonest prisim, and if you think there is anything hypocritical about the mean, horrible ugly truth of that, you my friend are thinking one dimensionally focused on one aspect that is and was so dishonest in it's nature and it's presentation and still is, you will never be able to realize the plain simple outcome of the civil war.

No one was freed, the people who were free lost it, and we have all been turned into free range economic slaves where the state and the corporations have absolute right, and right against us, in all things, in all ways it wants to, and the ability to use lethal force and imprisonment to make us comply to it's every edict without any honest check or ballance available to the people through an uncorrupted process that is designed to give us one.

The text book fiction of the United States Constitution died in 1861 and it has never been reborn, and we all suffer for that, and we all suffer for avoiding the truth of that, refusal to investigate the truth of that, and refusal to be honest about that, because of these dishonest emotional based arguments that people parrot and mimic that were given to them by their Masters, their present day Masters to obscure the ugly truth of it all.

Nothing hypocritical about that my friend, just cold hard facts.

Thanks.

How far into the Civil War did the North decide slavery was bad and made it illegal? Knowing the North was using slaves before the Civil War, and into it, tells me, it was not about slavery. So, now I am curious how long into the War did the North suddenly change their laws?

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

In truth, the only thing our system ever offers as an incentive to fight is the illusion you are doing it for your freedom,

Just wanted to point out that for some of us, it isn't an illusion. Just spent about three grand killing off the smallest of mine and my wifes debts. I think the most difficult part was showing her, and convincing her that money=debt, and debt=slavery. So yes, my sole motivation for continuing to do I do, is to gain my freedom.

On the topic at hand; I personally dont think it matters one whit why the civil war was fought. When it comes to an article that presumes to crush the myths that surround the reasons for it, the gist of the idea really is not to preserve for posterity the Truth. The reasons, it would seem to me, have more to do with making folk believe that those could not possibly have been valid reasons then, and so are certainly not valid reasons now......if you catch my drift.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

The seceding states announced that they were seceding over slavery.

That is the typical government school line, because they do not want to air their dirty linen.

Slavery was part of it but not the principal cause. The real cause was the balance of power between the industrialized states and the agrarian states, higher taxation of the agrarian states through tarriffs and States Rights.

HERE are the ARTICLES of the CONSTITUTION OF THAT TIME:

Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution recognizes the persons bound to service, in defining the free people of the country.

Article I., Section 9, of the Constitution provides that the slave trade shall not be prohibited before the year 1808, twenty years after its adoption.

Article IV., Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution provides for the return of fugitive slaves escaping from one State and found in another.

HERE IS WHAT WAS ACTUALLY HAPPENING

Haysville Community Library

....Jackson’s legacy is viewed with greater ambivalence today than it was even just a few decades ago. His adamant belief in slavery and white supremacy, and genocidal policies toward native Indian peoples, along with his deleterious economic policies, have seriously tainted his traditional image as defender of the common man and proponent of democratization...

Andrew Jackson and the Nullification Crisis
“On November 24, 1832, South Carolina’s Nullification Convention passed an ordinance declaring that ‘it shall not be lawful’ after February 1, 1833, ‘to enforce payment of duties imposed by the said acts within the limits of this state.’ The deadline was later extended; its purpose was to provide time for Congress to repeal the protective features in the tariff under this new ultimatum. The ordinance concluded with a threat to secede if the federal government attempted to coerce the state...

.They summoned Robert Hayne back from Washington to become governor of the state and elected [John C.] Calhoun to replace him in the Senate, showing that (despite the threat of secession) the most extreme Radicals would not be in charge. Accordingly, Calhoun resigned his lame duck vice presidency on December 28, 1832, and took his seat on the Senate floor.

“The nullifiers felt encouraged by Jackson’s support for South Carolina’s Negro Seamen Law and for the Georgians in their defiance of the Cherokees’ treaty rights, both of which might well be considered forms of nullification. But they were wrong to think he would support them this time. Jackson was the last person to back away from a confrontation, and he took nullification as a patriotic and personal challenge from a man he had already come to distrust and loathe. The president regarded the nullification movement the same way he did the national bank, as a conspiracy against republican liberty prompted and led by a demagogue’s ambition. Though he and Calhoun were both Scots-Irish cotton planters born in South Carolina, and both considered themselves heirs of Jeffersonian Republicanism, they actually differed significantly in temperament and outlook. Calhoun represented a mature slaveholding aristocracy and conceived himself its philosopher-statesman. Jackson thought and spoke as an outsider to aristocracy. He typified the slaveholding man-on-the-make made good...

...in his historic presidential proclamation on December 10. Nullification, the president told the people of South Carolina, was ‘in direct violation of their duty as citizens of the united States’ and ‘subversive of its Constitution.’ In Jackson’s straightforward logic, nullification was tantamount to secession. The president must execute the law; resistance to such execution would have to forcible. Calhoun’s arguments for peaceful nullification were specious, Jackson declared. ‘Do not be deceived by names Disunion by armed force is treason.’

...Besides exposing the impracticality of nullification, it defended the constitutionality of protective tariffs and refuted Calhoun’s theory that states retained complete sovereignty within the Union. To many contemporaries, including the dying John Randolph, it seemed Jackson had forsaken the Old Republican faith and endorsed the nationalism of Daniel Webster and John Marshall. Back in 1830, as senator from Louisiana, Livingston had endorsed a synthesis of nationalism and state rights based on a theory of divided sovereignty, shared by both state and national authority; this was the standard doctrine in the Democratic Party and would remain so for many years to come. But in December 1832, Jackson insisted that his proclamation endorse the unqualified principle of national sovereignty.

....In January 1833, the president asked Congress for power to deal with the emergency, notably by shifting the collection point for customs duties to offshore federal ships and forts, beyond the range of the nullifiers’ control. Angry Carolinians dubbed it ‘the Force Bill,’ thought the measure actually rendered an armed clash between state and federal authorities less likely. At the same time Representative Gulian C. Verplanck of New York, a Democratic free-trader, introduced a drastic tariff reduction backed by the administration, which would immediately cut duties in half. Jackson wanted to make sure of the loyalty of the rest of the cotton South, and on the tariff issue he was willing to compromise.

“The really critical issue of the situation would be the response of the other southern states to south Carolina’s initiative. Only with their support could a single state make nullification a viable precedent. In the end, this support did not come. Not even Mississippi and Louisiana, where the percentage of slaves in the population was almost as high as in South Carolina, came to their sister state’s aid,...

“While Jackson’s willingness to coerce South Carolina if necessary undoubtedly worried southerners and doughfaces, his new support for tariff reduction, his record on Indian Removal, his professions of faith in strict construction, and his undoubted devotion to slavery and white supremacy combined to reassure them.

...For the time being at least, the slaveholding South appeared content to rely for protection on normal politics, with a sympathetic president representing the will of a majority of the electorate, rather than on a novel and drastic theory about state sovereignty.”

HOW AND WHY ABRAHAM LINCOLN STARTED THE WAR OF NORTHERN AGGRESSION TO PROTECT HIS OWN POLITICAL CAREER

....Basically, the Northern capitalists wanted the U.S. government to tax (only) the South deeply, to finance the industrialization of the North, and the necessary transportation-net to support that. In those days, there was no income tax. The federal government received most of its revenue from tariffs (taxes) on imported goods. The Southern states imported from England most of the manufactured goods they used, thus paid most of the taxes to support the federal government. (The Northerners imported very little.)


For anyone who wishes confirmation of what I have said--and to learn the important details, please read John S. Tilley's "Lincoln Takes Command," and Ludwell Johnson's "North Against South/An American Iliad." Both books are available new from Confederate booksellers. For those who (for shame!) do not at presently patronize Confederate booksellers, Tilley's book is currently published by Bill Coats, Ltd. in Nashville (in 1991); and Johnson's by The Foundation for American Education, P.O. Box 11851, Columbia, SC 29211 (in 1995). Your local bookseller should be able to order a copy for you.

So it is pretty darn clear the fight was over unfair taxation, the state's right of nullification and slavery was actually a side issue. The ordinary citizen in the north would not support a war to enforce unfair taxation but they would support a war to "free the slaves" So that is the candy-coating they were fed.

The southern states seceded in 1860 but it was not until 1864 near the end of the war that Congress repealed all Fugitive Slave laws and grants black Union troops pay equal to that of white troops. In 1866 Congress passes the Southern Homestead Act, which opens public lands in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Florida to settlers regardless of race. NOTE that this kept the blacks pretty much in the south since it specified only those states. click By the end of the civil war most of the US land had already been acquired as shown in this map: www.lib.utexas.edu...

reply to post by Thepreye

, I just believe that the US civil war was a creation and tool of the European elite by which I mean religions, royalty and bankers.

You are correct It was about money and power. War is ALWAYS about money and power.

What many do not realize is slavery was on its way out due to the industrial revolution. Thanks to the Cotton gin there was a temporary resurgence but slavery was still on its way out. Machines are much much more useful than slaves or draft animals because they do not eat!

“When looms weave by themselves slavery will end.” – ARISTOTLE

[url=http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blfarm1.htm]A History of American Agriculture 1776-1990[/ur]

1830 - About 250-300 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels (5 acres) of wheat with walking plow, brush harrow, hand broadcast of seed, sickle, and flail
1834 - McCormick reaper patented
1834 - John Lane began to manufacture plows faced with steel saw blades
1837 - John Deere and Leonard Andrus began manufacturing steel plows
1837 - Practical threshing machine patented

1840's - The growing use of factory-made agricultural machinery increased farmers' need for cash and encouraged commercial farming
1841 - Practical grain drill patented
1842 - First grain elevator, Buffalo, NY
1844 - Practical mowing machine patented
1847 - Irrigation begun in Utah
1849 - Mixed chemical fertilizers sold commercially

1850 - About 75-90 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels of corn (2-1/2 acres) with walking plow, harrow, and hand planting
1850-70 - Expanded market demand for agricultural products brought adoption of improved technology and resulting increases in farm production
1854 - Self-governing windmill perfected
1856 - 2-horse straddle-row cultivator patented

1862-75 - Change from hand power to horses characterized the first American agricultural revolution
1865-75 - Gang plows and sulky plows came into use
1868 - Steam tractors were tried out
1869 - Spring-tooth harrow or seedbed preparation appeared

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I think we just have a slight miscommunication. As I understand it, your main point seems to be that slavery was a prime motivator for the southern states to secede. I'm not disputing that, although we may disagree as to how much that was a factor in their decision. You pointed out, with sources , that many southern states listed slavery as part of their declarations of independence, but they listed other reasons as well.

You pointed out that other attempts at secession were also quashed, even though they had nothing to do with slavery. One notable exception would be where the 48 counties of West Virginia seceded from Virginia. You mentioned that Lincoln himself was prepared to accept slavery as long as the Union stayed together.

To me, that just seems to lead to one inescapable conclusion: the war was fought because the states seceded. Whether that decision was based on slavery, or economics, or federal policy, or the price of cotton; the reason they decided to secede was immaterial to the Union. If the states tried to secede, the Union would use force to keep them. If they didn't try to secede, no war would have been fought.

You seem intent on demonizing the southern states over slavery, and I'm not defending them over that. Of course, slavery is one of those evils that has been with us a long time, and it's far from being eradicated today. If anything, slavery in its current form is flourishing. But slavery in its previous incarnation was becoming obsolete. It was going the way of the stagecoach in the face of the railroad. If the southern states had not seceded, slavery would not have lasted more than 30 years (my estimation, no sources ). If they had successfully left the Union, maybe add another decade or two.

So why try to fight a war, that you have a slim chance of winning, to try to preserve an institution that's doomed anyway? Especially when you can keep that institution by not fighting?

I'm sure there is revisionist history happening on both sides of this issue. In Virginia, we had to study Virginia history in grade school. As I recall, the book we had dealt a lot with the social and economic reasons for the war, and probably downplayed the slavery aspect. I can't help but think a text on Massachusetts history would reverse the emphasis. But as reasonable adults exchanging ideas here, I think we can try to look beyond the propaganda we were fed in our younger days.

Of course the Union side of it is going to say that it was all about slavery, whether that was true or not. What are they supposed to say? "OK, men, I want you to charge those cannons to maintain the high tarrifs on cotton! It's what God wants!"

I guess the reason I get so worked up over this is that I think states should have the right to leave the union, if they choose. I look at the US today, with it's endless wars of aggression, the fiat currency manipulated by the banks, the debt slavery of the IRS, and the constant eroding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and I feel like, "This is not what my state signed up for in 1776." I think it's kind of sad to think that the Civil War was only fought over slavery. Hundreds of thousand of people killed and crippled, untold destruction, only to kill off something that was dying anyway. And in the process, we permanently lost the only peaceful means of escape we had of banking cartels like the Federal Reserve.

And on a personal note, Guardian, I want to say how much I appreciate you discussing this with me. I always enjoy discussions with intelligent people that disagree with me. I believe that it's an excellent opportunity learn. Same for you, WalkingFox. Sorry I haven't replied to you directly, but I think I’ve covered your comments as well, and I feel I've probably rambled too much here as it is. At least it seemed to take me a long time to type all this.

reply to post by VictorVonDoom

If the southern states had not seceded, slavery would not have lasted more than 30 years (my estimation, no sources ). If they had successfully left the Union, maybe add another decade or two.

You are very correct slavery was on its way out. I am sure it was listed as part of the reason since it was a hotly debated subject in the North but as you said it was not the real reason.

Here is your thirty years of Agricultural history after the Civil War.

A History of American Agriculture 1776-1990
1865-75 - Gang plows and sulky plows came into use
1868 - Steam tractors were tried out
1869 - Spring-tooth harrow or seedbed preparation appeared

1870's - Silos came into use
1870's - Deep-well drilling first widely used
1874 - Glidden barbed wire patented
1874 - Availability of barbed wire allowed fencing of rangeland, ending era of unrestricted, open-range grazing
1880 1880 - William Deering put 3,000 twine binders on the market
1884-90 - Horse-drawn combine used in Pacific coast wheat areas

1890's - Agriculture became increasingly mechanized and commercialized
1890-95 - Cream separators came into wide use
1890-99 - Average annual consumption of commercial fertilizer: 1,845,900 tons
1890 - 35-40 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels (2-1/2 acres) of corn with 2-bottom gang plow, disk and peg-tooth harrow, and 2-row planter
1890 - 40-50 labor-hours required to produce 100 bushels (5 acres) of wheat with gang plow, seeder, harrow, binder, thresher, wagons, and horses
1890 - Most basic potentialities of agricultural machinery that was dependent on horsepower had been discovered

[these would probably have come into use a lot sooner if War had not interrupted progress]
1910-15 - Big open-geared gas tractors came into use in areas of extensive farming
1910-19 - Average annual consumption of commercial fertilizer: 6,116,700 tons
1915-20 - Enclosed gears developed for tractor
1918 - Small prairie-type combine with auxiliary engine

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

....Letters we have uncovered from the London Bankers to the President of the United States clearly make it evident that the Bankers begin their correspondence with them to reach certain basic understandings before they get elected.

In other words the Bankers are heavily involved in the pre election and election process because ultimately the Bankers are relying on the President to make sure each State's Governor makes sure each State pays it's individual and seperate lines of credit payments....

It is amazing. Once you realize the bankers are behind most of the historic events and what is happening today, the evidence is overwhelming!

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

It is amazing. Once you realize the bankers are behind most of the historic events and what is happening today, the evidence is overwhelming!

At the risk of getting way off topic here ...

What I find more amazing is that the modern banking system began immediately after the Knights Templar finished their excavations at King Solomon's temple. It's like they found an instruction manual for how to enslave the world through banking. Evidence suggests that many of the Knights holed up in Switzerland after Black Friday, and every since Switzerland has been a major world banking center that can somehow remain neutral in every war. Hitler never seemed to have a problem bulldozing neutral countries in WWII, but for some reason he never attacked Switzerland, even though its vast financial resources could have powered his war machine for years.

reply to post by crimvelvet


What we have discovered through these Memorials and other legal documents is the disturbing truth of a system that has been designed to work against it us from the onest aimed at progressively seeking it's utter dominance and perpetuation to have all say and all rights in all things against all others in all things through a process that is designed to ensure it is impossible without risking liberty, life and limb to challenge it.

The Civil War was one of the more pivotal event from the 'sales pitch' notion of a free society based on average common people having sovereign rights, to one of a authoritarian society where the State functions as a dictatorial beast that can create through edict and decree any law or rule it wishes to maintain it's absolute authority and system of control, through a deceptive system based on lies, intimidation of armed force, extortion and corruption that can never be undone or broken except through attempts that involve massive societal upheaval that results in a massive loss of life and property for the common people being victimized by these despots and tyrants.

Even when these massive upheavals do occur, which often lead people to the comfort of the notion that there is a means possible a drastric remedy to end that dishonest dictatorial freedom robbing control based system, they turn out to be led by people who simply want to restructure the system into a more palatable version to resell as not being what it is, so that it can be perpetuated through new 'public' management, that exists as always to hide the very powerful principles and investors and owners of it, in the shadows, who manipulate how the system maintains and keeps attaining that awesome power that is almost virtually impossible to ever completely root out or destroy.

While many of the people caught up in those most violent upheavals and attempts might have honest or lofty intentions at the onset, at the end of the day, when they realize these shadowy groups of royals, religious institutions, and wealthy oligarchs control the worldwide system of commerce and resources and that there is little hope at prosperity or success without joining in their system by letting them retain hidden control, they do for their own posterity consigning the rest of us to a life of lies, ever decreasing liberty and hope and opportunity to hide the nature of the true pact they have made with this beast to ensure their posterity.

It's a dilema until now the average common person has never fully understood because until now the average common person has never had the power to do what we are in essence doing, having the opportunity to communicate simotaneously with everyone everywhere to help them understand the true nature of our world.

Which sadly I am sorry to say, has placed us presently in the greatest jeapardy we have ever been in, in history, because for the first time in history, we actually in theory have a chance to end and undo this system once and for all.

A system protected with a series of sophisticated monitoring and spying equipment, orbiting satellites, automated remote control killing machines in orbit, in the air, on the ground and in the oceans, that employs millions upon millions of armed henchmen, a vast prison complex, and controls the world's natural resources and the legal means in wich they can be obtained.

A system that knows there are far to many of us, even with all these things at their disposal to ensure it's survival if at this one juncture in time we can use their own technology designed ultimately to enslave us totally (the total monitoring of everything we do through a world wide computer system) to first expose them and what they are doing. By using it ourselves for that means before they can fully develop it for their ultimate means.

So we really do stand at a juncture where ultimately there safest and surest bet is a massive violent depopulation to quell any notions or hope for freedm and independence once and for all, and our best bet is to unite once and for all into the well educated 'mob' they have always feared and always tried to negate through misinformation and controlling our outlook and opinion and understanding of things by controlling the media and education and religious process that gives us our opinions and information and outlook on things.

So we stand temporarily for the briefest of periods at a pause in a great game that has long been played, where for one brief moment we finally have one slender chance to finally expose, and defeat and eliminate these people, their systems of control, and their control of the resources that make it all possible for them to effect this.

Which is why it truly serves none of us well, to keep pretending that any of these systems are honest, noble or just, or provide us any reasonable means to correct or influence them, and to keep arguing endlessly about the dogmas that they give us to purposefully divide us and give us false hope and to create the illusion we have a real hope for a better future in continuing to adhere to their systems and allowing them to lord over us in this fashion that they have so violently and deceitfully done for mellenia now in various disguises and guises which is always a rose, is a rose by any other name.

It is now, in this time, in this place, where if humanity is ever to know true freedom and the hope of a peaceful and free world that it falls to you, to I, to each and everyone of us, to recognize our own unique opportunity, obligation and responsibility in seeing that ever ellusive promise and dream always denied us finally realized, by at last realizing what is going on in this world, how we are being ruled, who has been benefiting from it, and that they truly will go to any murderous freedom robbing length to keep benefiting from it from now until the end of the world.

So I hope more and more of us will dare to be honest, dare to challenge ourselves, so that we might come to realize that truth, that insanity by definition is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, so at last we can step outside of that box that they have placed us in to hide the truth of their actions, to see them for what they are, and them by extension, and finally do the one thing so many people, have fought in vein for so long to achieve, get ourselves free by daring to think and do differently what we have never fully or ever had the opportunity to do until this one point in time.

History evolves and revolves around key pivotal points in time, and we certainly are living in ultimately it's most important right now.

It is right now we can alter and determine our future, and that has a whole lot of people scared for a whole lot of reasons, our Masters know it, and more and more of us know it.

Should we dare to fight that good fight, we do not have to go quietly into that good night that they so wish as a dream by visiting upon us our own worst nightmare, a state that can dictate everything it wants at all times and places in all ways, with no possibility to challenge it, or confront it, and no where to hide or escape from it.

This is something we should all be thinking about right now, because we might never be given the opportunity again to even think about it, let alone talk about it, let alone do anything about it.

Thanks!

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Slavery was not only constitutionally acceptable at the time, it was a legal, lawful practice and an integral and vital part of the commerce system, so this is a fact, and there is nothing untoward, false, shady or hypocritical in stating a fact.

My comments about hypocracy was not regarding the legal status of slavery. It was regarding your arguments that slavery were merely an acceptable part of society at the time, while arguing that southern citizens were being stripped of rights by the federal government. You can make the argument that it was either acceptable or not, there should be no line dividing the rights of white southerners at the time and black southerners at the time in arguments.

The Federal Government was not stripping JUST southerners of their rights, but northerners too. So in essence you are making it seem like this was a selective process that just hurt,

I am making this selective? You are trying to push aside the issue of slavery in the confederate states to argue that they were being unfairly treated by the federal government at the time. That is being selective.

So once again you are trying to not only take out of true context what was occuring

What was occuring was:
The confederate states intended to leave the Union to preserve the blessings of slavery.
The Union had no intention of letting the South slip away.

You are arguing the the Union was essentially enslaving southern citizens at the time and this was why the confederate states were justified to leave.

Do you see the issue with this argument here? You have been arguing for a nation that intended to break away from the Union while intentionally preserving the institution of slavery.

You have tried to use legal arguments to defend slavery at the time, you have made numerous attempts to seperate those of the rights of black american citizens and white american citizens. This is the issue in your argument.

but your are basing it unspokenly on the suggestion that the right the Federal Government was trying to take away from the South was to own slaves

Nope. Had you read what I actually wrote in my previous responses, Lincoln and his federal counterparts were concerned about maintaining the Union. The Confederate states left out of fear that the Lincoln administration would move to abolish slavery. They did not believe Lincoln when he clearly explained he had no intention to. If you can indicate to me where Southern representitives actually stated that the federal government would preserve slavery, by all means.

Yet at the same time you readily concede that the Federal Government was not trying to take away this right,

That was the original intention of the Republican party prior to the general elections. They consisted of abolitionist whigs of the North, mostly from business interests to rid the south of free labour. When the elections came close, Lincoln changed the tone of the Republican party about slavery to gain votes and to maintain the Union but southern confederate delegates did not believe him, hence in the declarations, the institution of slavery was made clear. The confederate states left the Union over the institution of slavery, the civil was started on the issue of slavery. Secession and states rights all arised from the issue of slavery at the time. An issue at core to the confederate states.

Now in all fairness I can see where you might be inclined not just for the sake of your argument but from simple logic to believe that as an unspoken truth, but you are basing that assumption on only that portion of the facts generally known and made available to the public.

What is not known to the public? You fail to reference any quotations of declarations of that time.

In other words the Bankers are heavily involved in the pre election and election process because ultimately the Bankers are relying on the President to make sure each State's Governor makes sure each State pays it's individual and seperate lines of credit payments,

So the confederate government was onto some banking conspiracy, and you have absolutely nothing to reference that by?

What caused most of the same Southern States who attempted to first break away under Jackson in the 1820's who later did break away under Lincoln in the 1860's was the manipulation of the individual State's debts

You are arguing about events that occured 40 years prior to the Southern states seceeeding. As for the bank wars, which I assume you are trying to discuss here, second bank of the United states was left with opposition by the Whigs at the time, not really by the Southern Democrats. Andrew Jackson himself was a Southern Democrat born and raised in the South. It should also be taken to note that Jackson won the Southern vote handly in 1824 and won the southern states more so (All of them at the time) including some northern states in 1828. So, your argument here, that the South attempted to break away in 1820 already makes little sense to history, considering that it was under Andrew Jackson the bank wars occured, and it was the whigs who were evidently in opposition. No evidence of whether the South attempted to seceed at any time during that period.

Maybe you are talking about the issue of South carolina that occured in the 1830's with the tariffs? This issue was dealt with through negotiated by congress in 1832 for a compromise of the tariffs and following this, South carolinian authorities agreed and declared it a victory. They never reacted again to any issue until 30 years after.

I really don't understand why insist on typing long threads about an events that are not recorded in history. You make these claims, but you have nothing to show for them. Jewish bankers, imaginary european overlords. It sounds like a deep fantastical story, and maybe a great alternative to the much hated slavery issue, but it has no basis to it. You show nothing for it but your own words.