It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Americans had won their political independence but their financial independence was in jeopardy. The international bankers had an agent in place and his name was Alexander Hamilton who wanted a central bank. Thomas Jefferson lobbied vehemently against the central bank stating it was contrary to the Constitution. However, a central bank was formed in 1781 known as the Bank of North America which was patterned after the Bank of England. The colonists wanted nothing to do with it so it folded in 1790. The international bankers countered the closing of the Bank of North America by gaining a charter for the Bank of the United States which was chartered on February 25, 1791. The Bank of France desired the formation of the US Bank also and it was chartered for 20 years. In 1826, the second bank's charter was soon to expire and presidential candidate Andrew Jackson campaigned strongly against a central bank which was owned and operated by the international banking element. Here is Jackson's opinion of those bankers: • "You are a den of vipers. I intend to wipe you out, and by the Eternal God I will rout you out...If people only understood the rank injustice of the money and banking system, there would be a revolution by morning." In 1836, the charter did expire but that was not the end of the international banking influence in this country. The Civil War was planned in England as far back as 1809. Slavery was not the real cause of the Civil War. The Rothschilds (who were heavy into the slave trade) used the slavery issue as "a divide and conquer strategy" which almost split the United States in two. The Bank of England financed the North while the Paris branch of the Rothschild bank funded the South. In 1863, the National Banking Act was passed despite protest by President Lincoln. This act allowed a private corporation the authority to issue our money. www.scionofzion.com...
Originally posted by roguetechie
reply to post by Juston
First off... The war WAS NOT about slavery! Not even a little bit!
Secondly the supposed "hero" in the entire drama (lincoln... no I won't capitalize his name as he doesn't deserve it) was the purveyor of the FIRST patriot act, otherwise known as the sedition act... Lincoln was a bigot through and through who only made the emancipation proclamation out of sheer desperation.
The civil war was about states rights pure and simple.... anyone trying to tell you different has an AGENDA.
edit to add: It is telling how "siding with the confederacy" is tantamount to being a "racist" or wanting to "own slaves" in the mind of most. Speaking as someone who has family who owned a plantation in virginia I have a couple things to say:
1. The narrative that is now being applied to slavery is in most regards a blatant fabrication! I have read the family plantation journals (which were meant to be a sort of guidebook of best practices for the next generation to use when their parents died, usually fairly young) when I compare what i read there and in other HISTORIES it doesn't add up to what pop culture tries to portray.
2. slavery was ONLY a southern thing... helpful hint here many of our ancestors came over as indentured servants. which was SLAVERY plain and simple.
The civil war was not about slavery, and those that sympathize with the confederacy/south are not "racists". The civil war was wholly caused by business interests that were locked out of the south's economic windfall by family run farms, plantations, etc agitating to set the events in motion that led to the civil war in order to gain control of the crops that they were buying at rates they didnt want to pay to make into goods in their factories.
Also... people should look into the carpet baggers that flooded south post war and took over land working the former owners to death alongside their former slaves on tiny share cropping lots. Anyone who has read the history and really GETS what they are reading gets an uneasy feeling that the civil war has DIRECT EFFECTS on the battles we are fighting today 150 years later!
It was the beginning of the federalist iron fist, as well as the beginning of government looking after the interests of a FEW big businesses over the wellbeing of the MANY citizens of this nation. It is sad how many do not realize the south was not a bunch of evil black hating rednecks.edit on 13-4-2011 by roguetechie because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by idonotcollectstamps
I think that if the south managed to suceed from the north than the rest of the states would have broken up as well. It would have been the end of an America for either side. There would be no Northern states and Southern states. We would have been wide open to attack from every country with an interest in obtaining some of this good land. Canada, Mexico, England, France and anyone else would have been here wiping the floor with whatever remained of our country. This place would have been a battlefield for a long time to come. It would probably be half Canada and half Mexico with nothing in between.
Originally posted by blair56
complete bs i don't believe this survey at all i think someone is pulling numbers out of there arse. I live in Tx and i know of racist ppl but really 38% is pushing it. That statistic isn't even close. more like 10-15
Originally posted by Blarneystoner
I think the reason that a lot of folks in the South still side with the Confederacy is not because of the Civil War but what happened after the war was over. The North raped the South, literally.
Originally posted by Viking9019
I think its pride and the culture of the south and the Confederacy was/is a major part of their culture.
Originally posted by CaDreamer
BTW it wasn't about states rights, it was about states rights to keep slavery legal. It all really got rolling with the Missouri compromise that set up a demarcation where slavery was allowed and where it wasn't. then Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) decision. when a slave went with his master to a non slave state, he declared i am free. He wasn't the court ruled that blacks are property and not people.
Lincoln did not propose federal laws against slavery where it already existed, but he had, in his 1858 House Divided Speech, expressed a desire to "arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction." -- en.wikipedia.org...
This angered the south and heartened the abolitionists. Later once he successfully ran and won the presidency, the south seceded, even before Lincoln took office. There was a strong correlation to the number of plantations in the region and Support for secession. Slavery was their bread and butter after all.
Fort Sumter was a dodge to get the south to commit to war, Lincoln sent a supply mission for "humanitarian needs" to Sumter and announced to the entire south he was doing so, forcing the south to put up or shut up. they did and attacked Sumpter before relief could arrive. ta da war.
Originally posted by TheAmused
and atm obama is dividing us not uniting us.
that isnt a great leader folks
edit on 14-4-2011 by TheAmused because: (no reason given)edit on 14-4-2011 by TheAmused because: (no reason given)