Was the American civil war our first 'false flag'

After watching this video, and reading some of the comments below. Got me to thinking. Do Americans really know what the civil war was all about?

First answer people will say is slavery. Do you think they are correct ?

Was everyone in the South a slaver owner ?

For the Southern 1% At the time to have gotten to rich off the backs of slavery. Seems to me victory would have been all, but guaranteed for them.

Since they 'had' so much money, and I figured they would have made there slaves fight for them.

But the reality is. The North was richer, more powerful than the south, and we all know how that turned out.

Anyhow this is the video:



www.youtube.com...

And to the comments that followed it:

thomas fleming 2 months ago It is a well known maxim that the 'the winners write the history" and those writers have consistently avoided the issue that very high tarriffs where the cause of the war. Those dishonest " historians" also gloss over that Lincoln's issues on slavery did not appear in the North until the THIRD YEAR of the war when support for it was lagging. it then became merely a propaganda tool for the North's illegal war against the South. The Constitutional Republic defined by the founders died when Lincoln denied the legal right of each State's secession and illegally invaded The South. There is evidence that the New England states considered secession twice prior to the war of Northern aggression. When they did so, NO ONE argued that secession was unthinkable. There is no place in the Constitution that forbids each State their sovereign right to seceded. In fact, the Constitution allows for such action. The South was no military threat to the North; they simply wanted to be left alone to go their own way. It was Lincoln's obsession that the big federal government sought by the Hamilton branch of the founders had to be preserved that led to the illegal war. The small government - in the vein of the Jefferson branch of the founders - suffered its first blow by Lincoln's trampling of the laws and was finished off by Wilson and FDR. NOTE: A 'civil war' is one between two factions striving to control a country. This was NOT the case with the The War Against The South. The South wanted the right to a government of their choice guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence. There's no difference between The South's fight to be free from a tyrannical government and the Colonies' struggle against an earlier tyrant.

thomas fleming 4 days ago Some valuable quotes from both sides of The War: General J.B. Gordon remarked after the war: “No. We did not want war and we did not inaugurate it. All we asked was to be let alone. But the North, which had become more populous and powerful than the South, determined to preserve her commercial interests, hence the war.” General Jubal Early remarked also: “The people of the United States will find that under the pretense of saving the life of the Nation and upholding the old flag, they have surrendered their own liberties into the hands of that worst of all tyrants, a body of senseless fanatics.” General U.S. Grant who retained his slaves until December 1866, said: “Should I become convinced that the object of the Government is to execute the wishes of the abolitionists, I pledge you my honor as a man and soldier I would resign my commission and carry my sword to the other side.” Interestingly, the Governor of N.J., Joel Parker said in 1863, “Slavery is no more the cause of this war than gold is the cause of robbery.” Finally, the U.S. Congress passed a resolution on July 23, 1861: “The war is waged by the Government of the United States, not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of interfering with the rights or institutions of the States, but to defend and protect the Union.” The senseless war that was begun in 1861 and ended after reconstruction in 1877 freed no one; it simply expanded the boundaries so that we all share the servitude. 

” General Jubal Early remarked also: “The people of the United States will find that under the pretense of saving the life of the Nation and upholding the old flag, they have surrendered their own liberties into the hands of that worst of all tyrants, a body of senseless fanatics.”

One could draw modern day parallels to this comment from the Iraq war. Since so many people classify as 9-11 as a false flag.

Then the same logic would apply to the civil war yes ?

false flag Something disguised to seem affiliated with a group OTHER THAN the one it really is affiliated with. For example, a "false flag operation" is a terrorist act committed by one group for the express purpose of discrediting another group, which is framed for it.

www.urbandictionary.com...

The south gets blamed for 'starting' the war, and well the rest is history.

And let me be clear.

I am not condoning slavery here, but the majority of people who fought for the South. Were poor folk. Just like the majority of those who fought for the North were poor folk.

Just like those who have fought in pretty much every war has been poor folk. Including up to the current wars.

When government justifies their wars. Can the 'reasoning' behind it really be trusted ?

They say 'terrorists' is the reason for the War on Terror.

They said 'Slavery' was the reason for the massive bloodshed of brother against brother here.

Obviously a great many people distrust the reasoning behind the war on terror.

But the reverse is true concerning the civil war. Slavery is a universally accepted 'truth'.

I honestly don't know what to think anymore.

When what is accepted as American history is filled with lies. Like Washington never telling a lie. Paul Revere shouting the 'British' was coming.

Fact is neither happened in real life.

I do not believe MOST wars have been fought for the stated reasons......
Another great general (Smedly Butler) tells it like it really is.......
WAR IS A RACKET......
Im sure the banking interests of England and France (both houses of Rothchilde) were well represented in the cause of the Civil War too.....

My understanding is that slavery WAS the issue but not because it was for humanitarian reasons. The South had almost free labor. The North didn't. So basically it was about economics. Getting rid of slavery was just a byproduct. Sounds a lot nicer though.

But people seem to forget.

Women' rights were virtually unheard of.

African Americans 'right' to vote was unheard of.

And the whole sale slaughter of the natives on American expansion westward.

Which in my opinion the civil war was not about slavery.

Or equality.

a reply to: intrepid

And yet there were tasks that plantation owners would rather hire day labor for than make their slaves do. When it came to loading the large cotton bales onto packet steamers for example, the work was physically risky. Plantation owners would often rather hire cheap Irish day laborers to do it because if one of the cotton bales slipped and rolled over on the laborers trying to load the bale, it would often do serious physical injuries that the laborer would not recover from.

Slaves were expensive property that many owners would rather keep from that risk to do less dangerous hard labor. So they'd pay the day expense for Irish laborers.

In a lot of cases, as I've dug deeper into the issue myself, the South was a much more complicated place than the brief overview we get taught. There were even a very few black landowners who owned slaves themselves.

All war is a symptom of man's failure as a thinking animal.
John Steinbeck

I once had read somewhere that the whole slavery issue was brought into play by Lincoln later on in the war as he was trying to win the favor of help from France and they had just recently abolished slavery. He used it as a way to convince them that they were fighting a war for justice, or human rights or something to that effect. Isn't it apparent that it was not about slavery simply because the law didn't really change until sometime after the war was over??? I am unclear about that.

a reply to: stirling

Tens of thousands of British Volunteers fought in The American Civil War..........for both sides.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Many interesting theories and conspiracies.

here's a couple to ponder.....

The Illustrated University History, 1878, p. 504, tells us that the southern states swarmed with British agents. These conspired with local politicians to work against the best interests of the United States. Their carefully sown and nurtured propaganda developed into open rebellion and resulted in the secession of South Carolina on December 29, 1860. Within weeks another six states joined the conspiracy against the Union, and broke away to form the Confederate States of America, with Jefferson Davis as President.


The plotters raided armies, seized forts, arsenals, mints and other Union property. Even members of President Buchanan's Cabinet conspired to destroy the Union by damaging the public credit and working to bankrupt the nation. Buchanan claimed to deplore secession but took no steps to check it, even when a U.S. ship was fired upon by South Carolina shore batteries.


Shortly thereafter Abraham Lincoln became President, being inaugurated on March 4, 1861. Lincoln immediately ordered a blockade on Southern ports, to cut off supplies that were pouring in from Europe. The 'official' date for the start of the Civil War is given as April 12, 1861, when Fort Sumter in South Carolina was bombarded by the Confederates, but it obviously began at a much earlier date.


In December, 1861, large numbers of European Troops (British, French and Spanish) poured into Mexico in defiance of the Monroe Doctrine. This, together with widespread European aid to the Confederacy strongly indicated that the Crown was preparing to enter the war. The outlook for the North, and the future of the Union, was bleak indeed.



In this hour of extreme crisis, Lincoln appealed to the Crown's perennial enemy, Russia, for assistance. When the envelope containing Lincoln's urgent appeal was given to Czar Alexander II, he weighed it unopened in his hand and stated: "Before we open this paper or know its contents, we grant any request it may contain."

Unannounced, a Russian fleet under Admiral Liviski, steamed into New York harbor on September 24, 1863, and anchored there, The Russian Pacific fleet, under Admiral Popov, arrived in San Francisco on October 12. Of this Russian act, Gideon Wells said: "They arrived at the high tide of the Confederacy and the low tide of the North, causing England and France to hesitate long enough to turn the tide for the North" (Empire of "The City," p. 90).

History reveals that the Rothschilds were heavily involved in financing both sides in the Civil War.

The Rothschilds & The Civil War

Of course, you can't discount that the end result of the war was the rise of the primacy of the Federal over the State. The importance of the 9th and 10th Amendments were largely ground into dust. Also, the 14th Amendment was and is the only Amendment that was ratified by a process different than all the others.

And today, the 14th is the hammer by which so many other freedoms are pounded away.

a reply to: neo96

welcome to the party

The civil war was about states rights. The slavery thing was a byproduct. Even the North had slaves at the time.

HBO John Adams: Thomas Jefferson Predicts the Civil War

This is why it happened.

Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton discuss Hamilton's plan to create a Bank of the United States

Ultimately it was about power.

The slavery issue was a rallying cry. A cause. Quite rightly so as the USA was late to abolish slavery and slavery is an abomination.

However, the US was built on elitism from the start with the black-man only getting equality comparatively recently, after the common white man, women and the native Americans. Even at independence in 1776, only the landed classes got the vote. All very (er) behind the nation independence was wrested from!

Regards

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: intrepid

And yet there were tasks that plantation owners would rather hire day labor for than make their slaves do. When it came to loading the large cotton bales onto packet steamers for example, the work was physically risky. Plantation owners would often rather hire cheap Irish day laborers to do it because if one of the cotton bales slipped and rolled over on the laborers trying to load the bale, it would often do serious physical injuries that the laborer would not recover from.

Slaves were expensive property that many owners would rather keep from that risk to do less dangerous hard labor. So they'd pay the day expense for Irish laborers.

In a lot of cases, as I've dug deeper into the issue myself, the South was a much more complicated place than the brief overview we get taught. There were even a very few black landowners who owned slaves themselves.

Bravo! You have the courage to speak the truth.

You will doubtless be pilloried as a racist, white supremacist. Not that I'm calling you that! I know the truth of the Civil war and you've highlighted one of the buried, unknown truths of that era. For example, one of the buried facts is that Blacks themselves owned African slaves...but, that's a story for another day.

But, here's the truth of the situation, at least as how I see it. It doesn't matter anymore that the true history of the US Civil war has been twisted about for political purposes. It simply has and perhaps in another 100 years, minds will be sufficiently "open" to examine the facts outside the influence of the current political environment, or perhaps not. It really doesn't matter anymore. The "South" is dead, never to rise again. One truth of the Civil war is that it was as much a culture war as it was anything else. And of course, it was, at its core, an economic war fought to preserve the monopoly of wealthy Northern industrialists, who, like the Banks today, controlled and commanded the US Government in the pursuit of the protection of their interests.

I no longer debate the causes of the US Civil War or the slavery issue that has become the cornerstone of Politically Correct revisionist history. Its pointless and with the death of the South, there's really nothing to argue for anymore.

As my son pointed out...all accepted recitations of "History" are, to one extent or another, propaganda. Truth is always the first victim of war and history is written by the victors, as we all know, or should know.

Oh don't get me wrong. Slavery was deplorable, but in the case of the Civil War, it was also used as a convenient excuse. I will also never forget that the South put themselves in a position where they allowed it to become that excuse. Because now, today when we need to start standing up for the process of federalism and states' rights more than ever, we can't because of what happened with the South and slavery.

But then again, history is written by the victors.

originally posted by: Brotherman
I once had read somewhere that the whole slavery issue was brought into play by Lincoln later on in the war as he was trying to win the favor of help from France and they had just recently abolished slavery. He used it as a way to convince them that they were fighting a war for justice, or human rights or something to that effect. Isn't it apparent that it was not about slavery simply because the law didn't really change until sometime after the war was over??? I am unclear about that.

Lincoln was like Julius Caesar in that Lincoln converted a government away from control by the people and toward a government controlled by a few at the top.

Lincoln, and the Northern Interests benefitting from the war, needed Lincoln to get reelected in 1864. Taking up Abolition was one way to get more votes.

Star and flag your thread sir.

Most people have a real black and white picture of the war. Slavery = bad and all of that.

Thing is the war was never over slavery. Lincoln said so himself numerous times. In fact, just read the diaries of any Southerner that enlisted in the confederate armies. Not one of them ever talk about joining up for the cause to keep slaves as slaves.

Almost all of them talk about a corrupt Federal government that was out of control and no longer had their citizens well being in interest. That is the reason they signed up.

Victors write the history after all, which sounds better for the history books:

"We fought the civil war to end slavery>"

"We put down a rebellion of a bunch of country folks that wanted to govern themselves."

In fact if anyone is curious, just google "Black Confederate participation" and read some of the links.

Yet it was all over freeing the slaves......how noble.

Without wanting to sound antagonistic towards you Americans across the water...
So please don't take this the wrong way...

It is no way directed at the people...


I've always had the feeling that the U.S has always been an experimentation...


One to completely test the boundaries of the people again & again for every reason under the Sun...

With the few at the top always wanting to go just a little further to see what they get away with.




It's a good thing you have your Guns, because one day you'll be pushed against the wall...


Reading this topic just adds to my suspicion!

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Without wanting to sound antagonistic towards you Americans across the water... So please don't take this the wrong way...

I don't.

One of the reasons behind this thread was to point out the US government has always been effed up.

Just didn't happen within the last decade.