Was the American civil war our first 'false flag'

Why did the South fight?
The best answer was given by a Confederate soldier: ' Because y'all are down here"

England certainly had agents in both the North and South agitating for war. England sold ships and guns to the South and loaned money to the North. Playing both sides much? The effect of the emancipation proclamation was as much to turn England and France from supporting the South as anything else. England was no longer able to openly support the Confederates afterwards.

The European powers would have gained enormously from a separated Union, particularly England who feared the growing power of America so near her Canadian possessions.

We often coin the term "powers that be" here on ATS.
That phrase was used in the Pretender lyrics from "Back on the chain gang".

Got in the house like a "Pidgeon from Hell" refers to the 1934 Robert E Howard Conan story about the dark souls that return from Hellendale to a deserted Southern plantation mansion. "The Sound and the Fury" was written in 1929 and "Gone with the wind" was written in 1936. All three novels did have references to the US Civil war.

The lyrics

descended like flies

May have source in the desecration of the tomb of Saint Narcissus and "the miracle of the flies".
Salvadore Dali created a bronze sculpture called "SAINT NARCISSUS OF THE FLIES".

IMHO the pretenders were inspired by Dali.

Of course you can interpret anything esoteric many different ways.

Try reading Debbie songs stuff.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
originally posted by: Semicollegiate

1% of the national population, North and South together, owned slaves.

390,000 divided by 9.1 million is 4.3 % not 7.5%.

95.7 % of the population of the South had no slaves.

Playing with the numbers to fit your views I see, I expected nothing less on here. As I stated before, 30% of families in the South financially benefited from slavery.

as did everyone who bought Southern products

I know, you'd like to argue that only those single slave owners benefited from slavery, and continue to conveniently leave out the many people who were dependent off those slave owners. From the wife to the children, to the businesses that benefited indirectly. It's rather silly to believe slave owners were the only ones that profited in the South.

The North also profited greatly from slavery. The North shipped slaves in, and sold them. The North shipped out their produce. 75% of the Southern economy was exported.

Let me just repeat one obvious fact people like you continue to look over. The fact that out of 9.1 million people in the south, there were 3.1 million slaves. 2 in 5 people in the South were slaves. Don't come here and try and convince me that slavery wasn't an institution the southern economy heavily depended with this obvious fact looking you in the face because that argument is a load of bull.

Slavery was an institution that was phased out peacefully everywhere else in the world.

In nearly all other nations, the government paid some form of compensation to slave-owners at the time of emancipation, but Southern slave-owners received no reimbursement of any kind when they lost an estimated $3.5 billion in 1860 dollars (about $70 billion in today’s dollars) of what Davis describes as a “hitherto legally accepted form of property.”
townhall.com...

Among the European powers, slavery was primarily an issue with their overseas colonies. The British Empire enacted a policy of compensated Emancipation for its colonies in 1833, followed by Denmark, France in 1848, and the Netherlands in 1863.[1] Most South American and Caribbean nations emancipated slavery through compensated schemes in the 1850s and 1860s, while Brazil passed a plan for gradual, compensated emancipation in 1871, and Cuba followed in 1880 after having enacted freedom at birth a decade earlier.
en.wikipedia.org...

Here comes the tariff excuse and mighty deceptive from you might I add. First of all, the Confederate States of America declared independence in December of 1860, so why are you using tariff rates in 1861, to argue as a motivation for secession for the south in 1860? Does this make any sense to you.

The Tariff of 1857, passed by the pro south democratic majority in congress, set tariffs to their lowest rates since 1816. So tariffs leading up to the first secessions of the confederacy were at their lowest rates in over 40 years:

Passed with some hope to elude the impending economic crisis, the Tariff of 1857 was the lowest tariff enacted by Congress since 1816.

historyengine.richmond.edu...

Now I trust you were referring to the Morrill Tariff right? Which only passed in congress (both the house and senate) and was adopted in March 1861, 3 months after secession of the first Confederate States.
history1800s.about.com...

Do you want to know how it passed? It passed because of absence of Pro-southern democrats in senate following secession months prior. You cannot blame secession of the south on something that had not existed in the first place, and wouldn't of existed with the presence of the South in congress at the time.

Every Southern congressman had voted against the tariff for 30 years.

What are you talking about? The majority of them voted for the 1857 Tariff. 80% in the House alone. Google it buddy. And why not? It was the lowest in 40 years.

The South was completely powerless to oppose the tariff in congress

Powerless? For the majority of the 1850's leading up to secession, the Democrats held a firm majority in congress. For example, the 35th Congress in 1857 consisted of 62% Democrat in the senate and 55% democrat in the house. The Democratic party was heavily southern. Even during the congress leading into the first civil war, the 36th congress, while majority Republican for the first time in years, democrats still held enough power to block legislation coming in. Laws concerning tariffs were the least of their worries.

In 1860, Lincoln was elected with a Republican plurality in the Senate and the Morrill Tariff had already passed the House. Enough Senators could be bought, or maybe brought into the new tariff boosted industrial power base, to pass the Morrill Tariff.

1860 election

The Republican party included a strong pro-tariff plank in its 1860 platform. They also sent prominent tariff advocates such as Morrill and Sherman to campaign in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, where the tariff was popular, by touting the Morrill bill. Both Democratic candidates, John C. Breckinridge and Stephen Douglas, opposed all high tariffs and protectionism in general.[6]

Historian Reinhard H. Luthin documents the importance of the Morrill Tariff to the Republicans in the 1860 presidential election.[7] Abraham Lincoln's record as a protectionist and support for the Morrill Tariff bill, he notes, helped him to secure support in the important electoral college state of Pennsylvania, as well as neighboring New Jersey. Lincoln carried Pennsylvania handily in November, as part of his sweep of the North.

On February 14, 1861, President-elect Lincoln told an audience in Pittsburgh that he would make a new tariff his priority in the next session if the bill did not pass by inauguration day on March 4.
en.wikipedia.org...

The Vice-President would be the tie breaker, if need be.

The motivations of Lincoln was clear, he wanted a united Union. He couldn't care less about slavery putting aside his abolitionist allies.

The war wasn't about chattel slavery. Lincoln pushed troops into Fort Sumter, the tariff collector of South Carolina's largest port, to emphasize that the North would be paid. The war was about power, North over South.

Regardless, the motivations for the south was otherwise. As for the South having any 'right' to secede or a 'right' to independence, well they lost the war, that's that. History is not fair sorry.

Might makes right. Just like slavery.

In order to save the union. Lincoln has to kill a bunch of Americans !

IMO that is not a union worth saving.

Doesn't matter how nobel the cause was sold as.

originally posted by: Cauliflower
We often coin the term "powers that be" here on ATS.
That phrase was used in the Pretender lyrics from "Back on the chain gang".

She wasn't the one that originated it.

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."

Romans 13:1

Sorry I couldn't resist.

Just to highlight one important fact here again that tends to be browsed over. The argument in this thread is that the institution of slavery wasn't a significant enough issue to have sparked the civil war. This is why the OP argued that only 1% of the US population consisted of slaveholders. He and so many others here conveniently forget that the argument is actually whether the institution of slavery was an important enough issue to the South to secede for. The fact is, there were 3.1 million slaves in the south back then and 390,000 slave holders. That's 38% of the population in South whom consisted of slaveholders and slaves. That's close to 40% of the population in the Confederacy.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

as did everyone who bought Southern products

Buying a product for consumption isn't comparable to the business owner earning money off it. Apples and oranges.

The North also profited greatly from slavery.

Where's your stats? They may have profited but how much more than the South? That's not to say the North went to war to rid of slavery in the first place. The South seceded to preserve it out of fear the North would.

The North shipped slaves in, and sold them.

The slave trade in the United States ended in 1807 with the Slave Trade Act 1807 so it's not relevant to the civil war. Now one could argue there were still slaves smuggled into the US following that act? But not at the same levels experienced towards the end or post 18th century.

Slavery was an institution that was phased out peacefully everywhere else in the world.

And it would've been peacefully phased out in the South eventually had they not seceded (probably well towards the end of the 19th century). They did however secede to preserve it:

Slavery is the first thing to be mentioned in the South Carolina declaration of immediate causes to secession in December 24, 1860. Slavery is mentioned 6 times, tariffs are not mentioned at all, although taxes are, in relation to slavery that is: avalon.law.yale.edu...

Slavery is mentioned first in the Mississippi declaration of immediate causes of secession, it is mentioned 3 times. There is no mention of tariffs or taxes: avalon.law.yale.edu...

Slavery is mentioned first in the Texas declaration of immediate causes of secession, it is mentioned 3 times. There is no mention of tariffs or taxes:
avalon.law.yale.edu...

There's more from other states, declarations of grievances:
avalon.law.yale.edu...

You want to know their reasoning for secession? Go to the declaration of grievances. Simple.

In 1860, Lincoln was elected with a Republican plurality in the Senate and the Morrill Tariff had already passed the House. Enough Senators could be bought, or maybe brought into the new tariff boosted industrial power base, to pass the Morrill Tariff.

So just to clarify here. Are you saying had the South not seceded and with the presence of Southern representation in congress, they still would not have had enough to stop the Morrill Tariff from passing? It's interesting you think the Republicans would've 'bought off' representatives at the time as you were arguing before that every southern representative voted against the tariff since the start.

I'd like you to clarify again for me so we're clear here. You argue there were not enough representatives in congress at the time to stop the Morrill Tariff? And can you also link to the Morill Tariff being touted as the main cause that sparked secession at that time by government officials. Thanks.

Lincoln pushed troops into Fort Sumter, the tariff collector of South Carolina's largest port

Where's your evidence that Fort Sumter was a Tariff collector? I've heard this one before.

Just a general fyi:
6% of Whites in the Southern states owned slaves.
Many of them fought for the preservation of slavery - Jefferson Davis, Robert Toombs and Wade Hampton being notable names of plantation owners. Not all countries abolition of slavery was peaceful, the South had experienced several slave revolts and lived in constant fear of a reprise of Haiti in 1804 where the Whites were slaughtered. Fear and guilt had much to do with maintaining the institution.

Most Confederates however simply fought to resist invasion which laid waste to much of the South. Backwoods people and the poor were thinking of little more than trying to keep their small towns and homes from being burned and looted. Many places in the Appalachians were pro-union but found it impossible to survive overtly so in the middle of the Confederacy. Compounding the problem was runaway slaves who found it necessary to steal and rob to survive.

In general though the North and South had drifted so far apart as cultures, so much so as to seem like foreigners to each other. They had truly became nations of different people.

a reply to: Indigo5

Look, if you do your research, you will also understand that there were many in the South who realized that slavery was a failing institution, too, but they also understood that it was a problem that was a lot thornier than simply declaring every "free" and sending them off on their merry way. After all, you are talking about entire populations of people who had no real capacity for taking care of themselves. Believe it or not, the slave owners were more than aware of this, and the knew it would be difficult to institute a real emancipation solution.

It is true that reactions ranged from fear to trying to figure out to do it with real compassion. However, one thing a lot of people also miss about the South is that the races were and have been far more mixed and in close proximity than they ever were in the North. Southern racism was a whole different thing that it was in the North at that time. And emancipation was as much a weapon of war as Sherman's march to the sea, not an act of any kind of compassion.

Lincoln, btw, was all over the idea of completely settling all American blacks in Liberia.

a reply to: neo96

In the name of nationalism, not money. You cannot be a big and strong country without being evil. People say that China needs to unite to deal with the U.S, but the opposite is also true.

Anyway, to me, there's no such thing as being a nationalist/racist and being a human right advocate or a "good guy." In fact, there's no such thing as being a nationalist and being free, because in order to be a nationalist, you must first band with as many people as possible, and the more people you band with, the more liberties you lose, as the more people you band with, the more differences you'll have with those people, and then what happens is that most people are willing to forgo those differences, in order to deal with a greater, external enemy.

Basically, it goes: individuals -> families -> villages -> tribes(in addition to being slaves to each other, they are now slaves to the chief and his laws/rules) -> towns -> nations(or small Empires) -> Empires(or big countries). A country's name, big or small, is basically just a conglomeration of these hierachies put together just to mask that they are slaves to each other, in order to be proud of something called nationalism, the greatest disease of all.

Now, most people will agree to be slaves to their government, because well, it's not like they can do anything about it(again, when the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment, they assumed that technology would not advance and that the citizens can continue to overwhelm their governments with guns and rifles. These days, you pretty much have to depend on the government's good will), and that you can't survive without governments.

It is being slaves to each other(one way racially or nationality-wise) that people are offended the most. It is the "one-way" that gives the notion of inequality and why people are so offended by the past.

Now if you've actually read that long page from the Proof of a Conspiracy here:
www.sacred-texts.com...

you'll notice that they mentioned that in the beginning, everybody was born free, and there was no such thing as nationalism or governments(regardless of whether you believe in the Bible(as everyone starting out as 3 individuals) or Evolution(everyone started out as cavemen), this appears to be correct(but reading their thoughts, it's clear that they believe in the Bible or the Divine).

Now they say that their goal is to return everyone to that free state. But how can we ever really be free of governments? It seems that like money(or being slaves to each other), being slaves to the government is a necessary evil, so it appears that you are either born slaves, or well, you really do hope that this is a game. Therefore, I say to Obama, no matter how well-intentioned, the NWO is not in the "Iluminati's Founding Fathers"'s plan. If you've read around like I have, it appears that their plan was for everyone to become gods, and indeed, this is how we can truly be free(well, actually, you are still subservient to other gods. After all, the entire universe, or should I say existence is hierarchy, so in the end, the only way to know "for sure" is "to know" that this is a game, that deep down at the soul level, we are really all the same and are parts of the Ultimate Creator, and indeed we are, souls do not have "skin colors" or "facial appearance" after all).

To conclude, without pressing Congress and the Military Industrial Complex about UFOs, and being content with the status quo, then he's basically being content with a certain race being the Master Race(you could even go as far as to say, the gods of this planet. Remember that the multi-verse/existence is hierarchial and that Evolution is merely a process within the Simulation, quite possibly in all Simulations), which is inconsistent with his goal of equality, and makes no sense given who he is, unless of course, he's also part of the Illuminati(the misguided or evil ones, not the ones taught by the Grand Master).

The Civil War was mostly about giving more power to the federal government. I don't see what any of it has to do with a "false flag" however. The entire war can't be a false flag event. That is not how it works. A false flag is a small event that is used to start a war. For instance, if the federalists staged the attack on Fort Sumter and then placed the blame on the secessionists, then used the event as their reason to start the Civil War, that would be a false flag. That is just an example though, I'm pretty sure the south really did attack fort sumter.

a reply to: ketsuko

IMO, Lincoln should not be revered at places like the Lincoln Memorial or Mt Rushmore. Otherwise, what right do we have to tell other countries who to revere?

The only way that The Civil War was about anything other than slavery was the fact that the richest white owners in the Confederacy tricked the poor people of their States into fighting a war to keep them poor and uphold the grip they had on the labor force and the money. But yes, The Civil War was about slavery, no matter how revisionists will try and spin it into yet another way to drum up a conspiracy or bash the Northern U.S. States yet again...

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: ketsuko

IMO, Lincoln should not be revered at places like the Lincoln Memorial or Mt Rushmore. Otherwise, what right do we have to tell other countries who to revere?

This is a ridiculous statement. Abraham Lincoln was a brilliant and genuinely great man who did more in one lifetime to benefit this Earth than most of us and our entire family lines will ever do.

a reply to: jaffo

Nobody was tricked in to secession.
What nobody knew at the time was that the North would invade the South to preserve the Union.
They figured the North would fight to claim it's coastal Navy bases but few dreamed invasion likely.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: jaffo

Nobody was tricked in to secession.
What nobody knew at the time was that the North would invade the South to preserve the Union.
They figured the North would fight to claim it's coastal Navy bases but few dreamed invasion likely.

Apologies if I was a little unclear. What I meant is that around 90% of the Confederacy had no real interest in preserving slavery outside of their mental belief that Africans weren't even human. They were duped by the real Southern money into believing that their Southern Pride was somehow being assaulted so that they would wage a war for the Southern elite.

I don't want this to define my thoughts on the issue, I have more thoughts that would really tend towards the other side of the issue than the impression that this post may convey...I'll probably post again later...but the second comment you quote is nonsense, or at least the bolded part.

"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. "

This is nonsense. There really were slaves, that really were freed...to say that the average American citizen post-civil war is equivalent to a pre-civil war slave is nonsense, and offensive.

I'll probably post again with more thoughts on the primary topic.

a reply to: dave0davidson

For instance, if the federalists staged the attack on Fort Sumter and then placed the blame on the secessionists

That's like Saying AQ attacked us so the union can go invade Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Something a great many people disbelieve.

But they buy.hook. line,and sinker the South attacked the North.

a reply to: TheJourney

Senseless?

I don't see it that way.

They tell us what we can or can't do.

They tell us how much money we can or can't have.

They tell us what kind of guns we are allowed to own, if any at all.

They feed us,cloth us,educate us.

And what the American ultimately existence boils down to is two things.

Money, and votes.

Nothing more.

Withhold either of those look at what happens.

It ain't pretty.

If that is not a slaves existence ?

Then what is?

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: ketsuko

IMO, Lincoln should not be revered at places like the Lincoln Memorial or Mt Rushmore. Otherwise, what right do we have to tell other countries who to revere?

This is a ridiculous statement. Abraham Lincoln was a brilliant and genuinely great man who did more in one lifetime to benefit this Earth than most of us and our entire family lines will ever do.

Creating a war that killed over 600 thousand Americans under the pretense of freeing AA's while he slaughtered the brown man, and denied womens rights, and the AA vote.

Anyone defending Lincoln is ridiculous.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: TheJourney

Senseless?

I don't see it that way.

They tell us what we can or can't do.

They tell us how much money we can or can't have.

They tell us what kind of guns we are allowed to own, if any at all.

They feed us,cloth us,educate us.

And what the American ultimately existence boils down to is two things.

Money, and votes.

Nothing more.

Withhold either of those look at what happens.

It ain't pretty.

If that is not a slaves existence ?

Then what is?

You really think that the life of an average american is equivalent to an actual slave? That is incredibly ignorant and offensive. You can try to say our existence is slave-like in a sense, if you want to try to make a point, but to actually act as though it's equivalent to what actual slaves went through is...again, incredibly ignorant, offensive, and nonsensical. These people were literally seen as property, who they could force to do ANYTHING they wanted, and could punish in any way they wanted for whatever reason they wanted...and you're going to act like that sort of life is equivalent to the average american's life today?