What One KEY Issue Would Spark an American Civil War?

The American "Civil War" WAS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Point One:

Only 6% of Southerners could AFFORD SLAVES!!!! Out of that 6%, the majority of slaves were treated better than most of the immigrants in Northern Textile Factories. You want to talk about the slavery issue, then let us address the hundreds of thousands of Irish immigrants and their working conditions in these Slave Labor camps. (i.e. being locked in a building for 14+ hours with no breaks...

Do the research if you doubt what I am saying.

Point Two:
If the War of 1864 was TRULY based, SOLELY on Slaves... then tell me again why we have Labor Unions?

That's what I thought!!!

Knowledge is not Intelligence people. Knowledge can be conditioned via misinformation, revisionary history, and blatant LIES!!!

The REAL reason for the "Civil War" was TAXES and a means to create debt. Once damn near bankrupt, it was easier to usher in a Centralized banking system.

Hooray for an effective disinformation campaign...

NWO=1 : US=0

And furthermore....

You want to really know "sparked" civilian action during the "Civil War"...

1. FAMILIES STARVING

2. The destruction of Railroad systems to keep food and ammunition our of the South.

3. Warmongering Propaganda

4. Religion

reply to post by Areveli


The Civil War was about slavery and the Democrats were the ones that just had to have slavery in order to fill their pockets. You can believe all the lies you like, it will not change the fact.

On 6 November 1860, the six-year-old Republican Party elected its first president. During the tense crisis months that followed – the “secession winter” of 1860–61 – practically all observers believed that Lincoln and the Republicans would begin attacking slavery as soon as they took power.

Jacobin Democrats in the North blamed the Republican Party for the entire sectional crisis. They accused Republicans of plotting to circumvent the Constitutional prohibition against direct federal attacks on slavery. Republicans would instead allegedly try to squeeze slavery to death indirectly, by abolishing it in the territories and in Washington DC, suppressing it in the high seas, and refusing federal enforcement of the Slave Laws. The first to succumb to the Republican program of “ultimate extinction,” Democrats charged, would be the border states where slavery was most vulnerable. For Northern Democrats, this is what caused the crisis; the Republicans were to blame for trying to get around the Constitution.

Southern secessionists said almost exactly the same thing. The Republicans supposedly intended to bypass the Constitution’s protections for slavery by surrounding the South with free states, free territories, and free waters. What Republicans called a “cordon of freedom,” secessionists denounced as an inflammatory circle of fire.

The Southern cooperationists – those who opposed immediate secession – agreed with the secessionists’ and Northern Democrats’ analysis of Republican intentions. But they argued that the only way the Republicans would actually have the power to act on those intentions was if the Southern states seceded. If the slave states remained within the Union, the Republicans would not have the majorities in Congress to adopt their antislavery policies. And if the South did secede, all bets would be off. The rebellious states would forfeit all the constitutional protections of slavery. The South would get something much worse than a cordon of freedom. It would get direct military intervention, leading to the immediate and uncompensated emancipation of the slaves.

This is just one source. There are thousands. The Republican party was formed for the express purpose of abolishing slavery,

www.salon.com...

reply to post by Areveli


When people discuss slavery, a lot seem to think everyone and their mother had their own slaves. Not the case by a long shot. Slavery then, as it is now, is a rich person thing.

reply to post by NJoyZ


my one key issue would be that the government wanted to divide us and make us fight so as to break up the union. They thinking (ignorantly and disconnectedly) that the reunification would grant to them greater centralized powers like after the first civil war.....this is not the 1800´s and Obama is not Lincoln....also we are not illiterate grunts on a whole anymore.


*Decentralization of the Federal government rallied behind the threat of government trying to divide us as a people so as to give the Federal government a more advantageous position of power over the people when the union is inevitably reasserted.

Well, people are too mindlessly entertained. Just look to rome. Bread and circuses are what kept the decadence from turning into complete destruction with a quickness.

So our bread is welfare. You slash welfare and there will be mass chaos.

Our circuses are various forms of entertainment. Major sports, hollywood, video games, and inserting things into our rectums.


Putting it all together, if you start enforcing laws against sodomy, put a high tax on entertainment, and take away those monthly credit cards used for "food like substances" purchased at Walmart, you'd have enough chaos to spark a civil war, or revolution.

As long as people can keep to their fetishes, food, and entertainment, not much will happen.

reply to post by unityemissions


That may well be the plan. The entitlements obviously can not be sustained.

reply to post by jimmiec


Why? Ask yourself a simple question: Why did they rip apart a country to "prohibit" slavery only to turn around and institute essentially the same situation, only with the slaves now widely distributed to the industrial hubs of the North where labor was needed?

Nothing you just posted offers ending slavery as the cause of the war. "Ending" slavery was a tool used to reach the point the Northern Republicans were wanting to reach... that point being a power and influence shift away from the South. It is a lot easier to become the global powerhouse in textiles, metals, and technology when you have the same core of people running both the material suppliers and the production factories. Had it remained as it was before the war, the South would have seen their fortunes continue to grow as the North not only had labor shortages, but would have also been forced to pay the South for the materials they needed in equal proportion to the demands for the final product. That cuts into the bottom line and we cannot have that, eh?

reply to post by NJoyZ


That's why government educations are garbage. The south seceded from the Union after congress passed the Morill tariffs. The immediately seceded and formed their own constitution.

Tariffs, not slaves.

Originally posted by sealing

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by NJoyZ

 

The first Civil War wasn't started over slavery. It was a war for southern independence.

edit on 31-1-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

To keep slaves.
2nd

Absolutely not. It was over tariffs. Congress passed the "Morill Tariffs" and the south immediately seceded and drafted their own Constitution.

reply to post by NJoyZ


Right now in Massachusetts it is a law that everyone must have health insurance. The company I work for is small, just 20 employees. And yet, this company still has to shell out $700 per month, per person, for health insurance. Now, because of the new tax plan, not only will there be no raises this year, but I also lost $15.00 per week in my paycheck. While the price of everything is going up, I am now making less.

A small one-bedroom apartment in an area where I wouldn't need a weapon to feel safe just sitting on the front porch runs about a thousand per month. I take home under $1,600 per month. That apartment would leave me with $600 for food and bills. If I were to get sick for a week, I would be financially screwed.

If my company didn't have to pay for health insurance, I would be able to better support myself because some of that health insurance money would go into my pay.

What I'm saying is, there will come a time when the government will reduce us to three levels of lifestyle: 1. Rich, 2. Poverty level where even those making a hundred thousand will barely be able to afford a rundown apartment, and 3. The working homeless.

This is when a civil war will be needed.

I just love it when my government (state or federal) enacts laws guaranteeing that doctors will make their million every year while many of us can barely survive.

reply to posts by burdman30ott6 and Areveli
OK, I like your explanations and especially that you provided information to back them up.
I''ll go with that.

Second of all, To those of you who mentioned that slaves were for 6% of the population and only for rich people. WHO DO YOU THINK MAKES THE DECISIONS OF THE STATES? The wealthy landowners, it's been that way since the founding fathers, the rich make the decisions.

What was your point? That if most people don't have slaves than how could that be the issue that divided the country? OK, I don't think any of you said that directly, but I can definitely go with that, if ending slavery did not affect the general population of the south, than what motivated them to fight and die?

Did the general public of the south not want to be taxed? Is that really the reason? If so, why was that never taught to us in school (dumb question don't answer that), If people in the south know this, how come we've never heard from all of the confederate flag flyers about the conspiracy that the war was not about slavery? I though't I'd heard just about every major conspiracy out there, but that's a totally new one.

reply to post by Areveli


"Religion" Excuse me? What? How?

reply to post by NJoyZ


Taxation without proper representation. Same reason we broke from england. Except, in the civil war case, the oppressors won the war.

en.wikipedia.org...

ANARCHY

I do not have much to interject on the matter, but Anarchy, would do it, OR the world bank announcing the dollar is worthless, which bound to happen in our lifetime...

So a culmination of failures with Tyranny enforcing madness will eventually piss the masses off....

Not sure if I expect the states to really do anything against the federal government, nothing really compares to the civil war in 1861 in America in 2013...

2013, America, is closer to 1770 era actually...

Originally posted by NJoyZ
If people in the south know this, how come we've never heard from all of the confederate flag flyers about the conspiracy that the war was not about slavery? I though't I'd heard just about every major conspiracy out there, but that's a totally new one.

Really? I honestly thought that was pretty much common knowledge. (Then again, I'm one of those confederate flag fliers, so...) The victors of any war usually write and rewrite the history of said war, including rationale and causation, and they almost inevitably write it in a manner which will make them and their reasons look better than they were in reality. Furthermore, they consistently manage to update and modify their accounts depending on trending societal opinion and social manipulation needs. Look up William Dunning. He was the preminent Civil War scholar in this country until the mid 60s. Around that time, on the heels of the civil righst movement, revisionist history began to take a hold of things. For some reason, Dunning began to be portrayed as presenting a racist account of the war. In reality, he was presenting facts and ideas which the suddenly progressive and sympathetic to civil rights government really wanted (and probably needed) to put behind them and not have raised. This led to the revised historical account we have kids being taught today.

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
reply to post by jimmiec

 

Why? Ask yourself a simple question: Why did they rip apart a country to "prohibit" slavery only to turn around and institute essentially the same situation, only with the slaves now widely distributed to the industrial hubs of the North where labor was needed?

Nothing you just posted offers ending slavery as the cause of the war. "Ending" slavery was a tool used to reach the point the Northern Republicans were wanting to reach... that point being a power and influence shift away from the South. It is a lot easier to become the global powerhouse in textiles, metals, and technology when you have the same core of people running both the material suppliers and the production factories. Had it remained as it was before the war, the South would have seen their fortunes continue to grow as the North not only had labor shortages, but would have also been forced to pay the South for the materials they needed in equal proportion to the demands for the final product. That cuts into the bottom line and we cannot have that, eh?

Interesting theorey, but fiction all the same. It is disputed by not just exhaustive history outlining the cause of the civil war and a reluctant Lincoln, but also the simple fact that the north had ENORMOUS labor resources at the time in the form of European immigrants. There were near perpetual waves of immigration from Germany, Ireland and England...plus swedes and many others to fill the labor demand.

The pace of immigration also stimulated economic growth while increasing differences between North and South. Immigrants, mostly from Europe at this time, supplied low-cost labor and had an enormous impact on the Industrial Revolution in America. Most immigrants settled in the North where jobs were available. The use of standard, interchangeable parts, especially important in the manufacture of guns, clocks, and sewing machines, allowed the nation to advance technologically by using unskilled workers. The pace of immigration slowed during the Civil War but the North's victory in 1865 and the growing demand for cheap and plentiful labor increased the flow of immigration in the post war years.

www.bookrags.com...

Your story though certainly paves the way for some revisionist southern pride in thier military efforts to keep slavery.

haha, I hate to be "that guy" and say this, but in fact this is my actual serious answer to the original post's question: "what one key issue would park an American Civil War?"

Take away the luxuries we have. Take away the dumbed down TV shows, the fast foods.. All the sedations of what we call 'modern society'. I don't mean just the luxuries of the 'rich' either. I see Walmart cart pushers who have Iphones ( or whatever they are called ), people on food stamps that have access to internet, etc.

If suddenly all levels of society could not access those modern opiates, some of which technological, some psychological.. Suddenly, people would have to do something about it!


What I mean by this post is, with all the luxuries, we basically are fighting civil wars from our computers, our TVs. The media tells us how the war is going, and we accept that. We are the silent majority because of our lifestyle I think.

The honest truth is money....it makes the world go round and tears the world apart. We don't fight "moral" wars anymore...everything derives from economics. Economic strain or crisis drives the uptick in intolerance, vitriol, anger, a sense of injustice...and when the economy is doing well....nobody cares...we forgive a lot. If the economy was to tank on an order more severe than what we just had and was to stay that way for an extended period...then folks would find an excuse for revolution...money is the answer to your question.

What One KEY Issue Would Spark an American Civil War?

cancel the souper bowl, lol

on a more serious note ...

ALL WARS ARE CAUSED BY THE WAR PROFITEERS!!!!!!!!!!!
call them what you want.
the powers that be , black nobility , illuminati bloodlines the inner circle
they also set the curriculum for the schools.