Another look at the American Civil War

England still had ambitions in North America and saw a divided US as an opportunity for them. Even if the South lost they wanted to see the US considerably weakened (it was in debt, big time). It is estimated all the wealth accumulated since it's start were destroyed during the war.
Either way England and it's bankers came out ahead.

Not often mentioned is the new territories promising to soon become states would forever swing the balance of power to the Northern states, leaving the South without effective representation in Congress.

I think they thought that the Southern soldier would prevail. At least fight them to a standstill.

There is a good book about this mindset- Attack and Die.

Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern HeritageJul 30, 1984
by Dr. Grady McWhiney and Perry D. Jamieson

Last Edited by s. d. butler on 12/26/2017 05:44 PM

[link to www.truthontheweb.org]


Check out that resource, OP. It goes into detail about the idea that the Jesuits/Vatican were behind the assasination of Lincoln. Looks to me like it wasn’t a Civil War at all but the Vatican vs the USA and the Vatican won. If not with the death of Lincoln, then definitely with Woodrow Wilson’s Federal Reserve, IRS, FBI, WW1 and League of Nations.

[link to www.marottaonmoney.com]

Thanks for all of the links and reading suggestions so far...going to check them out in the next day or so.

Russia's Role in American Civil War

Starts about 9 min. in:



[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

in "a diary from dixie", mary chestnut boykin lived through the civil war era, her father in law a huge slave-owner planter and she was around most of the leaders of the south when in richmond.

slavery was no longer a paying proposition, eli whitney was one of the biggest reasons for that. the uprising in haiti and several slave uprisings in the south, goaded by the radical republicans in the north had the inhabitants of the south terrified.

not only did the aquisition of new states dilute the power of southern states in congress, but it allowed trade tariffs to be imposed on cotton so that northern mills could buy it cheaper and southern states coulnd't sell to other countries without taking a loss paying tariffs.

the constitution did not prevent states from leaving, and abraham lincoln put before congress and had it voted through both houses that if the southern states would not seceed that the institution of slavery would not be inhibited. but that was ignored, it wasn't about the slavery, it was about what to do with them. southern states were not swarmed with immigrants like northern states. northern industry used the people unto death and they got here on their own dime. (you don't read much about that). they were even drafted into the union army.

southern states seceeded because they were tired of the banking and manufacturing cartels in the north punishing the agrarian society of the south, and they believed if they left and formed their own country they could secure freedom and prosperity for their people, and find a workable way to end the slavery problem without interference from a growing majority in congress that had a 30 percent population of blacks. it is so outlandish to me that slavery and all the negative connotation it invokes is so roundly denounced, but the treatment, starvation, and death of more than 40 million european immigrants to the northeastern states is glossed over and never discussed. they worked for pennies a day 18 hour days if they were lucky until they were broken or killed. no worries there were thousands more to take their place, and when the shift was over they were free to live with their families in the alleys and starve to death. so please god spare me the "harriet beecher stowe" inspired cruealty of slavery bullshit.

abraham lincoln called for 100k troops to put down the rebellion. and when virginia seceeded he marched into the soverign state of virginia and seized arlington, (robert lee's family farm, whose slaves had been freed a decade before.

i agree fort sumpter was a stupid piece of work, their cannon could never be turned around to threaten charleston and it could not be supplied, in another month they would have been forced to abandon it.

oh, and thank the idiots that killed abraham lincoln. his plan was to ship all africans to a country in africa called liberia along with sufficient provisions tools and seed to create their own utopia. sadly his plans were cut short.

ps i am a citadel graduate and i am quite proud of our red battle flag with 12 streamers.

Holy Cow!

I would Go down to the State Library at lunch and go through the original Civil War Documents. I was in Heaven.. A few years ago that Cease to happen, after folks walked off with Original material.. Bas-Turds!

Contribution of Russian Tsar Alexander II to a northern victory in the U.S. Civil War.



[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

General John B Gordon was one hell of a brigade commander and had other great brigade commanders alongside. junius daniels, stephen dodson ramseur, (my families commander), doles brigade.cullen battle all under command of rodes. in my opinion the greatest division in the southern army.

one of gordons soldiers remarked Gordon was "the most prettiest thing you ever did see on a field of fight," testified one of his soldiers. "It 'ud put fight into a whipped chicken just to look at him.


they caved in the attack on may 12 at the mule shoe, the year before they took hazel grove at chancellorsville. they stove in the flank of the union army at gettysberg.

they held off mcclellan at fox gap and manned the sunken road at antietam.

in "a diary from dixie"

Very good reading champ, thanks.

I understand the Union was on the ropes by 1863, and changed the law to allow the 200,000 able bodied ex(?) slaves to enlist.

The union was never on the ropes unfortunately. After Gettysburg and the river campaign cutting the South in two it was all but over.

Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
(Adopted 24 December 1960)
...
'The ends for which the Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.'
...
[link to avalon.law.yale.edu]

Confederate States of America - Georgia Secession
(Approved, Tuesday, January 29, 1861)

'The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees it its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment, and in vindication of our refusal we offer the Constitution of our country and point to the total absence of any express power to exclude us. We offer the practice of our Government for the first thirty years of its existence in complete refutation of the position that any such power is either necessary or proper to the execution of any other power in relation to the Territories. We offer the judgment of a large minority of the people of the North, amounting to more than one-third, who united with the unanimous voice of the South against this usurpation; and, finally, we offer the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest judicial tribunal of our country, in our favor. This evidence ought to be conclusive that we have never surrendered this right. The conduct of our adversaries admonishes us that if we had surrendered it, it is time to resume it.

The faithless conduct of our adversaries is not confined to such acts as might aggrandize themselves or their section of the Union. They are content if they can only injure us. The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. Our confederates, with punic faith, shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property or who use it to destroy us. This clause of the Constitution has no other sanction than their good faith; that is withheld from us; we are remediless in the Union; out of it we are remitted to the laws of nations.'

[link to avalon.law.yale.edu]

Staged? Like with actors?

Last Edited by Jim Garrison's HUGE balls on 12/27/2017 07:23 AM

that war was part of the giant charade that has led us directly to where we are today



i reckon the advent of the a bomb was a fly in the ointment for them, otherwise they'd have had war after war after war, killing millions upon millions every time

the a bomb threatened THEM. they could actually be killed, in a flash, literally, so MAD was invented, to protect them

now though, at 7 billion +, they realise they have to risk a big nuke war, and are right now putting the pieces in place imho

it is ALL about depopulation

that war was a dry run for ww1. it was the first mechanical slaughter of a country's fittest and youngest, and it whetted their appetite for more, 50 years later

imo

Back then the North got the Henry rifle, another big advantage. And unlimited supplies of cannon, ammo etc.
Still, gotta wonder what would have happened had Lee not made that ballsup at Gettysburg.

and the Rothchilds financed both sides. Too big to fail...

I wonder beyond that point...could the Confederacy actually have 'won' this war? What would that entail? The complete takeover (or destruction) of all Federal installations, government and military? If that would have happened, what would they have done next? Would they seek compromise, or promise from the Fed never to interfere in their sovereign affairs again? Would slavery still flourish in the South after that point, or would the two sides work together using other means of production? Would the South be allowed to make that transition, and improve it's economy, without future retribution by the Fed?
Just a few questions....

Nice thread and posts. Interesting. 5 stars

The southern troops were fighting shoeless in the dead of winter while the shoes sat rotting at the train stations because everyone involved only cared about a quick buck.

A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union
(2 February 1861)

'Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States.

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refused reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harrassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.'

[link to www.tsl.texas.gov (secure)]

I agree Lee made a big mistake staying and fighting at Gettysburg. 1 of his generals warned him it was a bad idea, but he didn't head.

Timeline of Secession - American Civil War
[link to www.digitalhistory.uh.edu]
------

Also he never should have let gen Stueret go marching off looking for materials just before the battle of Gettysburg. Big mistake.

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union
(9 January 1861)

'It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.'

[link to avalon.law.yale.edu]

To dissolve the Union between the State of Alabama and other States united under the compact styled "The Constitution of the United States of America."
(11 January 1861)

'WHEREAS, the election of Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the Constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security; therefore,

Be it declared and ordained by the people of the State of Alabama in Convention assembled , That the State of Alabama now withdraws, and is hereby withdrawn from the Union known as "the United States of America", and henceforth ceases to be one of said United States, and is, and of right ought to be, a Sovereign and Independent State.'

[link to civilwarwiki.net]

Quite simply put - it's the war of northern aggression and had little to do with slavery until the tyrant Lincoln declared the Unconstitutional emancipation proclamation.

The southern States *lawfully* seceeded from the Union and the tyrant invaded.