Thanks for posting this. The winners get to write the history and the CW was not fought over slavery until Lincoln realized it would help his war against the civilians who were allowing Lee's starving, barefoot army to keep fighting. The figures for some states in the south were far lower. I've read that only 11% in Virginia owned slaves and most of those were wealthy owners of large plantations. The 89% who didn't weren't fighting so the rich guy down the road could keep his slaves. The fact that the industrial north was waging an economic war against the agrarian south was a more likely reason.
Fact 2) Much of the south made it very clear in their declarations of secession why they left. Slavery. Spelled out very clearly and directly. Others gave very little reason at all, except maybe "states rights". But given the context of the above, and speeches made by their governors before seceding, I think the reason is less allusive than we sometimes pretend. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
Were there other reasons? Sure. But to say "it was not about slavery" is really just repeating the fake narrative of the left that tries to hide from their past.
Agree. The democrats of the south were very adamant about keeping slaves, and this shouldn't be forgotten. It's written in almost every document that details their secession from the US
Just because people say things doesn't mean they are telling the truth. This is especially true for politicians.
All wars are propaganda wars. Most people in the south didn't own slaves. They were motivated to go to war for two different reasons (that I have found):
to fight against a tyrannical government that was infringing on states rights and subverting the Constitution (a Treaty between Sovereign states). This was a true motivation. That was exactly what the civil war was.
to protect the economic viability of the states. People were told that if the states lost their slaves, everyone's life would collapse. This was probably less true, but it was plausible, and thus motivational to some. It also made great headlines that "official history" can selectively pull from.
So while yes, there were statements of slavery being essential for the economy, and while yes, that was a motive, it wasn't the only one, and was a use of propaganda to convince people to kill each other, "to protect their way of life."
Many of the People didn't buy it for a second. They recognized it as propaganda and felt that they would work out their economy just fine. However, they still fought over the first, because it was a tyrannical government under Lincoln, and it was a violation of the Treaty (Constitution).
Once you get past all the bullshit and propaganda from the press and the politicians, you see that the Civil War was really fought for two reasons:
One was to subjugate Sovereign States, destroying the concept of individual freedom. This was a move towards a one world government, just like the creation of the European Union, run, funded, and managed by the same people in both cases.
The other was to indebt the United States to the Banks who funded both sides. This led directly to the Gilded Age, where the entirety of government was compromised (instead of just most of it), and eventually to the complete takeover of the government by the Banks (Federal Reserve).
This is where we are today. The Civil War was how we got here.
Just because people say things doesn't mean they are telling the truth. This is especially true for politicians.
In this case, both sides seem to agree on the motives. In addition, these people are long gone. We only have their own words left to judge them by. So you cannot ignore what both sides said to be true, call it propaganda, and then declare your own truth. Based on what that is more credible than original source material?
Most people in the south didn't own slaves.
This sounds like the same logic some democrats use when trying to explain how they are personally against abortion, but vote for politicians who support it because reasons. You are either truly against it or your are not.
So while yes, there were statements of slavery being essential for the economy, and while yes, that was a motive, it wasn't the only one...
Which I already acknowledged.
One was to subjugate Sovereign States, destroying the concept of individual freedom.
On the flip side, you have states that wanted to change the definition of what a human was so they could selectively apply the constitution. While I err on the side of states rights myself, there is a point that is too far and there really is no union any longer. Defining who gets to be human and have the rights of the constitution apply to them is definitely far on the other side of that line.
The founding ideals of the USA could not in any way survive along side slavery. At some point there HAD to be a reckoning.
Based on what that is more credible than original source material?
Based on other source material. A TON of other source material. I gave you my assessment of having done an investigation into the matter. The source material that gave me my impression is extensive. Making a full case with all of the evidence is a book length work. Consider my statements the "abstract." Some of that evidence will be in later parts of my report.
You are either truly against it or your are not.
This is the Prison of Two Ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are forced into one side or the other. The whole "left-right" thing was created by the Cabal to control everyone. Real decisions by the individual are made based on a complicated decision making process. This decision making process is guided by propaganda and "laws" (again, all created by the Cabal). The propaganda and laws provide out's for cognitive dissonance (ignore or justify certain pieces of evidence) to guide decisions down one of the two provided paths.
This is how division is created, and how society is propelled forward down the path the Cabal intend. Mostly, society isn't guided by the differences in policy, but by where they agree; the things that the "two sides" don't argue about at all. (See the Aldritch plan (right) v. the Federal Reserve Act (left) e.g.)
you have states that wanted to change the definition of what a human was so they could selectively apply the constitution.
The Constitution is not what you think it was. It is a common error to conflate the DoI, which made flowery statements and the Constitution, which was a signed Treaty. The Constitution made perfectly clear that not all people were created equally. It is rife with such statements, made into law. The states didn't "want to change the definition of what a human was," they just didn't want to be subject to a Treaty violation. If I can find the link to the piece of (period) evidence that explains this clearly I will post it. I was looking, but I can't find it. I know I have it in my work somewhere.
The founding ideals of the USA could not in any way survive along side slavery.
The "founding ideals" and the "founding" are fundamentally at odds. The "ideals" were the packaging. The packaging lied about what was inside. It was flawed from the very beginning, intentionally, to lead us to today. We don't realize this because the ideals are shoved at us constantly. We don't look at what's really in the laws themselves. When we do, and we see things that don't look right, we justify it with "that was just a product of the time," or "things have changed," etc., exactly as cognitive dissonance demands. But when you look at the actual "changes," you find even worse fuckery. For example, the 14th amendment ensured that the "3/5ths compromise" that was built into the constitution couldn't happen again, but it subsequently made everyone a slave to the all powerful government.
Try reading a little history not aimed at brainwashing you. I suggest Paige Smith. Frankly, my state's legislature voted for secession with many legislators crying over the loss of the republic. And they considered the invasion of their state a major factor. And finally, read again what I wrote. I said slavery wasn't the issue UNTIL Lincoln saw a use for it.
Thanks for posting this. The winners get to write the history and the CW was not fought over slavery until Lincoln realized it would help his war against the civilians who were allowing Lee's starving, barefoot army to keep fighting. The figures for some states in the south were far lower. I've read that only 11% in Virginia owned slaves and most of those were wealthy owners of large plantations. The 89% who didn't weren't fighting so the rich guy down the road could keep his slaves. The fact that the industrial north was waging an economic war against the agrarian south was a more likely reason.
Fact 1) The Republican Party was founded, and detailed in many publications as well as its founding platform, to end slavery and polygomy. https://www.ushistory.org/gop/convention_1856republicanplatform.htm
Fact 2) Much of the south made it very clear in their declarations of secession why they left. Slavery. Spelled out very clearly and directly. Others gave very little reason at all, except maybe "states rights". But given the context of the above, and speeches made by their governors before seceding, I think the reason is less allusive than we sometimes pretend. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
Were there other reasons? Sure. But to say "it was not about slavery" is really just repeating the fake narrative of the left that tries to hide from their past.
Agree. The democrats of the south were very adamant about keeping slaves, and this shouldn't be forgotten. It's written in almost every document that details their secession from the US
Just because people say things doesn't mean they are telling the truth. This is especially true for politicians.
All wars are propaganda wars. Most people in the south didn't own slaves. They were motivated to go to war for two different reasons (that I have found):
So while yes, there were statements of slavery being essential for the economy, and while yes, that was a motive, it wasn't the only one, and was a use of propaganda to convince people to kill each other, "to protect their way of life."
Many of the People didn't buy it for a second. They recognized it as propaganda and felt that they would work out their economy just fine. However, they still fought over the first, because it was a tyrannical government under Lincoln, and it was a violation of the Treaty (Constitution).
Once you get past all the bullshit and propaganda from the press and the politicians, you see that the Civil War was really fought for two reasons:
One was to subjugate Sovereign States, destroying the concept of individual freedom. This was a move towards a one world government, just like the creation of the European Union, run, funded, and managed by the same people in both cases.
The other was to indebt the United States to the Banks who funded both sides. This led directly to the Gilded Age, where the entirety of government was compromised (instead of just most of it), and eventually to the complete takeover of the government by the Banks (Federal Reserve).
This is where we are today. The Civil War was how we got here.
THAT was why the Civil War was fought.
In this case, both sides seem to agree on the motives. In addition, these people are long gone. We only have their own words left to judge them by. So you cannot ignore what both sides said to be true, call it propaganda, and then declare your own truth. Based on what that is more credible than original source material?
This sounds like the same logic some democrats use when trying to explain how they are personally against abortion, but vote for politicians who support it because reasons. You are either truly against it or your are not.
Which I already acknowledged.
On the flip side, you have states that wanted to change the definition of what a human was so they could selectively apply the constitution. While I err on the side of states rights myself, there is a point that is too far and there really is no union any longer. Defining who gets to be human and have the rights of the constitution apply to them is definitely far on the other side of that line.
The founding ideals of the USA could not in any way survive along side slavery. At some point there HAD to be a reckoning.
"THAT was why the Civil War was fought."
Based on other source material. A TON of other source material. I gave you my assessment of having done an investigation into the matter. The source material that gave me my impression is extensive. Making a full case with all of the evidence is a book length work. Consider my statements the "abstract." Some of that evidence will be in later parts of my report.
This is the Prison of Two Ideas. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are forced into one side or the other. The whole "left-right" thing was created by the Cabal to control everyone. Real decisions by the individual are made based on a complicated decision making process. This decision making process is guided by propaganda and "laws" (again, all created by the Cabal). The propaganda and laws provide out's for cognitive dissonance (ignore or justify certain pieces of evidence) to guide decisions down one of the two provided paths.
This is how division is created, and how society is propelled forward down the path the Cabal intend. Mostly, society isn't guided by the differences in policy, but by where they agree; the things that the "two sides" don't argue about at all. (See the Aldritch plan (right) v. the Federal Reserve Act (left) e.g.)
The Constitution is not what you think it was. It is a common error to conflate the DoI, which made flowery statements and the Constitution, which was a signed Treaty. The Constitution made perfectly clear that not all people were created equally. It is rife with such statements, made into law. The states didn't "want to change the definition of what a human was," they just didn't want to be subject to a Treaty violation. If I can find the link to the piece of (period) evidence that explains this clearly I will post it. I was looking, but I can't find it. I know I have it in my work somewhere.
The "founding ideals" and the "founding" are fundamentally at odds. The "ideals" were the packaging. The packaging lied about what was inside. It was flawed from the very beginning, intentionally, to lead us to today. We don't realize this because the ideals are shoved at us constantly. We don't look at what's really in the laws themselves. When we do, and we see things that don't look right, we justify it with "that was just a product of the time," or "things have changed," etc., exactly as cognitive dissonance demands. But when you look at the actual "changes," you find even worse fuckery. For example, the 14th amendment ensured that the "3/5ths compromise" that was built into the constitution couldn't happen again, but it subsequently made everyone a slave to the all powerful government.
Try reading a little history not aimed at brainwashing you. I suggest Paige Smith. Frankly, my state's legislature voted for secession with many legislators crying over the loss of the republic. And they considered the invasion of their state a major factor. And finally, read again what I wrote. I said slavery wasn't the issue UNTIL Lincoln saw a use for it.
There's the little thing about states rights also