What was the actual reason for the American civil war? I can't believe it was just about the slaves, makes no sense to me. Was it the kikes all along again because they feared their power?
>>70645227
It was and wasn't about slavery. It was about the role and rights of state versus federal government. Slavery happened to be the issue they butted heads over
>>70645227
south feared north destroying their economy and abe lincoln was a die hard keep the union intact kind of guy.
other than frederick douglas (i believe was the nigs name) shilling hard, no one really felt to empathetic to slaves except a few sjw abolitionists at the time
>>70645227
It was a culmination of a fued over states rights, the growing number of northern abolishionists, and a culture war.
It's like how Brexit is about migrants but really it's about EU power
Slave economy made the south too powerful and the north wanted to be on top
>>70645227
It was about the industrial south trying to control the agrarian north.
Imagine if half the country wanted to outlaw tractors for the farmers.
What do you think farmers would say
"You can't outlaw tractors! You will destroy our lives and economies"
Not to mention the north had been trying to squash southern power fr the dawn of the republic and the slavery issue was the straw that broke the camels back.
>>70645635
Oh fuck I backwards the shit
>>70645227
Secession was about Slavery.
The Civil War was about the preservation of the Union. The south's biggest mistake was firing the first shot, and attacking an unarmed supply vessel that entered the harbor, injuring civilian workers in the process. If we hadn't done that things may have gone very differently.
We started it, the Union finished it, unfortunately.
>>70645368
wrong. as the mexican war was won, the delicate balance of free states and slave states in congress would be upended by the new territories.
if the new territories were slave states, the southern way of life, and agricultural economy, would be more powerful economically than the northern way of life.
if the new territories were free states, the burgeoning population of the north would have a shot at heading west to try their fortune.
check quora, wikipedia, pbs' civil war, and shelby foote's volumes on the war.
it was all about slavery. states rights were the narrative, the discourse, the memes. but it was all about whether the new territories would be slave states or free states. it drove the nation to war.
cheers for the replies so far but am kinda surprised that it seems you are saying the south was economically stronger than the north?
Jews
>>70645227
The civil war, like every war slightly before and ever since, was a bankers war, to generate debt. To understand this, a quick trip through history is required.
The United States war of independence was fought because old George III in Britain signed a law forcing it's colonies to use their money, issued with interest that required heavy general taxation to repay.
Remember pic related.
This isnt "lizard people" conspiracy, administrators and leaders of the American colonies were increasingly unhappy with how financial "debt farming" was being carried out. This was common knowledge, and it riled people up - as they knew where their taxes were going. Private banking cabals. The Boston Tea Party was the ignition point, a tax on tea that once announced, simply resulted in the Americans "snapping".
Americans fought a bloody war, but won as Britain was simply too stretched around the world.
Now, they (Rothschilds) managed to set up an """American""" bank afterwards, and after it's initial 20 year charter ran out, it had done everything the Brits had done, and the American economy was struggling with financial crises, unemployment, poverty etc, while bankers got fat on the imposed crippling crippling interest payments.
Naturally, a peeved congress refused any bank charted renewals. Then signaled intention to go back to the original non debt based currency system in which the go - er, people were free of debt servitude.
cont
>>70646552
This prompted a rather angry money lender, as per pic related.
However, a certain British prime minister, Spencer Perceval, didn't get that, and opposed the sending of countless British lives to be extinguished, when they were so heavily bogged down in the ongoing Napoleonic wars - again financed by none other than the same bank on both sides. Whoever lost, they won...
Anyway he got deep-sixed and replaced with a certain Robert Banks - hugely in favour of a war in the States..
Armed with a massive monetary loan at near zero interest, Britain started diverting resources to America and thus began the re-colonization war of 1812 - a war you may not have heard of. A war in which an attempt was made by Britain to take back the States.
But the goal was never actually to win. It was to create a situation so desperate and impoverished by war, that the only way out of mass starvation, famine, death etc was to sign a new bank charter, on their terms of interest. They didn't want to win a war, why would you need to, when people are paying you regardless of who they actually elect?
The States would win again, but - as hoped - were in such tatters that they had to accept the new charter - meaning they didn't win at all.
Kinda makes me wonder why exactly Americans celebrate "Independence Day"....
>>70645836
No one died. The south was trying their best not to kill anyone and didn't kill anyone. The north came in with the intent of killing people.
>>70646627
Onto the Civil war now and it had fuck all to do with slavery, though it was in part fought over it..
The Confederacy seceded and had it's own set of rules, among which slavery was accepted.
Also among which, private banking with interest was, aswell....
The Union was also held by private banking, but had its own set of laws/rules among which slavery would indeed be abolished.
High ups didn't see it that way. To them, it was another opportunity for debt farming.
Abe Lincoln was met by the bankers financing the union who offered him whatever money he needed to bring the south back into the Union.
At a 30% interest.....
Knowing that the same people were operating financial institutions in the Confederacy aswell as in the States angered Lincoln and he responded by wondering what the point was, of freeing black physical slaves, only to create a country of debt slaves. He told them to get stuffed and funded it with a non interest money - you may have heard of, "The Greenback".
This was a direct threat to private banking - because it was a government issued currency, with almost no interest at all - and private banks wasted no time funding media against it.
>>70645931
Yes and what would be the logical conclusion (or at least fear of that conclusion occurring) of a majority of the states being free or slave? preventing the minority states from making their own choices
>>70646299
It wasn't. Not even close; it was a huge portion of the United States exports, but it really wasn't. That's a bit of the problem as well.
The South was completely dependent on agriculture for the vast majority of its economy at this point and it worked in tandem with northern and European industries to fuel itself.
>Why war tho
Someone has probably said it already, but it was an argument about regional representation and competing industries. Slavery was an easy to push reason for the North, but slavery was also on its way out.
So, if the south lost the majority in the senate, there was a very good chance that it would have laws passed, such as anti-slavery laws, by a northern dominated congress. This could very easily happen with the free territories. With regional representation a huge reason for the original revolution, the south was in a fight to have any real voice in the country.
On the other hand, the north felt the same way; laws were being passed that benefited only slave owning states. Northerners rarely gave a fuck about southern issues, until they had to return fugitive slaves, or had to pay more for imported cotton that affected their own bottomlines.
TL:DR; The war was about states self determination above that of the federal government. Slavery was a major issue that states were allowed to vote on.
>>70646714
Fun fact time: Did you know Britain and Europe switched to wanting to fight on the side of the Confederacy, the moment Abe abandoned the financiers? That's why, to me, it had fuck all to do with "freeing the slaves". They wanted more slaves, not less..
By the way, look up the owners of most (like, 70%) of the slave ships/slave logistics companies that sailed from Africa to the States before slavery became an issue. (Hint: Doing so might be considered... "antisemitic"...)
They considered it in "political meetings" but their intentions were held at bay by a guarantee from Russia - a territory that had just went from serfdom and adopted the banking system that the United States was *originally* founded on - that it would aid the union against them. (Remember modern day Alaska was actually originally Russian territory until the United States purchased it from them, so it wasn't a case of hoping to smash the Union States before Russia crossed the ocean...)
I shit you not :D
Anyway, as we know the union won and the government-issued currency continued until Abe's assassination upon which, funnily enough, the greenback was near immediately pulled and replaced with the previous private interest money again.
>>70645931
>if the new territories were slave states, the southern way of life, and agricultural economy, would be more powerful economically than the northern way of life.
Load of shit. Whether or not the new states became slave states the south had a far inferior economy than the north. Slavery was one part of a long list of shit the north and south had with each other.
>>70646679
In the scheme of politics that was irrelevant.
Firing the first shot in this sort of conflict immediately casts you as the villain. This is exactly why you got the whole "Don't fire unless fired upon" thing from John Parker at Lexington.
>>70646829
The struggle to keep control of money away from private interests would go on - literally fucking COVERED in assassinations - until 1913, when they met to brainstorm something they could sneak under the public opinion.
The "Federal Reserve" was born. "Federal" sounded governmental and "Reserve" sounded like it had something backing it's currency.
In reality, it's - quite arrogantly - totally private - even Barrack Obama will be told fuck off if he asks to visit - and it has no reserve, printing money out of thin air and loaning it to governments at interests warranting many of the taxes you and I pay, to pay it back.
All wars are bankers wars.
You fuckers need to ignore those "drums of war",because I guarantee you if there's a draft, It won't be to fight alongside Eastern Europeans against Muslims or people in general, who are resentful at our leaders decisions to fuck their countries and are taking it out on us...
It'll be to fight the Eastern European countries themselves, as they are currently opposed to the immigration, meaning they are directly interfering with global central banks plans to sow chaos.
The kind of chaos that will, if you remember from a few moments ago:
"Create a situation so desperate and impoverished by war, that the only way out will be to sign a new charter, on their interests"...
There will be a war, because people are getting tired of debt. So, a situation *worse* than debt will naturally be called for..
A situation in which everyone begs for the "only" solution...
Personally, I hope it backfires and the planet is reduced to a wasting rock that nothing survives on
slavery was the issue that led to the secession of several states and the formation of the confederacy
then the war was fought in order to settle the issue: would the confederate states be restored to the union or would they remain an independent confederacy?
>>70645227
Money, idiot. Southern economy was built on the plantation system which relied on cheap labor in the form of slavery. Abolition threatened the economies of every southern state built on stagnant agricultural models.
>>70645414
Almost the entire WASP establishment were abolitionists.
>>70646863
More like the victor writes history. The south threw a punch and the north pulled out a gun. It's obvious who started the war.
>>70646552
>>70646627
>>70646714
>>70646829
And there goes a perfectly fine thread
>>70647188
You missed one, Sbörk.
>>70646933
>Implying anything said theirin isn't 100% true.
Wanna know why Switzerland isn't being told to "pull it's weight" regarding refugees?
Because people like George Soros don't have "Hungarian" or "Greek" bank accounts :^)
>>70646768
New Congressman, Senators, and state assemblies which would ostensibly be pro-slavery or anti-slavery. If a large enough majority of states became anti-slavery, the Constitution could be amended to outlaw it legitimately. The South saw the writing on the wall and went to war over it. Despite their efforts, they lost and the Constitution was amended legitimately anyway.
>>70647458
And also Switzerland isn't in the EU. Of course not with the Rothschilds living there
>>70647458
I missed one because I posted that before you posted your last one Mario.
>>70647595
Of course not. That way any money there isn't constrained by the rules, made by Brussels, for the common pleb.
>>70647738
So you did! My mistake. I blame the drink...
>>70647595
>>70647958
And you two seem to be completely unaware of the fact that the EU has been trying to get Switzerland to join for years now. Maybe even decades
>>70647458
Well, here is the huge problem. Almost all the records go against what you're pitching.
For instance, the war of 1812 was declared by the United States due to essentially a non-issue as impressement of US citizens was banned during the interlude of communication.
In the Civil War, foreign interests didn't completely pull out of the war until the Battle of Sharpsburg/Antietam which was a year after the printing of federal notes.
The reason for the creation of The Federal Reserve Act was due to the panics of 1907 and to prevent further issues with currency being non-usable due to bank closings. It managed to pass which is quite interesting since it was a Republican idea at the time while Wilson was a democrat.
>>70648482
And que the accusations that the records are false
>>70648605
Well, yeah, but that's always the dilemma. If they were false, how would you know? Let's not even get into the fact that the war of 1812 was started by a non-conspiracy actor in this case, and is stored in US records as being declared.
Then you'd get a problem of "Who says the records haven't been changed, shlomo?"
So redpilled they needed a pride recovery thread
http://archive.is/fyGeE
>>70645414
I think it's unfair to say no one felt empathy of the slaves. Anyone not financially dependent upon slaves basically thought slavery should be illegal and the abolitionist movement was pretty widespread.
>>70645227
It was a continuation of 100 years of economic warfare of the North upon the South.
