Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.3K

i live in a northern state. school textbooks said the cause was slavery. and the north was justified to punish the south. even general sherman's destruction of georgia was portrayed positively. but, in the south, it's called 'the war of northern aggression'. and there's proof of the north mistreating the south, especially in commerce. northern factories needed southern raw materials. but northern factory owners didn't pay southern farmers fair prices.

slavery is hellish. but 2 things make me think that the civil was wasn't actually about slavery: 1. people in the north are proud about african americans' freedom from slavery. but, also, people in the north ignore the enslavement of african americans by the founding fathers. 2. there were european americans, especially irish, who were enslaved in the north. and people in the north didn't have a problem with it. p.s. communist / liberal media deny that irish americans were slaves.

i live in a northern state. school textbooks said the cause was slavery. and the north was justified to punish the south. even general sherman's destruction of georgia was portrayed positively. but, in the south, it's called 'the war of northern aggression'. and there's proof of the north mistreating the south, especially in commerce. northern factories needed southern raw materials. but northern factory owners didn't pay southern farmers fair prices. slavery is hellish. but 2 things make me think that the civil was wasn't actually about slavery: 1. people in the north are proud about african americans' freedom from slavery. but, also, people in the north ignore the enslavement of african americans by the founding fathers. 2. there were european americans, especially irish, who were enslaved in the north. and people in the north didn't have a problem with it. p.s. communist / liberal media deny that irish americans were slaves.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (31).
[–] [deleted] • 6 pts

The Civil War actually started in 1837, the year after the charter of the Second Bank had expired, when the Rothschild family sent one of their representatives to the United States. His name was August Belmont, and he arrived during the panic of 1837. He quickly made his presence felt by buying government bonds. His success and prosperity soon led him to the White House, where he became the, “…financial advisor to the President of the United States.” (Our Crowd, p. 93)

Another of the pieces of this enormous puzzle fell into place in 1854 when a secret organization known as the Knights of the Golden Circle was formed by George W.L. Bickley (Confederate Agent, A Discovery in History, by James D. Horan p. 16), who; “… declared that he had created the fateful war of 1861 with an organization that had engineered and spread secession.” (Klandestine, by William H. McIlhany II, p. 12)

Another leading character in the story of the Civil War was J.P. Morgan, later to become one of America’s most wealthy and influential industrialists and bankers. Mr. Morgan went to Europe in 1856 to study at the University of Gottingen in Germany. It is not inconceivable that one of the people he met while in college was Karl Marx, who was active during this time writing and publicizing his ideas about Communism, since Marx was in and out of Germany on a regular basis; and because Morgan later became an agent for the Rothschild family.

[–] • 1 pt

All of what you said was true, but were still only minor contributing pieces to the puzzle. The buzzards and crows hovering over and roosting near the battlefield are neither it's combatants, nor it's causes.

And still doesn't ask the right question. The question you have to ask is this:

"As a slave-owner in the South, what can I say that will motivate the over 80% of Southerners who are not slave-owners to put aside the plow, pick up a weapon, leave friends and family and harvest behind, and risk their lives in order to defend my right to keep my slaves?"

The answer is simple:

Nothing. Because there is nothing you can say that is going to motivate the over 80% of Southerners who are not slave-owners to put aside the plow, pick up a weapon, leave friends and family and harvest behind, and risk their lives in order to defend your right to keep your slaves.

Fortunately for you, you won't have to. The US Congress is going to do it for you.

In the 1800's, the still new nation of the United States of America still carried an enormous war debt owed to the King of France. The only form of taxation at that time that was available to the US Congress for bringing in revenue to help pay that debt was in the form of "excise taxes", in other words, taxes on exports. The only states that were producing large amounts of the the kind of exportable goods that Europe wanted, were the States of the agricultural South.

So the US Congress hatched a plan. Following The King of England's previous example, they just would monetize the land mass of America, and use that as collateral for more loans.

The problem is: The US Congress is not the "ruling monarch" over the land of the United States, the people are not it's subjects, and the land is not theirs to use for their purposes.

The legislation did not pass, of course, but the damage was already done. When the news that their farms and the future livelihood and well-being of their families were in danger of having a lawyer for the King of France suddenly showing up with a bill of sale from The US Congress and a deed to the property, that their property, futures, hopes and dreams were on the auction block? Because of those bastards in Washington?

Southerners who were not slave-owners put aside the plow, picked up their weapons, left friends and family and harvest behind, and went off to risk their lives.