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.

slavery is awful

Agreed. If the filthy kikes hadn't brought over all those niggers we wouldn't still, hundreds of years, later have to be feeding the untamable animals.

The War Between the States, aka War of Northern Aggression, was indirectly caused by slavery, but not for the reasons you're told. Northern industry could not compete with the South because of the South's utilization of cheap labor. No, slavery was not "free" labor because their room and board and other living expenses were provided for, and some slaves even earned a small wage.

The Northern industrialists began funding the Abolitionist movement, including John Brown and the propaganda piece called Uncle Tom's Cabin (a complete work of fiction written by a woman who had never been to the South or met an actual slave) in an effort to create slave revolts and undermine the system. When that didn't work, they moved on to implementing tariffs on Southern goods to the point that the price of cotton from South Carolina jumped from something like $0.02/ton to $0.12/ton.

South Carolina and the other Southern states tried everything they could up to secession and when that didn't work, South Carolina decided to secede in order to renegotiate their tariff. In response to the secession, Lincoln decided to ignore the SC governor's pleas to remove Federal troops from Ft. Sumter since it belonged to the now independent SC, and instead sent reinforcements. South Carolina responded as they said they would and attacked the fort. The North responded by blockading Charleston, which set in motion the chain of secessions across the South and the creation of the CSA.

Aside from this stuff which you'll only learn from reading a real history book (rather than a propaganda textbook), there are two major points to consider: 1) slavery was vastly different from state to state. Maryland and Virginia had large farms and small plantations with a handful of slaves, whereas Alabama and Louisiana had their vast plantations of hundreds of slaves. The vast majority of these slaves were treated well and fairly, and to read interviews with them, many of them enjoyed their lives.

2) The North brought in hoards of immigrants, mostly from Ireland, to man their factories with cheap labor and to staff the Federal army. Lincoln was their man because he had been a railroad lawyer prior to becoming president. He had his own railroad car, which was like owning a private jet in those days.

My final point that you'll never hear from the court historians is what happened to the "free" slaves after the war. Tens of thousands were starved to death in the Devil's Punchbowl, and thousands more died from starvation and exposure. Millions of negroes were released with zero life skills beyond picking cotton and many of those who didn't die turned to crime, which lead to the rise of vigilante gangs like the Ku Klux Klan as a way to secure rule of law and to engage in guerilla warfare to expel the Yankee occupiers.

Had the war been a great crusade to free the noble negro, the North would have had a plan to reintegrate them into the world, but it clearly was an economic war which turned into a crusade to "preserve the Union".

There were some elements of grand conspiracy but it was mostly incompetent rhetoric, failed ambition, and the chief failure of democracy that caused the civil war. The cause of the war isn't necessarily what it is about though. there is a reason you don't see many if any people raising the flag of the confederate government but the flag of confederate army is what is raised. had the confederacy survived the war it's next conflict likely would have been the southern publics inclination to elect the military men from the war and essentially overthrow the cartel at the center of the confederate government.

The full story of the war takes far too much historical context for a single comment, the shortest explanation is that what the government and ruling class of the confederacy wanted out of the war was different than what the majority of southerners wanted out of it and the modern day analogue is the difference between the elites at the top of a political party and the common man who supports that party.

Lincoln's campaign rhetoric is essentially the first stone laid in the wars foundation, the cornerstone of the war really, slavery is bad and that's a perfectly righteous and fair position to hold but it's also an ancient institution forcing people to give it up at the drop of a hat was never feasible and even the founders understood that and that is why they made the great compromise despite their dislike for slavery, just as the north had gradually ended slavery on it's own so to should have the south, it was quite doable from a political perspective and if Lincoln had made his goal making slavery harder, less profitable, less socially acceptable, he could have avoided war altogether but he used the tyranny of the majority to achieve this. proper rhetoric would have allowed a gradual decline in the practice without bloodshed it was Lincoln's hubris that made the conflict but his hurbis couldn't have been empowered without the core flaw of a democracy, and that is the tyranny of the many. Then as now, many in the north had no idea what a nigger is because of their privilege of geographic and social distance from negroes and the fact that harsh winters created a selective force against black slaves and slaves in general so they imagined noble savages suffering under a whip unjustly, the truth is that niggers we see online are the same niggers as those slaves, those slaves needed slave drivers in every field because the negroe has always made a poor fit for labor and order. The north didn't know the thing with which they trifled, nor did they care, their misguided moral absolutism unleashed a hell on us that should never have come but yet lingers, a million whites dead at black hands, hundreds of trillions in debt, our future stolen, our past erased, this is the legacy of the civil war.

At the peak of slavery less than 2% of households in the south held slaves, the upper crust of they that did were the core of the rhetoric for secession and funders to the confederacy and her ambitions of conquering the gulf of mexico and achieving a nation from one sea to the other in this fashion. They inspired the common man to fight by pointing out that the cultural differences led the north to choose to collapse the south's economy and if their majority of votes could do that they could make the south do anything and that a democracy where you only ever have policy dictated to you by other people hundreds of miles away in totally different conditions is a sham, the common man could see the foolishness and hubris in Lincoln's rhetoric and the foolishness of the north who voted for him and saw clearly they shouldn't submit to them lest the drive the whole of them to ruin.

Slavery was common practice, people saw slaves regularly it was known they are property just as cattle are and the theft of a slave was a crime, it's not a hard sell by any means to extrapolate that the north was committing a mass action of theft with no recourse for the south but secession.

Fort Sumter, was not finished when the battle started, in fact the battle itself paused the construction, the north were building a fort in South Carolina, a confederate state, they wouldn't surrender the site, they were occupying confederate land, it was a provocation that couldn't be tolerated, the confederacy took back it's own land from an occupying foreign force and the union declared war. The confederacy was naive, Fort Sumter was a sacrificial pawn played to bait out the confederacy, the north were naive that their deceitful and cowardly aggression wouldn't be perceived by the public, this is why states and patriots above the mason dixon line fought for the south, further the north was naive thinking that raw numbers assured their victory, the south nearly won the war and lost it by giving vital commands to fools linked to confederate aristocracy at the end of the war so they could garner some war glory as they believed victory was decided, lincoln had penned his surrender just two months before the war ended and expected to send it within two weeks of that time but continuous defeats as a result of excessive losses in a couple of fights lost the south it's momentum and enabled the north to rally.

Pickett's charge stands out as possibly the greatest military folly to occur in the new world.

The civil war was the moment when the bastards in power realized the american people were fools who could be convinced to fight any war and doing so wasn't so hard so long as you put on a show and intimidated the naysayers.

Yeah, it was a lot more complicated than "Muh... slavery." Using slaves for farm work was already becoming less popular or profitable because of industrialization, and given more time would have gone away.

A lot of the issues were with commerce and Southern States that thought the North wasn't giving them fair prices or terms for goods. And they felt they were being treated like second-class states in politics because the South had a much lower population.

To try and improve their bargaining position, the Southern states decided to formally announce a separation (legally I might add). They wrongly thought it would lead to the Northern states taking their grievances seriously and they could negotiate something that worked better. They didn't honestly think the North would attack them, or they never would have gotten the support of many of the states.

But the North saw it as a threat and politicians from the big cities ramped up the fears of starvation and lack of raw resources for factories. The South couldn't afford to stop trading with the North for long either. Who else could they trade with? Anyhow, the North "called their bluff" without ever trying to find a peaceful solution and went full on war mode. Hence why it is often called the War of Northern Aggression.

It's like a wife telling her husband she wants to separate. But instead of agreeing to couples therapy to work out their differences, the husband just beats her until she gives up.

It's actually really easy to figure this out by reading writings of historical figures from the time, a lot of people debate about it but it's actually very well documented by the people who were involved themselves so it's not really something debatable, rather something that just requires research. A good book to read is the writings of Jefferson Davis as he goes into a great deal of detail about the causes. Essentially, it all had to do with economic disputes between the North and the South and that the North was upsetting the economic balance in the opinion of the south and also the political balance by taking more territory out west. I have read some of these writings but not enough to know every detail but it was not about eliminating slavery in the actual Southern States but rather the slavery aspect was more in regards to whether other territories to the West would be considered slave states or not. Believe it or not, California was actually a huge issue back then in the South was very angry that the North either prohibited or was going to prohibit slavery there.

From what I recall, at the time the South and the North viewed themselves as being in direct competition and they wanted equal influence over the entire United States so it was not acceptable for the north to gain control over more territory in the west than the south. Jefferson Davis talked about things like how certain climates were favorable to owning slave plantations and others were not (taking about land south of the 36th degree of latitude or something as it was already well established that slaves were not as useful in northern states with their short growing seasons) and I didn't quite understand exactly what he meant but I think they thought that California was a potential place where they could have slave plantations whereas States like New Mexico or Arizona would not be able to as they are too dry and desolate. Because they felt that the north was gaining control over more valuable territory, including California they decided to secede and try to go their own way has they felt that they would no longer have sufficient representation in the federal government because the balance was being upset by the north.

An interesting topic that I've heard about but I didn't read about in the Jefferson Davis writings is that the South also had an interest in taking territory from some parts of Latin America. Basically, the way it seems is that both the South and the North view themselves as very powerful entities that both had ambitions for expansion and this is what caused the conflict as the north certainly wasn't going to go to war just to free slaves within the actual existing southern states.

Slavery.

But not why you think.

The north hated blacks, probably more than the south. In the south, people lived next to blacks all the time. It's hard to hate the guy who works for you (and most slaves just worked. They even got wages, albeit lower than freemen. If they worked for someone outside of their owner, they got paid freemen wages, but had to give part of the wages to their owner.)

The northern economy was based on food farming and manufacture. Slaves aren't great for that, and northerners didn't want blacks around anyway, so slavery wasn't a thing there. In the south, it was about cash crops -- primarily cotton -- which sucks balls to pick, so you hand that job to waves of slaves.

The north was mainly working, middle class folks. The south was rich plantation owners, dirt poor sustenance farmers, and slaves. In the senate, the slaves states matched the free states number for number, and in the House, the south got to count the slaves as 3/5 for population, even though none of them got to vote. That meant that the rich plantation owners (the planters) could essentially run Congress the way the Jews run things now. (Also, a healthy percentage of the planters WERE jews, and the jews handled the slave trade to them.)

So, it was about slavery, but not about freeing the slaves. It was about wrecking the political power that the planters had through the easy money of having people you paid practically nothing pick your cotton, get to count them towards your vote, and then run the country that way. Without slaves, the population numbers all change (that's why the SCOTUS decisions saying slaves weren't citizens, they wanted to zero them out in the census), the economy of cotton changes, and the planters lose their power.

It would be like telling Amazon they have to pay all the warehouse workers $40/hour. It's couched as worker's rights, but it's really about breaking Amazon.

Also of note is that the cotton gin had already started seriously winnowing down the need for slaves in the south. It's because of that that the war was ripe, because when you can do the work by machine, the north is ready to take over the work.