Was the American civil war our first 'false flag'

a reply to: neo96

Wow very interesting! I have never read an article or opinion that showed this version. It sounds like a viable theory and actually makes sense.

Thirty years have passed since Andrew Jackson killed Nicholas Biddle’s Central Bank. The United States is fast becoming a commercial superpower totally outside of Rothschild control. But decades old political & cultural differences between the industrial North and the agricultural South have long been an issue of concern. When tensions between the southern states and the US Federal Government come to a boil, the southern states begin to secede from the Union. After deliberately provoking a Southern attack against the Feds at Fort Sumpter, President Lincoln orders an invasion of the South.

Contrary to popular history, the American Civil War is not really about slavery. Only 2% of southerners hold slaves, and 4 of the Northern states are actually slave holding states. Lincoln does indeed oppose slavery, but he mainly uses the issue as tool to maintain popular moral support for his main goal; saving the Union.

The Southern Confederacy fights bravely for "Dixieland" against what they see as a central government that is usurping the rights of the individual states. Though the South is very successful in the early going, they fail to capitalize and capture Washington DC when it was theirs for the taking after their stunning victory at Bull Run. In the long term, Northern manpower and industry give the Union an advantage.

The relationship between Lincoln and Alexander is detailed in 'The Tsar and The President."
1863
.
.
RUSSIAN CZAR ALEXANDER II COMES TO LINCOLN'S AID

ROTHSCHILD'S PLANS ARE FOILED

The Rothschilds view the American US Civil War as a chance to "divide and conquer" America. If the South can break away from the Union, two rival nations can be played off against each other in a European style game of "balance-of-power."

Lincoln needs money to fund the war. He is extorted by the New York bankers, who want the government to sell high interest bonds to them, which they can then resell to the banking syndicate in London. Lincoln writes:
.
“I have the Confederacy before me and the bankers behind me, and for America, I fear the bankers most."
.
Lincoln thwarts the bankers by issuing interest-free currency directly from the Treasury. (Greenbacks)
.
Rothschild's "hit men" Britain & France threaten to intervene on the side of the South. Lincoln counters them again by enlisting the help of Russia. In the fall of 1863, Czar Alexander II sends warships to dock in New York and San Francisco. Afraid of confrontation with both the US and Russia, the instigators of the Crimean War are forced to back off. Together, Aexander and Abe have defied the London Bankers, and will both pay a heavy price for doing so.

The Union will be preserved, at a cost of 600,000 dead Americans and a devastated South.

Source

Time line according to tomatobubble.com , where the author paints the whole scenario as a Rothschild plot to regain central banking in the US after Jackson defeated them. If you don't have a chance to read the above, I like this Lincoln Quote. “I have the Confederacy before me and the bankers behind me, and for America, I fear the bankers most."

Lincoln quote in favor of secession 1848

Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right — a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. Speech in the United States House of Representatives (January 12, 1848)

en.wikiquote.org...

Lincoln was a lawyer representing his support group. A hired gun. Might makes right.

neo96

originally posted by: neo96
First answer people will say is slavery. Do you think they are correct ?

Was everyone in the South a slaver owner ?

For the Southern 1% At the time to have gotten to rich off the backs of slavery. Seems to me victory would have been all, but guaranteed for them.

The Southern economy heavily depending on slavery. Firstly, the total population of pro-confederate States at that time was around 9.1 million people. Out of that population, 3.9 million were black slaves. That's 42% of the population. Imagine losing that much labor? Slave labor?
thomaslegioncherokee.tripod.com...

What do you mean by 1% ?? Are you saying that only 1% of the population in the South that time were slaveholders? Out of 9.1 million citizens of the Southern slave holding state, 390,000 were slaveholders. That's 7.5% of the population of the South. Let's not forget that behind those slaveowners were wives, sons, daughters, their fathers and mothers, entire families whom were financially dependent. 49% of Mississippi families owned slaves. 30% in the Confederacy if you rounded it up to all the states:
www.civil-war.net...

Slavery was a very important institution to the Southern economy.

Then there are the declarations of grievances by the Confederacy for secession mentioning slavery rather clearly as the main reason:
avalon.law.yale.edu...

Jefferson Davis, April 1861:
"When the several States delegated certain powers to the United States Congress, a large portion of the labouring population consisted of African slaves imported into the colonies by the mother country. In twelve out of the thirteen States negro slavery existed, and the right of property in slaves was protected by law."

Jefferson Davis farewell speech January 1861:
"And how was this to be enumerated among the high crimes which caused the colonies to sever their connection with the mother country? When our Constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable, for there we find provision made for that very class of persons as property;"
www.ucs.louisiana.edu...

There's ample evidence out there pointing to slavery being the cause of Southern Secession.

Yes most southern soldiers fought for their states, not slavery.
Yes most people in the South did not own slaves, true.
Yes, some northerners (and even blacks) benefited from slavery, but this is besides the facts at hand. The South seceded to protect this very institution, they made it clear, the government of those southern states made it clear. It was made clear in the declarations, made clear in the many speeches before and after the first southern states seceded. It an ugly part of history for the south that we would much rather wish to hide. Now taxes! that's the kind of thing apologists would like to pretend the civil war was about. So let's just make unsubstantiated claims, link two different events decades apart with little relation and star eachother blindly because it makes us feel secure about our false beliefs. Yep.

Not a goddamn politician in the whole kit and caboodle since time began, that's worth a plugged nickel.....
I said that....

a reply to: Southern Guardian

You are correct the south's economy was rather dependant on slaves. You are also correct that not only the ultra rich owned slaves, many lower income people had one or two to work for them. But the ultra rich did tend to own a lot more of them number wise.

What really would have been nice with the stats you gave is how many black and native people owned slaves. Not to mention that the person who started the permanent ownership of black slaves, was a free black man who had himself been an indentured servant. This by refusing to release one of his slaves in the specified time period, and took his case to a British court (since they were on power ay the time). In fact slavery is not really an American problem, so much as a British problem left over from their rule, that the US was left to deal with. I rather suspect that just like today the government was mainly control by the rich. Now how successful do you think the government working on freeing the workforce of the rich would be? I suspect about as well as anything to help workers and the common man in real ways ever since.

There are two ways you can look at the civil war and freeing the slaves. Either it was a convenient rallying cry for an unwanted war, possibly helping gain alies. Or it was a convenient time to do it. Possibly a combination of both. It certainly was not the reason for it happening.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
neo96

originally posted by: neo96
First answer people will say is slavery. Do you think they are correct ?

Was everyone in the South a slaver owner ?

For the Southern 1% At the time to have gotten to rich off the backs of slavery. Seems to me victory would have been all, but guaranteed for them.

What do you mean by 1% ?? Are you saying that only 1% of the population in the South that time were slaveholders? Out of 9.1 million citizens of the Southern slave holding state, 390,000 were slaveholders. That's 7.5% of the population of the South. Let's not forget that behind those slaveowners were wives, sons, daughters, their fathers and mothers, entire families whom were financially dependent. 49% of Mississippi families owned slaves. 30% in the Confederacy if you rounded it up to all the states:
www.civil-war.net...

1% of the national population, North and South together, owned slaves.

390,000 divided by 9.1 million is 4.3 % not 7.5%.

95.7 % of the population of the South had no slaves. All were subject to a tariff that sucked off as much wealth from farmers (Northern as well as Southern) as could be got easily. And the tariff was doubled in 1861.

Every Southern congressman had voted against the tariff for 30 years. The South was completely powerless to oppose the tariff in congress, and yet it paid 65% of the Federal Budget, each Southerner in effect paying a double tax, of which only 10% came back to the South.

If the South had been allowed to peacefully separate, its economy would have boomed and the Federal Government would have lost 60% of its income, and all of its power.

That is why the North Invaded and Conquered the South.

Didn't the civil war bring in the amendment that allows any "person" the right to property?

Didn't corporations take that amendment to court after the civil war to claim they are legal "persons" and had the right to own property.

And now Bob's your uncle?

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I agree.

The civil war fought by the North conquering the south was not out any sense of nobility.

It was all about the benjamin's so to speak.

As in this post www.abovetopsecret.com...

After Lincoln's 'just' war to free the black man by killing the white man, then turn around, and went, and slaughter the brown man in the west.

The civil war was about $$$$$, and the North not wanting to lose it's cash cow, and Reconstruction was essentially 'nation building'.

Destroying the entire south, then 'rebuilding' it.

a reply to: Tardacus

Also, The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the southern states. Northern states were still allowed to own slaves.

originally posted by: intrepid
My understanding is that slavery WAS the issue but not because it was for humanitarian reasons. The South had almost free labor. The North didn't. So basically it was about economics. Getting rid of slavery was just a byproduct. Sounds a lot nicer though.

If you look through published federal documents in the last two or three years before the war broke out, you'll see that something like 75% of the federal income was from the South in the form of taxes and tariffs. And about 90% of the expenditures out of that treasury was in the North.

That caused more than a bit of stink, but as the South's population was much lower, they had unequal voting power and couldn't stop it. Eventually they got tired of it. IIRC, a secession almost happened in 1832 as well over the same thing.

If you look through microfiche newspapers of the time, the first few years you generally see the war called "The war to preserve the Union" and not very much about slavery, that started before Lincoln's re-election when he needed the secessionist vote to retain office. You'll also see in various statements by pols of the time that they were all for letting the Southern states retain slaves, up to and including the 'emancipation proclamation'.

Not saying that slavery wasn't a major issue. But it wasn't the only one. Hell, the New England states had also begun secession proceedings in 1814. The US wasn't the big happy family you get in civics.

No Man has the right to own another. The rallying cry of the North.

But what the civil war did was declare the Federal Government the master that owns the States.

As far as the common man having slaves, if you go back and look through microfiche newspapers from various locales (you can tell I went through a phase of reading the local rag from the 1800's...it's fascinating. You get a way different picture than what you get from history books...) slaves were going for exorbitant prices at auctions by the time the Civil War kicked off. Like $2,500, which would have bought a house and quite a bit of land.

However, if you go back about 10, 15 years it was less, still pricier than your average Southerner could afford, but more upper middle-class. And apparently, you could pick up older slaves if you were lower middle-class. Which seems a bit grim and bizarre looking back at it, but at the time it was considered normal.

If you look through the family photo archive, you can see two slaves in the family photos pre-War taken at the family homestead by the first house. They're middle-aged, and we don't know more than their first names by family lore and what's written on the backs of the photos. I often wondered at the social dynamic that went on in the family. Some of the family line were themselves indentured Irish in Virginia, which you might have thought would have prevented that sort of thing, but apparently not. No one knows how they were added to the family.

But they're in pretty much any family photo, lined up with the others. And after the war, you still see them in the photos, until they were old and gray, then the man stops showing up and a few years later, the woman. Apparently they stayed on after being emancipated until they passed. The stones from the old gravesite are gone or illegible, so I don't know if they were buried with the family or not.

That to say, we weren't exactly the richest bunch on the block. Not sharecropper poor, either, but you couldn't call Chez Bedlam a plantation.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: intrepid
My understanding is that slavery WAS the issue but not because it was for humanitarian reasons. The South had almost free labor. The North didn't. So basically it was about economics. Getting rid of slavery was just a byproduct. Sounds a lot nicer though.

If you look through published federal documents in the last two or three years before the war broke out, you'll see that something like 75% of the federal income was from the South in the form of taxes and tariffs. And about 90% of the expenditures out of that treasury was in the North.

If that were true then it seems who ever had the authority to do that WANTED a war and that was how they would instigate it. Who wouldn't fight against that kind of robbery.

If that is true it is definitely a cause for war but whoever was behind it knew it would start war. So it was the means but I still think that corporations being allowed to own property was the ends.

Edit to add: The corporations that could own property included the banks that funded the war. They had motive and they were involved.

a reply to: Bedlam

Here is a book I read

This excerpt is from The Confederate Nation author Emory Thomas
www.amazon.com...


a reply to: neo96

The "Dixie" was a $10 bill from a privately issued currency.

The word "Dixie" refers to privately issued currency originally from the Citizens State Bank (located in the French Quarter of New Orleans) and then other banks in Louisiana.[4] These banks issued ten-dollar notes,[5] labeled "Dix", French for "ten", on the reverse side.

en.wikipedia.org...

Privately issued money was trusted because the barer could demand its value in gold at any time.

The war was a big step towards fiat money. After the war, privately issued currency was outlawed and the Secret Service was instituted to enforce that law.

This letter written by Lincoln shows us exactly how he felt about the slavery issue and the war:

Written during the heart of the Civil War, this is one of Abraham Lincoln's most famous letters. Greeley, editor of the influential New York Tribune, had just addressed an editorial to Lincoln called "The Prayer of Twenty Millions," making demands and implying that Lincoln's administration lacked direction and resolve.


Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

.......If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union;

www.abrahamlincolnonline.org...

Economist and Historian Thomas DiLorenzo is also on YouTube

Lincoln's Tariff War

These videos are from a week long seminar, there are 10 in total

This one is about the next steps by the NWO
The Federal Reserve
The Income Tax
Direct Election of Federal Senators
AntiTrust Run Amok

"The Revolution of 1913"

originally posted by: ketsuko
Of course, you can't discount that the were largely ground into dust. Also, the 14th Amendment was and is the only Amendment that was ratified by a process different than all the others.

And today, the 14th is the hammer by which so many other freedoms are pounded away.

This video discusses the 14th Amendment from Historian Tom Woods

a reply to: generik

In fact slavery is not really an American problem, so much as a British problem left over from their rule, that the US was left to deal with.

What a ludicrous statement to make.

Once The U.S. gained independence it had every means to abolish slavery, but it didn't. It kept it running.
In fact it took The U.S. more than 30 years to abolish slavery after Britain did so.

a reply to: Semicollegiate



And they give GW snip.

Lincoln makes GW look like rank amateur.

Political prisoners. the suspension habeas corpus, shutting down news papers, and telegraph censorship.

Then virtually burned the second amendment.

Then those that made free speech illegal.

That is not the history I was taught or most others.