Was the American civil war our first 'false flag'

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: np6888
a reply to: ketsuko

IMO, Lincoln should not be revered at places like the Lincoln Memorial or Mt Rushmore. Otherwise, what right do we have to tell other countries who to revere?

This is a ridiculous statement. Abraham Lincoln was a brilliant and genuinely great man who did more in one lifetime to benefit this Earth than most of us and our entire family lines will ever do.

Creating a war that killed over 600 thousand Americans under the pretense of freeing AA's while he slaughtered the brown man, and denied womens rights, and the AA vote.

Anyone defending Lincoln is ridiculous.

No, what is ridiculous is your baseless, ignorant, and misguided assertion that the man "started" The Civil War. You are spewing the worst kind of revisionist garbage and you ought to be ashamed of yourself, quite frankly.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: dave0davidson

For instance, if the federalists staged the attack on Fort Sumter and then placed the blame on the secessionists

That's like Saying AQ attacked us so the union can go invade Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Something a great many people disbelieve.

But they buy.hook. line,and sinker the South attacked the North.

I guess I missed the part where you proved that the Confederacy didn't attack the Fort or that seven States did not announce their secession prior to the attack, eh? Way to deny ignorance...

By the Law of 20 May 1802 Bonaparte re-established slavery in France's colonial possessions, where it had been banned following the Revolution.

wikipedia / Napoleon

This backward move by Napoleon cost him Louisiana, which at the time extended all the way to the great lakes. In the eyes of Yankees this leaves the whiff of French law over a lot of their new southern possessions. I submit to the reader that the burning of Georgia by the Union Army was just Daddy Yankee Banker disciplining an established pet, in front of the new pet Louisiana, as a way to say "you better behave."

But has the south really deserved to be stereotyped and ridiculed for a century and a half? What about Napoleon. When the Haitian slaves revolted and killed _all_ the whites he had to send the Army. Unfortunately Yellow Fever inoculations were not available and the Revolution faced bankruptcy in under a year. Haiti was lost, and suddenly Napoleon sold Louisiana to America for 15 mil.

Following a slave revolt a decade earlier, he sent an expeditionary army to reconquer Saint-Domingue (Haiti) on the western side of the island of Hispaniola in the Caribbean Sea and re-establish a base for an expanded colonial empire in the West Indies and North America. The French Imperial army was soon, however, infected and destroyed by yellow fever, amid fierce resistance led by Haitian revolutionary generals Toussaint Louverture and Jean-Jacques Dessalines. Faced by imminent war against Britain, within a year of dispatching the army to Haiti and possible bankruptcy, Napoleon now recognised any French possessions on the mainland of North America would be indefensible considering Britain's control of the sea. So, unexpectedly he sold them to the US in 1803—the Louisiana Purchase—for less than three cents per acre, $15 million.

Was the American civil war our first 'false flag?'

No. The American Revolution probably was

[Linky]

a reply to: jaffo

Yeah there is some revisionist history.

Not from me though.

The false sainthood and adulation afforded Lincoln has its basis in the incorrect assumption he fought the war to free an enslaved people. To believe this propaganda one must ignore most everything Lincoln said about the Black race and his continued efforts at colonization. Lincoln's treatment of the American Indian has been very much ignored, though not exactly misrepresented.

Similar atrocities occurred all through the Lincoln Administration. In 1862, the Santee Sioux of Minnesota grew tired of waiting for the 1.4 million dollars they had been promised for the sale of 24 million acres of land to the federal government in 1851. Appeals to President Lincoln fell on deaf ears. What made this even more egregious to the Sioux was the invasion of this yet unpaid for land by thousands of white settlers. Then, with a very poor crop in august of 1862, many of the Indians were hungry and facing starvation with the upcoming winter.

When Lincoln outright refused to pay the owed money, remember he had a war to finance the Indians revolted. Lincoln assigned General John Pope to quell the uprising and he announced at the beginning of his campaign: "It is my purpose to utterly exterminate the Sioux. They are to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts, and by no means as people with whom treaties or compromise can be made." Lincoln certainly did not challenge this statement

www.unitednativeamerica.com...

'Free' the black man. Kill the brown man.

That's some epic cognitive dissonance.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: jaffo

Yeah there is some revisionist history.

Not from me though.

The false sainthood and adulation afforded Lincoln has its basis in the incorrect assumption he fought the war to free an enslaved people. To believe this propaganda one must ignore most everything Lincoln said about the Black race and his continued efforts at colonization. Lincoln's treatment of the American Indian has been very much ignored, though not exactly misrepresented.

Similar atrocities occurred all through the Lincoln Administration. In 1862, the Santee Sioux of Minnesota grew tired of waiting for the 1.4 million dollars they had been promised for the sale of 24 million acres of land to the federal government in 1851. Appeals to President Lincoln fell on deaf ears. What made this even more egregious to the Sioux was the invasion of this yet unpaid for land by thousands of white settlers. Then, with a very poor crop in august of 1862, many of the Indians were hungry and facing starvation with the upcoming winter.

When Lincoln outright refused to pay the owed money, remember he had a war to finance the Indians revolted. Lincoln assigned General John Pope to quell the uprising and he announced at the beginning of his campaign: "It is my purpose to utterly exterminate the Sioux. They are to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts, and by no means as people with whom treaties or compromise can be made." Lincoln certainly did not challenge this statement

www.unitednativeamerica.com...

'Free' the black man. Kill the brown man.

That's some epic cognitive dissonance.

Ah, I see. So unless someone is perfect, they are never worthy of adulation. Yeah, that seems reasonable. So, we forget everything good he did so that we can stand in judgment. MLK is a bum too, right? After all, he betrayed his wife with multiple affairs. Using your standard, no one short of Mother Teresa would ever be anything but scum...you included. Just sayin...

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Was the American civil war our first 'false flag?'

No. The American Revolution probably was

[Linky]

Gotta love it. ANY OTHER NATION can do whatever they want to break the yoke of financial usery and political oppression. But when the American Colonies did it...well, they were wrong for doing so. Why doesn't this place just change its name to "America Sucks And Everyone Who Every Lived Here Is Hot Garbage" and have done with it, lol? Because clearly this soil only hosts pure evil.

a reply to: jaffo

Been around for 40 years.

Haven't see it do anything yet out of altruism.

Think it was different back then ?

Nope.

a reply to: jaffo

Pure evil that needs to munch on false flags to exist.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: jaffo

Been around for 40 years.

Haven't see it do anything yet out of altruism.

Think it was different back then ?

Nope.

Neither cynicism nor criticism are a synonym for solution. You may wish to ponder that a bit. Because it seems as though there is nothing and no one on this Earth or in man's history you would feel is worthy of praise. How sad.

a reply to: Bedlam

So maybe we should be railing against the pigeons from hell that cause us to "part"?
Lincoln made a joke in the Lincoln Douglass debates "Go husband, Go bear".
Guess it didn't matter to Lincoln.

Seriously wtf Civil War ain't no false flag. The biggest false flag is the slaughtering of Native Americans and destroying freedom using American Soldiers, the once free became slaves to jobs and working. We are not as free as the Civil War Era. We can't travel far, we can't run away, we can't build our own houses nor are we allowed to live in parks or roads. Americans had invited them over.

originally posted by: illuminnaughty
I always thought that it was a war funded and instigated by the wool mill owners of England. People like Sir Titus Salt. Who at that time controlled the wool and cotton industries of the world.

In your view did the confederacy not gain recognition from the UK government because of the reasons you mentioned?
I do like people who are willing to take an alternate historical view point providing the premise is sound.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
Sorry I couldn't resist.

Just to highlight one important fact here again that tends to be browsed over. The argument in this thread is that the institution of slavery wasn't a significant enough issue to have sparked the civil war. This is why the OP argued that only 1% of the US population consisted of slaveholders. He and so many others here conveniently forget that the argument is actually whether the institution of slavery was an important enough issue to the South to secede for. The fact is, there were 3.1 million slaves in the south back then and 390,000 slave holders. That's 38% of the population in South whom consisted of slaveholders and slaves. That's close to 40% of the population in the Confederacy.



a reply to: Semicollegiate

as did everyone who bought Southern products

Buying a product for consumption isn't comparable to the business owner earning money off it. Apples and oranges.

The North also profited greatly from slavery.

Where's your stats? They may have profited but how much more than the South? That's not to say the North went to war to rid of slavery in the first place. The South seceded to preserve it out of fear the North would.

The North shipped slaves in, and sold them.

The slave trade in the United States ended in 1807 with the Slave Trade Act 1807 so it's not relevant to the civil war. Now one could argue there were still slaves smuggled into the US following that act? But not at the same levels experienced towards the end or post 18th century.

Slavery was an institution that was phased out peacefully everywhere else in the world.

And it would've been peacefully phased out in the South eventually had they not seceded (probably well towards the end of the 19th century). They did however secede to preserve it:

Slavery is the first thing to be mentioned in the South Carolina declaration of immediate causes to secession in December 24, 1860. Slavery is mentioned 6 times, tariffs are not mentioned at all, although taxes are, in relation to slavery that is: avalon.law.yale.edu...

Slavery is mentioned first in the Mississippi declaration of immediate causes of secession, it is mentioned 3 times. There is no mention of tariffs or taxes: avalon.law.yale.edu...

Slavery is mentioned first in the Texas declaration of immediate causes of secession, it is mentioned 3 times. There is no mention of tariffs or taxes:
avalon.law.yale.edu...

There's more from other states, declarations of grievances:
avalon.law.yale.edu...

You want to know their reasoning for secession? Go to the declaration of grievances. Simple.

In 1860, Lincoln was elected with a Republican plurality in the Senate and the Morrill Tariff had already passed the House. Enough Senators could be bought, or maybe brought into the new tariff boosted industrial power base, to pass the Morrill Tariff.

So just to clarify here. Are you saying had the South not seceded and with the presence of Southern representation in congress, they still would not have had enough to stop the Morrill Tariff from passing? It's interesting you think the Republicans would've 'bought off' representatives at the time as you were arguing before that every southern representative voted against the tariff since the start.

I'd like you to clarify again for me so we're clear here. You argue there were not enough representatives in congress at the time to stop the Morrill Tariff? And can you also link to the Morill Tariff being touted as the main cause that sparked secession at that time by government officials. Thanks.

Lincoln pushed troops into Fort Sumter, the tariff collector of South Carolina's largest port

Where's your evidence that Fort Sumter was a Tariff collector? I've heard this one before.

From the South's point of view, the tariff then, like Obama Care now (the vote buyers have been pushing it since the 1960's), was just a matter of time. The tariff was for the "greater good" of the Union. And the tariff was lawful.

The future western states would probably not be slave states because either they were too dry for agriculture, like New Mexico, or the white settlers didn't want to compete with slave labor as in Kansas and Nebraska. The Southern slave states would have permanently lost their majority in the Senate at some future time.

The encroachments against slavery were not lawful in 1860, without an amendment to the constitution. As countries, at the International level, the Confederacy and its autonomous states would not want to be seen as outlaws, and secession was lawful, or else the 9th and 10th Amendments have no meaning.

Secession was also not aggressive. The North started and maintained the war until the South was ruined and occupied.

The North was the aggressor nation, it was a war of choice.

So who chose to invade and conquer? A plurality President? A population that could not tolerate slavery one more split second?

We don't know for sure, so it was a false flag in some sense.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
Sorry I couldn't resist.

Just to highlight one important fact here again that tends to be browsed over. The argument in this thread is that the institution of slavery wasn't a significant enough issue to have sparked the civil war. This is why the OP argued that only 1% of the US population consisted of slaveholders. He and so many others here conveniently forget that the argument is actually whether the institution of slavery was an important enough issue to the South to secede for. The fact is, there were 3.1 million slaves in the south back then and 390,000 slave holders. That's 38% of the population in South whom consisted of slaveholders and slaves. That's close to 40% of the population in the Confederacy.



a reply to: Semicollegiate

as did everyone who bought Southern products

Buying a product for consumption isn't comparable to the business owner earning money off it. Apples and oranges.

The North also profited greatly from slavery.

Where's your stats? They may have profited but how much more than the South? That's not to say the North went to war to rid of slavery in the first place. The South seceded to preserve it out of fear the North would.

The North shipped slaves in, and sold them.

The slave trade in the United States ended in 1807 with the Slave Trade Act 1807 so it's not relevant to the civil war. Now one could argue there were still slaves smuggled into the US following that act? But not at the same levels experienced towards the end or post 18th century.

Slavery was an institution that was phased out peacefully everywhere else in the world.

And it would've been peacefully phased out in the South eventually had they not seceded (probably well towards the end of the 19th century). They did however secede to preserve it:

Slavery is the first thing to be mentioned in the South Carolina declaration of immediate causes to secession in December 24, 1860. Slavery is mentioned 6 times, tariffs are not mentioned at all, although taxes are, in relation to slavery that is: avalon.law.yale.edu...

Slavery is mentioned first in the Mississippi declaration of immediate causes of secession, it is mentioned 3 times. There is no mention of tariffs or taxes: avalon.law.yale.edu...

Slavery is mentioned first in the Texas declaration of immediate causes of secession, it is mentioned 3 times. There is no mention of tariffs or taxes:
avalon.law.yale.edu...

There's more from other states, declarations of grievances:
avalon.law.yale.edu...

You want to know their reasoning for secession? Go to the declaration of grievances. Simple.

In 1860, Lincoln was elected with a Republican plurality in the Senate and the Morrill Tariff had already passed the House. Enough Senators could be bought, or maybe brought into the new tariff boosted industrial power base, to pass the Morrill Tariff.

So just to clarify here. Are you saying had the South not seceded and with the presence of Southern representation in congress, they still would not have had enough to stop the Morrill Tariff from passing? It's interesting you think the Republicans would've 'bought off' representatives at the time as you were arguing before that every southern representative voted against the tariff since the start.

I'd like you to clarify again for me so we're clear here. You argue there were not enough representatives in congress at the time to stop the Morrill Tariff? And can you also link to the Morill Tariff being touted as the main cause that sparked secession at that time by government officials. Thanks.

Lincoln pushed troops into Fort Sumter, the tariff collector of South Carolina's largest port

Where's your evidence that Fort Sumter was a Tariff collector? I've heard this one before.

From the South's point of view, the tariff then, like Obama Care now (the vote buyers have been pushing it since the 1960's), was just a matter of time. The tariff was for the "greater good" of the Union. And the tariff was lawful.

The future western states would probably not be slave states because either they were too dry for agriculture, like New Mexico, or the white settlers didn't want to compete with slave labor as in Kansas and Nebraska. The Southern slave states would have permanently lost their majority in the Senate at some future time.

The encroachments against slavery were not lawful in 1860, without an amendment to the constitution. As countries, at the International level, the Confederacy and its autonomous states would not want to be seen as outlaws, and secession was lawful, or else the 9th and 10th Amendments have no meaning.

Secession was also not aggressive. The North started and maintained the war until the South was ruined and occupied.

The North was the aggressor nation, it was a war of choice.

So who chose to invade and conquer? A plurality President? A population that could not tolerate slavery one more split second?

We don't know for sure, so it was a false flag in some sense.

What a pile of nonsense. The twisting of logic you utilize to try and blame the North for the South refusing to stop owning other human beings is disgusting. The Civil War was not a false flag. It was a war of ideals. The largest? The Southern ideal that owning black people was ok.

a reply to: xpert11

To be honest I dont really know what stance the brits took with the Confedrates after the war. I was just adding what some one had once told me about it. I am from Yorkshire so it was to do with my local history. Sir Titus Salt and other wool merchants were really wealthy at that point in time. They were from West Yorkshire were as Wilberforce, was from East Yorkshire. At that time they controlled the entire wool and cloth markets of the world. So having some southern conferates under cutting them was a big thing. I was led to believe that were instrumental in the fight against slavery as it hurt them in the pocket. So they financed Wilberforce and also the North against the south. Some one mentioned that the brits financed both sides. That sounds about right IMO. The war was fought over the price of cotton. I dont know if that is true or not. But it wouldnt surprise me.

My understanding of the civil war was as follows:

For a while before the civil war, the question of slavery was at hand. While there was one nation, the belief was that each state was its own country, that came together to form a larger country. The south had slaves, yes, and while it was as some would view it a foul and filthy habit, what was not stated, is that it was the north that provided the ships and crews that brought the slaves to the new world.

There were compromises, and promises, both kept and broken. Some of the best examples of the compromises, were in things like the 3/5's rule, where slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person. Combined with the restrictions, the south by the time Lincoln was elected was ready to walk out.

Lincoln was a shrewd politician, never giving a straight answer. Some would say he goaded the south to walk out. They did and decided to form their own country. While the country was dividing, there was an attack, and an explosion, at Fort Sumpter. That was what started the war.

What many tend to forget, this was a war of principles, that initially it was a war fought on the idea that states could leave the union, should they desire. And Lincoln, first used that as a means to get the declaration of war to preserve the country and Union. It was not until later when the war was starting to become highly unpopular, no victories on the part of the north that it became about slavery and ultimately to end the practice in the country once and for all. He used that as a bit of political ploy to maintain the public support, that was waning.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: jaffo

Yeah there is some revisionist history.

Not from me though.

You continue to show that Pres. Lincoln did not believe in equality...and falsely equate that general truth with him being pro-slavery and secession? Between those two claims is where revisionist BS resides.

What seems to be an obvious logic fail here in this OP is the idea that if Pres. Lincoln did not believe in equality…then he must not have been opposed to slavery and should have been fine with secession.

False.

He did not believe the African American equal to Whites, but he also fiercely opposed slavery or its expansion. He also fiercely opposed secession .

He unwaveringly opposed expanding slavery to the Northern States or new territories as the US expanded.

This is why he would have been OK with the South keeping the institution of slavery if it meant preserving the union.
Not OK with secession (destroying the union) nor expanding slavery.

Part of this nonsense revisionist history is premised on the ridiculous idea that cultural norms and sentiments of 150 years ago are similar to today.

Abraham Lincoln, like the vast majority of the Northern Whites were both opposed to slavery as an institution on philosophical, political and moral grounds AND racists.

Some timeline clarity here...

South Carolina seceded from the Union - December 20, 1860
Mississippi seceded from the Union - January 9, 1861
Florida seceded from the Union - January 10, 1861
Alabama seceded from the Union - January 11, 1861
Georgia seceded from the Union - January 19, 1861
Louisiana seceded from the Union - January 26, 1861
Texas seceded from the Union - February 1, 1861

Abraham Lincoln takes office March, 1861
Confederates bombarded Union soldiers at Fort Sumter, South Carolina on April 12, 1861 (Start of the Civil War)

Virginia seceded from the Union - April 17, 1861
Arkansas seceded from the Union - May 6, 1861
North Carolina seceded from the Union - May 20, 1861
Tennessee seceded from the Union - June 8, 1861

Through the 1850’s southern states increasing felt like the Union did not represent their interests. With the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1861, and his opposition to the expansion of slavery in the northern states and western territories and general anti-slavery views, the south felt their government no longer represented them nor advocated on their behalf and succeeded from the union.

Abraham Lincoln, like the vast majority of the Northern Whites were opposed to slavery as an institution on philosophical, political and moral grounds while at the same time not believing that African Americans were “equal”..

Throughout all of Lincolns public statements, throughout all of his career, he and the Republican Party strictly opposed slavery and secession...and secession more than slavery.

Put simply and perhaps in terms that modern Americans can understand….

It is TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS to
(A) BELIEVE SOMEONE “UNEQUAL” IN INTELLECT OR SOPHISTICATION and
(B) THINK THE BELOW IS A JUST CONSEQUENCE FOR THE SAME.



President Lincoln was a racist who opposed slavery and secession. That strange truth in the context of the times doesn’t excuse the Southern States institution of slavery. Get over it.

Hell..He was even OK with the South keeping slavery, just not expanding the institution. This lack of support and vocal opposition for slavery in DC was just too much for the South to abide by.

Now...what we can do, with an understanding that there will never be clear answers, is ask what was at the root of Lincoln and the Republicans opposition to slavery. Was it moral or political/economic? We do know that the south's power was seated in the unmoral economic advantage that slavery afforded them and that the South saw the new territories in the West, roughly half the country as we know it today, as "up for grabs" to expand their power. If slavery and been permitted in the West, we might have a very different country today. So it might have been a power struggle, it might have been a political struggle, it might have been a moral struggle...but whatever it was...it sure as hell WAS ABOUT SLAVERY.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: intrepid

And yet there were tasks that plantation owners would rather hire day labor for than make their slaves do. When it came to loading the large cotton bales onto packet steamers for example, the work was physically risky. Plantation owners would often rather hire cheap Irish day laborers to do it because if one of the cotton bales slipped and rolled over on the laborers trying to load the bale, it would often do serious physical injuries that the laborer would not recover from.

Slaves were expensive property that many owners would rather keep from that risk to do less dangerous hard labor. So they'd pay the day expense for Irish laborers.

In a lot of cases, as I've dug deeper into the issue myself, the South was a much more complicated place than the brief overview we get taught. There were even a very few black landowners who owned slaves themselves.

One of the biggest slave owners in Charleston was a freed slave himself. Obviously one does not want to seem condoning slavery in any way, but the history and situation of the time is indeed both complex and interesting.

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
Sorry I couldn't resist.

Just to highlight one important fact here again that tends to be browsed over. The argument in this thread is that the institution of slavery wasn't a significant enough issue to have sparked the civil war. This is why the OP argued that only 1% of the US population consisted of slaveholders. He and so many others here conveniently forget that the argument is actually whether the institution of slavery was an important enough issue to the South to secede for. The fact is, there were 3.1 million slaves in the south back then and 390,000 slave holders. That's 38% of the population in South whom consisted of slaveholders and slaves. That's close to 40% of the population in the Confederacy.



a reply to: Semicollegiate

as did everyone who bought Southern products

Buying a product for consumption isn't comparable to the business owner earning money off it. Apples and oranges.

The North also profited greatly from slavery.

Where's your stats? They may have profited but how much more than the South? That's not to say the North went to war to rid of slavery in the first place. The South seceded to preserve it out of fear the North would.

The North shipped slaves in, and sold them.

The slave trade in the United States ended in 1807 with the Slave Trade Act 1807 so it's not relevant to the civil war. Now one could argue there were still slaves smuggled into the US following that act? But not at the same levels experienced towards the end or post 18th century.

Slavery was an institution that was phased out peacefully everywhere else in the world.

And it would've been peacefully phased out in the South eventually had they not seceded (probably well towards the end of the 19th century). They did however secede to preserve it:

Slavery is the first thing to be mentioned in the South Carolina declaration of immediate causes to secession in December 24, 1860. Slavery is mentioned 6 times, tariffs are not mentioned at all, although taxes are, in relation to slavery that is: avalon.law.yale.edu...

Slavery is mentioned first in the Mississippi declaration of immediate causes of secession, it is mentioned 3 times. There is no mention of tariffs or taxes: avalon.law.yale.edu...

Slavery is mentioned first in the Texas declaration of immediate causes of secession, it is mentioned 3 times. There is no mention of tariffs or taxes:
avalon.law.yale.edu...

There's more from other states, declarations of grievances:
avalon.law.yale.edu...

You want to know their reasoning for secession? Go to the declaration of grievances. Simple.

In 1860, Lincoln was elected with a Republican plurality in the Senate and the Morrill Tariff had already passed the House. Enough Senators could be bought, or maybe brought into the new tariff boosted industrial power base, to pass the Morrill Tariff.

So just to clarify here. Are you saying had the South not seceded and with the presence of Southern representation in congress, they still would not have had enough to stop the Morrill Tariff from passing? It's interesting you think the Republicans would've 'bought off' representatives at the time as you were arguing before that every southern representative voted against the tariff since the start.

I'd like you to clarify again for me so we're clear here. You argue there were not enough representatives in congress at the time to stop the Morrill Tariff? And can you also link to the Morill Tariff being touted as the main cause that sparked secession at that time by government officials. Thanks.

Lincoln pushed troops into Fort Sumter, the tariff collector of South Carolina's largest port

Where's your evidence that Fort Sumter was a Tariff collector? I've heard this one before.

From the South's point of view, the tariff then, like Obama Care now (the vote buyers have been pushing it since the 1960's), was just a matter of time. The tariff was for the "greater good" of the Union. And the tariff was lawful.

The future western states would probably not be slave states because either they were too dry for agriculture, like New Mexico, or the white settlers didn't want to compete with slave labor as in Kansas and Nebraska. The Southern slave states would have permanently lost their majority in the Senate at some future time.

The encroachments against slavery were not lawful in 1860, without an amendment to the constitution. As countries, at the International level, the Confederacy and its autonomous states would not want to be seen as outlaws, and secession was lawful, or else the 9th and 10th Amendments have no meaning.

Secession was also not aggressive. The North started and maintained the war until the South was ruined and occupied.

The North was the aggressor nation, it was a war of choice.

So who chose to invade and conquer? A plurality President? A population that could not tolerate slavery one more split second?

We don't know for sure, so it was a false flag in some sense.

What a pile of nonsense. The twisting of logic you utilize to try and blame the North for the South refusing to stop owning other human beings is disgusting. The Civil War was not a false flag. It was a war of ideals. The largest? The Southern ideal that owning black people was ok.

The North made slavery and every one in the economy got cheaper stuff because of slavery. Slavery was going to be phased out by technology.

The largest ideal was for or against a Union.