The real reason for the Civil War.

Contrary to popular belief the civil war was fought over slavery.

Every States rights policy issue that can be pointed to was directly related to slavery and here is why.

Slaves were the most valuable commodity in all of America!!

Pre civil war the estimated value of all the US slaves equaled at least 3 billion dollars....3billiom dollars in 1860's money. Not when figured against modern inflation...

That is more than every other American non natural resource combined....

All the factories, guns, horses, ships, clothing , exc from the entire US (not just the south) did not reach 3 billion dollars.

Slaves were more valuable than all the US gold. Countless people even would invest their money in slaves.

So what happens if slavery is abolished???

The United States GDP would be cut in half..all of it.

That is 3 billion dollars worth of economic power that would vanish in an instance.

Your family could be the richest in the state pre abolition, and instantly be flat broke afterward.

What other historical economic example could be pointed to were a nations wealth was instantly cut in half?

For a fair comparison to today, I guess it would be as if all the automobiles were freed.

Nearly every family instantly loses from 20% to 100% of their net worth..and now also have to start paying for transportation.


The Great Depression doesnt have anything on that kind of loss in GDP.


So is it any real surprise a civil war was fought over slavery?

With it being that central to the American economy, is there any surprise people were willing to fight to keep slavery??

a reply to: JoshuaCox

my view on it - is that :

the sothern states were victims of thier own [ flawed ] sucess

thier entire ecconomy became utterly dependant on slavery as any other business model could not compete with a slave based market

thus - they were not prepared to abandon the system

Wouldnt that be politics rather than slavery?

Slavery is wrong and cruel in most cases, no excuses and it should be noted how many white people died ending slavery in the US. Its worth noting other countries ended slavery with little or no blood shed.

I think there was more at stake than slavery, control and finances being paramount

a reply to: Raggedyman

hi - to aid discussion - could you list 3 countries that :

ended slavery with little or no blood shed.

i am not taking the piss - i know they exist - but the counter contention to your premise is that :

the countries that abandoned slavery painlessly were not so utterly dependant on it as the sothern states of america were

you list the countries that you feel best represent your claim - and i shall attempt to show that they are not a fair comparison to the US southern states

a reply to: JoshuaCox

You do realize the civil war started a couple years before the emancipation proclamation right?

Industrialization vs agricultural...

That is quite a simplistic assumption. The Civil War was not wanted by either side; President Lincoln nor President Davis.

You need a good history lesson.

The northern states were making the laws which effected who controlled the economics and it certainly was more than just slavery. At that time, many states north and south were slowly converting to anti-slavery.

As you stated, slavery was a large part of finances so an immediate change would cause economic ruin, especially for the agrarian south but the north wanted more control in every area of life.

As a descendant of President Davis, I am aware that the winners write the history-but, really, most scholars are aware why the north wanted war-and it wasn't for slavery-it was to control the south-bend them to their rules.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Raggedyman

hi - to aid discussion - could you list 3 countries that :

ended slavery with little or no blood shed.

i am not taking the piss - i know they exist - but the counter contention to your premise is that :

the countries that abandoned slavery painlessly were not so utterly dependant on it as the sothern states of america were

you list the countries that you feel best represent your claim - and i shall attempt to show that they are not a fair comparison to the US southern states

I am not taking the piss either.
I just dont think slavery was the one main thing, I think it was one of the main issues, yes, not the issue.

ended slavery peacefully by utilizing multiple strategies. These strategies, implemented by the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Danes, and others, included slave rebellions, abolitionist campaigns to gain public support for abolition, election of antislavery politicians, encouragement and assistance of runaway slaves, raising private funds to purchase the freedom of slaves, and the use of taxpayer funds to buy the freedom of slaves.

www.lewrockwell.com...

If you see slavery as the main issue then thats acceptable by me, I disagree
Its ok

Except that it wasn't..

a reply to: JoshuaCox


I hope you have upped your game. You got spanked the last
few times you played.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Contrary to popular belief the civil war was fought over slavery.

Every States rights policy issue that can be pointed to was directly related to slavery and here is why.

Slaves were the most valuable commodity in all of America!!

In other words, its about the frggin money.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

The civil war wasn't about slavery.

It was about state's rights.

The American people lost the civil war.

In the end it was all about bankers. The Northern ones.

Ask Abe... ooop

Im pretty sure slavery wasnt the main reason. Main reason is Federal government was becoming too powerful which was unconstituional.

During a discussion on another site some years ago a commenter suggested that the campaign to abolish slavery was about changing one set of bondage for another. Essentially what was happening was the release from actual slavery was only to facilitate the transition into the slavery of mass consumerism, monetarism, and debt. The commenter was roundly shouted down but others thought as I did, that this was a possibly valid point and worthy of exploration.

Tariffs placed on southern states played a big role in the beginning and the tarrifs were huge , near 50%. It was only later that slavery was used as an issue.

Personally it is hard to understand using humans as slaves but it continues to this day. Don't be disillusioned by northern states claims. To this day they are more racist than many southern states.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
During a discussion on another site some years ago a commenter suggested that the campaign to abolish slavery was about changing one set of bondage for another. Essentially what was happening was the release from actual slavery was only to facilitate the transition into the slavery of mass consumerism, monetarism, and debt. The commenter was roundly shouted down but others thought as I did, that this was a possibly valid point and worthy of exploration.

A slight of hand that replaces the chains with a long tether.

Like... Here, your free now but you'll never make it on your own. So, I'll pay you a "fair wage" to keep doing what your doing for me now. Once you make enough of my money I will sell you part of my property and your set. But you will need to pay a tax to me for the work it takes to make it easier for you to deliver your services to me.

As opposed to, here you go your free, good luck.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
During a discussion on another site some years ago a commenter suggested that the campaign to abolish slavery was about changing one set of bondage for another. Essentially what was happening was the release from actual slavery was only to facilitate the transition into the slavery of mass consumerism, monetarism, and debt. The commenter was roundly shouted down but others thought as I did, that this was a possibly valid point and worthy of exploration.

would make perfect sense, wouldn't it?

originally posted by: FamCore

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
During a discussion on another site some years ago a commenter suggested that the campaign to abolish slavery was about changing one set of bondage for another. Essentially what was happening was the release from actual slavery was only to facilitate the transition into the slavery of mass consumerism, monetarism, and debt. The commenter was roundly shouted down but others thought as I did, that this was a possibly valid point and worthy of exploration.

would make perfect sense, wouldn't it?

It certainly made sense to me.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Right and wrong, nothing is so bland. To think war was fought over slavery is silly. The civil war was to unite a federal union, one nation.

At this time, south succeeding was a major problem. Most of agriculture in time was harvested in south, sugar cane being popular. It was crippling the union. South if not attacked, would have strived better than Union. Mainly because of Mississippi river.

Today, if power went out... Union and West would rip each other raw. South would keep on trucking on.It's different world down here.

It was entire different belief system. South is and always will be known as the bible belt. Some racist mind set and very religious. They hated the current central banking system and hated decoration of Independence too. Why? They didn't believe in Jewish control of banks supplying nation with interest. Seen it as "white slavery". Believed Christianity should be only religious belief to not mix social injustices. They didn't believe everyone was created equal, didn't believe in freedom of religion if it wasn't Christianity.

Some quotes most don't know about Ol Honest Abe. Just prove point on his opinion on slaves and real reason behind attacking Union.

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality to the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two which, in my opinion, will probably forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and, in as much as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference..."

"as long as blacks continue to live with whites, they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may, someday, challenge the supremecy of the white man."

Also New York Tribune Aug 22, 1862
"if I could free the union without freeing any slaves, I would do it. If I could do it without freeing all the slaves, I would do it. And if it came to freeing some while others are not, I would do that. What I do about slavery of colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the union. "

or his 1st Inaugurated addresses..
"Saving the union is to strengthen the grip of federal government on any and all citizens, any and all territories, any and all states."

"No state, upon it's mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union... resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void."

It was only to push strong arm of the federal government. Still to this day, south hates big government. Most won't tolerate liberal social outcries like Homosexuality, Child Pornography, Beastiality, Transgender, Communism, Socialism, and anything that defiles against Jesus Christ.

These ideas are what fuels most of this. White lash or civil war or race war or holy war. Even most non Christians of the south have different eye on things. It doesn't bother them the things we hold true for safety and virtue of our beliefs. People knock Christianity but it's by far most attacked religion.

Look at Christmas, in 40s...50s...60s... look at it now. Something to be fun and holy is practically dismantled. It's not the same. Can be sued to not to participate to sin. This pastor won't marry gay couple is ridiculous. He should have that right. Anyone at anytime has right to refuse service if it goes against their beliefs. It's minorities getting rights while original norm is being prosecuted. These Social Justice Warriors... It's silly and childish. America and Europe don't want to see it turned into Sodem & Gomorrah like it continues to do so. Ironically, Christian beliefs are prosecuted while these social justice warriors try push to allow Sharia Law. It's preposterous.

It doesn't work. Not everyone can have rights, it just doesn't work out. In the end, that's why we have these laws. Lands once Nation under God is multicultural disaster, meanwhile no one else has to be. It irates me and irates a lot of people seeing this country just be ran into dirt. I'm not going preach to you but damn, besides God being real.. besides Jesus ever existing.. besides that, the laws of bible have use in America. Despite what Bill Mahr says, these fundamentals is what got us to 1960s.

Best example of this is holy war. Christians are ones for thousands of years has died for its land and it's beliefs. When Islam came, we won, and countless times have persecuted the jews. It doesn't work.

If Christians preached peace and love,
Jews not picked messiah, working have 2800 slaves (goyims)
and Muslim/Islam wants to conquer the world, stone people, kill infidels

How are we to live in peace? Cry all want, but I am old. America ain't freaking same. It's a landfill of poor dumb ideology and thought of acceptable rights to biggest cry baby winner. We can't even get US born citizen we voted for in office, while immigrant president calls shots.

Honestly, it's been long time coming. call me Xenophobe I don't care, diversity means chasing down last white Christian male. Our bible warns of this. We aren't diversifying China, or Mexico, or any nation. It's us under attack while everyone sits back and cries about injustice. Tired being called racist.. I'm not privilege either. There's obviously reason Europe and North America strive, and it wasn't because of "diversity". It's that concept that destroyed most countries, Europe and America is next. Ironically, any nation under God is blessed, so says Bible. Now that it slips away, deeper we fall into darkness.

Maybe others should take heed.

Attacked by Judaism, attacked by Muslims, attacked by Islamist, attacked now by our own people because why? Because we are charitable religion? Cry "oooh they put cross on CHRISTmas tree! oh, another birth of Jesus is on TV! Oh, there giving medical relief in third world countries! Oh, they feed the homeless! Oh why must I participate in Easter?"

Blah.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

Not sure if I had read the same thing as you but yea what you said . One of the big costs to owning slaves was you had to feed them and all of the other stuff that goes with it . The new system basically made slaves of us all and the Feds got to extract their pound of flesh from us all with the tax schemes .If you were a slave then you didn't own property and didn't pay property tax . New system was you either paid rent or owned your own place and paid the tax to the state .

I remember growing up that we had our own place but it was not registered and we didn't pay any tax .There was a campaine where we could get it registered for free and that way no one could take our place . My dad did and the next year we got a small tax bill .The tax bill grew every year after that . I am 60ish and live in Canada so it wasn't all that long ago these schemes were being brought in . We were what you would call off reserve Indians with no status . Same thing happened to all my uncles and cousins .