It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A Bigger Picture (Rise of the NWO)
page: 3share:
Additional items I would like to point out.
First of all, the days prior to 1913 were not the good ole days, and reading "The Jungle" which was based on journalistic research of the day, clearly points out what a mess the country was in. The federal reserve was also created by elites because they thought that they could use banking to smooth out economic swings that were resulting in regular periods of depression which the economy of that day experienced on a regular interval. The result was a long sustained period without a depression, leading to the great depression.
The fact that House was a descendant of Southern Gentry backs up my earlier post that the South was closely tied to European bankers, who had been practicing their technique in Europe for centuries. Woodrow Wilson was either a wolf in sheep's clothes, or a liberal who was duped by his master.
A key point that I would like to point out about FDR, is that following the FDR period, after WW II, was a period of strong unions and growth of the middle class, resulting in a period of the strongest sustained economic expansion in our nations history. This period was in fact the good ole days, when technological growth exploded, and the U.S. developed into a truly great nation. Could it be that FDR succeeded in duping the people who put him in power, leading to an expansion of the middle class in a way that has not been seen perhaps in all of recorded civilization? I admit this last statement is purely conjecture, but the things that lead up to our economic success in the fifties and the sixties should be studied. I don't see how the changes created by FDR can be completely discounted.
I completely agree with you on the assassination of JFK. I have never bought the official story since the first time I saw the video footage of the assassination, and all the information I have learned since has only increased my suspicion.
The youth revolted in the sixties, and the reasons have not been fully explained, but the combination of the JFK assassination, the civil rights movement, and the Vietnam war have to figure highly in the social unrest of the era. The sad thing is that the civil rights movement of the sixties devolved into an orgy of drugs and sex, and the movement fizzled. Personally I think that it was no accident that the druggie movement became so popular. The mass media had learned long ago that they could control their stars by getting them hooked on drugs. By getting the celebrities of the day on board with the open use of drugs, the youth of the country were easily led into their bad habits. Was this a natural progression, or created by power elites? Who ever came up with the slogan "Drop out, turn on, and tune in" certainly wasn't serving the interests of the civil rights movement.
This leads us into the seventies and the expansion of the welfare system, first under Johnson, and then further under Nixon. Is it any accident that conservatives are responsible for our welfare system growing out of hand, leading to cradle to grave welfare as it did under these two administrations? This growth in welfare was also accommodated by an explosion of crime in our inner cities, both leading to public disgust with the welfare system. Throw in the energy crisis and double digit inflation, both of which could have been easily engineered by banking elites looking to re-establish control over the U.S. public, and the way was paved for Ronald Reagan's ascent to power, and the beginning of a new era of wealth and power for ruling elites.
At the end of the seventies, wealth in the U.S. was more equitably distributed than any time in our nations history. Since that time, and the advent of the concept of the "Free Market", wealth distribution has once again tilted heavily in favor of rich elites. I know that many, if not most of you here, will not like the direction I am going, but please extend me the grace of hearing me out.
First of all, the days prior to 1913 were not the good ole days, and reading "The Jungle" which was based on journalistic research of the day, clearly points out what a mess the country was in. The federal reserve was also created by elites because they thought that they could use banking to smooth out economic swings that were resulting in regular periods of depression which the economy of that day experienced on a regular interval. The result was a long sustained period without a depression, leading to the great depression.
The fact that House was a descendant of Southern Gentry backs up my earlier post that the South was closely tied to European bankers, who had been practicing their technique in Europe for centuries. Woodrow Wilson was either a wolf in sheep's clothes, or a liberal who was duped by his master.
A key point that I would like to point out about FDR, is that following the FDR period, after WW II, was a period of strong unions and growth of the middle class, resulting in a period of the strongest sustained economic expansion in our nations history. This period was in fact the good ole days, when technological growth exploded, and the U.S. developed into a truly great nation. Could it be that FDR succeeded in duping the people who put him in power, leading to an expansion of the middle class in a way that has not been seen perhaps in all of recorded civilization? I admit this last statement is purely conjecture, but the things that lead up to our economic success in the fifties and the sixties should be studied. I don't see how the changes created by FDR can be completely discounted.
I completely agree with you on the assassination of JFK. I have never bought the official story since the first time I saw the video footage of the assassination, and all the information I have learned since has only increased my suspicion.
The youth revolted in the sixties, and the reasons have not been fully explained, but the combination of the JFK assassination, the civil rights movement, and the Vietnam war have to figure highly in the social unrest of the era. The sad thing is that the civil rights movement of the sixties devolved into an orgy of drugs and sex, and the movement fizzled. Personally I think that it was no accident that the druggie movement became so popular. The mass media had learned long ago that they could control their stars by getting them hooked on drugs. By getting the celebrities of the day on board with the open use of drugs, the youth of the country were easily led into their bad habits. Was this a natural progression, or created by power elites? Who ever came up with the slogan "Drop out, turn on, and tune in" certainly wasn't serving the interests of the civil rights movement.
This leads us into the seventies and the expansion of the welfare system, first under Johnson, and then further under Nixon. Is it any accident that conservatives are responsible for our welfare system growing out of hand, leading to cradle to grave welfare as it did under these two administrations? This growth in welfare was also accommodated by an explosion of crime in our inner cities, both leading to public disgust with the welfare system. Throw in the energy crisis and double digit inflation, both of which could have been easily engineered by banking elites looking to re-establish control over the U.S. public, and the way was paved for Ronald Reagan's ascent to power, and the beginning of a new era of wealth and power for ruling elites.
At the end of the seventies, wealth in the U.S. was more equitably distributed than any time in our nations history. Since that time, and the advent of the concept of the "Free Market", wealth distribution has once again tilted heavily in favor of rich elites. I know that many, if not most of you here, will not like the direction I am going, but please extend me the grace of hearing me out.
reply to post by poet1b
You have jsut made my point for me. Note that despite their overtures, Europe did not actually intervene significantly or militarily in the conflict. It was a crude magic trick really. They did divide and they did conquer, only to tie it all back together under their more direct control. They got the south to think they were actually on their side when it was actually them who had already subverted the Federal government. More brilliant than a Guinness ad.
They fought for reasons legitimized by propoganda. You only see slavery as the great issue of the day, because those debates get printed in the victory propoganda to this day, so you don't see the truth which I have exposed. The great debates on banking don't go in the textbooks as a matter of course. This is for the same reason that you are not taught in public schools that the Federal Reserve is privately owned and so are you.
I refuse to compete with illegal immigrants. I can't compete with them. I have lost several jobs already because of them. Yet there is not a peep about anything being done to change the situation. Sure, the issue might have been used as a rallying cry, but that does not mean it actually had anything to do with the actual fight. They used the small farmers as agent provacateurs.
This is not about unfair profits. This is about subverting what it means to be an American as outlined by the founding fathers. Keeping the U.S. united would not have been a problem if not for Northern agression. It is your opinion, based on propoganda and disinformation, that America is a better nation because of the Civil War. You seem unable to see past what you have been taught by the very system which intentionally blinds you.
Knock knock neo...
Secondly, you have overlooked the fact that European bankers were actively encouraging the South to secede from the union. The strategy of the people you cited, the Rothchilds and such, was to divide and conquer the United States. European bankers were intentionally driving a wedge between the industrialized North and the Agrarian South so that they could take control of our nation.
You have jsut made my point for me. Note that despite their overtures, Europe did not actually intervene significantly or militarily in the conflict. It was a crude magic trick really. They did divide and they did conquer, only to tie it all back together under their more direct control. They got the south to think they were actually on their side when it was actually them who had already subverted the Federal government. More brilliant than a Guinness ad.
The great majority of the people in the North fought the civil war for legitimate reasons. The proof of this is the famous Lincoln Douglas debates on slavery. Where are the great debates of the day on banking? Slavery was the main issue of the day. It wasn't about freeing the slaves, it was about farmers refusing to compete with slave labor.
They fought for reasons legitimized by propoganda. You only see slavery as the great issue of the day, because those debates get printed in the victory propoganda to this day, so you don't see the truth which I have exposed. The great debates on banking don't go in the textbooks as a matter of course. This is for the same reason that you are not taught in public schools that the Federal Reserve is privately owned and so are you.
I refuse to compete with illegal immigrants. I can't compete with them. I have lost several jobs already because of them. Yet there is not a peep about anything being done to change the situation. Sure, the issue might have been used as a rallying cry, but that does not mean it actually had anything to do with the actual fight. They used the small farmers as agent provacateurs.
Yes, the elites of the North unfairly profited a great deal from the war and that is a shame, but the vast majority of the people of the North paid dearly with their lives and the lives of their loved ones to keep the U.S. united, and we are a better nation because of this.
This is not about unfair profits. This is about subverting what it means to be an American as outlined by the founding fathers. Keeping the U.S. united would not have been a problem if not for Northern agression. It is your opinion, based on propoganda and disinformation, that America is a better nation because of the Civil War. You seem unable to see past what you have been taught by the very system which intentionally blinds you.
Knock knock neo...
I am a western liberal, which means my beliefs are based on the concepts put forth by Jonathan Locke. In other words, I believe in the balance of
power, rights of man, opportunity for all, representative government, and the market system. In my opinion, representative government and a market
economy go hand in hand, and one can not exist without the other. There must be an evenly enforced fair set of rules for a competitive market system
to flourish, which means government has an active responsibility in regulating our economy, and this is clearly stated in the constitution. States
should regulate economic activity that occurs within state boundaries, but when that economic activity crosses state and national boundaries, then it
becomes federal responsibility.
I see communism and socialism as idealistic nonsense for suckers, and I feel the same way about the Free Market. All three concepts lead to ever larger government, ever larger consumer and government debt, military police states, and that history shows this to be true of all three philosophies. All three philosophies play into the hands of power hungry elites.
I have been posting on forums for quite some time now, trying to get people to see this reality. My arguments are well developed, and I am quite capable of backing up my opinion. In many ways, I agree with the political ideas of libertarians, but on the concept of the free market, we part ways. Obviously I am not a supporter of Ron Paul. Yes I support the Clintons, and feel that they are true western liberals, who are very limited in their ability to make changes, because they must deal with the powers that be. In my opinion, Vince Foster was a warning to the Clintons. Our corporate controlled media works to undermine the Clintons at every opportunity in the most subtle of ways, pretending to support them all the while painting them in negative light. I find it to be a waste of time to debate with the anti-Clintons about the matter, so I am not likely to engage.
What I am wondering is if the people who support the free market concept can attempt to look at the results of free market concept and consider the possibility that it plays into the hands of the elites, those who control our banks, our media, and the majority of our industry, and a great deal of our government. In my opinion, if large numbers of people continue to buy into the concept of the free market, we are doomed to fall under the complete control of the NWO.
I see communism and socialism as idealistic nonsense for suckers, and I feel the same way about the Free Market. All three concepts lead to ever larger government, ever larger consumer and government debt, military police states, and that history shows this to be true of all three philosophies. All three philosophies play into the hands of power hungry elites.
I have been posting on forums for quite some time now, trying to get people to see this reality. My arguments are well developed, and I am quite capable of backing up my opinion. In many ways, I agree with the political ideas of libertarians, but on the concept of the free market, we part ways. Obviously I am not a supporter of Ron Paul. Yes I support the Clintons, and feel that they are true western liberals, who are very limited in their ability to make changes, because they must deal with the powers that be. In my opinion, Vince Foster was a warning to the Clintons. Our corporate controlled media works to undermine the Clintons at every opportunity in the most subtle of ways, pretending to support them all the while painting them in negative light. I find it to be a waste of time to debate with the anti-Clintons about the matter, so I am not likely to engage.
What I am wondering is if the people who support the free market concept can attempt to look at the results of free market concept and consider the possibility that it plays into the hands of the elites, those who control our banks, our media, and the majority of our industry, and a great deal of our government. In my opinion, if large numbers of people continue to buy into the concept of the free market, we are doomed to fall under the complete control of the NWO.
Reply to Jack
I have read about the history of the civil war, and I know what was going on in the Kansas territories before the war. If you want to ignore the ongoing hostilities at the time, then you are ignoring history. Once again, the average person in the North fought for the reasons I explained, and those were legitimate reasons.
European bankers considered interfering in the Civil War, but they realized that this would have been a foolish move on their part. European bankers simply did not have the ability to raise the military force that would have been necessary. They simply did not have the military force that would have been required. By the time they realized that the South was going to lose, the North was already too well organized. European soldiers attempting to invade the North would have gotten their clocks cleaned by the well seasoned veterans of the numerous wars with the Indians, fighting on their home turf. The British still had an Empire to maintain.
I have read about the history of the civil war, and I know what was going on in the Kansas territories before the war. If you want to ignore the ongoing hostilities at the time, then you are ignoring history. Once again, the average person in the North fought for the reasons I explained, and those were legitimate reasons.
European bankers considered interfering in the Civil War, but they realized that this would have been a foolish move on their part. European bankers simply did not have the ability to raise the military force that would have been necessary. They simply did not have the military force that would have been required. By the time they realized that the South was going to lose, the North was already too well organized. European soldiers attempting to invade the North would have gotten their clocks cleaned by the well seasoned veterans of the numerous wars with the Indians, fighting on their home turf. The British still had an Empire to maintain.
Jack
I don't think you can separate the economics from the political. Political freedom requires economic freedom. You have stated this yourself.
I don't think you can separate the economics from the political. Political freedom requires economic freedom. You have stated this yourself.
Great thread Jack.
I really believe that people should be taught two versions of History. One within the school system and one without.
Once they get the real story and see how everything has been set up in perfect order to bring about a one world order, they will get a new idea of what 'society' and 'government' does to their life.
Right now the difference between reality, and what we are taught, are like black and white.
I really believe that people should be taught two versions of History. One within the school system and one without.
Once they get the real story and see how everything has been set up in perfect order to bring about a one world order, they will get a new idea of what 'society' and 'government' does to their life.
Right now the difference between reality, and what we are taught, are like black and white.
reply to post by poet1b
I took some liberty there with the phraseology and only meant to imply that things were "hunky-dory" in a bit of a sarcastic manner. I'm sorry you were unable to pick that up. I am not saying that America was a utopia before 1913, we all are quite clear that it was not. But this does not equate to the necessity of handing over our entire system of hard value to a private entity.
The elites did not create the Federal Reserve for any other reason than personal gain. This is the nature of capitalism. It has nothing to do with the will of the people or what is good for them.
So you are saying that we are better off having big huge depressions once in a while, instead of regular little ones, and that this should be all at the whim of a private banker instead of the American people? "Smoothing economic swings" is propoganda again. If you really believe that they did all this out of righteousness and the good of the American economy, I tell you their invention was a failure at the cost of everything it means to be an American.
I am not going to argue that the Eurpoeans did not have close ties to the South. The key is which Eurpoeans, and how they interpreted that realtionship. The Civil War don't forget, was quite literally brother vs. brother as well. Most of the commanders who fought eachother, knew eachother well.
The Eurpoean bankers were wise to play both sides, knowing that their plot in the within the Federal government was not guaranteed of success. If the south had one, it would be all the more easy to disavow their complicity by highlighting their "close" realtionship with the Confederacy. But of course they were not willing to commit to the Confederacy, since it was really their own plot to overpower them by proxy.
Regarding Colonel House specifically, you must understand that his ties with bankers came many years after the Civil War and had little direct connection to the Civil War. However grudgingly, the south accepted defeat and have to move on in any way they could. Col. House might have supported the Confederacy had the war been in his time, but it was well over by the time he came to a position of influence.
As far as Woodrow Wilson goes, I would have to agree with you. Wether he understood what he was doing or not may never be known, but he certainly regretted it in later years.
Woodrow Wilson has made the following sets of statements...
More to follow in response to the same post...
First of all, the days prior to 1913 were not the good ole days, and reading "The Jungle" which was based on journalistic research of the day, clearly points out what a mess the country was in. The federal reserve was also created by elites because they thought that they could use banking to smooth out economic swings that were resulting in regular periods of depression which the economy of that day experienced on a regular interval. The result was a long sustained period without a depression, leading to the great depression.
I took some liberty there with the phraseology and only meant to imply that things were "hunky-dory" in a bit of a sarcastic manner. I'm sorry you were unable to pick that up. I am not saying that America was a utopia before 1913, we all are quite clear that it was not. But this does not equate to the necessity of handing over our entire system of hard value to a private entity.
The elites did not create the Federal Reserve for any other reason than personal gain. This is the nature of capitalism. It has nothing to do with the will of the people or what is good for them.
So you are saying that we are better off having big huge depressions once in a while, instead of regular little ones, and that this should be all at the whim of a private banker instead of the American people? "Smoothing economic swings" is propoganda again. If you really believe that they did all this out of righteousness and the good of the American economy, I tell you their invention was a failure at the cost of everything it means to be an American.
The fact that House was a descendant of Southern Gentry backs up my earlier post that the South was closely tied to European bankers, who had been practicing their technique in Europe for centuries. Woodrow Wilson was either a wolf in sheep's clothes, or a liberal who was duped by his master.
I am not going to argue that the Eurpoeans did not have close ties to the South. The key is which Eurpoeans, and how they interpreted that realtionship. The Civil War don't forget, was quite literally brother vs. brother as well. Most of the commanders who fought eachother, knew eachother well.
The Eurpoean bankers were wise to play both sides, knowing that their plot in the within the Federal government was not guaranteed of success. If the south had one, it would be all the more easy to disavow their complicity by highlighting their "close" realtionship with the Confederacy. But of course they were not willing to commit to the Confederacy, since it was really their own plot to overpower them by proxy.
Regarding Colonel House specifically, you must understand that his ties with bankers came many years after the Civil War and had little direct connection to the Civil War. However grudgingly, the south accepted defeat and have to move on in any way they could. Col. House might have supported the Confederacy had the war been in his time, but it was well over by the time he came to a position of influence.
As far as Woodrow Wilson goes, I would have to agree with you. Wether he understood what he was doing or not may never be known, but he certainly regretted it in later years.
Woodrow Wilson has made the following sets of statements...
I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.
The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy.
A little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own, have rendered the great government of the United States helpless and contemptible.
If there are men in this country big enough to own the government of the United States, they are going to own it.
More to follow in response to the same post...
reply to post by poet1b
FDR was my hero, and favorite President for a very long time. He was also on friendly terms with my family personally. I am having great diffuculty interpreting his Presidency at this point, having learned what I have posted. I admit, I must study more on the subject before I render judgement on FDR. It cannot be denied though, that for whatever reason, he did in fact suspend the Constitution and declare the nation bankrupt.
It should also be uncerstood that he did not end the Depression, the war did. He managed to keep Americans from revolting during these desperate times, and denied incubation to radicalism such as Communism and Nazism.
The success that followed the war was, again, a matter of course. The banksters had won the day and were now ready to reinvest, having already secured their investment by taking direct ownership of America. It was also a highly successful distraction. Everything came up roses after the war. No one wanted to look back. I'll bet that if you ask most people today who was the President during WWII, a lot of them will tell you FDR. But ask them who was President during the Depression. I'll put money down that you get a lot less correct answers.
I will not deny though, that times were good for Americans in the years after Roosevelt.
The rest of what you have posted, unless I am misinterpreting what you have said, is basically picking up where I left off and in support of my line of thought.
A key point that I would like to point out about FDR, is that following the FDR period, after WW II, was a period of strong unions and growth of the middle class, resulting in a period of the strongest sustained economic expansion in our nations history. This period was in fact the good ole days, when technological growth exploded, and the U.S. developed into a truly great nation. Could it be that FDR succeeded in duping the people who put him in power, leading to an expansion of the middle class in a way that has not been seen perhaps in all of recorded civilization? I admit this last statement is purely conjecture, but the things that lead up to our economic success in the fifties and the sixties should be studied. I don't see how the changes created by FDR can be completely discounted.
FDR was my hero, and favorite President for a very long time. He was also on friendly terms with my family personally. I am having great diffuculty interpreting his Presidency at this point, having learned what I have posted. I admit, I must study more on the subject before I render judgement on FDR. It cannot be denied though, that for whatever reason, he did in fact suspend the Constitution and declare the nation bankrupt.
It should also be uncerstood that he did not end the Depression, the war did. He managed to keep Americans from revolting during these desperate times, and denied incubation to radicalism such as Communism and Nazism.
The success that followed the war was, again, a matter of course. The banksters had won the day and were now ready to reinvest, having already secured their investment by taking direct ownership of America. It was also a highly successful distraction. Everything came up roses after the war. No one wanted to look back. I'll bet that if you ask most people today who was the President during WWII, a lot of them will tell you FDR. But ask them who was President during the Depression. I'll put money down that you get a lot less correct answers.
I will not deny though, that times were good for Americans in the years after Roosevelt.
The rest of what you have posted, unless I am misinterpreting what you have said, is basically picking up where I left off and in support of my line of thought.
I agree with you that the Federal Reserve Act was bad for our country, I was just pointing out that they thought they could control the economy
through the Federal Reserve, and they failed. I think this point gives us hope that we can regain our rights.
The Civil War was a sad time for our country, and has left us divided as a nation in many ways, to this very day. I don't see either side as the bad guys, but I feel that the war was probably inevitable. How else could slavery have ended? In many ways I think the South was trapped by the institution of slavery, and it is difficult to imagine how things could have gone differently. Too many other forces were involved. I hope you respect my opinion on this matter. I think it is important that we recognize the many reasons that the war was fought. I think further discussion would only distract from the topic.
The Civil War was a sad time for our country, and has left us divided as a nation in many ways, to this very day. I don't see either side as the bad guys, but I feel that the war was probably inevitable. How else could slavery have ended? In many ways I think the South was trapped by the institution of slavery, and it is difficult to imagine how things could have gone differently. Too many other forces were involved. I hope you respect my opinion on this matter. I think it is important that we recognize the many reasons that the war was fought. I think further discussion would only distract from the topic.
And I thought we were going to have a big debate on the Free Market.
FDR was certainly controversial, has to be the slickest politician in history, makes Bill look like blacktop.
I don't think bankers had their way after WW II. I think they just went along for the ride. Their efforts then went towards control of the Asian Southeast rim, until the time when they could hatch further plans to undermine the working class in the U.S.. I don't think the elites desired the strong growth of unions and the middle class.
I need to get going on some other things for now. I'll come back later.
FDR was certainly controversial, has to be the slickest politician in history, makes Bill look like blacktop.
I don't think bankers had their way after WW II. I think they just went along for the ride. Their efforts then went towards control of the Asian Southeast rim, until the time when they could hatch further plans to undermine the working class in the U.S.. I don't think the elites desired the strong growth of unions and the middle class.
I need to get going on some other things for now. I'll come back later.
reply to post by poet1b
No no, I am not ignoring what happened in Kansas. There were indeed open hositilities, but this was agitation toward war, not its purpose. Just like we didn't really go into Vietnam over the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The problems in Kansas should have and could have been resolved by the people of Kansas and their own militia if necessary.
Northern soldiers were not fighting to free the slaves, considering that there were slave in the north as well, and racism was prevelant on both sides. As I have already shown.
The average Union soldier may have been led to believe they were fighting to keep the country from falling apart, and indeed they were, but without realizing that the fissure had been created by the very people who commanded them.
This simply is not true. It was quite within their means to create a suitable force, or to deploy an existing one to turn the tide of battle if they had been so inclined. If they had been at all interested in the Confederate cause they would have begun preperations immediately, not after it was already too late. European forces did not have to invade the North and win the war on their own. They only needed to give some support to the Confederacy. Just like the French who finally decided to help out in the end of the Revolution.
Furthermore, you make the false assumption that Union soldiers were vastly more experienced. They may have been better equipped, but that is the only real advantage that can be atrributed exclusively to the North.
If it had been in the interest of Britain to intervene, they would have, plain and simple.
I have read about the history of the civil war, and I know what was going on in the Kansas territories before the war. If you want to ignore the ongoing hostilities at the time, then you are ignoring history. Once again, the average person in the North fought for the reasons I explained, and those were legitimate reasons.
No no, I am not ignoring what happened in Kansas. There were indeed open hositilities, but this was agitation toward war, not its purpose. Just like we didn't really go into Vietnam over the Gulf of Tonkin incident. The problems in Kansas should have and could have been resolved by the people of Kansas and their own militia if necessary.
Northern soldiers were not fighting to free the slaves, considering that there were slave in the north as well, and racism was prevelant on both sides. As I have already shown.
The average Union soldier may have been led to believe they were fighting to keep the country from falling apart, and indeed they were, but without realizing that the fissure had been created by the very people who commanded them.
European bankers considered interfering in the Civil War, but they realized that this would have been a foolish move on their part. European bankers simply did not have the ability to raise the military force that would have been necessary. They simply did not have the military force that would have been required. By the time they realized that the South was going to lose, the North was already too well organized. European soldiers attempting to invade the North would have gotten their clocks cleaned by the well seasoned veterans of the numerous wars with the Indians, fighting on their home turf. The British still had an Empire to maintain.
This simply is not true. It was quite within their means to create a suitable force, or to deploy an existing one to turn the tide of battle if they had been so inclined. If they had been at all interested in the Confederate cause they would have begun preperations immediately, not after it was already too late. European forces did not have to invade the North and win the war on their own. They only needed to give some support to the Confederacy. Just like the French who finally decided to help out in the end of the Revolution.
Furthermore, you make the false assumption that Union soldiers were vastly more experienced. They may have been better equipped, but that is the only real advantage that can be atrributed exclusively to the North.
If it had been in the interest of Britain to intervene, they would have, plain and simple.
reply to post by poet1b
The failure of the Federal Reserve has been clear for nearly a century, yet it remains. People have died trying to get rid of it, including a sitting American President. Despite all of this, I hope you are right that there is indeed hope of getting rid of it.
Lemme just give you a little wrap-up. I don't think that any of the soldiers who were fighting for the North really had any idea they were being imperialist. They were the first victims of very successful propoganda that is perpetuated to this day. So you can't really say the North was wrong, only the key leaders and their clansdestine motives. These things are orchstrated at the top, and they want the truth to stay right there at the top.
I do respect your opinion, though I am trying to highlight how it is a bit nearsighted in this matter. Please don't think that I am trying to sway you to supporting slavery or something ridiculous like that, because I certainly do not endorse anything of the sort. Slavery is a terrible thing. My point is however, that neither side actually realized that back then.
I must agree with you that the South was very heavily reliant on slavery, which I have already stated, even to the point of being trapped by it. I do not believe that it took a war to end it though.
The global opinion of slavery being an acceptable practice in a civilized world was already shifting out of favor, so I would venture to day that Southern states would have been working toward abolishing slavery on their own, in the interest of maintaining economic ties and markets for their goods. In fact, one reason the British gave for refusing to support the Confederacy, was the practice of slavery by the southern states. So where slavery had been the bedrock of the southern economy, it would have only continued to its detriment.
In the meantime, a graduated end to slavery would have given the southern economy time to assimilate former slaves as paid workers with corresponding rights. In fact, the former slaves and their descendants might have been quicker to gain their civil rights had they been viewed as an asset to the economy instead of a burden. Plantation owners did not want their fields to be left in ruin. Had they the means, they would have paid their former slaves to work those fields rather than face economic ruin themselves. This could not happen all at once, it had to happen over a matter of years, perhaps even a decade. But the end result would have been far better for all Americans. You would have seen former slaves emerge as a politically strong and proud labor force, that was depended on. Instead we have what you see today. Resentment between the races for lack of understanding, and black communities rotting from the inside having never been assimilated into the ecomony respectfully.
I agree with you that the Federal Reserve Act was bad for our country, I was just pointing out that they thought they could control the economy through the Federal Reserve, and they failed. I think this point gives us hope that we can regain our rights.
The failure of the Federal Reserve has been clear for nearly a century, yet it remains. People have died trying to get rid of it, including a sitting American President. Despite all of this, I hope you are right that there is indeed hope of getting rid of it.
The Civil War was a sad time for our country, and has left us divided as a nation in many ways, to this very day. I don't see either side as the bad guys, but I feel that the war was probably inevitable. How else could slavery have ended? In many ways I think the South was trapped by the institution of slavery, and it is difficult to imagine how things could have gone differently. Too many other forces were involved. I hope you respect my opinion on this matter. I think it is important that we recognize the many reasons that the war was fought. I think further discussion would only distract from the topic.
Lemme just give you a little wrap-up. I don't think that any of the soldiers who were fighting for the North really had any idea they were being imperialist. They were the first victims of very successful propoganda that is perpetuated to this day. So you can't really say the North was wrong, only the key leaders and their clansdestine motives. These things are orchstrated at the top, and they want the truth to stay right there at the top.
I do respect your opinion, though I am trying to highlight how it is a bit nearsighted in this matter. Please don't think that I am trying to sway you to supporting slavery or something ridiculous like that, because I certainly do not endorse anything of the sort. Slavery is a terrible thing. My point is however, that neither side actually realized that back then.
I must agree with you that the South was very heavily reliant on slavery, which I have already stated, even to the point of being trapped by it. I do not believe that it took a war to end it though.
The global opinion of slavery being an acceptable practice in a civilized world was already shifting out of favor, so I would venture to day that Southern states would have been working toward abolishing slavery on their own, in the interest of maintaining economic ties and markets for their goods. In fact, one reason the British gave for refusing to support the Confederacy, was the practice of slavery by the southern states. So where slavery had been the bedrock of the southern economy, it would have only continued to its detriment.
In the meantime, a graduated end to slavery would have given the southern economy time to assimilate former slaves as paid workers with corresponding rights. In fact, the former slaves and their descendants might have been quicker to gain their civil rights had they been viewed as an asset to the economy instead of a burden. Plantation owners did not want their fields to be left in ruin. Had they the means, they would have paid their former slaves to work those fields rather than face economic ruin themselves. This could not happen all at once, it had to happen over a matter of years, perhaps even a decade. But the end result would have been far better for all Americans. You would have seen former slaves emerge as a politically strong and proud labor force, that was depended on. Instead we have what you see today. Resentment between the races for lack of understanding, and black communities rotting from the inside having never been assimilated into the ecomony respectfully.
reply to post by poet1b
They didn't need to have their way after the war. They had already accomplished what they had set out to do in America. Once they decided that the general public was getting a little to spoiled, they had the power to put the squeeze on. I think what we are seeing now in the last few years is another consolidation of power and seizure of assets. They're getting ready to hunker down for another big war, and setting things up so that they emerge with absolute power. Maybe "they" really will be able to end war this time around. But what sort of world will they force us to live in?
I must thank you "poet1b" for posting here.
[edit on 1/15/0808 by jackinthebox]
I don't think bankers had their way after WW II. I think they just went along for the ride. Their efforts then went towards control of the Asian Southeast rim, until the time when they could hatch further plans to undermine the working class in the U.S.. I don't think the elites desired the strong growth of unions and the middle class.
They didn't need to have their way after the war. They had already accomplished what they had set out to do in America. Once they decided that the general public was getting a little to spoiled, they had the power to put the squeeze on. I think what we are seeing now in the last few years is another consolidation of power and seizure of assets. They're getting ready to hunker down for another big war, and setting things up so that they emerge with absolute power. Maybe "they" really will be able to end war this time around. But what sort of world will they force us to live in?
I must thank you "poet1b" for posting here.
[edit on 1/15/0808 by jackinthebox]
Ok, a little more on the civil war.
I did not mean to imply that Northern soldiers were vastly superior to Southern soldiers. They were fairly equal. Although I do not think that the quality of Northern soldiers in the western parts of the then U.S. were given the respect that they deserve. I think that Northern soldiers had some advantages, considering their experiences in fighting against the tribes of the now Midwest. My point is that that any invading European army would have been at sever disadvantage, fighting a type of guerrilla warfare they were not accustomed to fighting. Their is also the very real possibility that the situation of brother fighting against brother in the U.S. would have very likely lead them to unite against any invading foreign military. The confederacy might have found that those who did not own large plantations might have abandoned their cause if a foreign force had attempted to invade. It is never a good idea to get into a fight between two brothers, because usually you wind up finding yourself fighting both brothers. This would have been the last thing that European bankers wanted.
Where European bankers failed the most is in mustering a Naval force to oppose the Union blockade. While the U.S. military naval forces were small at the time, its merchant marine force was considerable. The British Navy would have had to make a serious investment to mount a reasonable naval force to break the Union Naval Blockade, and due to commitments in the far East, they were not willing to make such a commitment, thereby dooming the South. While European bankers had considerable influence over the British Empire, they did not have that much influence. The investment in the far East was simply too valuable to deploy the naval forces necessary to contend with the large U.S. merchant fleet, combined with the growth potential of the U.S. military fleet.
I think that while the wealthy elites had their reason to fight the civil war, the people of the North, especially family farmers in the west, had their own justifiable reason. As long as slavery continued, the conflicts in the Kansas territories were not going to go away. It was a matter of family farmers verses plantation owners.
We will probably continue to disagree on this, but what's new. This debate has been going on for a long time. I do not think that the civil war was fought only because of banking interests of North Eastern Elites, and the dispute over Tariffs. Many forces colluded to ignite the war. The dispute over tariffs gave the South the belief that they had a legitimate reason to secede, but the issue of slavery and the dependence of the Southern economy upon slavery was an equally large issue, if not larger. I do not think the South could have ended slavery in a decade, or even two. Racism was very prevalent at the time, not only against blacks, but against Asians as well, and continues on to this very day, although as a declining social issue. The South had, and still has, a very large black population, and that created a very large problem. Southerners simply did not know what to do with slaves, once they were freed. Volumes have been written about this issue.
I did not mean to imply that Northern soldiers were vastly superior to Southern soldiers. They were fairly equal. Although I do not think that the quality of Northern soldiers in the western parts of the then U.S. were given the respect that they deserve. I think that Northern soldiers had some advantages, considering their experiences in fighting against the tribes of the now Midwest. My point is that that any invading European army would have been at sever disadvantage, fighting a type of guerrilla warfare they were not accustomed to fighting. Their is also the very real possibility that the situation of brother fighting against brother in the U.S. would have very likely lead them to unite against any invading foreign military. The confederacy might have found that those who did not own large plantations might have abandoned their cause if a foreign force had attempted to invade. It is never a good idea to get into a fight between two brothers, because usually you wind up finding yourself fighting both brothers. This would have been the last thing that European bankers wanted.
Where European bankers failed the most is in mustering a Naval force to oppose the Union blockade. While the U.S. military naval forces were small at the time, its merchant marine force was considerable. The British Navy would have had to make a serious investment to mount a reasonable naval force to break the Union Naval Blockade, and due to commitments in the far East, they were not willing to make such a commitment, thereby dooming the South. While European bankers had considerable influence over the British Empire, they did not have that much influence. The investment in the far East was simply too valuable to deploy the naval forces necessary to contend with the large U.S. merchant fleet, combined with the growth potential of the U.S. military fleet.
I think that while the wealthy elites had their reason to fight the civil war, the people of the North, especially family farmers in the west, had their own justifiable reason. As long as slavery continued, the conflicts in the Kansas territories were not going to go away. It was a matter of family farmers verses plantation owners.
We will probably continue to disagree on this, but what's new. This debate has been going on for a long time. I do not think that the civil war was fought only because of banking interests of North Eastern Elites, and the dispute over Tariffs. Many forces colluded to ignite the war. The dispute over tariffs gave the South the belief that they had a legitimate reason to secede, but the issue of slavery and the dependence of the Southern economy upon slavery was an equally large issue, if not larger. I do not think the South could have ended slavery in a decade, or even two. Racism was very prevalent at the time, not only against blacks, but against Asians as well, and continues on to this very day, although as a declining social issue. The South had, and still has, a very large black population, and that created a very large problem. Southerners simply did not know what to do with slaves, once they were freed. Volumes have been written about this issue.
Back to the issue at hand.
I don't think that Elites/bankers had as much control as you seem to suggest. Working unions had a great deal of power in negotiating good wages and establishing worker rights. This is what built the U.S. middle class, and also, in my opinion, what raised S Korea up to first world nation status. Before elites could turn the tide against the U.S. middle class, they had to find an alternative work force, hence the wars against communism and the creation of banana republics. The ability to exploit third world labor was a critical factor, and took considerable time to establish, and even to this day, exploitation of third world labor is a difficult balancing act.
The real problem is that market systems need a market, a base of demand for goods and services. As jobs are exported and wages stagnate in the U.S., the worlds markets find a situation of declining demand, because world demand is, in large part, driven by U.S. consumers. People who work for slave wages do not have the income to create sufficient demand to keep filling the coffers of the super rich. The fix is debt creation. The only way for money to earn money is through interest requirements. The problem is that the larger that debt grows, the less money those who are in debt have to pay for goods and services, and so the market declines. Declining markets means fewer places to invest money, and greater risk for those investments. The answer is increasing debt levels, but sooner or later, this plan is not sustainable, and the debt based economy collapses on itself. This is the situation that we seem to be in right now.
Here is a good link that I found this morning that I think accurately portrays the situation.
www.alkalizeforhealth.net...
Of course, to quote Jack Nicholson in "As Good As It Gets", we are drowning, and all I'm doing is describing the water.
The other problem, in an analogy that compares to the situation of the South at the time of the civil war, is that in an economy that depends on perpetual slavery, where slaves are indentured for life, the threat is that eventually, the slaves will out number the slave owners, and revolt. This doesn't always happen, and many civilizations continued on for centuries with enslaved populations, with limited levels of opportunity provided for slaves to escape their slavery. The problem with these types of civilizations is that innovation ceases, and they stagnate.
Such civilizations become open for conquest to civilizations where the common men are free, resulting in far greater efficiency and innovation.
I don't think that Elites/bankers had as much control as you seem to suggest. Working unions had a great deal of power in negotiating good wages and establishing worker rights. This is what built the U.S. middle class, and also, in my opinion, what raised S Korea up to first world nation status. Before elites could turn the tide against the U.S. middle class, they had to find an alternative work force, hence the wars against communism and the creation of banana republics. The ability to exploit third world labor was a critical factor, and took considerable time to establish, and even to this day, exploitation of third world labor is a difficult balancing act.
The real problem is that market systems need a market, a base of demand for goods and services. As jobs are exported and wages stagnate in the U.S., the worlds markets find a situation of declining demand, because world demand is, in large part, driven by U.S. consumers. People who work for slave wages do not have the income to create sufficient demand to keep filling the coffers of the super rich. The fix is debt creation. The only way for money to earn money is through interest requirements. The problem is that the larger that debt grows, the less money those who are in debt have to pay for goods and services, and so the market declines. Declining markets means fewer places to invest money, and greater risk for those investments. The answer is increasing debt levels, but sooner or later, this plan is not sustainable, and the debt based economy collapses on itself. This is the situation that we seem to be in right now.
Here is a good link that I found this morning that I think accurately portrays the situation.
www.alkalizeforhealth.net...
Of course, to quote Jack Nicholson in "As Good As It Gets", we are drowning, and all I'm doing is describing the water.
The other problem, in an analogy that compares to the situation of the South at the time of the civil war, is that in an economy that depends on perpetual slavery, where slaves are indentured for life, the threat is that eventually, the slaves will out number the slave owners, and revolt. This doesn't always happen, and many civilizations continued on for centuries with enslaved populations, with limited levels of opportunity provided for slaves to escape their slavery. The problem with these types of civilizations is that innovation ceases, and they stagnate.
Such civilizations become open for conquest to civilizations where the common men are free, resulting in far greater efficiency and innovation.
reply to post by poet1b
Please don't think that I am trying to badger you about the Civil War, but I believe an accurate understanding of it is instrumental in truly uderstanding how this terminally flawed economic system has been imposed upon us, by a very small group of people who have been operating against the interests of the common man for a long time.
You forget that many of the soldiers who fought in the west brought their experience to the side of the Confederacy. General Lee himself had been a top graduate at West Point, was a career officer in the United States Army, and fought in the Mexican-American War.
The Civil War was fought using tactics well known to Eurpoean armies. There are very few examples of anything that could be construed as geurilla warfare.
I see your point about getting into a fight between two brothers, but an interdiction by Eupropean forces would not have been viewed as an invasion. The support of French forces during the Revolution did not increase the number or strength of Loyalist colonists, despite the fact that the Anglo colonists generally viewed the Gallic people with disdain.
With this I see that you are failing to understand a fundamental point. The Europeans did not fail in mustering an opposition to the Union blockade, because they never intended to. They gave the Confederacy the impression that they would eventually enter the war on their side as a ruse. This was done in the name of war profiteering, and more importantly to ensure a Union victory would be sustained.
And make no mistake about the influence of bankers over the British Empire. It was nearly absolute. The same way their influence has become nearly absolute in America today, with the Civil War being a key factor in their consolidation of power.
I am not arguing that the reasons for the commoner who was loyal to the Union were not justified. I am however saying that they were misinformed, and Union policy was a disservice to blacks and to the vision of a nation outlined by the founding fathers.
The elites had not simply given up on controlling America with the final battle of the Revolution. They bided their time and sought out more clandestine measures to reinsert their talons into the destiny of the people here. The Civil War was a huge victory for them.
The conflicts in Kansas, or between small farmer and plantationer was a sideshow. As I have already proven, there were slaves in the North and Lincoln himself made vast exceptions to the Emancipation Proclomation in southern territories. We are not teetering on the brink of civil war in America today as the result of the American worker being undermined by and unable to compete against illegal workers. Therefore your assertion that the Civil War was fought because white free labor could not compete against black slave labor is flawed.
This is true. But all of those forces and issues were orchestrated by the elite to serve their purposes. Instead of the variety of issues being dealt with in due course, they were deliberately ignored and enflamed to obfuscate the truth underlying all other reasons as to the cause of the Civil War.
I am not going to try to divine alternate history as a matter of fact, so I cannot argue that the road to end slavery may have been drawn out. But consider this. The the southern US was not the only economy heavily reliant on slave labor, yet it had been abolished throughout the Western Hemisphere by the turn of the 20th century. Cuba was heavily reliant on slave labor in the sugarcane, but finally abolished the practice by 1888. I propose that the economy of the southern US would have made this adaptaion as well.
Racism was enflamed by the results of the Civil War. Look at other parts of the world where slavery made a peaceful transition. You see nowhere near the level of racism as you saw in the US after the Civil War, or even what remains quite prevelant today in many parts of the country.
As you have just said yourself, the large population of freed slaves in the south was a very serious problem. A problem that has yet to be solved I might add. The fact that southerners did not know what to do with freed slaves is a direct result of the Federal policy which was imposed through military force. The southerners needed time to restructure their economy in a fashion that would utilize the freed slave. This would have certainly happened were it not for the Civil War.
[edit on 1/15/0808 by jackinthebox]
Please don't think that I am trying to badger you about the Civil War, but I believe an accurate understanding of it is instrumental in truly uderstanding how this terminally flawed economic system has been imposed upon us, by a very small group of people who have been operating against the interests of the common man for a long time.
I did not mean to imply that Northern soldiers were vastly superior to Southern soldiers. They were fairly equal. Although I do not think that the quality of Northern soldiers in the western parts of the then U.S. were given the respect that they deserve. I think that Northern soldiers had some advantages, considering their experiences in fighting against the tribes of the now Midwest. My point is that that any invading European army would have been at sever disadvantage, fighting a type of guerrilla warfare they were not accustomed to fighting. Their is also the very real possibility that the situation of brother fighting against brother in the U.S. would have very likely lead them to unite against any invading foreign military. The confederacy might have found that those who did not own large plantations might have abandoned their cause if a foreign force had attempted to invade. It is never a good idea to get into a fight between two brothers, because usually you wind up finding yourself fighting both brothers. This would have been the last thing that European bankers wanted.
You forget that many of the soldiers who fought in the west brought their experience to the side of the Confederacy. General Lee himself had been a top graduate at West Point, was a career officer in the United States Army, and fought in the Mexican-American War.
The Civil War was fought using tactics well known to Eurpoean armies. There are very few examples of anything that could be construed as geurilla warfare.
I see your point about getting into a fight between two brothers, but an interdiction by Eupropean forces would not have been viewed as an invasion. The support of French forces during the Revolution did not increase the number or strength of Loyalist colonists, despite the fact that the Anglo colonists generally viewed the Gallic people with disdain.
Where European bankers failed the most is in mustering a Naval force to oppose the Union blockade. While the U.S. military naval forces were small at the time, its merchant marine force was considerable. The British Navy would have had to make a serious investment to mount a reasonable naval force to break the Union Naval Blockade, and due to commitments in the far East, they were not willing to make such a commitment, thereby dooming the South. While European bankers had considerable influence over the British Empire, they did not have that much influence. The investment in the far East was simply too valuable to deploy the naval forces necessary to contend with the large U.S. merchant fleet, combined with the growth potential of the U.S. military fleet.
With this I see that you are failing to understand a fundamental point. The Europeans did not fail in mustering an opposition to the Union blockade, because they never intended to. They gave the Confederacy the impression that they would eventually enter the war on their side as a ruse. This was done in the name of war profiteering, and more importantly to ensure a Union victory would be sustained.
And make no mistake about the influence of bankers over the British Empire. It was nearly absolute. The same way their influence has become nearly absolute in America today, with the Civil War being a key factor in their consolidation of power.
I think that while the wealthy elites had their reason to fight the civil war, the people of the North, especially family farmers in the west, had their own justifiable reason. As long as slavery continued, the conflicts in the Kansas territories were not going to go away. It was a matter of family farmers verses plantation owners.
I am not arguing that the reasons for the commoner who was loyal to the Union were not justified. I am however saying that they were misinformed, and Union policy was a disservice to blacks and to the vision of a nation outlined by the founding fathers.
The elites had not simply given up on controlling America with the final battle of the Revolution. They bided their time and sought out more clandestine measures to reinsert their talons into the destiny of the people here. The Civil War was a huge victory for them.
The conflicts in Kansas, or between small farmer and plantationer was a sideshow. As I have already proven, there were slaves in the North and Lincoln himself made vast exceptions to the Emancipation Proclomation in southern territories. We are not teetering on the brink of civil war in America today as the result of the American worker being undermined by and unable to compete against illegal workers. Therefore your assertion that the Civil War was fought because white free labor could not compete against black slave labor is flawed.
Many forces colluded to ignite the war.
This is true. But all of those forces and issues were orchestrated by the elite to serve their purposes. Instead of the variety of issues being dealt with in due course, they were deliberately ignored and enflamed to obfuscate the truth underlying all other reasons as to the cause of the Civil War.
I do not think the South could have ended slavery in a decade, or even two. Racism was very prevalent at the time, not only against blacks, but against Asians as well, and continues on to this very day, although as a declining social issue. The South had, and still has, a very large black population, and that created a very large problem. Southerners simply did not know what to do with slaves, once they were freed.
I am not going to try to divine alternate history as a matter of fact, so I cannot argue that the road to end slavery may have been drawn out. But consider this. The the southern US was not the only economy heavily reliant on slave labor, yet it had been abolished throughout the Western Hemisphere by the turn of the 20th century. Cuba was heavily reliant on slave labor in the sugarcane, but finally abolished the practice by 1888. I propose that the economy of the southern US would have made this adaptaion as well.
Racism was enflamed by the results of the Civil War. Look at other parts of the world where slavery made a peaceful transition. You see nowhere near the level of racism as you saw in the US after the Civil War, or even what remains quite prevelant today in many parts of the country.
As you have just said yourself, the large population of freed slaves in the south was a very serious problem. A problem that has yet to be solved I might add. The fact that southerners did not know what to do with freed slaves is a direct result of the Federal policy which was imposed through military force. The southerners needed time to restructure their economy in a fashion that would utilize the freed slave. This would have certainly happened were it not for the Civil War.
[edit on 1/15/0808 by jackinthebox]
Further proof that the Constitution has no basis in the American court system, even in the highest court in the land:
U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari
Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
Hi Jack
You make some very good points. We will have to agree to disagree on the capabilities of Europe to interfere militarily in the American Civil war, and their desire to interfere. The Union was also vying for European support. I found an interesting web site which talks about shatterboxes, regions of global conflict between world powers, which I found pretty interesting. This site pointed out that when Lincoln made the emancipation proclamation, it won the support of the British public which opposed slavery, and ended any potential that Britain would actively intervene on behalf of the Confederacy.
historicaltextarchive.com...
A point that I would like to note is that the family farms of the North were not having problems competing against black slave labor, this had nothing to do with the situation. It was the individual farmer working his own land competing against the institution of the plantations, sanctioned by the state, that allowed a group of men to control a large work force for economic gain, giving Plantations considerable advantage in economies of scale against the individual farms. The economic size of plantations gave them considerable advantage in shaping local government, and manipulating markets. It was free men of considerable economic independence competing against a feudalistic society. The civil war was driven as much if not more by the western states for this legitimate reasons, as the civil war was also driven by elites looking to gain control of the U.S., and this is an important point of history that needs to be recognized.
A few other notes. As far as the successful integration of races after the ending of slavery, Europe never had a slave population as large as the South U.S. or South America. It was much easier to deal with and accept in Europe. I also disagree that racial integration in Latin America has been all that more successful, and that the situation is more that the other problems of the region so greatly overshadow the racial tensions that do exist. In addition, the ending of slavery in the U.S. hastened the ending of slavery in Latin America.
I should let the subject go, but I think it is important to point out the the struggle was also one of a society of independent farmers verses a society controlled by a feudalistic plantations of state sanctioned slavers.
I agree that European bankers were playing both sides in the civil war, and they looked upon the situation as an opportunity for them to gain control of the U.S.. I think we are sidetracked by how much influence bankers had in the U.S. civil war, but I suppose I have a legitimate role to play as devils advocate.
You make some very good points. We will have to agree to disagree on the capabilities of Europe to interfere militarily in the American Civil war, and their desire to interfere. The Union was also vying for European support. I found an interesting web site which talks about shatterboxes, regions of global conflict between world powers, which I found pretty interesting. This site pointed out that when Lincoln made the emancipation proclamation, it won the support of the British public which opposed slavery, and ended any potential that Britain would actively intervene on behalf of the Confederacy.
historicaltextarchive.com...
A point that I would like to note is that the family farms of the North were not having problems competing against black slave labor, this had nothing to do with the situation. It was the individual farmer working his own land competing against the institution of the plantations, sanctioned by the state, that allowed a group of men to control a large work force for economic gain, giving Plantations considerable advantage in economies of scale against the individual farms. The economic size of plantations gave them considerable advantage in shaping local government, and manipulating markets. It was free men of considerable economic independence competing against a feudalistic society. The civil war was driven as much if not more by the western states for this legitimate reasons, as the civil war was also driven by elites looking to gain control of the U.S., and this is an important point of history that needs to be recognized.
A few other notes. As far as the successful integration of races after the ending of slavery, Europe never had a slave population as large as the South U.S. or South America. It was much easier to deal with and accept in Europe. I also disagree that racial integration in Latin America has been all that more successful, and that the situation is more that the other problems of the region so greatly overshadow the racial tensions that do exist. In addition, the ending of slavery in the U.S. hastened the ending of slavery in Latin America.
I should let the subject go, but I think it is important to point out the the struggle was also one of a society of independent farmers verses a society controlled by a feudalistic plantations of state sanctioned slavers.
I agree that European bankers were playing both sides in the civil war, and they looked upon the situation as an opportunity for them to gain control of the U.S.. I think we are sidetracked by how much influence bankers had in the U.S. civil war, but I suppose I have a legitimate role to play as devils advocate.
reply to post by poet1b
Hello to you poet.
Please understand that I am not hoping to win agreement from you on this issue for some egotistical self-gratification. I only hope that I can provide material which you have not considered before. Furthermore, I thank you once again for providing material to me which forces me to verify my own concepts in further detail, and even to spur me on to further research.
This is true, but since they won, we will never know if they could have actually gained this support as a matter of necessity.
This is true indeed. Once again we see that this was a political move, not one based on the interests of American farmers, nor on morality. Furthermore, if the British were secretly in league with Lincoln (or controlling him), they would have seen a need for such subterfuge. They needed to give the Confedracy a reason why they could not come to their aid. Something along the lines of, "We really want to help you, but the British people won't allow us because of this whole slavery thing. So sorry." These are the sorts of maneuvers that are planned and carried out by secret societies.
I am not sure of the point you are trying to make here. It seems to be a contraditction.
As you pointed out, the labor dispute was not really centered in the north or south, but in the west. And there, the individual free white farmer could not compete with the black slave labor force of plantation owners.
You are correct in regard to Europe. Their slave population was much easier to assimilate economically, and socially as a result.
Why have esisting problems in the US not overshadowed racial tensions?
Your last statement may be correct, but only to an extent. World opinion had moved against slavery, and was therefore the driving force behind its abolishment.
This cannot be denied, and is quite an astute observation considering that even this is not something talked about in history classes at public schools. While I don't view this is athe ultimate cause of, or the driving force behind the Civil War, it was certainly the "wheels" on which the war rode.
We face the smae problem today of feudalistic corporations and mega-farms exploiting the illegal immigrant labor force.
Indeed. Well said my friend.
P.S. There are no sidetracks in the quest for knowledge.
Hello to you poet.
Please understand that I am not hoping to win agreement from you on this issue for some egotistical self-gratification. I only hope that I can provide material which you have not considered before. Furthermore, I thank you once again for providing material to me which forces me to verify my own concepts in further detail, and even to spur me on to further research.
The Union was also vying for European support.
This is true, but since they won, we will never know if they could have actually gained this support as a matter of necessity.
...pointed out that when Lincoln made the emancipation proclamation, it won the support of the British public which opposed slavery, and ended any potential that Britain would actively intervene on behalf of the Confederacy.
This is true indeed. Once again we see that this was a political move, not one based on the interests of American farmers, nor on morality. Furthermore, if the British were secretly in league with Lincoln (or controlling him), they would have seen a need for such subterfuge. They needed to give the Confedracy a reason why they could not come to their aid. Something along the lines of, "We really want to help you, but the British people won't allow us because of this whole slavery thing. So sorry." These are the sorts of maneuvers that are planned and carried out by secret societies.
A point that I would like to note is that the family farms of the North were not having problems competing against black slave labor, this had nothing to do with the situation. It was the individual farmer working his own land competing against the institution of the plantations...
I am not sure of the point you are trying to make here. It seems to be a contraditction.
As you pointed out, the labor dispute was not really centered in the north or south, but in the west. And there, the individual free white farmer could not compete with the black slave labor force of plantation owners.
A few other notes. As far as the successful integration of races after the ending of slavery, Europe never had a slave population as large as the South U.S. or South America. It was much easier to deal with and accept in Europe. I also disagree that racial integration in Latin America has been all that more successful, and that the situation is more that the other problems of the region so greatly overshadow the racial tensions that do exist. In addition, the ending of slavery in the U.S. hastened the ending of slavery in Latin America.
You are correct in regard to Europe. Their slave population was much easier to assimilate economically, and socially as a result.
Why have esisting problems in the US not overshadowed racial tensions?
Your last statement may be correct, but only to an extent. World opinion had moved against slavery, and was therefore the driving force behind its abolishment.
I should let the subject go, but I think it is important to point out the the struggle was also one of a society of independent farmers verses a society controlled by a feudalistic plantations of state sanctioned slavers.
This cannot be denied, and is quite an astute observation considering that even this is not something talked about in history classes at public schools. While I don't view this is athe ultimate cause of, or the driving force behind the Civil War, it was certainly the "wheels" on which the war rode.
We face the smae problem today of feudalistic corporations and mega-farms exploiting the illegal immigrant labor force.
I agree that European bankers were playing both sides in the civil war, and they looked upon the situation as an opportunity for them to gain control of the U.S.. I think we are sidetracked by how much influence bankers had in the U.S. civil war, but I suppose I have a legitimate role to play as devils advocate
Indeed. Well said my friend.
P.S. There are no sidetracks in the quest for knowledge.
new topics
-
The hunter has become the hunted
Mainstream News: 37 minutes ago -
Trump's idea to make Canada the 51st US state: 'Potential is massive'
Mainstream News: 1 hours ago -
Well this is Awkward .....
Mainstream News: 5 hours ago -
Kurakhove officially falls. Russia takes control of major logistics hub city in the southeast.
World War Three: 6 hours ago
top topics
-
Well this is Awkward .....
Mainstream News: 5 hours ago, 17 flags -
Liberal Madness and the Constitution of the United States
US Political Madness: 12 hours ago, 10 flags -
The hunter has become the hunted
Mainstream News: 37 minutes ago, 9 flags -
Kurakhove officially falls. Russia takes control of major logistics hub city in the southeast.
World War Three: 6 hours ago, 8 flags -
Trump's idea to make Canada the 51st US state: 'Potential is massive'
Mainstream News: 1 hours ago, 5 flags
active topics
-
The hunter has become the hunted
Mainstream News • 6 • : xuenchen -
This is why ALL illegals who live in the US must go
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 32 • : Solvedit -
New York Governor signs Climate Law that Fines Fossil Fuel Companies
US Political Madness • 28 • : argentus -
Trump's idea to make Canada the 51st US state: 'Potential is massive'
Mainstream News • 9 • : fringeofthefringe -
Well this is Awkward .....
Mainstream News • 25 • : WeMustCare -
Happy Hanukkah…
General Chit Chat • 27 • : JJproductions -
Trump says ownership of Greenland 'is an absolute necessity'
Other Current Events • 60 • : matafuchs -
Liberal Madness and the Constitution of the United States
US Political Madness • 12 • : Flyingclaydisk -
The Acronym Game .. Pt.4
General Chit Chat • 1028 • : tinkerbell99 -
Why isn't Psychiatry involved?
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 39 • : BrucellaOrchitis