Confederation made to be evil, so it won't happen.

The Federal government has been feeding the American people lies and propaganda since 1861. They unconstitutionally took the power of the states, and limited it to the point of ineffectiveness. They overshadowed the fact that states rights were the only reason the civil war happened in the first place, and lied throughout history to demonize succession in the future.

The ONLY reason the North freed the slaves is because they had to or England was going to ally with the Confederate army, as they were already providing arms to the southern states (see Whitworth and Enfield Rifles).

England was fully prepared to send troops to help fight off the northern tyranny. The only thing that prevented this was the fact they would not want to be seen as a country that supported slavery.

Lincoln knew this, and decided to free the slaves in the north to make the south the single Union of slavery.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." - Abraham Lincoln


"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery." - First Inaugural Address (Abraham Lincoln)

"I am a little uneasy about the abolishment of slavery in this District (of Columbia)." - Abe Lincoln To Horace Greeley

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it." - Abe Lincoln To Horace Greeley

On August 14, 1862, Lincoln received a deputation of free Negroes at the White House to which he said, "But for your race there could not be war... It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated". He advocated colonization in Central America and promised them help in carrying out the project.

"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races." From a speech in Springfield, IL; 17 July 1858



If you read history that isn't in school books you learn that the Northern leaders were slave owners as well, and the only reason they fought was to preserve the union.

School and society which has been brainwashed by our public school systems hears the following words and equates them with racism, hatred, evil.

Secession
Confederation
States Rights
southern states


General Longstreet was quoted near the end of the war saying, "We should have freed the slaves, then fired on Ft. Sumter." He was referring to the demonetization of then common slavery to keep England out of the war.

In an 1856 letter to his wife Mary Custis Lee, Robert E. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." Yet he concluded that black slaves were immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically.

In the south even freed slaves owned slaves, it was a way of live that would have been dismissed if given the chance for freedom of the states.

To this day the media still makes fun of states rights and secession and looks at it as evil. Of course the people of the country who were tough to believe this load of bull thinks it is evil as well.

Now that we have a half black president in office, any attempt to secede will be immediately considered a racist reaction from the south. Thanks to the good ole propaganda and public school system.

What better time in history to push the American people over the edge then with a black president. Now any reaction is racist and illogical, just like you hear about the tea partiers, they are all racist hate mongers.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


The point is, you were lied to. You bought hook line and sinker the biggest political propaganda lie in the history of this country.

While I agree with much of what you are stating, I would like to point out that not everyone swallowed the Civil War is About Slavery line.

I didn't.

And I make sure my students (fifth graders) don't, either.

It's really interesting when we read some of the quotes Lincoln gave about African-Americans. Leads to some great discussions on why the war is now considered to be about slavery.

Interesting times we live in....I for one would carefully consider secession if it were offered today. Nor do I believe I'm alone in that view.

reply to post by xstealth


Dude, really do a little bit of research. New Jersey and Missouri both held slaves until the thirteenth amendment was passed. Lincoln never freed a single northern/union slave.

I have argued vehemently that the CSA had the constitutional right to secede. You however, are the reason people think guys like me are idiots.

England was never going to partner up with the south. They were selling arms to the south to fight the union. However, they were limiting the imports from southern states because of popular resistance to slavery. The European countries did not recognize the CSA as a legitimate country.

Even I don't believe that slavery played no part in the south splitting. That is bollocks my friend. It may have been one of several reasons but it was a reason none the less.

Deny ignorance, do some research.


[edit on 22-3-2010 by MikeNice81]

What are you talking about, did you read my post?

We are talking about the same things and agree on the same points.

I have done my research, I am saying it wasn't about slavery.

Very interesting, thanks for the post.

I found it particulary interesting regarding Lincoln's true thoughts about slavery and black people. It just goes to show you there's far, far more to the story than what we are fed to in school.

So, what was the civil war about? Slavery is just an excuse explained away to deflect the true reason why there was a war.

Power? Control? Most likely.

As for the side who fired the first shot, I see it's this, from yahoo answers:

The first shots of the American Civil War were fired by the South onto the Union fortification at Fort Sumter at the mouth of Charleston Harbor, South Carolina on April 12th, 1861.

I wonder about this too, since if the North was in South Carolina, wouldn't the South have the right to fire back?



[edit on 22-3-2010 by star in a jar]

reply to post by xstealth


You said

The ONLY reason the North freed the slaves is because they had to or England was going to ally with the Confederate army

The north and Lincoln never freed slaves until after the war. New Jersey still had slaves until the thirteenth amendment passed. Misouri which was recaptured before the emancipation proclimation was allowed to keep their slaves until after the war.

The emancipation proclimation only affected slaves in southern states. That means it affected no slaves because the CSA viewed it self as a seperate country. That means any laws passed by the union affecting matters in the CSA had no authority.

England was never going to side with the CSA because the CSA refused to get rid of slavery. No European nation recognized the CSA. France and England sold them weapons because they hoped both sides would beat each other to a pulp. That would make it easier for either to extend their empires back in to the continent.

You said

They overshadowed the fact that states rights were the only reason the civil war happened

No they were not. States rights played a roll. However the constitutionality of slavery played a large part. The south felt that the constitution had been violated by fourteen states. They believed the federal government had aided in the violations by those states. Since the federal government refused to enforce the southern states' rights to have slaves SC made the argument that splitting was legally allowed. They argued that Slavery was the cause for the split. They did this because based on centuries of compact law that gave them the right to void their responsibilities under the constitution.

The deep south wanted to hold on to slavery. They were not even questioning whether or not to end slavery in the original seven CSA states. They wanted to hold on to slavery and they believed that at best Lincoln would continue the failure to enforce the fugitive slave act and coresponding bits of the constitution. They believed that at worst he would attempt to abolish slavery. Either way they were afraid they would lose slavery and their economic position would be injured.

There were more issues but that sums up slavery and its contribution to the mess.




[edit on 22-3-2010 by MikeNice81]

reply to post by star in a jar


South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter after the CSA had sent a peace delegation to Washington. They offered to buy back all federal lands in the south including the forts. Lincoln would not meet with them.

Lincoln then stated publicly that he planned to send a resupply ship to Fort Sumter. This was after SC had declared secession and six other states had joined in forming the CSA. The CSA viewed it as an act of war because Lincoln was sending men and supplies to a fort on what the CSA considerred their soverign territory. It would have allowed to Lincoln to effectively halt trade in Charelston harbor. Thus it was considerred an act of war.

An interesting side note: Virginia originally agreed not to join the CSA because Lincoln promised to pull the troops out of Fort Sumter.

reply to post by star in a jar


You are correct. The Civil War was not about slavery. It was about empire (but, of course, not empire alone), like any and all other wars on this planet. Or maybe it was all a part of the script. Who knows? In order to change anything on this planet, one has to lead by example, and of course, see people as not mere things. We like to criticize our ancestors, but I am to the point where I believe things could have been no other way. Do I think things can change? Absolutely. But I think there is an inherent problem among some people, those more inclined to seek power, to be remembered, to be re-membered, to acquire some sort of immortal life in the soul of another. That is despicable and soul-eating. And we all have to transcend this tendency, as we are all guilty. The second we transcend the desire to be remembered, and the second we do not eat of the poisonous labels that we can erroneously think we are addicted to, adding diction to a soulless existence, then at that very second we shall get out of this time loop of revolution after revolution repeating the same tired old drama of hell, of a he-el, of a particular man thinking he is God (applies to women as well, of course, as the stereotype, which is a false label, BTW, is that man seeks to be Sky God through objectification, seeking to be THE character, while woman seeks to be core Goddess through subjectification, seeking to be THE center of the drama). Lord, what fools these mortals be. Love, peace, and chicken grease.

Originally posted by MikeNice81

You're missing the point. Minor details don't matter as much as the point I am trying to make - this isn't a pissing contest, it is a point I am trying to make.

Yes, Lincoln gets credit for freeing the slaves in the history books, but the only reason he did that was to make the war a war of liberation and freedom, making it less appealing for England/France to get involved.

We are tought growing up that he did it to free slaves from the evil south, when all it was, was a political move. If it wasn't he wouldn't have waited 2 years to do it.

And you're point where you say no states rights were not the ONLY reason, they were the main reason. Why else would an army raise up when only less then 25% of them even owned slaves.

They were all fighting for something they didn't have, they were fighting for their rights.

[edit on 22/3/10 by xstealth]

reply to post by xstealth


I'm not trying to make it a pissing contest. When you debate this topic the details and the wording matter. It is a topic filled with so much emotion and so ready to be twisted that every word and detail counts.

I'm sorry if I seem like an a* but I've been debating this topic for years. I was refused the right to read my essay on the civil war in history class. The right was denied because I was debating for the constitutionality of secession by the CSA. I was accused of racism and told that "such inflamatory and untrue language" would not be tolerated. I was also given a failing grade for the assignment.

I learned first hand that you must be careful and exact with the language and details. Imagine a black teacher saying you are racist in front of twelve black kids.

So, I get real pissy on the subject. I've been through a lot for saying that the CSA was in the right legally. Even though I explicitly state I am against racism or slavery people still love to scream "racist" or call out "apologist." I've also been ripped apart for getting a date wrong or trying to simplify the complexities. Get a date wrong and you are attacked as being unknowledgable. Try to simplify the whole tangled mess and they say you don't "understand the subject matter."

I agree with you about Lincoln. I didsagree about the south. I think we can leave it at that for now.