Destroy the Bible Belt -win the war.

So I'm wondering.... When did this conspiracy really start?
Let's go back to "The American Civil War" (1861–1865), also known as the War Between the States.

The Civil war was about freeing the slaves...or so we were told in our history books, but maybe that was just another false flag.
Yeah, The North using slavery as a false flag. Now I'm not saying I agree with slavery, in fact I'm completely against it, but let's focus on the bigger picture here.

Again..was it really the NORTH against the SOUTH?
Yeah, I know..what your thinking.
The People from the NORTH fought the SOUTH.
There was a war and who can deny that?
But ...Who really controlled the North?
Who really wanted a "UNITED" States?
Who really wanted full control of the all the people in one country?
The people of the North?

I don't believe so. I am a Northerner and I don't believe this. In fact most "Northerners" Don't believe this. We don't care about getting full control of a country. Only the Big wigs want true control.

Sure, it would be nice if everyone could get along...love and respect each other, but it doesn't really happen like that for some reason.
People have differences, but that's fine. We can still learn to get along..right?

Ok...Let's look at the Eleven Southern "Slave" states. They declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America, also known as "the Confederacy".

Doesn't look like our "United" states is really united.
So what is our country? It's split. It's about Sectionalism.
This refers to the different economies, social structure, customs and political values of the North and South.

Again... how in the world do you get "United" in the states?
Maybe if the South was destroyed somehow....
Maybe.... if you let the people fight against each other for the sake of slavery.

*Just a note...Our country was created by the force of white men taking over the lands of another people (Native Americans)
So to be upset that the SOUTH...that they had slaves seems a bit contradictory to me.
Ohh..and let's think about today's slavery. We are ALL slaves today. Land is owned by the Government, we have to work for someone else to survive, and even if we owned our own business, it's still not really our own business. We have to pay taxes on all the earnings we make ore else...bye-bye business, bye-bye house, bye-bye all that you have.

Yes, I keep getting off on the rabbit trails here, so I'll try not to do it anymore .
I'll do my best to stick with my idea here.

SOoOooo...The North may have won the slave war, but they never really won the hearts or minds of most Southern people. The South is a survivor and it's still a fighter. They do like their guns.
Southern states are also very religious. It's called the Bible Belt for a reason.
The Southern states are very passionate about their beliefs and don't like to be messed with.
I went to school in Savannah, Georgia and lived in the South for many years.
I know how passionate Southerners can be. They are wonderful people, but I wouldn't want to mess with them or get on their bad side.

Personally, I believe whoever is controlling the States, or wants to control the States.. sees the South as a hindrance to fully UNITING our states.
SOOOoOo..after 200 years..maybe.... the Gulf spill was done to destroy the South once and for all? It would be the final blow to break the Southern spirit..and to force the South to be UNTIED as ONE nation.?

Remember...these are Just my own thoughts for the day.
I could be completely wrong.
I actually hope I am.

reply to post by blue_fish


I think it would be important to note here that slavery was not unique to the south. It also existed in the north. In fact, Grant was one of the largest slave owners in the country. Also, the emmancapation proclamation only eliminated slavery in the south. In the north, it was still allowed and not phased out until the turn of the century.
Abraham Lincoln said, in an 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas "I shall endeavor to re-unite the negro with his native clime, no matter how great the expense."
I take it you guys didn't know any of this, huh. The civil war was about states rights and control of cotton commodities. The KKK, around 1920, had approximately 4 million members nationwide, more than half of those north of the mason-dixon line.
So you'll understand why we southerners get really sick of the mainstream media breaking out protest films in Bama with hoses and dogs, as if this never happened up north at the same time. We get this holy-er than thou crap all the time, and it gets old.

I think it could be possible, but are linking the oil spill to an old vendetta with the powers or are you linking them to the current political entities who are students of history?

reply to post by astrogolf


I didn't know that. I live in new york state and I find it laughable when a white supremacy group attempts to organize a rally in my city- less than 10 show up on average.

interesting idea, but i dont think so. the issues back then were as hypocritical, backwards, and motivated by MONEY as the issues today. i believe thats why they may look the same, because it was really fueled by greed.

the north simply wanted a piece of the south's cotton and tobacco money. sure, it was a little messed up that the sole reason for its profitability was the slave trade, but like someone posted above me, the north had slaves as well. they knew then, as we know now, that the more you have under one flag, the more money you can make, and the more power you can grab.

the bp oil spill is a tragedy, and it is a tragedy that will change lives for the worse for a long time.
this is what the war between the states and the spill have in common. they didnt have to happen, but some greedy people made it so.

reply to post by astrogolf


Yeah..I agree with you.
Like I said in my post,"Our country was created by the force of white men taking over the lands of another people (Native Americans)
So to be upset that the SOUTH...that they had slaves seems a bit contradictory to me."
The USA...North and South...both have had slaves.
So why did the North come against the South.
Was it really for Cotton or tobacco?
Maybe the NWO was just a baby at the time trying to expand in trianing pants.

Who's really in control of the oil spill in the Gulf?

reply to post by blue_fish

The Civil war was about freeing the slaves...or so we were told in our history books, but maybe that was just another false flag.
Yeah, The North using slavery as a false flag. Now I'm not saying I agree with slavery, in fact I'm completely against it, but let's focus on the bigger picture here.
*Just a note...Our country was created by the force of white men taking over the lands of another people (Native Americans)
So to be upset that the SOUTH...that they had slaves seems a bit contradictory to me.

The reason for the civil war was not slavery it was because of the sucession.In July 1861, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution, that affirmed that the North was not waging the war to overthrow slavery but to preserve the Union
Native americans also purchased large ammounts of black slaves durring the time of slavery, before america was colonized the native americans had their own slave trade going on where they would sell native americans to each other. The native americans were also killing each other for hunting grounds, so it is not like the natives were this big happy family before we got there.

We are ALL slaves today. Land is owned by the Government, we have to work for someone else to survive, and even if we owned our own business, it's still not really our own business. We have to pay taxes on all the earnings we make ore else...bye-bye business, bye-bye house, bye-bye all that you have.

No... You have the right to your own property and to run a business, paying taxes does not mean that you do not own it. If you have a problem with it you are more than welcome to move to a 3rd world country where they do not collect taxes.

Personally, I believe whoever is controlling the States, or wants to control the States.. sees the South as a hindrance to fully UNITING our states.

Really
Abraham Lincoln- Killed from the north
James A. Garfield- killed, from the north
William McKinley - killed from the north
JFK- from the north
Looks like the north is seen as a hindrance.

SOOOoOo..after 200 years..maybe.... the Gulf spill was done to destroy the South once and for all? It would be the final blow to break the Southern spirit..and to force the South to be UNTIED as ONE nation.?

Why would a british oil company give two craps about the south?


[edit on 2-7-2010 by zaiger]

reply to post by zaiger


you are dead on about the indians were NOT one big happy family.. a house divided will always fall!!
a.) while living in hawaii learned the reason they lost their island was their own fault..ie. they fought amongst themselves for decades before capt cook.
b.) the native americans, same story
c.) Euro-americans (the ones whot built the present day america), same story.

history always repeats..