re: Robert e lee day

quote:

---

The Civil War was 100% about slavery

---

Nah, to many it was but to say 100% is fairly ignorant. Not that I support the South for their decisions.

quote:

---

Why do the mizzou posters always identify with the north when there's talk of the Civil War? You now neither side claims you.

---

Because they get a reaction

quote:

---

to many it was but to say 100% is fairly ignorant

---

I'll put it another way. There were many factors that led to the Civil War. Every one of those factors could be traced back to the South's insistence on maintaining the institution of slavery.

quote:

---

Every one of those factors could be traced back to the South's insistence on maintaining the institution of slavery.

---

I could agree with this for the most part. It was the key element of the states' rights issue. It was an important issue we faced as a nation and we were going to have that kind of argument sooner rather than later if slaves were involved or not.

Well yeah, I could have written a 10,000 word treatise on all the factors that led up to the Civil War, but nobody would have read it.

quote:

---

And this is why it's so easy for the gov't/corp/media complex to play with all of you in the palm of their hands.

---

Please continue

quote:

---

I think I kind of see where you're going

---

I appreciate that, you do. But don't think we're that close.

Insert often repeated argument about taxes between the north and south. Cheap cotton. Expensive industrial products. Tariffs ect for causing the secession. I think most people know that stuff.

But everything we think about the war is off, so the conclusion that we come to that it's very much related to slavery, if not entirely about it, should have a different meaning after we understood more.

Usually you don't hear about Europe's elite class triggering many of the economic problems. These guys funded and antagonized both sides. They poked at the fire for years, really all throughout the 1800s. They wanted to reclaim the power they lost in the revolution. A civil war would be a great way to do it, and it worked.

All throughout the 1800s the euro-banking cartel tried to destroy the country by establishing a central bank here -- it was stopped and kicked out twice, most famously by Andrew Jackson.

Insert story about Lincoln going off-script and creating money in the US Treasury (as it's intended to be created) instead of taking loans from the privately owned central banks which would have enriched the euro-bankers. Note: that money was taken out of circulation after his assignation -- just as it was after JFK, the only other president to make money in the US Treasury, was killed.

The war was about European elite and that banking block regaining control of America.

There's also a real discussion to be had on northern factory workers and poor immigrants vs black slaves and the notion of a slave class. Of course there are going to be differences, some worse and some not as worse on both sides. But there's a real talk on that. At the end of it, no matter how far you want to take it, you should have a different view of southern slavery and its context in the world.

There's obviously so much more. Idk. I feel like people who say it was about slavery and how can you not see that that was the main factor are pressing the easy button and it's easy to do so, on the surface it's undeniable.

This is why I tend to mostly to post on well moderated military forums. Post BS, you get banned.

The War was not over slavery. For fricks sake how you gonna say we gonna Free the Jimmies from bondage but - forcibly conscript White Men and levy income taxes and seize or nationalize every fricking thing under the sun North of Richmond, VA. It's irreconcilable.

No Billy Yank fought to free a slave. Read their papers - Yanks were deeply offended by the notion. Riots and such were the order of the day in Northern Cities after Antietam.

The emphasis is always put on Johnny Reb fighting for slavery, nobody ever cares a damn to find someone fighting against.

And, Sherman didn't do total war in the South. That's another lie. Sherman was well regarded in The South after the war and did many a lecture. Ask The Corndogs about the cannon on their University.

Sherman burning The South is Yankee propaganda turned about by "The Lost Cause" myth Southetners post 1930's.

Virginia did not secede nor Lee until Seward offered Lee command of The Accursed Union Army - VA did not secede until they were asked to raise regiments against her own people.

In the words of Thomas J. Jackson, "tell Lincoln we have done so."

quote:

---

The War was not over slavery.

---

Have you ever read the bills in the individual Confederate States announcing their secession? What is the overriding concern in each one? I'll hang up and listen....

quote:

---

What is the overriding concern in each one?

---

In pretty much any war in human history you want to kill off excess populations to concentrate wealth for the elite who often never serve on the front line.

Civil War in USA in 1860's
Killed off lots of southern men
Killed off lots of blacks
Killed off lots of Irish

That was a win - win for folks in the north.