- Joined
- Jul 30, 2017
- Messages
- 113
- Reaction score
- 103
- Location
- The Hinterland
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
The Civil War was about economics.
The false narrative spewing from every radio, pulpit, MSM outlet and vile politician today is revisionist history. Everybody knows it except the prozac zombies who find it easier to blindly obey than to think for themselves.
In ante-bellum America slavery existed. Period. Everyone living in America profited from it. The war lords in Africa who procured the black slaves from weaker tribes to sell to Europeans profited too. No one wants to point a finger at Africa as the source of all the slaves as most at fault. The financiers and industrialists of the North profited more from slavery than the plantation owners.
Cotton was King in those times. The price of cotton depended on production costs and demand. The North made incredible profits from slave produced cotton. It was the fabled pot of gold. They made 1,000 of times more from slavery than the South.
Slaves were not only a labor force they were the primary asset of plantations along with land. Cotton growers used their assets, slaves, as collateral in the same way as industrialists used their equipment and property. This was how the system worked. Slaves were assets worth tens of millions of dollars.
When slavery was deemed unacceptable the Southern Plantation owners and slave traders were expected to forfeit their assets without any remuneration from the Northern states for that loss. If the North had said "Slavery is wrong and we want to share the burden of loss with the South so we will buy the slaves freedom with some of the profits we've made off of slavery over the past 200 hundred years. We also will pay you 100 times more for cotton so that the South can pay those same slaves a decent wage to make up for the wrong we have all done to them." Then there would have been no Civil War. The North shares 50% of the blame for slavery. Actually they profited immensely more than the South. They should bear 75% of the blame.
The North had a plan to get even richer off the end of slavery.
Once the slaves were freed plantation owners would no longer have the necessary capitol assets to survive. The Northern speculators were drooling over prospects of scooping up the plantations for less than a penny on the dollar of their worth at auctions due to foreclosure or unpaid taxes. It was a sinister plan for a hostile takeover. The South refused the hostile takeover. They seceded.
Does anyone remember that the first shots of the Civil War were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina? That is the port of Charleston. The biggest port of it's time and central to the Cotton trade.
The South made trade agreements with England and France to ship raw cotton to those countries directly thereby cutting the Northern Industrialists out of the picture completely. It was brilliant and would have worked if the Federal government had not sided with the Industrialists consortium and used their navy to blockade the port of Charleston stopping the Cotton shipments to Europe and dooming the South to a slow death by siege which is what happened. The hostile takeover was successful.
After Sherman marched to the sea burning, raping, pillaging and destroying everything in his path the coup de gras was the carpetbaggers.
All governments in the South were disbanded. Puppet regimes were set up in every state & county. High taxes were levied. Devastated land owners could not pay the taxes. All lands were sold to speculators (called carpetbaggers for the fancy luggage they brought with them=) at tax auctions. Not only were people robbed of their lives and property but they had to roam, whites and slaves alike. The Northerners didn't help the blacks. They set up Jim Crow laws with their puppet regimes. Northerners had never lived with blacks. Blacks were never prevalent in the north like they were in the South. The vast majority of Southerners were poor peasants who owned no slaves. In fact they had much in common with the slaves. They were victims of an economic system.
My family, all the way back to the first immigrants from England, Ireland and Germany, were never slave owners. They were never wealthy. We have always been 'peasants'. I've never ever been a racist. None of my family is. We have always treated blacks with respect and we've helped each other all my life. It wasn't until Obama divided the country that things have gotten this bad.
So go ahead and label every southerner a racist, KKK, Neo-Nazi like you are told too. Do it not because it's true but because you don't want to be labeled as one yourself. It's self-preservation isn't it?
Let history be 'rectified' by the 'Ministry of Truth'. Let them remove all traces of humanity from our history. Let them desecrate the memory of my families ancestors who never owned a slave but fought for our land and kin. Go ahead. Because Big Brother will come for you one day. Just ask Winston Smith.
The false narrative spewing from every radio, pulpit, MSM outlet and vile politician today is revisionist history. Everybody knows it except the prozac zombies who find it easier to blindly obey than to think for themselves.
In ante-bellum America slavery existed. Period. Everyone living in America profited from it. The war lords in Africa who procured the black slaves from weaker tribes to sell to Europeans profited too. No one wants to point a finger at Africa as the source of all the slaves as most at fault. The financiers and industrialists of the North profited more from slavery than the plantation owners.
Cotton was King in those times. The price of cotton depended on production costs and demand. The North made incredible profits from slave produced cotton. It was the fabled pot of gold. They made 1,000 of times more from slavery than the South.
Slaves were not only a labor force they were the primary asset of plantations along with land. Cotton growers used their assets, slaves, as collateral in the same way as industrialists used their equipment and property. This was how the system worked. Slaves were assets worth tens of millions of dollars.
When slavery was deemed unacceptable the Southern Plantation owners and slave traders were expected to forfeit their assets without any remuneration from the Northern states for that loss. If the North had said "Slavery is wrong and we want to share the burden of loss with the South so we will buy the slaves freedom with some of the profits we've made off of slavery over the past 200 hundred years. We also will pay you 100 times more for cotton so that the South can pay those same slaves a decent wage to make up for the wrong we have all done to them." Then there would have been no Civil War. The North shares 50% of the blame for slavery. Actually they profited immensely more than the South. They should bear 75% of the blame.
The North had a plan to get even richer off the end of slavery.
Once the slaves were freed plantation owners would no longer have the necessary capitol assets to survive. The Northern speculators were drooling over prospects of scooping up the plantations for less than a penny on the dollar of their worth at auctions due to foreclosure or unpaid taxes. It was a sinister plan for a hostile takeover. The South refused the hostile takeover. They seceded.
Does anyone remember that the first shots of the Civil War were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina? That is the port of Charleston. The biggest port of it's time and central to the Cotton trade.
The South made trade agreements with England and France to ship raw cotton to those countries directly thereby cutting the Northern Industrialists out of the picture completely. It was brilliant and would have worked if the Federal government had not sided with the Industrialists consortium and used their navy to blockade the port of Charleston stopping the Cotton shipments to Europe and dooming the South to a slow death by siege which is what happened. The hostile takeover was successful.
After Sherman marched to the sea burning, raping, pillaging and destroying everything in his path the coup de gras was the carpetbaggers.
All governments in the South were disbanded. Puppet regimes were set up in every state & county. High taxes were levied. Devastated land owners could not pay the taxes. All lands were sold to speculators (called carpetbaggers for the fancy luggage they brought with them=) at tax auctions. Not only were people robbed of their lives and property but they had to roam, whites and slaves alike. The Northerners didn't help the blacks. They set up Jim Crow laws with their puppet regimes. Northerners had never lived with blacks. Blacks were never prevalent in the north like they were in the South. The vast majority of Southerners were poor peasants who owned no slaves. In fact they had much in common with the slaves. They were victims of an economic system.
My family, all the way back to the first immigrants from England, Ireland and Germany, were never slave owners. They were never wealthy. We have always been 'peasants'. I've never ever been a racist. None of my family is. We have always treated blacks with respect and we've helped each other all my life. It wasn't until Obama divided the country that things have gotten this bad.
So go ahead and label every southerner a racist, KKK, Neo-Nazi like you are told too. Do it not because it's true but because you don't want to be labeled as one yourself. It's self-preservation isn't it?
Let history be 'rectified' by the 'Ministry of Truth'. Let them remove all traces of humanity from our history. Let them desecrate the memory of my families ancestors who never owned a slave but fought for our land and kin. Go ahead. Because Big Brother will come for you one day. Just ask Winston Smith.
