Author Topic: Civil War's Causes: Historians Largely United on Slavery, But Public Divided  (Read 9096 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Quote
I just want to quickly share with our audience two findings from a poll that was done this month by the Pew Research Center. When people were asked their reaction to seeing the Confederate flag displayed, 9 percent said they had a positive reaction, 30 percent a negative reaction, and 58 percent said neither. And when people were asked what do they think the main cause of the Civil War is, 48 percent said mainly about states' rights. Only 38 percent said mainly about slavery. Nine percent said both.


When the people don't agree with professional historians.

Video and comments at link.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june11/civilwar_04-12.html


ANALYSIS    AIR DATE: April 12, 2011
Civil War's Causes: Historians Largely United on Slavery, But Public Divided



Transcript

JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally tonight, the Civil War 150 years later and its relevance today.

The anniversary of the war's beginning was commemorated this morning with a re-enactment of the attack on the Union base at Fort Sumter in Charleston, S.C.


Before our discussion, a bit of history. Here's an excerpt of how documentary maker Ken Burns described that moment in his PBS series "The Civil War." It was narrated by historian David McCullough.

DAVID MCCULLOUGH, narrator: The Civil War began at 4:30 a.m. on the 12th of April, 1861. Gen. Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard ordered his Confederate gunners to open fire on Fort Sumter, at that hour, only a dark shape out in Charleston Harbor.

Confederate Commander Beauregard was a gunner, so skilled as an artillery student at West Point, that his instructor kept him on as an assistant for another year. That instructor was Maj. Robert Anderson, Union commander inside Fort Sumter.

MAN: All the pent-up hatred of the past months and years is voiced in the thunder of these cannon, and the people seem almost beside themselves in the exaltation of a freedom they deem already won.

DAVID MCCULLOUGH: The signal to fire the first shot was given by a civilian, Edmund Ruffin, a Virginia farmer, an editor who had preached secession for 20 years.

"Of course," he said, "I was delighted to perform the service."

Thirty-four hours later, a white flag over the fort ended the bombardment. The only casualty had been a Confederate horse. It was a bloodless opening to the bloodiest war in American history.

MAN: The first gun that was fired at Fort Sumter sounded a death knell of slavery. They who fired it were the greatest practical abolitionists this nation has produced.

JUDY WOODRUFF: More now on the history and the legacy of the Civil War.

And for that, we're joined by three historians who have studied it closely. Drew Gilpin Faust is the president of Harvard University. She's written a number of books about the Civil War. Edna Medford teaches at Howard University. She focuses on the Civil War and African-American history. And Walter Edgar is a professor of history and Southern studies at the University of South Carolina.

Thank you, all three. We appreciate your being with us.

I just want to quickly share with our audience two findings from a poll that was done this month by the Pew Research Center. When people were asked their reaction to seeing the Confederate flag displayed, 9 percent said they had a positive reaction, 30 percent a negative reaction, and 58 percent said neither. And when people were asked what do they think the main cause of the Civil War is, 48 percent said mainly about states' rights. Only 38 percent said mainly about slavery. Nine percent said both.

So, to each of you, what do historians think was the cause of the Civil War? And what do you think?

Drew Faust?

DREW GILPIN FAUST, Harvard University: Well, historians are pretty united on the cause of the Civil War being slavery.


And the kind of research that historians have undertaken, especially in the years since the centennial, when there has been so much interest in this question of the role of race and slavery in the United States, that research has shown pretty decisively that, when the various states announced their plans for secession, they uniformly said that the main motivating factor was to defend slavery.

So, the kind of percentages that you quote are ones that must necessarily be disturbing to historians, who believe quite differently from the general public.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Edna Medford, any idea about why that perception is out there, given the pretty common view among historians, which I assume you share?
RELATED INFORMATION
Civil War Enthusiasts Reenact the Opening Shots of the War

EDNA MEDFORD, Howard University: Oh, absolutely. It's all about slavery.

But I think Americans, unfortunately, don't know our own history, first of all. And, at some point, of course, after the war, the nation sort of came together and decided that it was going to forget what the real cause was, because it was too painful to remember that slavery was what divided the nation.

And despite all of the books and all of the classroom discussions and all of the television programs, we still have that perception that it was about anything other than slavery. And it's unfortunate.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Yes.

Professor Walter Edgar, how do you account for that, the fact that historians are pretty unified in this view, but the public isn't?

WALTER EDGAR, University of South Carolina: Well, it's -- it's -- I would agree with Professor Medford that perhaps it's -- people don't know their own history.

And even more disturbing, in that poll, it was mostly younger responders who did the states' rights answer, as opposed to older ones. All I can do in South Carolina is go back to what the 169 men who voted to secede first from the Union said, and in their declaration of causes, that it was -- said it was protect slavery and their other domestic institutions.

And the men of 1860 and 1861 in other Southern states were pretty blunt about what they were doing.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Professor Edgar, is -- do you think there persists a different view among -- in the South, among Southerners?

WALTER EDGAR: White Southerners and black Southerners, because both black and white are Southerners. I think, among white Southerners, there is -- there's disagreement. Some would say states' rights. Some would say slavery. I have even heard the tariff mentioned.

Very few people talk as much about the election of Lincoln, although that was a defining factor in South Carolina's decision to secede.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Drew Faust, I mean, you have looked at this, and I know you have traveled around the country and spoken a lot about it. How do you see the evolution of people's understanding of the war, the Civil War?

DREW GILPIN FAUST: Evolution over time, since...

JUDY WOODRUFF: Right.

DREW GILPIN FAUST: Well, we had a critical moment in the understanding of the Civil War and the nature of engagement with the Civil War that happened around the time of the centennial, 50 years ago, when the centennial and the civil rights movement were occurring pretty much simultaneously.

And, so, even as many Americans wanted to celebrate the Civil War and engage in kind of a nostalgic connection with it, there was at the same time such a powerful social movement that was asking all Americans to interrogate themselves about, where does race play a role in American life, and what was the real legacy of the war, and have we fulfilled the promise of equality and freedom that was an essential part of the war?

So, I think that was a transformative time in the kinds of research questions that historians then took up and the way in which the public began to battle and to reinterpret the Civil War.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Edna Medford, are the questions that historians are asking themselves, yourselves, about the war, have those questions changed over time, do you think?

EDNA MEDFORD: I think we still are dealing with the same kinds of issues.

What's wonderful is that there are more of us who are in agreement than there used to be. And I think it's because documentation has become so much more available to us...

JUDY WOODRUFF: What did it used...

EDNA MEDFORD: ... because of digitization and so forth.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And what did it used to be? How would you explain...

EDNA MEDFORD: Well -- well, certainly, there was that perspective, that Southern perspective about the war: We may have lost the war, but we -- it was such a noble cause for which we fought.

And historians supported that for a number of years. And I think now, to take that position, you're sort of on the fringes of -- of historiography. Most trained historians would never come to those conclusions.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, Professor Edgar, how do you see that as somebody who, you were raised in the South and you teach in the South now?

WALTER EDGAR: Well, you know, things clearly have changed since the 1950s, when I was in school.

And I think one of the things we could look at is the observance, or really the nonobservance, of Confederate Memorial Day throughout the South. Growing up in Mobile, Ala., it was a big deal. On the day closest to Confederate Memorial in Alabama, which was April the 26th, parading through the streets were the private military school. All the politicians were there. The graves were decorated.

Now, pretty much, it's a nonevent there and most everywhere else. There's -- quote -- "an observance," but it doesn't draw people to the streets, and certainly not to the Confederate Rest.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Was there a moment when that stopped happening, or has that just faded away over time?

WALTER EDGAR: It's really been over time.

But, as Professor Faust said, the 1960s were pretty much a defining moment. And one of the interesting questions I would ask about the Pew poll when they asked about the Confederate flag, which Confederate flag are they discussing? Are they talking about the battle flag, which I suspect they are? Are they talking about the Confederate national flag, which many states, such as Alabama and Georgia, still fly at historic sites?

JUDY WOODRUFF: Very interesting question. And I don't know the answer to that.

Does -- do you? Does either one of you?

DREW GILPIN FAUST: An important part of this issue of the Confederate flag is that the Confederate battle flag, which is the flag we associate with Dixie today, and the one that is most commonly regarded as having been the Confederate flag, actually was not adopted very widely until late in the war.

It was not the flag, the official flag of the Confederate nation. And it began to play a big role in American life at the time of the civil rights movement as an expression of protest against the changes in American culture and race and its place in American life.

So, in many ways, that poll about the Confederate flag is more about, again, the 1960s than it is about the 1860s.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Another question that was asked in that poll was about how relevant people believe the war is to American political life today. And more than half said they do think it's relevant.

Professor Medford, what do you believe is relevant today to American life about this war that we fought so long ago?

EDNA MEDFORD: You know, I think we spend so much time on the war these days. And it's great that we are, because that war helps us define who we are now, who we were then and who we are now.

And I think that we have so much difficulty with it, because we all have different views of what America is. And it's such a painful history. It's very hard to look back. And so, when we do look back, we try to do so in a way that's not going to be too harmful to us psychologically, I think.

The war has tremendous relevance to us today. We have an opportunity to sort of get it right this time with the sesquicentennial. That war put us on the path to true freedom in this country. I don't think we're quite there yet, but we have the opportunity to sort of renew that commitment to true freedom at this point.

JUDY WOODRUFF: It's interesting you make the point that there's a choice about how we look back...

EDNA MEDFORD: Absolutely.

JUDY WOODRUFF: ... at the war.

What about you, Professor Edgar? What do you think is relevant to American life today about this war?

WALTER EDGAR: Well, clearly, the nation -- the Civil War was a crucial dilemma, crucial point in American history. And it changed us. And it made us one nation.

And I think the memory issue that Professor Medford talks about, it is very important, because if you look at the physical losses in -- by the white South, not just in terms of property, but also in terms of human life, that's part of the picture that is still handed down in many families today.

In a little state like South Carolina, over 30 percent of the eligible white male population died in the war. That's twice the figure that the European nations lost in World War I, where they supposedly all lost a generation.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And, Drew Faust, you have written about the human suffering. Your book, "This Republic of Suffering," we all know -- we know about.

How do you see the legacy?

DREW GILPIN FAUST: An important part of the legacy -- and I would just like to reinforce what others were talking about with the importance of slavery and race -- but another dimension of the legacy is the way in which the Civil War is an important moment in the history of warfare.

And it's often called the first modern and the last old-fashioned war, because it involved a level and -- of carnage and a scale that was a kind of harbinger of things to come in the 20th century. And so, we need to look at the Civil War in that way as well, and to understand the kinds of inhumanity and slaughter that were part of that war, where about 2 percent of the American population died.

That would be they equivalent of six million Americans today. Those are military deaths, not even including an estimate of civilian deaths. So, there's a kind of understanding of what human beings are able to do to one another that is an essential part of really looking back at the meaning of the Civil War.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, some important insights.

And we thank you, all three, Drew Gilpin Faust, Edna Medford, and Walter Edgar. We thank you.
Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline WaltDisney

  • Troll
  • General of the Army
  • *
  • Posts: 8819
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Its all nonsense, isnt it?

2 Southern states had Already banned Slavery at the time of the civil war.

Not one nation, of dozens that practiced slavery, ever warred over abolition.


It was about a Federa government Usurping states rights, not negroes plowing fields.
"I hardly exaggerate. Jewish life consists of two elements: Extracting money and protesting."
-Nahum Goldmann, Ex-President of the World Jewish Congress

Offline jacob gold

  • Troll
  • General of the Army
  • *
  • Posts: 9200
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Laconas - Why don't you change your name to LaBuffonas

The Jews imported the negroes to divide society  .... they have been nation wrecking for thousands of years ...... who do you think is behind the bombs in Iraq???   Is it Shiite versus Sunni? You know damn well that it is Israel

Now as to the American Civil war  ..... Jews instigated the entire thing. And save me your bullsh*t about Jewish war heroes  .... Why? Because the Zhids always sit out the wars.

It was the abolistionists (nee' kikes) from Yale that feed that propaganda. There were over 500,000 killed, and I doubt 10 were Jews. Who do you think started the Iraq war = Jews for oil.

Offline Zampan0

  • Group Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 885
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
U. Grant owned slaves during the civil war.  Robert E. Lee condemned slavery before the civil war.  Lincoln derided negroe's.  The use of slavery to promote a cival war was directed towards bleeding hearts.  Slavery had nothing to do with the civil war other than being a propaganda tool.  The civil war was about money.
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference.

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
History is supposed to be an event or a series events in the past that are no longer debated, in other words, a truth. When nearly 2/3 of Americans who were given at least 12 years of the drum beat the Civil War was about slavery yet don't buy it, the oligarchs have a problem.

And we don't even have to get into the other many truths the oligarchs with their army of teachers, writers, and media are pushing that people aren't buying. When the people don't agree with the ruling class and their agents the cultural fabric falls apart. The people start to believe they're being ruled by a group of aliens who don't share their values.

Did you notice the 3 professors who have make a living writing truths and lies for the ruling class believe the solution to the disconnect is more money for more education?


Its all nonsense, isnt it?

2 Southern states had Already banned Slavery at the time of the civil war.

Not one nation, of dozens that practiced slavery, ever warred over abolition.


It was about a Federa government Usurping states rights, not negroes plowing fields.
Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
U. Grant owned slaves during the civil war.  Robert E. Lee condemned slavery before the civil war.  Lincoln derided negroe's.  The use of slavery to promote a cival war was directed towards bleeding hearts.  Slavery had nothing to do with the civil war other than being a propaganda tool.  The civil war was about money.

It still is. The dogmatic single view history of the Civil War today is used as a vehicle to promote social and political agendas to the tune of billions per year.
Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline clefty

  • Shill
  • Group Major
  • *
  • Posts: 1363
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

When the people don't agree with professional historians.


Quotations from Otto von Bismarck, a 19th c. German politician, from an interview by C. Seim, La Vieille France, March, 1921

The division of the United States into two federations of equal force was decided long before the
Civil War by the High Financial Power of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States,
if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economical and financial
independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/10163218/Bismarck-on-Jews-Bankers-and-the-American-Civil-War

oh and dont forget

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Jews/+Doc-Jews-National&InternationalConspiracy&NWO/AmericanCivilWarCausedByJews-WillieMartin.htm

I regret how often history skips from civil war to the start of WWI...there was a long war going in D.C. regarding banking

Offline Zampan0

  • Group Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 885
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
It still is. The dogmatic single view history of the Civil War today is used as a vehicle to promote social and political agendas to the tune of billions per year.
I'm more than a bit worried as to what's going on in Thailand right now.  I never thought the bastard's would bother Thailand.  I was very wrong.  I'm totally on the yellow (King's) side.  I've got inlaw's high up in the military there.  If asked I'll fight for them or do whatever they want me to do.  I loved the way that red shirt traitor general caught a bullet between the eyes while talking to a BBC reporter about six months ago. I thought that ended it.  The people LOVE the King, but are being duped.  I don't think the bastard's will win, but there could and probably will be alot of trouble, I am very sad to say.
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/04/soros-brzezinski-talking-thai.html
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 04:49:22 PM by Zampan0 »
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference.

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile

Quotations from Otto von Bismarck, a 19th c. German politician, from an interview by C. Seim, La Vieille France, March, 1921

The division of the United States into two federations of equal force was decided long before the
Civil War by the High Financial Power of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States,
if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economical and financial
independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/10163218/Bismarck-on-Jews-Bankers-and-the-American-Civil-War

oh and dont forget

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Jews/+Doc-Jews-National&InternationalConspiracy&NWO/AmericanCivilWarCausedByJews-WillieMartin.htm

I regret how often history skips from civil war to the start of WWI...there was a long war going in D.C. regarding banking

Reading it now. Looks very informative.



Quote
Jews Caused The Civil War
Parts 7 through 12
By Willie Martin

Jew Watch - Willie Martin's Web Site

    Jews Caused The Civil War - Part 7

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Jews/+Doc-Jews-National&InternationalConspiracy&NWO/AmericanCivilWarCausedByJews-WillieMartin.htm
Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline jacob gold

  • Troll
  • General of the Army
  • *
  • Posts: 9200
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile




  Slavery had nothing to do with the civil war other than being a propaganda tool.  The civil war was about money.


The civil war was about jews gaining control of America.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 05:16:35 PM by jacob gold »

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
You might like this PBS video. Even though it has a few lies and distortions, it does mention August Belmont, Rothschild's agent in the North; of course it fails to mention Judah Benjamin, the Rothschild's agent in the South. It looks as if the Jews backed both sides when the war started, lending money in the form of bonds. But when the South lost New Orleans and Vicksburg, it appears the Rothschild's dumped the South in favor of the North.

See the 27 to 37 min mark relating to the Civil War.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/ascentofmoney/featured/the-ascent-of-money-episode-2-bonds-of-war/90/




Quotations from Otto von Bismarck, a 19th c. German politician, from an interview by C. Seim, La Vieille France, March, 1921

The division of the United States into two federations of equal force was decided long before the
Civil War by the High Financial Power of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States,
if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economical and financial
independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/10163218/Bismarck-on-Jews-Bankers-and-the-American-Civil-War

oh and dont forget

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Jews/+Doc-Jews-National&InternationalConspiracy&NWO/AmericanCivilWarCausedByJews-WillieMartin.htm

I regret how often history skips from civil war to the start of WWI...there was a long war going in D.C. regarding banking
Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
A little known fact is that Siam was never colonized. Even though, the Jews never gave up trying.




I'm more than a bit worried as to what's going on in Thailand right now.  I never thought the bastard's would bother Thailand.  I was very wrong.  I'm totally on the yellow (King's) side.  I've got inlaw's high up in the military there.  If asked I'll fight for them or do whatever they want me to do.  I loved the way that red shirt traitor general caught a bullet between the eyes while talking to a BBC reporter about six months ago. I thought that ended it.  The people LOVE the King, but are being duped.  I don't think the bastard's will win, but there could and probably will be alot of trouble, I am very sad to say.
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/04/soros-brzezinski-talking-thai.html
Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile





The civil war was about jews gaining control of America.

As clefty said, a lot of things happened from the end of the Civil War in 1865 to the start of WWI and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

Here's Bismarck's theory.


Bismarck on Jews
and the American Civil War


Quotations from Otto von Bismarck, a 19th c. German politician, from an interview by
C. Seim, La Vieille France, March, 1921

The division of the United States into two federations of equal force was decided long before the
Civil War by the High Financial Power of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States,
if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economical and financial
independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world. The voice of the
Rothschilds predominated. They foresaw tremendous booty if they could substitute two feeble
democracies, indebted to the Jewish financiers, to the vigorous republic, confident and self-
providing. Therefore, they started their emissaries in order to exploit the question of slavery and thus
to dig an abyss between the two parts of the republic. Lincoln never suspected these underground
machinations. He was anti-slavery, and he was elected as such. But his character prevented him
from being the man of one party. When he had affairs in his hands, he perceived that these sinister
financiers of Europe, the Rothschilds, wished to make him the executor of their designs.

They made the rupture between the North and the South imminent! The masters of finance in
Europe made this rupture definitive in order to exploit it to the utmost. Lincoln's personality surprised
them: they thought to easily dupe the candidate woodcutter. But Lincoln read their plots and soon
understood that the South was not the worst foe, but the Jewish fi nanciers. He did not confide his
apprehensions; he watched the gestures of the Hidden Hand; he did not wish to expose publicly the
questions which disconcert the ignorant masses. He decided to eliminate the international bankers,
by establishing a system of loans, allowing the states to borrow directly from the people without
intermediary. He did not study financial questions, but his robust good sense revealed to him that
the source of any wealth resides in the work and economy of the nation. He opposed emissions
through the international financiers. He obtained from the Congress the right to borrow from the
people by selling to it the bonds of the states. The local banks were only too glad to help such a
system. And the government and the nation escaped the plots of foreign financiers. They
understood at once that the United States would escape their grip. The death of Lincoln was
resolved upon. Nothing is easier than to find a fanatic to strike.
The death of Lincoln was a disaster for Christendom. There was no man in the United States great
enough to wear his boots. And Israel went anew to garner the riches of the world. I fear that Jewish

banks with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of
America and will use it to systematically corrupt modern civilization. The Jews will not
hesitate to plunge the whole of Christendom into wars and chaos in order that "the earth
should become the inheritance of Israel.".



Comment:
Bismarck's first Reichstag speech was stamped 'anti-Semitic' (Treitschke, Deutsche Geschichte im XIX

Jahrhundert), and this continued to be his general attitude - with occasional "art of the possible" political
compromises.
In the American tragedy, the agitation for 'abolition' was spearheaded by Jewish refugees from the abortive
European revolutions of 1848. Financing for Union and Confederacy came from the same European banking
network: August Schonberg "Belmont" was the intermediary to the North, and Judah Benjamin to the
South.Lincoln greatly upset the Eastern Establishment bankers by issuing non-interest-bearing "Greenback"
currency, when the interest rates they demanded became prohibitive. His assassin was a half-Jew, according
to theBooth family biographer, Stanley Kimmel (The Mad Booths of Maryland). (Emphasis added)


http://www.scribd.com/doc/10163218/Bismarck-on-Jews-Bankers-and-the-American-Civil-War
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 06:11:51 PM by laconas »
Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline wag

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 10423
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
It still is. The dogmatic single view history of the Civil War today is used as a vehicle to promote social and political agendas to the tune of billions per year.

It was fought not to free the blacks, but to enslave the whites.
Nobody gets paid to tell the truth.

Offline Zampan0

  • Group Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 885
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
A little known fact is that Siam was never colonized. Even though, the Jews never gave up trying.
  They have never been conquered either. The Japanese recognized this fact during WWII while occupying Thailand, America's ally.  In the Phillipines, Japanese soldier's threw baby's into the air and caught them on their bayonets.  In occupied Thailand, Japanese soldier's would bow to Thai business-men on the street.  The word Thai (roughly) translates to mean, "Free".
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference.

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
It was fought not to free the blacks, but to enslave the whites.

I think that came later in 1913 with IRS and the FD. Still, history is a progression of interconnected events and the Civil War sowed the seeds.
Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline wag

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 10423
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
I think that came later in 1913 with IRS and the FD. Still, history is a progression of interconnected events and the Civil War sowed the seeds.

The outcome led to a new layer of middlemen in all commerce. 
Nobody gets paid to tell the truth.

Offline jacob gold

  • Troll
  • General of the Army
  • *
  • Posts: 9200
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Jews and the Civil War is one of several new contributions to the subject of the immigrant experience during the war. And the Jews were overwhelmingly immigrants. Two-thirds of Jews in America in 1861 had been born abroad.


SO Laconas says "Jews fought like gladiators"  ..... But Jacob Gold says these 'Kikes' sat out the war in NY or as war profiteers
« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 07:00:20 PM by jacob gold »

Offline laconas

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 13653
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Jews and the Civil War is one of several new contributions to the subject of the immigrant experience during the war. And the Jews were overwhelmingly immigrants. Two-thirds of Jews in America in 1861 had been born abroad.


SO Laconas says "Jews fought like gladiators"  ..... But Jacob Gold says these 'Kikes' sat out the war in NY or as war profiteers



The Only Jewish Military
Cemetery Outside of Israel is in Richmond, Virginia


by Seymour “Sy” Brody


The Hebrew Confederate Cemetery, located in Richmond, Virginia, is the only Jewish military cemetery in the world outside of Israel. It was created by the anti-Semitism of the two Confederate military cemeteries, in Spotsylvania Court House and Fredericksburg. They refused to bury the Jewish Confederate soldiers killed in the battles of Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville and Wilderness. They didn’t want “Jewish boys” in their cemeteries.

They brought them to the Hebrew Cemetery in Richmond, Virginia. They were buried in five rows, with six bodies in a row, in a self -contained hallowed area within the larger Hebrew Cemetery. Those buried came from Mississippi, Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Louisiana.

In 1866, The Hebrew Ladies Memorial Association was formed to take care these graves. They raised money to pay for individual gave markers for the soldiers, they sponsored memorial services and they commissioned an elaborate ornamental iron fence to surround the hallowed grave area. In the 1930s, they gave the care of this area to the Hebrew Cemetery Company.

Major William B. Meyer designed an iron railing fence that enclosed the thirty graves. This fence is considered a work of art.


Courtesy of the Hebrew Cemetery Company of Richmond The Hebrew Confederate Cemetery   

The posts of the fence are furled Confederate flags with stacked muskets, with a flat Confederate soldier's cap on top of it. The railings between the posts are crossed swords and sabers hung with wreaths of laurel. The design is emblematic of the three branches of the Confederate fighting forces: muskets for the infantry and the swords and sabers for the artillery and calvary.

In the 1930s, the tombstones were removed because of their deterioration and worn away engraving. They replaced them with a large granite stone with a bronze plaque attached with the names of all the soldiers buried. It was erected by Congregation Beth Ahabah, the caretakers of the cemetery

When Henry Gintzberger was killed in the Battle of Cold Harbor, he was misidentified and buried under the name of Gersberg. A hundred years later, local historians trying to locate his grave, found it in the Hebrew Confederate Cemetery. On October 20, 1963, a special memorial program was held at the cemetery and his birth name was restored with a plaque attached underneath the other one.

Many of the local Jewish Confederate soldiers killed are not in this military cemetery as they were buried in their family plots at the Hebrew Cemetery. One of these soldiers was Isaac Levy of Richmond, Virginia.

He was 21 years old when he was killed in the trenches near Petersburg on August 21, 1864. He was an orthodox Jew, who wrote his sister that he and other Jewish Confederate soldiers managed to have a Passover Seder with Kosher food.

T.N. Waul, who commanded a Confederate Legion said, “Jewish soldiers were brave, orderly, well–disciplined and in no respect inferior to the gallant body in which they formed a prominent part. Their behavior in the field was exemplary and no Jew was ever before a court-martial. I never heard of any Jewish soldier shirking or failing to answer any call of duty and danger.”

In the Civil War, Jews responded to the call of duty whether it was for the North or the South. The Confederate Hebrew Cemetery depicts the great sacrifices that Jews have made in defending their country.


http://www.fau.edu/library/confederate_cemetery.htm
Nobody censors what they agree with

Offline OldTimes

  • Major General
  • **
  • Posts: 4568
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
U. Grant owned slaves during the civil war.  Robert E. Lee condemned slavery before the civil war.  Lincoln derided negroe's.  The use of slavery to promote a cival war was directed towards bleeding hearts.  Slavery had nothing to do with the civil war other than being a propaganda tool.  The civil war was about money.

So true.

It must be a rabbinical formula for a 'great con' to happen once in the course of the human lifetime.  About 80 years past from today's ongoing economic disintegration, we had the Great Depression leading to WW2.  70 years before that was the Civil War, instigated by jews as a divide & conquer strategy, ending with the South paying outrageous taxes to keep what little they had left to the North (actually the carpetbaggers & feds).  Why only 70 years?  perhaps the human lifespan was less then...

Before that was the masonic-instigated 'independence' from Britain accompanied by another war during the 1776-1791 timeframe.  Before that we should look to Europe for the regular con-cycles...

These long-term con-cycles work because trust is built up so the masses can be fleeced, and no one alive generally would have any experience of the last time that trust was burnt.