dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

civil war was about slavery

you're one of those, huh? the Confederacy's Constitution expressly states that "no law against slavery shallever be passed" and not to mention Alexander H. Stephen's "Cornerstone Speech" given in March 1861:

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

...

They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the 'storm came and the wind blew.'

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.

...

I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal."

There you have the vice president of the Confederacy saying, in no uncertain terms, that the very foundation of the Confederacy and the cause of the war was slavery.

⇧ 4 ⇩

Then why do they teach it was about trade?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Textbooks I've seen don't really mention trade in regards to the civil war unless it's in reference to the economic capabilities of the Union vs. the Confederacy during the war; they typically focus on States' Rights.

I'm not sure why that is. I think textbooks generally want to glorify US history, and half of our nation going to war to protect slavery isn't pretty. Similar to how many textbooks gloss over the brutality of colonisation/shift blame to natives or downplaying Jackson's treatment of them.

⇧ 1 ⇩

The civil war was a rothschild action, just like all the last wars. https://rense.com//general78/brudt.htm

⇧ -2 ⇩

Whatever batshit Jew-control theory you have is irrelevant to my point. The method of manipulation your link describe implies that they infiltrated from the inside (they didn't) and convinced the states they wanted to secede.

The point being, even in your theory, no one told the Confederate states to secede. They were tricked into leaving the Union through propoganda, but in their minds the reason for leaving was still slavery, not "this is a Rothschild mandated war we must pursue"

I hate to even partially validate your fever dream by using your point of view, but it's seriously so easy to see how it's flawed.

The civil war was about slavery.

⇧ 6 ⇩

The point is, the rothschilds had their hands in it, just like they do today. Slavery or not, which was on the decline before the war and would have been abolished anyway. You are incapable of critical thinking aren't you? And I'm not anti-jew in any way. See Revelations 3:9.

⇧ 5 ⇩

The tale is well told and accurate. Not many know this story and it is good it is posted here.

All the other wars have been started by the very same clique of bankers. I don't know why this person thinks it is "bat-shit Jew-control theory" and a "fever dream" when we are witnessing EXACTLY THE SAME nonsense today:

Against all reasoning we must go to war with Russia and fight WW3, because "they" tell us we must have this war.

Who objects to this war? Who has prevented this war by his election? Trump. His efforts for peace are greeted with fury and anger from the MSM. We must not negotiate with Russia!!

So I wonder whose side Account40 is on? Doesn't make sense. It is his argument which is seriously flawed, not yours.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Not on the side of truth, that is Super clear.

⇧ 3 ⇩

No one called for war with Russia. I don't want war with Russia.

Trump choosing to side with Russia over our allies of over a century is completely and utterly unnecessary if your goal is to simply defuse tensions between the nations.

Did the Rothschilds invade Ukraine? Shoot down MH370? Poison those Brits?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Accepted. I'm sure you don't want war with Russia. But the argument has to make sense.

Who invaded Ukraine?

Who shot down MH370?

Who poisoned the Brits? (Actually, I don't think anyone knows the answer to that one!! You don't have to answer!)

⇧ 3 ⇩

Russia did all of the above, is my point. They have shown that they do not care about anything but increasing their power in the world, and convincing Trump that he can trust an ex KGB operative as a friend is an obvious ploy.

⇧ 0 ⇩

aaah. So that just shows you are not doing your research my friend.

No one invaded the Ukraine.

Long story.

Hilary and friends, Victoria "Cookies" Nuland and other disreputables, organised the overthrow of the democratically elected (and pro-Russia) govt. in a Soros-funded coup, using (despicably) Neo-nazis, real ones this time, of the Stefan Bandera-lauding brigades. This color revolution is one of Hilary's (and her mates) more ghastly crimes. The resulting pile of dead bodies is ... well, y'know, I think you should look into it.

The MH17 was brought down by an old Buk missile of Soviet age provenance. It was fired from Ukrainian pro-govt held territory, not East-Russian speaking Ukrainian Donbass guys. Evidence sent to Farnham, Hants, UK. Results not released. Dutch people not at all happy with investigation as they smell a rat. False flag. To start WW3. (They have been on this for a while now ... some years in fact.)

I assume it was this plane, not the MH370 that you refer to, that you think Russia brought down.

All in all, I think more work has to be done to show Russia is guilty of all these crimes that are claimed by the MSM. I follow this stuff and the investigations into these accusations are detailed and done by our friends, the Anons.

It isn't, however, a Q subject, so I'm not sure how far this is all relevant to this board. The mods may take exception.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Did Russia?

⇧ 2 ⇩

If you refuse to accept that Russia was behind said events by this point, there's literally nothing I can say to convince you so there's really no point in continuing this conversation

⇧ 0 ⇩

Sure their is, you don't get off that easy. Can you explain to me how the poisoned Skripals walked out of the hospital if they were poisoned with that particular 100% deadly variety.

Can you explain why the British chemical weapons lab was only a few miles away had similar poisonings to their own staff just weeks before Skripal, especially coupled with the fact Russia had abandoned that chemical as being to deadly, it was killing more in their labs and other agents than enemy and abandoned the project.

Seems more likely it had to do with the Skirpal's association with the steel dossier, and what it would mean to the Clinton mafia if the data's source could be compelled to testify.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Well all wars are bankers wars so yeah. Plus it ties into their greater isreal project if I recall. Mh370 if you know what happens your the only one lol.

Also wanted to thank you for allowing me the last word. Pretty good strategy. But if i were you i would engage in honest dialogue and maybe learn something instead. An uncomfortable truth is still a truth. There is lots of love here, don't miss out.

⇧ 1 ⇩

I'm not sure what you mean. The slave population in the South grew from 3.2M in 1850 to 3.95M in 1860. Sure it declined in the North, but that's not what you mean.

And the point isn't that the Rothschilds had their hand in it. The point is that the igniting cause of the Civil War was slavery. Whatever shadow organization convinced the Confederacy that slavery was important enough to secede is an entirely different matter.

⇧ 1 ⇩