Propaganda, Lies, And War

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by James Miller from the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada

Propaganda, Lies, And War

If I asked what the cause of the American Civil War was, would your first answer be slavery?  Would it surprise you to know that slavery was only one grievance the South had with the Lincoln administration?

Up until the first bullet was fired on Fort Sumter, Abraham Lincoln had been leading a type of economic aggression to force the South into initiating the official version of the conflict.  When Lincoln ran for president, his platform was based on Henry Clay-inspired mercantilism where he promised to maintain a high protective tariff that would serve Northern industrial interests while impoverishing the South’s still predominantly agrarian economy.  This, of course, angered the South much like it did when John Quincy Adams imposed the same type of tariff in 1828 which lead to the Nullification Crisis.  With the Morrill Tariff, which increased the tax on dutiable imports by about 70%, put in place by President Buchanan two days before he left office, the South stood ready to secede.  After Lincoln’s inauguration, he began to maneuver the seceding South into firing the first shot by breaking a previously established agreement to not attempt to restock Fort Sumter.  He secretly sent troops the Fort which escalated into what turned out to be the bloodiest war in American history.  Lincoln’s close friend and confidante Senator Orville H. Browning would go on to write in his diary:

He told me that the very first thing placed in his hands after his inauguration was a letter from Major Anderson announcing the impossibility of defending or relieving Sumter.  That he called the cabinet together and consulted General Scott—that Scott concurred with Anderson, and the cabinet, with the exception of PM General Blair were for evacuating the Fort and all the troubles and anxieties of his life had not equalled (sic) those which intervened between this time and the fall of Sumter.  He himself conceived the idea, and proposed sending supplies, without an attempt to reinforce giving notice of the fact to Governor Pickens of S.C.   The plan succeed.  They attacked Sumter—it fell, and thus, did more service than it otherwise could.

Contrary to popular belief, the Civil War was not a fight over slavery but a fight over whether the South was allowed to secede from the union.  Lincoln thought war would rally the North behind his special-interest driven agenda.  The South sent numerous commissioners to Washington in the hopes of finding a peaceful solution to secession.  Lincoln ignored all of them.  As he stated in a letter addressed to Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

So why is this version of the Civil War not taught in public schools?

It’s a simple answer when you consider the driving force of statism.

When Randolph Bourne opined “war is the health of the state,” he was referring to how war is used as a means to enlarge the authority of government over everyday life.  In times of war, the citizenry is told to sacrifice their material well being and freedom for the sake of winning the war and bringing the troops home.  Taxes are raised, central banks inflate, governments borrow massive amounts of money, and economic resources are confiscated to be used in the war effort.  War quickens the state’s march toward totalitarianism as it rallies the public into unquestioned obedience.  Love of country replaces love of self and family.  Mothers and fathers give up their sons (and now daughters) to fight in the state’s bloody crusade.  The heads of government who initiated the conflict don’t let their offspring go and fight.  Their pampered lifestyles usually don’t see the sacrifice taxpayers must endure.

Romanticized retellings of war assist in convincing the masses that the campaigns of murder carried out by political leaders were for the good of the nation.  It enshrines the state as a life-saving guardian to those fortunate enough to not meet a gruesome death on the battlefield.  In the case of the Civil War, Lincoln didn’t just save the union; he has forever made secession a nonviable solution to an overreaching Washington.  Lincoln’s war of northern aggression turned these united States of America into the United States of America.  It cost the equivalent of 6 million lives today for honest Abe to destroy the volunteerism which defined the union of the states in the decades that preceded the war.

Just as the Civil War was triggered by deceit, many of the wars or military conflicts of the past century have been fought based on the lies of a political class all too enamored with their own power and place in history.

Starting with World War I and Woodrow Wilson’s quest to “make the world safe for democracy,” the popularly spun tail is that America’s entering the conflict was in reaction to Germany sinking the supposedly innocent passenger vessel the Lusitania.  After German subs sunk the ship, thereby killing women and children, popular support reversed and was now in favor of war.  What wasn’t revealed immediately is that the Lusitania was really outfitted to carry armaments for the British.  This was a strategy developed by then First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill to bait a German attack and bring America into the fight.  As classical liberal historian Ralph Raico writes:

The Lusitania was a passenger liner loaded with munitions of war; Churchill had given orders to the captains of merchant ships, including liners, to ram German submarines if they encountered them, and the Germans were aware of this. And, as Churchill stressed in his memoirs of World War I, embroiling neutral countries in hostilities with the enemy was a crucial part of warfare: “There are many kinds of maneuvres in war, some only of which take place on the battlefield. . . . The maneuvre which brings an ally into the field is as serviceable as that which wins a great battle.

Then there is the often neglected role big business, especially JP Morgan & Co, played in the propagandizing of the war.  As one of the largest creditors and underwriters to war bonds issued by the governments of Britain and France, it was in the best interest of the House of Morgan to guarantee the Allies won the war.   As the American economy drifted toward one of top-down command where government cartelized industry to ensure adequate munitions for war, big business was more than happy to play along as it meant stifling regulations placed on their small-time competitors and the opportunity to keep prices elevated.  This perverted form of capitalism would serve as a model to Western nations from the war’s end to the present day.   Murray Rothbard believed the first World War was really a victory for the fascist state:

More than any other single period, World War I was the critical watershed for the American business system. It was a “war collectivism,” a totally planned economy run largely by big-business interests through the instrumentality of the central government, which served as the model, the precedent, and the inspiration for state corporate capitalism for the remainder of the twentieth century.

The beginnings of World War II were engulfed by the same collusion of big business and government along with underhanded tactics to further chip away at the American public’s noninterventionist stance.  The Morgans still had their financial ties with Britain and France while the Rockefellers wanted war with Japan since the country competed for raw materials in Southeast Asia.  Both financial powerhouses lobbied for war early on.  After Franklin Roosevelt was reelected on the platform of keeping America a neutral party, he set about provoking a Japanese attack sometime around the summer of 1941.  This resulted in an oil embargo, the forceful limiting of exports, and freezing the country’s assets within the U.S.  It was the equivalent of an economic fatal wound to resource-poor Japan.  Not only that, but in recent years it has been confirmed that Roosevelt had prior knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack and actually withheld key information from commanders at the naval base.  As Vice Admiral and aid to the Secretary of the Navy Frank E. Beatty noted at the time:

Prior to December 7, it was evident even to me… that we were pushing Japan into a corner. I believed that it was the desire of President Roosevelt, and Prime Minister Churchill that we get into the war, as they felt the Allies could not win without us and all our efforts to cause the Germans to declare war on us failed; the conditions we imposed upon Japan—to get out of China, for example—were so severe that we knew that nation could not accept them. We were forcing her so severely that we could have known that she would react toward the United States. All her preparations in a military way—and we knew their over-all import—pointed that way.

Following World War II, every conflict the U.S. has engaged in has been either to the benefit of wealthy special interests or in reaction to its own misguided policies.  The Cold War was a four decade long gift to the military industrial complex against a supposed world power that collapsed due to its state-run economy.  The various bombings and occupations of Middle Easter countries which followed have only served as excuses to not end the flow of money into the pockets of politically connected military contractors.  And the Iraq War, as everyone now knows, was based on the lie of Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction.

One would think with such a rich history of political patronage in the death industry, Americans would be adamantly opposed to war.  Yet the usual players in Washington are once again pounding on the war drums in the name of spreading American values.  The target this time is Iran and at least one presidential candidate in this fall’s election has vowed to use military force on a nation that hasn’t bowed down and kissed Uncle Sam’s jackboot.  The problem is Iran has the hubris of refusing to be bullied around by the U.S.  Such an attitude undermines American imperialism in front of the rest of the world.   It must be stomped out by any means necessary.

And then there is the big financial push for an Iranian war going on behind the scenes.  The pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has been aggressively pushing for war and appealing to top lawmakers and the heads of Washington’s warmongering apparatus.  President Obama has already assured the flush lobbying group that “the United States will not hesitate to attack Iran with military force to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon.”  Department of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made the same promise.  Just last week, 44 Senators, including many Democrats, sent an AIPAC letter to the President urging him to consider military action if Iran continues with its nuclear program.  The letter essentially makes war the only option on the table as Glenn Greenwald of Salon points out:

This implication is clear: a military attack by the U.S. on Iran is at least justified, if not compelled, if a satisfactory agreement is not quickly reached regarding Iran’s nuclear program. At the same time, the letter itself virtually ensures no such agreement is possible because the conditions it imposes as the “absolute minimum” are ones everyone knows Iran will never agree to (closing the Fordow facility and giving up its right to enrich uranium above 5 percent).

Not only is the push for war bipartisan, but much of the media establishment has been devoid of criticism of the constant war rhetoric. Even though Israel has nukes of its own, many of its supporters portray the country as a weakling in dire need of assistance from the bully of the Middle East schoolyard.  Worse is the complete disregard of the fact that there is no actual evidence that Iran is concocting a nuclear weapon.  According to the CIA’s own National Intelligence Estimate of 2007, Iran put a stop to the development of nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003.  Other Western nations such as Germany, France, and Britain, deny the report’s conclusion.  Meanwhile Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gotten impatient of the reluctance by the U.S. thus far to act militarily against Iran.  Like a good politician, he wants prestige without the dirty work.  That’s what America is for.

Despite already being engaged in drone wars in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and still occupying Afghanistan, the U.S. is being duped into yet another war based on shaky evidence and at the behest of deep-pocketed special interests.  This is coming even while a secretive cyber war already being waged to damage Iran’s nuclear capability.  According to the Pentagon, “computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war.”  Not only that, but the draconian sanctions thus far placed on Iran are doing enormous harm to the citizens who hardly have a say in what their government does.  The Belgium-based SWIFT payment system that facilitates most international payments has already denied service to many Iranian banks.  With the imposing of an oil embargo from the European Union just around the corner (July 1st) that will all but make it impossible for oil tankers to be insured by Lloyd’s of London, an actual naval blockade is being floated by U.S. lawmakers.  Much like the Antebellum South and Japan, Iran too is being pushed into a corner.

What makes the campaign to extend the War on Terror to Iran is that the anti-American sentiment in the higher echelons of its government are only a consequence of previous meddling.  After Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry in 1953, British Petroleum used the CIA to overthrow the popular leader and put the Shah back in power whose authoritarian rule would be financially supported by the U.S. up to the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

Then and now, wealthy special interests are a driving force behind American imperialism.  Lies will be spun till they are seen as facts.  When the truth comes out, the irreparable damage will already be done.  Like anything the state lays its filthy hands on, war is a racket.  The beneficiaries of the ruling class’s gleeful foray into mass murder are few in number.  The masses, still brainwashed into feverish nationalism, end up paying the costs with their pilfered income, eroded liberty, and, ultimately, their own lives.

As Major General Smedley D. Butler wrote in his seminal essay War Is A Racket

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

The only weapon against such an immoral system of mass murder and cronyism is to know the truth and to not fall ill with the fever of war.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
WTFx10's picture

Facts and opinions are two different things.

Now how do you get to comment on this site? You did not answer my question? No fucking way china lets zerohedge through the great Firewall.

Or you are living here in us citizemville or what ever you call us. Spying for the home team?

 

TimmyB's picture

The absurd claim being made here is that the Civil War was all about high tarriffs.  This is like the 9/11 conspiracy theories where you can make any absurd claim you want.  Tarriffs.  How funny is that?    

Lednbrass's picture

Well, then no doubt you are a fan of the current adminstration and the subordination of everything in life to the Federal government, it is the logical extension of everything Lincoln and his horde fought for. Otherwise you would be just another hypocritical northern republican idiot squealing under the weight of the government his ancestors fought for.

Its OK though, the South gets the last laugh. You sent Sherman, we returned the favor with Bernanke. Sherman only looted, murdered, and destroyed part of the South, Ben wont rest until every last one of you is toast.

potlatch's picture

The only way the South gets the last laugh is if there is a nuclear holocaust, and the few survivors left have to deal with the fact that the sole cable station left is stuck playing the same VCR copy of Hee Haw Season 12 over and over and over....

Lednbrass's picture

OK, that made me chuckle but if the financial system breaks down and the trucks stopped rolling, most of the South will get by. Most of the urbanized North will not.

Personally Im hoping somebody has old copies of the Dukes of Hazzard, Daisy's accent was lousy and fake as hell but she was nice to look at.

potlatch's picture

Strangely, I am sure Boss Hogg is somehow actually involved in this whole mess.

prole's picture

I never knew they showed "Dukes of Hazard" in Tel Aviv.

Things you learn on the internets

potlatch's picture

Sherman was da man

 

 

you just pissed you was teh bitch

Lednbrass's picture

It is well and proper that Sherman was so fond of fire, he and his men certainly have all they can handle right now.

TheObsoleteMan's picture

A nuclear war is the only way out of this mess. There are simply too many people on the planet. The question is how do you control it, and keep it from killing EVERYBODY via nuclear winter. All that is needed is a hot war in asia. US, UK,  India, Vietnam {yes, THAT Vietnam}, Japan, Israel and South Korea vs China, North Korea, Pakistan and Iran. Iran, the Koreas, Japan, Pakistan, India and China would a a wasteland within hours. The USA would suffer casualties on the order of 10 to 20 million. The UK would have SERIOUS internal issues to deal with due to all the paki and indian immigrants there. Keeping Russia out of this would be of paramount importance. Buy them off with leaving Serbia, hands off Syria, and giving them back the baltic nations. Give a nod & wink to their aggression in Georgia and the Ukraine. A limited theater nuclear war would, in this fashion, cull as many as 2 billion worthless eaters. Many more would die later as a result of starvation,atomic poisoning and disease. That is the plan to reduce the world's population by half in less than a year. The USA would get it's manufacturing sector back, and could erase their debts owed to China. Better to do it now than later. The longer the USA waits, the more likely the casualties the US would suffer will be amplified.

http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2012hearings/written_testimonies/hr12_03_26.php 

El Tuco's picture

Maybe we should start the cull with you and your family....

Dumb fuck....

 

TNTARG's picture

Indeed you're Obsolete, Man.

falak pema's picture

this guy has to be MDB's twin brother! 

andrewp111's picture

Iran has effectively been at war with the USA since 1979. So anything we do to them is entirely justified. However, both the USA and Israel want the other to take all the risks of war. That is why nothing has been done to Iran yet, even though Iran has been nuking up for at least 10 years.

 

Now that Israel has a unity government, Israel should just nuke them and be done with it..

El Tuco's picture

@andrewp111...Fuck you... you Piece of Shit....

 

cherry picker's picture

It is people like you who scare the shit out of me and the world, as people with your mind set may have their trigger finger on a nuke. You are no different than the people who perpetuated 9/11, and who the hell knows who that may be.

my puppy for prez's picture

"who the hell knows who that may be."

I suggest watching "9/11: Missing Links" on Youtube.  There are so many books to reinforce this video.  It's a very important part of the "who did it" equation.

TheObsoleteMan's picture

I was only paraphrasing the position of a group in Washington. I suppose nobody bothered to click on the link? I personally would never advocate war of any type, let alone nuclear. I was trying to show everyone that certain important people are begining to plan the unimaginable. And yes, "useless eaters" is the term they use for human beings. Gives you some insight into their mindset about how they really feel about us. Sorry if I did not make it clearer that this was not my "intellectual property". There have been nukes since 1945, and they have not been used since. I am surprised given mankinds track record that they have not been used by now by someone. That is about to change, and soon I am afraid. Be prepared.

potlatch's picture

we talk rowdy here, but not sure talking about using nukes.... well, I do not think you are joking, and if so, megatons of fuck yous, buddy. 

falak pema's picture

ever ask yourself what the US admin did between 1953 to 1979 in Iran? That might upset your freedom lover stomach a bit if somebody had meeted out THAT treatment to the USA. Reciprocity is the rule of life amongst individuals and nations. You assume in your logic of "nuke the pukes" : my country right or wrong. Big assumption. 

AnAnonymous's picture

That might upset your freedom lover stomach a bit if somebody had meeted out THAT treatment to the USA.

________________

It answers the question. Knowing what happened between 1953 to 1979.

It was inflicted by the US and therefore righteous and true to freedom, justice and truth.

akak's picture

Every honest, intelligent, just and freedom-loving American recognizes the gross imperialistic actions of past US administrations towards Iran, particularly the interventions against the Mossadegh regime in the 1950s, and rightly condemns them for the criminal acts that they were.

Are you equally willing to acknowledge the analogous (and much greater) crimes of your Communist Chinese masters, such as their invasion and illegal annexation of Tibet, and their 60+ year warmongering against independent Taiwan, and their murderous crimes against their OWN citizens, tens of millions of whom were killed by their OWN regime under the glorious rule of the Great Stoolman, Mouse E. Dung?  Let's see you do THAT, Chicom webbot troll!  We all know that you can't, and won't.

El Tuco's picture

I can think of only two catalysts that will finally end this shit and wake up the masses.

We either have an extraterrestrial event or every fucker that has worked his ass off wakes up one morning to find everything he has is worth nothing.

I think that might be enough to warrant full retard......

 

 

potlatch's picture

I do not think your event parameters are unreasonable.  This is what scares me.

dolph9's picture

Die for Israel in the desert, or come home to a country overrun by Mexicans, bitchez.

Cathartes Aura's picture

ahhahahhahahhh, very crafty. . .

WTFx10's picture

"Die for Israel in the desert, or come home to a country overrun by Mexicans and controlled by Israel, bitchez"

If your going to show your prejudice you might as well throw a fact in that statement.

LivermoreJim's picture

Naturally from the Von Mises Institute: a hotbed of anarchist thought with Rothbard the prime radical. Naturally the Civil War is seen as a fight for the right of State's to secede from the Union by whim -- the logical extenstion of that being each individual a nation unto himself, a la Somalia.

As dangerous as the Socialist Obama are these Von Mises anarchists who have Ron Paul firmly in grasp. They would gladly have had the South secede from the Union with Slavery than have Lincoln destroy that 'peculiar institution.'

So much for their concern for freedom.

disabledvet's picture

South Carolina did claim a right to "interpret the Constitution as they saw fit" which seems far from whimsical in my view. I do agree however "having a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court writing decisions on matters not yet before the Court" is problematical however. Not that they would ever do such a thing now of course...

Lednbrass's picture

LOL.

In one breath you defend a hyperpowered federal government that can force whatever it please upon its citizens- then call Obama a socialist? And think that States Rights is anarchy?

God you people are fucking stupid. Read some actual books for a change, television and radio have rotted your brain. You wouldnt know an anarchist if one planted a bomb in your posterior (assuming you could differentiate between it and a hole in the ground).

Enjoy your blue state socialist hellhole, and please stop your fellow travelers from infecting the South. Just stay in your little nanny state, pray towards DC a few times a day, and rot till the gubmint you so love collapses it around your ears.

rambo1028's picture

I am so glad ZH is being so PC and taking diversity so seriously. That must be the case if someone as fucking stupid as you are is posting here Jim.

Unbelievable! What a dumbtwat!

TheObsoleteMan's picture

I should note tha these are not my plans or language, but theirs.

the grateful unemployed's picture

certain GOP intellects like Ed Meese former Attny General (theologians of the cause if you will) insist that every amendment since the Civil War be repealed. but the ground shifts pretty fast under their feet, as Goldwater said of the Reagan people "they think I am a leftist.." Goldwater still ascribed to the traditional INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS portion of the Constitution which moderns from both parties have thrown out. and should we suppose that the Libertarian view of Emminent Domain, as passed by SCOTUS is actually left of the current GOP philosophy. just wondering because their candidate isn't going to splain' nothing, should he beat out Obummer, he will just declare himself a Unitary Decider, (after the election, after pandering to all of the suckers) and probably kick up the MussolineFascistBusinessModel a notch. that is if there's any room to kick it up (word today is the Fed is out of AMMO, right!)

toomanyfakeconservatives's picture

Love the Civil War shout out, but the MASS ARRESTS are coming and the U.S. military won't comply with this one, meaning a shooting war with Iran and her allies.

TimmyB's picture

Slight disagreement about the Civil War.  It was about all about slavery.  Sure, you can frame the issue as the South wanting to leave the Union, but why did they want to leave?  Because the rest of the country thought slavery was an abomination.   

Like most wars, the Civil War was all about money.  But here the money was in slaves.  The 1% in the South were slaveholders.  Slaves were valuable property.  Not only were their slaves valuable property, but by using slaves they didn't have to pay for labor.  The South's 1% wanted to keep their way of life. and they thought they would quickly win the war, which is why they started it.   Yeah, the South started it by shelling a U.S. Army Fort, provoked or not.  Those first shots started the Civil War.           

Slavery is the reason the war started.  If the South didn't have slaves, they would never would have wanted to leave the Union.  To claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery is about the same as claiming that the Iraq War wasn't about oil.  Slaves were very valuable back then.    

 The claim that the war was about tarriffs is silly.  The North paid more in tarriffs than the South becasue the North had a larger population.  Not only that, but slaves weren't exactly rich, and thus even if the populations of the North and South were the same, and they were not, the abject poverty of slaves prevented them from buying tarriffed goods and thus paying the tarriff.   

 

 

disabledvet's picture

And of course the South was poorer for it. Now that they no longer have slavery or a slave based economy they are far better off are they not? So since they are far better off now aren't they in a better position to secede then? Call it a "war of devolution" or something or other. "to make us all better off"...like Germany is doing in Europe.

TimmyB's picture

Like many who start wars, they didn't expect to lose the one they started. 

The South's 1% were worse off for a time.  Then, after Northern troops left, the "sharecroppers"  as slaves were then called, were sent right back to the plantations.  Terrorists, also know as the KKK, helped keep the system in place and stop the slaves from exercising the rights acquired by the war.  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.   This system worked untill MLK.     

 

    

 

Lednbrass's picture

What do you people put in your water up there?

First off, the upper echelon in the south was wiped out and replaced with carpetbaggers from the North,  Their land was flat out taken and given to the carpetbagging element and Union League types (they couldnt pay the taxes and land confiscations were rampant), and in many cases if they could their homes and goods were burned and taken. A few made it through those years with holdings intact, but very few.  The existing power structure was almost entirely replaced with a northern element.

There were more white than black sharecroppers before and most definitely after the war, did you learn history on Nickelodeon? It wasnt a term made up for blacks.

KKK- whatever. The postwar organization fought terror with terror and killed more whites than blacks, it disbanded when things began to calm down and some sort of order was restored.  When it was resurrected in later years it was a different organization with a different agenda- and was huge in the north. The largest and most powerful state chapter in history was in Indiana in the 1920's. Take a look at the DC marches, those arent all southerners by a long shot.

Have you or do you read books on the war and post war periods, or does everything you claim to know come from high school teachers and television?

 

toomanyfakeconservatives's picture

So true, and ironically Indiana sent the largest number and largest proportion of troops into battle against the Confederacy. Please people, dispel your childish notions of the Civil War and read some of Thomas DiLorenzo's work on Lincoln and the war.

TimmyB's picture

What point are you trying to make?  Sure, the South's 1% was decimated.  However, that fact does't address anything I wrote.  The South lost a war (over slavery, but if you want to believe it was over high tarriffs then go ahead, but believing the South fought the Civil War over high tarriffs just makes the South seem stupider) and paid the price many losers of wars pay.  Do you think Germany would have started WWII if it knew the outcome?  How about Japan?  Then why would the South be any different.

Concerning the Northern Element you write about, please explain exactly how they managed to hold on to power after Northern troops left?  Oh, that's right, they didn't.  Enlightening that you equate the KKK with freedom fighters, who, according to you, fought terror with terror.  As those of us with some knowledge of history know, the KKK was started by B. Forrest, a Southern General who had African-American Union troops shot.  He was a racist war criminal who's family were, yup, slave traders.  But  no, the war was all about tarriffs. 

And exactly what "order" did they restore?  I'll tell you, the KKK terrorised freed slaves and stripped them of their rights, especially thier right to vote.  They instituted "Jim Crow" laws to "keep blacks in their place."  Wonder why the KKK went after ex-slaves and their white supporters if the Civil War was all about tarriffs, but hey, why let facts get in the way of your theory, right?  

BTW-where do I claim that the North wasn't or isn't rascist too?  So why do you inject Indiana into the argument, other than to deflect attention from the South's sorry history?  And what fiction provided your facts?  Gone with the Wind?

 

  

 

    

AnAnonymous's picture

Terrorists, also know as the KKK, helped keep the system in place and stop the slaves from exercising the rights acquired by the war. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. This system worked untill MLK.

_______________________________

Convict leasing, convict leasing. Tough facts to be learned and have to be silenced by the US citizen crowd that propagate that slavery was on its natural death path due to industrialization of society.

Convict leasing proved it not.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

AnAnonymous babbled:

Convict leasing, convict leasing.

Yes, good, keep blobbing up the repeation many times until lucky number is reached. This will make it much more true, according to tradition from Chinese citizenism fabled past.

Algebraic coconutism at work.

Lebensphilosoph's picture

America was a nice place to live until MLK.

TimmyB's picture

Sure was, if you were into lynching, murder and overt racism.  Let me say I strongly disagree.    

toomanyfakeconservatives's picture

My bullshit detector is blinking and beeping! "Because the rest of the country thought slavery was an abomination." That's hardly the case. Plenty of people in the north were either ambivalent about slavery, non-intervestionsts, or outright secessionists. The loudest mouths against slavery were religious zealots and political rabble rousers. You are apparently completely ignorant of the vociferous anti-slavery movement that existed in the South. Did you have any clue there were around 5,000 FREE black landowners in the South at the outbreak of the Civil War? Didn't think so. "Abject poverty"? Are you kidding? That came in the 100+ years after the war when blacks were made into a permanent underclass of refugees and migrated north into urban hellholes like Chicago and New York.

TimmyB's picture

Nice flag you got there. Good to know you have a dog in this fight, unlike Northerners who don't give a shit because they didn't lose the war. 

Why don't you address the facts I presented if you are going to claim that the Civil War was all about tarriffs?  Talk about bullshit.  Seriously, the South fought the Civil War because fucking tarriffs were too high?  What a noble cause.  Tarriffs?  Does it actually say that on all those statues in the South, "Dedicated to the Heros of the South who fought in the Great Tarriff War." 

You are living in a fantasy world.  Tarriffs?  Ha ha ha ha ha ha.  

 

     

 

Tom Green Swedish's picture

The problem here is whether Iran has nuclear weapons, and as such will Russia get pissed if we attack them.  If Iran does in fact have nuclear weapons war is not an option.  If it is clear they do not then it is an option.

memyselfiu's picture

hence the paradox- why on earth would iran want nuclear weapons? the US practices moral hazard of the highest order in so many ways....