The Man Who Won The Civil War

in #informationwar6 years ago

History is indeed written by the winners- only in the case of the War of Northern Aggression no recognition at all seems to go to the man responsible for the victory... Czar Alexander II of Russia. Putting aside all the glowing accounts the great Abraham Lincoln almost single-handedly defeating slavery and thus saving the Union from the depredations of the South and examining the real account, we get a far different picture.

Slavery was the propaganda used to cement public opinion and not a very good one at that. Almost no one in the North loved their "black brethren" enough to get shot, so Lincoln had to impose a draft. The South only wanted economic autonomy- the right to negotiate trade agreements on their own behalf- rights guaranteed by the 9th and 10th Amendments. What's a would-be dictator to do? Lincoln was beset on the one hand by the demands of the South and on the other pressures from his financial backers- manufacturers who needed raw materials from the South. Raw materials the South could sell for more to England and France- both of whom backed them in the war. So much so that in 1863 England sent a sizable fleet of warships to Canada with the intention of attacking from the north destroying Boston and New York City, considered at the time the financial capital of the country- a move that would cripple the North.

Lincoln was in a desperate situation. He was trying to keep the European bankers out of the US, something his backers weren't particularly averse to. Lincoln had to play both ends against the middle keeping his backers satisfied, keeping the Rothschild banks out and fighting the war at the same time. All the South wanted was to sell their agricultural products to the highest bidder- this meant England and France, both of whom were poised to jump in on their side. A victory by the South meant that the banks would gain foothold in America (or what would be left of it). This move was favored by Henry Clay one of the most powerful men in the South, not to mention his friends. Lincoln needed help badly... the North barely won in a fair fight. With the aid of England and France- all would be lost. What Lincoln needed was a powerful ally.

Enter Czar Alexander II stage left (and right for that matter). In 1863, about the same time the British armada was heading for Canada, the Russian two fleets of Russian warships arrived- one in San Francisco and one in New York. They didn't just arrive, they ARRIVED. There were galas held in both cities a with parades and much pomp and circumstance. The British and French diplomats reported this to their superiors and the Czar made it very clear that should either interfere they would find themselves fighting wars on two fronts- wars they couldn't possibly win. Moreover, before 1918 the Rothschild banks didn't have their hooks into Russia, so the war was of no benefit to them. They were used to financing both sides and in this case it would only be one- the losing side. This could have easily have been the real First World War- two Rothschild controlled economies against two independent states... this would have proven disastrous for the bankers.

Had Russia not come to Lincoln's aid the outcome of the war would have been very different and the America we live in would look very different today. An independent South would have been able to sell their agricultural products to the highest bidder- likely decimating the textile industry in the North. What was left of the Union would likely have to succumb to the European bankers just to survive as an independent entity. The South with their wealth of natural resources would have flourished becoming an economic powerhouse. Yet somehow the history books have overlooked the contributions of the Czar in their zeal to promote and lionize the "Great Emancipator."

In a masterful piece of propaganda, the efforts of the Czar on behalf of the Union have been all but eliminated from the history books. Yet without the Russians- the war would have lamost surely been lost... and how many people in America even know this?

GIF by @papa-pepper

U5dsRT1UAnwwU1RVKAb43TK21U3xTen.gif

Sort:  

Up-voted brother. I really do enjoy your history lessons. Not asleep here. More please.

Hello @richq11

Thank you for this historical justice done to the Russians with respect to American Civil War. I had read several versions of the war in the past because of my love for the country, but had never read the roles the Russians play in winning the war for the North.

With this, I think the deliberate historical denial of the roles of Russia in ensuring that America remains together, has been dealt with. Thanks for this piece.

However, I think America is better remaining as one.

@eurogee of @euronation & the Host, Show Us Your Witnesses Weekly Contest

Lots of stuff have been all but eliminated from our history books...Standard Oil's oil war with russia comes to mind.

I think that came a bit later- but a very valid point. If you look how our govt came down on the side of SO, it was a piss poor way to pay the Russians back for saving the country!

oh it did...it was during the age of the (gasp) ROBBER BARONS!
you know..those guys that built stuff?

You mean the stuff we're still paying for??? You're going to love my next post- Competing Theories of Democracy Lysander Spooner vs Mancur Olson. I've got the flu so I have to lay down between posts!

nope..not that stuff
you're thinking about the robber barons competitors who sucked up to governmnet and got subsidies..which they mostly wasted..which we might still be paying for...

Wow: I had no idea that Alexander II had such an influence. The standard way the Civil War is presented makes it look like an America-only conflict.

Lincoln was beset on the one hand by the demands of the South and on the other pressures from his financial backers- manufacturers who needed raw materials from the South.

That has a ring of truth to it! The historical record shows that the first job Lincoln undertook after his inauguration was to see to who got what government jobs . In other words, his Priority One right after inauguration was to see to the payoffs.

They also only present it it terms of slavery. Without the draft, the North couldn't have raised 5000 guys (and I'm being VERY generous). Lincoln had to hold the union together because northern industries couldn't compete with Europe for southern cotton (or steel, or tobacco...)

Yeah, that makes sense.

By the way, I reviewed your book. :)

Thanks! Great review! I'm going to try to do another post if I can sit up long enough... I don't know what's worse, being sick or having to eat soup!!!

potato soup boiled til the taters basically melt into the water, with lots of butter and cheese? Spiced exactly how you like it? not good?

Curated for #informationwar (by @openparadigm)
Relevance:I feel a prequel coming...Red Dawn 1863

You are so correct. More often than not history books don't tell the truth and are used as propaganda on the world. Thanks for this informative writing

This is NOT the history I was taught in govern-cement school.
And the more I learn about actual history the more I feel that history is written by the victors, but that history is written by the ruling elite, to make people believe that they need the elite. That everything is made better by the "great person".

Like, we see Chump stirring up all kinds of things, however, he really couldn't have done most of them. It is very easy to see that part of the deep state is doing things, and Chump is getting the blame/credit for them.

Its like in "Dragon Slayer", the king showing up after the dragon is killed, sticking his sword into it and announcing he killed the dragon.

I'm offended that you call my President 'chump'

Quite frankly so am I!

Yeah you're not offended by this Foreign Policy though.

Oh good. I hope the next president has a name that is easily maligned too.
Obomba and Hitlery. The federal end-table of intimidation.
They all need to be poked fun at.

Trump is doing a good job. I support him. If you do not support him then I would assume that you support the opposition?

I don't really mind when folks poke fun at trump ( I doubt he cares, either0

I'm more concerned with the dedicated lie machine of the left

what would you think of a person in a conversation who uses language offensive to the others..who politely inform him of that fact, after which he uses said language more frequently?

I dont think he escalated to piss you off; I think he was defending the use of the word.

What would you think of a person who likens themselves as anarchist or worse professes to be an anarchist but gets offended if you make fun of "their" president.

Oh come on, I just made fun of the opposition too.

No, I do not support either side.
I do like that Chump is stirring things up.
This is great!

However, there are other things that Chump is doing that I am less than pleased with. And i do not believe that Chump is truly an outsider.

Chump appears to be a great step up from Busher-Clintonian-Bushee-Obomba-Hitlery dynasty. But, I am not going to hold my breath.

I am glad the democrons party is dying
I wish the republicrats pary would die too.

Neither of them are honest. Neither of them stand for anything except more govern-cement.

I am looking forward to a time when we can rely on politician's promises. Because, they are very enforceable. (in the future; one can dream)

I just told you that I found it offensive for you to say that. I thought I was being very polite. In response you continued to do so...REPEATEDLY and unnecessarily. What am i to think of that?

No old man, you told him what your opinion of FuckaDuck is and proceeded to squeeze him into a false dichotomy with your loaded question, and obviously you didn't say shit about him NOT APOLOGIZING AT ALL FOR WHAT HE SAID OR HOW IT WAS SAID, therefore it's done and did with, you pretty much invited FUCKaDuck because you said nothing about that Offense which seemingly you deemed not important enough as your fallacious inquiry and your express opinion of your Ruler, what Anarchist doesn't say "i'm offended because of your choice of words for a statist puppet".

Think of it this way, I no longer believe in the "great man myth" that was forced down my throats in govern-cement schools.

Therefor, I misspeak all of the commander in chiefs' names.
None of them have my respect.

I admire that Trump has done several of the things that he has said in his campaign. This is a first. However, any real change happens because of a lot of people making change.

one party has to be crushed completely before the other can be neutralized

they are a mutaully supporting parasitic structure

I'm beginning to think NOT.
My suspicion is that the United States (and all governments in developed nations) are on the verge of a metamorphosis. Widely distributed, massively parallel, and hugely redundant ...anarchism. In the sense of no rulers...

since the state has proved itself unwilling toi curb the worst excesses of corruption and socialism, whatever happens to those politicians is on their own heads

life is going to be interesting, regardless

(you hear an engine rev and horn honk)
MEEP! MEEP!
(the window on the humvee rolls down to reveal a warm smiling face)
"Hello! I'm @shadow3scalpel and with the help of my protege, @chairborne, we are actively assisting veterans, retirees and active servicemen and women here on Steemit. We feel it is our 'duty' to support each other. Any questions or comments you may have, simply respond to this comment, thank you!"
(the window rolls up and the engine roars as it drives to the next person on the list)
Comment by @killerwhale. This is a opt-in bot.

On one hand, you have people who say slavery caused the civil way. This is a gross oversimplification. However, on the other hand you have people who act like slavery had nothing to do with it. This is not the case either. Well, it is the case in the sense that the real cause of the civil war was Lincoln's refusal to allow Southern states to secede and his willingness to use military force to prevent it. In Lincoln's own words, his goal was not to end or preserve slavery but to preserve the Union.

However, every state that initially left the union listed slavery as their number one concern in their "declaration of independence". But it is also true that Lincoln was at least as much of a racist as Robert E. Lee. The reason most Northerners did not want to see slavery expand into new territory was because they didn't want people with black skin there, not primarily because of slavery itself. For a long time, Lincoln was a big supporter of sending slaves / former slaves to Liberia.

history is very necessary in the same memory. Although very long history must always be pedulika

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.32
TRX 0.11
JST 0.034
BTC 66785.29
ETH 3229.75
USDT 1.00
SBD 4.30