The Real Cause of The United States Civil War
Many reasons have been conjectured for the cause/causes for the United States Civil War, other than the unvarnished, absolute truth of the matter! We are misled by various sources with an agenda that it was the abolitionists of the North against the slave states of the South, which is true to some extent, but it was not the immediate-firsthand reason for going to war. The abolitionist movement was active in England long before the United States Civil War! And slavery, as a whole, had been a functioning fact from the beginning of known history.
There are several kinds of slavery, however we are concerned about two major types, namely: (1) indentured slavery, and (2) monetary slavery.
(1) indentured slave: a contract binding one party into the service of another.
(2) monetary slave: one who borrows money from a lender (i.e., monetary master) upon interest.
Both of these types of slavery work on the same principle; one party gains at another party’s loss! Of these two types of slavery, the monetary slave is the more severe. In the case of the indentured slave, the master is responsible for the housing, food, clothing and health, as well as the slave’s children, and in the slave’s old age.
However, a monetary slave, if he cannot keep up with his monthly payments to his monetary master, the master simply forecloses on the monetary slave’s loan, and calls the sheriff to kick the monetary slave with his wife and children out into the street.
Toward the middle of the United States Civil War, the black indentured slaves were given their freedom by Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, but the White monetary slaves in the Confederate States, after the war’s end, lost their holdings to the carpetbagger Edomite-jews.
Therefore, it is a great accomplishment if one can pay off all of his debts to the monetary slave masters, but one still cannot avoid paying interest to the monetary slave masters as long as we have to purchase our living necessities from companies who rely on credit from the monetary masters, as well as the townships, cities, counties, states and federal government who do likewise. From these perimeters we can certainly see where our present monetary system lies. The bottom line is: if we are paying interest (i.e., usury) in any way shape or form directly or indirectly, we are monetary slaves.
Abraham Lincoln also made a failed attempt to free all of us from our monetary slavery with his “United States Notes”, but only received an assassin’s bullet for his effort. Do your dollar bills say “United States Note” or do they say “Federal Reserve Note”? If they say “Federal Reserve Note”, you can be damn sure you are a monetary slave, and silently in the shades-of-night you are subject to an anonymous monetary master, who doesn’t have your best interests at heart! So knowing the difference between indentured slavery and monetary slavery, we are in a position to find the real reason behind the United States Civil War:
Benjamin Franklin, having made several voyages to Europe both to England and France, became quite familiar with the Rothschild fractional reserve banking system, and was well aware of the dangers it imposed, and resisted the setting up of a central bank until his death in 1791.
In the same year the suspected half-jew Alexander Hamilton was instrumental in establishing The First Bank of the United States, which was nothing more than a branch of the Bank of England, of whom Nathan Rothschild was a leading investor. For twenty years thereafter, our country would fall victim to the imposing havoc of unemployment, high interest rates, loss of farms and homes and other private businesses. This bank gave the Rothschilds a license to steal (i.e., be leeches and bloodsuckers).
In 1811 the charter for The First Bank of the United States was up for renewal, but congress wisely rejected it. Counting his losses, Nathan Rothschild encouraged the British Parliament to take back their former Colonies by fomenting the War of 1812. When the British forces arrived at Washington D.C., and set it afire, the Almighty sent a violent storm with a tornado to put the fire out. The tornado caused so much tremendous damage to the British forces that they tucked tail, and headed back to England.
Evidently out of fear, in 1816 congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States which was more criminal in nature than The First Bank of the United States. However, when its charter expired in 1836 President Andrew Jackson refused to renew it.
By 1820 Nathan Mayer Rothschild had established a firm grip on the Bank of England, and stated: “I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain’s money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply.”
After the Rothschilds lost the power of the purse due to Jackson’s repeal of the Second Bank of the United States, The Illustrated Universal History, 1878, p. 504, tells us that the southern states swarmed with British agents. These conspired with local politicians to work against the United States. Their carefully sown and nurtured propaganda developed into open rebellion and resulted in the secession of South Carolina on December 29, 1860. Within weeks another six states joined the secession from the Union.
Actually, “Seven states seceded between Dec. 20, 1860, and Feb. 1, 1861. These were Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas. The Confederate States of America were organized on Feb. 4 1861, at Montgomery, Alabama, and the four states of Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia joined the Confederate States by July of the same year, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri were divided and were represented in both armies, while the western counties of Virginia remained loyal to the Union and later were organized as the State of West Virginia.” (1951 World Scope Encyclopedia)
[Note: The scope of this paper is not to go into every battle and conflict of the Civil War, but rather to reveal the true reason for the war. The reader will have to fill all of that in with his own research on the subject.]
From E.C. Knuth’s The Empire of “The City” (World Superstate), pp. 89-90, we read:
“It was in this situation that the Republican dark-horse candidate Abraham Lincoln, victor in a four-cornered slave and anti-slave race for the Presidency, came into office on March 4, 1861. There had been a lot of blood shed before Lincoln was inaugurated, but it is part of the American Fable that the first shot of the Civil War was fired at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861.
In December, 1861, a large British, French and Spanish expeditionary force was landed at Vera Cruz in defiance of the Monroe Doctrine. This, together with direct British aid to the Confederacy, and the fact that the Confederate army was far better trained and armed than the Federal forces at the outset of the war, brought the fortunes of the North to a very low ebb; and every indication at this stage was that Britain was preparing to enter the war.
“In this extremity, President Lincoln appealed to Britain’s perennial enemy Russia for aid. When the document with this urgent appeal was given to Alexander II, he weighed it unopened in his hand and stated: ‘Before we open this paper or know its contents, we grant any request it may contain. On the day on which your President was inaugurated, we, Alexander II of Russia, signed the protocol which liberated twenty-three million serfs. Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, has freed four million slaves. Therefore, whatever he asks of Russia, Russia will grant, for Alexander II will not be a factor in the enslavement of any man.’ Unannounced, a Russian fleet under Admiral Lisiviski steamed into New York harbor on September 24, 1863, and anchored there; while the Russian Pacific fleet under Admiral Popov arrived at San Francisco on Oct. 12th. Of this Russian action, Gideon Wells said: ‘They arrived at the high tide of the Confederacy and the low tide of the North, causing England and France to hesitate long enough to turn the tide for the North.’
“As a matter of fact, Russian interest had made the entire matter a subject of the Concert of Europe, and Britain had already been obliged to withdraw from the Mexican venture and leave the same to Napoleon III by the dangerous reaction in Europe, and the rising tide of Liberalism and anti-Imperialism at home; while the imperialistic aspirations of Napoleon III were shortly after drastically snuffed out by Bismarck, to be followed by 43 years of relative peace in Europe.
“The British interference had caused a furious resentment in the United States, immortalized by the words of the song: ‘In every battle kill our soldiers by the help they give the foe’; and when a demand for payment of direct and contingent damages due to this interference was rejected by Britain in 1869, war again was close. The controversy dragged out, however, and did not again break out until February 1872, when a Court of Arbitrations met and the British Arbitrator, Sir Alexander Cockburn, violently objected to the consideration of claims for indirect or contingent damages. After several months of futile argument, the United States gave up this part of its claims, and on September 6, 1872, was awarded very nominal damages of fifteen and one-half million dollars.
“Napoleon III withdrew his troops from Mexico shortly after the end of the Civil War upon demand of the United States; and the Mexican Emperor placed on the throne created by him, Archduke Maximilian of Austria, was executed June 19, 1867.”
At this juncture, I will have to relate a Civil War story I found on an audiocassette tape by a person named Stuart Crane, once a professor at Bob Jones University, who would be in his 80s or 90s today. According to Crane’s account, the Rothschild family wanted to divide the then United States into two separate countries, and to be sure that would happen, French and the Spanish soldiers were shipped into Mexico to fight with the Confederate States. Likewise, America was building the largest wooden ship ever built up to that time, and would later be used to ship British troops into Canada to fight with the northern states. I have a 1912, 10-volume The Photographic History of the Civil War, that takes up 14 inches of shelf space, and the carnage from the Civil War is overwhelmingly horrendous! Had the Rothschild plan been fully implemented, we would still be cleaning up the aftermath.
I have already given substantial evidence that French and Spanish troops were shipped into Mexico, so I will now give significant evidence that British troops were shipped into Canada, found at the website:
“The violation of British neutral rights triggered an uproar in Britain. Eleven thousand British troops were sent to Canada, the British fleet was put on a war footing, with plans to capture New York City if war broke out, and a sharp note was dispatched to Washington demanding return of the prisoners and an apology. Lincoln, concerned about Britain entering the war, ignored anti-British sentiment and issued what the British interpreted as an apology (without apologizing) and ordered the prisoners released.
“War was unlikely in any event, for the U.S. was providing Britain with over 40% of its wheat (‘corn’) imports during the war years, and suspension would have caused massive famine because Britain imported about 25-30% of its grain, and poor crops during 1861 and 1862 in France made Britain even more dependent on shiploads from New York. Furthermore, British banks and financial institutions in the City of London had financed many projects such as railways in Union states. There were fears that war with the Union would result in enormous financial losses as investments were lost and loans defaulted on.
“Britain’s shortage of cotton was partially made up by imports from India and Egypt by 1863. The Trent Affair led to the Lyons-Seward Treaty of 1862, an agreement to clamp down hard on the Atlantic slave trade, using the U.S. Navy and the Royal Navy.”
It should be obvious from this last quotation that much of the activity concerning the United States Civil War was being directed out of the so-called “City of London”, which is a separate financial district within the city of London, and that the Edomite-jew Rothschild family are the ones who control the so-called “City of London”.
The British were going to enter the Civil War on the side of the South, as the Rothschilds did indeed want to split the country. Britain was risking a lot of its food supply, and its investments, but winning on the side of the South those risks would have been temporary. However that is why Lincoln appealed to Russia, and that tipped the scales of risk for Britain. After the War, there was hostility by the Americans against the British because the British had agitated the war and were going to enter on the side of the South.
So far, the missing link to this story is the ship that Stuart Crane made mention of, as he didn’t name it. In searching the Internet, I could find only one that would meet the criteria, especially the time relating to the Civil War. It’s original name was the Great Republic and is described at:
http://www.blindloop.com/index.php/2010/06/5-largest-wooden-made-ships-of-the-world/
“The ship was planned to be launched on September 4, 1853 but because of the rapid increase in timber’s price; it was delayed till 4 October, 1853. Two months later on December 27, the ship was destroyed by fire. The ship was sold to Captain Nathaniel Palmer who rebuilt and modified it. The Great Republic was renamed as Denmark when it was purchased by the Merchants’ Trading Company. It had the capacity to carry 5,000 tons of weight with approximate speed of 19 kn (35.2 km/h). The nineteen year old ship was finally abandoned in 1872.” More on this ship is found at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Republic#Comparison_to_other_large_wooden_sailing_ships
“Voyages: Still the largest clipper ship in the world at 3,357 tons registry, the Great Republic, under command of Captain Joseph Lymburner, started back in merchant service on February 24, 1855. Her maiden voyage brought her to Liverpool in 13 days.
“Great Republic was ‘chartered by the French Government to bring munitions and troops to the Crimea,’ and served in the general cargo and guano[bird dung] trades. In 1862 the fourth mast was removed and the others re-rigged, and the clipper became a three-masted full-rigged ship, a so-called three-skysail-yarder. In 1864 Captain Lymburner retired and the ship’s registry moved to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. In 1869 she was sold to the Merchants’ Trading Company of Liverpool and renamed Denmark. She continued sailing until March 5, 1872 when a hurricane off Bermuda caused the ship to leak badly and she was abandoned.”
It should be quite apparent here, if the Great Republic could be “chartered by the French Government to bring munitions and troops to the Crimea”, there shouldn’t be any problem of “eleven thousand British troops being shipped to Canada.” So let’s do the math on it: The Great Republic was rated to carry a load of 5,000 tons, so let’s convert tons to pounds. 5,000 x 2,000 = 10,000,000 lbs. Then 10,000,000 ÷ 175 (the average weight per man) would = 57,143 potential men. Then if we subtract the 11,000 actual men from a potential of 57,143 men it would be 46,143 men short of the ship’s load capacity, or leaving 8,075,025 lbs. or 4,036 tons to be used for other things. Or if this is not the ship, the eleven thousand British troops made it to Canada some way! The fact that “In 1864 Captain Lymburner retired and the ship’s registry moved to Yarmouth, Nova Scotia”, shows a Canadian connection of some kind.
Other factors of the Civil War can be found in E.C. Knuth’s The Empire of “The City” (World Superstate), pp. 18 & 27, we read:
“The years of 1869-1870 found Britain and its balance of power in an exceedingly precarious position. Its interference in the American Civil War now faced it with an angry and resentful America possessed of the world’s greatest army and a powerful navy of the new and terrible ironclads, demanding redress for heavy damages due to British lendlease to the Confederacy. Russia had fully signified her intention to fight for revenge of her beating in the war of 1853-1856 by sending two fleets to the United States when war had seemed most imminent between the United States and Britain during the Civil War, and in a further incident of strange significance, the Queen of Spain was dethroned in a revolution ....”
“Referring to ‘Great Britain, Banking In’ in the Encyclopedia Americana, it appears that the Bank of England is not subject to any control by any governmental agency of Great Britain, and that it is above all government, despite the fact that it is privately owned and its directors are nominated by its proprietors. In the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1891 it is termed ‘a great Engine of Government.’ It is obvious that this privately owned foreign institution is now in grave financial difficulties with its loans and bonds and mortgages disavowed all over the world, and that it is being bolstered by huge funds being syphoned into it out of the treasury of the United States.” From the following website we read:
“During its existence, the Confederate government sent repeated delegations to Europe; historians do not give them high marks for diplomatic skills. James M. Mason was sent to London as Confederate minister to Queen Victoria, and John Slidell was sent to Paris as minister to Napoleon III. Both were able to obtain private meetings with high British and French officials, but they failed to secure official recognition for the Confederacy. Britain and the United States were at sword’s point during the Trent Affair in late 1861. Mason and Slidell had been illegally seized from a British ship by an American warship. Queen Victoria’s husband, Prince Albert, helped calm the situation, and Lincoln released Mason and Slidell, so the episode was no help to the Confederacy.” ....
“Throughout the war all the European powers adopted a policy of neutrality, meeting informally with Confederate diplomats but withholding diplomatic recognition. None ever sent an ambassador or official delegation to Richmond. However, they applied international law principles that recognized the Union and Confederate sides as belligerents. Canada allowed both Confederate and Union agents to work openly within its borders.”
Although the European nations adopted a neutral position, the house of Rothschild, with its five branches, monetarily and politically worked both sides of the Civil War while agitating its desire to split the nation in half. Thus, the evil plots of house of Rothschild were the true cause/causes of the United States Civil War!
