Fort Fairfield Journal About Us Contact Us Advertising Rates Subscribe Distribution Bible Reference Our Library
From the Editor
The Civil War Didn't End Slavery, It Perfected it
By: David Deschesne
Editor/Publisher, Fort Fairfield Journal
January 26, 2011
There are people out there who believe the Civil War was fought exclusively over slavery and if it hadn't been fought, the slavery of the 1850's south would have expanded and still be extant to this day. However, those people refuse to accept the impact the Industrial Revolution had on world society and how the rise of machines reduced the need for massive expansions of manpower.
Classical slavery, i.e. forced labor of mass numbers of people for profit, had to end due to the rise of more efficient machines. That's simple economics and isn't even debatable. If I had to feed 100 slaves in order to get 100 pounds of cotton processed in a day, I'm going to lose to the guy who employed the cotton gin and was able to do the same work in a tenth of the time with a fraction of the overhead and is able to sell his product at a lower price. If I had to feed and clothe a thousand men to build ten miles of road in a month by hand, I will lose the contract to three men with a bulldozer, backhoe and dump truck who can do the work in a week for a fraction of the cost. If I was bidding on a contract to clear trees from 100 acres of land, would I choose 500 slaves with buck saws, or 5 with chain saws; would I choose draft horses hauling one log at a time, or a tractor/trailer hauling dozens at a time?
The “Classical Slavery” such as the forced 1860's style plantation labor has given way to a new form of “Scientific Slavery” in today's usurious banking system. It is the former that I submit would have gone away, while the latter has been adopted and is flourishing.
While the trappings of slavery from 160 years ago through today may have changed, forced labor is still forced labor. Today, we are either forced to labor in order to pay back bank loans, government bonds, etc. with threat of loss of losing property and freedom (i.e. foreclosures, jail, etc); or those who have tied themselves to government welfare become unwitting slaves to that system because they lose their ability, skill sets and discipline to take care of themselves and their families when that government stipend ultimately runs out. While taking those free handouts, the unwitting welfare slave must bow and submit to every government edict that comes his/her way or else suffer privation, loss of children, or jail.
As far as keeping black people slaves just to prohibit them from having rights; well, that's not very profitable and any business owner who sought that as a business plan would soon be out of business.
If one only reads the history of the Civil War era from the perspective of slavery, then slavery will appear to be the only motive. If the only tool you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. People should try broadening their horizons and examining the Civil War from other angles, such as commodities brokerage, economics, money lending, tax receipts, etc. Wars have never been fought to free people. Wars are fought for profit - to acquire resources the other guy has. If some people end up being “liberated” as a result, it is only a liberation from the loser while concomitantly becoming enslaved to the victor. There is never really any freedom associated with the conclusion of a war; certainly not the Civil War. While blacks were “freed” after the Civil War, the whites and blacks became slaves to Johnson's militarized occupational government of the south. After that dust settled, the entire U.S. became enslaved, via debt, to the banks who now own and operate the District of Columbia.
Again, the argument was about the States' ability to govern their own affairs - That's the Roman numeral marking paragraph 1. Sub-paragraph a. under paragraph 1 was slavery - just one of the things the states had the right to govern themselves since the U.S. Constitution never granted that jurisdiction to the General Government.
If the North could have exploited the angle of building widgets against federal edicts, the South would have still rebelled and it would have been billed as a war to “end the building of widgets”, but that still would have been a subset of the original paragraph - a State's right to do that which the Constitution doesn't prohibit it to do, or allow the General Government to legislate on. The war was about States' ability to govern themselves, slavery was merely one of the items they wished to govern.
Of course, slavery was an issue, but it was not the issue that the war was fought over. Ending slavery was just a slogan used to recruit troops in the North; kind of like we use the word “Liberate” today whenever we want to justify the banking cabal using our military to go in and strip mine the resources of another country for their own financial benefit.
If the Civil War truly was about freeing slaves, the northern states should have also been invading Asia, the Mideast and the entire continent of Africa. The context would be congruent - the U.S. invading a foreign country in order to free its slaves. That did not happen because freeing slaves was truly not the North's primary interest. The North only invaded the southern states in order to make its citizens economic slaves of the bankers and industrialists who controlled the levers of government.
The war and its aftermath set the precedent that the Federal government can do whatever it wants wherever it wants within a State, making up the rules as it goes, which is a clear violation of the original agreement in the Constitution. Yesterday it was slavery, today it's driving, gun ownership, food production, medicine, etc. A strong, centralized, dictatorial government was what was attempting to be avoided. This war was the beginning of the end for a collection of sovereign states/countries held together by a common agreement with a very limited central governing authority. That agreement was nullified by the North's actions and a “more perfect union” was formed - a centralized dictatorship where we at least get to pick our dictators every four years. Expanded forward into the future, the mindset of the North can now be seen manifested in today's military policy with our troops occupying approximately 180 countries around the world and guarding/managing their financial assets and natural resources under the false banner of “liberty.”
Classical Slavery was replaced by its cousin, Scientific Slavery - a form of slavery based upon usury and debt from a centralized banking system that profits by making money out of nothing but thin air and promises. This is the type of slavery everyone gets to suffer under and have their unwitting public servants continually enforce and impose on them via foreclosures, liens, taxes, etc. in order to guarantee the bankers get to collect the property they created fake money to buy. And that is the type of slavery Lincoln, Johnson and the Radical Republicans were ushering in via the use of artificially created “greenbacks” and Salmon Chase's desire (among others) for a full-blown paper money ponzi scheme as ultimately realized in the private, for profit Federal Reserve bank.
As human labor becomes more and more obsolete, the controllers will need us less and less until a point of diminishing returns is reached and they simply begin to annihilate us. I submit that has already begun with food additives, pesticides, toxic vaccines, etc.
We're still slaves, we just have color TVs and indoor plumbing. But, just try to work and keep all of what you've earned and see what happens. The “master” will send a field boss to your door to imprison you and steal everything you have. This type of slavery doesn't discriminate - all are equal in this banking system slavery; black and white, young and old.
The Civil War didn't end slavery, it perfected it.