Just out in Cinemas, whos going to check it out. I'm sure its Hollywood at their worst but my be good to see their take when we go off the rails for real.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA4wVhs3HC0

F that movie. It’s a psyop.

I will go see it, looks interesting.

Wouldn’t waste my time or money on that libitard Hollywood bullsh!t…..

Ain't nuttin civil 'bout war.

I'll wait until it comes out for free!

I'll see Godzilla & King Kong instead, has to be better than Road House remake, lol..

I want to see the Texas/California alliance, the "Western Forces."

We can barely see a difference now!

...!

If your interested in the civil war, then you should read the trilogy by the father and son. 1) God's and Generals, 2) Killer Angels and 3) Last Full Measure. These are the best books I've read on the Civil 2ar.

The War Between The States was not a Civil War, but I fear someday a true "civil war" may be coming...and with so many factually ignorant brainwashed Americans that are alive today it's gonna be a real struggle. If........

Probably will be good. Godzilla minus one was pretty good.

Winner Winner! And Hollywood

That was “The war of northern aggression”

And they're doing it all over again.

There will be no civil war. We're Americans. We don't kill each other anymore.

AKA the War of Northern Aggression

Correct.

Interesting outside of USA viewpoint.

https://www.mytutor.co.uk/answers/5...ed-to-as-the-War-of-Northern-Aggression/

Those are novels and they are very good. For non-fiction read Bruce Canton and Shelby Foote. But that isn't the civil war this thread is about.

Texas mentioned slavery over 20 times in their Articles of Seccession.

https://portside.org/2013-11-04/absolute-proof-civil-war-was-about-slavery

Written by the wealthy elite, for the wealthy elite. The men that fought had no slaves, they fought over taxation without representation.

The average war fighter in those days had never seen a black person in his whole life nor cared about them one way or the other. He cared about not paying 80% of all taxes.

The same elites that played that game then are playing it now from the other side. Those damn whites owe you! But they are not liable 🤣

“What about racism and the civil rights movement?”

Generations of people were raised on fake race science and other similar propaganda that was spread and promoted by the wealthy elites of the day. So the fallout was generations of racism and racial tension.

People are like sheep. We’re being led to the slaughter with films like this

Right now many of the wealthy elites stand to gain much from the destruction of America and the destruction of democracy worldwide, and the strengthing of China. You should listen to Klaus Schwab talk about Xi Jinping, and how he says the word “dictator”. He speaks the word like it is his favorite flavor of ice cream.

They are itching for a Civil War in the USA. Nato can’t wait to swoop in and “save” us.

I believe that was the revolutionary war.

That one, too. The biggest lie ever told in the USA is that we fought the civil war over slavery. Abraham Lincoln was a slave owner and he guaranteed the protection/ continuation of slavery in his inaugural speech. Abolishing slavery was a tactical decision. The government invested heavily in the industrial revolution in that time as well, and most of those taxes were paid by southerners.

The war ended when the wealthy elites realized that the civil war was a bad investment lol.

War is always about money.

Yeah yeah yeah. The south was fighting the north and Abe a slave owner because of slavery.

It’s understandable to be fooled as a child fresh out of public education. To be passed 30 and still ignorant is on you.

Amen to that

What was being taxed of the common man or ordinary farmer enough to make him become a traitor and take up arms against the USA? What was the specific tax that affected the common man?

If you don't already know about this issue, it is easy to do the Google

I would argue that the South was over-represented. In fact from everything I've read in the history books, it seems the civil war was very much about slavery. But not because the northerners loved blacks or because the southerners hated blacks. Rather it was because of the 3/5 compromise. This gave the Southern States more power than the northern states. The northerners wanted to end that while the southerners wanted to retain/expand it.

Was he?

Presidents that owned slaves

I would suggest reading both his 1st and 2nd inaugural address. Go to the source instead of possibly repeating something you heard or saw.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln2.asp

Can anyone find where he guaranteed the protection/continuation of slavery?

I'm a little tired after a week of travel.

You're going to find information about the Morrill Tariff of 1861. That was a tax on imports into the USA. Go read about what the law and tariff actually did. Read the actual law. Maybe it contributed some along with a handful of other things to launch the civil war but the major issue was states rights. Simple minded people somehow have come up with the idea that taxes were the major reason for the civil war while trying to sidestep slavery. There was also plenty of spinning to be had at the time of which Lincoln was well versed.

Been trying to think about how to put this in a very simple explanation.

1. Giant agri-industrial economy existed in the South with a huge collective amount of wealth and power which basically used and depended on owned-humans as machinery (along with non-owned humans and horses, mules etc). The business model was dependent on these owned-humans. It could not operate in the same way without them.

2. Federal government was trending toward eliminating the right to own human beings directly and indirectly. Indirectly is where maybe the Morrill Tariff of 1861 might come into play by punishing the South, but it applied to the whole USA at the time. However the South may have been more negatively affected.

3. But the real threat was to the business model that relied on owned-humans for labor. Not the same but in today's terms it would be like the federal government banning tractors and farm machinery in the Midwest. There would certainly be an uproar.

4. Southern states and their power/wealth constituency believed the decisions on such were the responsibility of state government and state laws. Federal government believed it was their responsibility. That set the stage for secession and rebellion.

It was about economics including wealth and power. If you really get into the details, you may understand that it was very much a rich man's war and a poor man's fight.

This is just a very basic synopsis. I'd suggest people visit their local library and read everything available, then utilize the interlibrary loan program. Don't rely on the internet, internet videos or just a few sources.

Well, you could say approximately 3 percent of whites owned slaves when the Civil War started. I have seen estimates as low as 1%, but also some higher. Higher percentages mostly reported by groups that have a keen interest in racism because it has made them rich. But that is not my point. My point is that when the Civil War kicked off, the overwhelming majority of white people in the south had never even met, probably never even seen, a person of color in their lifetimes. Most rural white people were impoverished by today’s standards.

Yet some of you want to believe that these people marched for hundreds of miles, some with no footwear of any kind, to protect slave owners and oppress black people.

The truth is that white southerners were literally paying 80% of all the federal taxes, and the government had plans to tax them more. This is what motivated them to fight. They were fed propaganda just like we are today. Most of these people lived at least a partially subsistence lifestyle and not by choice, and they could hardly afford to buy the bare necessities to live.

But I guess it was just so important to oppress black people and ensure they remained slaves, that they left their farms behind for the wives and kids to manage, and fought a war that they barely had enough financial backing to fight. And kept fighting when the salaries were unpaid.

Don’t be a fool.

1. Which white southerners? All of them? The wealthy landowner farmer? The ordinary common farmer?
2. What was this federal tax called? Can you reference the specific tax or taxes?
3. How were they taxed? On what?

For example in today's times we have an income tax and sales tax? (plus some other ones)

Agreed



I've not seen that in this thread. From my understanding, and personal family history, they didn't generally care too much for black people. I believe there were a few isolated exceptions.



Most definitely glory for the common man was promoted by the wealthy establishment at the beginning and then later on the motivation was defense of their homeland.

While I never discount history, the movie that started this thread is about a future civil war and there’s pretty much nothing so far here about the possibility of another one.

This is it. Plain and simple. This is what you are missing.

The war fighter did not go out and put it all on the line to oppress black slaves. It’s not what the war was about for them. The common man was not motivated by racism. It’s absurd.

My ancestors in Mississippi were slave owners. I’ve been to the old plantation house (mostly fallen down) and the family cemetery’s. It was a fairly modest dog run house. It was over 40 years ago. There are 2. One for family and the other for slaves. Most of them in each section are about the same. No remaining headstones.

My Uncle told me that it wasn’t unusual for some black family to ask if Grandpa could be buried there with family. The answer was yes.

All the racial bullcrap is propaganda driven. Then and now. Everybody knows better today so they play it the other way.

All I am saying is that if you feel guilty for something your ancestors did, that’s a you problem.

If you think all white people owe reparations, also a you problem and you can pay them.

We all descended from slaves.

War is imminent one way or the other because too many gullible people will fall for the propaganda, and all our world leaders depend on the military industrial complex to launder money.

It’s not if, it’s when. I hope it’s not a civil war.

Fun fact. General Lee never owned a slave. But Grant did.

Lee left the union to defend the south from invasion. Not because of slaves, but because the idea that the government would attack its own people bothered him greatly.

Just another perspective...

https://www.nps.gov/arho/learn/historyculture/robert-e-lee-and-slavery.htm

When are we gonna get reparations from the British for their oppression and taxation? Makes about as much sense as any other “reparations”, all the wronged and wrong doers are long dead.

That's a really weird response. How could I be missing it if I just wrote it, and you were in agreement?

Lincoln’s famous quote about “saving the union without freeing a single slave” is very important.

I’d read the 10th amendment real well before defending the north. The 10th hasn’t meant much since.

Read the whole letter for the complete context.

===============================================

August 22, 1862
EXECUTIVE MANSION,

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:

DEAR SIR: I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing," as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or 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 this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours,

A. LINCOLN.

Because i picked it from a post which, taken as a whole, sounds like the Civil War was fought over slavery. The rich slavers, of course they used their money and influence to protect their “investments”. But the majority of southerners did not GAF about that.

The rich slavers were not the war fighters. And the tax issue probably could have been resolved through diplomacy.

I would bet if they only applied the severe taxes to the slavers, they would not be able to find anybody to fight that war.

But that would never happen. The tax code to this day is vaguely written in legalese, by/for the wealthy elites, to extort the middle class.

Read "One Man's War" and get a picture of how some slaves were treated by their owners. And then how the "rescued" ones were treated by the Union that "saved" them.

He saw the war coming to his yard, and freed all of his slaves. But it was their home, and they wanted to stay. They lived there and they farmed it in tobacco. They asked if they could take up their former owner's last name and he agreed.

Those freedmen and women's greatest fear was the Union Army. And rightfully so.

That really shows what sucks the most about slavery. The way it suddenly ended for a bunch of folks that had little or no personal property/effects, and knew no other way to live.

It was purely a tactical decision and this quote demonstrates the cruelty of throwing sheep to the wolves with no help, or skills, or preparation. Off you go now, good luck!

Go where, and do what? It should have been handled better than that. But in the middle of a civil war, nothing makes sense.

So he is saying in this letter, that he does not care one way or the other about slavery thank you again for proving the point he wants to “save the union“ but he attacked the south. Which he viewed as part of the union of states. That does not seem like a real good way to treat your fellow countryman.

Lincoln destroyed this country, burnt half of it down the deadliest war in our countries, history, and he will be remembered for that.

The whole deal was pretty awful. We lost more people in the civil war than all other wars combined.

I recommend reading through this civil war timeline:


https://www.battlefields.org/learn/...MCVQXd-Vns9ucE2KynChPK83psMaAs_pEALw_wcB

The free Norbern states forced this on the Southern states from the get go. The North didn’t want to count them at all.

I would argue that the south forced his hand. People always want to blame Lincoln but look at the timeline. So many southern states seceded before he even took office. What did Lincoln do at that point? All he had “done” was get elected. The confederates that supposedly wanted peace were forcedly taking US forts. I think he waited way longer than he should have to respond with force. Imagine if El Paso county (during Trump’s presidency) decided to secede from TX and kicked the fed government out of Fort Bliss while simultaneously taking ownership of all of its equipment/armory. Would you expect Trump to hem and haw over the situation the way Lincoln did? Or would you expect him to act swiftly and decisively?

So much of the angst was over slavery in the territories that weren’t even states. Why? It was all about power and a (mistakenly) perceived solidarity among slave owning states.



They didn’t want to but they had no choice. We’ll never know and can only speculate but I’d bet that if Lincoln only wanted to repeal the 3/5 Compromise, the result would’ve been the same.

The next one will be know as "The war of Democrat /Communist Aggression."

Yep. Sad state of affairs but we've been witnessing the ever so gradual changes for a few decades.

The causes of the war and why individual Confederate soldiers fought can be two entirely different things. To say a poor kid from the hardscrabble Freedom Hills of Alabama who had never owned a slave was fighting to uphold slavery is ludicrous. They fought because their family, friends and state meant more to them than life itself. Both my GG grandfather and his brother went through the entire war in Company I, 48th Alabama Infantry, ANV. To say they were poor is an understatement. They fought for each other, nothing more, nothing less.

Yep. We probably wouldn't be in the mess we are today had the South won. It led to the expansion, power, corruption and lawlessness we see of the feds today.

Like two days before Lincoln became president, a bill was passed forcing Southerners to pay a 40 percent tax on all imports. I think it was the Morrill Tariff. But basically, Southerners were paying about 80 percent of all Federal taxes. Congress had plans to raise taxes on Southerners even more, they were basically increasing taxes on the South to pay for the industrial revolution.

If you try to google it up you will basically get a bunch of persuasive articles that try to spin it, they will pretty much say it was nothing to do with taxes, them evil Southerners just wanted slaves. But almost nobody had slaves, only something like the top 3% most wealthy of the South.

As for war fighters, I am pretty sure there were many that joined the Army to escape poverty, white or black. That hasn’t changed much!

Watching :

How did the Cival War actually happen ? (Part 1)

By far the most comprehensive explanation I've ever read can be found at this link...I suggest you all read it.

https://www.ushist.com/general-information/10_causes_of_the_war_between_the_states.shtml

It was not a tax but the tariff

1. TARIFF
Prior to the war about 75% of the money to operate the Federal Government was derived from the Southern States via an unfair sectional tariff on imported goods and 50% of the total 75% was from just 4 Southern states--Virginia-North Carolina--South Carolina and Georgia. Only 10%--20% of this tax money was being returned to the South. The Southern states were being treated as an agricultural colony of the North and bled dry. John Randolph of Virginia's remarks in opposition to the tariff of 1820 demonstrates that fact. The North claimed that they fought the war to preserve the Union but the New England Industrialists who were in control of the North were actually supporting preservation of the Union to maintain and increase revenue from the tariff. The industrialists wanted the South to pay for the industrialization of America at no expense to them. Revenue bills introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives prior to the War Between the States were biased, unfair and inflammatory to the South. Abraham Lincoln had promised the Northern industrialists that he would increase the tariff rate if he was elected president of the United States. Lincoln increased the rate to a level that exceeded even the "Tariff of Abominations" 40% rate that had so infuriated the South during the 1828-1832 eras (between 50 and 51% on iron goods). The election of a president that was Anti-Southern on all issues and politically associated with the New England industrialists, fanatics, and zealots brought about the Southern secession movement.

I think we'll go check it out tonight, I'll let john know how it goes.

No it was those damn evil whites in the south them evil men just wanted SLAVES! Don’t you know them evil white mans all had slaves? They were SLAVERS of SLAVES!

SLAVERY SLAVERY SLAVERY!

Ole Honest Abe saved the world from them doggone evil white slavers of the south, everybody knows that. Yup and that’s why all the whites owe everything they have to the African Americans. Them greedy whites and all their future generations need to give it up and go live in poverty, forever in perpetuity!

In the county I was born and raised in Northern Illinois, I estimated that 20% of the military aged male population died in the war. It's sobering to drive through the rural county seats in that area and see the memorials to the fallen soldiers in these little towns where there might be 20 names listed for WWII, 6 or 7 names for WWI, 4-5 for Vietnam, then 95 for the Civil War.

The impact on the communities and families must have been huge at that time, North & South

Whammer a little history from my neck of the woods, be sure to read about the nine boys.

http://www.fayettecountyhistory.org/praha.htm

It was okay, not what I was expecting. I wouldn't pay to see it.

I'm hearing "Purge" like in nature but with better acting, script, directing and bigger budget. Going to see later today. Enjoyed the Purge movies for what they were, a bit of fantasy...

It's a kind of a mind experience, us against them, but they are us, and we are them.....there are basically two story lines.

The wife enjoyed it more then I did.

That's OK ese, I'm good about treating a movie for what it is, escapism. Actors executing to a script, nothing more, nothing less. Not a believer that 5'6 Cruise could take out every bad guy from here to Argentina in hand to hand combat, lol. Only THF's, BBKT2 could do that as we have been repeatedly told, lol....

Lol, roger that. Same here.

Ese, interesting flick, intense and like you mentioned, not what I thought. Good acting, really about war embedded journalists getting their pictures in. Good cameo role by Dunst's real life husband, Dallas born actor Jessie Plemmons playing an overzealous soldier.

Yeah, the journalist thing is crazy. We never really think about how they get the shots.

So, is it a typical left leaning Hollywood movie?

From what I have read, it's politically neutral.

Pretty much so, yes...

Yep.

Me and wife are going to see it later today in Frisco

Will give my grade.

The movie isn't about a Civil war, it about reporters covering it

Movie suxed, I thought it was going to be about a Civil War in the USA

Finally saw it. Didn't care for it. Would rather see a real war movie.

Jessie Plemmons is SOLID. I love everything he does. First I saw him act was on one of the first Fargo TV series.

He's great, his real life wife, Kirsten Dunst is good too. Been a fan since he broke in with Friday Night Lights TV series. The movie is about embedded journalists chasing the photos and story, not really a war movie and not what I thought it'd be...

Just got back from watching Cival War.
As some mentioned, tis more about reporters.
Doesn't really tell why it started.
Kinda took it as Pres. (for unknown reason)
twas the villian.
Either way, bunch of killing. Whin all said & done.
Who's the good guys with guns & who's the bad ?
Tis not for us ta give final judgement.

Just me