21 votes

Who won the Civil War?

The North? The South? The Slaves? The White-supremacists? The Protectionists? The Rothschilds? Obama? The Yankees? The Mets?
I am gearing up for a final term paper in my Civil War and Reconstruction class. I was getting some pretty good information and thought I'd share with you all. The topic is, "who won the war?"

I am going to go out on a limb and claim that the winner was Alexander Hamilton. Lincoln was well-known for his Henry Clay Whig ideology of National banks, public debts, and protectionist tariffs. (see The American System)
Since the birth of the US, there have been two rival factions - the Federalists (nationalists) and Anti-federalists (federalists(confused?)). While Hamilton and the Federalists supported a strong National government, Anti-federalists supported a limited federal government with emphasis on State gov'ts. This was the foundation for what we call the two-party system. With such a system, compromise is key. If you cannot come to consensus, you have two options: compromise or fight (might makes right). Up until the war cries for secession were not uncommon when protesting the work of the opposing party. When South Carolina threatened to nullify the Tariff of Abominations, President Jackson decided to compromise - cooler heads prevailed. When South Carolina seceded from the union - Lincoln decided not to compromise and opted to end the debate once and for all. For Lincoln, might made right - and in the end it was the nationalist Ideas of Hamilton which were "right" and the ideas of Jefferson were discarded. Since the civil war, the debate has been shifted from "what should the role of government be" to "how should the government carry out its roles". It only cost about 620,000 (2.3% of the population) dead Americans to prove that Hamilton was "correct" all along. (compare that to about 7 million dead in today's population numbers.)
Got anything to share? I know you do. Who won the Civil War?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Great answer.

Hamilton won. For the Civil War was really only the final clash in a long series of skirmishes between the Federalists (Hamilton, Washington, Madison, John Jay, John Adams, right on down to Clay, Lincoln, Grant, and Sherman) and the anti-Federalists (Mason, Patrick Henry, Henry Lee, Samuel Adams, sometimes Jefferson, and right on down to Calhoun, Davis, Robert Lee and Thomas Jackson).

Of course the Federalists were all basically in cahoots with the British after the Revolution, so you might instead say that George III and the Redcoats won.

Keimh3reg Peh2u Meg

Who won the Civil War?

...the federal government, and the post-war occupation is ongoing.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

The BANKS won

Lincoln has been portrayed as the Great Emancipator, but in reality his goal never included freeing slaves until it struck a liberal cord in the Northerners to garner support for his war. This war was not only to enslave the southern states with greater tax, but as an end result created the first system of "National Banks" which in turn led to the take over by the Federal Reserve system in 1914.

The Bankers win anytime there has been a war in the history of the United States and the rest of us get to pay them off for generations to come. We are still paying off WW2 and the dictatorial national actions of FDR.

Denise B's picture

As simplistically stated

as possible, the civil war was the result of the federal government refusing to allow a state (South Carolina and then others) to secede from the union. Slavery was a secondary issue, but it was the underlying reason that S. Carolina and others moved to secede. Ultimately it was a state’s rights issue (southern states asserted that it was their right as separate and sovereign entities to either allow or disallow slavery within their borders and further contended that slaves were their just “property” and that the federal government and northern states were interfering with their rights concerning their property on a number of issues).

Arguing about the civil war can be a tricky endeavor because I think we all agree that slavery was wrong, yet anyone arguing about the validity of the civil war (or lack thereof) can quickly be vilified as someone who doesn’t think that slavery should have been abolished (which, clearly, for most people, is not the case at all). The reasons for the war are much more complex than whether or not one agrees with slavery. At the heart of the matter was the question of Federal authority and State authority and which one was going to prevail over the other. And merely looking at the size and scope of today’s federal government will give you the answer to which side won...

Yes, slavery was a terrible thing that needed to end, but president Lincoln was no champion of the black race, despite the fact that he is often portrayed that way. He cared much more about preserving the union and growing the power of the federal government than he did about freeing the slaves. Anyone who takes the time to research him (his own words and statements) will quickly discover this.

Who won the civil war? To the extend that it ultimately resulted in the freedom of an entire race of people, we all won..... To the extend that it ultimately resulted in a federal government that has grown so large and unaccountable that it seeks to enslave us all, we all lost....

The North.

Being governed by snooty liberals is still slightly preferable to being governed by dumbass lowest-common-denominator neocons.

I don't play, I commission the league.

Maybe instead of asking who

Maybe instead of asking who won the Civil War, you should ask; What was the Civil War fought for? In one of Lincoln's speeches -I believe it was his Inaugural Address- he stated to the effect that, if he could preserve the Union by allowing slavery, he would. This basically states -which can be confirmed by looking at Lincoln's speeches- that slavery wasn't the reason for the Civil War; the question then becomes: What was the real reason for the Civil War?

Those of us here know what the Civil War was fought for, but I doubt that your class would know.


You cannot surmise Linconl's "entire" meaning or intention by one statement or by any particular grouping of statements -- you must read everything he said to get the "gist" of his regard.

The Civil War was fought for the same reasons wars are always fought over (for all human history): For Profit and Consumptive Control.

Voting and Lobbying is War
---For Profit and Consumptive Control
---Profit for Us and Less-Profit for Others
---A perfect Circumvention of Consumer-Will

The Civil War was Fought over the "effect" of King Cotton and the Fractorage System the Southern States were enslaved too.

Slavery is Consumptive Control

Slavery is an Afro-disiac -- It is Power-Lust Epitomized

Slave Value in 1805 - $300 per slave

Slave Value in 1855 - $1000 per slave

The Fractorage System made the Upper 6% of the South (the slave owner class) BEHOLDEN to 1st Order catalyst of the "Jewish" Banking System (here in the States and in Europe - Rothschilds).

This is the period of time when the Rothschilds gained power over the crowns of Europe -- via King Cotton and Fractorage.

Then Metals (mining - railroads - etc)

Then Coal

Then Currency (1913)

Know your History -- it WAS NOT Lincoln it was King Cotton / Slavery.

Rothschilds and the Crowns of Europe wanted America Divided.

I mean they said this over and over again.

Canada to England (had standing army in Canada to aid the South)

America Devided (Eng, Fra, and Spain)

Mexico to France (Napolian III invaded Mexico and was plotting to aid the South during Civil War)


of focusing on dramatic one-liners, perhaps develop a nice paragraph with complete thoughts and correct grammar. I am not attacking you or your position, I honestly cannot understand what you are trying to say, what your argument is, and why you think the Philosopher is "wrong!". I am aware of the Rothschild aspect of the civil war, which is why I included it in the OP, but your summary is a vomit of convoluted statements and makes broad jumps from one unclear thing to another.

Why is The Philosopher wrong? Do you argue that Lincoln did not state that he had no right nor inclination to end slavery in the South, only later to say that he had the right and inclination to do whatever it takes to save the union (including freeing the slaves), and later shifting the entire historical purpose of the war to freeing the slaves all along? Was Lincoln an agent of the Rothschilds? a patsy?
Why do you say 'entire', 'gist', and 'effect' in ""?
What do you think was the gist of his regard and entire meaning?

Delvin come on now.

There's too much history to correct simplistic arguments like "Lincoln, one individual, started the 'war of northern aggression'"

The very phrasing is idiotic -- Imagine slave-owners coining that phrase "the war of northern aggression"

Do you believe Wars are fought for consumptive-control (to increase one-sides and decrease or control the others)?

If you cannot concede that point then I cannot debate you further -- According to Mises all wars are fought for consumptive-control.

Then one only need to extrapolate -- what was the greatest profit driver for The North, The South, The Lenders (here), and the Banksters of Europe?

It was called King Cotton
---It was the number one profit-driver

Yes there were other profit-drivers (for North and South) but Cotton was King "white gold" (they called it).

Lincoln was most assuredly NOT an agent of the Rothschilds.
---Have you read how "p'd" they were when he created the Greenback?

I like to think of Rothschilds "power" having grown (or developed) in three super-phases -- the 1st super-phase being King Cotton.

The super-phases gave them complete or near complete control over the crowns of Europe -- a feat they had been trying to solidify for centuries.

Power would shift and they would have it then lose it back and forth.

The Banking System as we know it today was built off of three super-phases in Rothschild power-accumulation:

1) King Cotton
2) Mining (metals and coal)
3) Currency

It was Cotton that gave them their first stranglehold on the throast of Europe.

Not all bankers wanted the Rothschilds to have "this much" power -- there was a time when bankers were in "competition" (well closer to it than what we have today) -- against each other, against individual states, and various gov'ts.

Cotton was the first pillar of the banking industry as we know it today -- more than any other cash-or-grain crop before it. Sugar would of been a very close second.

The Factorage System of the South made this possible.

Even though (as free-market / free-association advocates) we argue against "forced unions" we must consider the ramafications of a fractured America and that the time to have a free-market was nearly 100 years earlier.

If the States had seceded then the Rothschilds would of pushed (as they argued for, publically) for slavery to expand westward.

Owing to harrowing stories of what "really" transpires under the "white blanket" of slavery most of Europe was fed up with the institution -- so the Rothschilds had to play it close to the chest.

They needed (and had) a contingency plan in either advant (secession or union).

Only with a union can we turn the continent toward free-markets. If we had 13 countries (or however many) like Europe does then we would have had the European mess.

One only needs to ask -- was the South trying to expand slavery or eliminate it? The answer is expand, by all public debates - by the exponential profits from cotton - by the exponential value increase in slave labor - by all forms of logic yes yes yes.

Most of Europe and most of North America was through and spent with the evils of slavery; however, the "real" evil and the real reason for Civil War was threefold:

1) South would not eliminate Slavery
2) Slavery was built on Factorage (debt, lending, monopoly power)
3) Factorage was ultimately controlled by Rothschilds

The whole of the country was tied to cotton production profits and thus coming under Rothschild control (as was Europe before her).

This is pure fact - it's really not disputed among "real" historians or economists -- Only those who never fully read DiLorenzo and who also do not understand Factorage or Morality would argue that the South wanted to secede for any reason other than to expand slavery.

Lincoln understood debt-credit-monopolies -- He fought fire with fire and it worked "some-what"

But there was NO WAY he could of engineered a "free-market" at that time and to think that's what slave owners wanted is to just ignore everything Ron Paul or Mises ever argued regarding consumer-sovereingty.

How can only one group of people be "free" consumers and all other groups NOT with an historical rear-view conclusion being "well the south wanted pure competition, free-markets, and to participate in their constitutional-rights?"

As most of Europe says (ad naseum) "Americans do not know their own history"

1-out-of-100,000 might understand the effect of Factorage on the Civil War and be able to connect it back to the Rothschilds as just ONE example of a bank-rupt educational system.

You do know that when Meyer

You do know that when Meyer Amschel Rothschild died in 1812 it was reported that he had acquired half the world's wealth.

Also, you do realize that the Irish were slaves a lot longer than Africans ever were; and that the Irish were sold for a lot less then Africans were.

Was hemp illegal back then also?

You also realize, don't you, that it cost a lot more to house, feed, treat medically, and have supervisors over slaves than it cost to pay workers when slavery was abolished; especially with the utilization of Eli Whitney's cotton gin which required less workers to do that particular job.

Slavery would have ended soon enough without The Civil War, and King Cotton really didn't need it(The Civil War) either.

The Rothschilds did not control the world gov't

as of 1812 - I never said that their wealth was not substantial or ever absurd.

I'm saying they could not dictate policy as they can now or as they could after King Cotton (or rather owing to Cotton Factorage).

Why would slavery have ended -- the economy of the south (though based on debt) was on an exponential growth curve -- like ours from 1990 to 2000. Did our form of slavery end in 2000, will it end in 2012 with yet another attempt at using a corporatist tool (the ballot box) to alter corporatism? Nope.

The Crowns of Eng and Fra -- The Bankers of Eng and Fra -- The Upper 6% of the South ALL wanted slavery to expand as of 1860.

Slaves in 1805 were worth $300 per slave

Slaves in 1855 were worth $1000 per slave

By what leap of logic can you claim that slavery would have ended anyway?

If "we" (in modern times) are at a dire close to Corporatism, a point where we can turn-the-tides, then understand this is where Lincoln and his "ilk" thought they were -- without the knowledge of Misesian Free-Markets too. At least when our revolution comes (it wont be by gun) we'll have an economic platform (Mises not Rothbard) to steer it.

Lincoln and his co-patriots had no idea what a free-society would look like -- they just saw the calamity of Europe (what was happening there) about to happen here AND the first step in that process was a many countried America and were dead set against a united states.

If you can say the words "a state can be as tyrannical toward the individual as a central authority" then you can go a long way (possibly) to see that "session" (on the grounds to expand slavery) was a moral-negative.

If you understand Misesian Logic then THAT must be your conclusion.

Mises said that a free-society is one where the consumer-is-sovereign and he did not say "of the upper 6%" (whom you are siding with).

Only the Upper 6% voted for session -- no one else had the vote.
---3/5ths vote (remember)

Irish slaves

Here's a good link on this subject which I wasn't aware of until your post above.


Book: White Cargo

The Irish owned slaves here in America

They could have defeated the English (actually at one time they did) and had a different future -- but in-fighting (as with the American Indians) prevented them from "seeing strait"

My father was from Ireland, I have a lot of "Irish" (living in Ireland) friends.

My mother was from Cuba

The Irish never faced the kind of slavery that Africans faced -- not even close.

Were the Irish loaded on ships and taken (forcibly) 3,000 miles away, not allowed to participate in their language-religion-culture?

Were their babies fed to crocodiles -- Were their women sold off, children sold off.

Chattle Slavery was the worst form of slavery the world has ever known.

Did the Irish get treated badly by the English -- yes, but they kept their culture, religion,right to educate their youth, etc etc etc.

Africans were slaves during the Egyptian (Pharoah) rule of Africa. That goes back (at least) 5,000 years.

The Britons were not in Ireland 5000 years ago.

Who enslaved the Irish 5000 years ago?

Know your history man.

agreed, but for future reference

I think the quote you are referring to from his 1st inaugural is:

"...I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that 'I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.' Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them."

The quote which I believe you to be paraphrasing is actually a famous letter written to Horace Greeley in response to an editorial Greeley wrote criticizing Lincoln during the Civil War. The purpose of this quote was to introduce to the public that Lincoln was willing to change his position from no inclination nor lawful right to the desperation expressed in this letter:

"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."

This basically retracted his inaugural statement, saying that he now has both the right and inclination to do whatever he wants, if it saves the union. I think he was more worried about his reputation as America's great (and first) dictator.
He was conditioning people so they would not be shocked when he issued the emancipation proclamation (which was in fact already written) only a few months later.

I think politicians say

I think politicians say things all the time without really meaning it. Lincoln didn't want to be seen as the President who broke the nation over the issue of slavery (something we might understand now but at the time would have been considered a negative). Moreover, he also had pressure from the Republican party to end slavery. Lincoln could have prevented the war from fully acquiesing to the demands of the South in regards to slavery, including an amendment to make it permanently legal, a prevention of anti-slavery states from joining the union, and his own resignation despite being elected.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

what about this statement?

from Lincoln's 1st inaugural address?

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution, which amendment, however, I have not seen, has passed Congress, to the effect that the federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable."

Was this not enough acquiescence? This leads me to think that there were other grievances on the minds of the seceding states other than slavery. Granted, they were also afraid that with a future majority of non-slave states newly entering the union, it would be easy to someday overturn this amendment protecting slavery.

It passed Congress, but only

It passed Congress, but only 2 or 3 states IIRC ever ratified it. Morever, a future amendment would have overrided it.

I think that Lincoln was overall correct in his belief that slavery would always be a dividing issue that needed firm resolution. They had in the past done things to extend slavery, or had done small things to pacify abolitionists. All that those did was forstall the inevitable conflict.

The funny thing is, both regions had noble goals that were in contrast to the views of the founders. For example, the South hated tarriffs on imported goods...even though the founders had specifically desired to protect domestic industries through taxation. The North wanted to prevent the South from having slavery...even though the founders specifically wanted slaveholders' rights protected, and they wanted it to be an issue of the states.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

War is hell and

the stop calling it the Civil War, or War Between the States or the War of the Great Rebellion and call it what it actually was, the War of Northern Aggression.

It only takes one to KEEP AMERICANS FREE. Know your duties & rights as a juror. Stop the unconstitutional conviction of innocents in federal custody. The Fully Informed Jury CALL 1-800-TEL-JURY www.fija.org IMMEDIATELY if not sooner. It's that important.

The Federalists Won!

As an Anti-Federalist, I really like the direction you are taking this...that Hamilton post-humously won the War of Succession (erroneously labled a Civil War - this was not a civil war as the seperatist never indended to overthrow the US Govt.). The People and the States lost the American tradition of sucession (the Revolutionary War was a war of sucession) and their sovereign rights in the process to all powerful cental government. Less then 100 yrs earlier, the Constitution was only ratified after much arguementation - The Federalists Papers - and only when these protections were "guaranteed". This was lost so, yes, The Cental Planners (Federalists) won.

And now with the exponential growth of the General Government, attempting to micromanage every aspect of our lives, the States are again flexing their 10th Amendment muscles. We live in historical times again.

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

I agree : )

The war was fought to prevent secession.
The US had a strong tradition of secession.
The Revolutionary War was a war of secession.
The secession, however, was not very successful.

The English/European powers Won

The 'Civil War' or the War of Northern Aggression, or any of its other names, is a junction in our Nations history that change the fate of our Nations future.

The main culprit, the cotton gin(CG). The south was booming during that era because the cotton gin allowed them to produce vast quantities of superior fibers which sold internationally and made the south rich. However, when the south purchased their CG's they did so from Europe. At that time the United States could not compete with European production, our industry couldn't produce them cheap enough for the south to want to buy them. Thus the North felt neglected as the south was getting rich not buying cotton gin's from the north. This lead to unconstitutional tariffs placed on the southern states; initially they were OK with it because they understood that the north was hurting and the south was sensitive but as the tariffs slowly inched up and ate away profits from the south it further caused tensions to raise in a shallow attempt to strong arm the south into buying "american".

During that ERA Europe witnessed the staggering amount of American prosperity that was beginning to become self evident. Europe was afraid that its people would 'follow the americans' and revolt against the monarchies and established European republics. Noticing the tension with the CG the Euro powers played off of this rift to help create the conditions needed for civil war. Propaganda was released throughout Europe pinning the south and north against one another. As Europe continued their propaganda campaign they also began to prepare for an invasion against their revolted "colonies" and they war'ed among themselves. It was an attempt to recover all of the Rights gained by the patriots during the war for independence and to re-secure control of the nations monetary unit (which later was accomplished in 1912 with the bankruptcy of United States Government [Corporation] which lead to the federal reserve act of 1913 as terms for corporate settlement.

Abe Lincoln and Russia. Lincoln, a tyrant in his own right did seem to have a change of heart. When the European money power attempted to loan the United States of America (The corporation did not exist at that time) money at a very high rate of interest Abe turned his back realizing that he had been played at that due to his actions his country was at stake. He decides to snub the banksters and print his own due-free currency, the greenback, in order to finance the FEDs to easily take control of the North and then use the north to secure the south and "maintain the union". The green back is the reason that our currency is green today. Because Abe decides to print the green back is what made the euro powers angry (they would not be able to use economics as a court in war) and maneuvered to invade the Republic. Another thing to consider is that the saved monetary structure that had been used to make the European powers rich was mirrored by Abe in the US but was designed to provide NO VALUE to the European system, aka financial freedom. The greatest tool Lincoln provided to the Illuminati to use was the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. The USG may have saved the Union from destruction; but in time, it also had became infiltrated by European agents whom eventually turned the USG corporation against the American People until this present day.

When the Russian monarcharchy got wind of Europe's intention to invade and recapture their former colonies Russia made brash moves that saved what little was left of our republic after the North was victorious. Without Russia, our greatest ally of the day, England would be flying their flag over us today. The Russia Czar sent his fleet to line the east coast of the United States of America with a direct threat/warning to the Europeans that if they tried to interfere with the internal conflicts of our Nation that he would order the fleet to attack European vessels and will be at war with Europe. This put Europe in a position to have not only a united colonies against them but also having Russia join against them. This effectively put any European plans of invasion dead in the water. Because of this move by the Russian monarchy, the Illuminati assassinated not just the Russian King, but his entire posterity; and because of it, Russia plunged into a dark era and later was reshaped into an American adversary. However, Unbeknownst to the American People, Russia saved our lives.


I reserve the right to govern myself.


Where did you learn about Russia's intervention? I want to read more about it.

A few over looked reasons and results

of the Civil War might be the ability of the British to depopulate Ireland of it's young men who were pressed into military service as soon as they landed upon our shores. A contemporary example of this might lead you to look south to Mexico and what is occurring there and here. While there is currently no (official)shooting war there is an economic one continuing here. Another point that should be considered was the revolutionary invention of the cotton gin and the ramifications it carried with regards to the British bankers and their coveted balance as well as stranglehold grip of power on our banks, Britain was the top importer of cotton from the U.S. before, during and after the war. I'd definitely say it was the British who profited the most.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

As previously mentioned

Central government won. Read what libertarian Lord Acton wrote to General Lee concerning the meaning of the loss of the secessionist states.

Read everything you can find by Jefferson Davis

and you'll have the answer...

the government

everyone else was a victim.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Absolutely. To elaborate, the

Absolutely. To elaborate, the fascist federal government and the northern industrialists supporting the government. (Remember, fascism is government sponsored capitalism.)

Unfortunately as this article

Unfortunately as this article points out, people are more concerned with what was gained, as opposed to what was lost. To them, the "emancipation" of the enslaved Americans was worth the price of 600,000 innocent lives (even though the Civil War is credited with this, the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the Southern slaves, not the slaves in the north). As Ron Paul points out, we are the only nation which waged a war to end slavery(even though the war was really waged to keep the Union in place as it was currently, with the southern farmers getting robbed by protected tariffs championed by Lincoln and lobbied for by the northern industrialists). The free market would have ended slavery, at a far lesser loss of life, because slaves would have become obsolete as tractors and other machinery was invented. And who knows how much faster these machines would have been invented had the productive hands not been stolen away to make cannons, guns and bullets for 6 years of war.

Levon Helm's death

was hard for me. I'm in my early 20's and I've seen him once at the first Ramble at the Ryman, but one of my goals in life was to make it up to NY to see one of his real Midnight Rambles in the barn.

To stay on topic of the war, Anyone interested in the war who likes good music should absolutely purchase White Mansions. This is a compilation of artists such as Eric Clapton, Waylon Jennings, Steve Cash, Jessi Colter and John Dillon performing songs written by Paul Kennerley. Its a concept album about people during the civil war. It has been regularly finding its way on my turntable ever since I got it.
Kennerley put out an equally excellent sequel called The Legend of Jesse James. Levon Helm plays Jesse James, Johnny Cash plays Frank James, Charlie Daniels plays Cole Younger, EmmyLou Harris plays Jesse's wife Zerelda. It also has Clapton on guitar, Rosanne Cash, Rodney Crowell and Albert Lee... The first track Ride of the Redlegs is epic.