Sunday, February 22, 2015

Was Slavery or ‘Genocide’ the Main Catalyst of the American Civil War?

We all know that the main cause of the American Civil War was Abraham Lincoln’s determination to preserve the Union. The South didn’t want a war when it seceded from the Union. It wanted to be left alone. And its right to secede was guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. But Lincoln believed in the sacredness of the Union and unleashed a devastating war that forced the South back into the Union and greatly expanded the power of federal government.

But what was the catalyst for the secession that led to Lincoln’s declaration of war? Obviously the answer would seem to have been slavery. But was it really? Could it be argued that the issues surrounding the ‘genocide’ of the American Indians really brought on the Civil War? I put quotes around genocide since not everyone is agreed that it was genocide. After all, reservations were set aside for Indians. Furthermore, most American Indians died as a result of European diseases against which they had no immunity. And there’s hardly any proof that white folks spread diseases to specifically target and kill native peoples of America. But, in our politically correct age, many ‘progressives’ will insist that what took place was indeed a form of genocide. And I suppose, based on UN definition of genocide, the destruction of the American Indian way of life could be construed as a form of genocide(though nothing like the Holocaust). To be sure, the UN definition tends to be varied in application. So, what the Zionists did to the Palestinians isn’t construed as genocide, but if another people were to do to Jewish Israelis what Zionists once did to Palestinians, you bet the world community(under the control of Jewish globalist supremacists)would condemn it as ‘genocide’. So, there’s a good deal of ‘who, whom’ when it comes to the issue of genocide. By the way, because what Jews did to Palestinians was so much like what white folks did to the Indians, globo-Zionists of late have de-emphasized the tragic narrative of the Indians(who are deemed to be happy with their casinos managed mostly by Jews). So, the ‘original sin’ of America is now said to be slavery than the conquest and ‘genocide’ of American Indians.

Anyway, for the sake of argument, let’s say what happened to American Indians was ‘genocide’. As white folks moved westward, they had no choice but to wage war on the Indians. They had to forcibly remove Indians from their ancestral lands. Even when Indians signed peace agreements, white folks eventually wanted Indians off most of the land so that white folks could build towns and cities and farm the fields. So, even though there was no plan to wipe out every Indian — though such sentiments did accompany the wars waged on Indian folks — , there was a lot of violence done to Indians who, in turn, fought back as best they could(and committed atrocities as well). Manifest Destiny wasn’t possible without the ‘genocide’ of the native tribesmen of the prairies. To settle and build up the Western wilderness, Indians had to go. If they didn’t go peacefully, they had to be conquered and forced into reservations growing ever smaller, like what happens in the TV series CENTENNIAL(based on James Michener’s novel). And even when Indians wanted to assimilate, they weren’t wanted by white folks and forced to move into areas set aside for ‘red savages’.

Now, would slavery have been such a hot-button issue if western expansion-and-‘genocide’ had come to a standstill in, say, 1850? Slavery became a major issue because Americans wanted to expand westward(especially with the defeat of Mexico and their loss of SW territories to Americans), and this ambition was stronger in the North — with more people, immigrants, technology, and investment capital — than in the South. So, white Northerners were more eager to commit ‘genocide’ against Indians in the West, take the land, and create a bigger nation. Had Americans stopped expanding westward, there would have been equal number of ‘free states’ and ‘slave states’. And the South and North would have been okay with the balance. It was because Americans were committed to expanding westward that the Southern ‘slave states’ insisted that, for every new ‘free state’ created in the West, a new ‘slave state’ be created as well to maintain the electoral balance. And so, the debate got ever more heated up.
Now, one might argue that the Northern States were morally superior to the Southern States since they wanted to create ‘free states’ in the new western territories. But in creating new states in the West, Northern Whites had to carry out ‘genocide’ against the native folks. Indeed, the creation of new ‘free states’ was bound to commit more ‘genocide’ than the creation of new ‘slave states’ because the new ‘free states’ targeted northern areas that were less settled. In contrast, new ‘slave states’ aimed for Southwest Territories that had already been somewhat tamed and settled by Spanish Conquistadores and Mexicans. Many of the Indians in those regions had already been defeated, tamed, quelled, or suppressed by encroachments of civilization from the Latin South and Anglo East. In contrast, much of the northern half of western territories was still inhabited by ‘savage’ Red Indians. These new ‘free states’ would have to be created through extensive ‘genocide’ of the native folks on their ancestral lands.

So, this complicates the moral issue. The favored Narrative would have us believe that decent(or at least more decent) Northern Whites, appalled by the institution of slavery, waged war on the ‘racist’ South to end slavery and preserve the Union. But would the debate about slavery have grown so heated if not for the westward expansion that called for the ‘genocide’ of Indians? We are told that genocide is worse than slavery. Slavery may be unjust and cruel, but at least you’re not destroying a people. In contrast, genocide is about the massive destruction of a people. So, how good and noble were the Northern whites if they were committed to a war and ‘genocide’ against an entire race of indigenous people whose ancestors had lived on the land that whites wanted for themselves? And it wasn’t just Anglo Northerners but immigrant newcomers who wanted to settle the lands of the West. And plenty of Jewish businessmen went to the West to sell guns and wares to white folks who were waging wars on the Indians. So, the very white Northern folks who bewailed the evil institution of slavery were eyeing the West for what were to be wars of conquest and racial ‘genocide’. (And Jews did the same to Palestinians in the 20th century.)
Of course, Southern whites were for westward expansion and ‘genocide’ too, but most of the initiative, capital, drive, and investment for western expansion came from the North. And these do-goody Northern white folks, who claimed to care so much about the Negro, didn’t give a rat’s ass about what would happen to the ‘red savages’. And Jewish bankers in the East were no less eager than Anglo bankers to fund the vast enterprise that would have a devastating impact on the native folks of America(though, to be sure, one could argue that American Indians today got it pretty good with modern appliances and TV).

So, if some white northern Liberal condemns a white southerner for the history of slavery, the latter should shoot back and accuse the white northern Liberal that his/her ancestors led the movement of ‘genocide’ against the native peoples of America, especially as it was the northern states that concentrated on banking, heavy industry, and rising immigration, all of which came together to push for more westward expansion at the expense of American Indians whose fate could be nothing but ‘genocide’. If white northerners say, "you southern whites enslaved blacks", just shoot back, "you northern whites and immigrant communities(including Jews) expanded westward more than we southerners did, and you carried out massive genocide against the American Indians."

No comments:

Post a Comment