1861 was decades before the first sizable presence of Jews in America, certainly the presence of Jews with any level of power, wealth, influence, or authority in the country. Therefore, the convenient catch-all excuse of 'the Jews did it!' does not fly in the case of the Civil War. This shows that whites, influenced by the universalist principles of Christianity and the secular humanist principles of the enlightenment, are perfectly willing to be just as liberal, to fanatically fight and die for liberalism, as they are in the present day due to the 'evil jewwwwwwwws'.
There were many practical causes of the Civil War -- Republicans wanted to open up more land for settlement in the West and the South was denying important bills like railroad construction and the homesteading act. They wanted to ship their goods down the Mississippi without paying a toll. They wanted higher tariffs on imported goods to help out their manufacturing industry. They wanted a united continent to avoid domestic conflicts in the future. They wanted to end slavery because it was a low-wage threat to the value of their own labor. So on and so forth. But these cold, calculating folks never could have motivated hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers to go charge hopelessly into lines of fire and get mowed down one after the next like at Fredericksburg. It takes something a little more passionate and serious in a person's soul to die for than 'free transit of corn down the Mississippi!'
No, the reason all those Northerners were willing to invade our lands and meddle with our own folkways is because they were on a moral crusade that would not be denied. They found slavery abhorrent and would pay any price to put an end to it. It wasn't even that they wanted to not be responsible for it as co-conspirators by belonging to the same nation and enforcing laws like the fugitive slave act. If that were the issue the secession of the South was already a sufficient cure to the issue, they could have washed their hands of the institution and been morally pure forever after. They hated slavery so much that it was not allowed to exist anywhere on Earth, no matter who was doing it. They would have sailed to the antipodes to stomp out slavery, they were so morally incensed.
And what were they so mad about, that they would rather die than go on viewing for one more second?
1) Slaveowners raping their women slaves.
2) The whipping of recalcitrants.
3) Putting people in chains like they were chattel.
4) Breaking up nuclear families for the sake of profit.
5) Denying them an education, especially since as a result they could no longer read the Bible and form a personal relationship with God like proper protestants must.
6) Robbing enterprising blacks of their opportunity to improve their circumstances and achieve the American Dream by keeping them down or just taking too large a share of their wages.
Most Northerners at this point believed in paint job theory -- that blacks were just white people with an unfortunate splash of black paint over their bodies spilled onto them at birth. If whites would just educate and edify blacks, give them proper incentives and the support of the Holy Teachings, they would turn out just as polished, productive, noble and virtuous as any white person. They understood this would be difficult and would take multiple generations after the slaves were freed, because they were starting from such an inferior position, but ultimately blacks were just like us, had souls, were natural born philosophers, and were being cruelly mistreated for no rational reason but simply because it suited the greedy South to be barbaric towards and exploit them in this manner.
The above objections are almost all mythical. Yes, in limited circumstances, all these things occurred, but it was well beyond the norm in all cases. The South took better care of their slaves than northerners took of their own workers, they did try their best to save their souls and make them good Christians, they just felt 'a little bit of learning can do a great deal of harm,' and that blacks were not intellectually capable of reading up and interpreting subjects for themselves. Families were kept together for generations, both slaves and owners, and were treated as one big family who shared the plantation as their home. Slaves raised their owner's children in an atmosphere of mutual love and trust. Slaves received 90% of the product of their labor in goods in kind or wages, with the remaining 10% just barely enough to pay off the massive price of the initial investment of purchasing them. (Back then, a black man was worth $100,000, something they aren't nearly worth anymore.)
Most enterprising blacks that showed they had a good head on their shoulders were allowed to train for more complicated jobs, get an education, earn wages (that were not wholly taken from them), and eventually even purchase their own freedom. Slaveowners found that these slaves were worth a lot more to them as budding entrepreneurs than just one more farmhand and didn't resent in the least their increased productivity. No doubt some 'dreamers' were denied and dreams deferred, but there were probably just as many Irish up North who could have done a lot better kept down by Northern indifference. It's just a silly mote in your neighbor's eye situation.
The reason why the South insisted on slavery remaining in place was not out of a diabolical plan to have ready access to black female flesh (ewww), the tremendous wage-earning power of blacks (most of the South didn't have any slaves and most slave owners still worked hard regardless), an insensible hatred born of pure prejudice and demonic sadism, or whatever the North thought of us.
Originally, the South was so inhospitable to settlement that whenever whites tried to people it, they would just drop dead of various diseases. Jamestown barely hung on for centuries like this, with only continuous shiploads of new people from abroad keeping the settlement from dying out. It was during this period that slaves were first 'tried out' as an alternative to white settlement, and it turned out they had an evolved compatibility with the climate and thrived where we failed. Only blacks could farm the hot, humid, and malarial South, and the only way to get them was through the purchase of slaves. We actually tried to use indentured servants, Indians, and hardy pioneers for a long time before we first tried out blacks, and none of it worked in the least. Unlike the North, the land was just too harsh.
Once blacks had converted all the malarial swamps into normal cotton, tobacco, and sugar plantations, whites could move in and settle the area as well, so the land became less harsh over time as the South was terraformed into somewhat livable circumstances. Even then, it was full of dangers like yellow fever that claimed white people's lives all the time. Life in the South was by no means easy for Southerners, we were much poorer and much more likely to die than our Northern neighbors who were living the high life in mosquito-free climates. Even with the aid of genetically superhuman black workers, it was like trying to settle the moon just scrabbling by day to day. It didn't help that the Apache and Comanche tribes were all located in the South as well. The Texas Rangers had to be the hardiest men on Earth to face off against these vast empires with just a few good men in between their settlements and the rape, torture, and massacre of all whites in the area. Not to mention Santa Ana, Mexican bandittos, and slave revolts like in Haiti whose sole intent was the rape and murder of every last living white person.
The South did not have the luxury of freeing the slaves. They had enough trouble on their plates just living day to day. They knew that if the slaves were freed, a destructive force would be let loose in society that would bring the whole thing down. Total civilizational collapse.
Slaves that were simply let loose onto the world with no minders would revert to their violent and barbaric roots, shucking off the veneer of Christianity and loving charity that firm discipline required of them as slaves. Blacks were 'half devil, half child,' and could not be expected to take care of themselves or treat others as they deserved when left alone. Even ignoring black nature, their resentment against their owners (completely unmerited and driven to fever pitch by outside agitators, by the way) was such that there was a good chance that blacks, who outnumbered whites in many areas, would seize the opportunity of their freedom to plot vengeance and massacre against their former masters. It would be like releasing millions of prisoners from Stalingrad and allowing them to rejoin the ranks of your enemy, rearm, and organize a new assault on mother Russia with a declared intent at genocide if they should win. Who does that? Who in their right mind says, 'well, gee, it would be mean to keep them prisoners so I guess it can't be helped?'
Black crime, civil war with enraged Haitian-like black vengeance seekers, even this wasn't the biggest issue. The fact is that Haiti's economy under slavery was the jewel of the west. It made mega bucks for the owners and at times Britain valued it more than the entirety of the North American continent it made so much in profit. More settlers actually moved to the Caribbean (and massively more slaves were imported there) than the entire North American continent, there was so much money to be made via the mass manufacturing of cash crops and their sale abroad. But once the slaves revolted, abandoned all the complex machinery that made sugar refining possible, and returned to subsistence farming, the economy collapsed into the Haiti we know and love today. The South knew that the same economic disaster would occur were slaves to be freed here as well. The entire economy of the South was powered by the mass manufacturing of cash crops that were then sold to Britain and others in exchange for higher-end goods. If the slaves were freed, they wouldn't cooperate in these massive enterprises anymore, the efficiencies of scale and the discipline of hard labor would be abandoned, and they would lose their ability to produce anything but food for themselves or trade for anything else. The South, one of the richest places on Earth with the highest quality of living, would be thrown back into Medieval Serfdom with the wave of a single hand. Even the blacks would be poorer and worse off than before.
Indeed, this was exactly what happened. When the slaves were freed, the southern economy fell into a severe depression. Freed slaves, now with nowhere to go and no useful job skills, died by the millions. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/16/slavery-starvation-civil-war
The South never recovered. Certainly, there were parts of the South that simply moved on to the industrial era and started making steel or whatever, but large parts of the South in the 1900's were poorer than the South of 1861. Certainly black lives had seen no improvement in this entire time, and it had nothing to do with their lack of political power. (Blacks have plenty of political power in places like Detroit, Selma, etc., today, and their lives are worse than slavery ever was, so that clearly isn't the solution). It took the invention of air conditioning, FDR's electrification and other anti-poverty programs concentrated in the South, and the availability of non-union cheap labor in the South that attracted Northern manufacturers to set up new camp here as a free trader's paradise to actually turn the region around. Until then it was like Faulkner said, 'the past isn't dead, it isn't even past.'
We also understood that blacks were fundamentally, biologically inferior to whites and that miscegenation between the two would lead to a degradation of the white race down to the level of blacks, not an uplifting of the blacks to our standard. We deeply feared this miscegenation being made legal (which was inevitable once blacks were treated as equal, free 'humans' and 'citizens' under the law) at a time when nearly half the South's population was black. The region of southern belles and beautiful mansions would have reverted back to an African hellhole in just a few generations if the North were to have its way. Luckily this bullet was dodged by the Ku Klux Klan overthrowing reconstruction with guerilla terrorist resistance, and Jim Crow laws being instituted that kept segregation alive for another century. During this century, the black population in the South decreased, as a percentage, significantly. Lots of blacks moved North to seek a land with less prejudice (good riddance!), many just couldn't hack it in a free market, and lots of white immigrants flowed into Southern areas to bolster our numbers. By the time miscegenation became legal, in 1960, there were enough whites in the South to cushion the blow and keep civilization going.
The South was an insanely tough place to live for whites before slavery, during slavery, and after slavery. It was like settling the Moon, or the Congo, or Mordor. The environment was against us, the natives were against us, the Mexicans were against us, our own workers were against us, and our own countrymen were against us and always stirring up trouble and taxing the hell out of us and doing everything else they could to ruin our lives.
Like any moral white person, we certainly didn't relish mistreating or hurting others. We felt the same pangs of conscience as the abolitionists did about whipping slaves or putting metal collars around their necks and dragging them back south so that they could till our crops again. But unlike the North, we weren't sitting so pretty that our morals could get in the way of our hard bitten reality. The only alternative to our way of life was mass death and destruction. The North never understood us because they never walked a day in our shoes, and just assumed we were doing all of this out of pure sadistic pleasure. That same picture is drawn of us in the Yankee derived media of today, except for lone, wonderful exposes of the truth that glimmer through in movies like Gone with the Wind and Gods and Generals.
The North benefited from slavery nearly as much as the South did. First off, they benefited from the tariffs they levied on the South, just straight out taking a large chunk of our revenue every year to spend on themselves. Second off, the North had a massive industry around buying Southern cotton and turning it into finished goods in textile mills. Third off, the South used their hard currency gained from selling stuff to Britain to buy stuff made in the North, which the North turned around and used as financial instruments or to buy stuff abroad. Without the actual product the rest of the world wanted, our cotton, tobacco, sugar, etc, the North wouldn't have had the silver or gold, the reliable currency, to keep their own economy liquid and above water. Most of the world was completely uninterested in what Northerners had to sell, their manufactures were inferior to Britain's and everything was behind protectionist trade barriers anyway. If not for the South buying stuff from the North, they would have had to resort to subsistence farming and lived little better than the stone age.
When was the proper time to end slavery? When it was no longer economically useful. Probably when tractors were invented.
What was the proper way to end slavery? We should have bought out the slaves as a public, tax-payer funded project, with both the North and South chipping in. Part of the money would go to refund the white slave owners who made massive investments in slaves at a time when it was a perfectly legal act, so that they wouldn't suddenly be bankrupted from their property randomly being stolen from underneath them. This massive influx of new capital to replace the old capital of slaves would have gone far to creating new industries in the South that could compete with the North and give us new, high paying jobs to flock to once the plantations were gone. The other part of the money would be a lump sum paid to blacks to take up a ship back to Africa (a much safer and less crammed journey than when they came here) and build new homes in the still relatively empty continent. Every black would return to Africa with a fortune that would make them kings in their new land, with the education and training to make a living farming without any problems once they made landfall. We could even promise them military protection and ethnic cleansing of the natives until they'd put down roots and could fend for themselves. I assure you all of this would have been cheaper than the death and destruction of the Civil War.
It was sheer hatred that compelled the North to end slavery in blood and fire instead of peacefully and over a negotiating table. They thought we were morally repugnant and wanted to kill us, to punish us for our sins. They had no interest in peace and so they brought war. Against an opponent like that, all reasonable options were cut off and all we could do was defend ourselves to the last man. As it turned out, that didn't work either and there was really nothing we could do once the religious fervor and moral righteousness of the North had reached its fever pitch.
Liberalism today is on the exact same crusade for equality that the Union soldiers were on at the battle of Cold Harbor. Their intensity hasn't wavered and their hatred of us has never changed. They openly advocate for our extinction, just like they attempted to do on the battlefield centuries ago. They've learned nothing from the centuries-long human experiment of 'paintjob theory', which has been so thoroughly debunked by reality that only religion can explain their still-unchanged beliefs. When a fire burns so hot you charge the stone wall of Fredericksburg four times in a row, you really don't need Jews to say or do anything more. Liberals, anti-racist whites, have been in our midst from the very beginning and have been out to get us from the very beginning. The moment their lives became affluent enough that they felt they had the leeway to 'better' others, their noblesse oblige instincts have been firing on all cylinders ever since. Their altruism, their idealism, whatever you want to call it, they've been on crusade ever since. If it wasn't freeing the slaves it was freeing the Philippines, or stopping Communism, spreading Democracy to Europe, or converting the middle East to a new dawn of freedom. Or it was women's suffrage, gay rights, open borders, transgenders, you name it. They are always on crusade and this stuff was going on centuries before Jews ever lied about anything. It's like affluence is poison to these people, they lose all sense of purpose in their own lives because it's all too easy, and so instead they seek out purpose by meddling in the lives of others and righting wrongs, slaying dragons all across the world.
In my permapost where I try to explain how the world, which had been progressing for thousands of years, suddenly turned around circa 1930, went insane, and is now avidly trying to cast itself back into the stone age, "What Happened?", I said that idle hands were the devil's work, and most people couldn't handle the work-free transition that machines have made possible in the modern era. They turned to hedonism to fill the vacuum and, in order to maintain the right to their own bad habits, they had to defend the bad habits of others as well. So was born the 'coalition of the fringes' that is now the vast majority of the world threatening to swamp the last vestiges of civilization.
There's an interesting addendum to this theory, which says that some people became affluent sooner than others across the world, and thus fell into this moral sickness before the others. The North was the most affluent place on Earth in the 1800's. Far richer than the South or any other place on Earth, a Northerner, especially a settler who had been there for a long time, lived in a veritable Eden of plenty. They lived longer than anyone else, they were taller and ate more meat, no enemies dared war with them from any direction for their entire lifespans, you could have any number of children and give them all enormous plots of easily tillable land. Every convenience was ready at hand, from the newest inventions, to the newest music, to the newest fashionable clothes, with banks ready to loan anyone money. If you read the book Little Women, which was set during the Civil War and concerned a middle class family supported by a lone petty pastor, they had richer feasts than people normally have today, huge parties with all the finest dresses, and trips to Europe just for fun. This was not considered an aberration, but the norm, even for the lower middle class of the North. This was a family with four children, maintained through the labor of just one man at a rather easy job, who wasn't even there to provide for them at the time because he was busy killing us Southerners instead.
But the North was full of people of such religious intensity, descended from Puritans and Methodists, that they did not succumb to hedonism as a result of their affluence like people do today. Instead they fell to another temptation, which was 'do-gooding.' Since there was nothing left to do in their own lives, they went around trying to solve everyone else's problems instead, and asserting their rigid moral code on everyone else, just like they pegged scarlet letters on adulterers and banned Christmas in the past. This may have been a fine pastime, if they weren't totally clueless as to other people's circumstances and all their meddling wasn't just producing more harm than good for the people they were ostensibly crusading around for. But the same arrogance that possessed them to search out demons abroad compelled them not to take into any consideration what their opponents were saying.
It is not unusual for highly educated, productive, rich, seemingly good people to be fervent liberals. They can't be hand-waved off as just wanting free sex and drugs. Instead, they're members of the same Puritan class as we saw take up arms in 1861. They're religious fanatics, who have far too much free time on their hands, are far too wealthy, and find purpose in do-gooding, just like before. And just like before, they refuse to listen to anyone who tells them they aren't do-gooding at all, but just meddling. Because if they aren't allowed to do-good, then what is the meaning and purpose of their lives? What do they have left to do? They are sick unto death of luxury and want something challenging and hard again to tackle. The more intelligent, virtuous, and rich they are, the less challenging their lives, the more desperate they are to fill the vacuum. What could be harder than uplifting all the poor and benighted of the world to first world living standards? What could be harder than uplifting the Negro? And so that's what they latch onto. The most destructive possible policies precisely because they are the most destructive, and thus the most challenging problems left on Earth to tackle. They welcome the size of the problems they're actively importing into our lives. They don't have enough troubles in life and want to flood our borders with them, as much trouble as they can possibly handle, because that's what gives them purpose and leads to a life of fulfillment on their part. Not actually solving problems, which are genetic and thus intractable, but simply fighting against them as long as they live, which is like nirvana to them.
I'm not sure if liberals can be saved. I feel like there must be something genetic to their own behavior, for it to last this long and this unalterably through the centuries. But presuming they are just mistaken and can be enlightened on how to actually live a good life in the modern era, I would tell them this. "Personal fulfillment doesn't mean solving all the world's woes through utopian schemes, it's living well and enjoying your life. The modern era has in no way restricted your opportunity to do this, in fact it has contributed more than any other time. Between the enriching experiences of anime, manga, video games, books, music, television, sports and movies, it is almost unthinkable that any free time will be left. There is no vacuum in this experience, it's full of so many great minds thinking so many great things that you get to be in constant communion with, that you'll feel like you're bathing in the light of Wisdom and Providence from dawn to dusk. Every day you emerge a better person than you were the day before, more full of love for others, with an even more gigantic treasure trove of memories that will bring smiles to your face by the day. If you really, truly want to be of service to others, then go around telling others how good all this artwork is, so that they'll try it too, or make even more art yourself, and add to the pile that others might enjoy." I've done both of these things myself, and am thus trying to do good and live a life of purpose and meaning myself, which does not mean spreading freedom to Iraq, but does mean spreading Beauty, Truth and Love to my own soul.
I cannot think of a better way to spend time than I already do. Obviously, making money and reproducing is important, or everything will fall apart, but in our age of affluence many people can easily reach those goals and are left gaping like fish out of water for more. The answer to that 'more' is to open your heart to the vicarious experiences of others. Largely fictional existences. Care about them, share their journeys, and you'll be a million people by the end. Great souled. Your vessel will be so full it'll be leaking from every edge, and there will still be more worthwhile stuff to try and stuff into it.
It is not uplifting blacks, transgenders, or muslims, a fool's crusade with a 0% probability of success. It's just uplifting yourself.
Many Jews who are constantly crusading for the betterment of others are not doing so as Jews. In fact I think this is true of most Jews. They are doing it as liberals, for the same reasons as the liberals do it, with the exact same religious fervor and mindset as their high class liberal neighbors. They are indistinguishable from each other. Jews are also affluent and in search of purpose in their lives because their life is way too easy, even richer than white Northerners are, and so they inevitably fall into the same temptations and pitfalls as their Yankee brethren have and end up doing the exact same things. They've even been influenced by the do-gooder enlightenment narrative that was originally written by us, not them, and so we have no one but ourselves to blame.
Some portion of Jews simply hate us, and out of resentment born from being a Jew and thus the 'other,' act with full knowledge and malice towards their host populations. And of course, even when they are impelled by these motives, they cloak themselves in the slimy disguise of 'do-gooders' because they know they have a higher chance of success by doing so, and that they can never be caught when camouflaged by so many legitimate comrades keeping their numbers hidden. But this wouldn't even be a real problem if the original group of do-gooders were purified. They would have no one to hide behind, and no rhetoric to hide behind, without all these fellow travelers, and then their malice would be exposed and rejected by any right thinking person. So going after malicious Jews is pointless. They'll just say 'we're just do-gooder liberals.' And then you're right back to confronting and defeating liberalism. So you may as well just confront liberalism from the beginning. They're the vast majority of our opponents, and even the vast majority of our Jewish opponents. The only way out is through liberalism.