Review of Attempt at Revisionist History     Gene Kizer Jr.: Slavery Was Not the Cause of the War Between the States – The Irrefutable Argument

Evidence Mostly One Sided.   Omits Banks, Weapons, Jews, Freemasons, Monoculture, Industry, Policies of both North and South.     Not updated since 2014   [Review: 7 March 2021]

This is an Internet-era publication. Kizer gives four relevant websites, three in the 200,000 - 300,000 siterankdata rating:–

CharlestonAthenaeumPress.com which seems to be Kizer's. It is pro-Jew, and suggests Kizer is yet another Jew or maybe in hock to them. He turns out to be part of a Realty outfit. However, he seems to have felt he should make the case for the Southern States and there's no doubt the history has been set in the concrete of official lies.
      BonnieBluePublishing.com, which is only for book orders, and seems to be their publishing company started in 2000, Kizer's book being the main title.

SouthernHistorians.org Seems to be connected with a Howard White. Claims to quote or have many distinguished southern historians. It has a downloadable pdf file for home schoolers, mainly on the US 'Civil War'. It has little or nothing on such questions as finance and control by Rothschilds and others, 1812, shipowners etc. It shows Jewish influence, for example, incredibly, taking Roots seriously long after it was exposed as plagiarism. Sad and unhelpful.

AbbevilleInstitute.org ‘What is true and valuable in the Southern tradition’. I looked; I searched for 'Jews' just to see, and found typical junk. There's a lot about racism'. Founded 2002. Hosts videos and audios. Has a section on 'The South and America's Wars'. Almost moronically ignorant of finance. Of course emphasis on Republicans and Democrats. No idea of Jewish control of media.

Anyway, what of the book itself?

The back-cover blurb says: ‘This book proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the North did not go to war to free the slaves or end slavery.’
      So the book assumes the North went to war. It may of course have been lured into it by deception of some sort. To modern readers, there's nothing unsurprising in that.
      ‘The North went to war because it faced economic annihilation and a Southern competitor that controlled the most demanded commodity on earth: cotton. The North's economy was based mostly on manufacturing for the South and shipping the Southern cotton around the world. ... When the South seceded, the Northern economy began a dramatic collapse ... by war time, there were hundreds of thousands of hungry, unemployed Northerners in the street ...
      Economically ignorant Northern leaders then passed the astronomical Morrill Tariff ... rerouting trade away from the high-tariff North ... into the low-tariff South. ...
      Abraham Lincoln ... saw an opportunity to start it [war] without appearing to be the aggressor ...
      The idea that the good North was so outraged over slavery that they marched ... to free the slaves is an absurdity... ’

That's the claim. Note the absence of the modern revisionist idea that the Bank of England, run by Jews, notably Rothschilds, was in control of north America. There was a war, and it had to be explained, so the idea it was caused by some irrelevant event, to persuade ordinary people, is entirely plausible. Kizer turns out not to be a revisionist at all; all his arguments deal with ordinary published evidence, omitting ‘Banks, Weapons, Jews, Freemasons, Monoculture, Industry, Policies of both North and South’.
      Thus profitability, control of currency, secret groups behind the scenes plus their puppets, the economics of cotton—profit, not turnover; changes in competition (from India, for example); likely changes in what was something like monoculture, not that different from oil in Arabia now; changes in industrialisation, including what might happen as productivity soared; these are mostly ignored.
      And possible policies aren't considered by Kizer. Maybe Morrill was intentionally arranged to make problems. Maybe the charges collected by Jews might have paid to transfer moneys between North and South and prevent war.
      Kizer seems to be saying the South was the richest part of the USA and wanted to secede, to cut off the North—not a very unified and friendly view, if true.

Flicking through the book from the end, we find a long bibliography—more than 200 titles, listed without comment—space-filling. The the Author's final assessment, about 14 pages. It disappointed me; lots on political correctness and not being able to speak, but nothing on how this condition came about. Extracts from 'George Orwell', William Gilmore Simms the greatest 19th century American writer (said Edgar Allan Poe), Connecticut's huge role in slavery (2005; Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, & Jenifer [sic] Frank, racism, the Republican Party and greed, and Northern abuses with tariffs, monopolies, bounties, and subsidies. Charles Dickens on States' Rights.
      All this is too scattered and vague for my liking. I'm perfectly happy that slavery wasn't the issue at all. But what actually happened is unclear. To be fair, Kizer is only claiming the first part, but he obviously senses that more is needed. But in my view he doesn't give it.

Continuing back, we find Part III, Lincoln and Fort Sumter by Charles W. Ramsdell, available online. Incidentally, Lincoln was said to be secretive, reticent, and shut-mouthed, which was new to me.

Part I is 'The Irrefutable Argument' and is the longest chapter. Part II is 'Right of Succession' and has discussions on the Constitution, much from Judah P. Benjamin. These seem indeterminate and a bit irrelevant, and written in ways taken from restricted oratory and fixed ideas, like discussions of German rights. [On Judah Benjamin, a revisionist view is presented here, by what was Tomatobubble. I'd guess revisionist views will become more well-known.]
      Jim Laffrey (of WhitesWillWin) says that the Declaration of Independence should say WE THE STATES, but was changed to WE THE PEOPLE to change the meaning of federation to centralise it.

Of Part I, the most important chapter looks like 3: Northern Economic Annihilation The True Cause of the War. (This contrasts with Whereas in their own cruel cowardly dishonesty and inhuman hearts their sole object is gain. And not a single one exists but that has his eye on the rich spoils of land and property to be had in the south.) Kizer quotes: ... cut off from Southern cotton, rice, tobacco ... the North would lose three fourths of her commerce ... but he supports this only with oratory. It doesn't sound convincing. At the same time, Manchester processed great amounts of cotton, but that doesn't prove the whole economy of England was dominated by cotton.
      H.L. Menken wrote about the 'Gettysburg Address' (1920, Smart Set)—... the Union soldiers fought against self-determination ... the Confederates came out with their freedom subject to effective veto ... the threat of secession was [supposedly] a check on federal power ... Lincoln’s claims in his address “that government of the people, by the people, for the people” would somehow “perish from the earth” if the Union lost the war was hogwash. Representative democracy would have continued in the Union and in the Confederacy regardless of the outcome. And remember, neither side entered the war over the issue of slavery. Lincoln’s stated purpose for invading the Confederacy was “preserving the Union.”  Looks like Mencken said it about 100 years ago.

I'm reminded of Maynard Keynes on the aftermath of the 'Great War', with tremendously dire predictions, which missed the point almost completely. He simply had no idea of the power of finance in directing money into arms, explosive, ships, tanks and the rest. Or at least he was careful not to talk about it. Kizer and the sites he mentions are all Jew-naive and freemason-naive. This book isn't much use in finding the truth and drawing lessons for the future.

If you're interested in a presentation the pretends slavery was the issue, and Lincoln honourable, I recommend Bertrand Russell's Freedom and Organization 1814-1914 (1934), chapters XXIV and XXV.  Published thirty years before the Jewish promotion of 'Martin Luther King'. Russell seems bout as wrong as Kizer. Who incidentally states that slavery is shocking, abhorrent, and all the rest of it. He doesn't explain why the first people to document Jewish ownership of slave ships were the 'black Muslims'. Nor does he explain how, before modern machinerty was invented, slavery is hard to avoid.
      Let's hope there will come a time when historical truth finally dawns in the English-speaking world.

Tizer regards 'primary sources' as including Civil War newspapers; these may be better than the later Jew-controlled 'anonymous press' that Hilaire Belloc complained about. Genuine primary sources could include money movements, accounts for weapons, decoded military instructions, land tenure before/after war, motives behind laws, Lincoln's communications with generals, uniforms, guns and rifles, horses, guns etc. And also genuine overview information on such things as the cotton trade, medical equipment and casualty figures, wages, and so on.
      It's interesting to investigate other wars and what if anything is known for certain. The Thirty Years' War was a huge blow to Europe, for example. So was war with Napoleon; in this latter case, Jews have been partly outed, but generally not much is known, and the 'history' has been mostly the work of the victors—but the actual victors aren't clearly known. The Second and First World Wars are still hardly known. It's to be expected that secret documents, if they exist, will not be easy to find, or to interpret. So it is absolutely necessary to test hypotheses. People with something to hide can be expected to demand proof, since they know it is difficult or impossible to produce. Consider the 20th century wars: Jews seem to have controlled enough finance to be in control of the USA, UK, USSR, China, and Japan. Their aim, based on their traditional secret writings, is to kill opponents and get control of such assets as land and food. I'd be very surprised if some such policy operated to start, prosecute, and end the Civil War.

On abolition of slavery, here's an interesting paper by Leaf Garrit on Wilberforce and British Abolition (hosted by Miles Mathis) on the facts of abolition - slaveowners were compensated with huge fortunes paid by the public.
      Here's Garrit on the US Civil War: