What's in a name? The civil war, was just that. Very civil. You know how dumpy middle aged guys like to dress up, get in lines, and pretend to have a battle? Nothing new under the sun. Something masons love to do is make up a story and then have "re-enactments" to make it 'real'. How many "inspired by a true story" movies / tv shows are out there that are 100% bullshit? Lots. A deceiver will sell you a shoddy replica and tell you it's a priceless original.
I'm going to say some things that come to mind and then let the pictures do the talking. The civil war was a big red vs blue idea.
Today I can imagine the reds and the blues going at it on a battlefield, because tension is so high and people are highly medicated, hoarding ammo, drinking energy drinks and playing FPS shooters at full volume in their basement for 8 hours a day, etc, etc... but to think the tensions back then were that heated over "slavery" or "state rights" seems ridiculous. There's no way the average person was so invested in what those in washington were squabbling over that they would be willing to gun down their fellow country'men'. So, what happened was, the red lodge masons and the blue lodge masons agreed to have a "war", probably as a cover for an overhaul of the government at the time. They are constantly marching foreward with their plans, just look at where we are today!
One thing that comes to mind about the "civil war" is the seemingly hundreds of various battles that come along with a red vs blue diagram like the following.
Does it really make sense for a war to be this doccumented? Wouldn't troops just march foreward toward the enemy capital/strongholds and try to destroy their troops as much as possible? The "battles" always have so many ridiculous details. They like to dazzle people with details. You see the same with things like the dinosaur hoax. They figure if they spend a lot of time giving really complex names to their fake things then it must be real. Similarly, if there's hundreds of maps and diagrams and stories about every little thing that was going on, then it must have happened. To me it just seems not true to life. There wouldn't be little play-by-plays as if it's a professional football game with instant-replay, commentators, and refs all over the field.
Another thing about all the on-paper doccumentation is that, how could they have so much on-paper doccumentation of the specific battles, but you hardly see photos of actual battle happening? Most civil war photos are of people standing around doing nothing, smiling, playing cards. Lots of paintings of alleged battles, but no real photos. If they were willing to send little drummer boys into battle against their other countrymen because of "state rights" they'd be willing to lose a few photographers to doccument it. They were really into doccumenting the battles, except for when it comes to photos.
So, that's basically it. I think the "civil war" was just a huge psyop, red masonic lodges vs the blue masonic lodges. Politics is just theater, and there's plenty of masons on the ground willing to play their part in the lies. The photos of "dead bodies" are usually absent in blood, and most people seem to be in great spirit, having a good time. That's not how real war is. That's how a camping trip is for a bunch of tricksters.
Here is a dot gov website that admits that some civil war "dead body" photos were staged. However, they do not admit that it's an actor and not a real dead body.
Once I did a video talking about this sorta thing Civil War was a Masonic Hoax. . Large file, might take some time to load.