It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Civil War Was About Slavery, Seriously

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: ColeYounger

Fortunately, this thread isn't about why which European financial institutions backed whom in the Civil War, it's about the actual, repeatedly stated reasons by the governing bodies and officials of the Confederacy as to the primary reason the war occurred.




posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColeYounger

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: ColeYounger



If it was about slavery, why was Europe (translation: European banks )so interested?

Because like in every war there was money to be made.


Which is precisely why it wasn't as much about slavery as the OP might think.
Read a detailed history of the Fort Sumter attack.


You don't think slavery was big business?



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Phototropic

I know that was a bit off topic. I wad trying to make the point that the war isn't over. White Supremacy did not die with the war, it simply took on other forms than direct slavery. The confederate flag is a symbol of white supremacy and has no place anywhere but a museum, in the hall of shame.

It should be obvious that the war was about slavery, even if the bankers were pushing thier own agenda.

Bankers are always looking to make money, so it shouldn't be a surprise when they support war. But to say it was the bankers is completely ignoring the vast amount of wealth the southern states were making off of slavery.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: SgtHamsandwich

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: SgtHamsandwich
The flag is an absolute symbol of hate and racism.


I would say that, like beauty, that's in the eye of the beholder. Some people genuinely see that symbol as a positive thing, while others see it very negatively. For that and other reasons, it should be available to those who want to display it, but not flown on a building where government bodies are at work making laws.


I won't post it again, but feel free to check out my post over on Ghost147's thread about the flag.

I hail from Alabama and know exactly what the flag represents. I also agree it should not be a stripped right of the individuals that wish to fly it. Being white, that's easy for me to say. I cant speak for the folks on the other side of the debate.

It has been posted many times if you want to fly the flag then you have that right but it's doesn't belong on any government building.


Oh I absolutly agree. There is no place for it on any local/state government building. That's why I stated it as "the rights of the individuals".


+5 more 
posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Of course slavery was at the root. But to sum it up in a single line....ignores so much more.

The view is generally held that the elimination of slavery was a move by northern bankers/industrialists against southern farmers. The free labor of southern farmers gave them huge economic advantage, thus political clout. The industrialists wanted to level the playing field.

Neither side gave a damn about the human lives held in slavery. They only cared about the resource that slaves were. It is important to understand that, because in all these years nothing new seems to be under the sun. Today, the 'slaves" are third world workers who work for less than minimum wage. There isn't a lot of difference between slavery, and 12 hour shifts earning $50 a month.

In Texas, the western part was still "frontier" at the time. My community came to be in the 1880's. An we are one of the oldest in the area. While the cotton farmers (with enormous political clout) put all their white supremicist wording in the secession document, the general consensus among the people was more like this:

"Wait, you mean you will send soldiers in to free the slaves working on those rich peoples cotton farms, but you won't send soldiers to keep the Indian raids from killing my wife and children? Yeah, screw you". Had the US government done more to protect citizens from the raids, Texas would have been far, far less likely to secede (although the cotton farmers would have still probably won out...they got rid of Sam Houston, afterall...that is pretty significant)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Phototropic

Are you kidding? War is $$$$$. BIG $$$$$. LOANS, companies funded, started....zillions of monetary reasons!



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: MoreBeer
It sure was.

And think of all the thousands of brave white citizens that gave their lives fighting to gain freedom for their black brothers and sisters.

Brave men.


An often understated or ignored sentiment in this debate.

Well said.
edit on 28-6-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: Autocorrect.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Phototropic
It was about Money, when have the Rich ever fought for the Poor?



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Phototropic

Lets be done with it huh! ban all flags, who freaking follows flags now days? wait, yes ..... the Patriots. Get fkn real people its 2015, the Empire is gone, the cold war is gone, America is stamping its schoolyard foot, china is sitting back, blah blah blah, so much hot air i could fly, NK have nuclear capability, planet X is incoming (again)

WTF? its a FLAG (Material)

cheers

CbG



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Of course slavery was at the root. But to sum it up in a single line....ignores so much more.

The view is generally held that the elimination of slavery was a move by northern bankers/industrialists against southern farmers. The free labor of southern farmers gave them huge economic advantage, thus political clout. The industrialists wanted to level the playing field.

Neither side gave a damn about the human lives held in slavery. They only cared about the resource that slaves were. It is important to understand that, because in all these years nothing new seems to be under the sun. Today, the 'slaves" are third world workers who work for less than minimum wage. There isn't a lot of difference between slavery, and 12 hour shifts earning $50 a month.

In Texas, the western part was still "frontier" at the time. My community came to be in the 1880's. An we are one of the oldest in the area. While the cotton farmers (with enormous political clout) put all their white supremicist wording in the secession document, the general consensus among the people was more like this:

"Wait, you mean you will send soldiers in to free the slaves working on those rich peoples cotton farms, but you won't send soldiers to keep the Indian raids from killing my wife and children? Yeah, screw you". Had the US government done more to protect citizens from the raids, Texas would have been far, far less likely to secede (although the cotton farmers would have still probably won out...they got rid of Sam Houston, afterall...that is pretty significant)


You're talking to someone who wishes that the Native Americans had been successful in driving out the white man, btw.

Slavery was a complicated issue. If I wanted to spend days writing a thesis, I would. The point that I made in my post is that the primary, as stated, this-is-why-we're-rebelling reason was that the southern states wanted slavery to continue, and the northern states did not. There are billions of clandestine and not so clandestine reasons, billions of honest reasons, billions of nefarious reasons why slavery came to an end. There are also satellite causes for the civil war, the same way there are sort of almost reasons for most things that get done in the world.

I'm primarily going to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich because I'm hungry. Also, I'm lazy and that's what I have. That doesn't negate the primary reason for making my sandwich, though.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Phototropic

Sorry if you're offended. You created a thread and I commented. Isn't that the system here on ATS?
If you want to believe The Civil War was all about slavery, that's your right.

It's my belief that the American Civil War was orchestrated by European central banks. If that sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, so be it. I've done the research. Try reading some of Otto von Bismarcks comments on The Civil War.


Slavery was a big issue, but it wasn't what caused the war. There were several very well- planned events that led to it.

All just my humble opinion. Nothing more.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Phototropic

You may be entirely correct with the premise of your op, but I stopped reading after your insertion of the term domestic terrorism in the first sentence. That term in my mind is complete propaganda and is going to be used more and more to pit Americans vs Americans. If the tptb have their way the mere support of the Confederate flag will make you a domestic terrorist.

Btw, I don't support the Confederate flag, but I do feel ashamed to be a part of this society. Instead of fixing many of the real problems in this country, we are spending time and energy arguing over a stupid flag, meanwhile our country and rights are being sold to corporate interests with tpp. Can't we do better than this America?


edit on 28-6-2015 by jaws1975 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
The Civil War was about slavery . But the problem is that is not where the story ends. That is where the victors rendering of the war wants all of your attention to fall .


The first attempt at secession was in 1828 South Carolina raise's a militia Congress passes a act that allows the federal government to invade South Carolina .

The Civil War was only avoided by a compromise . Do you want to know what that was about?? Taxes!!!!


I have found this subject easier to discuss when I make this statement.............

The Civil War was fought over slavery.

But state rights had been a long simmering issue since the ratification of the Constitution . I give you the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions ........


The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (or Resolves) were political statements drafted in 1798 and 1799, in which the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures took the position that the federal Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional. The resolutions argued that the states had the right and the duty to declare unconstitutional any acts of Congress that were not authorized by the Constitution. In doing so, they argued for states' rights and strict constructionism of the Constitution. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 were written secretly by Vice President Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively.


The part in bold was the issue that was truly settled during the Civil War. While I agree the principal cause for the actual war was slavery. People should look back at history and question it also.




The principles stated in the resolutions became known as the "Principles of '98". Adherents argue that the states can judge the constitutionality of central government laws and decrees. The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 argued that each individual state has the power to declare that federal laws are unconstitutional and void. The Kentucky Resolution of 1799 added that when the states determine that a law is unconstitutional, nullification by the states is the proper remedy. The Virginia Resolutions of 1798 refer to "interposition" to express the idea that the states have a right to "interpose" to prevent harm caused by unconstitutional laws. The Virginia Resolutions contemplate joint action by the states.


source

I will say this once again yet I guarantee people will reply in contention that I did not admit this . The Civil War was about slavery . If the southern states could have nullified any acts of Congress concerning slavery there never would've been a Civil War.


But the key root of the Civil War goes back to 1828 and the nullification crisis . The biggest thing in my opinion the Civil War did . Was rightfully release one people from bondage but it also settled once and for all The dominance of the existing federal government over states .

Which by nature enslaved everyone in servitude to the federal government .


With the articles of Confederation the central government had very little power. With the U.S. Constitution the central government was the ultimate power . After states got a taste of how the federal government would use that power to enslave us all under their yoke . Many including Thomas Jefferson felt the need for a change in the constitution . This debate went on for 60 years and then the US federal government crushed any hopes of change and established their self once and forever as the superior power on this continent .



I honestly see nullification coming back into the limelight. I hope I live long enough to see this issue brought back up in a different environment and on a different venue than slavery . If I don't I do think many of you will see this case before the Supreme Court again . It is at that time everyone will learn the true history of the Civil War not the story pretrade by the victors.










edit on 28-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Phototropic

Then if you wanted to sum it up in one line it should have been "The northern industrialists wanted to force southern farmers to pay their labor so that the industrialists would then be able to level the playing field in Washington".

Like all wars, corporate interests used the government for their own gain. It just so happens that, in this case, there was an overlap with moral interests. But moral interests were not the primary reason for either side. It was all financial.

The quotes you are sourcing are nothing more than the poor attempt at creating moral justification for slavery, the economic institution. They were trying to promote the concept of "individual rights" by removing the "individual" from black people. Yes, it was wrong. And yes, it was a dumb approach.
edit on 6/28/2015 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: SgtHamsandwich

Nope it's military ONLY.
THE military that was FIGHTING for the south not SLAVERY they didn't HAVE a flag.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Phototropic


Mississippi:


Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.


That position being one of the corporations whose money was (and is) their greatest material interest in the world. Not so different today. Who picks the crops for Mega farms today? Undocumented_illegal_Aliens.

They aren't more than slaves are they? So whats changed?

The flag represents slavery thing is a distraction from the real issue, rewriting any struggle for independence from the fed out of the history books.

(imo)

Whoops…



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: SgtHamsandwich

Nope it's military ONLY.
THE military that was FIGHTING for the south not SLAVERY they didn't HAVE a flag.




I'm not understanding what you're getting at.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: MoreBeer
It sure was.

And think of all the thousands of brave white citizens that gave their lives fighting to gain freedom for their black brothers and sisters.

Brave men.


And when you fly that confederate flag you are spitting in the face of those who fought against it.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   
" A Jeffersonian View of the Civil War "
source: www.lewrockwell.com...

" Thomas DiLorenzo: More on the Myth of Lincoln, Secession and the 'Civil War' "
source: www.lewrockwell.com...

" The Liefare-Warfare State "
source: www.lewrockwell.com...





The American “Civil War”

In his first inaugural address on March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln threatened “invasion” and “bloodshed” (his exact words) in any state that refused to collect the federal tariff tax on imports, which had just been more than doubled two days earlier. At the time, tariffs accounted for more than 90 percent of all federal tax revenue, so this was a gigantic tax increase. This is how Lincoln threatened war in his first official oration:

“The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.”

But of course the states of the lower South, having seceded, did not intend to “collect the duties and imposts” and send the money to Washington, D.C. Lincoln committed treason (as defined by Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution) by levying war upon the free and independent states, which he always considered to be a part of the American union. By his own admission (and his subsequent actions), he invaded his own country over tax collection.

The Republican Party of 1860 was the party of protectionism and high tariffs. The Confederate Constitution had outlawed protectionist tariffs altogether. The result would have been a massive diversion of world trade to the Southern ports which would have forced the U.S. government to reduce its desired 50 percent average tariff rate to competitive levels (10-15 percent), depriving Northern manufacturers of this veiled form of corporate welfare, and depriving the government of the revenue it needed to pursue its “manifest destiny” of a mercantilist empire complete with massive subsidies for railroad corporations (among others).

Lincoln’s dilemma was that he knew he would be condemned worldwide for waging a bloody war over tax collection. Another excuse for war had to be invented, so he invented the notion of the “mystical,” permanent, and non-voluntary union. He did not want to be seen as the aggressor in his war for tariff revenue, so he hatched a plot to trick Southerners into firing the first shot by sending American warships to Charleston Harbor while steadfastly refusing to meet with Confederate peace commissioners or discuss the purchase of federal property by the Confederate government. He understood that the Confederates would not tolerate a foreign fort on their property any more than George Washington would have tolerated a British fort in New York or Boston Harbors.

Quite a few Northern newspapers recognized the game Lincoln was playing. On April 16, 1861the Buffalo Daily Courier editorialized that “The affair at Fort Sumter . . has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified” (Howard Cecil Perkis, Northern Editorials on Secession). The New York Evening Day Book wrote on April 17, 1861, that the event at Fort Sumter was “a cunningly devised scheme” contrived “to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.” “Look at the facts,” the Providence Daily Post wrote on April 13, 1861. “For three weeks the [Lincoln] administration newspapers have been assuring us that Ford Sumter would be abandoned,” but “Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor.” The Jersey City American Standard editorialized that “there is a madness and ruthlessness” in Lincoln’s behavior, concluding that Lincolns sending of ships to Charleston Harbor was “a pretext for letting loose the horrors of war.”

After Fort Sumter, on May 1, 1861, Lincoln wrote to his naval commander, Captain Gustavus Fox, to say that “You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country [i.e., a civil war] would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result.” He was thanking Captain Fox for his role in duping the Confederates into firing upon Fort Sumter (where no one was either killed or wounded). He was thanking Captain Fox for his assistance in starting the war. Lincoln responded with a full-scale invasion of all the Southern states and a four-year war that, according to the latest research, was responsible for as many as 850,000 American deaths with more than double that number maimed for life.




edit on 28-6-2015 by seasoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Yes and no. It's a loaded statement. It was about slavery as well as state's right but more importantly WHO would control the Federal government. From the start the United States was ruled by the Southern planter class; Washington, Jefferson, etc. The Federal government was basically under the control of the Southern states. As new territories were being admitted to the Union fighting broke out over which new states would allow slavery and which would not - thus "bloody" Kansas and John Brown. The South saw the balance of power tipping in favor of the North and the specter of abolition would not only destroy the economy of the South but throw the social order in to complete chaos.

Slavery was like a dog bought as a puppy but which grew to a very large and dangerous size. Most Americans were terrified at the thought of suddenly freeing 4 million Blacks who had neither land and few of whom possessed skills to earn a living other than manual labor. This is why the Liberian option was thrown out there along with other hare-brained ideas of how to deal with the problem.

Lincoln and the war settled the issue for good though the price was hellishly high - 600,000 White Americans would die to settle the issue of what to do with 4 million Blacks. 1 of every 4 Southern men of fighting age were killed, wounded or spent time in Union POW camps which were death traps for many and much crueler than necessary. The economy and the infrastructure of the South was laid waste and the military occupation of the South would go on for another 12 years.

Lincoln DID NOT invade the South to free the slaves, he did so to preserve the Union. Emancipation would take 2 years of fighting before Lincoln dared to make it law as he did not feel he had sufficient support among the North to free the slaves. It would be yet another 2 years before the 13th Amendment made it official.

When Southerners view the Confederate flag the vast majority of them see the sacrifice and suffering of their ancestors, not a symbol of oppression. It is part of their historical identity and heritage. 99% of them would agree slavery was evil and view all races as equals. We cannot make our past disappear, right or wrong it should be remembered for what it was.
This current trend is trying to erase all memory of the people associated with the Confederacy.

Should we do the same with Nat Turner then? How about Geronimo or George Washington - hell, most the founding fathers were slave owners - shall we erase their memory too? The past is what it is. If we do not remember it we are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past.

I, for one believe we should keep ALL our history intact - the oppression and the genocide as well as the altruism and sacrifices we made to help other countries remain free. The Civil War was bound to happen at some point. The founding fathers failed to address the issue when they wrote the Constitution and they knew that down the road the issue would need to be settled once and for all. Both they and England bear part of the blame for the institution of slavery and the Civil War.



new topics




 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join