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 Real reason for the Removal of The Nathan Bedford Forrest Statue and Grave Site.

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Little to be known the presidents who ruled before and during the Civil War "OWNED" slaves and never freed them even after their end of presidency. Some grand union huh.


Oh and the white house was built by slaves.
edit on 4-7-2015 by 4N0M4LY because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06
Well, for one we do not, and never did have a democracy in the USA.....



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Entreri06I'm personally totally against the confederate flag. Without the racial stuff you still have the fact it is at best the flag of traitors. Considering the south renounced their citizenship and began performing terrorist attacks on the loyal American soldiers. But this is crazy interesting and 100% probubal!!


Well, I hope you're totally against the US flag as well, since all the founding fathers were also considered traitors. You know both sides of any civil war look at the other sides as tyrants or traitors.

Cheers - Dave


Except the founding fathers were traitors to great Britain... We don't live in great Britan. The south were traitors to America! Which we still live in......

Obviously...


And the northern states were traitors or tyrants to the southern states. There are two sides to every story, sometimes more. The Civil war seems to be more about secession due to the usurping of states rights by the federal government. So when the southern states wanted to leave the union, what did the northern states do, I think it's called extortion and last time I checked that was criminal as well. So what was your point again?

Cheers - Dave
edit on 7/5.2015 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

BINGO. You hit the nail on the head.
+1



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

Nope.

Because then you'd have got McCarthyism, a century earlier.

President Johnson was a non-entity as a President, save for this one issue, and the impeachment brouhaha. It was exactly the right thing to do.

Lincoln's second inagural.


With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.


To try the former leaders of the South for treason would have instigated a witch hunt of incredible proportions. The scars were bad enough as a result of the policies of Reconstruction, or its abuses. Imagine how much worse it would have been.

In the aftermath of a Civil War, healing is required, not recriminations/punishment.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: 4N0M4LY
a reply to: Entreri06

Both sides has heroes. People glorifying traitors is your opinion not fact, the fact that people are proud to have relatives who fought against the union in the civil war. Everyone was an american and loyal to their own duties on both sides of the line. The south had seen it as no alternative but to fight. History at least is recorded as such. Neither of us were "actually" there. So you and I know nothing about what choices they actually had. Politics wasn't a first thought back then either.



It's no opinion that from the American point of view the south were traitors. From the confederate pov they were Heros, sure. But we arnt confederates we are Americans!!


Your same argument could be made for Isis, alqueada,nazi Germany or any other monsterous regime."they didn't think they could get the votes to make the changes they wanted. So they took up arms against the government" but end up taking the lives of loyal Americans in the process....


You definitely had people press ganged into combat. Who wanted no part of the rebellion. However the people who ran the war and made up flags, Who I'm sure committed acts of bravery. Were no more heroes then the 911 hijackers or the school shooters.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 12:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: 4N0M4LY
a reply to: Entreri06

Wrong again. It wasn't a simple choice to kill "loyal" americans as you put it. If it was they would've done it earlier. You assume going to war and killing people is a simple choice. It is by far the most difficult choice. Just to throw in another historical fact the black soldiers were treated worse and were more racist in the union than the black soldiers who served under the confederacy and were given higher leadership roles.

You assume the union was the hero of that time when both sides had their good and bad outlooks as a whole. Loyal americans as you call it is all in your imaginative perspective.


I'm assuming the union was America (because they were) and the south renounced their American citizenship and rebelled (because they did). They didn't want to fix America. They staked out a chunk of it and decided it was there's now and they were gonna make up there own country. Which is literally the definition of treason.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: 4N0M4LY
Little to be known the presidents who ruled before and during the Civil War "OWNED" slaves and never freed them even after their end of presidency. Some grand union huh.


Oh and the white house was built by slaves.



The OP hasn't mentioned a
Slavery. Some keep pulling the racial talking points. I said it was treason, which from any American POV it was treason



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Entreri06

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Entreri06I'm personally totally against the confederate flag. Without the racial stuff you still have the fact it is at best the flag of traitors. Considering the south renounced their citizenship and began performing terrorist attacks on the loyal American soldiers. But this is crazy interesting and 100% probubal!!


Well, I hope you're totally against the US flag as well, since all the founding fathers were also considered traitors. You know both sides of any civil war look at the other sides as tyrants or traitors.

Cheers - Dave


Except the founding fathers were traitors to great Britain... We don't live in great Britan. The south were traitors to America! Which we still live in......

Obviously...


And the northern states were traitors or tyrants to the southern states. There are two sides to every story, sometimes more. The Civil war seems to be more about secession due to the usurping of states rights by the federal government. So when the southern states wanted to leave the union, what did the northern states do, I think it's called extortion and last time I checked that was criminal as well. So what was your point again?

Cheers - Dave


The south didn't think they were getting enough for there tax dollars. There is literally no state, in any country. in any time who hasn't felt the same. If I think the same and bust into the local army base I'm a terrorist.

These are issues every group has felt with. The vast majority without killing thousands of people.
edit on 5-7-2015 by Entreri06 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06
The south was subsidizing the north, and the north decided to ban slavery in the south only. That is way different that not thinking that they were getting enough for their taxes. They were getting screwed, and had the right to decide they wanted no part of the union anymore.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: Entreri06
The south was subsidizing the north, and the north decided to ban slavery in the south only. That is way different that not thinking that they were getting enough for their taxes. They were getting screwed, and had the right to decide they wanted no part of the union anymore.


Slavery was banned in the south AFTER the civil war began. It was to cause chaos behind enemy lines. So try again. The civil war ws fought over taxes. The south didn't think they should have to pay taxes to AMERICA!! So if MIssissippi isn't happy about the tax rate and the police attack the army base in camp Shelby. It's called treason, literally by definition.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
The op seems to be making the same false argument many people have made for weeks...taking the opinions of the politicians and the elite and applying it to the entire south.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
it wasn`t treason that`s why none of them were ever tried for treason. They didn`t try to overthrow the government of the U.S. they merely tried to leave the union, a union that they voluntarily joined. When you voluntarily join a club or an organization based on certain agreements or promises don`t you have the right to leave if those agreements and promises are broken?
if it had been made perfectly clear, at the time that they joined the union, that they would never be allowed to leave for any reason,perhaps many of the states would never have joined.
perhaps that`s why Puerto Rico has consistently refused to seek statehood?
edit on 5-7-2015 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TKDRL

yep that`s pretty much it. I remember reading that the south was paying %80 of the taxes collected by the federal government but were only receiving %20 of the federal governments expenditures and handouts.so, yes the south was indeed subsidizing the north.
The government had to force the south back into the union at any cost or the government would have lost %80 of their income.


edit on 5-7-2015 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06

It can only be "treason" if the South had decided to try and over throw the existing federal government (they didn't) or in fact by attempting to kill the sovereign (the US President....which they didn't).

The southern states decided they wanted to leave the Union of the United States.

At the time there was no law nor any provision in the US Constitution providing for a state to leave the Union.

It was a grey area, which means technically: no law to break.

Provisions for this (IE no, you can't leave the Union) were not made until AFTER the Civil War.

:shakes head:

Just because someone has lived close to where a Civil War battle was, does not make them knowledgeable in this area, as you have clearly shown in this thread.

As Mark Twain said: "Get your facts straight first. Then you can twist them how you like."



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Entreri06
Your Assumption is partially Correct about the Union.
The Union at that time Was The Industrial Complex.
Mostly Rich Folks.

Kinda the way it is at the Present.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   


Without the racial stuff you still have the fact it is at best the flag of traitors


Then we should ban the American flag, because its also a flag of traitors



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   
The primary impetus for the civil war was not slavery, and not taxes in general...but specifically import tariffs that protected the Northern industrial exports, but cost the Southern states as they were more an agriculture export economy dependent on free trade to compete. The Southern states not only did not benefit from import tariffs (as they had no industrial export base to protect), the South was hurt financially as they depended on imported industrial product more so than the North did.

The tariff fight had went on for decades, and a previous attempt at placing tariffs was killed by the threat of secession of Southern states.

When Lincoln signed a new tariff bill into law in 1861, South Carolina seceded as they had threatened to do. The other states soon followed.

When the South seceded, and created their own Union, the confederate Constitution was essentially IDENTICAL to the U.S. constitution, with one exception - it prohibited tariffs and allowed free trade.

As others pointed out, there were Union slave states during the Civil War; and the Emancipation Proclamation was not made due to Lincoln's good will toward the black race...it was to disrupt the enemy. Pure and simple. Slavery was not ended until well into the war, and only to cripple the southern war machine. There was no 'humanity' in the act.

I firmly believe that slavery would have died in the U.S. without the Civil War, as it did in the other countries that permitted slavery (what, there were other countries that permitted slavery? Say it ain't so!!!). Industrial innovation would have assured that outcome.

Just a further note to Lincoln's 'good will' - had Lincoln lived, and carried out ALL of his plans, history would tell a story of horrors further inflicted upon the black race as they would have been all rounded up and removed from the U.S. and shipped to the newly-established country of Liberia, which was created specifically FOR this purpose. If you read Lincoln's writings, he had nothing to say about 'equality of races', instead he believed that the black race could not be integrated into American society, and could not be as equals, and needed to be removed. If they could no longer be slaves, they had to leave, as they couldn't be integrated. He was only a hero to the black race because he was killed before he could execute his plan to resolve the 'negro' problem created by freeing the slaves.

Hostility toward blacks was aggravated by the brutal Northern occupation of the South after the war; Southern resentment toward the oppression after the war prevented any healing, created a backlash against the blacks in the South, and created the reputation of the South as 'racist'.

As noted earlier...the winners get to re-write the history that is taught. But enough of the original history remains, that if interested, people can still learn the truth. The truth being, that Lincoln should not be hailed as a hero defending human rights...because he was NONE of that. That is history conveniently re-written. "North was against slaves, the South was pro-slavery, the war was all about slavery, therefore it was a just war for the North"...a very simplistic, and dangerously misleading, rewrite of history.

A lot of our history was re-written to the benefits of the winners. But, erasing the true history will just doom us to repeat it...and hell we won't even know it is being repeated without the real record of history to compare it to!

Removing monuments to history will not improve anyone's lives...it will only lead to future tyranny from a central government with no restraints placed upon it by the individual states an the people that are being governed.

Hell we are almost there now!

A side note - another piece of history lost - slave trade was NOT exclusively limited to blacks; many of the original slaves in the colonies were IRISH. The African slave trade came later, and the African slaves were more valued than their Irish counterparts as they did not suffer from that 'catholic ideology'. When trade with African nations opened up to the colonies, they were able to import slaves sold directly to them by African governments (OMG say that ain't so!!! Africans sold their own into slavery???) and no longer needed the more rebellious Irish sold to them from England.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: bluesman462002
a reply to: Entreri06
Your Assumption is partially Correct about the Union.
The Union at that time Was The Industrial Complex.
Mostly Rich Folks.

Kinda the way it is at the Present.



At the time of the civil war mississippi had the most millionaires in the country. The "ruling class" (aka largest slave owners)in the south was at least as Ritch as the the norths "ruling class".

None of that has anything to do with excusing renouncing your citizenship and firing on American troops.



posted on Jul, 5 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: irishhaf
The op seems to be making the same false argument many people have made for weeks...taking the opinions of the politicians and the elite and applying it to the entire south.


So what is false about the south renouncing your citizenship and attacking Americans?

Your no longer an American once you renounce your citizenship.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join