It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
On a final note can there not be conciliation on this issue?
If the very men who spent 4 years shooting, clubbing, stabbing and chasing each other can make peace between them who are we to rekindle the argument they settled long ago?
originally posted by: Asktheanimals
The price of slavery has been paid and the states rights questions settled long ago.
originally posted by: concerned190
Many people think the Civil War of 1860-1865 was fought over one issue alone, slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth. The War Between the States began because the South demanded States' rights and were not getting them.
The Congress at that time heavily favored the industrialized northern states to the point of demanding that the South sell is cotton and other raw materials only to the factories in the north, rather than to other countries. The Congress also taxed the finished materials that the northern industries produced heavily, making finished products that the South wanted, unaffordable. The Civil War should not have occurred. If the Northern States and their representatives in Congress had only listened to the problems of the South, and stopped these practices that were almost like the taxation without representation of Great Britain, then the Southern states would not have seceded and the war would not have occurred.
I wish people would remember their damn history, the whole damn war was started over greed not slavery. The next damn war will start over greed like ALL the other wars in history.
originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Let's break this down:
The battle flag is a symbol from the Civil War
The Civil Was was fought over Southern state rights, notably to keep slaves. This fact is in many of the opening statements made by seceding states.
The flag therefore represents a war fought over the right of some states to continue to own slaves. It is a symbol of states wishing to remain free to own slaves, period.
Slice it, dice it, Ron Popeil it and try and sell it some other way...but the fact remains that the flag would never have been flown if a war wasn't fought in which slavery was an issue.
The flag was boxed up and hardly displayed/flown following the civil war. It wasn't until the "Dixiecrats" of the Civil Rights era came about in opposition of integration did it begin to be flown and displayed again. The battle flag was intentionally unboxed and flown as a symbol of solidarity among those who wished to keep segregation. (pst... segregation is racism).
There are many popular myths about the cause of the War
Between the States. Just as the Bolshevik Revolution is commonly
believed to have been a spontaneous mass uprising against a
tyrannical aristocracy, so, too, it is generally accepted that the Civil
War was fought over the issue of slavery. That, at best, is a
half-truth. Slavery was an issue, but the primary force for war was a
clash between the economic interests of the North and the South.
Even the issue of slavery itself was based on economics. It may
have been a moral issue in the North where prosperity was derived
from the machines of heavy industry, but in the agrarian South,
where fields had to be tended by vast work forces of human labor,
the issue was primarily a matter of economics.
The relative unimportance of slavery as a cause for war was
made clear by Lincoln himself during his campaign for the
Presidency in 1860, and he repeated that message in his first
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern
States that by the accession of a Republican administration their
property and their peace and personal security are to be
endangered.... I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere
with the institution of slavery in the states where it now exists. I
believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do
Even after the outbreak of war in 1861, Lincoln confirmed his
previous stand. He declared:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is
not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without
freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the
slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving
others alone, I would also do that. 2
1. Don E. Fehrenbacher, ed., Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, 1859-1865
(New York: Library of America, 1989), p. 215.
2. Quoted by Robert L. Polley, ed., Lincoln: His Words and His World (Waukesha,
Wisconsin: Country Beautiful Foundation, 1965), p. 54.
The South, being predominantly an agricultural region, had to
import practically all of its manufactured goods from the Northern
states or from Europe, both of which reciprocated by providing a
market for the South' s cotton. However, many of the textiles and
manufactured items were considerably cheaper from Europe, even
after the cost of shipping had been added. The Southern states,
therefore, often found it to their advantage to purchase these
European goods rather than those made in the North. This put
considerable competitive pressure on the American manufacturers
to lower their prices and operate more efficiently.
The Republicans were not satisfied with that arrangement.
They decided to use the power of the federal government to tip the
scales of competition in their favor. Claiming that this was in the
"national interest," they levied stiff import duties on almost every
item coming from Europe that was also manufactured in the North.
Not surprisingly, there was no duty applied to cotton which,
presumedly, was not a commodity in the national interest. One
result was that European countries countered by stopping the
purchase of U.S. cotton, which badly hurt the Southern economy.
The other result was that manufacturers in the North were able to
charge higher prices without fear of competition, and the South
was forced to pay more for practically all of its necessities. It was a
classic case of legalized plunder in which the law was used to
enrich one group of citizens at the expense of another.
I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way
the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am
not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes,
nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white
people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical
difference between the white and black races which I believe will
forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and
political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do
remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior,
and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior
position assigned to the white race.
1- Fehrenbacher, p. 636.