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.

 

Love for the Confederate Flag, In Brazil???

page: 3
24
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

I don't think Lincoln was killed over his very real tyranny. I think that was the perfect cover story. Like if Obama grew balls and tried to defy the Money Masters; he'd get killed, and they got a sea of white republicans to pick from to take the blame.
Lincoln committed an unforgiveable act when he tried to take control of America's money supply. TPTB had just won a huge victory in America, and Lincoln sabotaging it was unacceptable. Everytime throughout history that someone defies the Money Masters, they die.
Except Andrew Jackson, he was a badass. After he killed the banks, they sent an assassin after him too, but both his pistols misfired. Jackson proceeded to whoop his arse. Great story.
edit on 4252016 by MayanBoricua because: Mistakes Were Made




posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: chuck258

It didn't go anywhere, you can still fly it in your private life. If someone attacks you over that they are wrong.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: AmericanRealist

That's just false. The British Navy eliminated the slave trade by military force for primarily ethical reasons, even though it was extremely profitable and Britain had profited mightily.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: yuppa



it was never about the slaves it was about pure money.


So you know more than the VP of the Confederacy? He stated in his cornerstone speech that it was about slavery because it was God's will to keep them as slaves because he made blacks unequal to whites. Here is his speech read it and learn something.
The Cornerstone Speech


It was LEGAL THEN THOUGH and AS SUCH was CONSTITUTIONAL.


Indeed. Did the slaves get to vote on that? Didn't think so.


HE was speaking out on their rights being trampled on.


I know. GMAFB! The rights were those of Southern slavers traveling to the North with their slaves, and not having the Northern authorities assist them in recapture and punishment of those slaves escaping bondage and misery in a land where slavery was illegal for moral reasons.


Still was a ILLEGAL WAR and was against current constitutional law(in their time)


Illegal? The Constitution gave the President great powers in periods of rebellion. The South shot first.

And that was because they foresaw the legal end of slavery on the horizon when enough free states were admitted to pass a Constitutional amendment to outlaw slavery.

The U.S. Constitution was illegal to Parliament and King.
edit on 25-4-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: MayanBoricua

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: yuppa



it was never about the slaves it was about pure money.


So you know more than the VP of the Confederacy? He stated in his cornerstone speech that it was about slavery because it was God's will to keep them as slaves because he made blacks unequal to whites. Here is his speech read it and learn something.
The Cornerstone Speech


All true. The guy was a racist. So was Lincoln. Read his diary. He wanted to send all the slaves back to Africa.


Send slaves back to the country they were stolen from, vs keep slaves in bondage and misery to produce great wealth for the upper classes.

Which is more noxious and racist and bigoted and evil?

And in the end, actions matter more than words. The slaves knew which side they'd rather be on.
edit on 25-4-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: MayanBoricua

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: yuppa



it was never about the slaves it was about pure money.


So you know more than the VP of the Confederacy? He stated in his cornerstone speech that it was about slavery because it was God's will to keep them as slaves because he made blacks unequal to whites. Here is his speech read it and learn something.
The Cornerstone Speech


All true. The guy was a racist. So was Lincoln. Read his diary. He wanted to send all the slaves back to Africa.


Send slaves back to the country they were stolen from, vs keep slaves in bondage and misery to produce great wealth for the upper classes.

Which is more noxious and racist and bigoted and evil?

And in the end, actions matter more than words. The slaves knew which side they'd rather be on.


The Civil War: Was secession illegal?

"There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution or any other legal document which precludes any state or group of states from seceding from the United States. This was true in 1861." READ THAT carefully.

Today, countries are split and otherwise reconfigured almost daily and the United States has evolved as the world's moral leader in supporting rights of peoples to declare themselves independent. This is a comfortable position for U.S. politicians ... as long as secession occurs in Europe, Asia, South America, or Africa.

"In 1860 controversy between the North and South raged over tariff laws. The North had begun to openly defy fugitive slave laws. All across the North, states refused to honor warrants for return of slaves -- in direct defiance of federal law and of the Constitution which clearly mandates that each state must recognize Constitutional laws of all other states. Additionally, the federal government refused to intervene on behalf of southern states."

Well Ill be dipped. The NORTH IL LEGALLY ignoring a states laws and the FEDERAL LAW TOO!!

"A present day analogy would be if those states with NO death penalty should refuse to enforce fugitive warrants from states WITH the death penalty. Refusing to honor such warrants would create a Constitutional crisis similar to the one that arose in 1860. Would the question then be over the death penalty, or would the question be over obeying the Constitution and the law of the land?"

"In December 1860 South Carolina seceded from the Union and other states followed early in 1861. The South was irate over federal laws restricting exports and imports from Southern harbors. The federal laws were enforced by naval blockades at Norfolk, Wilmington, Charleston, and Savannah. Of course the South was angry over the fugitive slave laws, but that effected less than three percent of the people in the South. The tariff laws effected all Southerners."

Oh whats this? BLocking a States own ports(before the war mind you) To BLACKMAIL THEM INTO SUBMISSION.

"Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861. He had not given any indication that he was opposed to slavery within those states where slavery was legal. He had, however, given several signals that he regarded secession as illegal notwithstanding that he was a lawyer and there was no legal basis for his opinion. Lincoln had further indicated that he would not recognize secessionist decrees and would enforce federal laws everywhere within the United States. The South was bitterly opposed to his election."

Hmm so he would have to MAKE laws to enforce then because up until then the constitution DIDNT HAVE ANY AGAINST SECESSION. So no representation yet again but were talking about lincon so its alright to ignore the law right?

"To assert federal authority, Lincoln sent ships into Charleston Harbor (South Carolina) to supply the U.S. Army post of Fort Sumter and to assure that the United States Flag flew over the fort. On April 12, 1861, Confederate forces under General Pierre G. T. Beauregard attacked Fort Sumter. The Union troops surrendered on April 13 and evacuated the fort the next day."

Yep sailed in thinking they could intimidate the southerners...guess not so much huh?

"The South began a war with virtually no iron foundries, steel making capability, textile manufacturing, credit, or money, and with a war raging, both sides needed instant cash. The North owned almost every ship, river boat, and train. The South had plenty of food, tobacco and cotton, but the North controlled the established ports for foreign trade along with existing lines of credit. With ships, the North could embargo Southern ports. However, the North had lost the important trade commodities of cotton, tobacco, and sugar cane."

" Ignoring the Constitution, Congress enacted an income tax which not only supplied cash but served as collateral for foreign loans. The South was left on its own."

Pay attention to that line there. they IL LEGALLY created a TAX. And to who? foreighn investors in the war.
Lincoln was a Puppet of the banksters.

SO no you will not push the winners version on me over the truthful version.

Oh stuff in quotation marks not mine btw to be clear.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

SLaves werent stolen they were sold by their own people.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa
of course it was about the money, but the slave holders didn`t know that yet. The north already had legalized slavery and it was just a matter of time before the south would have also followed the union example and evolved to legalized slavery.
during the civil war the north was importing immigrants as fast as the ships could carry them to america and when they got off the boats the women and children were promptly put to work in sweatshop factories under subhuman conditions at below poverty wages, and the men were promptly conscripted into the military to go die fighting southerners.They north was capitalizing on their legal slavery trade while at the same time condemning the south for their "illegal" slavery.The number of immigrants who fought and died in the civil war,who had only been in the country just a few months or years ,is eye opening.
slaves were an extremely expensive commodity within 10 years the south would have adopted the northern method of legal slavery without a war.
If the south would have freed the slaves and then hired them back at below poverty wages (like the north was doing) the plantation owners would have made a lot more money.Slave owners had to pay for everything for their slaves, there was the initial cost of buying the slave, then their was the cost of feeding them, housing them, providing them with clothes,medical care etc. The plantation owners weren`t stupid would have figured out that it would be much more cost effective to free the slaves and then hire them at below poverty wages and make them pay for their own housing, food, clothing, medical care etc. (like the north was already doing).
if the south had freed the slaves,outlawed slavery,hired them back at below poverty wages and then seceded I believe the north still would have found a reason to attack them.
Before the war the south was providing %80 of the federal governments income via taxes on cotton exports,there is no way the government was going to let %80 of their income just walk away. The first income tax was instituted during the civil war to help offset that %80 of government income that the south was no longer paying.
It was all about money!
There was no need for the civil war within 10 years slavery would have died from greed,just as greed had already killed slavery in the north.

edit on 26-4-2016 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-4-2016 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join