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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Did the leniency after the Civil War lead to our present North/South dynamic???

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Just as a disclaimer. This is not a firmly held dogma of mine, just an interesting thought I figured I would share....



Every civilization in human history has saved its most brutal and revolting punishments for one crime, and it doesn't matter what era humanity was in. From the Trojan war all the way up until the civil war (where America is concerned at least) one crime stood head and shoulders above the rest....at least in the eyes of the state. That crime is treason and/or rebellion.


All the craziest punishments you have ever heard of were if not invented, primarily used on traitors.

In the past Traitors and other criminals to a lesser extent, were not sentenced to death..they were sentenced to brutal torture from which death would finally release you..

This remained true for all of human history..even when concerning empires considered to be tolerant. Rebels/traitors were dealt with with the utmost brutality.


Well the Civil War was the exception to the rule. After the United States defeated the confederacy a universal amnesty was granted by Lincoln. The thought was that unification was more important than squashing the rebellion root and stem as was the normal historical strategy.


So that leads me to wonder if allowing those in power who chose to rebel to remain in power. Might not be the cause of the north /south , urban rural dynamic.

If the US had instead chosen to execute and imprison those who commited treason, hypothetically only giving amnesty to those who were conscripted, would we have the same dynamic today??

Thoughts?



+1 more 
posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 08:39 AM
link   
You mean the war of northern aggression?

Actually, I'm just marking my place because I want to answer more serious when I have time.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheAlleghenyGentleman
You mean the war of northern aggression?

Actually, I'm just marking my place because I want to answer more serious when I have time.




No I mean when a bunch of traitors rejected the United States of America, disavowed the US constitution (and wrote their own) while trying to annex a third of US sovereign soil.


By ANY definition from an American POV the south were traitors who commited treason.


They literally went line to line checking all the treason boxs they could find.

PS I'm a MS boy born and raised who might not exist if they had executed all the sympathizers.
edit on 30-11-2016 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   
The divide is a result not of what happened after the War of Northern Aggression, but what happened before it.

The South remained agrarian both economically and culturally. The Northern regions moved toward an industrial model.

The industrial culture is inclined to see itself as superior to the agrarian. The reasons for this are beyond the scope this discussion, but the funny trick is that without the agrarians, the industrials would starve.


+5 more 
posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: TheAlleghenyGentleman
You mean the war of northern aggression?

Actually, I'm just marking my place because I want to answer more serious when I have time.




No I mean when a bunch of traitors rejected the United States of America, disavowed the US constitution (and wrote their own) while trying to annex a third of US sovereign soil.


By ANY definition from an American POV the south were traitors who commited treason.


And that comment reveals your ignorance of the nature of the Constitution. The states were meant to exercise a much greater level of sovereignty than Lincoln's interpretation of the essentials of the Republic allowed.

Lincoln and his cabal destroyed the Republic as it was meant to be. The traitors to the Constitution were not in the south: they were in Washington D.C.

#statesrights
edit on 2016 11 30 by incoserv because: I could



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox


All the craziest punishments you have ever heard of were if not invented, primarily used on traitors.

In the past Traitors and other criminals to a lesser extent, were not sentenced to death..they were sentenced to brutal torture from which death would finally release you..

This remained true for all of human history..even when concerning empires considered to be tolerant. Rebels/traitors were dealt with with the utmost brutality.



I'm not sure how this could have contributed to our current situations. I do however believe that this is one of the things that makes America the greatest nation that has ever been on this earth. (though we do have our problems) We continue to do things different than what has been done throughout history. Our constitution and the declaration of independence are the greatest example of this.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: incoserv
The divide is a result not of what happened after the War of Northern Aggression, but what happened before it.

The South remained agrarian both economically and culturally. The Northern regions moved toward an industrial model.

The industrial culture is inclined to see itself as superior to the agrarian. The reasons for this are beyond the scope this discussion, but the funny trick is that without the agrarians, the industrials would starve.



Taxes always flow tward the capitol..in every civilization...

No civilization had the capitol ruled by some rural village.

The constitution leads a democratic path to change laws and or suseed (this does not look like the right spelling lol).

The south didn't have the votes to do so. Rather than changing hearts, minds and votes. They took up arms and against US service members.


Even firing the first shots, even if against the orders of the confederate leadership.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Lack of comprehension, lack of facts, innuendo and insults. The typical leftist version of the civil war where the South is a bunch of slave defending racist's. I'll leave it at that, the information is there for you to consume but you're consumed by ignorance instead!

Word to the wise, Lincoln was a racist and you can thank the powerful bankers for the job well done by Lincoln when he made us all tax paying slaves.


edit on 30-11-2016 by Floridagoat because: spelling



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You mean our present coastal/interior dynamic?


edit on 30-11-2016 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Did the leniency after the Civil War lead to our present North/South dynamic???

There was no leniency. The shooting stopped only after most of the 'rebels' were dead or imprisoned. You want to explore leniency, research the treatment Southerners received in Andersonville Prison, Shermon's "March to the Sea". The 'Civil' War was war for self determination, independence and ultimately, like every other war, money and control.

Control of slaves (for profit), control of revenue (from southern plantations), and control of states autonomy. The north had industry (and there fore arms production) on its side and the south had agriculture on their side.

The North outproduced the south in war materiel, burned the southern fields, and starved them into submission. The South has continued its general policy of suppressing blacks all the way down the generations till today.

What leniency, what freedom? Nowadays the Bloated Federal Government is the antithesis of what the Constitution framers had in mind, for all of America.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:28 AM
link   
A lot of revisionist history in this thread.

I thought it was against T&Cs to "knowingly post false information"?



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Suppose he was talking about how lenient Sherman was when he rode through Atlanta and burned everything from TN to Savanna?

It's actually scary at how little some know of the facts.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: TheAlleghenyGentleman
You mean the war of northern aggression?

Actually, I'm just marking my place because I want to answer more serious when I have time.




No I mean when a bunch of traitors rejected the United States of America, disavowed the US constitution (and wrote their own) while trying to annex a third of US sovereign soil.


By ANY definition from an American POV the south were traitors who commited treason.


And that comment reveals your ignorance of the nature of the Constitution. The states were meant to exercise a much greater level of sovereignty than Lincoln's interpretation of the essentials of the Republic allowed.

Lincoln and his cabal destroyed the Republic as it was meant to be. The traitors to the Constitution were not in the south: they were in Washington D.C.

#statesrights



Meant to.. by voting and making democratic changes...


Not by trashing US sovereignty and the constitution...


Not by taking up arms against us service members...

For example, if those mad about trumps election and or policies (say for arguments sake the policies are constitutionally questionable) so California writes their own constitution and take over military bases killing soldiers. They are traitors... committing treason.


Literally by definition the south commited treason against the United States..

From a confederate POV they are freedom fighters. From an American POV they are traitors.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: incoserv

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: TheAlleghenyGentleman
You mean the war of northern aggression?

Actually, I'm just marking my place because I want to answer more serious when I have time.




No I mean when a bunch of traitors rejected the United States of America, disavowed the US constitution (and wrote their own) while trying to annex a third of US sovereign soil.


By ANY definition from an American POV the south were traitors who commited treason.


And that comment reveals your ignorance of the nature of the Constitution. The states were meant to exercise a much greater level of sovereignty than Lincoln's interpretation of the essentials of the Republic allowed.

Lincoln and his cabal destroyed the Republic as it was meant to be. The traitors to the Constitution were not in the south: they were in Washington D.C.

#statesrights



Meant to.. by voting and making democratic changes...


Not by trashing US sovereignty and the constitution...


Not by taking up arms against us service members...

For example, if those mad about trumps election and or policies (say for arguments sake the policies are constitutionally questionable) so California writes their own constitution and take over military bases killing soldiers. They are traitors... committing treason.


Literally by definition the south commited treason against the United States..

From a confederate POV they are freedom fighters. From an American POV they are traitors.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox



It is always helpful to educate oneself before entering into a debate.
Minnesota, Iowa, and yes the land of Lincoln Illinois, as well as surrounding territories,
hated Lincoln and the Republicans for the same abuses suffered by The South. Those states had what was termed The Western Confederacy.
Their men were conscripted, their wealth taken, and their land occupied by outsiders, in order to
put that rebellion down.
So your North/South dynamic thingy is just like your opinion, man.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: JoshuaCox


All the craziest punishments you have ever heard of were if not invented, primarily used on traitors.

In the past Traitors and other criminals to a lesser extent, were not sentenced to death..they were sentenced to brutal torture from which death would finally release you..

This remained true for all of human history..even when concerning empires considered to be tolerant. Rebels/traitors were dealt with with the utmost brutality.



I'm not sure how this could have contributed to our current situations. I do however believe that this is one of the things that makes America the greatest nation that has ever been on this earth. (though we do have our problems) We continue to do things different than what has been done throughout history. Our constitution and the declaration of independence are the greatest example of this.



Maybe so, might even be worse today...

But I think the historical significance is interesting. As a history buff I can think of no time it was replicated. So you gotta assume there are consequences good or bad.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You're so out of touch with reality it's sad. Do yourself a favor and stop reading your history from a 7th grade history book please it only makes you look programmed.

Sovereignty, much like how the North blockaded Southern ports cause they wouldnt allow the south to sell Cotton bales for 5$ a piece to Spain while only offering 2$ a bale max to the south while the south got nothing in return from the north.

Please do yourself a damn favor and learn the facts.
edit on 30-11-2016 by Floridagoat because: fumble finger typo edit



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Floridagoat
a reply to: intrptr

Suppose he was talking about how lenient Sherman was when he rode through Atlanta and burned everything from TN to Savanna?

It's actually scary at how little some know of the facts.

Agreed. War is hell...

Georgia, after the 'Civil' War



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
If the US had instead chosen to execute and imprison those who commited treason, hypothetically only giving amnesty to those who were conscripted, would we have the same dynamic today??

Thoughts?



I think that if we had done that things would be a LOT worse off today then they are now. We probably would have had a second Civil War already.



posted on Nov, 30 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Floridagoat
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Lack of comprehension, lack of facts, innuendo and insults. The typical leftist version of the civil war where the South is a bunch of slave defending racist's. I'll leave it at that, the information is there for you to consume but you're consumed by ignorance instead!

Word to the wise, Lincoln was a racist and you can thank the powerful bankers for the job well done by Lincoln when he made us all tax paying slaves.




You are literally the only mention of slavery in this thread period..


I know it was fought over taxes per say.

I know the emancipation proclamation only freed the southern slaves.

You are literally the only person who agrees or disagrees who is "race baiting".

You also HAVE to grade racism on a curve. It is not static.

The biggest abolitionist would be considered a flaming racist by today's conservative republicans.


You made all the arguments against a topic no one is talking about.




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join