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 Civil War.

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


atlantaforward.blog.ajc.com...


Here is a real debate held recently by 2 historians over weather Sherman was a war criminal..

None of the bad stuff you mentioned is put forward by the anti Sherman historian.


His only charges against him are for shelling Atlanta, forced deportation and if all the property he seized was legal.


There is nothing about personally ordering the murder of women and children...

Hell for that matter we still bomb occupied cities today ,so....

edit on 22-12-2016 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I only needed to address one.

Your entire tale is nothing more than a wild fantasy. You attribute heroic actions to despicable historical characters; you claim a lack of right to secession when there was no difference between the actions of the Confederacy and of the American colonists during the Revolutionary War; you claim we fought for something the vast majority never had to begin with; and you ignore actions taken politically and referenced in history.

And even funnier... now you claim your fairy tale is true because you're a "white guy in Mississippi."

Ah, well. You will believe what you want. I posted the truth above, truth that comes from decades of researching both Southern history and personal family history. I could, if I wanted to take the time, give you names and dates, along with personal anecdotes in most cases, of every ancestor I have back to the 1700s, save the native American lines. But it would make no difference if I did. Those who have eyes to see will be able to see the truth; the rest couldn't see it if it were painted on their eyeballs in neon colors.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I only needed to address one.

Your entire tale is nothing more than a wild fantasy. You attribute heroic actions to despicable historical characters; you claim a lack of right to secession when there was no difference between the actions of the Confederacy and of the American colonists during the Revolutionary War; you claim we fought for something the vast majority never had to begin with; and you ignore actions taken politically and referenced in history.

And even funnier... now you claim your fairy tale is true because you're a "white guy in Mississippi."

Ah, well. You will believe what you want. I posted the truth above, truth that comes from decades of researching both Southern history and personal family history. I could, if I wanted to take the time, give you names and dates, along with personal anecdotes in most cases, of every ancestor I have back to the 1700s, save the native American lines. But it would make no difference if I did. Those who have eyes to see will be able to see the truth; the rest couldn't see it if it were painted on their eyeballs in neon colors.

TheRedneck


"I could offer counterpoints to debate your well recorded historical facts. But I'm not gonna...in fact I'm only gonna reference the only subjective point we have mentioned. Because I know a guy, and my granddaddy told me so..."


Lol..
edit on 22-12-2016 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Stephen Davis gets his information from historical records. Not from family anecdotes.

That said, it is true that family anecdotes will be painted with whatever color the famililal world view is. My grandfathers memories of FDR were nothing like histories. My grandfather despised the New Deal for whatever reason. He was from the panhandle of oklahoma, so i never really figured out why he felt that way.

Anyway, a battle of sources gets nowhere.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

FDR is my least favorite President. The new deal arguably puts him as a contender for that list for many people. It depends on how you view it, and what you hypothesize would have happened without it, so it's very presumptions to talk about, but many aspects can be seen as destroying the very foundation of America, for short term salvation.

There were crooked parts before and after by many parties, but this was a hinging point for the Reserve to flourish in the way it was predicted it would. To add insult to injury, the exact proposed parts excluded from it mitigated the dangers of prosperity under the new rules.
edit on 22-12-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: imjack

i see the social programs that the new deal created more like fat reserves in the body: it provides for sustenance in between times of boom

For better or worse, the current economic regime is intended to stifle the severity of that swinging pendulum. it normalizes it....at the cost of a slow and controlled demolition.

Im not a critic of FDR. He did build critical infrastructure at a time when industry wasn't capable. And in so doing created a more firmly cemented American culture. It was the final play of Federalism.

Then again, as an anti-Federalist, im not fond of how it all ended up. But you take the good with the bad, i suppose.
edit on 12/22/2016 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Stephen Davis gets his information from historical records. Not from family anecdotes.

That said, it is true that family anecdotes will be painted with whatever color the famililal world view is. My grandfathers memories of FDR were nothing like histories. My grandfather despised the New Deal for whatever reason. He was from the panhandle of oklahoma, so i never really figured out why he felt that way.

Anyway, a battle of sources gets nowhere.



I was referring to rednecks message saying he wouldn't provide counter points (because there are none) because he knows a historian and his family history...

Even if you go by the letters from that time the accounts usually contradict each other.
edit on 22-12-2016 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Stephen Davis gets his information from historical records. Not from family anecdotes.

That said, it is true that family anecdotes will be painted with whatever color the famililal world view is. My grandfathers memories of FDR were nothing like histories. My grandfather despised the New Deal for whatever reason. He was from the panhandle of oklahoma, so i never really figured out why he felt that way.

Anyway, a battle of sources gets nowhere.



I was referring to rednecks message saying he wouldn't provide counter points (because there are none) because he knows a historian and his family history...

Even if you go by the letters from that time the accounts usually contradict each other.


Im sure an equal mix of cognitive dissonance back then mixed with some confirmation bias today has muddied the waters some. Consider what history will have to say about Obama based on what has been written during his presidency. For all posterity we will all be seen as racist just based on the sheer volume of vitriol circulating during the last 8 years mixed with the false equivalency of "if you don't like Obama = racist"

Same with Bush...i can imagine the signals will be mixed, but he'll be thought of as satan himself. We shall see, i suppose.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Stephen Davis gets his information from historical records. Not from family anecdotes.

That said, it is true that family anecdotes will be painted with whatever color the famililal world view is. My grandfathers memories of FDR were nothing like histories. My grandfather despised the New Deal for whatever reason. He was from the panhandle of oklahoma, so i never really figured out why he felt that way.

Anyway, a battle of sources gets nowhere.



I was referring to rednecks message saying he wouldn't provide counter points (because there are none) because he knows a historian and his family history...

Even if you go by the letters from that time the accounts usually contradict each other.


Im sure an equal mix of cognitive dissonance back then mixed with some confirmation bias today has muddied the waters some. Consider what history will have to say about Obama based on what has been written during his presidency. For all posterity we will all be seen as racist just based on the sheer volume of vitriol circulating during the last 8 years mixed with the false equivalency of "if you don't like Obama = racist"

Same with Bush...i can imagine the signals will be mixed, but he'll be thought of as satan himself. We shall see, i suppose.



I don't know just because of the way things can circulate and very few believe them. The computers instant data replication is so much easier than paper methods. You can have billions of hits and no one even have read it. You could not print millions of books and have no one read it. Espeacially in pre modern times.

For all the hype and politicking what decides if your remembered well , is big inferstructure projects, foreign policy achievements and broad sweeping improvements to society.

No one is remembered for balancing the budget nor cutting social programs. Those people are forgotten or blamed sometimes unfairly for any local ill.

Obama will be considered the first black and average. Imho



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

i think its common knowledge that the civil war was fought over slavery, however, It was not for the good and well-being of the blacks.

If blacks were free then they could vote, president Lincoln wanted to keep his party in control, also more bodies for war (front line). More land to raid and own, more $ for the rich.

Nothing is what is actually seems.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: JoshuaCox

i think its common knowledge that the civil war was fought over slavery, however, It was not for the good and well-being of the blacks.

If blacks were free then they could vote, president Lincoln wanted to keep his party in control, also more bodies for war (front line). More land to raid and own, more $ for the rich.

Nothing is what is actually seems.



Yup, my main reason for doing the thread was my finding out the scope of the value of the slaves...

3 billion in back then money!!

More than every northern and southern factory and buisness combined.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

i think Lincoln knew he couldn't suppress them for long, there were black revolts. Maybe he had sympathy for them, maybe not but he found a way to play on that sympathy to place in line bigger visions.

The whites in the north were not excited about going to war and possibly dying for blacks. Racism really grew in the north bc of this war.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: JoshuaCox

i think Lincoln knew he couldn't suppress them for long, there were black revolts. Maybe he had sympathy for them, maybe not but he found a way to play on that sympathy to place in line bigger visions.

The whites in the north were not excited about going to war and possibly dying for blacks. Racism really grew in the north bc of this war.



The war was over succession, the north didn't care about blacks..except the slave labor was taking jobs, but they did care about the United States sovereignty. That they would go to war over.

The south seceded because of the fear of abolition, which wasn't even comming.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I have a theory, a very unique theory about the Civil War.

Studying the subject of monetary controls throughout history, would lead you directly to the City of London.

Real Capital

I suspect our American Civil War actually started in 1812. Recently it was discovered that the United States did in fact pass a original 13th Amendment.
The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment To The Constitution For The United States
But due to the British sacking of Washington and the burning of the white house, The British torched major rooms in the Capitol, which then housed the Library of Congress, as well as the House, Senate and Supreme Court. The White House, the navy yard and several American warships were also burned; however, most private property was spared.

All federal records of the original 13th, went up in smoke.

Just after we freed ourselves from British rule, and British monetary control, Centered in the City of London, there was great concern of "British Agents" infiltrating the government of our new country. It was also known that "Lawyers" were agents of the Crown, or more precisely, agents of the "Bar", of the City Of London, which by the way, is also the center for global monetary controls (Rothchilds). Ever notice how "Contracts" "Money" and "Lawyers" are so interwoven?

The original 13th Amendment not only barred Lawyers from serving in our government, but also penalized them with loss of citizenship.

Slavery was in the process of "dying"


1807 - Britain passes Abolition of the Slave Trade Act, outlawing British Atlantic slave trade.

- United States passes legislation banning the slave trade, effective from start of 1808.

CHRONOLOGY-Who banned slavery when?

In 1860 one of Rothschild Agents runs for the Presidency, and wins. People in their respective states read their state constitutions, which does have the original 13th listed which states, no "lawyers". You guessed it, Honest Abe, was a Lawyer, and by the original 13th, ineligible to be president.

So, thanks to a well placed fire set by British military agents, we enter into one of the most bloody and needless wars. Was it a well thought out Conspiracy?

The Truth About Abraham Lincoln

Though I do find it very interesting, Lincoln was the one pushing for the re write of the 13th Amendment.
Lincoln is so determined to see the 13th Amendment pass before the war ends that he resorts to corruption and deception.

History is rewritten, and no one the wiser................ Ask yourself, are we really free?



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Raggedyman

hi - to aid discussion - could you list 3 countries that :

"ended slavery with little or no blood shed. "

Well, there was that 'country' called the British Empire.

Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, didn't the Emancipation Proclamation only free the slaves that were not under Lincoln's control anyway? (ie northern slaves were not freed at that time)


Absolutely.

The war was fought over succession, and succession was over the FEAR slavery would be regulated.

The precivil war north was only interested in stopping the spread of slavery. The south was fear moungered into succession.


I disagree with your POV and care not to argue it (others have done better than I could anyway) but I pulled this one post out of many as I've got to say your argument looks ridiculous when you can't even spell secession correctly.

Secession, to secede. They didn't succeed, they failed.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheSpanishArcher

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Raggedyman

hi - to aid discussion - could you list 3 countries that :

"ended slavery with little or no blood shed. "

Well, there was that 'country' called the British Empire.

Secondly, if I'm not mistaken, didn't the Emancipation Proclamation only free the slaves that were not under Lincoln's control anyway? (ie northern slaves were not freed at that time)


Absolutely.

The war was fought over succession, and succession was over the FEAR slavery would be regulated.

The precivil war north was only interested in stopping the spread of slavery. The south was fear moungered into succession.


I disagree with your POV and care not to argue it (others have done better than I could anyway) but I pulled this one post out of many as I've got to say your argument looks ridiculous when you can't even spell secession correctly.

Secession, to secede. They didn't succeed, they failed.




Well played grammar nazi..

Do you think anyone wasn't able to understand the sentence?? You did and I'm assuming your not the smartest person in the room, so it's safe to assume everyone else did too..

If some one else totally debunked that the civil war was about slavery, the south didn't fire first, succession wasn't legal or that the south seceded (that's for you sweet pea :p) before lincoins election and any hot button policy was put forward...please do tell, because I haven't heard it..


Your reply of :

" I could debunk your entire premise with my awsome historical facts, but instead I'm going to spell check you and pretend I offered a counterpoint."

Is only the oldest cop out in the book...

That really means:

" I disagree but have no counterpoint.. so instead I'll attempt to spell check you to deflect."
edit on 22-12-2016 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-12-2016 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
I have a theory, a very unique theory about the Civil War.

Studying the subject of monetary controls throughout history, would lead you directly to the City of London.

Real Capital

I suspect our American Civil War actually started in 1812. Recently it was discovered that the United States did in fact pass a original 13th Amendment.
The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment To The Constitution For The United States
But due to the British sacking of Washington and the burning of the white house, The British torched major rooms in the Capitol, which then housed the Library of Congress, as well as the House, Senate and Supreme Court. The White House, the navy yard and several American warships were also burned; however, most private property was spared.

All federal records of the original 13th, went up in smoke.

Just after we freed ourselves from British rule, and British monetary control, Centered in the City of London, there was great concern of "British Agents" infiltrating the government of our new country. It was also known that "Lawyers" were agents of the Crown, or more precisely, agents of the "Bar", of the City Of London, which by the way, is also the center for global monetary controls (Rothchilds). Ever notice how "Contracts" "Money" and "Lawyers" are so interwoven?

The original 13th Amendment not only barred Lawyers from serving in our government, but also penalized them with loss of citizenship.

Slavery was in the process of "dying"


1807 - Britain passes Abolition of the Slave Trade Act, outlawing British Atlantic slave trade.

- United States passes legislation banning the slave trade, effective from start of 1808.

CHRONOLOGY-Who banned slavery when?

In 1860 one of Rothschild Agents runs for the Presidency, and wins. People in their respective states read their state constitutions, which does have the original 13th listed which states, no "lawyers". You guessed it, Honest Abe, was a Lawyer, and by the original 13th, ineligible to be president.

So, thanks to a well placed fire set by British military agents, we enter into one of the most bloody and needless wars. Was it a well thought out Conspiracy?

The Truth About Abraham Lincoln

Though I do find it very interesting, Lincoln was the one pushing for the re write of the 13th Amendment.
Lincoln is so determined to see the 13th Amendment pass before the war ends that he resorts to corruption and deception.

History is rewritten, and no one the wiser................ Ask yourself, are we really free?



Sorry migo ole Abe wasn't even close to the first lawyer elected..the founding fathers were.

www.lawtechnologytoday.org...


I'm not sure they would ban themselves from running.. then run.

Also since lincoin wasn't the first lawyer, then obviously his occupation wouldn't have led to succession.



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Actually, I never said I knew a historian. You got that as wrong as you did your OP.

What I said was that I have personally researched my family tree, and in doing so researched aspects of that time period and the attitudes of the Southern people before, during, and after the War of Northern Aggression.

And no, I am not going through files to scan in old copies of letters and diaries (many already trying to fall apart) just to give you something to dispute. I believe you can research as well as I can... you simply apparently don't want to.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCoxThe presidents prior to March 12, 1819 would not be considered as they were elected prior to the amendment.

I'm certain the founding fathers understood you cant remove all lawyers from public service, all at once. And that is why Congress was charged with the oversight of this amendment.


"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."


So Congress would have to approve the original office holders.

Also, going to law school, does not make you a lawyer....



posted on Dec, 22 2016 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Actually, you put yourself out there and should be able to type the English language correctly or otherwise you are setting yourself up for this criticism. Trust me, I've been there and am now hated by many for what I have said. Not using the language improperly and looking like a fool, I looked like a fool because the propaganda machine is too big to fight.

You start it, you reap the "rewards".

Since others have said the same thing I would have said, but more eloquently, why should I argue with you when it's pointless? Your mind is set, my mind is set, so why even try after all the people who have laid out points that I would have used?

How about this. Go read For Cause and Comrades by James McPherson. The people who fought the war had no consensus on why they were doing it. The reasons are all over the map. Even they had no clue what was really going on, sort of like today. The internet has not made us smarter.

Or, explain to me why the British were in Canada, on our border, the Spanish on our Southern border and Russia patrolling the Atlantic when this was happening. I'm sure they really cared about whether slavery ended in this country.

But, yeah, it's all about slavery. That's the only reason so just go with what the winners wrote.


edit on 12/22/2016 by TheSpanishArcher because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join