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: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
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
h


So..

"I know better than all the real historians because I researched my own family tree. Which is obviously a fair representation of the entire south.."

Yup that definitely trumps the MILES of letters and historical documents that still survive to this day...

Because you have yet to provide a counterpoint.




posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheSpanishArcher
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.




Who said the average people have ever been in lock step on any policy..ever.

It is irrelevant what the average people thought, when the powers that actually orcastrated the entire affair, still have all their personal accounts available???




The south seceded because a very specific group of southern democrat fire eaters wanted to. The southern fire eaters smashed the democrat party , (which was in power at the time, so there were no crazy invasive policies recently instituted) on the eve of the election. Allowing lincoin to win specifically so they could sieze the south.

Then right before the election they start pretending the "black republicans" ( a brand new political party, not those already in power) were gonna free the slaves and force white women to marry freed slaves and allow them to vote.

The north really only had the public opinion to stop the spread of slavery into any new states. The north could care less about blacks or civil rights.. they wanted to ship them back to Africa because they were dragging down wages..as slavery always does.


So the south seceded over the southern aristocracy's fear mongering. Before lincoin even took office they stormed any southern US forts and "confiscated" ANY and all armament and vessels. All of which were property of the US army, which they would turn and use them on.

The north would never go to war for slaves..however to keep 1/3 of US territory...now that's a whole different animal.

All of that is well recorded..



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
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....



All of those people passed the bar , and I'm pretty sure that makes you a lawyer.

So what the founding fathers had lawyers as presidents for, what 60 years. Made an amendment in 1812, then still had a couple more lawyers. Before lincoin being a super secret plant broke the law by being a lawyer???.

Sorry migo though I agree it was a bad idea to make all our politicians lawyers, I don't think that part of your theory pans out.


And the final part, what does an amendments stopping foreign "knightings" from retaining citizenship apply to being a lawyer??

The bar is not a foreign power lol
edit on 23-12-2016 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCoxThere is a back story to lawyers and the money powers. One puts the other, in power, by the color of the law.

It is important to weigh all thoughts on the subject through the eyes of our founding fathers, who you have shown were heavily involved with the "Bar". Who better to judge the loyalty of this institution, than them? They knew who they knelt to.


The U.S.A. is not the free and sovereign nation that our federal government tells us it is. If this were true, we would not be dictated to by the Crown Temple through its bankers and attornies. The U.S.A. is controlled and manipulated by this private foreign power and our unlawful Federal U.S. Government is their pawn broker. The bankers and Bar Attorneys in the U.S.A. are a franchise in oath and allegiance to the Crown at Chancery – the Crown Temple Church and its Chancel located at Chancery Lane - a manipulative body of elite bankers and attorners from the independent City of London who violate the law in America by imposing fraudulent "legal" - but totally unlawful -contracts on the American people.
THEFT BY DECEPTION

The "Bar" association, I believe, can be considered a foreign power as its true nature, is global. And again, beholding to foreign interests, manly of one banking family, the Rothchilds.


These lawyers under the Bar Association whether they know it or not, are in the business of taking away Constitutional Rights from sovereign citizens and giving their power to a foreign banking family. You might have family members who have become apart of the Bar, trust me, if their so called Black or African American, then they are truly wearing blinders, they ignorant of this to the highest degree. They have been brainwashed in law school to think they are performing a public service, they are unconscious of their crimes, but when they become conscious of what they have gotten themselves into really, they better break their oath and repent, before they end up burning in hell. The Bar Association is also charged with generating laws and codes which serve Rothschild interests, which include a number of large corporations and whole industries, in which the Rothschilds and their associate bankers have invested, in which these include drug companies, oil companies, insurance companies, educational institution, religion, medical industry, auto and munitions manufacturers, and the mass media.
DEFENDING LIBERTY/ PERSUING JUSTICE

I'm fairly certain our founding fathers did not envision the present day judicial system for our new country. The Civil War was instigated to rewrite history, and take a firm control over it, legally(the International Bars version of legality).



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

And the final part, what does an amendments stopping foreign "knightings" from retaining citizenship apply to being a lawyer??



ESQUIRE, n. [L. scutum, a shield; Gr. a hide, of which shields were anciently made.], a shield-bearer or armor-bearer, scutifer; an attendant on a knight. Hence in modern times, a title of dignity next in degree below a knight. In England, this title is given to the younger sons of noblemen, to officers of the king's courts and of the household, to counselors at law, justices of the peace, while in commission, sheriffs, and other gentlemen. In the United States, the title is given to public officers of all degrees, from governors down to justices and attorneys. -Webster's 1828 Dictionary.
Esquire, is a title of Nobility.

theftbydeception.blogspot.com...



posted on Dec, 23 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Here ya go, The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States.

It doesn't look like Texas gave a straight answer, heh heh. But states like Mississippi, yup. We wanna keep dem slaves.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: cenpuppie
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Here ya go, The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States.

It doesn't look like Texas gave a straight answer, heh heh. But states like Mississippi, yup. We wanna keep dem slaves.



If I'm right, and I'm pretty sure I am...

No one at the time made any qualms about it all being over the federal governments right to restrict slavery.

Every southern politician can be quoted fear mongering abolition and worse that the north was going to force their daughters to marry freed slaves.

For the southern aristocracy who orchestrated the war, it was about slavery. From the POV of the average jo southerner, it was about all the fear mongering the aristocracy had done.




I think a 100% fair comparison would be if the south of today seceded from fear of a gun ban.

Just like today southern politicians are preaching that "they are comming to get your guns!"

And they are not..it would be political suicide to even propose a gun ban. Just like it was political suicide to propose a total abolition back then.

But then the people actually believe it and act accordingly.


However after you've went to war over A precieved future policy. You might as well implement it now, rather than having another war over it later.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


I think a 100% fair comparison would be if the south of today seceded from fear of a gun ban.

I actually think a more apt comparison would be between slavery abolition and a nuclear warhead ban. Just like today, when the average person has no chance of ever owning a nuclear warhead, no average Southerner at the time had any real hope of ever owning a slave.

That said, I will concede that abolition may have been a major problem for the small group of wealthy plantation owners (to include bought-and-paid-for representatives) who were not only able to afford slaves, but who made their fortunes through slavery. But that's a long way from claiming that all Southerners were racist malcontents willing to kill their Yankee brethren for the right to do something almost none of them would ever be able to do.

I really can't see people marching off to war because "they're coming to get your nukes!"

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: JoshuaCox

And the final part, what does an amendments stopping foreign "knightings" from retaining citizenship apply to being a lawyer??



ESQUIRE, n. [L. scutum, a shield; Gr. a hide, of which shields were anciently made.], a shield-bearer or armor-bearer, scutifer; an attendant on a knight. Hence in modern times, a title of dignity next in degree below a knight. In England, this title is given to the younger sons of noblemen, to officers of the king's courts and of the household, to counselors at law, justices of the peace, while in commission, sheriffs, and other gentlemen. In the United States, the title is given to public officers of all degrees, from governors down to justices and attorneys. -Webster's 1828 Dictionary.
Esquire, is a title of Nobility.

theftbydeception.blogspot.com...




I meant "knightings" to describe any office or appointment by a royal or foreign party.


Dude the presidents never stopped being lawyers...


It makes no sense for a bunch of lawyer founding fathers, to decide no lawyers can be president. Then allow a string of presidents directly afterward.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: JoshuaCox


I think a 100% fair comparison would be if the south of today seceded from fear of a gun ban.

I actually think a more apt comparison would be between slavery abolition and a nuclear warhead ban. Just like today, when the average person has no chance of ever owning a nuclear warhead, no average Southerner at the time had any real hope of ever owning a slave.

That said, I will concede that abolition may have been a major problem for the small group of wealthy plantation owners (to include bought-and-paid-for representatives) who were not only able to afford slaves, but who made their fortunes through slavery. But that's a long way from claiming that all Southerners were racist malcontents willing to kill their Yankee brethren for the right to do something almost none of them would ever be able to do.

I really can't see people marching off to war because "they're coming to get your nukes!"

TheRedneck



Plenty of "average people" owned slaves..or at least upper middle class people did.

Sure like the top ten percent of the population held the vast majority. But NO regular citizen on the planet owns a nuke.

Guns are a much better example..plenty are in population and an intricate part of some people's lives.

Also barring a massive armed insurrection, their will never be gun bans or confiscation. So any armed insurrection would be only from fear mongering.

A very good example would be if an assault weapon ban, led to fear mongering creating an insurrection out of a fear of total gun confiscation. Then the government decideds to ban guns because of the deaths caused by the insurrection.





No one ever claimed ALL of anyone ever did anything.

Also the whole freaking country was a band of insanely racist people by modern standards..

Neither sides opinion of African Americans was any different.


The average southerner fought for independence from a tyrannical north who (according to the fire eaters who caused sucession in the first place) was gonna "free the slaves and give them your land and daughters."


Anyone with sense knew what time it was..

Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis both knew it was a terrible idea, but chose to show loyalty to their state politicians rather than the United States.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Did play a strong part to the war sure... the top 1% of the south had slaves and liked the money they made off them... did the average soldier on the field fight to free/keep slaves... odds are highly unlikely that people that had no chance at affording a slave cared all that much about it, for either side.

Slavery is an easy cause to paint the entire conflict with, but it falls fare short of all the reasons why.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


Plenty of "average people" owned slaves..or at least upper middle class people did.

The official 1860 population census is here.


Guns are a much better example..plenty are in population and an intricate part of some people's lives.

Guns are in American homes of almost every social class. Slaves were not. Maybe we should use Ferraris as the comparison to be outlawed... less shock value, I will admit.


Also barring a massive armed insurrection, their will never be gun bans or confiscation. So any armed insurrection would be only from fear mongering.

I have to address this side point. Assault weapons legislation in the United States. The assault weapons ban of 1994 specifically targeted weapons I use for hunting purposes.


Also the whole freaking country was a band of insanely racist people by modern standards..

Neither sides opinion of African Americans was any different.

Thank you! Absolutely correct!

So you are saying that two groups went to war, practically eliminated one side through atrocities, over an issue they agreed on.


Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis both knew it was a terrible idea, but chose to show loyalty to their state politicians rather than the United States.

I will let them speak:


A Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets has no charm for me. If the Union is dissolved and government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people, and save in defense will draw my sword on none.

Robert E. Lee
Source: www.brainyquote.com...

The war... was an unnecessary condition of affairs, and might have been avoided if forebearance and wisdom had been practiced on both sides.

Robert E. Lee
Source: www.brainyquote.com...

I worked night and day for twelve years to prevent the war, but I could not. The North was mad and blind, would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came.

Jefferson Davis
Source: www.brainyquote.com...

All we ask is to be let alone.

Jefferson Davis
Source: www.brainyquote.com...

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

It makes no sense for a bunch of lawyer founding fathers, to decide no lawyers can be president. Then allow a string of presidents directly afterward.
You are absolutely correct! But making no sense may be debatable, especially if you look at the present day world. To do anything meaningful in this world you need two things. Lawyers, and money! Is that how it should be?



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

No it wasn't.

It was about political power between the two regions and differing philosophies of governance.

Slavery was the wedge issues that forced these differences to come to a head.

To reduce the Civil War to slavery would be saying that had Obama tried to institute a mandatory gun seizure that provoked a revolt and new Civil War during his first two years in office that the only reason the whole thing occurred was because American's could not give up their weapons.

This would be a gross generalization of the issue and you know it.

Your analysis of the Civil War is the same.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Did play a strong part to the war sure... the top 1% of the south had slaves and liked the money they made off them... did the average soldier on the field fight to free/keep slaves... odds are highly unlikely that people that had no chance at affording a slave cared all that much about it, for either side.

Slavery is an easy cause to paint the entire conflict with, but it falls fare short of all the reasons why.



The average soldier of any conflict fights for a thousand different reasons. That's irrelevant when talking about the origins of the war.

That depends on the politicians and aristocracy that orcastrated it.

The people who orcastrated it did so for fear of losing slavery and maybe just a good old fashion power play.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: JoshuaCox

No it wasn't.

It was about political power between the two regions and differing philosophies of governance.

Slavery was the wedge issues that forced these differences to come to a head.

To reduce the Civil War to slavery would be saying that had Obama tried to institute a mandatory gun seizure that provoked a revolt and new Civil War during his first two years in office that the only reason the whole thing occurred was because American's could not give up their weapons.

This would be a gross generalization of the issue and you know it.

Your analysis of the Civil War is the same.



No because n one tried to ban slavery..

So it would be the same as if people PRECIEVED OBAMA was gonna ban guns and revolted, even though he had no plans to do so.


Slavery was definitely the wedge issue, but what were the other wedge issues??

None that were not 100% based on slavery.

The southern democrats held power previous to the war. The Republican Party was brand new and held no real sway... and would have lost the election if not for southern aristocracy splitting the democrat party (over slavery) on the eve of the election. Ensuring lincoins win and their excuse for succession.

So their was no hot button policy that caused succession. It was 100% from the fear of maybe some future policy.
edit on 26-12-2016 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: JoshuaCox

It makes no sense for a bunch of lawyer founding fathers, to decide no lawyers can be president. Then allow a string of presidents directly afterward.
You are absolutely correct! But making no sense may be debatable, especially if you look at the present day world. To do anything meaningful in this world you need two things. Lawyers, and money! Is that how it should be?



Should has abosolutly nothing to do with the historical record.. which doesn't match the "founding fathers banned lawyers theory".



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: JoshuaCox


Plenty of "average people" owned slaves..or at least upper middle class people did.

The official 1860 population census is here.


Guns are a much better example..plenty are in population and an intricate part of some people's lives.

Guns are in American homes of almost every social class. Slaves were not. Maybe we should use Ferraris as the comparison to be outlawed... less shock value, I will admit.


Also barring a massive armed insurrection, their will never be gun bans or confiscation. So any armed insurrection would be only from fear mongering.

I have to address this side point. Assault weapons legislation in the United States. The assault weapons ban of 1994 specifically targeted weapons I use for hunting purposes.


Also the whole freaking country was a band of insanely racist people by modern standards..

Neither sides opinion of African Americans was any different.

Thank you! Absolutely correct!

So you are saying that two groups went to war, practically eliminated one side through atrocities, over an issue they agreed on.


Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis both knew it was a terrible idea, but chose to show loyalty to their state politicians rather than the United States.

I will let them speak:


A Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets has no charm for me. If the Union is dissolved and government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people, and save in defense will draw my sword on none.

Robert E. Lee
Source: www.brainyquote.com...

The war... was an unnecessary condition of affairs, and might have been avoided if forebearance and wisdom had been practiced on both sides.

Robert E. Lee
Source: www.brainyquote.com...

I worked night and day for twelve years to prevent the war, but I could not. The North was mad and blind, would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came.

Jefferson Davis
Source: www.brainyquote.com...

All we ask is to be let alone.

Jefferson Davis
Source: www.brainyquote.com...

TheRedneck



Nukes were your example which is WAY farther away from your slavery stats than guns are.. by a gagillion.


Assault weapons bans all have grandfather clauses and no mention of confiscation... very similar to only banning new slaves in the free states..

Where is the fair nuke comparison?? Oh nukes aren't even close..


They agreed on being against African Americans as equal citizens.. slavery is a totally different animal that has far reaching economic consequences reguardless of if racial slavery or Roman slavery. No free buisness can compete with slave labor. The north wanted slavery and African Americans gone.

You can be a flaming racist and still be against the institution of slavery.

As I said, the north went to war over succession, the south (aristocracy that ran things) seceded over the fear of future restrictions placed on slavery. Restrictions that lincoin was not going to implement without the war.

All of your quotes were from after the state legislators had seceded.

As mentioned in the quotes all argued against it until after succession, Davis not wanting the presidency at all.

Most importantly is that there is no legal right to secede. There is no exit clause in the constitution nor when the states were ratified.

No nation could survive being torn asunder at the whim of this or that generation or political administration.

By that same logic every town could sucede or any subdivision, hell just one farm could...

No country could ever maintain under those circumstances.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

By the end of the war the regular rank and file southerners had figured out the states rights stuff was BS, and like every war It was about power plays by the aristocracy.

The 20 slave exemption from fighting caused a massive swing in public opinion. They were fighting so they could keep their way of life, but policies like that showed exactly what kind of life they had...

An oligarchy who used them in a failed attempt to gain power.



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Did play a strong part to the war sure... the top 1% of the south had slaves and liked the money they made off them... did the average soldier on the field fight to free/keep slaves... odds are highly unlikely that people that had no chance at affording a slave cared all that much about it, for either side.

Slavery is an easy cause to paint the entire conflict with, but it falls fare short of all the reasons why.



Then please elaborate on what hotbutton issue of the day wasn't centered on slavery??

From my understanding it was the abortion issue on crack and steroids, of the day.

I guess really it could be considered a power play by southern fire eaters, who thought the north would just give them 1/3 of US soverign soil.. they had to know lincoin wasn't comming for slavery, but they sure pretended he was to help amass the support they needed for succession.



People always act like there was some long string of northern offensive policies that forced the south to secede, when there were none..

There was a tax on imports that hypothetically hurt southerners more, since they imported a lot, but slaves were only taxed at 1/3rd their value, which obviously heavily benefitted the south...

Neither issue was worth it for either side going to war over.

The southern democrats owned all branches of government and they seceded befor lincoin even took office.

AND THEY FIRED FIRST LOL.




top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join