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: 6
16
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

www.civil-war.net...

Here is the 1860 census.

35% of Alabamans owned slaves.

Sure I'm sure the confederate average was prob that only the top 20% owned slaves, but that is 100's of thousand of people. (Added in edit: 20% is crazy low once I looked at the numbers..in reality it's prob closer to 35%).

Mabe not your average person, but really more than enough where it was a negligible percent that did..

That 2 (3 or 4 really) out of every ten people owning slaves.

Hell slaves were a very valuable investment...people then and in every slave holding civilization would invest their money in slaves.

The total value of slaves being worth more than every other ANERICAN commodity combined cannot be overstated.
edit on 26-12-2016 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-12-2016 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


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.

You do realize the South took steps to abolish slavery before Lincoln did, right? It was in our Constitution:


Sec. 9.

(I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.


That is from the Article I of the Constitution that the Yankees murdered thousands upon thousands of Southerners over.

As to no exit clause from the Constitution... I will show you one as soon as you show me anything from the British Crown stating the 13 American colonies had a right to secede from them. Oopsy... pot, meet kettle. I guess you think we should have been murdered for daring to fight that revolution, too.

And finally, since you're so excited about exclaiming how the South fired first...

Fort Sumter was on sovereign Southern soil once the Confederacy was established, as surely as New York City was on sovereign United States soil once the United States was established. It was, however, occupied by Yankee troops. A Confederate delegation, under a white flag of truce, met with the commander of Fort Sumter and informed him that he and his soldiers had to leave, but would be given safe passage. The commander refused, as I understand it, with regret. The Union then proceeded to send ships to resupply the fort, which were blocked by a Confederate blockade. After ignoring warnings to leave the area, the Confederacy fired upon the intruders.

Quite a different story than "The South fired first!" And therein lies the heart of my disagreement with your posts: you oversimplify the situation, totally ignoring the decades of warnings South Carolina had given over laws and policies, the arrogant attitudes of the North versus the "let us be" attitude of the South, the war crimes committed by the criminal William "Uncle Billy" Tecumseh Sherman, the South's own movements against institutionalized slavery, the North's attitude toward slaves in general, the vast differences between the two economies, the dishonorable actions of Abraham Lincoln to drum up public support to save his own political hide, and the writings of thousands of people, from average citizens to soldiers to politicians and generals on both sides. You even try to declare that Southern Democrats held a majority in Congress... not true; DEMOCRATS held a majority. Abraham Lincoln received not a single electoral vote south of the Mason-Dixon line. Electoral votes were then, as they are now, determined by the total number of representatives to both chambers of Congress. If there were not enough electors from the Southern states to prevent Lincoln from being elected, there certainly was not enough Congressmen to claim majority. In 1860, there were more states north of the line than south of it; the Senate has two members from each state. In 1860 there was more people, by a wide margin, north of the line than south of it; Representatives are based on population.

But I suppose it's easier and cleaner to just sum everything up in one nice little excuse ("they had SLAVES!") that wipes away all the horror, the atrocities, the devastation, and the pain that episode in our history contained. The problem is that there are those of us who saw through the lies and found the truth... and we're not going away until the last lie is wiped from the last history book.

Which is a fancy way of saying... NEVER.

TheRedneck

edit on 12/26/2016 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 04:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: JoshuaCox


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.

You do realize the South took steps to abolish slavery before Lincoln did, right? It was in our Constitution:


Sec. 9.

(I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.


That is from the Article I of the Constitution that the Yankees murdered thousands upon thousands of Southerners over.

As to no exit clause from the Constitution... I will show you one as soon as you show me anything from the British Crown stating the 13 American colonies had a right to secede from them. Oopsy... pot, meet kettle. I guess you think we should have been murdered for daring to fight that revolution, too.

And finally, since you're so excited about exclaiming how the South fired first...

Fort Sumter was on sovereign Southern soil once the Confederacy was established, as surely as New York City was on sovereign United States soil once the United States was established. It was, however, occupied by Yankee troops. A Confederate delegation, under a white flag of truce, met with the commander of Fort Sumter and informed him that he and his soldiers had to leave, but would be given safe passage. The commander refused, as I understand it, with regret. The Union then proceeded to send ships to resupply the fort, which were blocked by a Confederate blockade. After ignoring warnings to leave the area, the Confederacy fired upon the intruders.

Quite a different story than "The South fired first!" And therein lies the heart of my disagreement with your posts: you oversimplify the situation, totally ignoring the decades of warnings South Carolina had given over laws and policies, the arrogant attitudes of the North versus the "let us be" attitude of the South, the war crimes committed by the criminal William "Uncle Billy" Tecumseh Sherman, the South's own movements against institutionalized slavery, the North's attitude toward slaves in general, the vast differences between the two economies, the dishonorable actions of Abraham Lincoln to drum up public support to save his own political hide, and the writings of thousands of people, from average citizens to soldiers to politicians and generals on both sides. You even try to declare that Southern Democrats held a majority in Congress... not true; DEMOCRATS held a majority. Abraham Lincoln received not a single electoral vote south of the Mason-Dixon line. Electoral votes were then, as they are now, determined by the total number of representatives to both chambers of Congress. If there were not enough electors from the Southern states to prevent Lincoln from being elected, there certainly was not enough Congressmen to claim majority. In 1860, there were more states north of the line than south of it; the Senate has two members from each state. In 1860 there was more people, by a wide margin, north of the line than south of it; Representatives are based on population.

But I suppose it's easier and cleaner to just sum everything up in one nice little excuse ("they had SLAVES!") that wipes away all the horror, the atrocities, the devastation, and the pain that episode in our history contained. The problem is that there are those of us who saw through the lies and found the truth... and we're not going away until the last lie is wiped from the last history book.

Which is a fancy way of saying... NEVER.

TheRedneck



calling those confederate articles "the south was already taking steps to abolish slavery" is just silly...

They had no plans to abolish slavery, fear of abolishment was clearly stated in every states declaration of succession... every single state clearly stated it was going to remain a "white mans slave holding state."



Those articles were confirming the states right to tax and regulate any new slaves. Nort the first step to freeing them.....

Your doing the time honered revisionist history tradition of latching on to one kernel and pretending the rest doesn't matter..

When every one involved's reasons and plans were clearly stated in still remaining documents.

They were worth 3 billion dollars and were by far America's most valuable commodity. The powers that be had no plans to just give that away...

Hell the south refused to allow forced buy backs at full value in the free states alone...

Not even lincoin believed he had legal authority to regulate southern slavery.



The 13 colonies seceded by right of conquest.. something the south was unable to do.

If we had failed the revolutionary war, history would remember the founding fathers as rebels and traitors.

ALL HISTORICAL events are 100% based on POV.
From a British POV the founding fathers are traitors.


From an American POV the founding fathers were freedom fighters and the south were traitors.

From the confederates POV.. oh that's right they failed, there is no confederacy.

If your a patriotic American, then the south should be traitors to you as well.


Your acting as if pre civil war there was a union and a south.. pre civil war there was only a United States of America. The union was a pet name for the USA. Not an official title . We were the USA from the articles of ratification, not the end of the civil war.


So There was no soverign southern soil. Soverign soil requires you to actual win your we of conquest. .they weren't even formally recognized by any foreign power were they?

Like I said no different than if I armed up and decided my house was soverign soil, when the only reason I "own it" is because the US government said I could, lol.

The forts were occupied by the us army because they were us army forts lol.

The forts were all built, armed and staffed by the United States military, with United States tax dollars the same army that continues today.

The us army didn't "take the forts" they owned and built them..

The south had to take the forts from them and fired first to do so.. on a civilian liner under a flag of truce.

The south demanded the US gv surrender the forts and even they pro slavery democrat president refused before lincoin did too.


If by "the south leave us alone attitute" you mean "desire to steal 1/3 of us soverign soil by right of conquest" sure I guess..

Considering all ownership comes from the government and this gov won independence from Britain , no one owns land to the extent they get to leave their nation. In no country on planet earth in history..


What nation ever had a policy where any section that wanted could leave at any time???

None ever.. in history.



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 04:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: JoshuaCox


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.

You do realize the South took steps to abolish slavery before Lincoln did, right? It was in our Constitution:


Sec. 9.

(I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.


That is from the Article I of the Constitution that the Yankees murdered thousands upon thousands of Southerners over.

As to no exit clause from the Constitution... I will show you one as soon as you show me anything from the British Crown stating the 13 American colonies had a right to secede from them. Oopsy... pot, meet kettle. I guess you think we should have been murdered for daring to fight that revolution, too.

And finally, since you're so excited about exclaiming how the South fired first...

Fort Sumter was on sovereign Southern soil once the Confederacy was established, as surely as New York City was on sovereign United States soil once the United States was established. It was, however, occupied by Yankee troops. A Confederate delegation, under a white flag of truce, met with the commander of Fort Sumter and informed him that he and his soldiers had to leave, but would be given safe passage. The commander refused, as I understand it, with regret. The Union then proceeded to send ships to resupply the fort, which were blocked by a Confederate blockade. After ignoring warnings to leave the area, the Confederacy fired upon the intruders.

Quite a different story than "The South fired first!" And therein lies the heart of my disagreement with your posts: you oversimplify the situation, totally ignoring the decades of warnings South Carolina had given over laws and policies, the arrogant attitudes of the North versus the "let us be" attitude of the South, the war crimes committed by the criminal William "Uncle Billy" Tecumseh Sherman, the South's own movements against institutionalized slavery, the North's attitude toward slaves in general, the vast differences between the two economies, the dishonorable actions of Abraham Lincoln to drum up public support to save his own political hide, and the writings of thousands of people, from average citizens to soldiers to politicians and generals on both sides. You even try to declare that Southern Democrats held a majority in Congress... not true; DEMOCRATS held a majority. Abraham Lincoln received not a single electoral vote south of the Mason-Dixon line. Electoral votes were then, as they are now, determined by the total number of representatives to both chambers of Congress. If there were not enough electors from the Southern states to prevent Lincoln from being elected, there certainly was not enough Congressmen to claim majority. In 1860, there were more states north of the line than south of it; the Senate has two members from each state. In 1860 there was more people, by a wide margin, north of the line than south of it; Representatives are based on population.

But I suppose it's easier and cleaner to just sum everything up in one nice little excuse ("they had SLAVES!") that wipes away all the horror, the atrocities, the devastation, and the pain that episode in our history contained. The problem is that there are those of us who saw through the lies and found the truth... and we're not going away until the last lie is wiped from the last history book.

Which is a fancy way of saying... NEVER.

TheRedneck



The "war crimes" are commited on both sides
In every conflict.

All the principle southern players and countless letters from the south also clearly say it was about the fear of abolition and the social changes that would follow.



So you can't provide a legal justification for succession nor right of conquest..because there was no clause and they couldn't take and hold the land.

You can't point to some offensive policy that was in acted , justifying succession or that wasn't slavery related..because there was no policy.

You can't point to anything that actually shows the south was ending slavery.. because they were not.

You can't prove the USA wasn't in existence pre civil war, because it already was.

You can't show how the USA fired first because they didn't.



You just state your opinion and pretend the mountain of real life historical evidence doesn't exist.



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Articles of succession:
"
Georgia
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation."


"

Mississippi
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction."


www.civilwar.org...

They all say the same.



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


calling those confederate articles "the south was already taking steps to abolish slavery" is just silly...

They had no plans to abolish slavery, fear of abolishment was clearly stated in every states declaration of succession... every single state clearly stated it was going to remain a "white mans slave holding state."

During the (short) duration of the Confederate States of America, it was illegal to import black (African) slaves, by virtue of laws written down in the Constitution by those slave-owning states. I just showed you the explicit wording in the document itself. Denying it is no different than reading the US Constitution and then declaring there is no right to freedom of speech because a lot of people are against it.

As for your sources... yes, slavery was a hot-button issue for the South, primarily because slavery was the political hot-button topic of the day. It was on everyone's mind just like the present election cycle is on everyone's mind today. That doesn't mean there are not other underlying reasons for the political divide we see today, and the popular talk from the 1860s does not mean there were not underlying issues back then... causes that already had several Confederate states on the verge of seccession.

You have stated yourself, in this very thread, that the attitudes towards blacks were practically identical between North and South.


Your doing the time honered revisionist history tradition of latching on to one kernel and pretending the rest doesn't matter.

On the contrary. I am the one pointing out the complexity of the political/social dichotomy of the era. You are the one simplifying it into "they had SLAVES! OMG!"

Kinda feels bad when others mess up your own revisionist tendencies, doesn't it?


The 13 colonies seceded by right of conquest.. something the south was unable to do.

Ah, so you believe might makes right! So if I were to murder someone successfully and escape justice, does that make my actions right?

I say no, it doesn't. What the North did during that war is no different than the British Crown deciding to wipe out the 13 colonies. It is no different than what Hitler did during the Holocaust. It is no different than what ISIS is doing to sections of the Middle East. All are examples of extreme cruelty to human beings, civilians, not engaged in actual combat. All are atrocious examples of the depths of depravity attributable to the human animal.

During the War of Northern Aggression, the vast majority of battles were fought on Southern soil. The North invaded the South, not vice-versa. The leaders of the South were trying to avoid conflict, while Lincoln and his military goons were trying to escalate it.


The forts were all built, armed and staffed by the United States military, with United States tax dollars the same army that continues today.

And New England still belongs to the British royalty... oh, wait, no... I forgot, it's OK to take another's property if you get away with it.

The United States never owned property except for Eminent Domain. The 13 original colonies claimed the land inside their borders. The only exception is Washington DC, which is not a state but United States property directly... oh, wait, come to think of it, that property was taken by Eminent Domain as well.

I may have been mistaken when I suggested you needed to study the history of the War of Northern Aggression... maybe you should start a little earlier, like 1492?


What nation ever had a policy where any section that wanted could leave at any time???

None ever.. in history.

Oh, but according to you, secession and by extension even conquest is perfectly fine... as long as one wins.

That reminds me of something... what was it?... something similar from my own past experiences...

Oh! That's what it was! Schoolyard bullies! You know, the guys who used to steal kids' lunch money by beating them up. Come to find out, it was their money in the first place. After all, they won.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: JoshuaCox


calling those confederate articles "the south was already taking steps to abolish slavery" is just silly...

They had no plans to abolish slavery, fear of abolishment was clearly stated in every states declaration of succession... every single state clearly stated it was going to remain a "white mans slave holding state."

During the (short) duration of the Confederate States of America, it was illegal to import black (African) slaves, by virtue of laws written down in the Constitution by those slave-owning states. I just showed you the explicit wording in the document itself. Denying it is no different than reading the US Constitution and then declaring there is no right to freedom of speech because a lot of people are against it.

As for your sources... yes, slavery was a hot-button issue for the South, primarily because slavery was the political hot-button topic of the day. It was on everyone's mind just like the present election cycle is on everyone's mind today. That doesn't mean there are not other underlying reasons for the political divide we see today, and the popular talk from the 1860s does not mean there were not underlying issues back then... causes that already had several Confederate states on the verge of seccession.

You have stated yourself, in this very thread, that the attitudes towards blacks were practically identical between North and South.


Your doing the time honered revisionist history tradition of latching on to one kernel and pretending the rest doesn't matter.

On the contrary. I am the one pointing out the complexity of the political/social dichotomy of the era. You are the one simplifying it into "they had SLAVES! OMG!"

Kinda feels bad when others mess up your own revisionist tendencies, doesn't it?


The 13 colonies seceded by right of conquest.. something the south was unable to do.

Ah, so you believe might makes right! So if I were to murder someone successfully and escape justice, does that make my actions right?

I say no, it doesn't. What the North did during that war is no different than the British Crown deciding to wipe out the 13 colonies. It is no different than what Hitler did during the Holocaust. It is no different than what ISIS is doing to sections of the Middle East. All are examples of extreme cruelty to human beings, civilians, not engaged in actual combat. All are atrocious examples of the depths of depravity attributable to the human animal.

During the War of Northern Aggression, the vast majority of battles were fought on Southern soil. The North invaded the South, not vice-versa. The leaders of the South were trying to avoid conflict, while Lincoln and his military goons were trying to escalate it.


The forts were all built, armed and staffed by the United States military, with United States tax dollars the same army that continues today.

And New England still belongs to the British royalty... oh, wait, no... I forgot, it's OK to take another's property if you get away with it.

The United States never owned property except for Eminent Domain. The 13 original colonies claimed the land inside their borders. The only exception is Washington DC, which is not a state but United States property directly... oh, wait, come to think of it, that property was taken by Eminent Domain as well.

I may have been mistaken when I suggested you needed to study the history of the War of Northern Aggression... maybe you should start a little earlier, like 1492?


What nation ever had a policy where any section that wanted could leave at any time???

None ever.. in history.

Oh, but according to you, secession and by extension even conquest is perfectly fine... as long as one wins.

That reminds me of something... what was it?... something similar from my own past experiences...

Oh! That's what it was! Schoolyard bullies! You know, the guys who used to steal kids' lunch money by beating them up. Come to find out, it was their money in the first place. After all, they won.

TheRedneck


I never said the articles were not there obviously..

I said they didn't even resemble a preamble to abolishing slavery.

They sound to me like cornering the market. ..

"No more importing cheap slaves from africa... noooo

You gotta buy my more expensive confederate raised slaves. "

They were getting rid of foreign competition.

Slaves were way to valuable and entangled in southern society to be given up anytime soon.


The articles say:
"Cause we want to keep slaves and be left alone"

Not :

"And we are going to get rid of slavery real soon. See we stopped imports."


You still haven't named this different hot button policy that was in question and not related to slavery..

Because there wasn't one really.

The only actual policies were limiting them in any new states. NO policy tried to touch pre existing slavery.

You can't name another policy because it was all over fear mongering by southern aristocrats fire eaters.






History says right of conquest matters not me. That's a historical fact , if you can take some thing and hold it, it's yours.

If you can't, you are branded a rebel.

All ownership comes from the governing body who allows you to do so. Take the government away and it all belongs to the strongest warlord.


No all the battles were fought on US sovereign soil.

Same country as now. Same constitution they the south trash canned and replaced. Same country you prob love to this day.


And yes that's consistent..

The USA rebelled from Britain and won. It was soverign British soil and we won it. We took it held it and made them sign it over, all official like.

The south rebeled from the USA. They took soverign US soil and lost. That makes them traitors who commited treason. Treason n against the USA.



edit on 27-12-2016 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 12:52 AM
link   
ia reply to: Justso
hey we might be cousins i too am related to davis on my moms side. and i totally agree with you . slavery was an after thought and also never truthfully abolished . it still persists too this day it just has changed form slightly .



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Just a quick response to OP - No.

Slavery was not the main reason for Civil War. It was European influence through the Southern states and vastly different ideologies.

Slavery wasn't free. In those days many people were making a wage just to feed their families and put a roof over their heads. Guess who foot the bill for all those slave families? Their Masters. That was not free labor.

There was a very distinct reason why the war happened and Slavery was low on the list.

AAC
edit on 2-1-2017 by AnAbsoluteCreation because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2017 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Lincoln was (unfortunately) put in power by a bunch of war mongering capitalists who wanted to make a quick buck. The war was for sure over before it began and the north didn't try too hard to win the damn thing.

www.youtube.com...




top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join