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.

 

Slavery was not the cause of the Civil War - as written by an American in 1863.

page: 2
78
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

I think the majority of everyone seems to not understand that the spectrum on this issue has a wide wave length producing various signals.

To the rich of the south, it was about slavery. To the racists of the south, it was about them not being equal and states rights, to the poor and average Joe southerner..well..D*** Yankees and such..

Everyone had their reasons, If all were able to be published I am certain anyone could take away from it whatever feeling they wished.




posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bwomp83

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: bknapple32

Here's what Ill say. The reasons are debated. There are numerous reasons. But to say slavery was not the cause.. Are you saying it was not THEE cause , or not a cause at all?

Cause imo it certainly played a part. where it lands in the top 3 reasons? I dont know.


The north didnt care about ending slavery, but freeing slaves to also fight there war was leverage against the south and beneficial to the north. But no, niether the north cared about freeing slaves. The reasons for the civil war starting had nothing to do with slavery. Without really going to a library and really learning i know there are those who will fight to the end against this just like they do about democrats being the southern states, or democrats starting the KKK, they refuse to learn the truth. The nazis have a closer relationship to the democrats, pfffft.


I mean maybe we had different textbooks since we are probably different ages...

But I remember mine having literally a whole 15 -20 page chapter dedicated to the abolitionist movement



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

The past can harm no one, my suggestion is to leave history alone and work together on larger problems such as unemployment, poverty, drug incarceration instead of treatment. illegal immigration, the National debt and finding a meaningful place in society for all as well as a shared vision of what we want to become.



Totally Agree with you on this. I feel like these things are manufactured controversy too work people up polorize and divide them. Instead of focusing on some musty old statues we could be focusing our energy on present issues like you mentioned above.
edit on 16-8-2017 by SolAquarius because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
THEY hate history like this...BUT

REMEMBER,the south were European sympathizers and wouldn't have HESITATED to incorporate their elitist values as well.
All the WHILE the poor guys caught fighting for their beliefs aren't to blame themselves.


Boom. Like this from johnson.

“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

I don't see how anything written there changes the fact that the South seceded and fought over the ability to own slaves. Whether it was for trade agreements (economic) or the notion that Africans should be owned (moral) it was still about slavery.

There's no separating it.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucidparadox

originally posted by: Bwomp83

originally posted by: bknapple32
a reply to: bknapple32

Here's what Ill say. The reasons are debated. There are numerous reasons. But to say slavery was not the cause.. Are you saying it was not THEE cause , or not a cause at all?

Cause imo it certainly played a part. where it lands in the top 3 reasons? I dont know.


The north didnt care about ending slavery, but freeing slaves to also fight there war was leverage against the south and beneficial to the north. But no, niether the north cared about freeing slaves. The reasons for the civil war starting had nothing to do with slavery. Without really going to a library and really learning i know there are those who will fight to the end against this just like they do about democrats being the southern states, or democrats starting the KKK, they refuse to learn the truth. The nazis have a closer relationship to the democrats, pfffft.


I mean maybe we had different textbooks since we are probably different ages...

But I remember mine having literally a whole 15 -20 page chapter dedicated to the abolitionist movement


It was a part of the civil war, we all agree to that. But it was not tge reason why it started.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   
When Lincon called for the inscription of 75,000 soldiers in order to "invade" the South is what spurred most states to drop out of the Union and join the confederacy. Those like Robert E Lee then resigned from the Union and moved to their states to resist.

Emancipation Proclamation wasn't even a possibility until the Union suffered several defeats and Lincoln used it to turn the already ongoing war into one of morals to regain the offensive.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

BWAHAHAHA


Yea ignore the literal mountain of other letters and EVERY SINGLE STATES articles of succession where they specify state that it is because of their fear that Lincoln will end slavery....


Let's just take this one guys letter...

That holds up...

Gotta love that list cause propaganda..



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

as written by an American... as opposed to every other scholarly studies in the matter refuting all other nonsense... im not sure what you're defending here....

of course showers of S&Fs... I love it. the Nile is not just a river....



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
When Lincon called for the inscription of 75,000 soldiers in order to "invade" the South is what spurred most states to drop out of the Union and join the confederacy. Those like Robert E Lee then resigned from the Union and moved to their states to resist.

Emancipation Proclamation wasn't even a possibility until the Union suffered several defeats and Lincoln used it to turn the already ongoing war into one of morals to regain the offensive.


What would happen to the souths economy with the loss of slaves?



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: bknapple32

As is written in every single states articles of succession...

This is the silliest premise ever...

"Ignore everyone else and all of history.. I found one contemporary who agrees with the propaganda I'm pushing.."



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

So, essentially, you are using this man's OPINION to rewrite history?

From Kruphix's post...



Our new government is founded upon exactly this idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth


You can spin it as hard as you want, your ancestors forced black people to pick cotton and empty their sh#t pots and much worse. My ancestors were bred like dogs in kennels by your ancestors. I am not mad at you for it but I find your ignorance on the matter mind boggling.

I won't deny there were other factors that weighed in on the war, but it was about abolishing slavery, to say otherwise is simply biased denial induced by the lack of ability to recognize your ancestors for what they were...

"But but but they did't know any better, that's just how it was back then"

Will you say the same for current day human traffickers?

Your ancestors were human traffickers and you are denying/defending it via deflection, and doing a very poor job at it I might add.

This thread will be on the front page in no time...LOL...



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Grimpachi
When Lincon called for the inscription of 75,000 soldiers in order to "invade" the South is what spurred most states to drop out of the Union and join the confederacy. Those like Robert E Lee then resigned from the Union and moved to their states to resist.

Emancipation Proclamation wasn't even a possibility until the Union suffered several defeats and Lincoln used it to turn the already ongoing war into one of morals to regain the offensive.


What would happen to the souths economy with the loss of slaves?


It would be pretty bad because the North had already forced outlandish tariffs on them. Lincoln could have avoided war if he was more diplomatic back then at a time when things were already heading towards emancipation.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I really think one guys random letter trumps every single official in the confederacy..



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: bknapple32

Be it 1863 or 2017, one man's voice is just one man's voice. There are thousands of voices here on ats. Does any one mean any more than the others?



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

So in your opinion without the tariffs they could have survived?

Couldn't the south have avoided by freeing slaves? I mean his narrative would have been destroyed.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Asktheanimals

I don't see how anything written there changes the fact that the South seceded and fought over the ability to own slaves. Whether it was for trade agreements (economic) or the notion that Africans should be owned (moral) it was still about slavery.

There's no separating it.


Because there was no real danger of slavery being abolished in the states that still had it.
The Constitution guaranteed it.
The Civil War was predicated on the fear of Republicans and radical abolitionists starting slave insurrections.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: RazorV66
Maybe it was the cause, maybe it wasn't....it's in the past.
One thing is for certain though...JT Headley will not be writing the book "A History of the 2nd Civil War in the United States 2017-2018"
Published around 2019-2020...it will be a short book because it will be a short war.
A brief synopsis - cover your eyes if you don't want to know the ending.......As the main antagonists, the Leftists lose.


The fact that you not only genuinely believe this but revel in the idea is disgusting.



Revel in it?...nope, I don't want it to happen.
I keep hoping you guys will stop pushing for it but with every day that goes by, you guys get more hysterical.
Maybe you guys should be disgusted by yourselves as Leftists, I know I am disgusted.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Gryphon66

I really think one guys random letter trumps every single official in the confederacy..


This one guy was a New Yorker, clergyman, historian, author and secretary of State of NY.
I doubt he was writing from a pro-southern bias here.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

So your saying it was rebel now or be Americans forever???

I



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join