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

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: luthier

If your such a history buff you would know he was a master manipulator.

I am a history buff which is why i know there was exactly zero nobility in the civil war.

Because there never is.

war is just an extension of politics that's pursued by other means.

Never made the claim. You responded to my post about the economic impact of freeing slaves.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: PlasticWizard
a reply to: luthier

Yeah cause the other 94 percent just sat there watching slaves do all the work and did nothing to earn an income. It was going to collapse with the tarrifs. Plenty of jobs back then had nothing to do with slaves but they were still being tariffed and It wasn't the South job to pay for the North. This is before income taxes too. The majority of the federal governments money came from tarrifs on the South.

So in your opinion the vast majority of state economy did not come from slave plantations? And yes the populations were very low compared to today...but hey why use facts.

Yes Lee and Davis were not racists. But they knew the economic impact and just wanted to do it slowly. It came down to slave labor not necessarily outright racism that cam later when there were less jobs as blacks worked for less.

I didn't say that. Yes cotton, sugar cane, etc was the majority of the economy in the South. Thats obvious. Yes raw materials came from plantations. Yes they had slaves. But not every aspect of Souths economy had slaves. Whether it was income made by the plantation itsself(slaves labor) or from the transport to the north and Europe, processing and manufacturing. 94 percent of the Southern population that did not own plantations or slaves, Folks just reselling, transporting, manufacturing, general store owners, etc with these goods were being taxed 30-40percent. these good were being taxed the same as the 6 percent. That's what ultimately got the 94 percent to back the 6 in succeeding from the union to fight the North.

The northern states had roughly 22mil combined population. The south had 9mil combined population. You think it's OK for the less than 1/3 of the total population to foot the bill for everything? This is before income taxes remember.

The Morrill Tariffs allowed the federal government to ride on the back of the Souths booming economy and slaves by taxing them out the ass. Making them pay close to 80% of the federal governments income and the federal government used that money for upgrading infrastructure in the north and not the south. Goods sent to North for refinement and manufacturing were tariffed. The north collected those tarrifs but did not equally tarrif(tax) the Northern states for its manufactured goods. That's what ultimately got to the 94 percent to pick up a gun and put brother against brother. Freeing and Paying slaves would ultimately be cheaper than paying the tarrifs but the North and plantation owners used the slave angle to rally folks to fight. Plantations sold their goods locally avoiding the tarrifs. They didn't care about the tax. Slave owners said it would destroy the economy if they were freed cause they wanted to keep them(free labor). North said slaves because they wanted to keep the South in the union because the majority of the US economy at the time came from the plantation goods, manufacturing and overseas sales. They needed people to fight, they wouldn't have fought the South if they knew it was about tarrifs. That's why we fought England for independence in the first place. They made slaves the majority of the reasons to go to war because they knew no one would fight to keep the South in the union if they knew they wanted to leave because of taxes.

a reply to: PlasticWizard

I made zero claims about fairness. I simply said that 6 percent controlled the economy and it would collapse without slaves. And it did.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: Mikehawk

People say you can't judge the whole by the actions of a few.
I hear that all the time.
The 94% of those who lived in the South who didn't own slaves are guilty of what?
It was a tiny percentage of those people with real power who determine what happens, whether or not we go to war, etc.
It was the same back then.
I'm sure the average Iraqi hates us for ruining their country.
I protested in Washington several times along with millions of others.
I can understand their feelings but I won't accept the guilt.

The 1860 census shows that in the states that would soon secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves. Some states had far more slave owners (46 percent in South Carolina, 49 percent in Mississippi) while some had far less (20 percent in Arkansas).

link

Where are you pulling this 6% number from? Ive seen it used by a few posters here on ATS

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: PlasticWizard

I made zero claims about fairness. I simply said that 6 percent controlled the economy and it would collapse without slaves. And it did.

I don't recall it "collapsing" during the reconstruction period. The economy took a hit but didn't collapse. Small white farmers were thrown into poverty, large plantations not so much. New systems such as sharecropping dominated cotton and tobacco farms and wage labor dominated sugar plantations.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Lost cause propaganda started long before the 70s...


If you remove tariffs as a variable there is still a war..

If you remove slavery as a variable there is no war..

It was fought over the fear of losing slavery.. a fear that wasn't well founded..

originally posted by: PlasticWizard

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: PlasticWizard

I made zero claims about fairness. I simply said that 6 percent controlled the economy and it would collapse without slaves. And it did.

I don't recall it "collapsing" during the reconstruction period. The economy took a hit but didn't collapse. Small white farmers were thrown into poverty, large plantations not so much. New systems such as sharecropping dominated cotton and tobacco farms and wage labor dominated sugar plantations.

The reconstruction period?
Yeah cause the south was destroyed. They faced a double problem now with most farms having been destroyed and the addition of white and black poor. Compared to the north they were practically a third world nation by today's standards for decades.


In fact still today the south other than Texas and fragmented cities are the poorest places in America.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Wars have been fought over tarrifs.. Ever heard of the American Revolution?

originally posted by: PlasticWizard
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Wars have been fought over tarrifs.. Ever heard of the American Revolution?

But the Tarrif was just the tip of the iceberg, trouble had been brewing for years.

a reply to: amazing

Slaves were just the tip of the iceberg, trouble had been brewing for years.. See how I did that?

What this is all about is ET disclosure that will soon come who provided the technology we use today in our homes, at work and for traveling/entertainment. Over the past couple hundred years the ET's have been documenting our response to it and in the last 25 or so years it seems they have allowed everyone to participate in their documentation and write what they think and feel using the world wide web/internet/going-online.

This is about the human race coexisting with each other peacefully and fairly and where technology fits into that kind of environment. Some say this can be achieved,; some say no.

It appears that what people write about online and what we post pictures and videos of will be used against them to eliminate the people's work for good. Instead of all the good things that were written about, videoed and photographed, they will just focus on the bad as an excuse for a robot workforce and if anyone asks why would they focus on the bad everyone wrote about or videoed or took pictures of, then they'll say because that's what we did to each other. It seems as if they would say things like, "people can't treat other people fairly ." "They are too emotional, violent, narrow minded, unwilling to learn, lazy, broken, sick, they lie, cheat, steal, use other people for their own gain, they leave them homeless, let their teeth and health rot, they hoard, feel entitled and are too proud, vain, bitter, vengful, mean, they panic, have anxiety, can't focus and their organic brains/computer have too many 'viruses' known as mentally illness." Then they'll say, "so to eliminate all those problems, we're using robots."

The New Testament states clearly how employers/masters and employees/slaves should treat each other, which is nicely. With care.

The bible is about a technological war and genetic engineering and seed banks.

I think the ET's love the people they helped create. We are their artwork. Their hope. We shouldn't let them down now after they were generous enough to give us all this and participate in where we should all head as a human race. The least we can do is show how awesome their artwork is and that is to just "love." You know they created us for that. To love. So precious to us and them.

I've posted some short clips with links below that show a lot of people already knew about the technology before and after the civil war as well as where they think tech is going.

Seems funny, but it's really not, but I picture Robert E. Lee surrendering after being shown proof of ET technology, I think a lot of it 'stolen' and the huge economic market to come in weaponry, house hold appliances and communications. I just have a feeling he knew. That all the main guys did. And the ET's looked down on them. Watching what they would do with it, how they would treat others with it.

So here's a few:

"THE ROBOTS HAVEN’T just landed in the workplace—they’re expanding skills, moving up the corporate ladder, showing awesome productivity and retention rates, and increasingly shoving aside their human counterparts. One multi-tasker bot, from Momentum Machines, can make (and flip) a gourmet hamburger in 10 seconds and could soon replace an entire McDonalds crew. A manufacturing device from Universal Robots doesn’t just solder, paint, screw, glue, and grasp—it builds new parts for itself on the fly when they wear out or bust. And just this week, Google won a patent to start building worker robots with personalities."

www.wired.com...

"From the weaving machines of the industrial revolution to the bicycle, mechanisation has prompted concerns that technology will make people redundant or alter society in unsettling ways. In the early 1800s, Luddites smashed machines that put them out of work, while historians argue that later in the 19th century the popularity of the bicycle aided female liberation, the growth of socialism and the end of rigid class divisions as people become more mobile."

www.google.com...

Some older books that predict tech - what we've seen now for years.

"Debit Cards, from Edward Bellamy’s “Looking Backward. This peculiar book, published in 1887, uses dry language to describe an American utopian society. One element of the society Bellamy creates is a card with an allotted amount of credit, which citizens may use to make purchases. All citizens begin with an equal amount of credit, but those with more dangerous or unpleasant jobs are given more credit. Certainly this isn’t how contemporary American society is run, but the concept predicted modern-day debit cards. Notably, Bellamy also foresaw the existence of shopping malls."

"Print On Demand, from Edward Page Mitchell’s “The Senator’s Daughter. This is a little different than the sort of instantaneous news predicted by Clarke. Mitchell’s characters, from his story written in 1879, owned printers in their homes, from which they could access and print current articles and information. Writes Mitchell: "...an endless strip of printed paper, about three feet wide, was slowly issuing from between noiseless rollers and falling in neat folds into a willow basket placed on the floor to receive it. Mr. Wanlee bent his head over the broad strip of paper and began to read attentively.”"

"Watson (and other ultra-smart computers), from Ambrose Bierce “Moxon’s Master. Ultra-smart computers are often the focus of sci-fi novels; Interestingly, our cultural fascination with a computer that can beat a human at chess or trivia is over 100 years old. I.B.M.’s Jeopardy-winning super-computer, Watson, was predicted by Bierce, whose 1910 short story describes an invincible, chess-playing robot.

Digital Media, from Arthur C. Clarke’s “2001: A Space Odyssey." Clarke not only predicted the immediacy of news, he also took a great guess at the devices on which readers would read about current events. He wrote: “One by one he would conjure up the world’s major electronic papers... Switching to the display unit’s short-term memory, he would hold the front page while he quickly searched the headlines and noted the items that interested him.”

m.huffpost.com...

originally posted by: PlasticWizard
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Wars have been fought over tarrifs.. Ever heard of the American Revolution?

I mean...





It was more than just tariffs. I would argue it was fear brought on by the quartering act after the Boston Massacre that really prompted the first continental congress.

a reply to: bknapple32

That's what I've been trying to say. There's more going on than just slaves. My first post said "sure slaves was a part of it" but it's not the entire reason the civil war was fought.

Same goes with 1776, taxes, tea were the major reason but there were other reasons as well.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I will disagree with you on that, because "crappy" is a pretty subjective term. It normally boils down to "I don't like it."

a reply to: PlasticWizard

Agreed

However, I would say I am not arguing you, but more the title of this thread. It states slavery was not the cause of the civil war. It was very much one of the causes. I would argue the main one. Others wouldnt... Ill have that debate...

But it feels like theres a washing of history from some that is trying to make slavery almost a non factor. Why? Guilt on the stance? I dont know. But slavery, I would hope we agree, was a main causing factor among a two or three others.

a reply to: bknapple32

The slaves angle was pushes by the North to rally the population in to stopping the south from succeeding. The south was going to leave the nation and take their farms and economy with them. Did the slave owners want to keep their slaves? Hell yeah they did, but the average non slave owning southerner isn't going to shoot their brother over someone else's slave. Tarrifs is what got the common man to pick up a rifle and cannon ball.

The civil War was a clusterf*vk. Slaves and tarrifs played a role. Depending on which side of the Mason Dixon line you lived on, determined the major reason for fighting. The north says slaves the South says tarrifs.

Edita to add : thread title isn't accurate, it really depended on who you were at the time. Slave owners, it was about slaves. Common southerner fought against tarrifs.

Historical facts: The CSA congress, voted to abolish slavery 6 months before the war of northern aggression ended. One of the most wanted (by the "Union")..and "Confederate" officers? Was a "Black" Confederate Captain, (in commanding) of Southern raiders/rangers. Slavery, as bad as it is/was, is not what the war was about. The "victor writes the history". Gen. Lee himself, did not want war. But he said, "I can not fight against my country, Virginia ". But "social thinking" was different back then. Back then we were a loose "union" of countries/nation states. The war wasn't about slavery. It was about gaining centralized control. When the "States" lost there "rights" (because they lost the war).."individuals" lost theirs as well. Now we're stuck with a "democracy" and not a Republic. Where the vast "majority" of government "educated" idiots think "the majority" can dictate how one "should" think. Don't worry though. ..It'll get worse from here. I know Gen. Lee and Gen. Grant, would've agreed, self mutilation to turn a man into a woman was war fighting words. But in todays "civilization"... We get stuck with these kind of people. Meh, just another day in "history". I have no doubt, within 500 years, they will cut down all the trees, because they are the "monuments" of all them "lumberjack". You know? Them a holes that cut down all the trees? But you'll be able to "work off", or pay for carbon credits. Or be given the option to "off yourself". To protect "civilization" from yourself. Or you could just be a "slave"? They should have some pretty good monuments by then to "overthrow".

a reply to: PlasticWizard

The thread title is accurate, it is precisely what the author stated in 1863.

originally posted by: PlasticWizard
a reply to: amazing

Slaves were just the tip of the iceberg, trouble had been brewing for years.. See how I did that?

I see that but seriously, you don't see that slavery was the root of everything? Two of the Catalysts that pushed both sides for war was John Browns raid on Harpers Ferry and Nate's slave rebellion. Those two had everything to do with Slavery. I think every succession letter or almost every one had wording to the effect that they wanted to keep Slavery. All the skirmishes and battles on the fronteir leading up to the civil war were about the new territories having slaves or not. Even when you look at money-it was still free labor in the south from Slavery.

a reply to: luthier

Funny, you should mention that. I'd ask you. Who controls an "economy"? The seller/resellers or the purchasers?