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: 6
78
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: PlasticWizard
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.


Dude, the average person didn't do very much for the economy what are you talking about? What part of the gdp do you attribute to trappers and subsistence farmers?




posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

OO wait I got one that will BLOW your veins hoss...
www.conservativehq.com...



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Riiiight.

The Confederate states just HAPPEN to list slavery in their DECLARATIONS to secede.






posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   
I find it hilarious, that all the libs want to enslave people, to pay for, their "social/civilized"... pet projects. But at the same time, they want to harp on old historical, grievances. Sad fact is? If they spewed this nonsense in Lee's or Grant's CP? They'd been "shot on sight"! Probably by a "Sergeant of the Guard", if not by them, themselves... I don't think Liberals should use history as as a foundation for their nonsense. It doesn't help them.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The CSA abolished slavery before the war ended. Kind of like, getting rid of the IRS nowadays?... Let me guess? Hmmmm? You're not a "slave"? Please tell? What do you "OWN" right now, even if you stopped paying for it? You don't seem to understand the word "slavery". But it seems to be a good "catchphrase" for liberal/commie/socialist/democrats nowadays.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

no, they would actually have been richer, because they could have paid the slaves poverty wages like the northern factories were doing at the time to their employees, additionally the paid slaves would be responsible for paying for their own food,clothes, medical care, lodging, transportation etc. freeing up even more money for profits for the plantation owner.


edit on 16-8-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010
Let me give you a US History lesson
Neither side considered slavery UN-Constitutional until1863 . 2 years after the War of Succession began due to the unfair tariffs the North was putting on the South's cotton and foodstuffs . In 1863 the Emancipation Proclamation was signed by President Abraham Lincoln .The name of the war was then changed to the Civil War due to a failing and what was becoming an unpopular war in the North . Slavery was not as widespread as folks think . Some , if not most , were sharecroppers that have been mislabeled as slaves for obvious purposes. A sharecropper was someone that was given a plot of land for them and their families as pay to work the land. A good portion went on to fight for the South as they wanted to protect and keep their land as well
The problem is today , folks watch too many TV movies and shows and accept them as the "Word of God".

Did slavery in form exist ? - yes. Does slavery still exist today ? -yes . Do evil people exist everywhere ? - yes.
This country should have been over this in 1866



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Gryphon66

OO wait I got one that will BLOW your veins hoss...
www.conservativehq.com...


You know the response is just going to be something akin to: "ConservativeHQ? Yeah, right."



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 08:00 PM
link   
It's safe to say that there were many varied reasons why Southern citizens fought for the Confederacy. The average soldier's reasons being very likely much different than the Confederate States leadership.

The thing that should give everyone a sober pause is that it's likely the same case right now all across this country. As long as we focus on differences instead of common denominators, someone somewhere will always find a cause toward rebellion.
edit on 8/16/2017 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Justify all you want. Some states said implicitly it was over slavery.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tardacus
a reply to: luthier

no, they would actually have been richer, because they could have paid the slaves poverty wages like the northern factories were doing at the time to their employees, additionally the paid slaves would be responsible for paying for their own food,clothes, medical care, lodging, transportation etc. freeing up even more money for profits for the plantation owner.



So in your opinion they were actually harming their income by keeping slaves.

Right. That makes a lot of sense. They were actually just horofically racist and wanted to keep blacks in shackles even if it meant loosing money.
edit on 16-8-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: buster2010
Let me give you a US History lesson
Neither side considered slavery UN-Constitutional until1863 . 2 years after the War of Succession began due to the unfair tariffs the North was putting on the South's cotton and foodstuffs . In 1863 the Emancipation Proclamation was signed by President Abraham Lincoln .The name of the war was then changed to the Civil War due to a failing and what was becoming an unpopular war in the North . Slavery was not as widespread as folks think . Some , if not most , weresharecroppers that have been mislabeled as slaves for obvious purposes. A sharecropper was someone that was given a plot of land for them and their families as pay to work the land. A good portion went on to fight for the South as they wanted to protect and keep their land as well

-The problem is today , folks watch too many TV movies and shows and accept them as the "Word of God".

Did slavery in form exist ? - yes. Does slavery still exist today ? -yes . Do evil people exist everywhere ? - yes.
This country should have been over this in 1866



Let's also not forget that the North was not innocent of profiting from slavery, even though they abolished it in their own states they knew full well how the cotton they received had been harvested and de-seeded.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: buster2010
Let me give you a US History lesson
Neither side considered slavery UN-Constitutional until1863 . 2 years after the War of Succession began due to the unfair tariffs the North was putting on the South's cotton and foodstuffs . In 1863 the Emancipation Proclamation was signed by President Abraham Lincoln .The name of the war was then changed to the Civil War due to a failing and what was becoming an unpopular war in the North . Slavery was not as widespread as folks think . Some , if not most , weresharecroppers that have been mislabeled as slaves for obvious purposes. A sharecropper was someone that was given a plot of land for them and their families as pay to work the land. A good portion went on to fight for the South as they wanted to protect and keep their land as well

-The problem is today , folks watch too many TV movies and shows and accept them as the "Word of God".

Did slavery in form exist ? - yes. Does slavery still exist today ? -yes . Do evil people exist everywhere ? - yes.
This country should have been over this in 1866



Let's also not forget that the North was not innocent of profiting from slavery, even though they abolished it in their own states they knew full well how the cotton they received had been harvested and de-seeded.

And , that the North had already illegally moved military in to certain Southern States and taken over the crop production . Sort of a military Junta
Remind one of a certain Eastern European country that a lot of folks condemn for doing the same ?
Hmmm?
Today , that would be illegal as US troops can not be deployed on US soil.
edit on 8/16/17 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)

edit on 8/16/17 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

absolutely they were harming their profits by keeping slaves, but they weren`t stupid men they would have very quickly observed and copied the northern sweatshop business model of hiring people at poverty wages and making the workers pay for their own lodgings, clothes, food, healthcare,transportation etc out of their wages.

in fact I`m convinced that if the civil war never happened slavery would have been almost non existent in the south by 1870.
Just look at the 1920`s and 1930`s to see what the south would have been like in the 1870`s without the civil war.
The slaves would have been freed by the plantation owners and then hired back at poverty wages.the newly freed slaves had no education or skills so the only place that they would have been able to find a job would be at plantations doing what they had already been doing as slaves.
There was no welfare and EBT cards back then, if you didn`t work you ddn`t eat. They get freed on a sunday and Monday they are hungry,no job, no money, no education, no skills etc.
The plantation owners would have generously offered them jobs, rented lodgings,provided healthcare, sold them food from the company store etc. at inflated prices and then deducted what they owned from their wages.


edit on 16-8-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-8-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-8-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-8-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu
slavery in the northern states wasn`t abolished until December 1865, the emancipation proclaimation of 1863 didn`t apply to the northern states.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

Well your inclined to that belief. However it's a little absurd. While I agree it was more a posh lifestyle of these plantation owners keeping them this way they were not back woods idiots. They knew what factories were.

Your model is fine but it's profits are not the same. Slavery is the absolute lowest wage structure possible. The care of the slaves was extremely minimum. In fact they were self sufficient and left to die or killed if they couldn't work quite regularly. Not only that, they don't need to process food for company stores through another new labor system just for slaves. You can keep the prices high enough to keep them enslaved but not to make a large profit if any. The processing of the goods it's another cost the company store system usually supports but makes little profit.

Now you have direction and control. A slave has zero say. You can control of they get drunk, don't get drunk, procreate, etc. The control of that closed system is much more efficient logistically.

These slaves were not taken care of like with food stamps and apartments...which is what your argument has to draw from the imagery of to make sense.
edit on 16-8-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 09:40 PM
link   
What we see is that slavery is/was like any other political hot button then as now. To what extent was the ulterior motive money and to what extent was slavery used as a social issue to achieve ulterior political motives?



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: DanteGaland

Only every single one....

I mean come on... this guy has a letter from a factory owner...

:p



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: maluminse

99% your exactly right..

Stonewall Jackson had a really crazy view..

He believed slavery was ordained by God and God put various races in bondage as part of his plan.. He believed that Christians were ordered by god to treat their slaves very well.. because God might decide to reverse roles and put white in bondage next..

Don't get me wrong it was akin to how you treat a beloved dog...

But nothing to do with political or economic power lol...

The whole thing was a power play by a few southern land owners to take power and establish their own nation.

I often wonder if they knew lincoin wasn't comming to free the slaves or if they believed their own nonesense..



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

What held back the South's industrial development was slavery...

Slavery made manual labor profitable ...

There was no need to invent a new sewer system. Because some one was getting paid for their slaves to dig ditches by hand..

Innovation comes from doing things that suck and finding a better way..

Only any better way upsets the status quo and you basically had a southern aristocracy at the time.

It was the same as today with big oil companies lobbying and spending money to slow down solar or meter reader pushing smart reader conspiracies to keep their jobs..

.



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join