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: 8
78
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3



Are you seriously implying that every single person that fought for the south owned, raped, and murdered slave?

So how can a guy that cant afford new boots, somehow magically afford a slave?




posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

It was called "The Cause". No, The Rubbish was as low class as the white man could be. But he could own property and slaves if he was a successful planter.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

At its strongest the south had 500,000 soldiers roughly, so you are implying that all 500,000 were slave owners, even though many could not afford to buy shoes.

I do not care what it was called, you are painting an entire group of people with a single brush, ignoring that many things occurred to bring about the civil war, racism and slavery was 1 part of the puzzle.

Its kind of like saying Antifa is violent and anti-free speech so all leftists are violent and anti-free speech.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

No one in the Confederate army could afford shoes. All the southern money was spent on The Cause. Mostly, southerners didn't like shoes except for church. It takes group mentality and money to form an army.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Wow...now you are really stretching things...

so 500,000 slave owners huh, going to stick with that ?



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Then G explain to me why the black mans life was more important than the brown mans life.
Since during the era native americans were slaughtered.
After all the north was so righteous in their cause.

a) First Nations had land.
b) They did not exist in the Bible so their status as humans was a little fuzzy from the git-go.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

One thing people can't seem to understand is the language of the day was different.

Saying "slave state" and "non-slave state" was just another way of saying what we would call a red or blue state today.

Slavery itself was not fundamentally the cause of the war, its easy to see for anyone that actually reads some of the accounts of the people that actually lived through it. The politics of slavery was part of it, but there were really many reasons the South wanted to seperate and govern itself. In fact many slaveowners in the South wanted to free their slaves, the question really was, how to go about it. How do you take somebody that has been a slave their whole life, and incorporate them into a society where they can be a productive, functioning member of that society? It's sort of like when all of those PITA people "freed" thousands of minks and let them loose into the wild from a mink farm a while back and a few days later, all of the minks were dead from exposure. They never lived outside before and had no skills for it.

I've read many, many diaries, letters, biographies, interviews that were the words of the actual soldiers themselves both North and South.

I have yet to come across an account of a single Southern soldier who says he joined the Confederate Army to keep slavery as an institution. Not a single one. However, almost all of them talk about a tyrannical federal government that was out of control and no longer represented all of its citizens. They talk about how they wanted to govern themselves. Compare that with the events in the country today and its easy to see why they are pushing this racism narrative. Anybody that has been paying attention for the last few years can see this being orchestrated plain as day. Unfortunately, many Americans are swallowing the racist villains bait, hook line and sinker.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Cancerwarrior

Except it was the fundamental cause according to every historian in history....

John brown had his raid.. the southern fire eaters hyped up succession.. then the south fired first...

I promis there are letters from soldiers saying it was about slavery...

But we don't even need those because EVERY SINGLE STATE specifically said they were doing it to protect slavery in their articles of succession...



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: bknapple32

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.

Free access to the "Indian Lands" west of the Appalachians...but you don't hear that much.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Cancerwarrior




I have yet to come across an account of a single Southern soldier who says he joined the Confederate Army to keep slavery as an institution. Not a single one. However, almost all of them talk about a tyrannical federal government that was out of control and no longer represented all of its citizens. They talk about how they wanted to govern themselves. Compare that with the events in the country today and its easy to see why they are pushing this racism narrative. Anybody that has been paying attention for the last few years can see this being orchestrated plain as day. Unfortunately, many Americans are swallowing the racist villains bait, hook line and sinker.


they obviously had a latter day alex jones telling 'em just how it was, gay frogs n'all no doubt.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

It very well may have been a fundamental cause for the rich and powerful, does not make it a fundamental cause for the common soldier.

Also we need to remember, the North won so they got to shape the narrative after the war, maybe just maybe they wanted to steer it into an area that made them look better for the history books.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Slaves were the most profitable part of America, so you're basically out of your mind.

That's like saying Insurance has nothing to do with our economy today, when it's the largest industry, has no product, only collects money, employees thousands of people, and is the major cause of every change in out Government financially and politically.

The modern day slave owner doesn't just have everything, they have 2 of everything.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyeddie68

A) they were also US soldiers who fought in the Spanish American war...

B) after the civil rights act there was a massive push back where most of the confederate named stuff popped up..

There were a couple statues, but about 90% were suspiciously named right around 1970...


Lincoin or maybe grant pardoned everyone..

If not they would have been executed.. they had just killed 100,000 US servicemen..



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

I am the 14th generation of Hubbard's born in Mississippi in 1950. You will find my ancestors in Confederate cemeteries. I know the history of Confederate south. When I moved to Missouri in 1966, my grandfather called me a Yankee. An insult.

They were dirt farmers and too poor to own slaves as most soldiers in the Confederate army. But they fought with the south anyway to keep slavery a way of life. The Cause.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

That only applies to every war ever...

Soldiers on the ground always fight for a gajillion different reasons..

The cause of the civil war was a very specific set of politicians..

Not the average soldier who joined AFTER they rebelled..

Your leaving out the fact though a lot of soldiers didn't have slaves, they all said it was to keep the white race pure and dominant. Since part of the propaganda was that they were gonna enslave the south and marry their daughters to slaves...


EVERYTHING at the time was drawn along slavery lines.. it was the hot button of the day..

WAY bigger than any issue today..



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

The southern politicians told everyone they were gonna free the slaves and make them equal.. even forcing white women To marry them..

I



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Marry, the southern dirt farmers interpreted that as mass rape from freed black men running loose. Right through the 60's civil rights movement.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   
People keep talking about slavery, but what is slavery? Slavery is a socioeconomic system where the mode of production is slave labour.

The US Civil War was about economics, not slavery.

People here claim that the Southern states' economies would have collapsed without slavery. That's exactly the point. But nobody is willing to go further to explain why this was the case.

The reason why had to do with cotton. Cotton was the staple resource of the Southern states, and as such it was their key export. Cotton was produced on plantations. Plantations raised monocrops. Without crop rotation practices, this made it hard to actually produce cotton in a cost effective manner, except with slavery.

So why did the South depend on cotton production so much? Because it was the key export to the Northern states. The North would take the cotton and produce textiles, which would then be exported to Europe. Refined goods are far more profitable than raw resources derived from a primary economy, thus the North was far wealthier.

The Southern economy was weak by comparison, and the two camps of North and South formed by economic reality over time. Wealth equals power, specifically political power, and the North wanted political power over the South.

At some point, some invented created a machine that essentially industrialized the production process of cotton, creating vastly more output of raw cotton. The South's key mistake, in my opinion, occurred at this point: instead of using that opportunity to commit to emancipation and a capitalist economy, they vastly expanded slavery to save more money. Why did this happen? Because the slave owning minority were the backbone of Southern economies, had the wealth and thus political power, and would lose their power and status if the mode of production was shifted from slavery to wage labour.

Anyway, the South became much richer in general because of all of this. Then the North became concerned, probably for two reasons: the first being that importing substantially more cotton could inflate the economy, and secondly, that the South could afford to just cut the North out of the trade process completely. What the North had that the South did not was textile factories (for refining cotton into textiles) and, most importantly, shipping ports for Atlantic trade.

This is why the North enforced the increased tariffs on slaves via federal legislation. It's not hard to imagine why the South would be pissed that the North was using the federal government to enforce their own economic dominance within the Union, ESPECIALLY since the Feds were never supposed to wield such authority under the original constitution. This can be argued against concerning that the constitution promised universal rights, which is reasonable to assume applies to all peoples, but it is also hard to deny that 1776 USA was all for slavery.

Anyway this all ended up with succession and war. The war itself was particularly interesting because the Confederacy had high morale and were kicking ass for the first while. The North had to spend and borrow a lot of money just to mobilize an army of its own. However, due to economic geography, it turned into a war of attrition that the Confederacy could not keep up with.

The reasons for this revolved around the geographical location of the Confederacy itself. To the south was Mexico, who the USA just fought a war with; they were obviously not going to help the Confederacy. To the North was the Union, that had shipping ports that propped up their economy during the war. The Confederates were essentially isolated without much ability to export anything. They had ports but the North were allied with Britain, whom I believe received support in exchange for war loans (though I'm not sure of the details), and the allied Union and British navies would control any trade along the Confederate coast.

The whole emancipation of the slaves thing occurred years into the war as a strategic move by Lincoln. Slave owners in the South, who also happened to be exempt from military service, were terrified of the idea of releasing slaves due to fear of violent reprisals; so the promise of emancipation was a successful psychological campaign.

But by that point, the North had restructured its economy and cut dependence on cotton. After creating a massive Union army, they also developed many new and innovative military technologies that became key exports. This included repeating rifles, gattling guns, a new generation of naval ships (based on the ironclad), etc etc.. and in knowing that they were going to win, they knew they could dominate the southern economy any way they wanted to for their own use.

The Republic thus became the Empire.
edit on 8172017 by TheStalkingHorse because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Is this equal in the sense that white men could force women?

Or equal in the sense that strawman hyperbole has been used for over 100 years?



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Maybe the issue with the Right is listening then, and always has been, if that's what they interpreted, from English, a language about specific meaning. Anytime 'interpreting' is going on, it's normally the interpreters fault for misunderstanding.

AKA Freedom and Equality were the buzz words. Their fear of mass rape is reflective of their own morals, and what they would do themselves coming into 'freedom'. Go ahead, call me wrong, with the highest majority of white male rapists still being from the south to this day.
edit on 17-8-2017 by SoDumb because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
78
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join