It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Col. Tye Seidule PhD Head of Dept Of History West Point "Was the Civil War About Slavery".. Yes

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 12:44 PM
a reply to: CraftyArrow

What year was the United States of America founded???

What did the "unions" uniforms read??

United States of America...

I think refering to it as the union and confederacy is half the problem with people forgetting what actually happened...

Somehow they take from that that America wasn't founded until 1866...

America was ALWAYS since its founding referred to as the Union.. because of the line from the US constitution where it says "in order to form a more perfect union.."

As ANY write up on ANY historical source will tell you..

"During the American Civil War (1861–1865), the Union referred to the United States of America and specifically to the national government of president Abraham Lincoln and the 20 free states and 5 border states that supported it. The Union was opposed by 11 southern slave states that formed the Confederate States, or "the Confederacy.""

posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 12:56 PM
a reply to: CraftyArrow

Nice !! A YouTube video!! From sons of the confederate veterans..

Boy that's iron clad..


Here let me help with ACTUAL HISTORIANS...

"The secession of the Southern states (in chronological order, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina) in 1860–61 and the ensuing outbreak of armed hostilities were the culmination of decades of growing sectional friction over slavery."

"The Civil War is the central event in America's historical consciousness. While the Revolution of 1776-1783 created the United States, the Civil War of 1861-1865 determined what kind of nation it would be. The war resolved two fundamental questions left unresolved by the revolution: whether the United States was to be a dissolvable confederation of sovereign states or an indivisible nation with a sovereign national government; and whether this nation, born of a declaration that all men were created with an equal right to liberty, would continue to exist as the largest slaveholding country in the world."

"The burning issue that led to the disruption of the union was the debate over the future of slavery. That dispute led to secession, and secession brought about a war in which the Northern and Western states and territories fought to preserve the Union, and the South fought to establish Southern independence as a new confederation of states under its own constitution."

More that continue to say the same..

Those ARE the big historical societies, not a sons of the confederacy 's you tube video lol.

I did not have to look hard.. every one bit the very small lost cause propagandists agree..

edit on 23-8-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 02:37 PM
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Your first post confirms to what I was saying. It all depends on your twisted collective of North vs South or Union vs Confederacy etc.  Whereas, you used America vs South or US vs Confederacy.  I mean after all, I can see that you support destroying Confederate statues etc. You would have construed wordings and perspectives like a terrorist.

Lincoln said, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or to destroy slavery.”

When Lincoln mentions “the Union,” what do you think he means?

Not only that...

Just by Lincoln own words proves all the links you posted above is revisionist history.
edit on 23-8-2017 by CraftyArrow because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 06:23 PM
a reply to: CraftyArrow

Really you mean

"EVERY SINGLE ACTUAL HISTORIAN thinks I'm wrong and the lost cause propagandists are ridiculous , but I still want to believe that so nuh-uh!!"


You keep saying read a history book, but the people who write history books ALL SAY YOU WRONG..

You really meant watch a white supremacists YouTube channel , they know the truth...

To fake point #2: lincoin means "the union" because America has been referred to as "the union" since it was founded...

"The north became the union to history.. that word that did mean the entire country , became synonymous with the states that didn't commit them in their time they were AMERICA.. and the south was America..



Every army soldiers uniform said United States of America...

Every letterhead and document was signed UNITED STATES Of AMERICA!!!

That is literally prob the dumbest thing you have proposed..

Fake point #3. please quote where I EVER said destroy the statues??

Do you think bald face lying about what I have said is a valid counterpoint???

posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 06:32 PM
a reply to: CraftyArrow

This is from the ask a historian reddit..

"Union" is a term that meant the entire United States before and (a while) after the Civil War.

During the Civil War, the Union was made up of the northern states only since the southern ones seceded.

"Basically, it's always been the Union, but from 1861-1865 (and a lot of the time after) Union meant northern states only instead of all of the states.

Another change in naming is "these United States" turned into "this/the United States" after the Civil War."

Why do you think we have a "state of the Union Address "????

So what history book was I supposed to look in??


posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 07:37 PM
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Well, in Mississippi before Civil Rights, we called any state north of TN "dam Yankees."

posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 07:55 PM
It's a mistake to think the Civil War was any sort of moral crusade by the North.
Slavery and it's extension to any new states threatened the balance of power that had always lain with the South so yes, it's a big part of why the war ever happened.
People in the North however were just as racist and sometimes more so than their Southern countrymen.
When Lincoln first called up 75,000 volunteers to "restore the law" those joining did so under the pretext of keeping the Union together.
Lincoln had no intention of interfering with slavery where it already existed at the start of the war.
Slavery entered the picture for Lincoln for morals reasons but also as a military expedient by denying them the labor of slaves requiring more men to do the jobs slaves would have formerly done. Lastly, it was the final push to England out of the war and win their sympathy to the North.
It wasn't until the Union could claim a military victory at Antietam that Lincoln even felt like it would be safe to announce the Emancipation proclamation. He couldn't afford desertions due to men refusing to fight for the ending of slavery.
The Colonel's huffing about winning the war to the "everlasting glory" of the Army puts an unrealistic moral spin on the reasons the men in the army were fighting.
If there's anyone to ask it's those who fought and died on a thousand fields east of the Mississippi.

posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 09:08 PM
a reply to: MOMof3

They do the same in Mississippi.

He was proposing that the northern states that didn't sucede were not the USA..

Like the USA wasn't founded until after the war..

That the union was a specific entity separate from the USA..

posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 09:17 PM
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Please quote where I said morality or slavery was a motivating factor for the north....

I don't make the slavery argument against the confederacy..

It opens you up to all kinda factoids that proves the north wasn't any better on race relations..

I make the treason argument, because the confederacy commuted treason.. by ANYONES definition of the word..

The only moral high ground, and the reason they went to war was to keep the country intact.

Slavery was won by the black soldiers who fought and the abolitionists that turned them into a symbol.

"We can't send these soldier who fought and do died back into bondage can we???"

Was a real easy narrative to sell..

The emancipation proclamation was done as a military tactic.. to cause confusion behind enemy lines not .. a morality issue..

Everyone always comes loaded for bear when your arguing slavery..

When you go treason they only have blanks.. because treason is undeniable.

posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 09:25 PM
a reply to: Asktheanimals

The fact the north had no real interest in screwing with the slavery in the slave states, doesn't validate succession.. it make the south STUPID and gullible for allowing themselves to be duped by the fire eaters..

The fire eaters convinced the south that the US army was gonna show up on their doorsteps and confiscate all the slaves, right before they forced the white women to marry them..

It is a tactic southerners still fall for today...

"Vote for me or their comming to get your guns!!"

posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 10:09 PM

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Well, in Mississippi before Civil Rights, we called any state north of TN "dam Yankees."

The correct separation was known as the mason Dixon line. This is what separated northern from southern states. This is why for example Maryland was discussing joining the confederacy until their legislature was arested.

posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 10:28 PM
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Yes their were racist's in the north however abolishonists had gained considerable power. This is also done through literature for example uncle Toms cabin this turned many northerners against slavery. By the way read it if you want to understand the views of the North. To say it wasn't about slavery is stupid.

The south had all ready seen slavery banned in central America. The French started enforcing their rules in the mediterainian and went as far as trying to pressure the states to change.part if this was self preservation. They were worried the US would become a power and take their stuff.

Anti slavery was pushed by women in the north and it bloomed into a full movement. So much so even Lincoln had to make promises to win his election. This scared the south since they heard his campaign and his promises. Lincoln cam actually be blamed for starting the war. He even knew it and didn't want to be the president that destroyed the Union. Slavery would have eventually ended with or without the civil war Lincoln just sped up the process.

posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 10:33 PM
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Nope, we’re speaking about your illegitimate historical accounts posted here. Believe it or not, actual historians can be politically motivated, and most are no different than CNN FAKE NEWS. Yankee Historians are known for making puppets repeat their reconstructive history, much in the same way you are moved by their hidden strings. I mean, come on, just like the modern college professors we have now, some are Antifa terrorist.

You said, “Watch a white supremacists YouTube channel.” 

You’re just hastily generalizing. That channel is also a fan of NCAA college basketball, far from being supremacist. Do you carelessly throw around “supremacists” when you see a Confederate flag or when you hear Confederate history?

Maybe you have ancestors who fought in the Confederacy; you might consider joining Sons of Confederate Veterans. They encourage the preservation of history, black or white.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

There is no fake point #2. I only asked you what “Union” means. In fact, I knew you would go off on a tangent, as I was only talking about your words and State Rights. It’s no wonder you’re getting history wrong.

There is also no Fake point #3. I said, “I can see that you support destroying Confederate statues etc.” In your ATS thread, you think destroying Confederate statues is not like erasing history. If you think that you probably support the destructive ideal of wiping history and statues away.

The major point was from Lincoln about slavery, which kills your reconstructive historian links.

Lincoln said, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or to destroy slavery.”

In full here:

Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.

I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

A. Lincoln.

edit on 23-8-2017 by CraftyArrow because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 10:47 PM
a reply to: CraftyArrow


your funny..

Encyclopedia brittanica is illegitimate history, but a random you tube from the sons of the confederacy is the gospel ...

I seriously chuckled out out a little..

That's good..

I have never once avocated destroying anything.. no one has..

If I said that that was a generality.. as an example..

I was saying restoring history takes WAY more than destroying a couple 80 year old statues..


It is a bs deflection because moving them to private property isn't nearly as easy to hype up..

You can't be reading my full replies..... because you keep making rebuttals to arguments I have never made....

posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 11:03 PM
a reply to: JoshuaCox

If you notice not one link you posted above highlights Tariffs, they all point to slavery.
You get the gist.

Lincoln destroys that ideal...


posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:16 AM
a reply to: CraftyArrow

"Yes because the encyclopedia brittanica is in the illuminati 's pocket because OBAMA! "


Because the tariffs were nothing....

They weren't even high.. that was a talking point. Everyone has hated taxes forever. It isn't hard to twist into a negative argument...

That tarrif wasn't ONLY on the south, it wasn't high and MOST IMPORTANTLY it didn't come close to touching the tax break from slaves only being taxed at 1/5 their value...

During the revolutionary war they the English taxes weren't high either..

Surprise surprise the founding fathers just used that as an excuse for independence.. or rebellion if you a Brit.

posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 11:19 AM
a reply to: JoshuaCox

There was different types of Tariffs put on the South, some not so high and some sky high.  They put high rates on iron and wool etc. Most secession debates at state level where about The Morrill Tariff.

Those debates resulted in secession in the South to where the Confederacy implemented a much lower tariff on itself. This encouraged the North to administer military disputes on the Morrill Tariff in the Southern states.

Thus, the fall of Sumter and the blockades of Confederate ports.

It’s pretty black and white; oops I mean plain as day to see how the Civil War started.

In fact, read this from the horse’s mouth.

Abraham Lincoln repeatedly stated the Civil War was caused by tariffs.

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.

"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so,"

Look, I have shown you more than enough proof. If you can’t comprehend how Tariffs where used, or understand Lincoln's words...then I can’t help you…

This is where I end my discussion, because now this thread is wasting web space and my time. I could go on and on showing you all the proof in the world, but I’m sure you will still be in denial. So therefore, have a good one.
edit on 24-8-2017 by CraftyArrow because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 01:55 PM
a reply to: CraftyArrow

No there were not..

There was no tax out solely on the south..

The tarrif implemented was on manufactured goods, not unfinished products. Which hypothetically hurt the south worse since they bought manufacturered products and the north bough base products...

Not exactly a back breaking tax.

Succession was 100% based on a slippery slope argument

posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 01:59 PM
Civil war. 100% about Slavery. Period. Most of the Flash point/tipping point events were even more directly related to Slavery, such as Harper's Ferry etc.

posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:39 PM

originally posted by: amazing
Civil war. 100% about Slavery. Period. Most of the Flash point/tipping point events were even more directly related to Slavery, such as Harper's Ferry etc.

Yes there were several incidents people tend to forget today. For examale Representative Preston Brooks brutally beat Senator Charles Sumner after Sumner gave a fiery speech attacking slavery and its practitioners. Think about this for a minute a senior gives a speach. And a member of the house of Representatives nearly beats him to death with a Cain in the Capitol building. But normaly a young man he was in his 20s bea ting an old man with a cane would have created outrage since he beat him so bad he literally suffers brain damage. But instead southerners sent him more cain's and notes saying he should beat more abolutionists funny thing for southern to say if it wasn't about slavery.

Found the speach figure I would add it here

The senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight with sentiments of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean the harlot, slavery. For her his tongue is always profuse in words. Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this senator.

edit on 8/24/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in