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.

 

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

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucidparadox

You are retarded for promoting this, and I welcome my post being reported, because it's retarded.




posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 02:50 AM
link   
First of all you need to go over the actual definition of treason and then you need to stop listening to 'authority' and just research it yourself. Gee, a West Point officer with a PhD in History says the war of northern aggression was just and righteous. I am just so shocked at that



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 02:51 AM
link   
The very first slaveowner in America was a black man named Anthony Johnson.

Did you know when the war broke out in North Carolina, a black man named William Emerson owned more slaves than any other slaveowner in the state.

The census of 1830 shows that 3775 freed black men owned a combined total of 12,700 slaves.

Wonder why these kinds of facts never seem to make it into the history books. Maybe because it shows that blacks can be just as "racist" as bad ol whitey.

A West Point colonel huh, yeah, no agenda to push for those guys I'm sure.
edit on 19-8-2017 by Cancerwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Of course it was it's stupid to say it wasn't.Lincoln ran on a platform if limiting slavery. The south was worred without slaves they would literally have no income. It's what you call cause and effect. Cause restrict slavery effect destroy the south. That's why reconstruction was difficult when the souths economy depended on cotton.
edit on 8/19/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 03:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucidparadox




Looks like I found one..

Did you watch the Colonel? He was actually really thorough.


You did. I knee jerked that response pretty hard.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucidparadox

"There has to be another reason we are told. There isn't"

So, now he's saying slavery was THE ONLY reason? I don't care What kind of accolades his colleagues have lauded upon him. He's absolutely full of it.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Jesus, those democrsts sho do live a long time.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 03:43 AM
link   
it was about re-unifying the country and while slavery was an issue, it was not the reason, if it was then why was slavery legal in the union until 1863?
the north was just as racist and the notion that they actually cared about blacks and fought for their freedom is complete nonsense, the only reason northern blacks were more free was due to the fact that northern agriculture wasn't focused just on cotton and industrialization was far more developed in the north, slave labor was far more expensive than one or two people using the new farm tools that were being produced so blacks were mostly ignored and segregated from whites.

slavery was only abolished because it became too expensive with the advent of the industrial revolution and urbanization, despite what the south felt or did in regards to slavery the north only cared at all due to their desire to unify america under the union flag, slavery was in the way of progress and our development as a world power.

yeah it was good that the blacks were freed but to argue that the north actually fought for a segregated and isolated group of what they thought were not even human beings, it's just silly and full of hypocrisy.

this whole hero worship of the union is completely downplaying the suffering blacks faced despite slavery being gone, the years of hardship and discrimination towards blacks that continued for so long...



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 04:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucidparadox

Will the next civil war be about slavery?



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 04:42 AM
link   
a reply to: namehere

I suggest you pick up a history book and learn about a group called abolishinist.Slavery, quickly falling out of favor in the Northern states, was abolished throughout in the North by 1804. So your belief their were slaves in the north us a myth but at least you learned something



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 05:03 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

facts are useful but they do not convey the whole picture of the truth, i know all those facts but what you don't notice is that the first industrial revolution coincides with the abolitionism movement, just as the civil war coincides with the second industrial revolution.

like i said it was all about money not any desire to actually free anyone..
edit on 19-8-2017 by namehere because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-8-2017 by namehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI



What about the 'left-wingers' who cling to the party that wanted to uphold slavery?

That party is called the Republicans now.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed


All of those saying it was about slavery are just worthless mouthpieces for what they know not.

That or they just happen to know more about the subject than you.


Because there are still places where slavery is being done, and they do nothing about it.

Actually there are quite a few organizations that fight against slavery.


In other words, the slavery chanters are just using this as some kind of perceived leverage for selfish reasons while places where there are actual slaves and slave trading are being ignored and dismissed.

No they just want to get rid of statues that pay tribute to traitors. Also we should fix our own problems before worrying about other nations problems.


The leftists always have fake trigger objects to project their agenda upon everyone like some kind of shakedown racket.

How is that any different from Republicans crying they will shut the government down if they don't get their way?


Fake because they really don't give a real damn except caring only about themselves in their own world.

Everyone has been that way for decades nice to see you finally caught on.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 06:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: namehere

I suggest you pick up a history book and learn about a group called abolishinist.Slavery, quickly falling out of favor in the Northern states, was abolished throughout in the North by 1804. So your belief their were slaves in the north us a myth but at least you learned something


You might want to re-check some of those dates in your history book. In Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Kansas slavery was legal before, during, and after the Civil War.

You would think that if they were fighting a war to end slavery they would have started by ending slavery at home.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: namehere

It's a white thing. No one ever had slaves but whitey. So it's a white thing. White people invented slavery. No other race ever had slaves before or after whitey.

....and thugh south had all thugh white people! Even cotton was white!

I think that's the REAL focus here




posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom
The 13th amendment was adopted in1865, ending slavery. After the Civil war some states went Jim Crow, separatists and terrorist.

Whats up with Aussies and others trying to rewrite our history?



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 07:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucidparadox

So an Army colonel teaches Army cadets that the US Army was fighting a war to end slavery.

I'd be curious to know why he thinks the US Army was fighting in Vietnam. Does he teach that it was because we were attacked at the Gulf of Tonkin? I'd also wager he teaches that we invaded Iraq because Colin Powell proved to the UN that they had weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi soldiers were killing babies in incubators.

I'm sure he also teaches that the US was fighting for moral causes when we attacked Korea, or Afghanistan, or Mexico, or Cuba, and both World Wars.

I'm pretty sure that if he taught the real reasons the US goes to war against other countries, he wouldn't hold a teaching job at West Point very long.

I tend to lean more towards General Smedley Butler's viewpoint: war is a racket fought for the financial interests of banks and large corporations.
edit on 19-8-2017 by VictorVonDoom because: goofed



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: namehere




if it was then why was slavery legal in the union until 1863?


And even then, the Emancipation Proclomation only freed the slaves in conquered Southern territory.

It did nothing for the slaves in the border states and up North.

The free-labor system that the North employed enslaved the workers just as much, if not more so than the chattel-slavery system the south used. Northern factories were some pretty horrible places to work. Since grade school age kids had the small stature to get up into tight places they were often used as maintenance when a machine broke down. Many of them died from being crushed working on said machinery.

And they were paid a few pennies a week in most cases, just enough to maybe afford a roof over your head and have something to eat at the end of their 12-16 hour shifts. They were slaves in everything but name.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, both are horrible.

People need to realize the North was no better than the South on these issues.
edit on 19-8-2017 by Cancerwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 07:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cancerwarrior

And even then, the Emancipation Proclomation only freed the slaves in conquered Southern territory.



I think you mean unconquered Southern territory. The Emancipation Proclomation declared that only slaves in Southern states not under Union control were free. So slavery was still OK in Northern states and Southern states where the Union Army was in control.

It would have been like Churchill declaring in 1940 that all Jews in Nazi Germany were free to leave the concentration camps. It sounded nice, but it didn't have a lot of teeth to it.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Col. Tye Seidule PhD Head of Dept Of History West Point "Was the Civil War About Slavery".. Yes

Someone still needs to explain to me why the 'black' mans life and freedom was more important than the 'brown' mans life and freedom.

To this day STILL live on fema camps of their time. reservations.

That righteousness some people are trying to beat others over the head with ?

Doesn't exist.







 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join