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: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: PlasticWizard
I see a few of those questions went unanswered on the AMA. I would like to hear his thoughts on those as well.




posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Lucidparadox




So I call on all the the right wingers and moderates on this site, to please stop trying to use the excuse and the notion that slavery was an afterthought and not the main driving force behind the Civil War.


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

If that doesn't get you to see how the Civil-War wasn't simple black and white, I'm not sure what will.

C''mon JinMi ma brother, I know that u know of something called the southern strategy, and the crossover that followed, Lincoln would not recognised the Reps,who were the libs of his era.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Cancerwarrior

How many white slaves did those black slave owners have?

Slavery and indentured servitude are about ownership . Europeans brought the practice to the New world. The forced servitude was outlawed but not ownership of africans til the 13th amendment.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 08:34 AM
link   
What brings a country to war is rarely a simple one line answer. The underlying reasons are usually many and obscure. If you ask ten experts what the US Civil war was about you will get ten answers. Each will be linked to the particular field of the expert.

The sad truth is wars happen whe all the deployments fail.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

I think the point is not the race of the slaves but of the owners. Blacks had slaves and that's all that matters.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
Europeans brought the practice to the New world. The forced servitude was outlawed but not ownership of africans til the 13th amendment.


Patently false. Native Americans practiced various forms of slavery prior to Europeans arriving on the continent.


Many Native American tribes practiced some form of slavery before the European introduction of African slavery into North America.

Native American groups often enslaved war captives whom they primarily used for small-scale labor. Others however, were used in ritual sacrifice, usually involving torture as part of religious rites, and these sometimes involved ritual cannibalism. Seybert, Tony (4 Aug 2004). "Slavery and Native Americans in British North America and the United States: 1600 to 1865".



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

When i say New World, I mean the Colonies populated with Europeans and culture.
So in your version of history, Europeans did not practice servitude and slavery?



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: GusMcDangerthing

Those blacks were freed by a white owner and had to have papers proving it.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   
I'd guess that about 70% of what the Army taught me was a lie, I won't even begin with what college spews out.

Was the Civil War fought over slavery? YES

The Southern states depended on slavery for their economic model. The plantation owners were making substantial profits and living like American nobility because of slavery. The north also wanted to capitalize on that economic model in the for of high tariffs and taxes placed on southern property and Southern ports. Neither side was desiring to kill their "golden goose" prior to the actual war.

Was slavery a major cause for the Civil War? - YES

How else was the South supposed to continue making the profits required by the politicians in the North and the South? People can claim "states rights" - but the major right being fought for was the right to profit (and the right to keep that profit).

Was the Civil War fought to end slavery ? - NO

I doubt anyone that has three brain cells could argue the war was fought to end slavery, seeing as how the Lincoln specially spelled out hat that was not the intent of the government prior to the war and that slaves held in the North remained slaves. Half way through the war the North "freed" the Southern slaves as a war tactic, not as a moral imperative nor as a desired outcome in the war. It wasn't until after the war and the pieces had to be put back together that freedom was granted to all slaves (and nothing at all like equality was).



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucidparadox

You're not getting it. It was about slavery but at the same time NOT about slavery.

The primary problem was that the north was taking economic advantage of the south and then on top of that, were then trying to take away a resource they paid dearly for without compensation. Regardless of the repugnancy of holding slaves, it was the law of the land and they weren't cheap. You have the north placing taxes on the south and taking advantage of them and then on top of that saying hey, we're about to steal that labor force you paid so much for. If they really wanted to free the slaves, then they should have bought them and freed them.

Btw, many of those people that monuments were made to, were voluntarily freeing their slaves if they had them.

All they had to do was make trading slaves illegal and it would have worked itself out in time without stealing a bought and paid for resource.

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



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: 200Plus

That is all true. What got us the 13th amendment was stopping the expansion of slavery to new states from the West.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 09:31 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

I fail to see your point.

I was merely stating that white people were not the only slave owners. They weren't even the first slave owners since the Native Americans possessed and traded slaves like any other commodity before Columbus even came.

Maybe the Cleveland Indians will be targeted next?
edit on 19-8-2017 by Cancerwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Lucidparadox





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

If that doesn't get you to see how the Civil-War wasn't simple black and white, I'm not sure what will.


The Democrats aren't supportive of slavery now because they changed. In fact, a lot of Democrats want to take down Confederate flags and even the statue of Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville. The Confederacy represents what it represented during the Civil War, which includes slavery. What it represents has not changed.

As a side, most of the Democrats who were racist in the past have moved to the Republican Party. I read about the Republicans picking up a lot of Democrats sometime in the later 1900's - basically the religious, racist types switched parties.



Oh, you mean all the bad dems turned republican. I see.

Maybe it was the good ones fleeing the party of racist haters.

Clinton gave Robert Byrd his eulogy and was hillary's mentor.

I think we should tear down the Clinton library.








posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Cancerwarrior

They did not have The Constitution that said all men are created equal. Those black slave owners were evil to own slaves instead giving them freedom too.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   
I respectfully disagree with the col. blanket statements that everybody fighting in the south only fought to preserve slavery is very unlikely to be true, did the politicians/rich that had a stake in slavery fight to preserve it, sure no argument. But I have yet seen an actual argument that did not boil down to opinion or pure conjecture with regards to all the common soldiers and why they fought.

That kind of statement is like saying every german that fought in ww2 was a nazi, and fought to preserve Hitlers regime, the truth was some yes, some no, some did not care and just liked to fight.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Lucidparadox




So I call on all the the right wingers and moderates on this site, to please stop trying to use the excuse and the notion that slavery was an afterthought and not the main driving force behind the Civil War.


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

If that doesn't get you to see how the Civil-War wasn't simple black and white, I'm not sure what will.

C''mon JinMi ma brother, I know that u know of something called the southern strategy, and the crossover that followed, Lincoln would not recognised the Reps,who were the libs of his era.


Then why were registered Democrats against civil rights in the 50's and 60's?



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Read up on Goldwater.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
So there's something I keep seeing in all of these threads that has me baffled.

So many, and I mean SO many people here keep defending the Confederate Flag, and defending Confederate Statues/Monuments claiming that they arent treasonous, and that they dont represent slavery and oppression of POC because the Civil War wasnt about slavery, it was about taxes and 50 other things, and slavery was just a shoe in. Everyone keeps telling me and other left wingers on this site "You need to re-learn some history"

Here we have a decorated Col. who is THE HEAD of the Dept. of History at West Point. So essentially you could say he is not only an authority on history, but you could say he is THE authority on U.S. Military history.



He says right in the very beginning..




Was the American Civil War fought because of slavery? More than 150 years later this remains a controversial question.... Why? Because many people dont want to believe that the citizens of the Southern states were willing to fight and die to preserve a morally repugnant institution. There has to be another reason we are told. There isnt.


So I call on all the the right wingers and moderates on this site, to please stop trying to use the excuse and the notion that slavery was an afterthought and not the main driving force behind the Civil War.

The Colonel in the quick 5 minute video gives a VERY detailed explanation on why slavery was the reason for the civil war, and that slavery was what the confederacy represented.

This is our own military not only stating this, but teaching it to our troops at West Point.


www.scv.org...

Lets keep destroying property and supporting the destruction of property, and completely rewrite history to make sure no one is offended by something that happened before all of our life times. No one from this day and age owes anyrhing to anyone for anything committed during times of slavery or the war. People need to yank their wedgies out and stop being so damn butthurt over everything just to get attention. No one has a right to destroy history because it makes their feelers hurt. Regardless of what happened. I cant even fathom how anyone can apply critical thought and logic to this whole scenario and come out of the process supporting the movements causing the civil unrest and destruction -- on BOTH sides of the argument.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

Africans themselves developed low hull boats to fights slave ships but defended their coastline fiercely from slave raids by Europeans. Nah, it doesn't fit some people's version of history that reaffirms their beliefs, carry on.
edit on 19-8-2017 by cenpuppie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   
The only reason why I will say no is because some states actually felt like Uncle Sam over stepped his bounds, they said as much in their articles of succession.

But the others, nah. It was about having and keeping dem slaves.

Now, if you want a good toot, you gotta read what the Europeans had to say about american slavery.
edit on 19-8-2017 by cenpuppie because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join