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: 6
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: MOMof3

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

We were taught in grade school to refer to the colonization of America by Europrans as the New World in Mississippi schools.


ETA. Makes you wonder why they saw the natives as savages when they were just as savage.

Cultural chauvinism


The colonialists were the real savages. This judgment is based on their deeds...

They were savages who deceived themselves that they were better than others based on their distorted religion and technology they learned from primarily, the Arabs and Mediterranean culture.




posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
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.

Be real. A large number of congress people supported the war in Iraq because of a string of evidences, outlined here:
en.wikipedia.org - Iraq Resolution...

The precedent was already set by the prior administrations, including Bill Clinton's--a democrat. The above link has examples, and below:

If you want to pin it on a conspiracy, you have to go further back, probably before Saddam's military flooded into Quwait. Because the bottom line is, if Powell is the conspiracy, it was a chunk of ice to a monster iceberg. It's the monster iceberg you're missing. IT caused the war.

My point? Usually wars spring up from a history of trouble and strong emotions. Countries can start wars on something like a retaliation against pro-slavery states. My contention is while slavery probably isn't the only reason the north went to war with the south, it's the primary one. One of the reasons, if not the principle reason, they wanted to overthrow Saddam's regime was WMD. Terrorist links and aggression to its neighbors and murdering its citizens are bad on their own, but they amplified the threat of WMD. WMD isn't the ONLY reason, but it gets hte focus because these other things. Possibly something similar happened with slavery in the south. Something(s) set the civil war into motion and slavery became the focal point of all the anger.
edit on 8/20/2017 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
No it is not false.


So what Tony Seybert researched and wrote about below is incorrect?


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".


Sounds like you need to start providing some sources.



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I never denied natives practiced slavery. You are just looking for disagreement where there is none.



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Slavery is an institution that goes way back in history. Human history by a long shot has had slavery much more than not

Even today it still thrives undercover

The reason people like Jefferson and Washington should get a pass is because slavery can only be abolished when any civilization is ready to abolosh it. In the 1700 hundreds it wasn’t the time

So you start judging people according to when any civilization is ripe for its abolishment and the year 1860 was the time the American civilization was ripe to do that.

Self-righteous people must understand that slavery was even allowed by God in the Jewish, Christian and Islamic civilizations only because it was so embedded in the structure of society back then that the people at that time would never have abolished it.

Sure slavery is terrible but the fact of the matter is past civilizations were prone to it and it became institutionalized so much it couldn’t be abolished until any civilization was morally prone to do it. The US time was 1860.

This is not meant to excuse it but is meant as a practical explanation of its existence

The intellectuals black and liberal who want to be so self-righteous must also accept that many of the past African, Asian and ancient civilizations like Greece and Rome were steeped in slavery.

They like the US had to eliminate it on its own time frame when their own civilizations were ready and willing to abolish it completely.

edit on 20-8-2017 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
I never denied natives practiced slavery. You are just looking for disagreement where there is none.


That is not the point of contention, the issue at hand is that you claimed they did not practice slavery until Europeans brought it to North America.



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No, The New World.



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
No, The New World.


The quote is British North America, which is your sematic 'New World'. Slavery was here before the Europeans arrived, you're just too much of a child to admit you're wrong.



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

AM you're right but its no big mistake to say what MOM said. Reason being, sure the NA had forms of slavery such as war prisoners but this never remotely reached the massive institutional slavery the Europeans ended up erecting.

Most people never heard of NA slavery because it was no huge massive institution that went over generations and into the millions of people and dollars



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So it is your contention that the colonists did not import slaves from Africa? They learned the trade from Natives?



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
AM you're right but its no big mistake to say what MOM said. Reason being, sure the NA had forms of slavery such as war prisoners but this never remotely reached the massive institutional slavery the Europeans ended up erecting.

Most people never heard of NA slavery because it was no huge massive institution that went over generations and into the millions of people and dollars


Slavery is slavery. There isn't 'oh, it's just a bit of slavery' type morally relativistic position. The Native Americans owned other people for the same reasons, and then some, as Europeans prior to the Europeans arriving.



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
So it is your contention that the colonists did not import slaves from Africa? They learned the trade from Natives?


No, my contention is you fabricated your comment that Europeans introduced slavery to North America because you are wholly ignorant about the subject and now will not admit you were wrong.



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=22585650]AugustusMasonicus[/post


Nope. I'm not wrong. Europeans brought the trade business of african slaves to the New world.



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
Nope. I'm not wrong. Europeans brought the trade business of african slaves to the New world.


Aw, look at you trying to add qualifiers now. Nope, too late. You said this:


Europeans brought the practice to the New world.


And your statement is wrong. I'd tell you it was a nice try but it wasn't.



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Willtell
AM you're right but its no big mistake to say what MOM said. Reason being, sure the NA had forms of slavery such as war prisoners but this never remotely reached the massive institutional slavery the Europeans ended up erecting.

Most people never heard of NA slavery because it was no huge massive institution that went over generations and into the millions of people and dollars


Slavery is slavery. There isn't 'oh, it's just a bit of slavery' type morally relativistic position. The Native Americans owned other people for the same reasons, and then some, as Europeans prior to the Europeans arriving.


Slavery is slavery is too trite a phrase, imho, and doesn’t distinguish between the fact that slavery as bad as it is was differently applied

Sure slavery is horrendous but like anything there are worst forms of slavery than others.

In SA they deliberately worked slaves to death on those sugar plantations

And a slave inside the house had a better time than the field slaves

And I still say you cant compare many forms of slavery to the massive institution they erected in America.



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

How would you call being used as a form of compensation, as some tribes practiced, to be tortured and ritually strangled? Is that good slavery or bad slavery?



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
But, it's still true.



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3

But, it's still true.


And not the point we are discussing about your erroneous and fabricated statement, but keep shifting those goal posts.



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

What's fabricated about the Europeans bringing slavery to the New world? Why didn't they make the natives slaves and work the plantations.



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
What's fabricated about the Europeans bringing slavery to the New world?


The part about them bringing slavery to the New World when it was already here when they landed.




top topics



 
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join