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: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Ok.




posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No she clearly defined her version of new world as "When i say New World, I mean the Colonies populated with Europeans and culture." So stop trying to assert your intellectual prowess over other people by ignoring parts of their point and focusing on other parts that make you look smart. You're clearly an internet bully and I'm flabbergasted as to why you haven't been moderated about that yet.



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
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?




I didn’t say there was good slavery or bad slavery. I said there were different levels of slavery where it was practiced differently in some places than in others and was sometimes harsher in others and milder in others even at the same location. The concept of house negro versus field negroes is a classical example of what I'm saying.

There is no universal form of slavery. There are and were differences, yet of course there’s a common stream of servitude to someone else but still these is differences depending on the culture and circumstance of the environment.

That is a fact



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 08:16 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.


No its not chattle slavery was practiced In the south. Native amaricans had no such thing before European contact. There slaves were prisoners of war. Usuallt forced into labor to support a dead warriors family. So they might end up taking care of a braves wife and children for example. In Mexico and central amaricans they could be used for ritual sacrifice but that was very rare especially further north. People that were captives had the ability to work their way into the tribe. Seeing as many native amaricans felt that adding to the tribe made them stronger.

To insinuate it was the same is just showing a major lack of knowledge in hiatory. Now the argument saying all slavery is the same no its not Native Amaricans didn't beat slaves it was just part of their culture to work for the betterment of the tribe. The only disadvantage to slaves was they were expected to carry out many of the duties of squas. So being a male perfoeming female duties was humiliating. But eventually the tribe would allow them on hnuts and even marry. It just took a couple of years for them to trust them.



posted on Aug, 20 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: jonnywhite

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.


I respect your point of view, but I must disagree.

There are always reasons for war. There are reasons fed to the public to gain the support of the people. They are usually altruistic sounding like "We're fighting for freedom" or "We're fighting to liberate [somebody] from an oppressive regime."

There are also reasons fed to the public to incite emotional responses. People need to hate and fear the other side enough to risk their lives to torture and kill people they don't know. "We were attacked" or "They were going to attack us" or "They rape women and kill babies."

There are also reasons given after a side has won a war to justify their actions. I'm sure if the Axis had won World War 2 they would have had some very noble sounding reasons for invading other countries and concentration camps. Just like we have noble sounding reasons for Gitmo and other torture camps.

Then there are reasons that are either wrong or just plain silly in retrospect. In the Vietnam War, over a million people dead because a US Navy ship was attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin, which turned out to be a lie. In World War 1, over 18 million dead because the Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated. I doubt all those people cared enough for the Archduke to die for him.

But the one reason nearly every war has in common is money. No matter what other reasons are presented, true or not, bankers are there ready to make money on the conflict. Bankers will finance both sides and always come out of a war better than the countries that were doing the actual fighting. Even during the Civil War, the Union was still buying cotton from the Confederacy. They didn't want a little thing like trading with the enemy during war to interfere with profits. Recently, the only countries we seem to be ready to wage war on are countries that don't have Rothschild controlled central banks. In 2000, there were seven. Today, there are three.

You can pick any war the US has been involved in from the Revolutionary War to today, and I can point out the monetary motive. One common monetary motive is to have governments buy arms from weapons manufacturers at full or inflated prices with taxpayer money. Money flows from the poor and middle class to the top. The Federal Reserve charges interest on the money it "loans" to the government to fight the war. Again, wealth flows to the top.

These are the people that fan the flames of war. The people are told they need to sacrifice for the war effort, large corporations and banks don't sacrifice squat.

I find it hard to believe that the Civil War is the only war in US history that was fought for the reasons given for public consumption. I don't think I can ever be convinced that the primary reason for the Civil War wasn't money.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Of course it was about money for the south anyway. Slaves was what ran their economy. The north well no the north made more money off being able to buy cotton and turning it into clothes. The key with the north was power and slavery. The north didn't like the power the south held with its economy and the representation they had to control the govt. But slavery was still the major issue. And thus was not economical in nature at all it was more to keep social order. Many in the north were truly against slavery and their voices were becoming stronger every day. Politicians in the north saw that they needed to have an anti slave stance to maintain office. This is how Lincoln won the presidency.

Oh and one more thing about your ideas is wrong. Bankers make far more in peace time then in a war. Look at world War two for example much if the defense industry was nationalized which is very bad for banks. For example coal and steel were nationalized. By many allied countries.Meaning those businesses ceased to exist and no money was made. British govt was a majority share holder in BP after world War 1. Thus of course cuts down on profits.in the US during world War 1 railroads were nationalized the biggest money maker at the time.world war two the TVA was created putting the govt in to the energy business by the way they still own it. And during a war defense contracts are redone to lower costs. In a state of war weopons manufacturers can lose about 40 percent of their profits off govt discounts. And even 9/11 hurt the economy as airport security was nationalized.

Your overly simple view of world economies shows you know nothing of war time economies. Here's something simple for you to understand if war made money why does wall street and stocks always decrease at any sign of conflict. If you were correct it should go up but it doesn't.

edit on 8/21/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

You see, your wrong again!
Buy a history book for Pete's sake, you might learn something!

The South didn't have eco power over the North, that's complete bs.

The North didn't want the South to have economic industrial power, that's a fact.

Like I said, "Stop believing yankee propaganda!"



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 04:07 AM
link   
I have I had to to get a major in history. I'm guessing your high school history teacher told you otherwise right? So let's take a look at it first the value of slaves in the south just a monetary and it counting labor was about 3 times greater than all the money in the banks and about 6 times greater than all the money in circulation.

Cotton was one of the world's first luxury items along with sugar and tabacco. Cotton became the first luxury item. This is where the phrase cotton is king comes in. Cotton was the leading export for the US from 1803 to 1937. The us economy was based on it.

The textile industry in the north counted for about 40 percent (some have said even higher) of their production this is known as the textile revolution. For some states textiles was well over 40 percent. New England for example it was 52 percent of their industries. Mee England Mills consumed 283.7 million pounds of cotton on 1860. The rest was sold to great Britain for their textile manufacturers. And we haven't even figured out the value of work done by slaves yet. And we haven't even got into tools and other necessities purchased by plantations yet either. Historically speaking the south made about half of what the north did in GDP. But this is misleading here's why population in the north was 22 million in the south 5 million with an additional 4 million slaves. But we can't count them when we're discussing money they were not payed. So 4 million people produced half of the Norths GDP compared to 22 million people on the north.

The problem with the south is they were a one trick poney. They didn't diversify this was their only production. And after slavery ended their economy was destroyed for a while any way.

This is why it's amazing the north even pushed to end slavery to be honest. But it goes to show how important the issue was to many people.
edit on 8/21/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 06:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Voyaging
No she clearly defined her version of new world as "When i say New World, I mean the Colonies populated with Europeans and culture."


And those lands that became the 'colonies with Europeans and culture' already had slavery prior to them arriving, they did not, as claimed, 'bring the practice to the (sic) New World'.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 06:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
I didn’t say there was good slavery or bad slavery. I said there were different levels of slavery where it was practiced differently in some places than in others and was sometimes harsher in others and milder in others even at the same location.


How is that relevant to the claims made that 'Europeans brought the practice to the New World'? It isn't, slavery existed in North America, including what would become British North America, i.e. the 'New World', prior to their arrival.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: CraftyArrow

The north didn't care if the south had industry...

That is just stupid...

The south using slavery made labor cheap and killed innovation..


There was no need invent a new sewer system, because some one would lobby to stop any advancement because their slaves were digging those ditchs..

No different than any outdated tech will try and hang on..

When cars were invented im sure those profiting off horses fought it.. it's as old as humanity....

You just believe whatever lost cause stuff you here huh?!?!

You told him to read a history book, but every history book agrees with him lol...

Your parroting the opinion of white supremacists about the confederacy, NO HISTORIAN agrees with your opinion..

And I live in Memphis and grew up in Vicksburg and have personally met Shelby Foote and a handful of other southern legit historians..

NONE AGREE WITH YOU. .
edit on 21-8-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Like he said .. because there are different kinds of slavery.. they have legal definitions.

Europeans did bring chattel slavery to America.. the worst form of slavery.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 06:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
No its not...


I see, you're of the mindset that some slavery is not as bad as others, I don't morally equivocate slavery. Slavery in all forms is vile.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 06:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
Europeans did bring chattel slavery to America.. the worst form of slavery.


Right, and being a compensatory eventual ritual strangulation sacrifice slave is, what, a couple steps above that?



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 06:43 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I thought we were talking North America..

The South American inca and Aztec likely had chattel slavery or close enough where it is semantics..

The North American Indians did not.. in North America the Europeans introduced Chattle slavery.

Also I'm not sure a human sacrifice counts as a slave...


I don't doubt the aztecs did both.. just saying that is more a murder victim.

But as far as the civil war is concerned WHICH IS THE TOPIC, Europeans bought slavery to America..

The aztecs and incas didn't bring it up here...

So what they were doing is irrelevant to the conversation..

In fact that really seems like a bait and switch..

Everyone is talking about the North American tribes and you skillfully slip in "the americaS"..

Even though they are not at all related..



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Some slavery is OBVIOUSLY not as bad as others...

Isn't that a snowflake argument lo??

"Well we aren't in chattle slavery now, we are in a obamacare slavery!"

Lol.. like they are equal..
edit on 21-8-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
I thought we were talking North America..


We are, the source I provided was
Slavery and Native Americans in British North America
.


Also I'm not sure a human sacrifice counts as a slave...


If it were preceded by labor prior to execution what would you call it?


The situation of enslaved Indians varied among the tribes. In many cases, enslaved captives were adopted into the tribes to replace warriors killed during a raid. Enslaved warriors sometimes endured mutilation or torture that could end in death as part of a grief ritual for relatives slain in battle.




Europeans bought slavery to America..


To a place where slavery, in various forms, already existed.


Everyone is talking about the North American tribes and you skillfully slip in "the americaS"..


I'll give you a pass since it appears you didn't see my source which I again listed after repeating multiple times in my replies. It specifically says 'British North America'.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
Some slavery is OBVIOUSLY not as bad as others...


Where do you rank forced labor followed by ritual torture/execution?


Isn't that a snowflake argument lo??


I don't know cream cake, is it?




edit on 21-8-2017 by AugustusMasonicus because: I ♥ cheese pizza.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Only if we are counting the Incas and aztecs..


Which would have little to nothing to do with North America nor the pre civil war US...



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

A hair below forced labor and torture where your children are born to be slaves as well....

I don't find human sacrifice worse than what your worst case scenario overseer would have done on a plantation..



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join