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: 9
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: CraftyArrow

BWAHAHAHA

All the books say what we are saying..

Ours is the historical view... from real historians that I can name.. who have spent their whole lives researching it..

Yours are from random you tube personalities.. or because your uncle told you so..
edit on 21-8-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
I'm saying that if someone did a piece on chattle slavery, the examples of brutality would be WAY WORSE..


You are merely arguing your opinion it is worse to be a slave than dead. My point was slavery existed prior to the Europeans arriving which was contrary to what the other poster claimed.



posted on Aug, 21 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Your suffering from some type of yankee denial propaganda syndrome, either that, or you skipped your history classes.

Let me know when you buy, or read your first book on the Civil war. And when you do, look up Tariff of Abomination.
edit on 21-8-2017 by CraftyArrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: CraftyArrow
a reply to: dragonridr and Joshuacox

Both of you are wrong on so many levels, go to the library and read a book or something, geez.

Before and during the Civil war there was this thing called Tariff of Abominations. There's a reason for so much brass antitques from the south, because the main grievance of the Southern states was---dun dun duuuun---> Tariffs!


I'm wrong and you apparently don't know thus was appealed in 1832 this was before the civil war by the way. So I don't think you know nearly as much as you think you do. It had no effect on the civil war other than maybe lead older southern's to not trust the north.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 02:24 AM
link   
No your trying to make some moral equivalency where none exists. There were canabals in the Amazon does this somehow change anything? Native a Americans in as did not have any form of slavery even close to chattel slavery. You can argue they were barbaric in treaten prisoners but that isn't slavery to kill POWs. That is a war crime. Now the native Americans version of forcing someone to support a family of a brave that died made a lot of sense to a tribe. A tribe needs every family to pull their weight to survive.
edit on 8/22/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

O I've repeatedly argued that it's worse when your children and their childen will also be enslaved .. in perpetuity (forever..).

Which you have repeatedly ignored...

Because it's way worse than ANYTHING they could do to one person..



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: CraftyArrow

BWAHAHAHA

Says the guy who couldn't name a legit historian who agrees with them...



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
No your trying to make some moral equivalency where none exists.


I'm thinking you don't know what the words 'moral equivalency' mean. I have made none, I have repeatedly stated all forms of slavery are barbaric which is the OPPOSITE of a moral equivocacy.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
O I've repeatedly argued that it's worse when your children and their childen will also be enslaved .. in perpetuity (forever..).

Which you have repeatedly ignored...

Because it's way worse than ANYTHING they could do to one person..


Let's address that then, even though it's not the point I'm discussing. Which slave has it worse, the one alive on May 9th, 1865 or the one who died on May 8th, 1865? Because using your logic death isn't as bad so let's hear it...






edit on 22-8-2017 by AugustusMasonicus because: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

If you go back a page, and read what I said, "Before and during the Civil war." That means the  North was pushing tariff revisions on the south since 1832. And you said, "It had nothing to do with industrial." Which is totally wrong.

a reply to: JoshuaCox
JoshuaCox, what is this, "BWAHAHAHA."
What are you ten years old, or what?
That's the kind of language 10 year olds use.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


That's when it gets curious, as most of the children would be from the masters Gene line, so you end up with the Masters Children, and friends who have had sex with the slaves, being the next generation of slaves . It would do some weird things to the future, socially speaking.



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: CraftyArrow
a reply to: dragonridr

If you go back a page, and read what I said, "Before and during the Civil war." That means the  North was pushing tariff revisions on the south since 1832. And you said, "It had nothing to do with industrial." Which is totally wrong.

a reply to: JoshuaCox
JoshuaCox, what is this, "BWAHAHAHA."
What are you ten years old, or what?
That's the kind of language 10 year olds use.


What i said no such thing. What tariffs were for was to make sure the Norths textile industry would continue to be able to get cotton from the south. The tariffs were designed to make sure the south didn't sell all their cotton to Great Brittain the Norths competitor. See northerners realized quickly the south could hurt about 40 percent of their profits by refusing g to sell them cotton and shipping it to England instead.Their tariffs however get removed for being unconstitutional. This means cotton could be sold where ever they chose. And for the best price they could get making the southern plantations very rich.

The south if interested in manufacturing plantations could have easily bought manufacturers In the north they chose not to. Mostly because of the huge profits they could get by expanding or even starting new plantations. This leads to another area of contention new states not allowing slavery. This means they couldn't expand their business in the west.
edit on 8/22/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Oddly this is why it is believed many plantation owners freed their slaves upon their death. Or if not all a select few.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

If you read old Yankee literature, it would have you to believe it was all about cotton and slaves. In reality, the North made slavery worse with its tariffs on the South. By 1860 slavery was already declining in the South, which until the North threatens heavy tariffs.

The Morrill Tariff was used to weaken European recognition of the South, and it was the main cause of secession. The South only wanted free trade with the world, to develop an industrial economy by mechanized agriculture, mechanized transportation and mechanized industries; to become a modern nation of iron like the North. You know they needed railroads and all that… they needed their own iron industry.  To believe otherwise is ridiculous, as it then couldn’t compete in trade as the world modernizes.
edit on 23-8-2017 by CraftyArrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 02:59 AM
link   
a reply to: CraftyArrow

The main reason for the tariffs was income the Treasury was in financial crisis, with less than $500,000 on hand and millions in unpaid bills. The Republicans ran on protectionism that's why Lincoln won. This effected the north far more than the south so I'm not entirely sure of your point. This provided revenue while allowing wages to rise making industry competitive this was the first but amarican movement.

The Southern diplomats and agents sought to use British ire towards the Morrill Tariff in order to garner sympathy, with the aim of obtaining British recognition for the Confederacy. So it actually assisted the south in gaining support. Many prominent British writers condemned the Morrill Tariff in the strongest terms even the British people themselves supported the south in the civil war because of protectionism.

This didn't have near the effect on the south you believe it did. They exported cotton not effected at all. Most materials they purchased was through the north. Again not effected by tariffs. The one thing it effected negatively they feared US tariffs would cause other countries to put tariffs on Cotton. But in reality that wasn't going to happen Britain needed all the cotton it could get for its textile mills.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: CraftyArrow

The tariff can't be to weaken the south before they even rebeled....


Why would AMERICA (I think people refering to "the north " as if it wasn't the same United States of America that came down to today..) punish the south before the rebellion???

It's a BS talking point.. honestly it's the same as with the revolutionary war..

If you actually check into the tax rate and what was taxed, it was nothing..

It was less than the rest of the world was paying..

Both instances were power plays.. one that succeeded and one that failed..



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: CraftyArrow

Why are we mucking about ?? we know what southern men of influence wrote on the case for war, plus they were intent on spreading the institution, hence a colony of them ended up in Brazil, this sanitizing of history is a problem, eg equating enslaved ppl to immigrant workers ferchrissakes.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Spider879

they accuse everyone else of erasing history, then in the same breath spout lost cause propaganda...



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr and JoshuaCox

You have it backwards; the South didn’t seek sympathy. British relations backfired because of The Morrill Tariff; the North shot itself in the foot causing secession and poor relations with the Brits. You can look this up in in old newspaper clippings. The Brits certainly didn’t like the high taxes, nor did the South.

Most Civil War revisionist downplay the importance of tariffs because it doesn’t fit their political agenda. The tariffs not only affect British goods shipped into the United States, it tore the states completely apart. To believe otherwise is nonsense..

www.youtube.com...



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: CraftyArrow

Why would AMERICA (I think people refering to "the north " as if it wasn't the same United States of America that came down to today..) punish the south before the rebellion???



Like I said before, if you read actual history, you would call the United States aka America.... The Union and not call it the U.S. etc.

Then you would know the answer to your question. Hint: State rights.
edit on 23-8-2017 by CraftyArrow because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join