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.

 

The Real Cause of the Civil War You Have Never Heard of..

page: 2
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: frugal

1) you should have read the OP not just the headline.. all the historical tidbits you mentioned are listed their lol...

2) no one with any athority has proposed destroying the statues... only moving them to private property because they committed treason against the USA...


You should really read the moral at the end, as it specifically mentions slippery slope arguments.




posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

That is the most ridiculous statement ever..

That's not even a real history site....


The truth is that everyone back then was INSANELY RACIST..


Hell your average abolitionists of the civil war would give your average modern KKK member pause...

With the modern KKK person being the one to argue "Well i wouldn't say all of them are worse at everything.. That's a little much..."


The past was insanely barbaric , so to quote Dan Carlin "you have to judge things like racism on a curve.."

How racist were they compared to their contemporaries...


So it depends on what you are comparing them to... if it is Modern morality they were all monsters lol and I don't mean the south I mean humanity..



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl
In a nutshell ... There was a Civil War was because the Southern States seceded. That would have made the country (as a whole) less than half as powerful.

Smart people knew this was a dumb idea.

There is NO other reason.


In a nutshell the Southern States seceded because the rich statesmen of the south thought their livelihoods and plantations were in danger from the abolishment of slavery.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


Well a lot of research has gone into this subject, and apparently Blacks did have white slaves.www.africanamerica.org... granted probably not many but it was a fact.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Your right it has, and no actual historian has ever claimed that even one black person ever owned a white person in America..

In the past on the Barbary coast and the Moors had white slaves..

No "African American " ever has..


www.snopes.com...

PS your link doesn't work..



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

Making the rebellion even dumber because the north had no plans to do so..



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The north wanted to continue to have the most power in government. If the new states were allowed to have slavery they would have naturally aligned with the southern block of states and the old new england power holders did not want to lose control to the southern elite. Please read the article from Vanderbilt I posted.

Also even according to your "snope" article many , many blacks owned slaves. Did all blacks not come from Africa???
Is there a population of black people that originated in any other continent than Africa? Please get over it. One of the first legal owners by law was a black man. Antony Johnson owned John Casor .

This is from wiki but there are other sources available. Maybe ole whitey saw how profitable owning someone for life could be and copied Anthony Johnson.


_________________________________________________________________________


When Anthony Johnson was released from servitude, he was legally recognized as a "free Negro." He developed a successful farm. In 1651 he owned 250 acres (100 ha), and the services of five indentured servants (four white and one black). In 1653, John Casor, a black indentured servant whose contract Johnson appeared to have bought in the early 1640s, approached Captain Goldsmith, claiming his indenture had expired seven years earlier and that he was being held illegally by Johnson. A neighbor, Robert Parker, intervened and persuaded Johnson to free Casor.

Parker offered Casor work, and he signed a term of indenture to the planter. Johnson sued Parker in the Northampton Court in 1654 for the return of Casor. The court initially found in favor of Parker, but Johnson appealed. In 1655, the court reversed its ruling.[10] Finding that Anthony Johnson still "owned" John Casor, the court ordered that he be returned with the court dues paid by Robert Parker.[11]
This was the first instance of a judicial determination in the Thirteen Colonies holding that a person who had committed no crime could be held in servitude for life.

LINK: en.wikipedia.org...(colonist)
edit on 24-8-2017 by savagediver because: added link


Link: www.ocf.berkeley.edu...
edit on 24-8-2017 by savagediver because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2017 by savagediver because: spelling



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: savagediver

The free states didn't have the most power in government leading up to the civil war...


The democrats party split on the eve of lincoins first election.. before then the slave states had the majority for quite awhile..


The slave states had the majority of the countries millionaires at the time. .. they had not been picked on....

They were afraid the new western states being free, rather then half and half free and slave , would give the free states a majority...


I said no black personal ever owned a white person in America...

Not that no black person ever owned a black person..

If I did it was a mistake..

That would have zero to do with any point I have made.. I do not make the slavery argument against the confederacy.. I make the treason argument..

That one isn't subjective and is VERY CUT AND DRY..











edit on 24-8-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

If you want to get technical an indentured servant may not be a slave but the balck man Anthony Johnson had four white indentured servants.

Indentured servitude was almost slavery condition wise. You try it some time and come on back and say how nice it was.

The north was afraid of a growing southern power base in DC. You can shake your head back and forth and stick your fingers in your ears all you want , it wont change facts.

It also wont change the fact that many former slaves went back to the plantations they came from because the north wanted nothing to do with them and they could not survive on their own so they went back to the only life they knew. I don't blame them as it was that or starve.

My biggest concern with all of this is the sentiment that the north = good , south = bad or that north hated slavery and the south alone was evil slavers. The freedom thingy came much later towards latter part of the war as ole abe was getting desperate as many people in the north were against the war and his support of it was waning. On top of that the yanks were getting their butts kicked around for awhile and they were really scared of losing.

The free slaves who joined the northern forces were not even allowed to carry weapons at first and they were relegated to jobs similar to the manual labor they were forced to do while slaves because the north were just as racist as the south.



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: savagediver

Indentured servitude was not equal in any way to chattle slavery..

The fact that your children are sentenced to slavery in perpetuity, makes it a whole new level of evil..

Also indentured servants were not property to be sold or harmed as you pleased..

You could legally hang a slave for little or no reason.. it was not legal to execute an indentured servant..

That said I'll have to look but I bet there is more to that story than meets the eye..

The white mans right to rule was in full swing by then, so I doubt a black man owning whites would have flown back then.



If your so sure the the free states were out to get the slave states (how they referred to themselves.) please provide a mainstream history site that backs that up..

I can provide a dozen that back up what I have said..

That is not me ignoring history.. I am not the one taking the word of alternative history sites and you tube videos..

I have personally met and talked to Shelby foote multiple times, as he was a Memphis native and as pro confederacy as they come , while still being unbiased..


I heard the story of the civil war from literally the biggest of southern civil war big wigs..



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   
a reply to: savagediver

I have personally stated everything you mentioned about the north and race relations in the OP..

Maybe you should have read it first...

The north is the good guy because the north was AMERICA, and the we are Americans..

The south committed treason over the fear MAYBE one day the US would outlaw slavery.. mainly because of a very few politicians who planned on restoring the international slave trade and supplying and new western slave states..

From an AMERICAN POV the confederacy was the bad guy..

From a slavery point of view they all were bad guys..



posted on Aug, 24 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

From a federalist point of view you are right. South = Bad because they left the union and I agree slavery was bad so all USA = bad. This bit of an article will make you think about secession. Virginia , New York , and Rhode Island only ratified the US constitution if they were explicitly given the right to secede.
Hhhhmmm....... New York , Virginia ( of course because they did what they reserved the right to do ) , and Rhode Island = bad because they agreed states should have the right to secede.

History is written by the victors and ours was written by big brother USA government.


___________________________________________________________________________



In an article entitled “The Foundations and Meaning of Secession” which appeared in the Stetson Law Review (1986), Pepperdine University Law Professor H. Newcomb Morse provides convincing evidence that the American states do indeed have the right to secede and that the Confederate states did so legally.

First, three of the original thirteen states-Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island-ratified the U.S. Constitution only conditionally. Each of these states explicitly retained the right to secede. By accepting the right of these three states to leave the Union, has the United States not tacitly accepted the right of any state to leave?

Second, over the years numerous states have nullified acts of the central government judged to be unconstitutional. These instances where national laws have been nullified give credence to the view that the compact forming the Union has already been breached and that states are morally and legally free to leave.

Third, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid a state from leaving the Union. According to the tenth amendment to the Constitution, anything that is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed. Therefore, all states have a Constitutional right to secede.



LINK: vermontrepublic.org...



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 06:13 AM
link   
a reply to: savagediver

No they didn't..

There was absolutely no legal right to secede..

You know why??? Because there hever ever has been in all of human history..

It is absolutely impossible to run a country when bid swaths of your territory comes and goes from generation to generation....


You have always had to fight a war to take power in a region..

The only historical example of voluntary succession is when the country basiclly falls, such as the USSR...


Your link doesn't say what you claim it does...

It never even mentions Rhode Island, just a Tomas Jefferson quote claiming "anyone being mistreated has a right to sucede.."


Which is not actually what he is saying..

He is saying they have a right to REBEL..

You know why??

Because succession is only a theory.. because no country has ever just let a third of its sovereign territory leave...


I don't doubt the people who actually signed, went home and whenever they caught any crap for joining the union claimed "don't worry about it, we can leave if we want.."


But I'm sure , since that has never happened in history.. they had to know that wasn't the case..



The argument that "the constitution doesn't say you can't" is ridiculous, because it doesn't say you can sucede either...



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: savagediver

The north doesn't deserve props for fighting a war to free the slaves..

The abolitionists and black soldiers won the war for slavery.. they used them and the desire to punish the south for all the deaths of US military personnel.


Ps.. not to a federalist.. to an American..

The USA was founded in 1776.. long before the civil war. Not in 1866...



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I did read it. I told you how I felt. I don't expect anyone to like what I said. The monuments will not be moved to private properties. The states of Virginia and South Carolina enjoy a steady stream of economic prosperity from tourism to see these pieces of art and history. I have lived in both states. It is all about money these days. People should focus on the trash problems of the USA and not try to morally cleanse or correct history. People really need to look forward and be constructive.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: savagediver
a reply to: JoshuaCox

From a federalist point of view you are right. South = Bad because they left the union and I agree slavery was bad so all USA = bad. This bit of an article will make you think about secession. Virginia , New York , and Rhode Island only ratified the US constitution if they were explicitly given the right to secede.
Hhhhmmm....... New York , Virginia ( of course because they did what they reserved the right to do ) , and Rhode Island = bad because they agreed states should have the right to secede.

History is written by the victors and ours was written by big brother USA government.


___________________________________________________________________________



In an article entitled “The Foundations and Meaning of Secession” which appeared in the Stetson Law Review (1986), Pepperdine University Law Professor H. Newcomb Morse provides convincing evidence that the American states do indeed have the right to secede and that the Confederate states did so legally.

First, three of the original thirteen states-Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island-ratified the U.S. Constitution only conditionally. Each of these states explicitly retained the right to secede. By accepting the right of these three states to leave the Union, has the United States not tacitly accepted the right of any state to leave?

Second, over the years numerous states have nullified acts of the central government judged to be unconstitutional. These instances where national laws have been nullified give credence to the view that the compact forming the Union has already been breached and that states are morally and legally free to leave.

Third, and most importantly, the U.S. Constitution does not forbid a state from leaving the Union. According to the tenth amendment to the Constitution, anything that is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution is allowed. Therefore, all states have a Constitutional right to secede.



LINK: vermontrepublic.org...


Well posted.
This info comes up every few after national elections.
Some in California are petitioning for it now.
Texas has in the past.
Were any to leave these days I do not think any of the people in DC would be able to convince many to bring cali back by force.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

The article he posted doesn't say the part about Rhode Island and such.. it may be true, I guess..

But it was not in the source he posted saying it was..

No nation, in history has ever allowed any one who wanted to to claim a large chunk of there nation with out a fight...

Never ever ever..



posted on Aug, 28 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The article I posted is fromm the article I linked. The dud from Pepperdine University wrote what I pasted below the line in my post.



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Taxes (Morill Terrif Act) = secession + not allowing too = war.

I don't care to scythe through all the propaganda, I'll just get facts. Yes the Fire Eaters exsist, woooo... I don't think anyone knows who hell most those people are.
The real causes of the dissatisfaction in the South with the North, are in the unjust taxation and expenditure of the taxes by the government of the United States, and in the revolution the North has effected in this government from a confederate republic, to a national sectional despotism.” - Charleston Mercury, Nov.3 1860.

Oh, wait.. 1860? So when ol lying Abe addresses his inauguration a year later the South was already IN THE MIDST of pulling away? Because of Taxes?

“The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves. and so the war came and now it must go on till the last man of this generation falls in his tracks, and his children seize the musket and fight our battle. Unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence, and that, or extermination.” President Jefferson Davis, C.S.A (tombstone)

Now I know he is a “traitor” or a “war criminal” or a “white supremacist”.. but I think he may know why he is the governing body of the South- yeah? Many want to look at state influences, and yes, it was about slavery… AT THE END but predominantly had other reasons of dissatisfaction.

“The Tariff question, again enters largely, more largely than is commonly supposed; into the irritated and aggregate feelings of the Southerners. And it cannot be denied that in this matter they have both a serious injury and an unconstitutional injustice to resent… All Northern products are now protected; and the Morrill Tariff is a very masterpiece of folly and injustice.” James Spencer, British Cotton Trader & Trade Adviser, Scottish Journal

Here is a guy who draws no alliance to either side. He's literally calling it what it is. Unconstitutional.. folly and unjust taxes.

“The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.” Charles Dickens

“Everyone still professes to the disapproval of slavery. Of course, so in the can't of the day runs, slavery is a very dreadful thing, and everybody the South above all, would be glad to see it abolished; but slavery has nothing to do with the present war.” - British Correspondent “The Outlook of the War”

“As a rule, the great mass of the public expenditures were made from the North, not in the South, so that Southerners found themselves doubly taxed; taxed first for the benefit of the Northern manufacturers, and then in disbursement of the public funds, denied an equal participation in the benefits accruing therefrom.” The Weekly Athenaeum, May 1865

“Since therefore, the abolition of slavery never appeared in the platform of any great political party, since the only appeal ever made to the electorate on that issue was scornfully repulsed, since the spokesman of the Republicans empathetically declared that his party never intended to interfere with slavery in any shape or form, it seems reasonable to assume that the institution of slavery was not fundamental issue during the epoch preceding the bombardment of Fort Sumter.” - Charles Beard

myth 1: it was all the fire eaters, yeah and the illuminati rule world today buddy.

myth 2: war was over slavery

myth3: the South attacked fort. No dude.. all they did was say "hey man, you need to leave - this is our property. " guy in fort says "oh, it'll take us 30 days.. we are hungry." so south literally feed these guys for 30 days. The guy at fort is being told by Abe to hold them off until backup arrives. 30 days later, guess what? backup arrives! an illegal act of war. South saw the ships of troops and tax collectors and then say "this is an act of war, you won't leave, you're on foreign soil- be prepared to be fired upon." and one guy died. Not by bullet.. but by standing close to a gunpowder keg. It wasn't a show of force, but warning they will force them back.

After war, after Nathan Bedford and Robert E Lee's surrendered, Nathan said to his own men (not the north, isn't propaganda, but truth)
Civil war, such as you have just passed through naturally engenders feelings of animosity, hatred, and revenge. It is our duty to divest ourselves of all such feelings; and as far as it is in our power to do so, to cultivate friendly feelings towards those with whom we have so long contended, and heretofore so widely, but honestly, differed. Neighborhood feuds, personal animosities, and private differences should be blotted out; and, when you return home, a manly, straightforward course of conduct will secure the respect of your enemies. Whatever your responsibilities may be to Government, to society, or to individuals meet them like men.

The attempt made to establish a separate and independent Confederation has failed; but the consciousness of having done your duty faithfully, and to the end, will, in some measure, repay for the hardships you have undergone. In bidding you farewell, rest assured that you carry with you my best wishes for your future welfare and happiness. Without, in any way, referring to the merits of the Cause in which we have been engaged, your courage and determination, as exhibited on many hard-fought fields, has elicited the respect and admiration of friend and foe. And I now cheerfully and gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness to the officers and men of my command whose zeal, fidelity and unflinching bravery have been the great source of my past success in arms.

I have never, on the field of battle, sent you where I was unwilling to go myself; nor would I now advise you to a course which I felt myself unwilling to pursue. You have been good soldiers, you can be good citizens. Obey the laws, preserve your honor, and the Government to which you have surrendered can afford to be, and will be, magnanimous.
— N.B. Forrest, Lieut.-General
Headquarters, Forrest's Cavalry Corps
Gainesville, Alabama
May 9, 1865.”

Only 5-6% had slaves. It was a good idea to those people. Most people didn't care and slavery was dying out. Europeans wouldn't of made those claims if it was a coupe to slave even harder lmao slavery was ended in Europe. Same goes for " Lost Cause " crap, only one who thinks it's a conspiracy is one's who think war was over slavery. It's laughable. Charles Dickens don't have a political agenda.. he just laughs and calls it for what it is.

Even if Fire Eaters got that, who's say it would of been voted in? Your theories rely on a lot of "what ifs.."


Had anyone stop to think how the International Slave Trade would impact something that most of war had shunned? Europe wouldn't allow that to happen.
1.) England helped secure coast of Africa
2.) League of Nations banned it
3.) There was a lot of southerns, including congress who was pro ending the International Slave Trade.
4.) There was numerous of societies that formed to keep people from slaving other nations including Denmark, Finland, Norway, Germany, France...
5.) why would you open a "international slave trade" if don't have consumers both domestic nor foreign, considered an act of war not just who you slave but their allies, or when you have Indians? Why not just slave the Cherokee?

Fire Eaters are morons.

edit on 31-8-2017 by Iostsheep because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: savagediver

Well then he convienently left off the second half where it addresses slavery. Also that is the "causes of succession" document..


It followed the initial declaration which also mentioned protecting slavery...

There are plenty of historians willing to blast both sides...but the lost cause crowd are laughed at by all the real historians.

.




top topics



 
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join