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.

 

John Kelly was right: The Civil War was all about compromise

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 03:04 AM
link   
According to Whitehouse Chief of Staff Kelly it was all about compromise or lack of it and gosh.... if you look at it from an angle... an angle... you gotta also..... ya know? You gotta squint your eyes a little... then you'll see he's right? Right? Slavery wasn't the main cause! We gotta look at compromise! This lovely WaPo article explains. Unfortunately Kelly's angle is one on the side of the apologists. This WaPo article, as the author admits, would not be on the same page.



You see, Kelly is following the age ol' tradition of trying not to offend snowflake conservatives over the topic of the civil war. History is way too inconvenient ya know? And like many others before him, the Rockwells, the Alex Joneses, you name it, there's been this attempt in trying to use any other issue, other than slavery, to explain the prevailing issue behind the war. Gosh we don't want to offend people.



But back to compromise. How about that? Compromise? Or lack of it from the Federal Government at the time. The truth is, there was no compromise. The slave states of the South refused any compromise on the matter of slavery. The only side that seemed to compromise at all on major issues was the slave free north.

No compromise on the matter of slavery.

The States of the Confederate South complained about how the Free States of the North refused to return escaped Slaves. There was not compromise on this issue. There was no respect for the laws of those Northern Free States. No respect for their laws. Those States of the Confederacy got their way thanks to the fugitive Slave Act of 1850

The elite Slaveholders of the Confederacy continued to refuse compromise over the welfare and rights of slaves and got their way again with the Dredd Scott ruling of 1858. Recognizing blacks were not full persons. There was no compromise on this issue.

Lincoln, who took to off office, even made an offer from the Federal government, to buy the slaves from the South in order to end tensions and any further conflict. This idea, this compromise was tossed about for years, even before the war, and was dismissed by the States of the Confederacy and the slaveholder elite.

Even when Lincoln and much of the Republican party relented on the issue of slavery and promised to protect the institution in order to preserve the Union, did the the States of the Confederacy move on for the good of the country as a whole? Oh no. Secession. No discussion, just packing our bags!


Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits

www.tsl.texas.gov...

Georgia

or the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security,

www.civilwar.org...

Mississippi

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery

avalon.law.yale.edu...

South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Virginia, The Vice President of the Confederacy, all right there. No compromise on the matter of slavery. Just pack your toys up and leave. That's exactly what they did.
www.knowlouisiana.org...
avalon.law.yale.edu...

Oh they got their way. The states of the Confederacy got their way at every turn leading up to the civil war.

There was NO compromising.

Oh let's not forget the powers held by the dixiecrat south of the 1850s just before Confederate secession!

A Southern dominated majority Congress!

They had a Pro-Southern president in office leading up to the Civil war! He was pro-slavery!

Tariffs were lowered to rates that hadn't been seen in decades thanks to the Tariff of 1857!

Lack of compromise caused the Civil War you say?? No.... no. Arrogance and a sense of entitlement of those on the side of the Confederacy caused the war and that's it. This attitude continued through the South, post Civil war, down through the generations. There was no "compromising" with the Confederacy back then and there's no compromising with the Trump Administration and their lackies today. History is evidence of this.




posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 03:13 AM
link   
It was about control of the money,the English wanted the US as a colony of theirs,and the money Rothchilds lent,was given as mineral rights to US land,slavery and other issues like it is now,wave these flags in front of the truth



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Perhaps I missed it but where is the comparison between slavery and the Trump administration...well unless we go down the IRS route but that hardly started with the current administration.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 03:17 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI


Perhaps I missed it but where is the comparison between slavery and the Trump administration


Perhaps you need to brush up on the news? Perhaps you need to view the interview with Kelly and his comments on what supposedly caused the civil war.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 03:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian


Lack of compromise caused the Civil War you say?? No.... no. Arrogance and a sense of entitlement of those on the side of the Confederacy caused the war and that's it. This attitude continued through the South, post Civil war, down through the generations. There was no "compromising" with the Confederacy back then and there's no compromising with the Trump Administration and their lackies today. History is evidence of this.





So basically Trump and his "lackies" are present day confederates? I'm honestly kind of confused here. It is a well put together thread; I love learning new things about the civil war, but why the whole tirade about the Trump administration and synonymizing it with half a country breaking ties?

This whole thing reads....desperate. If you were going for an analogy of Trump aiding in the division of America or something it'd seem more coherent. However this just looks like a "i hate Trump and his buddies cuz... well I hate them!" kind of thing.

Less emotion and name-calling would've helped your case. Then again, tis the mud pit.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 03:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Perhaps I missed it but where is the comparison between slavery and the Trump administration...well unless we go down the IRS route but that hardly started with the current administration.



do you frequent random sports teams message forums and state you have no idea what's happening?



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 04:02 AM
link   
a reply to: cinerama

Do you often ask arbitrary questions?

Go Cows!



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 04:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Oldtimer2

Your talking to a deaf audience, history repeated itself with the Bankers bailout in 2008. It's easier to remain blind and look at the periphery when the truth is too obvious but questions why we even get up to go to work to enrich an un-elected
elite that write the laws with our money furthering our enslavement.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...


When the Confederacy seceded from the United States, the bankers once again saw the opportunity for a rich harvest of debt, and offered to fund Lincoln's efforts to bring the south back into the union, but at 30% interest. Lincoln remarked that he would not free the black man by enslaving the white man to the bankers and using his authority as President, issued a new government currency, the greenback. This was a direct threat to the wealth and power of the central bankers, who quickly responded.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 05:16 AM
link   
The United States should have split instead of fighting the civil war. The US still needs to split as the philosophical differences between the middle of the country and the coasts are simply to large to overcome.

I am tired of being a slave to the feds and want my freedom.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 05:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Right so it has nothing to do with the rich and poor, nothing at all to do with the poor fed up with the rich....

Sure, convince me something has changed and I'm a believer for ever.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

People on the "right" are always "right" by definition.

There are a lot of Constitutionalists who think the 13th Amendment is unconstitutional.


edit on 1-11-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Yeah, Kelly is right, that war could have been avoided if not for the Stubborn people running things at the time. Most people think it was all about slavery, it was not. It was about control, a power struggle. Slavery getting made illegal was a good thing but for some who worked for good slave owners it was actually worse. Not all slave owners were evil. Some treated their slaves well and even set them up with land and bought some of their produce when they harvested.

Oh yeah, the thing is we stole that land from the Indians, the slaves would not have had to owned the land if we hadn't done that.

I can't figure out why anyone would slam Kelly for a true statement like that.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Doesn't matter how much you pick and prod the causes of the civil war it was literally all about slavery. The declaration of secession was riddled with causes that ultimately came down to ownership of slaves. Which I guess yes is a control of power, but any nation wants that over their laws.

The idea of a southern tropical confederacy was proposed nearly 100 years before the war started, it was a bubbling pot just waiting to boil.
Which is turn with poor communication, and a pretty much completely different culture by 1860 had zero chance of talking compromises with the progressive north.
The south were stubburn, and unwilling to change. They'd rather divide the nation than work with it. All to up hold their institution of slavery, a dying industry.

Calling Trump and his admin like the confederate government is a little far stretch, but op is right, Trump doesn't come to compromises, he just does things without even looking at it from all angles. He makes selfish decisions. He's not a leader.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Good thread.
The south's selfishness with compromise dates all the way back to the founding of the country actually. The founding fathers had to promise the slave states the 3/5th compromise just so they'd enter the union. From there they just kept demanding and demanding more and more concessions for slavery all while hinting they'd leave the union if the North didn't come to the table.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Secession was not the Civil War, it simply came after it.
Were the causes of secession the causes of the war?
No, the war was initiated by Lincoln, the South didn't attack the North.

Civil War didn't have to happen but Lincoln refused to abandon Federal forts in Southern States.
Fort Sumter didn't have to happen, it was on South Carolina territory and rightfully their possession.

Many Northerners agreed with the South, especially in places like Ohio and Maryland.
Lincoln was the cause of the Civil War, not slavery which was the cause of secession.
Nobody forced Lincoln to invade the South, that was his intention and design.
If we want to credit him with freeing the slaves we also need to lay the blame for 600,000 dead Americans at his feet too.

Eta: Congress offered to buy slaves after the war had already begun.
edit on 1-11-2017 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Yes racist can not be compromised with.

We know that law enforcement is an agency for white supremacy. There can be no compromise with them.

We know that Trump and his supporters are white supremacist. There can be no compromise.

So tell me, when are you staring the war?



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Yeah it's ALLLLL Lincoln's fault he wanted to maintain the sanctity of the union. What a clod!
edit on 1-11-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Uh what the war wasn't about slavery?

This Link begs o differ.

And about the battle at Fort Sumter?

Looks to me that the confederates cause for war was slavery and they attacked first.

And history shows that compromises were set in place for the North and South to come to an agreement, just as OP has brought to the table, but the south weren't having it because of their barbaric out dated ideology of slavery in a functioning society.



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp



And history shows that compromises were set in place for the North and South to come to an agreement, just as OP has brought to the table, but the south weren't having it because of their barbaric out dated ideology of slavery in a functioning society.



This question is to Southern Guardian also.

So what you are saying is that there were attempted compromises, but the fact that the south wouldnt compromise made the war necessary?



posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: strongfp



And history shows that compromises were set in place for the North and South to come to an agreement, just as OP has brought to the table, but the south weren't having it because of their barbaric out dated ideology of slavery in a functioning society.



This question is to Southern Guardian also.

So what you are saying is that there were attempted compromises, but the fact that the south wouldnt compromise made the war necessary?


There was a declaration of secession based off up holding the institution of slavery.
Lincoln didn't turn a blind eye and just said, o well. He attempted to keep the union in tact, and he meant it through what ever means necessary. The south just moved things along a little quicker with Fort Sumter, and fortified that they weren't going to stop when it became more of a siege rather than just a move of aggression.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join