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 Norths protective Tariffs Fault in causing the civil war.

page: 5
33
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Boadicea

Yet you are still out right ignoring the reason and declaration of secession ... which was literally all about keeping slavery. Signed by and voted by each slave owning state. Stop deflecting.


I am ignoring nothing... and neither am I deflecting. I have directly responded to your claims with the actual facts and history. I have stated in no uncertain terms that yes, slavery was an issue, and the very rich and very elite in the south did in fact want to protect the institution of slavery. Oh looky! I STATED IT AGAIN!!!

I have also very clearly stated that the violation of states' rights and other Constitutional infringements also played a part -- and a far greater part for the vast majority fighting for the south who never owned a slave in their life. And I have further stated that the declared reason by President Lincoln for the invasion of the other states was to maintain the union -- NOT END SLAVERY.

The truth is in front of you. If you cannot see the forest for the trees, it's only because you refuse to do so.




posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Boadicea

Yet you are still out right ignoring the reason and declaration of secession ... which was literally all about keeping slavery. Signed by and voted by each slave owning state. Stop deflecting.

Also, edit:
Lincoln did want emancipation, but he didn't know how to go about it. He wanted to gradually phase it out. And he was heavily criticized for his slow transition plan.


That's correct. Lincoln wanted emancipation. He knew it would devastate the South’s economy to just ban slavery all at once, which is why he resisted doing that. When he started telling the new territories that they couldn’t have slaves is when the Southern states started seceding. They could see the writing on the wall, and knew their time as slave owners was limited.

The secession was mostly due to the preservation of slavery, under the guise of states rights. The civil war started over the secession. The non-slave owning farmers agreed with the general concept of states rights, which is why they fought against the union.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Ironically the reason is similar to now politics. It started with the election of Abraham Lincoln he didnt receive one southern electorial vote. So to the south it showed their votes meant nothing. Then there was the taxes the northern states applied taxes to property knowing it effects the southern states more than the north. There was several other things the North did to the south that showed them they have no power.

So what caused these actions slavery the North even before Lincoln was trying to abolish slavery. The idea many in the north got was simple put the plantations out of business and slavery ends. So there plan was make it to expensive for slavery to continue.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Correct, States Rights was the issue of the period.

Sparks began to really fly some 30 years prior to the civil war within the United States and eventually concerning the primary issue which involved the Federal Government attempting to enforce its' will upon the States by using military force. Hence the "Force Bill", somewhat diffusing military conflict for a short period at this time was "Compromise Tariff".
Had not South Carolina accepted the compromise, conflict would have spread almost 30 years earlier.

So tariffs and States Rights vs. Federal Goverment and threat of force prior to war, but certainly not all the issues causing stress. And the divide opened. The threat of force was not over slavery, but enforcement of tariffs.

Prior to all this were arguments about what to do with western expansion, new State entries, Lousina Purchase; what role does the Federal Government have and the Federal Government pressing for new powers vs. States retaining their as promised so 50+ years prior to the 1830's

Slavery only became an issue with agitators and abolitionists later in the late 1850's and early 1860's as political clout/finances grew. Yet again this was a States Right issue of the period, but moot to leadership until.1860's, just look at the U.S. Constitution.

The spoils system was alive and well in the United States, both North and South, creating more political turmoil.

Huge unmanaged influxes of immigrants in the North, rapid industrialization of the North a new wealthy "entrprenurial class" all as buyors pressing a poorly funded Federal Government into more powers and funding sources.. All of which began as managing trade between the States for a perceived gain for Northen "progress", introduction of force as on option leading to Federal control of States Rights.

There are many documents and books to support all that lead to the Civil War within the U.S.

The war had begun long, long before the physical shots fired. And not over slavery.

Mg



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv




That's correct. Lincoln wanted emancipation. He knew it would devastate the South’s economy to just ban slavery all at once, which is why he resisted doing that.


And just how devastating is war,rape,burning cities to the ground, and KILLING people?



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: missed_gear

Thank you! You really said a lot in there -- lots of good background information.

I'm probably not nearly as well versed as you, but I do remember the "Compromise Tariff," and that these troubles had been brewing for some time before any state seceded. The issue of slavery had always been an issue -- there had always been abolitionists. But by and large the abolitionists were individuals acting in the private sector. It was not an issue for the Union in the public sector. The separate issues often converged, but slavery wasn't the main issue for the Union.

As Lincoln stated repeatedly, it was about keeping the union together... what he didn't state was the reason, so his friends in the north could continue to pillage and plunder the south of its resources and goods.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

The moment they published their declaration they lost all their state rights. The south felt threatened because of their dying immoral way of economics and politics, and wanted to be a stand alone sovereign nation. They were traitors to the United states. All for what?



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Protective Tarrif were just one ingredient out of many that made the pot boil over into to civil war, but by itself was not a root cause.

Slavery was always the root cause.

Go back to Protective Tarrifs, why did some feel they were necessary? Because slave labor made the south's products so much cheaper.

Every issue, stemmed from Slavery. Of course, you'll find politicians coat tailing on other issues and trying to confuse the issues back then, but slavery was the root cause of the civil war. Period.

Let's go back to Lincoln and the OPS assertion that although he ended up doing good, he wasn't a good human being. Look back at every historical figure in history and you'll see bad traits, bad actions, criminal actions, hateful views, character flaws, addiction, alchohohism, mental illness, fear, phobias, anger, violence, divorce, infidelity etc. That proves what we all already know....humans...we're all broken, we're all flawed. All of us.

Despite our flaws and the bad things we have all done in the past, despite that , we can all do good things, we can all change for the better. We can all do more good than harm to other humans and to the world. Lincoln proved that. Ganghi proved that. George Washington proved that. In fact read "Washington: A life" and you'll see just how flawed he was.
edit on 25-8-2018 by amazing because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-8-2018 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Okay. You have been shown ten ways from Sunday that there were many issues -- of which slavery was ONE -- that prompted the various states to secede. Some before Lincoln's inauguration and Fort Sumter, some because of Lincoln plan to re-supply Fort Sumter, and some after Fort Sumter and the Union's invasion of the south.

The history is clear for those who want to know. But that's up to you.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Has nothing to do with immorality.

Looking through 21st century eyes using ethnocentric sociological views and placing under a microscope one singularity, ignoring the the many, many events which lead to war other than "morality", loses facts, treats history like a buffet and never incorporates events which leads to the totality of the outcome.

South Carolina, long before war

Scroll to download document pdf.

Mg

edit on 25-8-2018 by missed_gear because: Phone



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I know they're other issues and I recognize them all. But they all stem from the south and north bickering back and forth about one issue.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Not just one issue, many.

I explained just a few above.

Mg



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: strongfp


I know they're other issues and I recognize them all.


Finally!!!

But please don't pretend like that's been your position all along. You stated several times that slavery was the SOLE reason for the war.


But they all stem from the south and north bickering back and forth about one issue.


Nice try... but fail.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Slavery was the "root cause".

No.

Slavery was an element, a single small element, part of States Rights period. Even agreed upon in the U.S. Constitution and ratified by the States Convention otherwise no U.S.A.

Mg



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: strongfp


I know they're other issues and I recognize them all.


Finally!!!

But please don't pretend like that's been your position all along. You stated several times that slavery was the SOLE reason for the war.


But they all stem from the south and north bickering back and forth about one issue.


Nice try... but fail.


Yes it was the sole reason and cause for the civil war.

Go watch the video I posted with the head of history professor at WEST POINT explaining how it was.

If you were to make a flow chart, every reason, and cause, issue, and conflict that involved the north and southern states to go to war it will all stem from and lead RIGHT back to slavery. The civil war wouldn't have happened at all if the south just wasn't so damn uncooperative and just agreed to phase out slavery. Therefore, YES the war was about slavery, owning them, reaping the benefits of them, and willing to start a war over keeping it that way.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Boadicea

The moment they published their declaration they lost all their state rights. The south felt threatened because of their dying immoral way of economics and politics, and wanted to be a stand alone sovereign nation. They were traitors to the United states. All for what?


Umm not it was not. The Southern states also declared they would also base their laws off the constitution as it was written. And They had the right to seperate via the 10th amendment and they did as it required.

Lincoln didnt respect the decision because it meant losing all that sweet sweet cash and resources.

And that Professor at west point is INDOCTRINATED under the lie Lincoln whitewashed the civil war with after he won. remember th evictors rewrite the history books to justify themselves.
edit on 18000000ppam by yuppa because: added info



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Right. So they vote to leave, start a war and lose. All the while they did write their own constitution, similar, but guess what, it had very different view points on SLAVE OWNERSHIP. Even going as far as out right saying "The african race" or something like that. Written into their own constitution.
Like i said, they lost all their state rights the moment then published the declaration, and showed what their intentions were, to create their own little southern empire.

The confederate states was a pipedream from the day the declaration of independence was written and signed. The South was looking for any reason to secede, and it just so happened they used owning other people to do hard labor for them as the reason.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp


The civil war wouldn't have happened at all if the south just wasn't so damn uncooperative and just agreed to phase out slavery....


That just isn't true, and the Corwin Amendment alone proves that. The Union was not trying to end slavery.

But ya know what? I wish to all that is holy that they were. The Union damn well should have been! Indeed, the founding fathers should have settled that matter at the time of the Declaration of Independence. There is absolutely no place for slavery of any kind in a nation that declares ALL men are created equal, and have a natural inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

But that's not what happened and it's not what is. Instead, the sins of the Union then have only escalated to the sins of the Feds today.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: missed_gear

It has everything to do with morals.

There was a vast movement of abolitionists in the northern states, and the western states saw the benefits of not using slaves for labor from Chinese paid workers.

Abolitionists pushed and pushed Lincoln to hurry up the process of making slavery illegal, and it was a huge part of his republican campaign promises.
As tensions grew and grew between the south and north, Lincoln was more worried about keeping the union intact and thinking of ways to slowly phase out slavery, but not abolish it outright, than slavery in general, but as the war went on, and more and more people started to speak out for their disgust into why the south was fighting, he knew the war wasn't about keeping the union intact, it had a far more passionate meaning to it.

And when we look back at it from today's world. It doesn't matter who won, or who lost, the confederates were immoral, and ethically in the wrong.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

OH chinese workers. ya know they were treated worse than slaves but it was justified as they didnt have american rights and could be deported fast a s lightning if need be. Oh and getting paid wages that were barely enough to even get a drink of water.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join