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: 6
33
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
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.


The Programming is strong with a majority of americans to instictively trust their elected officials.




posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
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.


I'll keep it simple.

Rhetorically, if so very important a moral issue of the "north"

Why would Lincoln only emancipate the slaves from States not under union authority? Why not emancipate also the "slave" States fighting with the Union?

It was a war tactic, not a moral issue....or cause of war.

Mg
edit on 25-8-2018 by missed_gear because: Clarity



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp


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.


Let's give credit where credit is due:

When most Americans think of abolitionists, they think of Northerners like William Lloyd Garrison and Harriet Beecher Stowe. What most Americans don't realize is that there were many Southern abolitionists, and that they in fact were advocating universal, immediate emancipation as early as the 1810s, before William Lloyd Garrion's voice changed or Harriet Beecher's first adult tooth sprouted. The ranks of Southern abolitionists would eventually swell to the thousands, and they would continue to spread their message right up through the Civil War. I personally believe that they were not only the seed of the national abolitionist movement, but the heart and soul of it as well.

In 1827, there were 106 anti-slavery societies in the South, with an estimated 6625 members. This is compared to about 3 dozen anti-slavery societies in the North.

Civil War Talk


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.


All those southern abolitionists were immoral? Ethically in the wrong? REALLY??? How about all the southerners who had freed their slave of their own conscience and free will? Were they all immoral and ethically wrong? How about the many southerners who didn't own slaves and never owned slaves and didn't want any part of secession or war, but had no fricking choice in the matter? Were they all immoral and ethically wrong???

Lincoln and his Union army did far more to hurt the slaves and their descendants -- up to and including today -- than anyone in the south.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

Doesn't matter how they were treated. Or what their rights were. This isn't about Chinese workers, this is about the cause of the civil war. I was just using them as an example of how paid workers were much more productive.

During the war the British government were torn between the rich and the middle class. Please the people who obviously would love to have slavery, or please the majority, the working class who knew, and were out spoken, the issues with slavery. It's one of the main reasons why the British didn't even recognize the confederacy as a sovereign nation, and pretty much stopped all importation ruining their economy even more.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa


The Programming is strong with a majority of americans to instictively trust their elected officials.


And this programming has been long established. It also appeals to the moral and emotional nature of people -- and rightfully so -- which makes it extra powerful.

I have no intention nor desire to defend slave owners. But I refuse to whitewash and ignore the sins of the Union as well.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: missed_gear

Because he was dealing with free states and slave states.

Lincoln wanted emancipation for all slaves. But he needed to gradually phase it out because he knew the southern states would not take it lightly, obviously. So why would he target states where slavery was pretty much already being phased out already, and were willing to cooperate?



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

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.


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.


The north invaded the south. Even if he doesn't care one bit about politics, what, exactly, would you expect the non-slave owning farmers to do? Say "Burn my house and kill my family."? I'm sure that even southerners against slavery took up arms after that. Remember, the war was fought in the south. The north invaded several times.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Far more damage?

Really?

So when the war was over and lynching and rouge militias were running rampant killing freed slaves and burning abolitionists farms and houses to the ground in the south, the 'North' was in the wrong to send military there to reform the law enforcement and squash those wanting to murder freed people?

Also, the south had a massive defecting issue, thousands of soldiers and thousands of people fled to the north. I understand that it wasn't just people who lived in the north were abolitionists, but the majority of them were. And when you look at a figure where 3 million slaves lived in the south out of 9 million residents there, you can see why the north and south had different opinions, obviously, since all the states that were slave states voted democrat and all the free states voted republican.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Yes.

But why offer to keep slavery in all States succeeding if agreed by Jan 1, 1863, not to suceed?

Slavery was not the issue, they succeeded the Union.

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



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: missed_gear

You are, of course, correct. This is what is preserved in the records. When we look back to study this time this is one of the things we see. But we all see this period through the lens of our modern experience, education, upbringing. We have trouble picturing it through the eyes of the people who fought and this is one thing I feel is important because if these people didn't fight, the war would have been much shorter and far less bloody.

The congressmen, politicians, newspaper editors did not quit their jobs and run to enlist to fight. We must tease out the motives of rural farmers and townsfolk, who maybe didn't even read the newspaper all that much but were busier with eking out some kind of a living. I feel the main reason these people fought was because the north invaded their home, taking their property and killing their families.

If the north never invaded the south, there likely would never have been any civil war at all.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Boadicea

Far more damage?

Really?


Yup. Do you really believe the Union army spared Black people from their atrocities? Really???

They were "freed" as a war tactic... and then abandoned (at best).

And after the war, during Reconstruction when the southern states -- as YOU pointed out -- had no rights and no power, who do you think passed all the Jim Crow laws? Who do you think passed the red-lining laws? Who do you think passed the sundown laws? Shall I go on?


So when the war was over and lynching and rouge militias were running rampant killing freed slaves and burning abolitionists farms and houses to the ground in the south, the 'North' was in the wrong to send military there to reform the law enforcement and squash those wanting to murder freed people?


Please. Too little, too damn late. If not for the wilful and wanton destruction and cruelty of Lincoln and Union forces, the situation never would have come to that. If their intentions had been noble, negotiations (and Constitutional principles) would have precluded any need for war; and if their intentions had been noble, the war -- and the aftermath -- would have been conducted much differently. As would the issue of slavery in and of itself.


Also, the south had a massive defecting issue, thousands of soldiers and thousands of people fled to the north. I understand that it wasn't just people who lived in the north were abolitionists, but the majority of them were.


Of course the south had a massive defecting issue! But in the north, anti-slavery did not necessarily equal non-racist. Many northerners hated Blacks and very much resented the increasing population of Blacks going north. They wanted them to stay in the south, and saw ending slavery as the means to accomplish that, since slaves would no longer have to runaway to free states.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 01:24 PM
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?


They lost their state rights and gained the rights of a sovereign nation. By your reasoning the EU should declare war on England. How about the Philippines? Weren't they US territory? Should we invade them? Should England invade all those countries that broke away from the British Empire like India? Don't you believe a country has a right to determine it's own fate?



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: toms54

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?


They lost their state rights and gained the rights of a sovereign nation. By your reasoning the EU should declare war on England. How about the Philippines? Weren't they US territory? Should we invade them? Should England invade all those countries that broke away from the British Empire like India? Don't you believe a country has a right to determine it's own fate?


And tore apart the union to keep their twisted and immoral slavery nation.

I'm done. To many confederate sympathizers here. At the end of the day, the war was all about slavery, and keeping it intact for political, economic, and 'race' superiority. And the north won, and emancipation happened freeing all slaves. If the south had won that would not have happened at all.
Defend the CSA and you defend slavery.

And I'm going to post this again, because it's exactly what people need to see.


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



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp


So when the war was over and lynching and rouge militias were running rampant killing freed slaves and burning abolitionists farms and houses to the ground in the south

I cannot tell for certain but you seem to want to lay 100% of everything bad that happened during a civil war and right after at the feet of southerners.

Chicken or the egg... did they do it because they were horrible racist monsters, or did they do it after they lost innocent family members after sherman decided to commit war crimes across the southern heartland in his march to the atlantic, in a war that was over except for the paperwork.

ETA: I am not defending what they did, but to lay 100% of the blame is not taking into account everything that did occur over the course of the war, if the South had won sherman would have been put on trial for war crimes.

Just like the guy that was running andersonville at the end of the war was not responsible for the atrocities that happened earlier in the war but he was hung for them anyways. (cause his side lost)

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



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp
At the outset of the war Lincoln said that all run away slaves were to be returned to the south and their masters. Ken Burns series.



posted on Aug, 25 2018 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

I didnt like slavery so crew your assumptions k? I like the constitution and law. Lincoln and those before him wanted to be the new kings apparently and could not have their cash cow leave.

I and others provided proof it was not all about slavery. but hey dont let the door hit ya on the way out.



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Watch this clip, it's interesting political banter, especially the part of who gets to rule the people.
And what is discussed is relevant to the issues being posted here.



edit on 26-8-2018 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2018 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Yeah. why trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away. The founders should had added in a clause to protect against that.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join