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 Confederate States did not fight for the continuation of Slavery

page: 5
45
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: KansasGirl

I find no offense over that idea. Yes the war was fought over states rights. Some of those rights were to continue with slavery. Right? Or wrong.

It was fought over the strength of the north and their industrial base that had not developed in the south.

My reply was to another member on why I would choose to listen to an expert civil war historian over an old old man who happened to have been there. Sure, paying attention to his recounts is valuable but not if we are to dismiss the perspectives of those who have studied the causes of the war specifically.




posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: highvein

There is a strong possibility that his family did not own slaves, as slaves were property and the wealth of the general people in a plantation culture would not have been enough to either purchase or support a slave, that was left, I think, to the weathier folk among them

So yes even as he states that he himself had no problem with black people he did fight in that war because.....of what he was told. And what he was told by the ''elders'' may have been the truth or not. it's not as if those who want to foment war for their own reasons always tell the grunts in the trenches why that was is happening. See'' Iraq and Hussain were behind 9/11 so let's go gettem.''



posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 11:01 AM
link   
My ancestors didn't own slaves, but they fought in the Confederacy and deserted over the Twenty Negro Law, truth is that the Southern rich were the only people who could be pointed at for slavery.

Most people were busy trying to homestead and were dirt poor. Everyone I know that has their family heritage intact believes it had nothing to do with slavery, their ancestors were just pulled into a rich mans conflict. Conscripted then humiliated after defeat and forced apology.

It would be interesting to see who the descendants of those rich southern plantation owners are today. Might surprise a few people which political party they belong to. I believe that that party turned on its own people and changed its tactic in order to gain support of the people. Its ironic that they now control what used to be what was 'union'.

Nobody would ever come right out and say it, but I believe that its something worth looking into.



posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

No I see alot of talk about the states rights to be able to do what they wish as free states. And I see that in all the states declarations of secession. But they all circle back to the issue of slavery. Or outright start the declarations of secession talking about slavery.

I agree with you that many in the south believed that it was about fighting for religious reasons, against tyranny, fought for liberty and or states rights. You can even see it in the letters that they wrote back home. But some letters were from soldiers talking about slavery being their motivation.


“[I vow] to fight forever, rather than submit to freeing negroes among us…. We are
fighting for rights and property bequethed to us by our ancestors.”
– Captain Elias Davis, 8th Alabama Infantry

“This country without slave labor would be completely worthless. We can only live and exist by that species of labor; and
hence I am willing to fight to the last.”
– Lieutenant William Nugent, 28th Mississippi Infantry


This was certainly a complex issue that can't be all boiled down to slavery. However slavery was imo the catalyst that brought us into conflict.



edit on 19-7-2020 by grey580 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

You must not of read what I wrote. Yes the issue was slavery the reason was states rights. Like I said I don’t know how many times I can say that .



posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Why are you defending the wrongs we now see in history?

The largest white supremacist movement in the history of the US and you are boiling it down to "it was the cool thing to do".

Every industrialized nation back then had already seen slavery as not only counter productive for the rise of capitalism, but it was also growing extremely unpopular among many of the civilized worlds people. Britain and many European nations had abolished or took drastic changes towards slavery already, this is why no European nation even acknowledged the confederacy as a sovereign nation. It was illegitimate in the eyes of literally everyone else.
This whole 'lost cause' myth isn't correct history.



posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

Yes state rights.

State rights to own slaves.

I agree with you.



posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

My point is the Civil War could’ve just as easily been fought over tariffs or any other Federal position/legislation .



posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

www.intellectualtakeout.org...

Here is a good article. People tend to cherry pick information on both sides of this argument. Slavery wasn't the sole reason for the war. It was one of the reasons but there were many other reasons as well. It is disingenuous to say it had nothing to do with slavery but it is also disingenuous to claim slavery was the primary reason. The reasons were varied and many.



posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp


Why are you defending the wrongs we now see in history?

The largest white supremacist movement in the history of the US and you are boiling it down to "it was the cool thing to do".

Intentional obtusity does not behoove you.

You seem to see racism everywhere you turn. We got over it and moved on. This area is maybe 60-40% white to black, and everyone gets along. Canada? From what I've seen, you guys have what? 3 black families in the whole country? And you are the ones crying about slavery? Who's the racist here? Who's stirring up racial hatred?

You know what? Next time you have a thought... just say no.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Khaleesi

The article points out that everything eventually boiled down to one reason.

People also tend to ignore and forget about the adding of Kansas to the union, the federal government let the state decide if it was to be a free or slave state, it ended up being a highly contested land grab by slave state backed militia groups and Mormon occupancy. It was a precursor to what was to come, people were literally willing to fight against or for slavery.

Another situation that the 'lost cause' crowed loves to happily ignore is the reconstruction era, continuously disrupted by neo - confederate militia groups sweeping across the southern states to take free slaves, land, schools, and stop them from migrating north.



posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Right... so Jefferson Davis and all who supported him weren't in such a mindset back then?

www.jstor.org...



posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

I guess we'll never know.



posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

The problem is that you are completely ignoring the times we are talking about. One cannot interpret history in the light of the present. To even attempt to do so is indicative of an inability to comprehend the material.

But please, keep showing us your inability to comprehend.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Didn't Sherman say Atlanta was the key, everything they captured from the Confederacy had "Made in Atlanta "on it, so it was the Industrial base of the South, with all the Marshaling yards, and the Locomotive sheds. In fact it was competing with the industrial output of the North? and an economy based on manufacturing would have stiff competition if it wasn't destroyed.



posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You mean see through the eyes of the people of the time?

You mean the south wanted slavery, voted for someone that represented those votes, and then gathered up a bunch of states to secede from the union to build their own nation and keep slaves? Yes totally understand.



posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

What a friggin dilemma, You end up owning a plantation with Slaves , you hear that they have all revolted in Haiti and are running their own country. You know they hate you and your wife and children , because its their labor which is keeping you in a life of leisure. and given the slightest opportunity would kill you all to get their freedom back. So the repressions are inhuman but necessary for your ultimate survival. If things got out of hand, history tells you that , their will not be any mercy last time this happened was the slave revolt in Rome, which no doubt your classical education made you all to aware of. Even your house is neo classical. You think a Rome without slaves, is totally unthinkable. In fact you just like the slaves are prisoners of circumstances beyond your ultimate control. You are just one person of the two per cent that actually own slaves in the South. Then in a moment it was Gone with the wind.



posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: grey580
The Civil War could’ve been fought in 1832 during the nullification crisis and if the federal government won there would’ve been no Civil War over slavery .


So we would still have slavery today?

How do you presume slavery would have been abolished without a civil war?



posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp


The largest white supremacist movement in the history of the US

That is a correct statement....
..under conditions you realize the North was losing the "War of Succession"
People were just not volunteering as the war was really unpopular in the North .
Thus the reason the ideals behind it were changed by Lincoln .
Let's give the African-Americans a reason to volunteer.
Then , we can send them in first to deplete the enemy's resources.
Recall , the North had no "mixed " units.
They were segregated.
If that isn't "white supremacy" , I don't know what is.
"Nuff Said"



edit on 7/19/20 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Their were no mixed units until the second world war was over, that says a lot.




top topics



 
45
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join