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: 6
45
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: kasalt

It would have died out due to industrialization, the simple facts were slavery was no longer needed for industrial production. Which caused the need for labor for food production to drop from the medieval eighty percent of the work force to the two which it is today. In fact looking at the trend here none of us will be needed soon. Black or White what happens to redundant labor? probably the same thing that has always happened to redundant labor.
It gets crazy when a slave owner asks his slaves if you join me fighting the Union, after the war I will set you free, if the Union win you will be free anyway. So with forty slaves they end up becoming the most feared commando. Then as the North looked like winning he gives them their freedom papers, and they all go home together anyway.



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




posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp


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

That is exactly what I mean.

Every person who actually was there and experienced the War of Northern Aggression did so through their own eyes. Customs were different; attitudes were different; reality was different. Your self-righteous indignation for those of another time period not agreeing with your present-day morality is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

Are you even capable of comprehending what you are trying to do? Or is this some deep-seated hatred of a culture you know absolutely nothing about? That is pure, unadulterated bigotry, and in turn makes you the last person who should be talking about how anyone treats those who are different from them. Looks to me like the hatred is literally oozing from your pores.

I suppose you are proud of yourself for being so "enlightened." Well, the KKK was proud of themselves for their actions as well. You're in some pretty miserable company there, buck-o.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 19 2020 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Teikiatsu

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


Why do you think I am? Strawman alert.


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".


No, not really. But I guess you read what you expect to see.


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.


And this is just a left turn off a derailed train track.



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 02:51 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Actually that's a good point. I recall now reading that long ago but pretty much paid little attention to it. Thanks.



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 04:11 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Its called the American Civil War btw. Don't revise history.

I go off what information and history is given to me. I can go on about how northern industrialists were pushing hard to abolish slavery so they could capitalize off the untapped labor of the south. But no one talks about that.
No, no one talks about it because they are too busy defending the lost cause myth and defending the south for some reason. Its rather pathetic because the amount of information that proves the souths motives revovled around one reason is overwhelming. Yet still try to twist it around and jump through hoops to defend the immoral reason to create a hissy fit nation.
edit on 20-7-2020 by strongfp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 06:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: TheRedneck

Its called the American Civil War btw. Don't revise history.

I go off what information and history is given to me. I can go on about how northern industrialists were pushing hard to abolish slavery so they could capitalize off the untapped labor of the south. But no one talks about that.
No, no one talks about it because they are too busy defending the lost cause myth and defending the south for some reason. Its rather pathetic because the amount of information that proves the souths motives revovled around one reason is overwhelming. Yet still try to twist it around and jump through hoops to defend the immoral reason to create a hissy fit nation.


Then it should be relatively easy for you to find an account of even just a single Confederate soldier saying he fought in a war to keep slavery as an institution. Like I said, there are many, many sources from the soldiers themselves. Read what they say their own reasons were fighting was.

Likewise, read of the many accounts of Union soldiers saying that if Lincoln made the war political and about "freeing the darkies" there is no way in hell that they would fight. The many, many Draft riots in the North confirm this.

Ever heard of the Corwin amendment? It was proposed in the House in early 1861 before Fort Sumpter. This amendment would guarantee the institution of slavery in perpetuity for as long as the US existed. The South chose to break away and form their own nation anyway. So why would they do this after slavery was guaranteed and handed to them on a silver platter? Why did Lincoln issue the Emancipation Proclomation over two years after the war started? If keeping slaves was the issue, should that not have been the first thing he did? And why did the EP only free slaves in conquered territory and none of the border states?

Contrary to popular belief (as perpetuated by government schools), slavery was a national institution, it was not unique to the South. Upon his inauguration, Lincoln could have freed the slaves in the Northern states which would have put severe diplomatic pressure on the South. However, Lincoln besides being a tyrant was also an incredible hypocrite. Lincoln’s multitude of personal letters show his outright disgust for the black man and his truly racist views.

Ever read what "The Great Emancipator" himself said about freeing the slaves? Lincoln did eventually advocate emancipation. However, he did so to preserve the Union, and not to render a moral decision. He once wrote, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery.”

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.”

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

“I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.”

“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…”

“Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”

Sounds like Lincoln was just as scared of race mixing as he was of the expansion of slave states having political power.

And lets not forget, he even founded a colony in Africa to send all of the former slaves once emancipated. He said many times how the country could never heal as long as there were former slaves living amongst their former masters.

Lincoln’s War (otherwise known as the Civil War), was much less about freeing oppressed blacks and much more about the federal government exerting complete control over all citizens. Lincoln’s actions were a direct assault upon the wishes of our founding fathers. Lincoln cared very little for the rule of law, as evidenced by his numerous suspensions of U.S. Constitutional rights.

I believe that had Lincoln survived his second term–his place in this nation’s history would be seen in a much different light. Furthermore, had the Civil War ended with a different outcome, Lincoln and many of his generals would have been deservedly tried as war criminals.

Of course, the victors write the history books–even when they tell lies.

You say there is "overwhelming evidence" that the South formed its own nation to keep slaves, I say the opposite. Prove me wrong?


edit on 20-7-2020 by Cancerwarrior because: missplelling



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


We got over it and moved on. 


Those who wave Confederate flags as "southern pride" doesn't look like they moved on.



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Good luck getting some people to believe that, even if it came from the mouth of a man who was actually there.

Several of us on here have tried to explain exactly what this man is explaining but hardheads have their belief. Regardless, it was never about retaining slavery, and for the North, it was never about ending it.



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Fallingdown

The declaration of secession was littered with one reason... slavery.


Yeah, one reason, out of many. Soldiers, like the man in the video, didn't write the articles of secession.



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: strongfp


Its called the American Civil War btw. Don't revise history.

That's what Yankees call it. Here, it's the War of Northern Aggression. There wasn't much "civil" about it.


I go off what information and history is given to me.

Of course you do. After filtering such information through a personal filter that rejects any information that doesn't align with your personal (incorrect) views.

You constantly and steadfastly reject any and all responses here that do so. You continuously attempt to apply modern morality to history. I wonder, why didn't Grant and Lee just text each other and work out there differences that way? Can you even comprehend that text messages didn't exist in 1861?

I have twisted nothing. I have presented the actual underlying causes of the War of Northern Aggression and why the issues were so important at the time. You, sir, are the one trying to twist history to your little mental box.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: blueman12


Those who wave Confederate flags as "southern pride" doesn't look like they moved on.

You, sir, do not get to decide what symbolism I use to express pride in my culture.

I hereby declare that the letters "blueman12" are references to Genghis Khan. Why do you worship Genghis Khan?

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Secession excerpts.

(Source for the following:)

Georgia's secession


The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For 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.

...

The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.

While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen.


Mississippi's secession


A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.


Texas' secession


A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.

...

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility 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-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association.


Virginia's secession


THE SECESSION ORDINANCE.
AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND TO RESUME ALL THE RIGHTS AND POWERS GRANTED UNDER SAID CONSTITUTION.

The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.


South Carolina's secession


Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

...

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.


Excerpts from the constitution of the Confederacy, which explicitly enshrined slavery and slave owners' rights:



ARTICLE IV

...

Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

...

(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.

Sec. 3.

...

(3) ... In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.


Source

(Continued...)



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Fragment of a speech by Davis:



You too know, that among us, white men have an equality resulting from a presence of a lower caste, which cannot exist where white men fill the position here occupied by the servile race. The mechanic who comes among us, employing the less intellectual labor of the African, takes the position which only a master-workmen occupies where all the mechanics are white, and therefore it is that our mechanics hold their position of absolute equality among us.

Source

The Confederate cause was explicitly, irrefutably, identified with slavery. Whether it was exclusively so is irrelevant to the point. A cause cannot seek to constitutionally enshrine slavery and somehow be exonerated by the other miscellaneous factors of said cause. Anymore than one can exonerate the Nazis for the economic benefits history shows they conferred - for a time - on Germany.

Peace.
edit on 7/20/2020 by AceWombat04 because: Corrected quote.



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: AceWombat04

In the language of the day, ‘Slave holding state’ and ‘non Slave holding state’ were the exact same terms as we use with ‘Red’ and ‘Blue’ states today.

And contrary to popular opinion, slavery was still very present in the North, and in the border states.

Kanye was absolutely correct when he said that Harriet Tubman didn’t free anyone, just took them to work for other white people.

Lincoln could very well have used his political power to free slaves in the North and put diplomatic pressure on the South to do the same if he had chosen to do so, but his numerous quotes I referenced above prove that was not his mindset.

Power, money, and absolute control of the citizenry were the real catalysts for the war and its very obvious to anyone who even remotely studies the topic in any other setting than 9th grade history.



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Cancerwarrior

False equivalency and middleground fallacy are tu quoque arguments. The assertion being responded to was not, "The North didn't have slaves too," or, "Lincoln was a paragon of abolition at all points in his life without fail and had no ulterior motives." It was, "The Confederate States did not fight for the continuation of Slavery," which is an ahistorical assertion, and a burden of proof impossible to meet, already defeated from the moment of secession as demonstrated above.

As stated, acknowledgement of other factors or the failings of the other side of the equation - which were myriad - does nothing to change that reality anymore than acknowledgement of the sociopolitical nuances of how Nazi Germany functioned or the failings of its enemies change what it was

I stand by the above quotes, which speak for themselves.

Peace.
edit on 7/20/2020 by AceWombat04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Im not advocating for any institution to ban the Confederate symbol. It's just bizzare that people consider the confederacy flag as "southern pride". They are proud to associate themselves with a nation that faught for slavery?

And your point makes no sense. The confederate flag represents the confederacy already.. It's not like we all of a sudden decided that those flag colors meant the confederacy...



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: AceWombat04
a reply to: Cancerwarrior

False equivalency and middleground fallacy are tu quoque arguments. The assertion being responded to was not, "The North didn't have slaves too," or, "Lincoln was a paragon of abolition at all points in his life without fail and had no ulterior motives." It was, "The Confederate States did not fight for the continuation of Slavery," which is an ahistorical assertion, and a burden of proof impossible to meet, already defeated from the moment of secession as demonstrated above.

As stated, acknowledgement of other factors or the failings of the other side of the equation - which were myriad - does nothing to change that reality anymore than acknowledgement of the sociopolitical nuances of how Nazi Germany functioned or the failings of its enemies change what it was

I stand by the above quotes, which speak for themselves.

Peace.


In other words, you’ll accept evidence that reinforces the narrative and ignore any that counters it?



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 02:40 PM
link   
You're correct, however it was one of many issues the government used to draw a line between opposing sides.

TLDR, treasonous democrats seceeded from the United States and American forces had to whip their boots off to keep the country together.

Knowing what I know today, I think it'd have been better to let them remain separate. Maybe *our* country would finally be at peace and the rights of all God fearing, peace loving, Constitution worshipping Americans would be secure.



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Cancerwarrior

I don't engage with mischaracterizations of my words. The intent and meaning of my post were exactly what I stated, and nothing but.

Peace.

edit on 7/20/2020 by AceWombat04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

It would have been helpful had you listed which state's rights in particular they were fighting to preserve...or even just the main ones. I'm pretty sure no one was trying to take away their rights to drink mint juleps out on the veranda, or their right to use the phrase "bless your heart" as an insult or their southern way of living in general. So what rights specifically were these traitors killing American soldiers over?



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join