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: 7
45
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 04:45 PM
link   
I just listened to that mans whole account of the civil war, and NOT ONCE did he mention a REASON for the war, or wanting to go to war.

All he said on the topic of Slavery, is that a majority of his friends were black slaves and he had witnessed atrocities carried out against them and didnt support it.

But when the war came up.. he basically said he just went to war because it was the "cool" thing to do.

Sounds like, at the age of 16, no one was educated in politics or even had access to the information to know really why the war was even being fought.

Think about it.. No internet in the 1800s... these people live in the rural south, not even sure they get newspapers. They probably just went to war because they were told... "Hey! Were at war! Grab your guns!" ... they were probably like.. "What? War? Uhh.. ok.. umm.. let me grab my stuff!"

The people telling them to go to war... did so because they wanted to keep their slaves, and didnt want to succumb to the new laws of our NATION.




posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Cancerwarrior



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.


Soldiers don't start wars, they fight in them. And they will fight for what they are told by their superiors. Even union soldiers didn't really care about abolishing slavery, they were just fighting to keep the union intact. But they knew slavery was still a huge topic of discussion. When Lincoln and his administration finally stopped playing to the victim that the Confederacy was playing, he finally just outright told everyone what he really thought about slavery. That's when the tone changed.



Ever heard of the Corwin amendment?


Yes. And it's all about historical context from here. The amendment was proposed by congress in hopes it would slow down the escalating separation movement. Only three or so states even accepted it. And it gained absolutely no ground, because the southern states were afraid that even if a little is given, a mile will be taken. And anything short of secession would see the extinction of slavery eventually.



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?


Lincoln didn't fully admit he wanted to end slavery because he didn't want an all out war to break out. Which happened anyway. People seem to forget that Lincoln hated slavery because he hated the idea that slaves existing in the US was against the constitution. Sure he thought white people were more 'superior' but he also knew that people of African descent were people too and deserved to not be owned by a master.
His early years as a lawyer he defended both freed men and masters, and even slaves.

Lincoln admitted he hated slavery, and he only held his ideas because it was not his place to advocate such rhetoric with his position as a lawyer and later politician. Those who advocate for lost cause tell a tale that Lincoln wanted more government control, yet he tried everything in his power to keep federal affairs out of state affairs, even going as far as conceding his thoughts and ideas during a presidential debate to make him more desirable to the slave owners saying that negroes were of a inferior race and would inevitably lead to turmoil if let free, or even if not let free, and he even went off on a rather racist rant during the Douglas debates to only end with that:


I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have superior position the negro should be denied everything.




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 actually reached out to the African people in power to get their opinion on the matter. He determined it should be by volunteer basis only.
Once again, Lincoln tried to find a compromise.

When you boil the whole thing down. Every detail and aspect of the civil war leads back to one reason.

Edit: You should look into Chandra Manning, if you want a well detailed documented representation of soldiers diaries.
edit on 20-7-2020 by strongfp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

If you're talking about the whole tariff thing. Or the myth that the French and British were just frothing at the mouth to get southern plantation cotton, that's a myth.

Northern states had lobbying power, abolitionists were gaining support. Meanwhile anything related within the democratic process' that included freeing slaves wasn't even mentioned in the southern states, it was literally whitewashed. The northern states put protectionist tariffs to protect their own interests. The British had well established tariffs put in place as well, and when they abolished slavery, they got worse. The southern states literally did this to themselves because of a lack of compromise. Being stubborn isn't a reason to defend your "state rights". MANY, MANY compromises were literally fed to the slave states, especially the border states and they didn't want to budge.



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: blueman12


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...

Probably because you still have it set in your mind that the War of Northern Aggression was fought over slavery... despite slaves fighting the war alongside white soldiers, despite maybe 1% of Southerners owning slaves, despite the North also having slavery, despite historical evidence to the contrary, despite people who have made it a life's work to understand their own family history which is intertwined with the history of the South telling you the opposite... despite all that and more, you will believe what you were told when you were a little tot until the day you die. I get that. South = bad, North = good. I've heard it my whole damn life.

And it's still as much a lie today as it was then.

That flag represented the secessionist states refusing to give into tyranny over a dozen different issues. Men fought and died under it, many of them my ancestors (of which none owned any slaves). They did so because they believed in freedom, and I fly it today because I believe in freedom. I disagree with the morals of that time on the slavery issue, obviously, but I do not disagree with their belief that government has limits and must never be allowed to exceed them.

If you can't understand that because your head is so full of lies, don't blame me... go read an actual account by an actual soldier. There's one on page 1 of this thread.

Now go worship Genghis Khan, since that's what your usernames means to me.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Boy, you are good at slipping half-truths in there, aren't you?

I never mentioned the tariffs, although that was one of the reasons. Southern product exports were being taxed heavily while Northern exports weren't. As usual, it was all about money. The North wanted to overtax the South, and then decided to remove the only source of labor the South had... which incidentally was initially promoted by the North... slaves.

Imagine if you will... I am going to assume you actually do something other than blame people for things that happened 160 years ago... that Congress (or whatever you call it up there) were to start pushing bills that made the income tax higher on people living in Ontario than people living in Quebec. Now, at the same time, they try to pass another bill that says you can only work 5 hours a week because you live in Ontario. That's what the tariffs, land taxes, and abolitionist movement did. They didn't affect the North so much, because the North wasn't hit with the same tariffs because they had industrialized... the South was still agricultural. The land taxes were much lower on Northern businesses because their businesses took up so much less land area than large plantations. The North had no need for slaves... they used low-paid workers instead because they had the poor under their thumb much better than the South did.

It was all about money... the Union wanted to overburden the South and then had the audacity to try and destroy the economy here that they were trying to overburden. Sorta like the Democrats in our Congress are trying to do.

I really don't care if you think it was "stubborness" or not. The fact is, we are heading right back there again, so you'll get to watch it for yourself. I hope you enjoy the show.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Lucidparadox



Think about it.. No internet in the 1800s... these people live in the rural south, not even sure they get newspapers. They probably just went to war because they were told... "Hey! Were at war! Grab your guns!" ... they were probably like.. "What? War? Uhh.. ok.. umm.. let me grab my stuff!"


As I said before, many people were quite educated. There are many books full of letters soldiers wrote home, diary entries, etc. I understand its cool to push the uneducated gun toting Southerner stereotype, but that really does not apply to a great many Confederate soldiers.

Read their accounts yourself. See back before the internet, there was this thing called a library. Its full of these paper things called books. Many of which were written by the soldiers themselves. If you dug deeper into this subject, and read the actual accounts/reasons why the soldiers themselves said they went to war, you might get a different perspective rather than the cookie cutter version in 9th grade American History.




The people telling them to go to war... did so because they wanted to keep their slaves, and didnt want to succumb to the new laws of our NATION.


What year were the slaves "Emancipated"?

What year did the war start?



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




I never mentioned the tariffs, although that was one of the reasons. Southern product exports were being taxed heavily while Northern exports weren't. As usual, it was all about money. The North wanted to overtax the South, and then decided to remove the only source of labor the South had... which incidentally was initially promoted by the North... slaves.


The Merrill tariffs are the last vestige of most lost cause reasons as to why the south seceded. If you're going beyond that, then you really have no fire power in such a debate, because once again it all boils down to one reason.
taxation is a fact of business especially when back then every state was it's own basically nation. Just that the north all had similar interests, and the south didn't meet such interests, they were more in line with free trade and un-taxed EVERYTHING. Once again, being stubborn.




because the North wasn't hit with the same tariffs because they had industrialized... the South was still agricultural. The land taxes were much lower on Northern businesses because their businesses took up so much less land area than large plantations. The North had no need for slaves... they used low-paid workers instead because they had the poor under their thumb much better than the South did.


Ah yes, the myth of the South being the agricultural powerhouse and envy of the north. The North and border states were pumping out much larger crops. The south, lets see, tobacco, cotton, and sugarcane. The three main fool proof slave crops, I think the term, don't put all your eggs into one basket comes to mind. Doesn't it?

Also, the North wanted slaves, just they didn't want them to be slaves. They wanted them as freemen to work towards capitalist ventures. They knew the massive amounts of land in the south was a problem, and it's kryptonite to even the most brazen capitalist, land proves private ownership is it's main flaw. If you want to argue why northern industrialists pushed hard for abolition, look no further then the main enemy of 'free people' land grabs, and land ownership protected by law.




It was all about money... the Union wanted to overburden the South and then had the audacity to try and destroy the economy here that they were trying to overburden. Sorta like the Democrats in our Congress are trying to do.

I really don't care if you think it was "stubborness" or not. The fact is, we are heading right back there again, so you'll get to watch it for yourself. I hope you enjoy the show.


yea sure, but at the end of the day, it was literally all about slavery. It was an obsession. Before the war broke out Kansas was a precursor, after the heavy handed militias to stump Reconstruction proved it was all about owning slaves and white superiority.

edit on 20-7-2020 by strongfp because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp




Soldiers don't start wars, they fight in them. And they will fight for what they are told by their superiors.


Did Captain Obvious tell you this? I was a soldier for 8 years. I had my own reasons for joining up. None were told to me by "my superiors" at the time.



When Lincoln and his administration finally stopped playing to the victim that the Confederacy was playing, he finally just outright told everyone what he really thought about slavery.


Lincoln was quite clear about what he thought about the black man. See my post on page 6.



And it gained absolutely no ground, because the southern states were afraid that even if a little is given, a mile will be taken.


Thing is, the South had absolutely nothing to lose, and would keep their slaves for as long as they wanted. They chose to secede anyways, almost like there were many other reasons, right?



Lincoln didn't fully admit he wanted to end slavery because he didn't want an all out war to break out.


Lincoln was not at all an abolitionist. It's pretty well documented. Here is one quote of many.

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."



People seem to forget that Lincoln hated slavery because he hated the idea that slaves existing in the US was against the constitution.


Once again, the man's own words prove your statement wrong.

“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.”



You should look into Chandra Manning, if you want a well detailed documented representation of soldiers diaries.
e


Why would I do that when I am fully capable of reading them myself?



When you boil the whole thing down. Every detail and aspect of the civil war leads back to one reason.


Actually No, there were many reasons that started the war. And the abolition of slavery was not one of them. The main reason for the Emancipation Proclomation was to free slaves (only in conquered enemy territory) to open the door to press them into military service.







edit on 20-7-2020 by Cancerwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: MissSmartypants

The first thing would be to establish the legality of the Confederacy, not the moral issue of slave owning. IE . was it legal for the Individual state or states to withdraw from the Union?, or had they signed up in perpetuity?. The legality of secession hasn't been addressed its always obscured by the slavery issue. Secondly was the punishment for trying to leave the "Hotel California" By that twelve years of Marshal law, economic devastation, which lasted until the second world war a bit over the top,? ...which more a warning as to what will happen to anyone seeking divorce.?.. If it was legal for a State to withdraw from an alliance which , no longer had any benefit for them and they were illegally prevented from doing so. This surely has to change everything, and fighting a war over a dead duck issue, which when resolved anyway did nothing for the standard of living for the Negro ,and left their land in ashes as well as the whites.?
Under the original thirteen states that formed the Union, not the next thirty seven that were granted statehood by the Union, the original thirteen are referred to in the articles of Union, As the "Original free and independent States" That comprised most of the Confederacy, as "Free and independent States" Legally they had the right to succeed. Thus Lincolns dilemma, in having to conduct an illegal war to keep the Union .Which had to be done by not only winning the Civil war but stopping them ever wanting to do the same thing again, an epic economic humbling, still going on today.
edit on 20-7-2020 by anonentity because: aadding

edit on 20-7-2020 by anonentity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Cancerwarrior

Sorry, but you're not seeing the bigger picture here. Lincoln was not the soul reason to why the war started. And he had to play politician before he had to play off his own emotions, which he hid quite well but gave little gabs here and there to indicate he was not for slavery, at all.

In 1861 he wrote:


Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.


He gave many indications that slaves should not exist in the US.



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cancerwarrior
a reply to: Lucidparadox



Think about it.. No internet in the 1800s... these people live in the rural south, not even sure they get newspapers. They probably just went to war because they were told... "Hey! Were at war! Grab your guns!" ... they were probably like.. "What? War? Uhh.. ok.. umm.. let me grab my stuff!"


As I said before, many people were quite educated. There are many books full of letters soldiers wrote home, diary entries, etc. I understand its cool to push the uneducated gun toting Southerner stereotype, but that really does not apply to a great many Confederate soldiers.

Read their accounts yourself. See back before the internet, there was this thing called a library. Its full of these paper things called books. Many of which were written by the soldiers themselves. If you dug deeper into this subject, and read the actual accounts/reasons why the soldiers themselves said they went to war, you might get a different perspective rather than the cookie cutter version in 9th grade American History.




The people telling them to go to war... did so because they wanted to keep their slaves, and didnt want to succumb to the new laws of our NATION.


What year were the slaves "Emancipated"?

What year did the war start?


All the northern states "Emancipated" slaves between 1774 and 1804.

The Emancipation Proclamation was signed in 1863 as a FINAL hurrah. The north (Union) had been trying to get the South on board the whole time but they weren't having it. the south didnt think the Federal Govt. could pressure them to abolish slavery, and thus.. a civil war broke out.. in order for the South to "maintain their way of life."

Nice try though, the emancipation proclamation was the PERIOD at the END of the sentence not the first letter that started it.

The South knew the writing was on the wall so they seceded.

Dirty traitors to our Union they were.



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp


The Merrill tariffs are the last vestige of most lost cause reasons as to why the south seceded. If you're going beyond that, then you really have no fire power in such a debate, because once again it all boils down to one reason.

In your mind only.

You are referencing the Revenue Act of 1861. There were three major parts to it: the income tax (which the South opposed but many in the North supported), the property tax (which I mentioned earlier; it unfairly taxed the South because the vast bulk of Southern wealth was in land itself while the North had much of its wealth tied up in factories and equipment which was not taxed), and the tariffs (which effectively forced the South to buy their supplies form the North at much higher prices than they could get dealing with Europe). There's also the fact that, like today, the Yankees loved denigrating the South... they saw them as inferior, backwoods hicks, which caused the South to see Northerners as elitist and arrogant. That one thing caused so much mistrust of the North in Southern culture that many attempts to circumvent the war were lost because the South didn't trust the North.

Sort of how you like to talk down to people like me. Do you really think I believe anything you say with that attitude? if you do, you're a fool.


Ah yes, the myth of the South being the agricultural powerhouse and envy of the north. The North and border states were pumping out much larger crops.

Lie. 85% of factories were in the North, while 84% of large farms were in the South.


Also, the North wanted slaves, just they didn't want them to be slaves. They wanted them as freemen to work towards capitalist ventures. They knew the massive amounts of land in the south was a problem, and it's kryptonite to even the most brazen capitalist, land proves private ownership is it's main flaw. If you want to argue why northern industrialists pushed hard for abolition, look no further then the main enemy of 'free people' land grabs, and land ownership protected by law.

So that's why northern businessmen stole the land from what was left of the Southerners? Do tell. Ever heard the term "carpetbagger"? It refers to the practice of Northern investors coming down here after the war and offering pennies on the dollar for land that would likely be lost for failure to pay the taxes I mentioned above. A returning soldier came home to burnt crops, burnt buildings, no labor help, and was expected to farm the same amount of land he could farm with a family to help, or the US government would take the land for taxes. Carpetbaggers offered a ridiculously low price for the land as the only other option many had.

It was legal theft of land, sanctioned by the same Union that destroyed any chance of paying the taxes they imposed.


yea sure, but at the end of the day, it was literally all about slavery. It was an obsession.

Just because it is an obsession with you does not mean it was an obsession with anyone else. Please keep your projection to yourself.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



Just because it is an obsession with you does not mean it was an obsession with anyone else. Please keep your projection to yourself.


It's not a projection it's truth.

And you seem to revolve your rebuttal around the land and agricultural means of production.
Which might be true, and is somewhat true. But look at what agricultural crops they were producing compared to the northern or border states. You tell me, which is more profitable in terms of building a nation with 'wealth'?
And you tell me which crops are more in the business of building profits for the individual plantation owner?

Sorry to say, but the British already nailed the final nail in the coffin for the southern states when they put massive tariffs on Atlantic trade, and abolished slavery. The north just put a little more pressure on them to change their ways.

The southern states lost. And they lost because of what they wanted to uphold. SLAVERY.



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: anonentity

You are right. It led to the freeing of the slaves however, which makes it a moot point.


Only because Lincoln had to promise that to get them to fight on his side. Almost 100 thousand Black men fought side by side with their white brothers in the south because they feared the north and did not want to lose their home or families. They got the same pay as the white troops, they ate with their white brothers, were treated by the same doctors and proudly fought and shared the same blood to stop the same tyrants we are fighting against today!

The southern plantation owners treated their black slaves per say, like family. Lincoln did not even want the black troops to wear their uniform, he thought it was a disgrace.

You all need to see this.

www.youtube.com...

Lets not forget what the Union troops did to every southern city and town they came through, they Robbed, Rapped the women and burned the homes and buildings to the ground!!!!!

The Confederate flag is a Christian flag and that is why they want it gone, THE TRUTH!!!
edit on 20-7-2020 by RudeMarine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: RudeMarine

Well he had to get the Blacks to fight because their were conscription riots up North. Who wants their legs shot off for a politician , after the war the growth industry was artificial limbs. The soldiers were so broke they sold their bugles drums and musical instruments, in the pawn shops. The negroes then bought them and started to build on their gospel songs so at least some thing good came out of it in the end.



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

Hello, non american here.

Everyone must know that history is written by the victors. We must remember that takes two sides to fight a war, and both sides accounts need to be considered.

Take Okinawa for instance-glorious victory for the US, but nobody talks about the thousands of mothers who took their infants and jumped of cliffs to their death.

There are two sides to every story as it always should be.



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp


It's not a projection it's truth.

Dude, you are the one who cannot look at anything surrounding the South without screaming "SLAVERY!" That's not anyone else. Believe it or not, the South did not spend their days looking for more slaves and their nights dreaming about slavery. That's you.


And you seem to revolve your rebuttal around the land and agricultural means of production.

Because that's what the whole thing revolved around. There were no tractors back then... no employment agencies... no newspapers with classified ads thrown on the doorstep. Believe it or not, there were no computers or Internet in 1861, even in libraries!

In 1861, the vast majority of people in the South had one asset: a little spot of land to call their own. They farmed that land to make a living. A few were wealthy and powerful because they farmed more land using slaves, and those precious few used their political power to try and preserve slavery. The rest of the population wasn't that freakin' worried about it... they were too busy trying to eek out a living, and the north kept making their life just that much harder.

Until they finally had had enough.

Yeah, the South lost. Want me to go through the war battle by battle and show you why the South lost? I can... but there's a simpler explanation that might be easier for you to understand: you see, just after the war started, we realized we could trade Southern ammunition for Canadian women, and we ran out of bullets.

Did your granddaddy talk with a Southern drawl perchance?


TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: RudeMarine


The southern plantation owners treated their black slaves per say, like family.

Some of their slaves they did, mostly the trusted ones. The smaller farms who could afford one or two slaves were known for treating their slaves well... they were expensive!

One offshoot of my family tree moved out to Texas. I have a letter here where they wrote back home, the only letter I have found from any blood kin that mentioned slaves. There had been some sort of epidemic that had almost wiped them out, and most of the letter was letting folks back here know who was dead and who was dying. They went down the list, starting with the man of the house and moving to the mother, then to the children, then siblings and their families. Then they started listing their few slaves (if memory serves, they had four). One of the female slaves, the housekeeper/nanny, was very sick and they had actually moved her into the master bedroom to care for her better. They had sent for a doctor, but he hadn't arrived yet. The children were beside themselves worried over her. Another slave had died from the illness, one was sick but not bad, and the other was OK.

They were treating their slaves as well as they would treat a family member.

I had always wondered, if the stories of slaves being abused were true, why did so many take the surnames of their owners after they were freed? After reading that letter, I understood. Slavery itself was an abomination and a disgraceful mark on our history... but it wasn't due to constant abuse or mistreatment. People, all people, just deserve to be free.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: RudeMarine
The southern plantation owners treated their black slaves per say, like family.


I find it hard to believe they were treated like family when 100 years later their voting rights were suppressed, were segregated, lynched, had dogs let loose on them and treated like subhumans. Selma anyone?



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: conspiracy nut

That was a reaction to the destruction from the war. Obliterating entire communities, torturing entire families to death, and then stealing what is left after it's all over is not a way to build goodwill among a people.

The Yankees wern't here to be the focus of the anger. The black ex-slaves were. The national organization of the KKK was a direct result of the anger from the war and it's aftermath, along with all the civil rights problems.

TheRedneck



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join