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: 8
45
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Just like the Nazis scapegoated the Jews huh? I hope you're not excusing the behavior that lasted over 100 years




posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: anonentity

Ummm... the entire reason for the existence of the Confederacy was because of slavery. States rights to keep slaves.


This is a very common and completely understandable mis-understanding of the civil war .

The Civil War especially in the beginning had basically nothing to do with slavery , in fact when you study Lincoln and the Union you will notice that they wanted nothing to do with abolishing slavery . Quite the opposite in fact Lincoln Avoided the subject of Slavery at all cost, He was interested in the southern states becoming apart of the Union and injecting there economic back bone of cotton into the Union end of story .

But of course the southern states aka later the Confederacy wanted nothing to do with the Union and were more than happy remaining free and independent States.

So it was only later in the War and rather reluctantly that Lincoln laid his sights on Abolishing Slavery , Knowing full well that this would cripple the Confederacy. This of course being a double edged sword because it would cripple the Souths economic back bone, but in the end Lincoln looked at the bigger picture knowing he needed the whole of the South not just its cotton but also it's land, coast and ports , it's railroads , it's over all industrial infrastructure which could and would be rebuilt after the War. The South couldn't imagine functioning with out slaves but Lincoln being the wise man that he was saw the potential knowing Slavery was unnecessary.




posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: anonentity

Ummm... the entire reason for the existence of the Confederacy was because of slavery. States rights to keep slaves.

No.
Learn history .


Yeah... History. The confederate equivalent of the 2nd Amendment - The right to own slaves shall not be infringed.

The Confederate Constitution is quite clear on the matter.

usconstitution.net...

The following is the complete text of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, as adopted on March 11, 1861. The text of the CSA Constitution was verified at the University of Oklahoma and the Library of Congress and was marked up for Web display by Steve Mount. The University of Georgia has the original hand-written copies in its archives.


Section 9 - Limits on Congress, Bill of Rights



4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.


Article 4. - The States



1. 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.

3. The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by 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.


Yeah, the Confederacy was all about slavery. Anyone else have some more bull to pour on?


I wish you guys would read my 2nd post and then tell me it wasn't about slavery.



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: conspiracy nut


Just like the Nazis scapegoated the Jews huh? I hope you're not excusing the behavior that lasted over 100 years

Not exactly like the Nazis and Jews. This was a case of misplaced anger; Hitler's Nazi party placed their anger directly where they intended to, from all accounts.

And no, I am not excusing slavery in any way, shape, fashion, or form. All people deserve to be free. Slavery was a despicable practice, even when it was intended to be benevolent. I simply state the facts of how life was back then.

Neither do I excuse the actions of the South toward the former slaves after the war. I was alive in the 1960s in rural Alabama... I saw the hatred first hand and found it distasteful even then. Again, I am simply analyzing the situation in terms of what the societal norms were at that time, right or wrong. There is no other method by which we can avoid repeating a very messy history I do not wish to see repeated.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 11:18 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker


I wish you guys would read my 2nd post and then tell me it wasn't about slavery.

I read it when you posted it.

Amendment 3 of the Constitution of the United States:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The colonists placed an explicit Amendment in the Bill of Rights against forced quartering of soldiers. Was the American Revolution fought over that issue? No... it was fought over a long train of offenses from England. So why did our Founding Fathers use up a whole amendment for that one relatively minor issue?

The answer is, because that issue was recent at the time and fresh in their mind. Slavery was one of many issues that caused the War of Northern Aggression, and thus was fresh in the minds of the Confederate founders. That does not mean it was the lone issue or even the primary issue, just as Amendment 3 does not mean forced quarter was the lone issue or even the primary issue in the American Revolution.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yeah, that is why they dedicated 4 parts related to Slavery... no big deal.

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



posted on Jul, 20 2020 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker


Yeah, that is why they dedicated 4 parts related to Slavery... no big deal.

Glad you agree.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

This isn't relevant to the discussion, but relevant to the general times. Its a guy who was about five when taken to the Ford Theatre by his nurse, and witnessed
the Death of Good old Abe. The show aired in 1955


edit on 21-7-2020 by anonentity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

1960's rural PA, I saw it as well TR. Damn shameful and disgusting

All the more reason I don't need some pipsqueak college age kid lecturing me about racism and how horrible it is. They don't know the beginning, middle or end and need to spend another 15-20 years growing up then I might take them seriously

Until then, these kids need to sit down, shut up and learn something not regurgitated down their throat by some washed up "professor" who's only goal is to convince them how bad our country is, to feel shame for who they are and to advance some radical agenda because it makes them feel young again or to make up for getting dumped for a younger woman and so on. The blind leading the blind, or in this case the losers teaching the losers

Great post

edit on 7/21/2020 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucidparadox




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


Except the practice was still alive and well, in the North and the border states, before, during and even after the war.



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."


You are confusing the abolition and the expansion of slave states.

Imagine a Republican President gets elected who says, "from now on, there will be no more "Blue" states, only "Red" ones from here on out.

It was the straw that broke the camels back. The abolition of slavery had nothing to do with being one of the many catalysts for the war. The EXPANSION of slavery did.

Consider a few facts that are usually ignored by people such as yourself: Northern General U.S. Grant continued to hold a slave for nearly a year after the war. In fact, it literally took an act of Congress to finally free the man from Grant’s possession. Northern General Tecumseh Sherman was arrested many times for brutally abusing several of his slaves. Conversely, Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed all of his slaves prior to the start of the war. That act by the military leader of the South truly displays that for the Confederacy, the war was only about states’ rights and a just rebellion against tyranny–not about slavery!



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


So you admit that the abolishment of slavery was not at all what started the war?



Dirty traitors to our Union they were.


".....That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government...."

Sound familiar?

Funny thing is, many people in the South thought of the American Civil War as the second War for American independence against a tyrannical Federal government.

Like I said, the soldiers themselves were quite clear on their reasons for fighting for the South if you bothered to read any of their accounts. And not a single one that I've ever read said they fought in a long and brutal war so that 1 percent of the Southern population could keep their slaves.



edit on 21-7-2020 by Cancerwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

So in other words, you're saying that Lincolns many, many quotes about not wanting to abolish slavery where it already existed were just lies?

He was not an abolitionist at all. Its pretty well documented.

Abraham Lincoln did believe that slavery was morally wrong, but there was one big problem: It was sanctioned by the highest law in the land, the Constitution. The nation’s founding fathers, who also struggled with how to address slavery, did not explicitly write the word “slavery” in the Constitution, but they did include key clauses protecting the institution, including a fugitive slave clause and the three-fifths clause, which allowed Southern states to count enslaved people for the purposes of representation in the federal government.



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


I agree, he was quite adamant that the jungles of Central America is where they should be shipped off to. He never got to implement the plan because he was shot 5 days after the war ended.
edit on 21-7-2020 by Cancerwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 05:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: infolurker

That reminds me of something.

I was listening to a historian talk about the south. He said when you know a little about the civil war that you know it was about slavery. When you know alot you know it was about states rights. When you really study and get a degree in it. You know it was about the states rights to keep slaves.


Not all historians agree with that assessment. If the civil war was about states rights to keep slaves, then explain to me why Union States were exempt from the emancipation proclamation.

That's right. The emancipation proclamation was merely a "military measure" that really didn't mean anything to anyone. It was in part an incentive to be loyal to the Union. "If you fight us and we win, then you lose your 'privilege' to the slave trade. If you pledge your loyalty to us, then you get to 'enjoy' the slave trade."



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Cancerwarrior


Consider a few facts that are usually ignored by people such as yourself: Northern General U.S. Grant continued to hold a slave for nearly a year after the war. In fact, it literally took an act of Congress to finally free the man from Grant’s possession. Northern General Tecumseh Sherman was arrested many times for brutally abusing several of his slaves. Conversely, Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed all of his slaves prior to the start of the war. That act by the military leader of the South truly displays that for the Confederacy, the war was only about states’ rights and a just rebellion against tyranny–not about slavery!

I learned something today; thank you. I knew Lee freed his slaves, but I wasn't aware about Grant and Sherman (although it fits with what I know of "Uncle Billy" the war criminal). Looking for better documentation now.

I never understood the reasoning behind admitting a "slave state" and a "non-slave state." I mean, I understand the thinking was to maintain the balance of power in the Senate, but it just seems wrong to me to place a political consideration on whether or not a state should be admitted. As you state, that is no different than requiring a state to elect Republican Senators before becoming a state. To me, that shows the amount of political animosity that was happening during that time period.

We are seeing the same level of political animosity now; red vs. blue instead of slave vs. non-slave, but still the same amount of intolerance and animosity. History is indeed repeating itself. The really scary thing about now versus then is that then, if someone lived in Mississippi, it was a safe bet their neighbor was on the same side they were. Today that's not the case, especially in the cities. A new war along the political lines of the War of Northern Aggression today would be a continuous riot. We're seeing some of that, but at least the rioting is contained to some small degree. That may not continue if history is any indicator.

The one lesson I have learned from studying the 1860s is that one of the reasons the South lost was that Lee and even Jackson were loathe to kill Union soldiers. They would fight to win a battle, but once they had won they would work just as hard to allow Union soldiers to return home as whole as possible. Grant and Sherman had no such qualms about Confederate soldiers; they considered them traitors unworthy of the most basic of human dignities. So if and when the fighting starts this time, I will be the voice crying to simply execute them all and let God sort them out. That's one lesson I learned from history that I will not repeat... especially when I see how so many Yankees still think of us as traitors and slavers 160 years later.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




The one lesson I have learned from studying the 1860s is that one of the reasons the South lost was that Lee and even Jackson were loathe to kill Union soldiers. They would fight to win a battle, but once they had won they would work just as hard to allow Union soldiers to return home as whole as possible. Grant and Sherman had no such qualms about Confederate soldiers; they considered them traitors unworthy of the most basic of human dignities.


I totally agree. The historical record absolutely confirms this.

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

He suspended the writ of habeas corpus without the consent of Congress (as required by the Constitution). He illegally shut down and confiscated the printing presses of dozens of newspapers that had spoken out against him. He even had an arrest warrant issued for the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court because said justice refused to back his illegal actions. He invaded the South without the consent of Congress as required by the Constitution. He blockaded Southern ports without a delclaration of war, as required by the Constitution.He imprisoned without trial, hundreds of newspaper editors and owners and censored all newspaper and telegraph communication. He created two new states without the consent of the citizens of those states in order to artificially inflate the Republican Partys electoral vote. He ordered Federal troops to interfere with Northern elections to assure his Parties victories. Targeting civilians has been a common practice ever since World War II, but its roots lie in Lincoln’s war.

In "The Hard Hand of War" historian Mark Grimsley argues that Sherman has been unfairly criticized as the “father” of waging war on civilians because he “pursued a policy quite in keeping with that of other Union commanders from Missouri to Virginia.” Fair enough. Why blame just Sherman when such practices were an essential part of Lincoln’s entire war plan and were routinely practiced by all federal commanders? Sherman was just the most zealous of all federal commanders in targeting Southern civilians, which is apparently why he became one of Lincoln’s favorite generals. In 1862 Sherman wrote his wife that his purpose in the war would be “extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least of the trouble, but the people” of the South. He often would take captured slaves and put a noose around their neck and slowly tighten it until they told him where their master had hid any possessions. In his memoirs Sherman boasted that his army destroyed more than $100 million in private property and carried home $20 million more during his “march to the sea.”

The University of South Carolina library has thousands of diaries and letters from Southern women all describing the heinous gang rapes, murders and robberies commited at the hands of Shermans "troops" who were little more than thugs. The New York regiments especially were filled with big city criminals and foreigners fresh from the jails of the Old World. Of course, all of this is ignored by mainstream historians.

Sherman himself admitted after the war that he was taught at West Point that he could be hanged for the things he did. But in war the victors always write the history and are never punished for war crimes, no matter how heinous. Only the defeated suffer that fate. Don't forget Sheridan burning the entire Shanendoah valley to the ground in the middle of October, leaving civilians with nowhere to stay, and no food for the upcoming winter since the foraging armies had stripped the countryside. He wrote many letters to Lincoln bragging about the destruction he brought to the Southern populace there.

That war doomed generations of Southerners to live in abject poverty. A direct result of the "Great Emancipator". You know its kinda funny, every American President seems to always get compared to Hitler (Trump especially) but if you really look at it, Lincoln was the closest thing ever to a supreme dictator. Yet, somehow he is on Mt. Rushmore.



We are seeing the same level of political animosity now; red vs. blue instead of slave vs. non-slave, but still the same amount of intolerance and animosity. History is indeed repeating itself.


I hope you're wrong about that. But since there as so many people who are just plain willfully ignorant of their history (as evidenced by many of the comments of this thread) I fear we might see things play out just as you describe.



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 03:53 PM
link   
a reply to: filthyphilanthropist

Sure it was a military measure. Don't disagree.

But if we look at the passing of the 13th amendment. It would sure seem that, in the end, the government was intent upon abolishing slavery.



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: Fallingdown

The United States is a "Union" of "countries". It always has been. There are reasons many of the states weren't going to ratify the U.S. Constitution unless "The Amendments" were added.






This. I always tell people, we're the United STATES of America, not the United PEOPLE of America.

The whole point of the US is each "State" is in effect, it's own country. Hence having State Legislatures, Governors, and State courts.

Over the years the Fed has completely overgrown it's boundaries.

It's time to weed it back into place.



posted on Jul, 21 2020 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Cancerwarrior


Why blame just Sherman when such practices were an essential part of Lincoln’s entire war plan and were routinely practiced by all federal commanders? Sherman was just the most zealous of all federal commanders in targeting Southern civilians, which is apparently why he became one of Lincoln’s favorite generals.

Really, only because he was the one who did the deeds.

But you're right: Sherman became one of Lincoln's favorites because he had no scruples and would do whatever was asked of him. Lincoln was panicking during much of the war because his army could not match the ferocity of the Confederate army. That statement my seem at odds with my earlier statement about Lee, but that was after the battle that he gave quarter. During the early battles especially, the ferocity of the Confederate troops was well-respected and generally feared among Union soldiers.

Southern regiments were loosely structured... after all, this was an army composed of a mixture of the trained and the untrained. The Confederacy was new, and raising an army was not something they had expected to have to do on such short notice. Southern forces tended to yell out as they attacked, and this led to the legend of the "Rebel Yell." As time went on, the Southern generals made use of that and taught their soldiers to give that notorious cry as they attacked. In more than one case, it alone sent the Union forces into full retreat.

Lincoln actually pressed the slavery issue in order to drum up support among the Northern population. He wasn't concerned about slavery, but he was obsessed with not being known as the last President of the full United States. He would go to any length to prevent the nation from splitting, even if that meant going against everything the country stood for.... and he did in man cases.

I always found it interesting that Obama revered Lincoln so. They were alike in many ways: both believed the end justified the means, both were fine with circumventing Constitutional restrictions on their power if they felt the need was great enough, and both used media and propaganda to great advantage. The stories about a young "Honest Abe" who walked mile upon mile to return a pittance were just that: stories. He was generally an honest man when it came to finances, but not to such a hyperbolic extent.

Back to my point: Lincoln went through several generals during the course of the war. He did not tolerate failure well. If a general lost too many battles, Lincoln would find someone to replace him, and demote him for being inept. Complaints about legalities were not something Lincoln took well to, so it is little wonder that he wound up commanding some of the most ruthless cutthroats the North had to offer.

The entire March to the Sea was a panic move as far as that goes. The South was winning battle after battle, and were about to go on offensive into Union territory. That would have ended the war almost immediately, as the people were already losing confidence in Lincoln's ability to win and would have demanded a diplomatic solution over a few skirmishes on their soil. Sherman's job was to cut the supply lines... ALL the supply lines... by whatever means he deemed necessary. Apparently those means included rape and murder on a wholesale level.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 22 2020 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

It like they blow right past what you post to keep insisting its not about slavery. As someone who knew enough to argue it was about state rights I was always reluctant to engage the "it was about slavery crowd." Then someone showed me the letter the states drafted. Most of them mention slavery right up there in the top.

Or as we like to call it--the introductory paragraph. Where one first lists their main reasons for something.



posted on Jul, 22 2020 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: atlantiswatusi

Ever hear of a casus belli

It may have been part of the justification (even a large part), but that doesn't neccesarily mean that was the cause. Doesn't mean it wasn't, either.
edit on 7/22/2020 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2020 @ 05:36 AM
link   
a reply to: atlantiswatusi

Its interesting that the Confederate Constitution , was basically the same as Switzerland. It changed its constitution to bring it in line with the Confederate states. Where each Canton is an independent state. The idea was to prevent crony capitalism, and Corporate interest taking over. The Northern States were getting to the point where, some very rich men were disliking constraints on their power. Thus an invasion of the Southern States. Canada still has the right for a province to secede from the Canadian federal system. This guy makes some interesting points where crony capitalism has a use by date.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join