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.

 

Confederate states movement?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by launchpad
detla boy there you go spouting the party line again. try to look beyond that as not every Southern state was a slave state.


i have no idea wat u are talkin about...but aniways not everybody in my view in the south was pro slavery if that is wat u mean.




posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I'm really not interested in getting into a debate here about the causes of the Civil War for the 50th time, but I still think that the root cause was slavery. That being said the rebels will ALWAYS be on the wrong side of that conflict because of the simple fact that they kept millions of human beings in bondage whereas the Union (excepting 4 states) did not.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
no doubt slavery was the cause of the problem that led to the southern states to secede. remember that as the U.S. was expanding, states from the North which was anti slavery and the south which was for slavery, fought each other to wat the new territories should be a slave state or not, etc. these kinds of problems not to mention Lincoln's against slavery cause the southern states to secede wen they threaten if Lincoln is voted in office.


as i recall, lincoln didnt mention slavery in his election campaign or inaguration speech or at all untill his emancipation proclomation which coincidentally was after the south was freeing slaves, had inter-racial units, equal pay, and even today blacks do heritage marches and reenactments in the name of the confederacy.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx
I'm really not interested in getting into a debate here about the causes of the Civil War for the 50th time, but I still think that the root cause was slavery. That being said the rebels will ALWAYS be on the wrong side of that conflict because of the simple fact that they kept millions of human beings in bondage whereas the Union (excepting 4 states) did not.


lol, typical...

"i dont want to argue, so drop it........but slavery was the issue, you are wrong and im not"

you post here in a thread about this topic, yet refuse to discuss it?



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere
lol, typical...

"i dont want to argue, so drop it........but slavery was the issue, you are wrong and im not"

you post here in a thread about this topic, yet refuse to discuss it?



I told you my reasons for not wanting to get into this, I've already done it before on this forum, and I find repetiton boring. I also find arguing..lol sorry debating...this subject particularly boring. No, infuriating. I have enough become enraged about without adding to it by arguing with someone over an issue where neither side is going to change their mind. And from reading your....odd comments already, I REALLY know I don't want to stay in this thread.

But go ahead and present your argument to why slavery wasn't the issue, I'm sure there plenty of people who want to go back and forth with you. Like I said in the rest of my message, to me causes and motives don't matter because of the basic facts regarding slavery.

And yes, I can post a comment in a thread and not settle down discuss it. Are there rules that say that I have to? No.


[edit on 10/10/2005 by Flinx]



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 12:10 AM
link   
YES! Last I checked in the law books treason is a crime punishable by death! They broke away, committed treason, and got stomped on because of it. If you didn't want to die, then don't commit death penalty crimes! It's like "I don't wanna go to jail." Then complaining because you got caught robbing a store and are going to jail. You did the crime, do the time.

Also, the war was to keep the Union together, slaves being freed was just a side benifit.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by namehere

as i recall, lincoln didnt mention slavery in his election campaign or inaguration speech or at all untill his emancipation proclomation which coincidentally was after the south was freeing slaves, had inter-racial units, equal pay, and even today blacks do heritage marches and reenactments in the name of the confederacy.


as i recall he has talked about slavery during the election. it depends on which history u are taught and studied on. here u go.

www.historyplace.com...



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Too bad Lincoln didn't get what he got a few years earlier- i totally lost all that school induced respect of the man once i started reading about the Civil War period on my own.

It was not treasonous to want to leave the union-which was not representing the interests of the Southern states.

It was very treasonous to invade the South and kill millions. So i guess we should be hanging Yankees!



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   
To quote the first post here

As a non-American, my knownledge of American politics is pretty vague to behonest. I have been reading around the internet on American politics and parties, i cannot help but notice that there is a movement of rebuilding The Confederate States of America. Does this movement have potential or is it some unrealistic aim that will not happen? some groups, or leagues, claim that it will happen in afew decades. But is this likely?


We seem to have gotten off-topic and discuss the The Confederate States during the 1800s, and Lincoln and slavery.

Could we please get back to the present and discuss whether the Confederacy Movement is being revived in the US



ooooops, edit it should say 1800, not 1600


[edit on 12-10-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe


We seem to have gotten off-topic and discuss the The Confederate States during the 1600s, and Lincoln and slavery.

Could we please get back to the present and discuss whether the Confederacy Movement is being revived in the US



1600s?
im sure that was a typo there Tread. aniways i would say that slavery or not at this time, there would be no confederate state for wat kind of govt the populace of watever area the New Conderate state would pick? is it because they just want a new leader opposite of another leader? or is because they dont like the old govt system?



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
This man should be dug up and his corpse put on trial.

Who Sherman? Why? if anything Lee and the rest of his cabal should be dug up, have their bones ground into dust, and buried at the bottom of the ocean, not Sherman, he's one of the good guys. (*ducks and covers while making sure amuk and TC aren't in the room*)


IPA
seen as much racism in the north as the south.

I allways like this way of thinking of it, in the south, they love the individual, but hate the race. In the north, they love the race, but hate the individual. Thats because the southerners, especially the upper class, would've had lots of relatively close interaction with blacks in their households and community than in the north, so there'd be lots of blacks that they individually have strong almost familial feelings for, but they're still keeping them as a whole as 'sub-human chattel' slaves, whereas in the north everyone was all for abolition of slavery, but blacks were very ostracised from society.


launchpad
slavery was the LEAST of the issues that sparked the Civil war

This is silly. While the issue of slavery can be overblown, it was one of a few prime issues leading to the war. No slavery, no civil war. The issue of fed over state rights was over slavery, and the feds trying to undue it, and the non-slave states trying to ride roughshod over the slave states by controlling what new states were classed as. Slavery wasn't 'sufficient' to cause the civil war, but it was clearly necessary to cause it.


namehere
as i recall, lincoln didnt mention slavery in his election campaign or inaguration speech

Thats because he wanted to get elected. Bush doesn't talk about erosion of civil rights, but that hardly means that its not something that the people are polarized over.

and even today blacks do heritage marches and reenactments in the name of the confederacy.

indeed, and that sort of thing shows that slavery wasn't the sole issue.

slaves being freed was just a side benifit.

Heck, it could also be thought of as a tactic to help win the war too.

launchpad
It was not treasonous to want to leave the union

It was treason to breach the consitution and wage war against the United States of America. There are no provisions in the constituion for leaving it, there is no secession clause. The states that left didn't even have unamious popular support for leaving it, of course it was treason to remove all those people from the United States, and prepare for war against the United States.

It was very treasonous to invade the South and kill millions

Restoring the people to the United States is not treason, and putting down an armed insurrection is good.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   
1600's? Uh, typo needs to be fixed. Also, it was what, 4-5 years? So better use the 1860's not 1800's to specify it.

Anyways, I think only Texas has a clause that it can leave the Union. The rest? Treason.

Third. The north loves the race but hate the people? Tell that to the Pistons, Bulls, Bears, Vikings, Chris Rock, other blacks in the north. I think they are black people loved by the north.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by RANT
This man should be dug up and his corpse put on trial.

Who Sherman? Why? if anything Lee and the rest of his cabal should be dug up, have their bones ground into dust, and buried at the bottom of the ocean, not Sherman, he's one of the good guys. (*ducks and covers while making sure amuk and TC aren't in the room*)


Forget TC and Amuk, Scarlet O'Hara will kick your ass herself.


I realize there's a somewhat revisionist movement even among the new south to say Sherman wasn't such a bad guy (oh, and by the way your great, great grandparents were just liars), but it was never "Sherman" following behind Sherman doing all the evil deeds.

Though tossing aside the AWOL Union opportunists that used the south as their toilet, Sherman was no saint himself. Read what he did to "freed" slaves that were slowing down his march sometime. He wasn't even following orders when he went to Savannah. He was supposed to be heading to Virginia to relieve another union commander. Just a rogue lunatic. His own men would have shot him in this day and age.

This is like Saddam Hussein stuff. Lincoln should have been sanctioned and contained.


Oh yeah. He was.

[edit on 12-10-2005 by RANT]



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Forget TC and Amuk, Scarlet O'Hara will kick your ass herself.

I've heard that about southern women, all lemonade and iced tea on the outside, but bourbon and snuff on the inside.


Just a rogue lunatic.

Seems georgia wasn't able to do much to stop the kook tho.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Since we are supposed to be talking about if there is another trend towards a confederate type system. . .

I think there should be. I am a federal employee but it is still very easy to see that the Feds just are not representing the States. John Titors version of things seems so much more attractive than the BS we have going on now even if it means I need to find other work. I think our forefathers would be agreeing as well- they certainly were not for tyrannical central government.

Texas still does reserve the right to (yes RIGHT) to succeed. I would never want to live in any part of that crummy state though. I also think the Feds would never let that happen at any cost. But if it ever comes down to the military using force on my own countrymen I will be switching sides and taking on the military myself.


Geeze, it just occurred to me that being Southern raised and having lived in every state except Georgia and Mississippi I don't ever want to go back!! It wouldn't bother me at all to stay West of the Mississippi River and North of Oklahoma for the rest of my life.

Problem with the South and my skin color (or lack there of) makes everyone (of darker shade) think I owe them something, my job applications are always put at the bottom of the pile regardless of qualifications, and I pay more for my education. We can thank the carpet baggers for this problem.

The movie Gods and Generals had a good explanation for the Southern view. The loyalty was to the locality they lived in over the Federal government. That is the way it should be. Much the same as party politics- blind loyalty just because of affiliation is stupid in the utmost. God, family, town, county, state, then feds is the way it should be. When the feds start muscling their way in . . . . they are out of line- just as they were in the Civil War.

As to treason- the NORTH committed treason. The NORTH invaded the South (not the other way around) to make sure their raw materials base was secure for THEIR industry. The south was being defensive from Northern invaders- there to rape, pillage and ensure the South was enslaved to the Northern industry and Northern power brokers. To deny this is to put on some serious rose colored glasses and attribute (falsely) all kinds of glorious motivations to some greedy, power hungry politicians- much the same as we have in office today. (duh)



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by launchpad
As to treason- the NORTH committed treason. The NORTH invaded the South (not the other way around) to make sure their raw materials base was secure for THEIR industry.


the North invaded the south in treason? maybe u need to look at the history books again but the South provoked the north in the first place. look at the first battle which started the hostilities.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I just found this and thought I'd share.


It's a new indie film that asks the question "what if the Confederacy had won?" Watch the preview here:

www.csathemovie.com...



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Who was it that attacked the Union? It wasn't Mexico(not that time anyways) or France, no it was the south who attacked the Union fort Fort Sumter. The south committed treason then attacked the Union.

From BFC.

"The whites were also scared of working so they got slaves to do all the work for them."

[edit on 13-10-2005 by Full Metal]



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   
you have got to be kidding me. you people are really stuck on this? the war has been over for 140 years people!

im southern, born and raised. had family on both sides of the civil war. it was an ugly mess. end of story. there will never be another rise of the south. if anything, there might be a war between the haves and have nots, or even the hispanics and everyone else, but not another north vs south. our society is too well integrated for something like that to ever happen again. hell, half the industrial base has moved south anyway because of the outrageous taxes up north.

give me a break people, the south aint gonna do it again.

(oh, and by the way, some of you guys need to read a history book or two before you post. the south officially fired the first shot, and slavery was a catalyst, but not the major issue....the state of maryland, a northern state, continued to have slaves for a few years after the war ended because the emancipation proclamation only covered the southern states. the EP was a part of the northern war effort, and it worked very well in their favor).

edited for typos

[edit on 13-10-2005 by snafu7700]



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Read some books?? Yup, read quite a few specifically on the Civil War. Sure enough the FIRST shots were fired by the South. But maybe Delta Boy once you finish with your education you can look on a map and see where Ft Sumter is located- then pick up at least one book to see how 6 days after South Carolina officially decided to succeed (20 Dec 1860) the North sent troops under Maj. Robert Anderson to occupy the Fort (26 Dec 1860). An act which the South Carolina Congressional members had previously declared (9 Dec 1860) would be considered an act of war.

Turns out the location where the shots were first fired - yes by the South- was in the South AFTER the NORTH had preemptively seized and reinforced the Fort.

Due to the actions of the North and the vital location of the Fort within the boundaries of South Carolina there was no way around the conflict that ensued.

www.civilwarhome.com...

If a man with a gun comes into a bank and robs it but never fires a shot- was that a hostile action? Is this act what starts the conflict between the bank robber and the cops or that the cops respond to the action the beginning of the conflict? Seems to be a no-brainer to me.

Like I said earlier- the South was defending themselves and it may never be divided in this country by the Mason Dixie line again but the country is getting to be more and more divided and I can see a trend among certain types of individuals (just read some threads on this site) that have just had enough of the power grabbing Federal politicians acting against the states. As the numbers of those highly dissatisfied individuals rise one can easily see a possible future conflict much like the civil war occurring.

Will I be among them???- No as I said I am a federal employee and until actual weapons are turned on my fellow countrymen and as sour as the taste is in my mouth I am going to be completely loyal. Part of being loyal though is to advise those above me they maybe going down a dark and dangerous path and vote accordingly to get those misguided folks out of office. Have you written your congressman?




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join