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.

 

What started the American Civil War?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I don't think it was a "conspiracy" this just seemed to be the most appropriate forum; dealing with politics.

Before you post your "slavery//wasn't slavery" crud...realize I probably already know more about the Civil War than you ever will....my question isn't so simple.

My question is why did it happen when the Dred Scott Case ruling was so in favor of the South?

Roger Taney (who was against slavery anyway) wrote that the Constitution cannot be used to free slaves because this violated the due process clause of the Bill of Rights which prohibited siezure of property without a court proceeding.

The decision also ruled that Slaves could be taken anywhere north of the Mason-Dixon line.

The decision was made in 1857 and uncontested.

So why in 1860 did Secessionism become such a passionate fire; that the South would throw away the support of the Judiciary; to what end?

To spite the election of Abraham Lincoln?

Were they that afraid of the Legislature and Executive when they had the Courts defending States Rights absolutely?

What happend!?




posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Well, if you "already know more about the Civil War than we ever will", then why are you asking us peons, Oh Great One?



posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   
I know that by 1860 the South was paying over 80% of the entire federal budget from import tariff duties, and the high majority of that money went to benefit the Northern states. When Lincoln was elected he wanted to further increase the tariffs that the south would have to pay. It was getting too costly to remain in the Union and the rest is history.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Slavery


The cause of the American Civil War are in the complex issues of slavery, politics, disagreements over the scope of States' rights versus federal power, expansionism, sectionalism, economics, modernization, and competing nationalism of thetime.There is little disagreement among historians on the details of the events that led to war, there is disagreement on exactly what caused what and the relative importance.

There is no consensus on whether the war could have been avoided, or if it should have been avoided.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
If the civil war hadn't been fought in the 1860's it would have eventually been fought anyway. It ultimately came down to States Rights versus the power of the Federal gov't. Guess who won.

I am sure one so all knowing as you knew that already though, huh?

If it wasn't that it must have been that silly little issue of slavery, which come to think of it did have a little to do with that states right issue.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
If the civil war hadn't been fought in the 1860's it would have eventually been fought anyway. It ultimately came down to States Rights versus the power of the Federal gov't. Guess who won.


Yeah, seriously...

What an attitude to have, though, saying you know more than the people you are asking for help!



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 04:23 AM
link   
the "slavery" was the cause of the civil war is a nice PC face that has been printed on the civil war.

I agree the real cause, which can be seen as eventually becoming a problem as early as the ratification of the constitution, was that some wanted individual states to have more power, others wanted a strong federal government.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   
I think Fighting Kentucian hit it on the nail. It was economical, not about slavery. The South became unwilling to pay the ridiculous tariffs that the North demanded. History is written by the victors, thus the North decided to make the war about slavery, not their own stupidity of demanding that the South pay such enormous tariffs.

-Forestlady



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
I think Fighting Kentucian hit it on the nail. It was economical, not about slavery. The South became unwilling to pay the ridiculous tariffs that the North demanded. History is written by the victors, thus the North decided to make the war about slavery, not their own stupidity of demanding that the South pay such enormous tariffs.

-Forestlady


Well, in a roundabout way, slavery was the linchpin. You see with the tariffs as they were, wageless labor was the only way the south was able to keep afloat, and even that wasn't going to cut it for good. As part of the union, the Confederate states depended on slave labor. Once separated from the other states though, plans immediately went into the works to abolish slavery over a gradual period of time - both to remove the economic frailty it created and to erase the moral quandries - Not just of owning another person, but of growing up not knowing how to do a single thing for yourself.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   
I think we should look into the power the international bankers had in economics and politics in the time before the U.S. civil war as well.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
King George ?


didnt he fund the american cvil war?



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by seridium
King George ?


didnt he fund the american cvil war?


want to put a numeral behind that name, there were plenty of georges.

what started the civil war was the suscession of s.carolina. removing yourself from a nation is bound to start a civil war.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Secession of the Southern States didn't necessarily start the War Between the States, it was Lincoln's realization that without Fort Sumter, Lincoln couldn't enforce the tarrif laws and tax incoming ships into the port of Charleston. When Salmon P. Chase the Secretary of the Treasury informed Lincoln of this, Lincoln stattioned the Federal fleet outside Charleston and basically forced the South Carolina Militias hand into opening fire on Fort Sumter.
Fighting Kentuckian pretty much nailed it on the head though.
Read "When in the Course of Human events" THe author is a professor of economic history at the University of Maryland. Very good book.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

posted by Fighting Kentuckian: “I know that by 1860 the South was paying over 80% of the entire federal budget from import tariff duties, and the majority of that money went to benefit the [more populated] Northern states. When Lincoln was elected he wanted to increase tariffs the south would have to pay. It was getting too costly to remain in the Union and the rest is history. [Edited by Don W]


A. Lincoln imposed the first income tax in 1864, to raise more money. I have heard but could not prove the tax was 3% on incomes over $5,000. Maybe Stratrf_Rus will favor us on this issue? The tax was subsequently declared unconstitutional. Lack of Federal funding led inevitably to the 16th Amendment which made the modern welfare-state possible. A genuine sea change. I do not think it is possible for anyone born after 1913 to conceive how life was here before 1913.

THE REAL TRAGEDY OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.

The Slave System of the South was coldly and cruelly calculated to destroy the cultural heritage of the African slaves. It was forbidden for a slave to be taught to read or write. Slaves owned nothing, not even the clothes on their backs. They were compelled to live in circumstances not fit for domestic animals. Despite having their own ambitions to improve their lot in life, they were generally discouraged from doing so. Slaves could not congregate except on Sunday when the Slave Masters consented for the Africans to have church. I cannot describe how despicable the system was.

By 1876 for various reasons - none of them honorable - the Radical Republicans in Congress gave up on Reconstruction. They willingly and knowingly allowed the South to re-impose economic slavery on the African Americans. By 1896, as in 1857, the Supreme Court turned a blind eye to human dignity and to the promise of the American system. It was Plessey v. Ferguson this time. Separate but equal was the law of the land.

What came to be called JIM CROW was imposed throughout the South by violence and what we’d call today, TERRORISM. Useless violence to intimidate and subjugate a people. White America was perfectly happy with this system of economic domination reinforced by color segregation. And cattle prods, and water hoses and police dogs. Beatings and murders. A system willing to do things to others it would not tolerate being done to it.

More than 3,000 African Americans were lynched - hung to death by vigilante and Ku Klux Klansmen - between 1876 and 1966. More than 15,000 cases of severe beatings from which the victim never fully recovered. 50,000 burnouts of homesteads of the very poor. These are estimated numbers but consistent with what was going on South of the Ohio.

90 years of humiliation and depravation was imposed on a people for only one reason, the color of their skin. The office of president of the United States is not designed, intended, nor empowered to end this injustice. Congress alone had the power, but the South had a stranglehold on the Congress because of the seniority system. And the 2/3rds rule for cloture in the Senate. (Now 3/5ths).

ONLY the courts could SAVE America from an re-run of the Civil War. Finally, under a former California governor, but by a unanimous vote of the 9 members of the Supreme Court, the right case came before it. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. 1954. Chief Justice Warren did the RIGHT thing.

At last, Plessey v. Ferguson was overruled. The Declaration of Independence meant what it promised. The U.S. Constitution meant what it said. In 2006, we are not there yet. America’s albatross is RACISM. We can’t get over it. It is still the primary weapon of choice when campaigning in the South. Sure, it’s more subtle now, and uses “code” words but RACISM is alive and well in America. It’s our millstone.

My question is, WILL AMERICA EVER GET OVER SLAVERY?

[edit on 3/24/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   


users.cyberone.com.au...

17. ABE LINCOLN and the CIVIL WAR


Unfortunately, even Jackson failed to grasp the entire picture and its
root cause. Although Jackson had killed the privately-owned central bank,
the most insidious weapon of the Money Changers - fractional reserve
banking - remained in use by the numerous state-chartered banks. For
example, Ln Massachusetts by 1862 the state banks had loaned out eight


times as much as they had gold and silver on deposit. One state
bank had issued $50,000 backed by a total of $86.48. This fueled economic
instability in the years before the Civil War, particularly as no reserve
ratios were mandated for most of the state banks. Still, the central
bankers were out and therefore coordinated monetary manipulation on a
national scale was rendered impossible. As a result, America generally
thrived as it expanded westward.


During this time, the principal Money Changers struggled to regain their
lost centralized power and money monopoly, but to no avail. Finally they
reverted to the old central banker's formula - finance a war, to create
debt and dependency



[edit on 24-3-2006 by city trader]

Mod Edit... always give credit to where you got your information from by adding a link to the material. Also, use the [ex-][/ex] BB code to enclose the material. Failure to do so is against copywrite laws. Please don't just cut and paste huge amounts of material either.
Also, include only the bare minimum of the material needed to make your point. The reader can use the link to read the material.

[edit on 25-3-2006 by masqua]

[edit on 26-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 02:33 PM
link   
C/T, I don’t think that [debunked Protocols] can add much light to this subject Thanks but no thanks.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Anyone who thinks it was fought to free the slaves is ignorant and a victim of revisionist history. I mean come on folks, white people we're willing to die to free slaves, yet wouldn't even let them use the same restroom, or eat at the same lunch counter for another 100 years?!?

Just like all wars it comes down to $$$. Industrialization of the South, started taking money out of yankee pockets, and good old Lincoln and the rest of Washington couldn't have that.



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   

posted by WithoutEqual: Anyone who thinks it was fought to free the slaves is a victim of revisionist history . . white people wouldn't even let them use the same restroom, or eat at the same lunch counter for another 100 years? [Edited by Don W]


You’ve got two different groups of white people here, WO/E. The PRE War people versus the POST War people. Whatever the politically correct positions A. Lincoln took in the campaign of 1860, the Cooper Union speech ought to have dispelled any claims that Lincoln was not an abolitionist.

The action taken before the March 4 Presidential inauguration by the southern states of South Carolina, 12/20/1860; Mississippi 1/9/1861; Florida 1/10/1861; Alabama 1/11/1861; Georgia 1/19/1861; Louisiana 1/26/1861; and Texas 2/1/1861, leave no doubt what they thought the election of 1860 portended.

I think your conception of the monetary sophistication of the 1860s is overblown. Looking back we can see how weak the system post 1st US National Bank non-renewal really was but I do not believe it was that apparent to persons living through it. Undoubtedly tax revenues and expenditures were an issue but not to the extent of slavery.


[edit on 3/24/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
I think Fighting Kentucian hit it on the nail. It was economical, not about slavery. The South became unwilling to pay the ridiculous tariffs that the North demanded. History is written by the victors, thus the North decided to make the war about slavery, not their own stupidity of demanding that the South pay such enormous tariffs.

-Forestlady


But the Southerners before the War claimed it was for slavery; only after the war did the "lost cause" argument of State's Rights and Economics come into the light.

Suspicious no?



posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by WithoutEqual
Anyone who thinks it was fought to free the slaves is ignorant and a victim of revisionist history. I mean come on folks, white people we're willing to die to free slaves, yet wouldn't even let them use the same restroom, or eat at the same lunch counter for another 100 years?!?

Just like all wars it comes down to $$$. Industrialization of the South, started taking money out of yankee pockets, and good old Lincoln and the rest of Washington couldn't have that.


Yet Lincoln made it his perogative to argue that the war was to preserve the Constitution (which was within his power) and that the Constitution was threatened by individuals whom believed they could simply "reinterpret" it any way they saw fit.

Lincoln rightly believed that the Founding Fathers intended the principles of the Declaration of Independence to continue into the US Constitution.

Thus Lincoln fought the war on the basis of principle; found in the Declaration of Independence. The most obvious part of this comes in the form of his most famous speech beginning "Four Score and Seven Years ago" which was 1776 of the time.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join