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.

 

If the confederacy would have WON!!

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by kenny71
 


I'm simply basing my point off of the reasons that southern states gave, themselves for leaving the Union, this is nothing that is spun, or read through a filter, but just their words directly.

As for the idea that it was about state's rights, the first act of the Confederate Congress was to make it illegal to leave the Confederacy, great rights there!

If the Union and the Confederacy were judged by modern standards, the Confederacy would be a developing nation. To put this simply for all of you, the South failed to industrialize, period. They lost the war because they did not understand the modern world at the time, and were delusional in thinking that they could beat the industrial North. Going to war with the Union was not a rational decision. And yes it was in fact the Confederacy that fired upon the Union first. President Lincoln goaded them into swinging first, but it was still their decision.

There are reasonable expectations that can be made in warfare, the Confederacy failed to do use reason, and they paid dearly for that.




posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Actually Black men were given the right to vote from the Emancipation Proclamation. Voting privileges came for women years later. Had the South won the war women would have had first dibs indefinitely.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
[edit on 7-7-2010 by kenny71]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenny71
Ok now I see your point ProjectJimmy. I guess I didn't get what you were saying but now I do. I am man to say that's my bad.


Absolutely no worries, I'm sorry if I was unclear. To clarify further, I am not saying that the war was only about slavery, there were very deep economic and even deeper cultural divides between the two sides, but it's not historically accurate to say that slavery was not a major reason behind the war as well.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnze



Slavery was all but dead by the time the war began. Despised on an international scale. Traders and slavers stopped and arrested. Popular opinion in the states wildly opposing the act. Technological advances making slave owning not economically viable. They were a rich-man's toy by that time.


No that is not true at all, that is absolutely ridiculous.


Well, in 1807 the UK and the US abolished the international slave trade and made it quite illegal. 1807 Slave Trade Act

Technology made owning the massive slave populations of decades prior inefficient. Antebellum Richmond

Constant and rapid growth of abolitionism sentiment. Digitial History

The momentum was obviously leading to a natural death of slavery. It was economically, morally and socially unsustainable.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
I am not from the South at all but I do think its funny when people say things like "it was all about the slavery, man." I believe slavery was a disgusting thing but for a group of people to get away from the US government for that long leaves me envious.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
i disagree with your opinions projectjimmy. but they are opinions and everyone has facts to validate an opinions substance.

the true interaction of "parent" nations in the civil war is largely not taught.a foreigner who wants to believe they know the causes and reasons for an escalation that is occurring within its colonies bodies is as misguided as a laborer promised a position equal to your own body.

since this is about arizona and i have already expressed my opinions regarding: i will reserve any further comment pertaining the reasons a person would value the destruction of the confederacy.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
We would be forced to live in a redneck utopia!

So… Hell no!!!!!!


There is actually a book called Redneck Nation (How The South Really Won The War) you should probably check it out. While it is slightly funny it really makes a lot of great points. It touches on everything from meritocracy to Sex In The City.

The basic premise is pretty precise you live in a "redneck" utopia any way.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Not with regards to the Southern states however, the southern states were entirely dependent on slavery and had sought for half a decade prior to the Civil War to try and block any attempt by the Union as a whole to prevent any free labour entitlement to new territory. That was one of the major concerns of the Southern States leading up to the civil war.

King Cotton?



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
Oh I do so hate this game; let's play make heroes out of criminals! Read the letters that the states wrote when they left the Union, it's about slavery, right there, black and white, written by the Confederates.

You can say whatever you like about slavery ending if the South had won, the racism didn't, and a lot of it still is there today.

I'm not going to play "what-if" with a lost civilization that I never saw much worth in. I'll just simply remind all of you wannabe-rebels that the Confederacy never could have won. The South lacked the production capacity, people and the money to stand against the North. The OP mentioned Arizona, well that territory was held easily by the California troops. There are pipe dreams and then there is this.


You don't know what you're talking about. They were no more criminals then Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

The Civil War was our second war of independence. You chose to believe the propaganda you've been fed, ignorant on your part. You read a few text books and you think you know it all.

My family history dates back pre war. We are Georgians, and I have two grandparents that fought in GA regiments. I live 5 miles from a battlefield, I have over 200 books, many diaries and memoirs on the war. It is deep in my heritage. No one in my family has ever owned a dang slave, and most southerners didn't! Why would so many men give their lives for slavery, when only the rich owned them?

The government made slavery an issue, because they knew England couldn't associate itself with a nation that supports slavery.

Now they make slavery a key issue, because they want to demonize the thought of a rebellion in the future. It is damage control for how evil the union actually was.

It's a disgrace!!

Grant has his slaves longer then Forest did!

The straight southern discrimination on this site amazes me, everyone thinks we are a bunch of poor idiots.

Wrong, southerners are the biggest threat to the government and tyranny, because we don't depend on anyone to give us anything. We are self sufficient. A self sufficient population is looked down upon.

I know some poor southerners, because their labor jobs were taken by illegals, but they still don't use food stamps, unemployment, welfare or anything.


Stonewall Jackson
Lee
Cleburne
Forest
Longstreet

These men were true American heroes.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 

Gen PGT Beauregard was within 20 miles of an undefended washington in the openng months of the war he was instructed NOT TO PROCEED
so the idea the south couldn't have won Is pure BS.

this was pure divide and conqure from the same TYPE that are suing Arizona over her right to enforce laws that are already on the books

oh the ecomony can't survive without the illegal immigrant "Slaves"
you might say
save it.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnze
 


The inefficiency of slavery in the South was only briefly behind its inefficiency in the North. As more and more goods became production goods for consumption it became more and more costly to feed, house, cloth and care for your slaves. Of course slaves were cared for to a relative degree. A sick man cannot work and a dying man is a waste or an awful lot of money. A slave at that point in time cost as much as a car.

It was much more profitable and efficient to offer wages. Wages that would be paid back in exchange for the consumer goods and housing fees.

Forced labor is uneconomical in an industrial world. Even in the farm heavy South. 'King Cotton' was a gimmick. A short bubble of prosperity with a decisive end to its reign. The dot com or housing debacle of its day.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Sorry history disagrees with what you are saying. Yes i understand King Cotton was a political gimmick in order to highlite the importance of the cotton trade to try and lure Britains Support and intervention. However Britain just increased production elsewhere in its Empire and decided to help the Union instead.

However the Souths cotton trade accounted for more than half of Americas total exports, it was worth billions upon billions in todays money. This was only acheivable through slavery, i do not understand what technologies you are talking about, the cotton still needed to be pickd, by slaves.

You seem to have your sides completely mixed up, what your talking about free labour, was an economic policy persued by the North since the 1800s. The South were always against such ideals.


[edit on 7-7-2010 by Johnze]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by xstealth
 


You have a vested interest in believing what you do about the Confederacy, your family's honor is on the line. In the mid-19th Century, my family was in England, Canada and China, we had no dog in your fight. I have made up my mind through facts and my own views on human rights.

We all hold personal historical biases based upon where our ancestors were, none of us want to be the grandkids of bad guys. And I am not at all saying that everyone in the South were criminals, not at all. I will fully admit that I am softer on the British colonial adventures in India and China because I had family involved, but it does not make what my country did right either.

There can be good men on the wrong moral side of history. I'll agree with you that Lee was a great military commander and a very good man from all I have read of him, but I'll never, ever, pay those compliments to Forest. He and Himmler belong in the same book in my mind.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Would Arizona hurry up and secede already. Whats stopping them? Maybe some other states would follow suit, or at least threaten the feds.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 

Gen PGT Beauregard was within 20 miles of an undefended washington in the openng months of the war he was instructed NOT TO PROCEED
so the idea the south couldn't have won Is pure BS.

this was pure divide and conqure from the same TYPE that are suing Arizona over her right to enforce laws that are already on the books

oh the ecomony can't survive without the illegal immigrant "Slaves"
you might say
save it.


The United States survived the fall of Washington in the war of 1812 and still won the war. The Confederacy would have had to fight through far more than the District Of Columbia to win.

As for the illegal immigration, you are putting words in my mouth there mate, because I do not believe you need it. The US could easily change their immigration policy and get the required workers just as well within the rule of law. I do feel horribly for the plight of the illegal immigrant in America, and you are right to equate them with slave labor, the conditions some of these human beings are forced to work it are horrible, and should be changed.

You need immigration the same as the United Kingdom needs them too, it is a reality of globalization, and that is a trend that cannot be turned back now.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 

not meaning to put words in your mouth my point is that the situation now is vey similar to the way it was then - the foreign controlled central government is trying to prevent the south from defending it self as per law because it is not in agreement with the foreign powers that control Washington and who wish to subjugate the peeps

BTW in 1812 the British withdrew from Washington voluntarily without doing the low damage to civilian targets that the US inflicted on YORK.
they were only making a point, and they weren't thown out.

Beauregard was ORDERED not to persue his advantage...

So I do not accept your point regarding who would have honestly won the war....the bankers that controlled it DECREED that the South would lose.
and then they carpet bagged ol glory right into the ground.



[edit on 7-7-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Im sorry for butting in here, but what were the Southern States defending themselves from?, prior to the civil war that is.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 

not meaning to put words in your mouth my point is that the situation now is vey similar to the way it was then - the foreign controlled central government is trying to prevent the south from defending it self as per law because it is not in agreement with the foreign powers that control Washington and who wish to subjugate the peeps

BTW in 1812 the British withdrew from Washington voluntarily without doing the low damage to civilian targets that the US inflicted on YORK.
they were only making a point, and they weren't thown out.

Beauregard was ORDERED not to persue his advantage...

So I do not accept your point regarding who would have honestly won the war....the bankers that controlled it DECREED that the South would lose.
and then they carpet bagged ol glory right into the ground.



[edit on 7-7-2010 by Danbones]


The British were hit with a hurricane and that is why they withdrew from DC before their ships were destroyed!

If you're just going to claim that bankers caused all of this then why even debate it? Strategy, tactics, materiel, none of it would matter then. All of military history is pointless then, because there were no real battles.

Unless you can give some evidence to your claim that it was in fact the banks (and what banks seriously?) that controlled the outcome of the American Civil War, then I have nothing further to debate with you. You'll simply reject reality and put in whatever you like.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
The history of slavery is a lot more complex than is being portrayed here so far. In fact, not having slaves in a culture is an idea only about 200 years old. FRrom the Romans to the Persians to the Egyptians, they all incorporated slavery into their cultures. Being slave free is an oddity.

To me, one of the more ironic aspects is the 'Blame America" crowd on slavery. The slave trade started in 1619, the very year my earliest ancestors arrived at Jamestown. My great times many grandfather Dr. John Woodson's firearm is still prominently displayed in the Virginia State Historical Museum. He was killed by Indians in the mid 1600s. Slavery was introduced by the English who made it an institution and took over 150 years to do it. And when they "lost" the Revolutionary War they continued slavery for several decades before finally abolishing it. This was a slow process that happened in degrees over many years. But because they banned slavery before we did, they got bragging rights for doing so and were in a position to be scornful of 'American Slavery,' which they started. Of course, remember that Great Britain supported the South during the Civil War. This wasn't just talk. The South built Naval ships in England that were used in the war.

I have ancestors on both sides of the Civil War. Much of my family was from Tennessee, being immigrants from Virginia. It's not true that you had to be rich to own slaves. My great great grandfather had slaves in Tennessee, but it was a part of the state that had Union sympathies. One was named Molly. Tennessee was a 'split state' with the Confederacy ruling over one half and the North over the other.

There was bitter fighting there. When the Confederates came for the men folk in my family, either to impress them into service or to kill them, they hid in a cave. The Confederates put a noose around Molly's neck and told her they would lynch her if she did not betray her 'Master.'

She did not.

From our lofty position of sophistication and superiority in the 21st century we tend to think of slavery as the 'in the fields with an evil overseer with a whip' kind of existence. That certainly existed. The evil was there and the racism was there. There is no doubt about it. There were also a lot of people like Molly who were integrated into the social fabric in a way that required their 'owners' to feed and clothe them, give them medical attention, and see to their needs.

When slavery ended, things got even worse. A few people like Molly changed their status, but not their employment for not every slave owner was a ruthless beast. A few turned to share cropping, their lives not much changing at all, but many were simply tossed on the street. Their supporting infrastructure simply disappeared. They became homeless beggars in a hostile environment much worse off than they were originally. Ending slavery was painful for many slaves.

The Civil War killed more soldiers (not to mention civilians) than all of America's other wars combined. These were mostly white soldiers, who died for our sins. The thing is, there was a great deal of antipathy to slavery well before the Civil War, indeed, well before the Revolutionary War. Of course, this was by people who did not depend upon it. When you read through some of the more obscure writings during that time you see that the country was founded on compromise to the South, but the people doing this knew full well it was going to come to a head in a generation or two. This thing did not suddenly spring up in 1860; it started over 100 years prior. It was just a matter of time.

What the war actually caused was that 'The United States of America" went from a plural construction to a singular construction. Given the oppressive nature of the Federal government at this time, I'm not sure that was a good thing.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join