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: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by madhadder545
OK I started a thread about "Abe lincoln not such a great President. Now in that discussion we talked about what the Civil War was really all about, Alot of people think thats it was about freeing the slaves


Wonder where they could have gotten that idea...

The second sentence of Georgia's declaration of secession:


For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.


The second sentence of Mississippi's secession document:


Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.


From South Carolina:


A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.


And Texas:


In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.


All together there are 50 instances of the word "slave," "slavery" or "slaveholding/slave-holding" in those 4 declarations.

And as a bonus, Texas made sure to be as racist as possible.

However, the historical revisionism never ends.

People, please stop endorsing treason - especially treason that intended to keep innocent men, women and children in chains.




posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Texas alone is the home of Dell, NASA, and Texas Instruments.

The south invented the cotton gin, sugar refining, steam engine lubrication, ISA Bus for computers, RAM for computers, the worlds first 1 GHz processor, microchips, traffic signals, traffic lights, White-Out, artificial hearts, electric typewriters, car radios, MASH hospitals.

Should I go on?


Hitler built the Autobahn, Mussolini made the trains run on time, and John Wayne Gacy was a pretty good clown.

Your point?



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


Just an observation. I am on the other side of this argument. I think the war was more about infringement by the Federal Government on affairs of the state. Your post makes a very good argument for the other side, but let me counter it by saying the American Revolution was about Tea! That statement is just as valid as saying the Civil War was about Slavery.

Then:

OK, there is NO WAY to respond to your post in any manner and not sound racist. That was a very good post, with very good quotations.

Still, I feel the need to say this about the Texas portion. I know it will come across wrong, so I offer to show my ghetto pass upon request, but I had to laugh at the Texas portion of that quote. Sure it was entirely racist, but it was funny because they felt "debased" that anybody would consider them "equal" with the other races.


TX felt it was "racist" that somebody would suggest that they were "equal" with what they considered to be "lower" races? You may have to repeat that a little to let it sink in. They said it went against everything known by mankind, history, experience, etc. And at the time, maybe it did? We know today that with equal education and equal opportunities that we get equal results, but at the time it probably would not have appeared so.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 





I think the war was more about infringement by the Federal Government on affairs of the state. Your post makes a very good argument for the other side, but let me counter it by saying the American Revolution was about Tea! That statement is just as valid as saying the Civil War was about Slavery.




That is why we cannot have nice threads.

Have a star motherzhip for actualy taking the time to learn history and back up your point of view with clear and concise references.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Its hard for people to accept the reality of the Civil War. I mean Im from Texas and I know I was taught that it was 100% about slavery. Not till I was old enough to look at what really went down and what was lied about did I realize I was duped. Now I will not go as far as to say slavery wasnt a background item that was exploited to the full benefit of the north. It was there and they used it for their cause. But TPTB still use this to this day, they demonize anything that is against their status quo and the typical ignorant people buy it hook , line and sinker without question.

Now of coarse the south had it rough, you see the north was all the folks that just stayed where they were not willing to take a chance and travel south and west. Just stay right there where they came over from(England) So it was all based up there and that was a huge advantage. The south lost and it is a shame as we are now again approaching a similar path and the average Joe does not want to change what they have, even though they dont realize its being taken from them slowly without a fight. The south may be the only hope this nation has still to this day, or those that believe we should be in control and not the "MAN"

I would like to add that the south were much better shots and strategist, something crazy like the south killed 10 yankees for every 1 of us, but when you have that many more numbers and the power of industry on your side, it was enough to overcome the superior fighting in the end.

As long as "they" can keep us fighting over anything amongst ourselves, they will continue to rule over us. People need to wake up

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Wiz4769]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Revisionist history and propaganda to serve a certain world view..

the civil war was about slaverly

This form of propaganda is up there with the BS that the founding fathers wanted a government governed by religion.

It's funny in the sense that it takes one of the most obvious truths in history and claims the precise opposite with little actual evidence.

Here let's try this...Let's skip the History books etc. and READ the ACTUAL DECLARATIONS OF SECESSION that the southern states declared...

Their reasons are right there ..........They explain themselves...SLAVERY!!!

South Carolina's Declaration of Secession
avalon.law.yale.edu...


The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.


Georgia..Declaration of Secession
sunsite.utk.edu...


The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.


Mississippi...Declaration of Secession
sunsite.utk.edu...


Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.


Texas...Declaration of Secession
sunsite.utk.edu...


The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.



Carry on with the BS though...I expect nothing less.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


Oh mothershipzeta, I you get a friend add for that one thank you so much! I told people to go look for themselves at those very documents on page 2, but you gave it so much more punch.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


Here is something I posted in another thread about this subject. It should shed some light on why South Carolina made slavery an issue in their decleration.




Regardless of why the southern states left it was a war of aggression to hold the United States together. What the southern states wanted to do was split amicably and without the need for violence. They wanted to bypass the violence of revolution to create peaceably a new confederacy of states. They even sent a peace delgation to negotiate the purchase of Union forts in southern states. Lincoln rebuffed them and refused to even meet.

Let us go back a little further though. South Carolina’s secession movement started as a result of tariffs passed in 1828. Talk of secession continued to grow as Jackson threatened to send troops in to SC. The movement grew further in 1850 with the admittance of California as a state.

They did not mention this in their declaration of secession. What they mentioned was the refusal of non slave states to return fleeing slaves. They used this justification because they believed it could most readily stand up under legal scrutiny.




The Constitution declares that persons charged with crimes in one State and fleeing to another shall be delivered up on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which they may flee, to be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. It would appear difficult to employ language freer from ambiguity, yet for above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property.



The southern states believed that by arguing what they thought to be a violation of the constitution they could make a legal argument for secession. By stating the argument as one of compact law they believed other states would accept there secession. Since even Lincoln argued the Constitution was a legally binding contract, violation of the contract by the north would release the south from the contract. It was a well accepted fact of compact law that a contract could be voided if one party failed to live up to their portion of the contract. Lincoln argued that the Constitution was a perpetual contract but could not be voided. That was an overturning of compact law as understood at the time.

I don't agree with slavery. However, I do believe in a state's right to secede. I also believe that the civil war (which it wasn't really) could have been avoided. Lincoln refused the peaceful solution because he was determined to preserve the union at all cost. Even if that cost was the lives of over a half million people.

I am not an apologist I just believe that the situation is much more complex than, they wanted slaves and Lincoln freed them.




A little more for clarity.




You can not claim that the Constitution is a perpetual compact between states and then argue that the compact is based on intentions instead of the written document. Jefferson can hypocritically argue he never agreed with slavery and wished it was not in the constitution. However, it was in there. That means that all signatories had to uphold their end of the compact regardless of their feelings. If they failed to keep their end of the bargain they were in breech. That means that other parties that were harmed by the breech could exit the compact.

It doesn't matter if I agree or not. That is what the tradition of compact law was. Lincoln argued that the Constitution was a perpetual compact. That means if any party can show breech they are excused from their portion of the compact. By refusing to return the lands in the seven CSA states to the states he was violating compact law.




The claim made by South Carolina was that by failing to return fugitive slaves fourteen states had violated the constitution. By the federal government's inaction it was allowing a continued violation of the constitution. That means that the federal government as well as the listed states was part to violating the "perpetual compact."

Regardless of how I feel about slavery their argument was legally sound. That means, under the centuries old rule of compact law, they were legally released from their part of the compact. You can not hold another party to a contract or compact that you have willingly violated. At no time in history has that been considered legal.

It isn't a matter of agreement or disagreement. It is a matter of the law as it was in 1860. According to the law as it was in 1860 they had the right to secede.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wiz4769

I would like to add that the south were much better shots and strategist, something crazy like the south killed 10 yankees for every 1 of us, but when you have that many more numbers and the power of industry on your side, it was enough to overcome the superior fighting in the end.


The strategy angle I'd say is debatable. General Lee was a genius, one of the best tactical minds in the history of mankind, but I have to also give it to General Sherman for strategic innovation and effectiveness. That man was a true force of insanity and brilliance.

In the end the numbers that were killed in action were comparable but for total casualties the Confederates gave a lot better than they got, especially considering they were fighting a war of attrition for the second half.

The other interesting strategic issue of the American Civil War is the transition between Napoleonic tactics and modern ones: it was the first major use of trench warfare, repeating firearms, automatic weapons, armored warships, heavy artillery bombardment and marked the return of total war. The majority of these innovations were brought about by industrialization, which was a serious Union advantage.

When General Lee ordered Pickett's Charge the whole world should have watched the result, because it would be re-enacted again and again in Flander's fields over half a century later.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   

[

But the whole thing was never about slavery anyways.



Let's let the Confederate states speak.

South Carolina "Declaration of secession. -"...they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to purloin the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."..." all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."

Georgia Secession Statement. - "...complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery...." "By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state." "the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North."

Mississippi - A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union. "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery" "it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction." "It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law." "It advocates negro equality."

Texas - A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union. "She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits"
"The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith."
If you look at the rest of the secession documents, some just "statements" and some, like Alabama, Ordinances of Secession", they are all clear that, like Mississippi, slavery was central. It was, after all, the underpinning of the South's economy.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I had a friend that in high school was infatuated with the civil war, now i understand, GOD DAMMITH THE UNION



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 

The parade entry was for the Republican Party, not any one candidate. I didn't mean to sound so snide, but Republicans so love to connect with Lincoln, that the whole notion that "the Left" worships him is almost foreign to me. Now I do not include you in this since i have no idea of your political leanings, but since I can remember, the GOP has been the "party of Lincoln" yet constantly wants States Rights. Upon further examination, when FDR through Johnson started to want equal rights for all (races that is), there was a mass migration of Democrats to the Republican party. I'm not going to call anyone who switched parties during this era racist, because these were different times, people were scared. Even more so by some imagined Communist threat that was forced down the throats of all. Anyhow, I digress...I agree with you about Lincoln being a dick, a pawn of the bankers leading ultimately to Jekyll Island, and as one who holds a Masters in History, I agree that although slavery was on its way out, it was a major issue (actually excuse) as to why the states rebelled in the first place and had the South won would have led to such internal strife that who knows what would have taken place.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnze
reply to post by getreadyalready
 





I think the war was more about infringement by the Federal Government on affairs of the state. Your post makes a very good argument for the other side, but let me counter it by saying the American Revolution was about Tea! That statement is just as valid as saying the Civil War was about Slavery.




That is why we cannot have nice threads.

Have a star motherzhip for actualy taking the time to learn history and back up your point of view with clear and concise references.


I don't understand? I starred motherzhip's post and complimented it as well? I only pointed out that sure, slavery may have been the final straw, and sure it was mentioned in the secession statements, but the same can be said for our revolution. TEA was the final straw, but the Revolution was not about Tea?

After the Civil War, we still had plenty of slaves of Irish and Chinese descent. We still had regular white folks from Europe working as indentured servants. We still have it today! Slavery never ended, but the rights of the States to chart their own course and participate as a voluntary member of a Republic did end. Lincoln killed the Republic in favor of a Democratic Union. The Country is not better as a result, and I would think that is fairly obvious by looking at our current situation.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
I've read just about every post on this thread and had to come to the conclusion that some posters are just ignorant of history.

Black Confederates in the Civil War

There is a vast amount of information here.



Equal Treatment of Black and White Army “Employees” Ordered by General Johnston

General Order Number 38, issued by Confederate General Braxton Bragg at Tullahoma, Tennessee, in January 1863, stated, "All employees of this army, black as well as white, shall receive the same rations, quarters, and medical treatment." The Confederate Army was providing equal treatment at a time when the U.S. Army was discriminating against black men in the matter of pay (Barrow, et al. 2001). The Confederate government authorized equal pay for musicians, many of whom were black, in contrast to the Federal Army, in which musicians received lower pay. The Confederate Congress passed legislation requiring that black and white military bandsmen receive the same pay. Free black musicians, cooks, soldiers and teamsters earned the same pay as white Confederate privates. This was not the case in the Union army (Barrow, et al., 2001).


The following comes from this webpage.

Captain Arthur L. Fremantle, British Military Observer assigned to Confederate General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, was present at the 1863 battle of Gettysburg when he witnessed black confederates escorting northern prisoners of war when he wrote this:



"This episode of a southern slave leading white yankee soldiers through a northern village, alone and of their own accord, would not have been gratifying to an abolitionist ... Nor would the sympathizers both in England and in the North feel encouraged if they could hear the language of the detestation and contempt with which the numerous Negroes with southern Armies speak of the liberators."


I am of Confederate heritage and will stand firm on my hatred for Yankees. I am very unfortunate to have to work beside these arrogant bastards. With this said, I will have to concede that General Lee did the honorable thing of stopping the Civil War with his surrender at Appomattox. It is my firm belief that if we did not re-unite as a nation in 1865, we would not have fought the 2 world wars as one nation and this is why I'm grateful that the United States did become one from the North and the South.

If anyone lost the Civil War I would have to say that we all lost it because look at the state we're in today. Blacks and whites.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Reply to post by mothershipzeta
 


Learn to read, Yankee.

That was in response to people who said that the USA would be a great big nation of dumb idiotic rednecks if the South won the war.

I was giving examples of some great Southern inventions that have contributed to making the world better, and even saved lives.

Your anaology fails.

Yankees . . . eesh


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
LMAO, Hillarious thread! You guys really need to stop listening to what your grandad Billy Joe Bob is telling you and look in your history books. I understand and am well aware that the history books are written by the victor but in the case of the civil war there wasn't really a winner although there was a loser. (The south) Saying slavery didn't have anything to do with the civil war is almost as bad as people that say the holocaust didn't happen.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by xstealth
 


700,000 deaths. not the million on each side.
350,000 per each side.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Reply to post by 4nsicphd
 


Seems you all over looked Texas's key words . .

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact.


Someone was not obeying the Constitution.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



[edit on 7/8/2010 by Lemon.Fresh]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Reply to post by Procession101
 


Actually, we all lost in the war of Northern Aggression.

Your first sentence shows your ignorance, as does your plea to read the history books, even as you admit that the books are biased.

And as was said before, slavery was an issue . . . but it was not the driving force of the war.




 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Procession101
LMAO, Hillarious thread! You guys really need to stop listening to what your grandad Billy Joe Bob is telling you and look in your history books. I understand and am well aware that the history books are written by the victor but in the case of the civil war there wasn't really a winner although there was a loser. (The south) Saying slavery didn't have anything to do with the civil war is almost as bad as people that say the holocaust didn't happen.


Nobody is saying "it didn't have anything to do with the Civil War." We are saying it wasn't the reason for the Civil War. It was certainly a source of contention between the two sides, and there were surely people on the Northern side that were led astray by propoganda just like we are today.

We "liberated" the Iraqi people just like the Yankees liberated the slaves. We did it for our own selfish reasons, we did it and immediatly enslaved them yet again, we did it in spite of other people in much more dire circumstances. If Slavery were the key issue, then the North should have started in its own burroughs and industries. Labor Unions eventually cleaned up the slavery in the North, but even they did it for selfish reasons and led directly into organized crime!

Nobody has ever been "liberated" for entirely selfless reasons. Castro liberated Cuba. The Taliban liberated Afghanistan. The Yankees liberated the slaves, even though most of their lives got worse instead of better?

I hope to hell that nobody decides to liberate me!! Chinese officials reading how bad thing in the US are, might decide to march in and liberate us from an overbearing Federal Government. If they win, the Chinese history will show just how kind and benevolent they were!! Our Chinese speaking Grandkids will learn for generations how necessary it was, and if all goes well, they will obey their Chinese masters and thank them for the opportunity to work for them!



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join