It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


If We Never Fought A Civil War - Lincoln The Racist

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Xenopathic Investigator

Originally posted by Carseller4

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Miraj

America was at one time a post-colonial imperialist state. People are greedy and selfish. If they can make a dime on someone else's blood and sweat then so be it.

You can look to the Rothschilds. They financed both sides of the Civil War as well as others.

Not all people are greedy and selfish. There are still the philanthropists and compassionate, caring people behind the scenes.

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 01:04 PM
This is awesome
another thread to stir up more racism.
fantastic,... thats right ,.. lets generate more anger to white people
cause that's exactly what Martin Luther King would want.

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 01:10 PM
In December, 1861, large numbers of European Troops (British, French and Spanish) poured into Mexico in defiance of the Monroe Doctrine. This, together with widespread European aid to the Confederacy strongly indicated that the Crown was preparing to enter the war. The outlook for the North, and the future of the Union, was bleak indeed.


In this hour of extreme crisis, Lincoln appealed to the Crown's perennial enemy, Russia, for assistance. When the envelope containing Lincoln's urgent appeal was given to Czar Alexander II, he weighed it unopened in his hand and stated: "Before we open this paper or know its contents, we grant any request it may contain."

Unannounced, a Russian fleet under Admiral Liviski, steamed into New York harbor on September 24, 1863, and anchored there, The Russian Pacific fleet, under Admiral Popov, arrived in San Francisco on October 12. Of this Russian act, Gideon Wells said: "They arrived at the high tide of the Confederacy and the low tide of the North, causing England and France to hesitate long enough to turn the tide for the North" (Empire of "The City," p. 90).

History reveals that the Rothschilds were heavily involved in financing both sides in the Civil War.

posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 06:03 PM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

From the declarations from the Confederates themselves. They left the Union inorder to preserve the 'blessings of slavery'. Now you can by all means argue that Lincoln was a racist or that the North had no intention of aboloshing slavery at that immediate time, but the facts still remain the same, the South left because of fear the Feds would force them to abolish slavery.

And the North considered secession an act of rebellion and acted in a fashion to provoke an attack at Fort Sumter. The actual cause of the war was the issue of secession itself. The South thought it was within their rights as states to secede, the North disagreed. 700,000 dead pawns later, the North was right.

No, im sorry but that will not happen. The facts of history will remain.

Maybe it is because I went to school in the North in a town that has the "Blue Jackets" as a name of one of their professional sports teams, but I was always told that the Civil War was a war over the legitimacy of slavery. It was a war over the secession.

The declaration of those Southern states were clear over their motives for leaving.

The reasons were not the issue for the North going to war. Secession was the issue.

That reasoning alone still does not excuse their reasoning for the South attempting to break off over that reason.

And secession is not an excuse to start a war. Slavery is wrong. War is wrong.

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 02:01 AM

Originally posted by DINSTAAR
And the North considered secession an act of rebellion and acted in a fashion to provoke an attack at Fort Sumter.

The South left at core in fear that slavery would forcibly be abolished following the election of the Republicans this is why the confederacy declared independence following the election of Lincoln. Lincoln and many northern leaders insisted that they would not immediatly abolish slavery but the Southern confederates did not believe them. This issue turned into that of secession but the motivation for leaving the Union was to preserve the institution of slavery.

Does that make the North anymore of a saint at that time over slavery? No. Lincoln was a slavery apologist. The only reason why he declared those slaves free was to only further enrage the Southern leaders at that time and to gain more soldiers.

Maybe it is because I went to school in the North in a town that has the "Blue Jackets" as a name of one of their professional sports teams, but I was always told that the Civil War was a war over the legitimacy of slavery.

Once again the South left to preserve its institution of slavery. They feared that once Lincon got into office they would be forced to give up their precious human resource. The Civil war became the issue of secession as well because that is what involved inorder for the South to preserve that institution of slavery.

The North prevented the South from Leaving, 10 years prior the United states invaded Mexico and the South benefitted plenty, during that same period 1000's of native americans were forcibly removed from their land.


posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 05:19 PM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

I stopped posting on this thread due to frustration with the STATE controlled mind.

"of six million (6,000,000) SOUTHERN WHITES, only 347,525 owned slaves in 1850; a scant 37,662 of that number had twenty or more. By the end of the 1850's the price of a prime field hand was $1800, which meant that a slave force required a considerable cash investment. Cotton had saddled the South with a labor system that most impartial observers considered not only outdated, but uneconomical."
American heritage pub. co.

Printed at the United States Government printing office.

Would you say 347,525 southern whites is a majority of six million ( yes 6,000,000) southern whites.

answer.....NO.... Obviously your STATE FEDERALIST education requires you to think yes.

You see my friend at the time of the 1860 elections, many issues (if you would please open one of those things made of paper on a shelf, yes im speeking of a STATE approved book) were coming to a head. The most insignificant being SLAVERY. But because you have been properly endoctrinated, that bears no weight on the argument.

Please continue to post your STATE approved drivel.


posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 07:19 PM
Arguments well made, Southern Guardian. No one here succeeded in challenging your positions.

Confederate sympathizers refer to the Civil War as "The War of Northern Aggresion." I refer to it as "The War of Southern Revisionism."

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 07:52 PM
Handling one another with care is the highest mark of a human being's personal evolution, surely.

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in