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.

 

Poll: 4 in 10 Southerners Still Side With Confederacy

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Guys I want to introduce myself I am not sure how but , I really like all you guys and ladies on here friends or foes so what? I am not perfecta and I do not have thge answers but I do like all you folks on here - Lad skadi I recently found a reply I want to thank you ; Folks just lead me on this journey I will talk but want to meet you folks!!!!!




posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Juston
 


Were it not for "non southerners" being here, the numbers would likely be higher.

Civil War? No.

Second American Revolution? War of Northen Aggression? Those will do.


heritage not hate friend.

they try to paint all southerners as slave owning idiots while MOST of us didnt. Some of the less informed believe it and have "white guilt".

Texas btw, was the last to fall.

Now we're just occupied.



posted on Apr, 13 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
I challenge the poster to meet real southern men and women here and now!



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
I think that if the south managed to suceed from the north than the rest of the states would have broken up as well. It would have been the end of an America for either side. There would be no Northern states and Southern states. We would have been wide open to attack from every country with an interest in obtaining some of this good land. Canada, Mexico, England, France and anyone else would have been here wiping the floor with whatever remained of our country. This place would have been a battlefield for a long time to come. It would probably be half Canada and half Mexico with nothing in between.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   
I think this sums it up...



I couldn't add much more as a California boy



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Juston
 


I'm a little surprised the percentage of supporter stated was that low. It's human nature to be proud and supportive of one's heritage IMHO. It is also apparent TPTB like to keep the mentality of conflict alive whenever and where ever possible, to keep these "United States" divided from within.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   
The American civil war was a fight against the federal reserve banking system and the Bank of England, and had nothing to do with slavery which was only media 'spin' at the time. It was America's 2nd 'war of independence' if you like (which it lost):




The Americans had won their political independence but their financial independence was in jeopardy. The international bankers had an agent in place and his name was Alexander Hamilton who wanted a central bank. Thomas Jefferson lobbied vehemently against the central bank stating it was contrary to the Constitution. However, a central bank was formed in 1781 known as the Bank of North America which was patterned after the Bank of England. The colonists wanted nothing to do with it so it folded in 1790. The international bankers countered the closing of the Bank of North America by gaining a charter for the Bank of the United States which was chartered on February 25, 1791. The Bank of France desired the formation of the US Bank also and it was chartered for 20 years. In 1826, the second bank's charter was soon to expire and presidential candidate Andrew Jackson campaigned strongly against a central bank which was owned and operated by the international banking element. Here is Jackson's opinion of those bankers: • "You are a den of vipers. I intend to wipe you out, and by the Eternal God I will rout you out...If people only understood the rank injustice of the money and banking system, there would be a revolution by morning." In 1836, the charter did expire but that was not the end of the international banking influence in this country. The Civil War was planned in England as far back as 1809. Slavery was not the real cause of the Civil War. The Rothschilds (who were heavy into the slave trade) used the slavery issue as "a divide and conquer strategy" which almost split the United States in two. The Bank of England financed the North while the Paris branch of the Rothschild bank funded the South. In 1863, the National Banking Act was passed despite protest by President Lincoln. This act allowed a private corporation the authority to issue our money. www.scionofzion.com...


I think this the reason I find any movie about the civil war (in particular the war from the Confederacy point of view) so fascinating. It was a war of the common man against TPTB and its lies and deceit, and is symbolic of everything that America's founding fathers wanted it to stand for.
edit on 14-4-2011 by Nonchalant because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Too bad we can't have opinions based on things as they are today and we still need to look nearly a century and a half in the past to justify our own preconceived notions and agendas.

I don't know anyone who was alive in 1865....do you? And yet, people are vilified for just being from the south and not hating themselves.

If I was consumed by guilt and self loathing about things that happened a century before I was born, would it make me a better person? I'm sure it would make me pretty neurotic, but not better.

Would it make anything that happened in the past less wrong or more right? Nope....but it would be useful to someone who was manipulating public opinion to push an agenda.

I see no need to facilitate people who still want to fight a war that they already won..or lost.
edit on 14-4-2011 by badgerprints because: spelling



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by roguetechie
reply to post by Juston
 


First off... The war WAS NOT about slavery! Not even a little bit!

Secondly the supposed "hero" in the entire drama (lincoln... no I won't capitalize his name as he doesn't deserve it) was the purveyor of the FIRST patriot act, otherwise known as the sedition act... Lincoln was a bigot through and through who only made the emancipation proclamation out of sheer desperation.

The civil war was about states rights pure and simple.... anyone trying to tell you different has an AGENDA.

edit to add: It is telling how "siding with the confederacy" is tantamount to being a "racist" or wanting to "own slaves" in the mind of most. Speaking as someone who has family who owned a plantation in virginia I have a couple things to say:

1. The narrative that is now being applied to slavery is in most regards a blatant fabrication! I have read the family plantation journals (which were meant to be a sort of guidebook of best practices for the next generation to use when their parents died, usually fairly young) when I compare what i read there and in other HISTORIES it doesn't add up to what pop culture tries to portray.

2. slavery was ONLY a southern thing... helpful hint here many of our ancestors came over as indentured servants. which was SLAVERY plain and simple.

The civil war was not about slavery, and those that sympathize with the confederacy/south are not "racists". The civil war was wholly caused by business interests that were locked out of the south's economic windfall by family run farms, plantations, etc agitating to set the events in motion that led to the civil war in order to gain control of the crops that they were buying at rates they didnt want to pay to make into goods in their factories.

Also... people should look into the carpet baggers that flooded south post war and took over land working the former owners to death alongside their former slaves on tiny share cropping lots. Anyone who has read the history and really GETS what they are reading gets an uneasy feeling that the civil war has DIRECT EFFECTS on the battles we are fighting today 150 years later!

It was the beginning of the federalist iron fist, as well as the beginning of government looking after the interests of a FEW big businesses over the wellbeing of the MANY citizens of this nation. It is sad how many do not realize the south was not a bunch of evil black hating rednecks.
edit on 13-4-2011 by roguetechie because: (no reason given)


Actually I have studied history quite extensively since it's my degree and can tell you that slavery was the main issue of the war used as an example of States rights. It was in particular about the expansion of slavery into the new states forming and their right to decide on their own if they were to allow slavery or not. Also another big part of it was the North not returning slaves who had escaped there. Theft of property is how some southern states explained it.

In fact if you read South Carolina's declaration of succession you will see almost every sentence mentions something about their right to slavery being taken away. To say that slavery was not the main cause of the Civil War is just ridiculous.

Also the Alien and Sedition Act happened long before Lincoln was around..Really your lack of historical knowledge is very apparant and makes your post have no credibility whatsoever.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by idonotcollectstamps
I think that if the south managed to suceed from the north than the rest of the states would have broken up as well. It would have been the end of an America for either side. There would be no Northern states and Southern states. We would have been wide open to attack from every country with an interest in obtaining some of this good land. Canada, Mexico, England, France and anyone else would have been here wiping the floor with whatever remained of our country. This place would have been a battlefield for a long time to come. It would probably be half Canada and half Mexico with nothing in between.






Actually Lincoln had made an agreement with Russia, little known fact, who parked ships off our coast in the event that either Briton or France decided to enter the war on either the North's side or the South's side. Anyone who had intentions of doing that would have had to face Russia also.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
complete bs i don't believe this survey at all i think someone is pulling numbers out of there arse. I live in Tx and i know of racist ppl but really 38% is pushing it. That statistic isn't even close. more like 10-15



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by blair56
complete bs i don't believe this survey at all i think someone is pulling numbers out of there arse. I live in Tx and i know of racist ppl but really 38% is pushing it. That statistic isn't even close. more like 10-15


I also would like to see the exact wording of the questions as that can entirely skew a poll one way or another.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
The south wanted to maintain its own economy, which at the time was heavily depending on slave labor and trade as a side note.

Lincoln was in the northern meme that slaves should ultimately be let free, however he knew it was political suicide to go for that...instead, he only wanted to establish no more importing. This was one of the last straws for the south that seen this move as a major economic slam, along with taxes being unfairly distributed in the northern cities verses the south (why do we pay taxes to build nice lakes in washington and get nothing in georgia...granted, we already have em, but still).

Lincoln technically was a republican, but in todays world, he would be called a socialist liberal. (this was before the partys switched).

Anyhow, the total freeing of the slaves was not part of the agenda, not even when the war kicked off...it came later when the south wouldn't give up...they were threatened with it if they didn't stand down...they didn't, so voila...

Its a interesting part in history..as a person born in the north and somewhat raised in the south, I see both sides of the argument.
Are "rebels racists? No. Many simply have southern pride and a desire to not be affiliated with northern culture (...don't ask me...)
Are racists "rebels" in the south? As a unspoken rule, yes.

I often wonder what the world would look like if Lincoln never came to power though...or if the south gave up early before slavery was outlawed...would we be in the same place technologically speaking as we are today? What would the culture look like, etc.

Consider how the culture has been formed since then with all the black influence, from our clothes, music, food, technology, etc (ipod...have 50000 songs of bluegrass music).

No elvis, no rock and roll, none of it...

One last thing to consider...if your joe middle class carving out a living, chances are, you would not be having your own personal slave...slaveowning was something the rich did. They were expensive, you had to have plenty of land to house em, etc...Many dreamed of being in a place where they could own a slave, as it was a sign of wealth, but lets not think every southern backwoods hillbilly had a slave working for them...



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I think the reason that a lot of folks in the South still side with the Confederacy is not because of the Civil War but what happened after the war was over. The North raped the South, literally.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
I think the reason that a lot of folks in the South still side with the Confederacy is not because of the Civil War but what happened after the war was over. The North raped the South, literally.


While alot of southerners did resent the period of Reconstruction there were also alot that wanted the North there to bring the industry that they had to the south. They resented having Northern troops babysitting them I'm sure but there were also benefits to them during that period. They basically had the southern part of the country rebuilt for them.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Viking9019
I think its pride and the culture of the south and the Confederacy was/is a major part of their culture.


You are exactly right. I was born, raised and still live in Tennessee. We are proud to be from the South.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
AMAZING!!!
so close to election time for obama to get reelected.
Coincidence?
i think not more crap to distract us when it comes to the election again.

i am southern btw.
am i racist ? no
do I feel i owe black people something?NO

The racist crap needs to stop ...That includes threads to belittle southerns.
for votes..common.

It's united we stand divided we fall.

and atm obama is dividing us not uniting us.
that isnt a great leader folks

edit on 14-4-2011 by TheAmused because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-4-2011 by TheAmused because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaDreamer
BTW it wasn't about states rights, it was about states rights to keep slavery legal. It all really got rolling with the Missouri compromise that set up a demarcation where slavery was allowed and where it wasn't. then Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) decision. when a slave went with his master to a non slave state, he declared i am free. He wasn't the court ruled that blacks are property and not people.

Lincoln did not propose federal laws against slavery where it already existed, but he had, in his 1858 House Divided Speech, expressed a desire to "arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction." -- en.wikipedia.org...

This angered the south and heartened the abolitionists. Later once he successfully ran and won the presidency, the south seceded, even before Lincoln took office. There was a strong correlation to the number of plantations in the region and Support for secession. Slavery was their bread and butter after all.

Fort Sumter was a dodge to get the south to commit to war, Lincoln sent a supply mission for "humanitarian needs" to Sumter and announced to the entire south he was doing so, forcing the south to put up or shut up. they did and attacked Sumpter before relief could arrive. ta da war.


You might want to dig a little deeper into the Ft Sumter saga. Ft Sumter fired upon southern merchant ships before war was declared. Southern merchant ships were being blockaded from exporting cotton to England. A massive export tax had been placed on cotton where it cost the cotton grower 1 cent a pound,more than they sold it for. Of course the Northern mills had set the price they would pay at far below market value. Talk about a captive audience. It's no wonder the South had to take Ft. Sumter.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Juston
 


I haven't read through, but in our current economic times, and the over-bearing, over-spending, over-taxing, over-regulating Federal government.........how can less than half the people empathize with the Confederacy?

This is proof of our poor education system, and poor knowledge of current events. The Confederacy would be just as important today as it was in the 1860's! We need a return to the "Republic" that the country was founded to be. The past 100 years have created a Federal Government that was never intended to be this large, this powerful, or this intrusive.

Yes, I empathize with the Confederacy, and I wish more did. It is sad that so many people just accept their chains, and don't seek out more information.

If the Civil War was about slavery, then it was a success, because we are now all enslaved by taxes. We have now lost the majority of our personal freedoms in travel, personal property rights, personal rights to privacy. We are now mandated to have certain types of healthcare, and we once again have "debtor's prisons."

So, I guess I can agree, the Civil War was about slavery, and we lost, and slavery won, and now we are all enslaved, our lifestyles are destroyed, our middle class has disintegrated, our future generations are strapped with debt that is impossible to overcome, and every average American is living a lifestyle almost 10x worse than just 50 years ago. AND, while our lifestyles have eroded, we have to work more hours, have two-income households, and are restricted by more and more laws. Not only is our economic situation worse off, our freedoms have been railroaded away from us, and our family structure has been destroyed by the necessity of working more and staying home less!



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAmused
and atm obama is dividing us not uniting us.
that isnt a great leader folks

edit on 14-4-2011 by TheAmused because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-4-2011 by TheAmused because: (no reason given)


There is no magic man that will unite the countrys mindset...its why democracy is about majority verses unanimous voting.

Obama has a considerable amount more on his side than normal for a potus moving into his 3rd year. that is arguably as united as a leader can make in a country with 3 different sides

one side demands daylight
one side demands nighttime
one side demands twilight

no matter what a leader decides on, thats going to be 2 people angry at the result and no possible way to rectify it...the smart leader chooses the twilight/sunrise/sunset and hope enough from one other side accepts his decision as rational.

incidently, this thread is not about obama...strange fixation you got there.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join