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.

 

Ted Nugent wonders if U.S. would be better 'had the South won the Civil War'

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Ted Nugent wonders if U.S. would be better 'had the South won the Civil War'

Um .. no. I lived 9 years in Alabama. I definately think life is better up here near Philly.
People are more open minded and they mind their own business much better. IMHO.
If the USA were all like Alabama ... I'd move to Canada and hug the big Maple Leaf flag.




posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by habitforming
 


The grammatical error notwithstanding, I'm assured by your response that my point has not been undermined.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenRuled
reply to post by buster2010
 


The civil war was not about slavery. Just another smear campaign. Slavery was already on it's way out.


Slaves were the major labor force of the south. One of the main reasons why the south lost is because almost all of the industries were in the north. And to all of those saying slavery was on it's way out here's a little tidbit from the Confederate states constitution.

Article IV Section 3(3)
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45
 


Well lets first suppose that most people know little or nothing about the civil war, and what they do know is a twisted view taught in public schools. The civil war was NOT fought over slavery. Abraham Lincoln said, If I could free no man and preserve the union I would gladly do so. He saw the evil of it but on the whole didnt really care. Slavery was dying a slow death and with the invention of the harvester and cotton gin, would have reduced 90% of all use of slavery. We know that Abraham Lincoln was a member of what was known as the radical republicans and that he is now painted in a brighter light than what is fact. The south did use slaves to make most of its money but slaves where owned by less that 1% of the southern population. So the question is how did they raise such a hugh army? Well the house and the senate run pretty much the same today as it did back then minus the hugh perks and metal detectors. you received representitives based on population. Northern states had more reps therefore they had more seats which allowed them more votes. the northern representitves being wealthy businessmen, same as the south but many more of them, used there possitions to impose unfair taxes on certain commoditiys such as, O maybe cotton, and wool and other items that where mostly made in the south. They also band the import of smelterys and manufactory equipment from france and england to southern states. The south succeded from the north way before the attack on fort sumter in April 1861. Which o by the way the south asked the north to please remove the troops from thier soil over and over again. When fort sumter was attacked they killed no soldiers and allowed them to leave with all of their equipment, wishing them God speed and a safe return home. If Ted Nuggent is saying these things because he is learned and knows history then I would have to agree. If he is saying these things because he would like to return to the days of slavery then I would be opposed. I do not know the man and cannot made harsh uneducated judgements based on a quote. Life is hard, its even harded if your stupid.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by mtnshredder
 


Yeah, I would rather try to imagine what the world would have been like if Ted had been drafted during the Vietnam war. We wouldn't have a handful of good songs but wouldn't have to hear the whining and bitching from another hypocritical airheaded pedophile who thinks Bush was great & the black guy is foreign and dangerous.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
There is a hilarious mockumentary on Netflix called “The Confederate States of America” watch it.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kovenov
reply to post by habitforming
 


The grammatical error notwithstanding, I'm assured by your response that my point has not been undermined.



That is strange logic.
So I can say anything I want and if someone responds to me without directly attacking every point I make, it makes what I said valid?
I am really glad you think your opinion is valid. You should. What you should not do is pretend it is anything other than your opinion.

From your response, I see it is clear my point has not only not been undermined but it seems to have spun you off into defensive-land.

There was a point. Ted is a moron. You went waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of your way to make your post seem super intelligently written while sticking up for Ted as if that might make him seem correct or your opinion of him more valid. The problem is you failed to use the words you chose correctly and ended up just looking like Ted. Got new toys and no instructions.
That is how you screw underage girls and have Sean Hannity hold you up as a moral bastion.
That is how you talk about blowing Obama and Hilliary's heads off and then he gets upset when he hears scary language from democrats.

Sorry I had to spell this all out for you. I thought you more erudite.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by habitforming
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


Can you name any one of the Southern States that did not mention their right to practice slavery in its declaration of secession?


That's right kids. The Civil War was all about states rights and a big one was slavery. Slavery was a huge part of the Civil War and all the people claiming it was not always get quiet when you start whipping out documents.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by habitforming
 


Yep. Sure do.

It's interesting that I made a reference to the Confederate Constitution earlier in the thread and people are still trying to say the South was fighting for "States Rights" and that it wasn't for slavery.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   
He wonders?...

Question is... who doesn't?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Right after the fourth of July?
What a disrespectful clown.

If he hates America so much then he can leave. He owes this nation everything for all the money he's made and he shouldn't say anything begative about it.
-Just wanted to see what the other side feels like.
.......feels pretty awful.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyBuff
There is a hilarious mockumentary on Netflix called “The Confederate States of America” watch it.


It's not funny at all, it's absolute ignorance put together by a man who is racist and has the IQ of a lab rat.

It makes me sick to think of how most of you have been brainwashed. You were taught by northern school teachers (read my signature).

First off, the biggest insult of all is them teaching it was the 'civil war'. It wasn't a civil war, IT WAS THE 2ND WAR OF INDEPENDENCE.

Ignorance prevails...



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by xstealth


First off, the biggest insult of all is them teaching it was the 'civil war'. It wasn't a civil war, IT WAS THE 2ND WAR OF INDEPENDENCE.

Ignorance prevails...


OK, lets start here. Who decides what it was called?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Gmoneycricket
 


Wow maybe one of your relatives shot and killed Jackson, would'nt that be a story to tell.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
He's right. The world would have been better off if the Confederacy had succeeded.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by xstealth


First off, the biggest insult of all is them teaching it was the 'civil war'. It wasn't a civil war, IT WAS THE 2ND WAR OF INDEPENDENCE.

Ignorance prevails...


OK, lets start here. Who decides what it was called?


The victor writes history but that doesnt make it fact.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
This guy has a ton of money and fame and is set for life.


What the $#@$ is his problem?!



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by shai hulud
He's right. The world would have been better off if the Confederacy had succeeded in killing Ted Nugents ancestors so that he was never born.


Fixed it for you.*



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
I wish I had seen this thread earlier.

I know people think the South was fighting for Slavery, but that is only a small piece of the puzzle. If the South would've won, slavery would still have ended, and imagine how much better off the world would be if the US wasn't into world police and empire building? The South stood for Liberty and extremely limited Federal intrusions.

Hell, even if we're wrong, and even if deep down it was just about slavery, the symbology the Confederacy represents in 2012 is all about liberty, personal responsibility, and keeping the government out of our lives. So regardless of what it stood for in 1861, here in 2012 it stands for FREEDOM!




posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by habitforming
 


Are you willing to claim the North initially invaded the South to end slavery then?
Of course slavery was legal in all Southern states - it was a major reason for secession yet slave labor only benefited the upper 5% who owned them.
Most of the rest of the Southern people were fighting because they didn't like seeing their homes and farms burned and raided.
Funny how the other 95% don't matter to those who argue the South fought only to preserve slavery.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join