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: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
With the way Obama has been acting or not acting in some cases , im starting to wish the confederacy was still around. Maybe a bit modern one , but America is becoming more and more less like what was originally invisioned. Im , honestly wanting to sort of part from the Union with this whole health care debacle. We have enough ignoring of the constitution as it is , we dont need more throwing the finger to the constitution.




posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
reply to post by sageofmonticello
 


well seeing as how the south enforced segregation and institutionalized racism well into the 60s exactly when do u think racism/slavery would have ended had the south won the war?
yeah knowing a little bit about history helps?
then most would guess you know Nothing about the evolution of slavery, segregation or the plight of Homer Plessy which clearly emphasizes the power of One.

following the Reconstruction phase after the War, forced segregation was Federalized, it was NOT a Southern decision or legislation.
why do so many like to forget those southern states of Maryland and New York, who were SLAVE states by choice ?? www.ask.com...
they did have a choice back then and chose slavery.

Kudos to Nugent for saying what's on his mind

i could agree with the sentiment but there's no going back, now.
to those who don't care to know or understand the intricacies of the day, you really should take the time to learn.
there is so much more to the situation than the last 3 generations have been led to believe.

edit on 7-7-2012 by Honor93 because: add link



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
and the racism lasted 100 years? to this day folks in the south are not the most racially tolerant if you catch my drift. no wonder there was a black diaspora to the northern states before during and after the civil war. no wonder a black teenager named emmit til was killed for whistling at a white woman nearly 100 years after the civil war. i guess them southerners really know how to hold a grudge.
at least in the South what racism one does encounter is obvious and in your face. Up North, racism is alive and well, just in the backwoods, behind the shed, in every place of public convergence (schoolyards, picinics, parks, bars, pot luck dinners)

i was raised in a "free state" from the moment of its acceptance in the Union and i can tell you, first hand, with or without segregation, racism in every corner of this country is alive and well.

you're still talking about it, aren't ya ??
and 100 yrs later to boot ... clearly you can see it too.

once you move beyond a separatist outlook, only one real question remains.
North or South, aren't we ALL Americans first ??

edit on 7-7-2012 by Honor93 because: typo



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
reply to post by conspiracy nut
 


Every Northerner who migrates South becomes the most vile of racists. Far far worse than Southern natives. They come down judging Southerners with all their prejudice, preconceived notions, and intolerant attitudes (see above post) and become intense racists within a year. Just something I've picked up on over the years.
Not sure why that phenomenon occurs.
where did you get this notion?
i've been experiencing what you suggest for more than 25yrs and i see exactly the opposite.
actually, it is the "part-time" residents and tourists who offer the most "bad behavior" in race relations.

transplanted residents and natives, for the most part, are some of the most congenial ppl you'd ever want to meet ... they just want to get along.

ETA: it wouldn't be fair to say this is common in all southern states but it is in this one (same place the boy was hung from a bridge 'bout 60yrs ago or so)
edit on 7-7-2012 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Juggernog

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.

So I have to ask again?
If as you say, there is a fact to be had here that would be what it is FACTUALLY called and my question is who decides that.
Or did you not mean fact?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
The South stood for Liberty and extremely limited Federal intrusions.


Nothing says that louder than fighting to keep slavery legal.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by habitforming
 
what's wrong the name that has been used for generations ??
the War of Northern Aggression ??

heck, it was taught that way in the Northern public school system for decades.
that is what it was ... it only became the Civil War because the victors wrote it that way.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
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.


I will then ask you to cite one single state that did not cite slavery in their declaration.


Funny how the other 95% don't matter to those who argue the South fought only to preserve slavery.


I do not see anyone saying that in any post in this thread.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by getreadyalready
The South stood for Liberty and extremely limited Federal intrusions.


Nothing says that louder than fighting to keep slavery legal.
if that's true then why were the slave states of Maryland and New York fighting to abolish their own revenue source ??



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Juggernog
The knee jerk, ignorant comments that some people make regarding the Old South are ridiculous. There seems to be a huge misconception that everyone in the South owned slaves.
Usually in these kinds of threads, when I tell people im from Texas, they automatically assume that my ancestors owned slaves.
When I tell them that one half of my family were sharecroppers and the other half came from Germany, they usually just say whatever or call me a liar.
A very small percentage of Southerners owned slaves, since slaves were very expensive, only large plantation owners or the otherwise very wealthy were the only ones that could afford them.


Name one war that was not fought by the many useful ignorant idiots to serve the agenda of a few with a lil more cash.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by habitforming
 

I will then ask you to cite one single state that did not cite slavery in their declaration.
could you be a bit more specific with this question?
which declaration ?? states had Constitutions.
PA was never a slave state so it's unlikely slavery was mentioned in their Constitution.

if you want to know the right reasons for the invasion, read the secession filings from the 8 states who did. start with S. Carolina.


edit on 7-7-2012 by Honor93 because: format



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by habitforming
 
what does that have to do with this topic?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
The fact is, we're brainwashed from a very early age to love the federal government. Part of that programming is that the Civil War was fought "to end slavery" and that those that fought against federal domination were "evil". That is clearly an ignorant and false notion to anyone who actually studies history past the high school level.
But the hair trigger responses one gets when presenting factual evidence based on primary sources shows how ingrained the brainwashing is in many of the easily manipulated.
Primary source documents also show lots and lots of other propaganda force fed to us via the education system. Never trust a history teacher or a journalist. Always go to the source.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SUICIDEHK45


Not surprisingly, Nugent – a firearms enthusiast, conservative and guitar rocker best known for hits such as “Cat Scratch Fever” – took aim at the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent 5-4 decision upholding the insurance mandate in the 2010 health care law and what he called Chief Justice John Roberts’ “traitor vote” siding with the court’s more liberal wing.

Nugent said the court’s decision “will ensure more monumental spending and wasted taxes …under one of the world’s most bureaucratic, ineffective, incompetent and grossly expensive systems ever devided by man: our out-of-control federal government.”


Cat Scratch Fever?
Ted does rant.But one point was correct,the civil war was not really about slavery.That was just the best banner to wave.
Slavery was and still is very wrong.If you look back in history.Every culture suffered it at one point Irish via british Jews via egypt Almost everyone in old world via Rome the list goes on and on.
The civil war was about states rights,that our founding Fathers were straight foward about.The winners write the history books.So the federal goverment has ruled americans rights since then.It has just begun to manifest it's self lately.To the point they decide every part of our life.That is exactly what the founding fathers tried to prevent.The consitition and bill of rights are just pieces of paper right now.But We The People are reaching a breaking point.History does and always repet it's self.I along with many others are tired of the federal goverment in our lives.At some point the majority of people will notice.Please this is just a blog only a person with no answers starts their reply with your grammer and spelling shows that (add what ever stupid thing is to correct)
Ted had one part right States Rights should be reconized in a "UNION" we are a union not a KINGDOM as the federal goverment see's it.

Yeah, I don't think Ted knows what he is talking about. I personally don't think the U.S. would be better off if the south had won the war. I think either way, the U.S. would still be screwed up just as bad as it is now. What do you guys think?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


This has been my personal experience about 90% of the time. And it is the personal experience of most of anyone I've ever known. I live in the New Orleans metro area. Perhaps that explains it. Maybe not. Just my experience.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Well its impossible to say. Nugent is crazy and slavery is terrible, but id like to think people are smarter than to believe that the war was all about slavery. Lincoln was a racist andthe north didn't care about slavery. Do you guys think nuge is saying this because he is pro slavery? No? Then there must be another reason. In school they teach that the south were all bad racists and the war was about slavery, it wasn't, but the winners write history as we know. Its easier to bury the real reasons and admonish people that side with some of the souths views when you can vilify half the country as racist slavers and that's what happened. Everone here should at least research themselves and find the truth. Slavery was soon to be obsolete due to technology, it wasn't the driving force of the war. It is good that it ended though because its horrible of course and the lack of free labor caused a need for technology to be further pursued and more quickly. Just know it wasn't really all about slavery and the south had some very good points.

So in summary: is nugent crazy yes. Is he wrong in this instance? Maybe, maybe not. Does it matter? Not really. Was the war about just slavery? Not really. Did the south have some real points and were they right about some of the things they fought for? Yes. Also slavery is terrible, just so no one calls me a racist and nugent isn't really a pedo.. come on guys can we stop calling everyone a pedo, leave that to the governments.
edit on 7-7-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by pierregustavetoutant
 
agreed ... ever since the Library of Congress went online, i've had a field day or two

wish more ppl would use the resource right at their fingertips



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
reply to post by Honor93
 


This has been my personal experience about 90% of the time. And it is the personal experience of most of anyone I've ever known. I live in the New Orleans metro area. Perhaps that explains it. Maybe not. Just my experience.
i can appreciate that as i've heard stories from tourists based in that region.
kinda why i added the ETA on the post. i do realize not every two states are or operate the same, i've lived in enough of them to know first hand.

it is sad to hear that regions are still progressing that way

but i continue to believe we have the capacity to change it, within ourselves, no government needed.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Absolutelt. I went to school mostly in the 90s and we were taught that the "civil war" was because the south wanted to keep slaving and the north was against it. The south was vilified and the north were unprejudiced heroes. It wasn't until I was out of school that I learned there was more to it. Winners write history. If you side with the south on any part you are a slavery supportin monster and racist! Everyone knows slavery is bad, but hardly anyone knows what the civil war was about.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 
as much as i understand the teachings, i do enjoy asking what is so south about NY or Maryland?

[ppl tend to forget that 8 states filed for secession (not talked about it, acted) and that's more than a majority of the total states at that time]

i would love to see the original 13 file secession paperwork now, with this mess we're in ... well, the more the merrier but whatever, i'm not picky.

the CW was not begun by the people (as in civil war), it was a government sponsored military invasion of the states they swore to protect. shame, shame, shame on the Feds.

sounds like you were a northern student also, i was in PA but i still think Lincoln was a traitor.
(not a popular opinion in my region - Gettysburg and all)
*except for his greenback movement - i'd give that a few stars* - but, it likely got him killed.

this is why i post source material rather wiki and the like.
those who want to know, will learn.
they don't need to hear it from anyone, they need to learn it for themselves.

tis the only way the old New Deal becomes a Real Deal that works.

ETA: to those who believe "majority rule" should apply -- i suggest you learn about the Civil War, the real reasons it was fought. Majority DID rule (by secession) and the government responded.


edit on 7-7-2012 by Honor93 because: add txt

edit on 7-7-2012 by Honor93 because: add txt

edit on 7-7-2012 by Honor93 because: add one plus for Lincoln




top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join