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

Not sure how many people realize that Great Britain backed the Confederacy during the Civil War..they armed the Confederacy & built some effective ships for them namely the CSS Alabama & we did have a serious dust up with the Brits right before the start of the war in 1861. So clearly the British were trying to exert influence over us during that time as they are today with their banking cartel.

en.wikipedia.org...

As for Ted - no comment but do enjoy "Great White Buffalo & Strangehold- the old stuff from the 70's"

Peace

by the way, that's exactly how the battle became referred to as the "War of Northern Aggression" because DC/military was North of every State that was unlawfully invaded.
of course, the war didn't stay that way but it did begin that way.

this is one good reason so many "elders" will reference the CW because they understand the true nature of the event.

no, i/we/they do not support slavery (not even the kind thrust upon us today)
we do not desire another war, especially amongst our families.
we WANT the truth to be told so mistakes such as those are not repeated.

we already possess the playbook -- please read it.

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45

 

I think it depends on how one looks at US History. If one thinks the civil war was about ending slavery, then it is easy to say that Nugent is off his rocker. If one thinks that the civil war was fought over state rights and the growing federal power struggle with the states, and that slavery would of ended either way, then, yea, I think he has a point.

The easy thing to do is call him a neo confederate racist and not examine or think critically about what he may of meant or how things may have been different. Obviously the latter is the hard thing to do. I don't know if he is right or wrong but I think it is a good statement to examine and shouldn't just be dismissed of-hand without critical thought or even a second thought.

Say that slavery would of ended either way, with the south winning or the north winning. How might the country be different? Could any of that difference be for the better? I think it certainly could be.

edit on 6-7-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)

That would be omitting what the war was really over, and it wasn't states rights. The war was over what type of labor system would be used moving forward during westward expansion.

The south had slave labor. The North had wage labor, and many many more laborers in this context. The plantations of the south had no way to compete and felt that a blow at slavery was a blow at civilization!

You should really do your research on these things before assuming a stance such as the one you have brought to is forum.

wiki.answers.com...

what would the world be like without Nuggets music ? without cat scratch fever,,,what a moron Nugget is,,and a coward. No,,nugget is a "supercoward" and likes dead animals ,hes a necrophiliac supercoward

Originally posted by Honor93
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

You mean their DECLARATION of secession?
Funny you never heard of the thing you mention.
All 8 mention slavery.
Your turn.

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by habitforming

 

what does that have to do with this topic?

From now on, when you are having trouble following along you should just read the quoted post I was replying to and what that poster said. Things will become more clear for you. Also, stop butting in all the time and you will not be so confused about things that happened without your input.

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by Honor93
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

You mean their DECLARATION of secession?
Funny you never heard of the thing you mention.
All 8 mention slavery.
Your turn.

And in fact, it wasn't just about those evil northerners not letting the southerners disenfranchise a third of their population and treat them literally like subhumans.... it was the South complaining that the North and the Feds didn't assist them when their captives escaped into territory where slavery was illegal---or as the South saw it, return their property by force. In other words, the south objected to the northern states exertions of their own state's rights to give legal rights to all humans in their jurisdiction.

(Notice that actual 'property' doesn't fight back, but people do.)

This stuff about the Civil War not being about slavery was an ahistorical propaganda, completely made up by the resentful and unrepentant losers in the South in the 1880's-1890's as delusionary retroactive self-justifiying whitewashing of evil as liberty.

PS: The South shot first.

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45

 

I think it depends on how one looks at US History. If one thinks the civil war was about ending slavery, then it is easy to say that Nugent is off his rocker. If one thinks that the civil war was fought over state rights and the growing federal power struggle with the states, and that slavery would of ended either way, then, yea, I think he has a point.

The easy thing to do is call him a neo confederate racist and not examine or think critically about what he may of meant or how things may have been different. Obviously the latter is the hard thing to do. I don't know if he is right or wrong but I think it is a good statement to examine and shouldn't just be dismissed of-hand without critical thought or even a second thought.

Say that slavery would of ended either way, with the south winning or the north winning. How might the country be different? Could any of that difference be for the better? I think it certainly could be.

edit on 6-7-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)

That would be omitting what the war was really over, and it wasn't states rights. The war was over what type of labor system would be used moving forward during westward expansion.

The south had slave labor. The North had wage labor, and many many more laborers in this context. The plantations of the south had no way to compete and felt that a blow at slavery was a blow at civilization!

No, it is northern laborers who complained that they could not, quite obviously, compete against slave labor without being paid as much as a slave. (The Roman Republic & empire had the same problem!)

The issue about whether newly formed states would be free or slave was critical because if a sufficiently large number of non-slave states were added, it was perceived (correctly) that they would inevitably pass a constitutional amendment to ban slavery in the United States. This because it was viewed quite widely as plainly and obviously evil and unless the economics depended on slaves, virtually all other states would inevitably vote against slavery.

Originally posted by xstealth

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.

lab rats are rational and learn from experience, and they don't have resentments or prejudices.

reply to post by Honor93


reply to post by Honor93


I need to read more on it, I have a tendency to jump from one subject to another, but I had suspicions it wasn't what I was being told before I learned anything. I didn't know about NY etc, but I intend on reading some decent books on the real story soon. Its sad that its taught in such a way that you really can't argue. The other side without being called a racist (look what they tried to say about Ron Paul) and I wonder how it continues while the truth is readily available.

I went to school in most northern KY, an actual stones throw to Ohio.

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by Honor93
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

You mean their DECLARATION of secession?
Funny you never heard of the thing you mention.
All 8 mention slavery.
Your turn.

And in fact, it wasn't just about those evil northerners not letting the southerners disenfranchise a third of their population and treat them literally like subhumans.... it was the South complaining that the North and the Feds didn't assist them when their captives escaped into territory where slavery was illegal---or as the South saw it, return their property by force. In other words, the south objected to the northern states exertions of their own state's rights to give legal rights to all humans in their jurisdiction.

(Notice that actual 'property' doesn't fight back, but people do.)

This stuff about the Civil War not being about slavery was an ahistorical propaganda, completely made up by the resentful and unrepentant losers in the South in the 1880's-1890's as delusionary retroactive self-justifiying whitewashing of evil as liberty.

PS: The South shot first.

edit on 8-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

PPS: South Carolina offered the federal government a good deal of money to take over Fort Sumner, a potentially aggressive foreign military base that sat inside their SOVEREIGN territory. I would certainly hope they'd fire on aggressive foreign ships trying to supply it with armaments. Lincoln knew exactly what he was doing-- intentionally starting a war.

If you think the Civil War was based on the Fugitive Slave Act, you might actually win the grand prize for "ahistorical propaganda". It was a very minor point of contention between Northern and Southern states leading up to the conflict, at least in comparison to other issues. In regards to slavery, western expansion was, by far, the most explosive issue dealing with it, and it had very little to do with morality of slavery as it did with economics and controlling the balance of power in Congress. Thank you for illustrating my point about how easily manipulated most are by the brainwashing of the education system.

Also - Yes, slavery was a major factor in declarations of secession. The main body writing those documents were of the "Fire Eater" faction. No one is saying slavery had absolutely nothing to do with it. Just that "freeing the slaves" or helping those "poor black people" had absolutely nothing to do with anything in the Civil War except for a teeny tiny minority of abolitionists.

And nobody has talked about the French yet? So nobody knows what role the French were playing in all of this? Does anybody know why the Mormons went to Northern Mexico? Because the Bringham Young Utah governor was working with the French who were in Northern Mexico. Thats the part the French and the Mormons were playing by trying to cut off trade routes from the west back to the north east where the federal government was. they teamed up with the Mormons and cut the United States as we know it now in half. They were trying to cut off the expansion of the United States with the help of the Mormons. And this is a big part of what people miss. They think of the south as including Texas. Texas was basicly everything on the other side of the Mormons. The south was really the south east. Texas territory was not using slave labor they were acting as settlers and gold miners. The south east was using slave labor in the middle of swamps with no roads or even trails. The Mormons were not using slave labor. They were using there large families from multiple wives as labor. The north east. The federal government. Was using craftsman and not slave labor to build many of the historic buildings they have now.

West of Utah were building these as settlers.



South east slave owners were building these.




The north east federal government was building these.




Strange the west settlers were building log cabins, the south east slave owners were building plantation houses, and the federal government north east were building brick homes,brick churchs and brick court house.

And how much has changed from before the civil war and now? The south still wants cheap labor to do what they say Americans wont do. It used to be clearing swaps to grow crops. Now its just picking crops. The center is still held by the Mormons using there family as labor. But they use harvesters and other large equipment to plant and harvest crops. No need for the slave labor. And the north east is still building in over the top fashion with sky scrappers and also hold the money flow with the stock exchange and wallstreet. And the west of the Mormons?They were allowed to create what they wanted without interference.

reply to post by pierregustavetoutant

PPS: South Carolina offered the federal government a good deal of money to take over Fort Sumner, a potentially aggressive foreign military base that sat inside their SOVEREIGN territory. I would certainly hope they'd fire on aggressive foreign ships trying to supply it with armaments. Lincoln knew exactly what he was doing-- intentionally starting a war.

Actually i think the South provoked the war by seceding from the Union. If anything it doesn't matter because it doesn't change the fact the Confederates fired it's first shot on a Federal territory in Fort Sumters. Why give it up to a enemy just because they demand it? Whether Lincoln did cause to happen, doesn't matter because Federal government were just supplying the troops in the forts with weapons and ammos and not lifting a finger at the Confederates.

reply to post by Paulioetc15


And the American Revolutionaries provoked war with Britain by declaring Independence. Love that take on history.
While war was anticipated on both sides, the desire of the South was to leave peacefully. Whether you think it was justified or not, the onus of starting or avoiding war was 100% on the side of the Union.
I'm not sure about you, but I wouldn't want a major Chinese military base sitting smack dab in the middle of U.S. territory. If South Carolina did not attack, they would have been conceding immediate defeat. The arming of Sumter was an overt act of war. If you think the federal fort posed no threat, then why was Lincoln conscripting soldiers and prepping for war? That notion is patently ludicrous.

The Northern armies were conquering and occupying territory in the South, often accompanied by severe pillaging and burning. While Lee's army did make 2 excursions into Northern territory (Antietam campaign and Gettysburg campaign), the intention was never to take and occupy Northern land. While it is all semantics and it certainly has its own propaganda value, using the term "War of Northern Aggression" is not farfetched. From an objective standpoint, the North was the clear aggressor in the conflict, spawned by a seperatist movement (not an aggressive one)

As a post script since it appears this thread is dying out:
I happen to think Lincoln was a great President and, unlike Nugent (who is a bit of n idiot, albeit a likeable one), I believe the preservation of the Union was necessary for this nation to achieve what it has.
I just hate all the pro-federal propaganda, force fed on our youth by a federalized public school system. The Civil War was the most complex conflict that our nation ever experienced. To boil it down to a false notion that it was fought "to free the slaves" is to accept the belief that we need the nanny state to protect us from the big bad, immoral men. In reality, those men are the very same ones who influence and control the federal government and who ultimately take away our freedoms, regardless of our skin color. In that sense, Nugent is right. But only in that sense.

reply to post by JBA2848


Not entirely correct. Texas was intending to start using slave labor more and already used some. They were looking to get into the slave trade more. I read about it recently, ill post a link when I'm not on my phone.

reply to post by pierregustavetoutant


In regards to your two post, let me stated this. Americans fought against the British to be free from tyranny and to hope to spread liberty everywhere as stated in their declaration of independence. The South fought against the Union in order to protect the institution of slavery as stated in their Declaration of Immediate Causes written by Confederates States. Those two aren't the same. Oh and let's not forget nothing in the constitutions stated that states have right to secede from the Union. That's why it says WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATES, NOT WE THE STATES.

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45

 

I think it depends on how one looks at US History. If one thinks the civil war was about ending slavery, then it is easy to say that Nugent is off his rocker. If one thinks that the civil war was fought over state rights and the growing federal power struggle with the states, and that slavery would of ended either way, then, yea, I think he has a point.

The easy thing to do is call him a neo confederate racist and not examine or think critically about what he may of meant or how things may have been different. Obviously the latter is the hard thing to do. I don't know if he is right or wrong but I think it is a good statement to examine and shouldn't just be dismissed of-hand without critical thought or even a second thought.

Say that slavery would of ended either way, with the south winning or the north winning. How might the country be different? Could any of that difference be for the better? I think it certainly could be.

edit on 6-7-2012 by sageofmonticello because: (no reason given)

That would be omitting what the war was really over, and it wasn't states rights. The war was over what type of labor system would be used moving forward during westward expansion.

The south had slave labor. The North had wage labor, and many many more laborers in this context. The plantations of the south had no way to compete and felt that a blow at slavery was a blow at civilization!

No, it is northern laborers who complained that they could not, quite obviously, compete against slave labor without being paid as much as a slave. (The Roman Republic & empire had the same problem!)

The issue about whether newly formed states would be free or slave was critical because if a sufficiently large number of non-slave states were added, it was perceived (correctly) that they would inevitably pass a constitutional amendment to ban slavery in the United States. This because it was viewed quite widely as plainly and obviously evil and unless the economics depended on slaves, virtually all other states would inevitably vote against slavery.

I even gave you links that quoted th states and their reasons for secession ... It is you who have it wrong.

Oh lord, I don't know if there can be anything more useless than intellectually re-fighting the civil war.

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
reply to post by pierregustavetoutant

 

In regards to your two post, let me stated this. Americans fought against the British to be free from tyranny and to hope to spread liberty everywhere as stated in their declaration of independence. The South fought against the Union in order to protect the institution of slavery as stated in their Declaration of Immediate Causes written by Confederates States. Those two aren't the same. Oh and let's not forget nothing in the constitutions stated that states have right to secede from the Union. That's why it says WE THE PEOPLE OF THE STATES, NOT WE THE STATES.

Wow. Federal education is really mindwiping kids these days. Just...wow.
Love my country more than anyone, but The Revolution was started by merchant class and planters who did not want centralized control (from London) over their commercial activities. And all the power to them. Yes, I do believe certain products of the Enlightenment, namely Jefferson, Franklin, and several others, used the conflict to create a new type of government, specifically one that was decentralized and allowed actual liberty for independent communities and states.
British taxation and commercial policies were fairly lax compared to other colonies. The Americans just knew they could take care of themselves and didnt want a coercive centralized regime controlling their lives(sound familiar? It did to mid 19th century Southerners just as it rings true for many modern Americans)
Did you ever notice that Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Washington, and many other Founding Fathers were Southern slave owning planters? Very rich ones at that. Doesn't change the fact that they were great men...not only acc to their time but in the annals of human history. Did you know that Jefferson,author of the Declaration of Independence, was initially very opposed to the Constitution because it gave too much power to the federal government and not enough to the states?

What does "the people" of the states mean to you? Does giving more sovereignty to more localized government (state and local) equal more actual power to the people? Or do you believe in the Marxist version of "the people"? One where an elite group "takes care" of all the poor, inferior beings who clearly can't be self reliant, personally responsible, or think for themselves. Giving more power and sovereignty to state and local governments IS giving power to the people. At least in any real sense, versus nanny state denial of any sovereignty.

And I never read the part of any of our founding documents that say that we hope "to spread liberty". Neocons didn't exist back then. In fact, based on their large quantity of writings, I'd say that the Founding Fathers were more realistic about "spreading liberty". They knew that actually meant tyranny. And they only performed it against the Native Americans (With one attempt against the Canadians, but that was more an anti-British thing). Hey, nothing is clean or black and white in any realistic studies of history.

Manifest Destiny didnt become ingrained until later, and it generally came more from a religious/nationalistic impulse than a liberty spreading one.