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.

 

A quote from the civil war, before it ended. You all should read this.

page: 12
100
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 
not in any post have i justified slavery or the practice of it. quote it.
no, they (all the signers of the Constitution) agreed to it.
IF it was to be changed, there was a process in place but military invasion wasn't on the list.

ummm. didn't blame anyone, are you?
facts are just that, facts. if it weren't for one, there may be none.
[and the first slave owner wasn't a white man]

i did blame Homer for his own actions, why won't you ? and Lincoln, why won't you ?

i have nothing to "justify", we lost, remember ??
[well, my ancestors won but i feel differently]

how can you blame the effects of Reconstruction on the decimated South ??
weren't they beat hard enough ??

because, if this is all you're offering, i'm done, have a good day

apparently, you aren't up for an intellectual conversation.


edit on 11-7-2012 by Honor93 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

IF it was to be changed, there was a process in place but military invasion wasn't on the list.



Secession was enacted to prevent the rest of the country from ending slavery by peaceful means, under the constitution. The CSA was created to escape, not preserve the constitution.

There is no "right of secession" included in the constitution, which expressly grants power to put down an insurrection. ""To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." - Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15"

So you're overlooking some relevant facts.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

ah, so the truth is incomprehensible to you ... but you're okie dokie with blaming an entire race of people that had nothing to do with starting it ??
you casually skip over the numerous years ppl were content with "indentured servitude" from which they could earn their way out and jump right into slavery without mentioning HOW that changed.

and you actually wonder why i comment on your lack of skills ?
yes, slavery was ugly.
totally agree it has no place in America.
however, don't dismiss the role of those who started it.

i was raised in one of the very few free states to sign the Constitution.
[home of the Congressional Conventions & Lincolns address at Gettysburg]

and you're right, it was a difficult environment indeed.
it was a different kind of racism but it was alive and well, even without slavery.
[in more than one home that was integral in the underground railroad -- basements below sub-basements ... whoah
what an experience this many years later]

you cannot predict an outcome any better than i.
i will say this though, apparently i have more faith in my fellow man than you seem to.
more and more states were becoming "free states" of their own volition and others would have in their own time.


So in your conclusion, we should blame one black man of the injustices of slavery, and one black man for the injustices of racial segregation
tis sad to read, that after all of this, you still NEED to blame someone.
is it easier to blame a whole group rather he who threw the first punch ?
is it more righteous to demonize those who suffered alongside you rather he who contracted our persecution ?
shouldn't you consider placing blame on the one who started the ball rolling rather everyone else ??



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
not in any post have i justified slavery


People can make up their own minds about that. To sum up your argument, a black man is to blame for slavery, other countries practiced slavery, whites were slaves too, the fugitive black slaves seeking freedom in the north back then are no different to those fugitive criminals today. There we are.


IF it was to be changed, there was a process in place but military invasion wasn't on the list.


This is your opinion again. Slave owners had no intention of selling their most precious assets, they benefitted too much from slave work and the purchasing slaves in mass would not change the legalization of slavery in those states.


i did blame Homer for his own actions?


Blaming Homer for the entire institution of slavery and the actions of those slave owners is not blaming him for his own actions, it's using him as a scapegoat. Frankly I don't care for your excuses anymore on this.


how can you blame the effects of Reconstruction on the decimated South ??


The southerners of the time have themselves to blame. They decided to try their luck in secession and they knew what was coming. They lost the war and they paid for it. Whether you think it was unfair is irrelevent, war is not fair, history is not fair.


because, if this is all you're offering, i'm done,


After how many pages and hours of discussion, all of a sudden you feel it necessary to inform me that I'm not worth your time and intelligence to debate. Isn't it alittle late to make that excuse?

Goodbye then.
edit on 11-7-2012 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
reply to post by xstealth
 


Direct democracy was very much opposed by the framers of the United States Constitution and some signatories of the Declaration of Independence. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy.

Alexander Hamilton said, "That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity."

Democracy is three wolves and a rabbit voting on what's for dinner.


The only form of government that ultimately ever has, can, or will exist, is self government. The only reason why any other form has ever existed, be it "democracy," republics, or otherwise, is as a concession to the usual human refusal to self-manage. We are always told that anarchy is subordinate to, and less desirable to government, but the opposite is in fact true.

The definition of a ruler, is an individual who is willing to accept personal responsibility, among an otherwise universal majority who are not.


I agree on many points, but slavery goes against every American Value that I hold dear. A states' rights should be limited friend! The loss of liberty and attacks upon our freedoms is another matter entirely!


Your admiration of the framers is hindering your ability to think for yourself, here. Working as intended.

Federalism is never anything other than the tool of psychopaths. The end goal of the psychopathic cabal is, and always has been, world government. National federalism has never been anything other than an incremental step, at a more localised level, towards that objective.

Federalism is one of the most grievous, inhuman blasphemies that ever has or can exist. It is the antithesis of the organisational systems used by any other animals, and the geopolitical systems used by indigenous humans as well.

Federalism is utterly and directly Satanic, in the truest possible sense of that word.

The one element on which I disagreed with Lincoln, was the most fundamental. His insistence that the South should not have the right to secede. America's central thesis, has always contained a fundamental paradox; that although its' way is freedom, its' way is supposedly the only legitimate way that exists.

I admire the framers myself, greatly. I do not honour them, however, if I deny myself the right or the ability to disagree with them. They were intelligent, but they were also human, as am I.
edit on 11-7-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   
I thought debating with me was not worth your skills and intelligence?


Originally posted by Honor93
but you're okie dokie with blaming an entire race of people that had nothing to do with starting it


I never blamed any specific race of people on the institution of slavery, not at any time in all my responses, so this is a lie on your part. You on the other hand wasted no time in blaming one black man for slavery in this country.

hmm.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by Honor93

IF it was to be changed, there was a process in place but military invasion wasn't on the list.



Secession was enacted to prevent the rest of the country from ending slavery by peaceful means, under the constitution. The CSA was created to escape, not preserve the constitution.

There is no "right of secession" included in the constitution, which expressly grants power to put down an insurrection. ""To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." - Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15"

So you're overlooking some relevant facts.
i'm not overlooking anything and this thread isn't a class on Constitutional principles.
yes, there is an explicit directive regarding DUTY (in more than one place too), are you familiar?

no, secession was enacted due to repeated violations of the agreement known as the Constitution.
slavery was one issue, this has already been established, however, it was far from being the greatest issue or the biggest concern of the day.
(except for the abolitionists - again, just a select few)

an "insurrection" and a secession are not synonymous terms, perhaps that is your misconception.
there was no "insurrection".
there was a Federally sanctioned, military invasion of previously declared sovereign territory.
(declared sovereign for more than 100 days too, i might add)

maybe this will help you understand the difference ... are you familiar with the secession of S. FL in the 90s ??
if not, feel free to get familiar ... www.conchrepublic.com ... review their "history" pages.
battles, blood and war are NOT a necessity.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

The southerners of the time have themselves to blame. They decided to try their luck in secession and they knew what was coming. They lost the war and they paid for it. Whether you think it was unfair is irrelevent, war is not fair, history is not fair.


I do not consider the war to have been an act of justice.

How many more times since, have we seen America declare war on another people, simply because said people dared to live in a manner which was not in accordance with American mores? I have read recently, that the conditions of Libyan society, were in fact far more positive in some respects, than we outside that country were ever told; and that that revolution was perhaps almost entirely artificial.

Every single American imposition of will upon a foreign nation that has occurred, began with what was done first to the Native Americans, and then to the South.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   


Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. – Abraham Lincoln, January 12, 1848 speech in Congress


Oh really? A bit ironic coming from Abraham, eh?



The future inhabitants of both the Atlantic and Mississippi states will be our sons. We think we see their happiness in their union, and we wish it. Events may prove otherwise; and if they see their interest in separating why should we take sides? God bless them both, and keep them in union if it be for their good, but separate them if it be better. – Thomas Jefferson




The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their Nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so – Alex de Tocqueville, 1835




The error is in the assumption that the General Government is a party to the constitutional compact. The States formed the compact, acting as sovereign and independent communities. – Vice President John C. Calhoun




We protest solemnly in the face of mankind, that we desire peace at any sacrifice, save that of honor. In independence we seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the states with which we have lately been confederated. All we ask is to be let alone – that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms. This we will, we must resist to the direst extremity. The moment that this pretension is abandoned, the sword will drop from our grasp, and we shall be ready to enter into treaties of amnesty and commerce that cannot but be mutually beneficial. So long as this pretension is maintained, with a firm reliance on that Divine Power which covers with its protection the just cause, we must continue to struggle for our inherent right to freedom, independence, and self government. – President Jefferson Davis' first address to the Confederate Congress



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
I think it's worse than he said. Sure, we're taught by northern school teacher and the truth is distorted, but even worse, their version of the truth glazes over the most fundamental reasons behind the war. I've never had a public school history class that didn't teach slavery as the primary reason for war.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 

good night clueless, maybe the dream fairys will bring you some peace or understanding.
both seem a bit lacking in your heart.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 
i didn't blame anyone, i stated a fact.
tis a shame you haven't many of them, only opinion so far.

and, if this is debating to you, i'd strongly suggest you avoid that forum.
they'd devour you for breakfast, before their first cup of coffee.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by METACOMET
 
not really, it was 15yrs earlier.
do you hold the same beliefs and opinions at age 40/50 as you did at 20/30 ??
it certainly is a shame he veered so far off the right path.

good quotes all around though



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

there was no "insurrection".

There certainly was. War started with the southern attack on Ft. Sumpter in an attempt to seize federal property.


there was a Federally sanctioned, military invasion of previously declared sovereign territory.
(declared sovereign for more than 100 days too, i might add)

Mere declaration of sovereignty has no significance.


... are you familiar with the secession of S. FL in the 90s ??
if not, feel free to get familiar ... www.conchrepublic.com ... review their "history" pages.
battles, blood and war are NOT a necessity.

Conch republic is nothing but a marketing term for the florida keys. It is not a sovereign territory. I think you need a reality check.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer
 
oh no and not so, see for yourself here ... www.eyewitnesstohistory.com...

so, if i invade your house, armed and refuse to leave, are you going to cooperate with me ?
if not, why would you expect SCarolina to do so?

THEY were sovereign territory.
they ordered evacuations of the Fort.
they negotiated for surrender or retreat.
they certainly tried to obtain a peaceful resolution.

the Federal troops would have none of it.

now, how long would it take before you man-handled me off your property ?

secession, why wouldn't it ?? Contracts are broken every day and this was no different.

the Constitution is/was a voluntary agreement, no member was obligated to participate
at any point in time, even today.

it certainly is and has been for some time now.
was there when it happened, were you ??

ETA: if you think military blockage of the only highway in or out was "for show" or "advertising", it'd be you who needs a reality check and perhaps a few history lessons while you're at it.
edit on 11-7-2012 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4
I do not consider the war to have been an act of justice.

How many more times since, have we seen America declare war on another people, simply because said people dared to live in a manner which was not in accordance with American mores?


Well Petrus, I do not believe the civil war was for the sake of "justice". You and I both know that Lincoln himself was no real enemy of the slave owner, infact during his campaign he had time and time again acted sympathetic to the institution of slavery. He had an election after all, and there were growing fears of a civil war looming if the Republicans sided more with abolitionists. While I believe the South seceeded at core to preserve the institution of slavery, Lincoln entered to restore the Union and that's that. His declaration of freedom for all slaves was just a convenient way for him to gather resistence against the south. Whether we think it did any good or not is irrelevent, it is part of history, it's not necessarily "fair" in any sense.

War is ugly, but it is part of our history, just as slavery was an unfortunate part.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by METACOMET



The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their Nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so – Alex de Tocqueville, 1835


These were the words of a non-psychopath. They were the sort of words which were, and are, always used to sell federalism to non-psychopaths. Contract itself is a demonic concept; it does not exist for any reason other than to ensure the inhibition of free (naturally ordained) behaviour. It therefore does not exist within nature.

Such words are not, however, the psychopathic intention. They were the opposite.

See, for us, there is no fight. Which is why winning doesn't enter into it. We...go on, no matter what. Our firm has always been here...in one form or another. The Inquisition. The Khmer Rouge. We were there when the very first cave man clubbed his neighbor. See, we're in the hearts and minds of every single living being. And that, friend, is what's making things so difficult for you. See, the world doesn't work in spite of evil, Angel. It works with us. It works because of us.

-- Holland, "Reprise," Angel: The Series.
edit on 11-7-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
His declaration of freedom for all slaves was just a convenient way for him to gather resistence against the south. Whether we think it did any good or not is irrelevent, it is part of history, it's not necessarily "fair" in any sense.

War is ugly, but it is part of our history, just as slavery was an unfortunate part.


My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.

I am well aware of what Lincoln's motivation was. I have said repeatedly, that I consider said motivation to have been sorely misguided, and for history since, to have abundantly proven that.

Lincoln's grievous error, and the reason why he is called a tyrant by some, was that the South wished to secede, and he refused to allow them to do it. As he himself says above, the issue of slavery was ultimately entirely irrelevant, which is why any African-American claim that Lincoln was necessarily a friend of theirs, in direct intent, is disingenuous.

The bottom line is simply that the cabal have mandated that a federal government must exist within every country, and that once they have been successfully shackled to it, no one within any of said countries will be permitted to leave; and they will quite happily shed as much blood as is required, to enforce this.

Said federal government is, in every country and in every case, merely the incremental and progressive precursor to the ultimate goal, which is world government. A perpetual, universal tyranny from which there will be no escape. Orwell's proverbial boot stamping on a human face, forever.


This objective has been persued for hundreds, and likely tens of thousands, of years. The American Civil War is merely an example of the overall point.
edit on 11-7-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   



so, if i invade your house, armed and refuse to leave, are you going to cooperate with me ?

THEY were sovereign territory.
they ordered evacuations of the Fort.
they negotiated for surrender or retreat.
they certainly tried to obtain a peaceful resolution.

the Federal troops would have none of it.

now, how long would it take before you man-handled me off your property ?

secession, why wouldn't it ?? Contracts are broken every day and this was no different.

the Constitution is/was a voluntary agreement, no member was obligated to participate
at any point in time, even today.

it certainly is and has been for some time now.
was there when it happened, were you ??

ETA: if you think military blockage of the only highway in or out was "for show" or "advertising", it'd be you who needs a reality check and perhaps a few history lessons while you're at it.
edit on 11-7-2012 by Honor93 because: add txt



I don't know. If you think that the "conch republic" is something besides a marketing gimmick based on a publicity stunt, I'm not going to waste much time on this.

Mere declarations of sovereignty do not make a sovereign territory.

I think it's comical that you've made the analogy of a theif invading a person's private residence... News flash... It's the army that was first in the fort, and had posession of it for a long time. When you attack an army base, that's an insurrection.

This crap about the confederates giving Ft. Sumpter a choice is the equivalent of a robber giving the choice of "your money or your life"



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by FissionSurplus
 


(All credits on the following information goes to Zachary M. Schrag.)

We would have to read in what context Lincoln said those statements. That was the 4th debate between Lincoln, and judge Douglas, but if you read what Lincoln said on their first debate he stated, and I quote.


From 1st Lincoln/Douglas Debate, 1858
I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects---certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.
...



And if you read the start of the debate, here is what Lincoln said.


I hate (indifference to slavery) because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world-enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites-causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty-criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.

Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses North and South. Doubtless there are individuals on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North, and become tiptop Abolitionists; while some Northern ones go South, and become most cruel slave-masters.

When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,-to their own native land. But a moment's reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South.

...

mason.gmu.edu...


Using today's standards on racism, Lincoln would be seen as a racist, but his was a time when most people, including hispanics, didn't see black people as their equal, but as another different race, just like they saw other natives, and because of the way that black people, and the native Americans lived naturally on their lands they were seen as lesser races.

On the times when Lincoln was alive, he would not have been considered a racist, but would have been seen as a sympathizer of black people, which in some states would have won him being hanged on a rope, or burned at a stake.

Despite what some members are claiming, Lincoln wanted to do what he thought was best for the Union to stay together and grow stronger. Despite his own feelings towards slavery, if he thought that not freeing any slaves was the best thing for the Union, he would have done so. If freeing some slaves in some states was the best thing for the Union, he would have done so, and if freeing all slaves was the best thing for the Union, he would have done so. In the end he decided and thought that it was best to free all slaves.

Despite his thoughts towards slavery, which was to abolish it and free all slaves, Lincoln wanted to do what he thought was best for the Union.


edit on 11-7-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
100
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join