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: 13
100
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Oh, and btw, Republicans as a whole wanted to abolish slavery and to free all slaves, meanwhile Democrats as a whole wanted to keep slaves and for slavery to continue to exist.

Some people now-a-days "believe" the contrary, that it was Democrats who wanted to free slaves, but that is not the truth.




posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by stanguilles7

So... You're saying you think the civil war was fought to end racism?


Yes it was a great part of the reason, but not the only reason.



Originally posted by stanguilles7
How are you quantifying this racism? How do you come to the conclusion racism 'occurred' more in the South?


By the fact that Democrats, which most of them lived in the south, wanted to keep slaves and wanted slavery to continue to exist.

Republicans lived mostly on the north, and as a whole they wanted to abolish slavery.

Also due to the fact that slaves were known to flee to the north. The fact that the first neighborhoods, and cities which had free black people existed and were started in the north, and the fact that the most murders of black people occurred in the south...

What I stated above are all facts.


Originally posted by stanguilles7
Are you familiar with how Irish and Italian (to name just a few marginalized minorities) in the north were treated?


We were talking as a whole about slavery, and the people who were slaves were mostly black people, some native Americans at first were also slaves but as a whole it was black people who were all slaves at one time in the U.S. The Irish and other white minorities weren't slaves, even though they were treated differently.

I know the history of this country very well thank you very much.


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



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

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.


Exactly the point. In some respects at least, he was as good as the times allowed him to be.

I will also say that, while I claim that I am not a psychopath, I know from experience what it feels like to draw in your own mind the conclusion that you are morally righteous, and another man is wrong, and that because said morality has already been pre-decided, you are able to then justify whatever tactics you decide to use in your own mind, irrespective of how heinous they may be to the plain sight of others.

I believe that Lincoln was a victim of exactly this type of thinking. He was actually an individual to whom war was abhorrent, as am I; but there is a certain type of mentality to which, (perhaps because it finds war so loathsome in the first place) once it has been decided that the dogs of war are to be loosed, absolutely no restraint or quarter will be given whatsoever. The campaign will continue, with a consistent level of savagery, until the opponent is subdued to whatever level grants satisfaction.

Hence Lincoln with the South. He developed the unshakeable conviction that his cause was righteous, and when a mind is so convinced, no moral outrage within war is sacrosanct.
edit on 11-7-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Oh, and btw, Republicans as a whole wanted to abolish slavery and to free all slaves, meanwhile Democrats as a whole wanted to keep slaves and for slavery to continue to exist.

Some people now-a-days "believe" the contrary, that it was Democrats who wanted to free slaves, but that is not the truth.


Between now and then, they all basically just switched sides. Thus, the term "Republican" or "Democrat" is relative and wishy washy.

Just like everything in politics.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Lincoln was about as far from a Tyrant as it's possible to get. Even after the war, before he was ASSASSINATED BY A VAIN, IDIOTIC COWARD, Lincoln was dead set on reconciliation for the confederate states, NOT greater hardship through punishment. When he was killed, a gentle post war transition died with him.

Anyone who calls him a tyrant knows nothing of history and should be ashamed of themselves. Don't just regurgitate that which has been shoved into your head by Teaparty lackwhits, THINK CRITICALLY!



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Lincoln created the Emancipation proclamation for one purpose - to keep England from entering the war on the side of the South.
It was also a military expedience to create fear of slave rebellions brewing in the South requiring more men to stay home and away from the battlefront.
This created a fresh pool of recruits for Union armies to replace men doing supply and transport work allowing more white Union soldiers to be freed up for service at the front.
Emancipation was never about human rights or equality for blacks with Lincoln.
He did it purely to gain a military advantage.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErasmusSB654
"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Lincoln was about as far from a Tyrant as it's possible to get. Even after the war, before he was ASSASSINATED BY A VAIN, IDIOTIC COWARD, Lincoln was dead set on reconciliation for the confederate states, NOT greater hardship through punishment. When he was killed, a gentle post war transition died with him.

Anyone who calls him a tyrant knows nothing of history and should be ashamed of themselves. Don't just regurgitate that which has been shoved into your head by Teaparty lackwhits, THINK CRITICALLY!


Wrong.,..

He absolutely was a tyrant...

Instead of upholding the principles of a free nation dedicated to liberty, he forced (through the greatest bloodshed in this nations history) the southern states to remain (without their consent) a part of the union.

He ended states rights and set us on a path of self destruction...

Forget the republican, democratic crap... Lincoln was just a bad president...

The southern states had a right to secede and still do.

A government works based on the consent of the governed.

When that consent is forcefully achieved at the point of a gun or through fear, there is not freedom and liberty but instead enslavement...

More men were slaves AFTER the civil war than before and even more men are slaves now.

Jaden



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ErasmusSB654
 


Lincoln was a Federalist, for a strong central government. All of the southern states felt they had been betrayed of their rights and so left the Union as was their right to do so. They were kept in the Union by force of arms. Lincoln was expedient to use the tools that he had to that end, and the emancipation proclamation was such a tool meant to unstable the southern states.

When I was young I was taught the things the way the victor tells it, but as an adult and now seeing it for what it was, the south was clearly within it's rights to secede itself from the Federalist States of America, because that's what it was, a nation with a central government and vassal states in name only. For that proof, I give you today's America. Take a good look at what Lincoln's America looks likes.







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



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ErasmusSB654
 


How can you possibly say that? Every state applied to, and entered the union or republic of their own free will and accord, and every state has the constitutional right to secede if they see fit. Lincoln and the North were aggressors in preventing the southern states from executing their lawful rights. If they had stayed out of the picture, it is likely that a peaceful , mutually beneficial resolution would have eventually been reached, but the north and Lincoln were too afraid of losing that tax money from the South, so they decided instead of negotiating, they would just invade. AND, since that war, this has been the standard modus operandi for the US government. When people disagree with us, we sanction, weaken, destabilize, and eventually invade.

Lincoln was the first in a long line of US tyrants.

Lincoln and the North did not want to count the slaves as equal people when it came to representation in government, or in census data, or in government payouts. It was the South that was trying to get the slaves equal representation in the eyes of the Federal Government.

Maybe he had good intentions deep down, and didn't want his presidency to be remembered as the one that broke up the Republic, or maybe he had bad intentions just like the majority of presidents today. Either way, the result was an intrusive, over-reaching, Federal Government operating way beyond its charter.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I made it through about 8 pages of the thread and had to stop.

Soooooooooo many misinformed people.

Before I begin stating factual information about the war of the Northern agression, let me first disclose that yes, I am from the Southeastern portion of the United States, Georgia, in fact.
The war between the states has been elevated to an almost religious status in these parts.
So, needless to say, we are inundated with biased beliefs, many of which are heavily biased and misguided.

However....

Despite that fact, we are still taught many historical truths not found in history books.

The war between the states was not solely about slavery. In fact, slavery was used by both sides as a rallying point.
Slavery was an institutional practice in the States, and by the way, slavery did not discriminate.
Slaves could be white, black, yellow, red... it really didn't matter. The only thing that mattered was that a certain person was owned.
Contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of Southern plantation owners did not employ involuntary servitude (important word- remember for later explanation) because they derived pleasure from punishment.
Slaves were considered an investment.
Most slaves were treated as an extension of the primary family.
And while you think about slavery, think about this.

How different is the life of an everyday American who works for wages that much different than a slave?

The only true difference between yesterday's slave on a plantation and today's wage-slave is the wage-slave now has the right to choose their foreman and no longer knows who is their master.

Slaves were given land to till in order to feed their family.
Slaves were given housing, and contrary to popular belief, slaves were repsected.
Slaves were an INVESTMENT, and like a new car, they were treated/maintained...humanely because humane treatment produced more diligent work, which then equaled a return on investment.

The next time you clock out at work, think about quittin' time in the fields, but I digress...

Unless you have access to a variety of reading material dating from around 1860-1900, then you will not, and I repeat WILL NOT correctly understand the predicament placed upon Abe Lincoln's shoulders.

Abe Lincoln had one and only one goal, the preservation of the union.

The reason that slavery is seen as the reason for secession is because this was the first historically recognized practice that the Federal Government allowed states to outlaw; however, this must be understood in historical context.
The Northern states allowed slavery to continue for those families who were grandfathered in due to the ratification of abolitionist laws.
It is often said that the South had more slaves than the North, but this is a misconception.

It is impossible to quantify this number.
BOTH the Northern states and the Southern states practiced slavery, and the only choice for slaves who escaped from the South to ensure survival was either voluntary or involuntary servitude.

In the articles of secession presented by the South, the practice of slavery was listed as a reason for secession because it was the first act of the Federal Government power beyond those listed in Article 1 section 8 of the US Constitution.
The actual reason for secession was reactionary.
Saying that someone is pro-slavery is like saying that someone is pro-abortion.
The truth is that the South perceived the outlaw of slavery by the Federal Government as going above and beyond the permissible behaviors as allowed in Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution.

Lincoln honestly did not care either way.
While personally supporting abolitionism, Lincoln understood that he could not LEGALLY sign a bill that outlawed slavery across the nation unless ratified because that was beyond the scope of power granted to the Federal Government.

As I said, Lincoln wanted to save the union, so what he did was offer compromise.
He offered to slowly emancipate slaves while also reimbursing the owners for their loss.
This was a process that Lincoln estimated would last until the year 1900.

He then offered to ship the slaves to Haiti because he feared the economic viability of a nation with a gross plethora of wage earners.

When the South rejected this and seceded, Lincolcn felt as if he had no choice but to enforce "maritime powers", also known as "martial law"....

And we live under these martimes powers today.
edit on 11/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Which is why the maritime ensign is what is hanging in most court rooms today. That annihilates common law as it should be.

Jaden



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by kyviecaldges
 


Which is why the maritime ensign is what is hanging in most court rooms today. That annihilates common law as it should be.

Jaden


Correct.

When an individual walks into court today, they usually walk into a court of admiralty law, unless their charge is civil or they have been charged with a crime that involves a victim.

Victimless crime is a misnomer.

When someone breaks a supposed law that does not involve a victim, they are in actuality violating a corporate code.

Lincoln was an enigma.
Although he truly is to blame for the despotic nature of the de-facto regime posing as our federal government, he never wanted this.

Lincoln truly wanted reconciliation. He wanted a Union.
The reason for this is because HE saw the European money powers as the largest threat to America.

But yet, those same money powers were responsible for fracturing the nation, which in turn lead to Lincoln resorting to the enforcement of maritime powers.
Lincoln did not foresee these powers being continued after reconciliation.

It is because of this state of martial law, under which we are currently governed, that the Federal Government is able to control the behaviors of citizens.
Citizenship did not exist prior to the war between the states because NO ONE WANTED IT.

Citizenship makes individuals corporate chattel.
We are viewed by the Federal Government as literal human resources.
And because of this the Feds are able to enforce equality through the interstate commerce clause.

The 13th Amendment outlaws slavery, and it was ratified by every single southern state of the newly formed union.
HOWEVER...

The 14th Amendment was ratified under highly dubious circumstances, if ever ratified in de jure manner.
The same Southern states that ratified the 13th Amendment would not ratify the 14th Amendment.
President Johnson went so far as to abolish the seated members of the state's congresses that refused to ratify the 14th Amendment and then he appointed hand picked replacements that would acquiesce to his demand for 14th Amendment ratification.
And he was able to do this because of the maritime powers afforded to him by President Lincoln.

The reason that the Southern states were against the 14th Amendment is because it allowed for voluntary servitude as prescribed by citizenship.

The common person of the late 1800's was much more informed and educated than the citizens of today's United States Inc.
edit on 11/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
It is funny how Lincoln only freed the slaves in the South, if he was so concerned about personal liberty instead of simply hurting the South's war effort. The South had plans in motion to allow former slaves to fight and gain their freedom, but it was too late.

I have always wondered why Lee didn't take to the hills until the next election, hoping that Lincoln would lose. At the very least, there would still have been a formidable army by the next spring/summer, when fighting could resume. I am not fooled for one minute that the Civil War was over slavery. Slavery, whether Northerner or Southerner, was on its way out. Lincoln and Grant both owned slaves, as well, which says quite a lot about their state of mind regarding the issue. The South has been vilified to an extent, although Grant offered superb surrender terms to Lee, which basically let all his men go home. It could have ended a lot worse imo.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by xstealth
 


I agree, he was a tyrant. I also dislike him for his other war of aggression.

Lincol's other war



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
It is funny how Lincoln only freed the slaves in the South, if he was so concerned about personal liberty instead of simply hurting the South's war effort. The South had plans in motion to allow former slaves to fight and gain their freedom, but it was too late.

I have always wondered why Lee didn't take to the hills until the next election, hoping that Lincoln would lose. At the very least, there would still have been a formidable army by the next spring/summer, when fighting could resume. I am not fooled for one minute that the Civil War was over slavery. Slavery, whether Northerner or Southerner, was on its way out. Lincoln and Grant both owned slaves, as well, which says quite a lot about their state of mind regarding the issue. The South has been vilified to an extent, although Grant offered superb surrender terms to Lee, which basically let all his men go home. It could have ended a lot worse imo.


You are correct.

You know... Lee had a choice to make.
Both the Confederates and the Union sought his services when the war broke out, but it was his dedication to the state of Virginia that sealed his fate.
He was a very highly regarded graduate of West Point, and was initially trained in war for the defense of Country.

That shows how much change has occurred regarding the value that people place upon a state's rights, power, and independence.

In my opinion, in the end, both sides realized the folly of their choice.
But it must never be forgotten that the war was fought on Southern soil.
The South truly felt invaded.
The sad part is the goading that went on by the European money powers,
The main reason that the South was able to continue fighting is because of European support.
The Confederate states sold cotton backed bonds in European markets and relied upon blockade runners to fortify their needs.

If it were not for the Tsar of Russia, I believe that it was Nicholas, basically loaning his navy to Lincoln in order to blockade invading European armies, then we would be living in a very different world today.

I am of the opinion that much of the abolitionist movement was started by plants from the European money powers seeking to divide the nation.
Slavery was such a non-issue, personally, for most people back in the day.
However, politically, it was dividing the nation in half.

The abolitionists were not in any way shape or form humanitarian pacifists.
The practice of slavery allowed for the rise of a nouveau riche class in the South and the old money elites would not have that.
The only real conspiracy ever to exist on the face of the planet is the means by which the elite class propagates itself.

Southern plantation owners were an affront to this so-called conspiracy and the true aristocracy would have none of that.
Thus, the war between the states.
edit on 11/7/2012 by kyviecaldges because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Lincoln and the North were aggressors in preventing the southern states from executing their lawful rights. If they had stayed out of the picture, it is likely that a peaceful , mutually beneficial resolution would have


I don't see how secession was a "lawful right" anymore than America's invasion and annexation of Northern Mexican lands prior, or the slow invasion of native American lands. Define "lawful right" in history? There isn't one, fact is the United States became what it is today through war and through force, this is the reality of history. The South did not have a "lawful right" to secession, if they wanted it, they had to take it by force, and unfortunately for them, they didn't have the force enough to do so.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
It is funny how Lincoln only freed the slaves in the South, if he was so concerned about personal liberty instead of simply hurting the South's war effort. The South had plans in motion to allow former slaves to fight and gain their freedom,


This is a very interesting claim. Where's your source for these supposed plans the South had to free the slaves? And Lincoln did not enter the civil war in order to "free the slaves" in the first place, his actions in declaring freedom of the slaves was for the most part convenience, a slave rebellion against the south turned the tide of the war significantly.


I am not fooled for one minute that the Civil War was over slavery.


Well that was the motivate for southern secession. You may read their declarations sometime.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Contracts are always entered into voluntarily, otherwise they are null and void. Joining the Union of states was a voluntary agreement, and seceding from that agreement is perfectly legal. That is what I meant by "legal right." There was never any requirement that the Southern states had to be part of the Republic of the United States of America.

When they decided to secede, and the North decided to go to war over it, that was an act of aggression, they literally conquered and annexed the southern states by force. This is no different than what Russia is doing in Georgia or Chechnya. We get outraged when other countries do it, and we cheered the fall of the USSR which was very equivalant even in name to the USA. Some states joined the USSR voluntarily, because it was mutually beneficial, and others joined by threat of force or actual force.

When the North attacked the South, it destroyed the notion of a "Republic" of States, and destroyed the foundation our country was built upon, and it created a new entity with an all-powerful central government.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
...
History is awesome.

edit on 9-7-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



If you actually read from that site, you will find that the author made many ASSUMPTIONS about Lincoln's point of view.

In many cases the author doesn't even present evidence to support his claims, such as not giving direct excerpts/evidence from Lincoln's own writing corroborating the claims of the author. He just presents his claims as truth.

I don't find that website as a true portrayer of "history", but rather the CLAIMS from an author who says is the truth and bases his evidence on ASSUMPTIONS...

ASSUMPTIONS don't make facts, nor are ASSUMPTIONS true conveyors of history...




edit on 10-7-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)


Nope, but it sure is hard to argue direct quotes. Just sayin.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
100
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join