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: 9
100
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 
how can he "defend the Union" AND declare a proclamation against parts of the Union simultaneously?
if he needed to law for one, he needed law for the other as they were all members of the Union. (the Declarations of Secession were not "accepted", remember?)

Since it was his stated goal to preserve the Union, why didn't his Proclamation apply to the entirety known as the Union ??

so, your proof that plantation slavery would exist today is where again?

southern slavery was diminished (voluntarily) before the war ended, try again.
if your opinion helps you sleep at night, have at it.
maybe that's one reason why the North is still so separatist in so many places.




posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Castillo
 


Gods and Generals was funded by a globalist liberal who is very far from someone supporting "The Southern Side of history". While a Southerner, Ted Turner has shown by his actions not to support anything resembling limited government or states rights.
Just because he doesn't have Stonewall Jackson portrayed with cloven hooves and goats' horns doesn't make something qualify as Confederate propaganda.
It is surprisingly balanced and historically accurate, though.
edit on 10-7-2012 by pierregustavetoutant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
The Civil War was all about the destruction of state's rights, and not really about slavery. The north had plenty of slaves, too. Even Lincoln didn't consider the slaves to be equal to the white man.


The civil war was about slavery, we have the declarations from the first 4 states stating clearly that their motivations for secession revolved around the question of African slavery. The "states right" argument is also weak, considering that these same southern states pushed through the fugitive slave act of 1850 down the throats of northern states that had made slavery illegal.

Lincoln's motive in the civil war at core was not about slavery but about keeping the Union as one. This is why Lincoln had initially promised that he would leave the industry of slavery alone if the Union was kept united. Lincoln cared more about the strength of the Union than about slavery, unfortunately it was the other way around for Southern states. Lincoln was not prepared to see the break up of the Union, not under his watch.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
The North was already taxing the hell out of the Southern exports, and then taking that money and reinvesting it in Northern Industries, and then all of a sudden they wanted to also destroy the laborforce that was supporting those industries, and it was just the final straw in a complicated situation.


In other words, it was about the South's ability to continue to exploit humans in an extraordinarily evil way for their economic benefit. It wasn't complicated at all.

One side made money off work, the other side made money off slavery. Why is it that no Southern state asked to give up slavery in return for trade concessions?
edit on 10-7-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Castillo
 


Extremely weak arguments, esp in light of the fact that it was a Hollywood flop. Not exactly a blockbuster. And unlike Braveheart, it is almost totally historically accurate. Personal dialogue and internal moments are dramatic license, of course.
To compare it to Pearl Harbor makes me LOL I tell ya. Either you are making a poor attempt at propaganda or you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Love when someone tries to be oh so clever, yet only shows their severe ignorance.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 

silly questions because no definitive answers exist.
you don't know and neither does anyone alive today.
considering the 1st black legislator/Senator was elected in Mississippi in 1870, it sure didn't take long for them to gain a "voice" where none existed previously.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by xstealth
 


Sounds more like Patrick is whining about the fact the south lost the war. Life isn't fair, history isn't fair. How many of these same confederate generals, leaders, cared about Mexico once she last her fight against the American invasion? None of them did, because the South, especially Texas, benefitted significant from the spoils of Northern Mexico in the war. War isn't fair, and when those southern generals and political leaders found themselves on the recieving end of the stick in the civil war, a decade or so after the Mexican war, they learned that from first hand experience.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
A really unforgettable quote. It's quiet amazing how such a quote still describe the world today, It's as if people knew already the outcome, sadly we are stuck in this vicious circle.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 
the "fugitive slave act" still applies today.
try crossing state lines when you're a fugitive.
so, if that was the big beef and such an evil act, why does it still apply today?

if i rob you and take your property over state lines, shouldn't you have the right to its return?

i agree that preserving the Union was Lincolns primary goal, however, preserving slavery was not the Souths goal or they wouldn't have released and offered the slaves freedom, during the war.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


One side made money off work, the other side made money off slavery. Why is it that no Southern state asked to give up slavery in return for trade concessions?
not quite. one side made money off the workers and the other side made money off of their workers ... that's about the only difference.
why would the South want or concede to trade concessions ??

they were doing quite well with the Brits.
that's the whole point, they shouldn't have had to concede anything, the Feds agreed to protect them, not invade them.
and all of these details were well established nearly 100yrs earlier.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 
the "fugitive slave act" still applies today.
try crossing state lines when you're a fugitive.


I don't think you comprehend exactly what the fugitive slave act was about:


The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 mandated that states to which escaped slaves fled were obligated to return them to their masters upon their discovery and subjected persons who helped runaway slaves to criminal sanctions. The first Fugitive Slave Act was enacted by Congress in 1793 but as the northern states abolished Slavery, the act was rarely enforced. The southern states bitterly resented the northern attitude toward slavery,

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

"States rights" was is just another meme surrounding the civil war. The Southern States cared for their own rights with complete disregard for the rights of other states. Abolitionist states couldn't practice their own laws without somehow "offending" the laws of southern states. I also hardly see that fugitive and innocent black slaves seeking freedom in the 19th century is comparible to fugitives whom have committed crimes and whom have escaped today.
edit on 10-7-2012 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by xstealth
 


Wasn't the threat of Russian troops in port in CA also a looming threat to keep England out of the war? England would have sided with the South, correct? If I recall rightly, Russia was threatening to enter the the war on the side of the North if England became involved.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by xstealth
 


Sounds more like Patrick is whining about the fact the south lost the war. Life isn't fair, history isn't fair. How many of these same confederate generals, leaders, cared about Mexico once she last her fight against the American invasion? None of them did, because the South, especially Texas, benefitted significant from the spoils of Northern Mexico in the war. War isn't fair, and when those southern generals and political leaders found themselves on the recieving end of the stick in the civil war, a decade or so after the Mexican war, they learned that from first hand experience.


The war wasn't over when he said this


Do you have a grasp on dates? 1864 is before 1865
edit on 10/7/12 by xstealth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by xstealth
The war wasn't over when he said this


By the sounds of it, he certainly knew before hand it was going to end the way it ended. My point still stands, because even to this day confederate apologists such as yourself continue to whine about injustices of why the South lost. They did lose nevetheless.

Lincoln cared more about the Union itself than about the matter of slavery, this is why on the campaign he promised he would leave the institution as it was. Confederate representitives didn't buy it of course, and when their guy lost in the elections, they decided to pack their toys up and leave, unfortunately that ended with a much larger loss on their side.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 
don't make such silly assumptions when you clearly cannot see how it applies today.
back then, "escaped slaves" were still "property" and the owner had a right to return.

today, we're slaves to the Fed and if you cross borders when you are a fugitive, your "assets" will be confiscated just like back then.
new words, old concept.

States Rights are NEVER a meme.
they are enshrined in the Constitution that Lincoln pissed all over.

no free state had "fugitives" unless they were harboring them.
it was a crime then, is still a crime today.

what "rights of other states" were the Southern states infringing?
you can refuse to see the similarities but many do not.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
The sad thing is, many in the south are still living the civil war. How is the bias against Yankees any different than racism? I didn't fight in that war and neither did any of my relatives to the best of my knowledge. The same shallow mind and bigotry that fuels racism fuels the irrational hate of northerners. And don't tell me it's not real; I've seen it firsthand, time and again.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by axslinger
 

no offense intended but the Northerners get what they give when they're here.
so what's that tell ya ??

i'll never forget the first time i was at a duty station outside of FL, more than one person asked "you're not from here, are ya ??" ... i'd answer "no, why?" and i was rather shocked to hear the response ... "cause you're way too friendly to be from around here."
must be that Southern charm rubbin off after so many years, thanks guys

edit on 10-7-2012 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by xstealth
 


People have fought and died... for Labels mostly.

Here listen to this guy, he speaks volumes with his little song.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
don't make such silly assumptions when you clearly cannot see how it applies today.


I don't know how you can call fugitive black slaves seeking freedom in the 19th century the same as criminals on the run from justice today. But I guess that's just your mentality, those black slaves had no right to seek freedom then, right? Blacks aren't people, right? They weren't real people back then right?


States Rights are NEVER a meme.


It is a meme. The fact that the Southern states refused to respect the laws of Northern states is a demonstration of this. The only "states rights" confederates ever cared about were their own. They held total disregard for the laws of Northern states and their black residents. The fugitive act of 1850 forced Northern states to disregard their own abolitionist laws and cater to Southern laws, it was an infringement on their states rights.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Did you miss the part about the war starting before the abolition of slavery, and the part about the Northern Generals owning slaves until 1865? How about the part where only a very small percentage of Southerners actually owned any slaves, and a lot of times white folks were working alongside slaves?

Here in my town we have Princess Murat who was so beloved by her "slaves" that they stuck around and worked the plantation after being freed, and even after her death, and they often took flowers to her grave (which I still do from time to time).

How about the part where Lincoln only freed the Southern Slaves, but the Northern ones had to wait a few more years?
edit on 10-7-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
100
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join