The truth about slavery and the civil war.

page: 3
39
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   
The bill of rights was written for whites.....when it was drafted i dont even think Irish or polish were included.....
They had to scrap their way in........
Yep shes a WASP world for the most part.....but all that is going to turn turtle soon.....
Like the Hopi say....
Turtle island gonna roll over more than once.......

It matters not who fought the fight
Or what they fought so fiercely for
Whether it was wrong or right
They make a profit out of war




posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by antonia
 

could your brush stroke get any W I D E R ??

Looking for nobility in what the south was doing to an entire race of people.
the South ?? what about the North ??
they were equal slave owners and remained such AFTER the war, or are you skipping that part on purpose ?

"what the south was doing to an entire race of ppl" ??
are you joking?
the majority of "slave barrons" in the south were freed black men or is this news to you too ?

really ?? must you come into a thread such as this and insist your BS is what matters ?

but, but ... you said ...

when you are in a pigsty there is plenty of mud to throw around
since we're all in this pigsty together, i guess you'd know, huh ?

contrary to your opinion, history does matter to more than most.
and correct history leads to a better future for all ... look where your northern perception of history has gotten us so far


understanding the motivations of the ppl who voluntarily forfeited their lives, their families and their futures DOES matter and CAN change the present conditions to which we subscribe.

tis a shame to see or read anyone exhibiting such a conquered outlook.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by ShotGunRum
 

if you really believe this ...

Their actions started a war because they wanted to keep Africans as property
then please, explain why the North KEPT their slaves, throughout the war, after the war and beyond the Emancipation Proclamation because it didn't provide a path to freedom for them.

and, who told you all slaves were Africans ??
whomever it was ... they LIED.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ShotGunRum
 


no state has the right to own another human being
and no state did until a black man demanded it in court.

the country/colonies operated under indentured servitude for many generations until one man decided he had the right to own another human, unfortunately for everyone else, the court agreed. and so it began.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Fantastic thread, camaro68ss! It's delightful to see so many people who actually have a clue regarding the War Between the States.
For history buffs, the whole plantation culture; the Golden Circle (Brazil, the Caribbean, & up to Delaware), is a complex & fascinating story. Southern Nationalist Network (dot) com has many posts, podcasts, links, & book reviews about this topic & the war itself.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 02:29 AM
link   
slavery was a small part of the war when the war started it only became a much bigger part to northerners later in the war when the north was losing and people were sick of the war. the north used slavery as a rallying issue to regain support for the war.

Immediately before the war started the southern states were providing 90% of the taxes that the federal government was collecting every year but they were only receiving back about 10% of all government handouts. The south was basically funding government handouts to northern immigrants.

maryland was prevented from voting to secceed by government troops who rounded up all seccession supporters in the state government and imprisioning them for the duration of the war to prevent them from voting to secceed.
Lincoln threw the constitution out the window to prevent Maryland from secceeding which would have put the northern capital in enemy territory.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Tardacus
 

oh yeah, Maryland ... for those who would like to know more ... straight from the state archives (not wiki)

teachingamericanhistorymd.net...
Reflecting that division and the feeling of many Marylanders that they just wanted to be left alone, the state government would not declare for either side.

[color=amber]For the Federal Government, however, there was no question about which side Maryland had to take. If she seceded, Washington D.C. would be surrounded by hostile states, effectively cut off from the rest of the Union.
- snip -
One of the few things the General Assembly did agree upon was a resolution sent to President Lincoln protesting the Union occupation of Maryland. It seems that the General Assembly was primarily interested in preserving Maryland's neutrality, for they neither wanted to secede from the Union, nor to allow Union troops to cross its territory in order to attack the Confederacy.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
The bill of rights was written for whites.....when it was drafted i dont even think Irish or polish were included.....
They had to scrap their way in........


Your ignorance must be blissful. Please do show, in the Federalist Papers, the Anit-Federalist Papers (those two collections of papers are the arguments pro/con the Constitution when debated) or the Constitution where specific groups were excluded. On the contrary, your line of thinking was exactly the fears that some held in including Bills of Rights, as the Constitution was a document on Government structure, not social order.

I will say that society at that point was still shaking the bonds of the old, where land owners were favored and women and outside groups were excluded. As is though, the Constitution set the framework to allow States to rectify that social injustice, in which they have.

edit on 7-12-2012 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   

When Roger Brook Taney, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, dared to stand up to Lincoln over the arbitrary imprisonment of Maryland citizens, Lincoln wrote out standing orders for Taney's arrest, although they were never served.[1] But when the Maryland legislature lodged a sharp protest with Congress, Seward ordered a lightning raid across the state that jailed 31 legislators, the marshal of the Baltimore City Police Force and the Board of Police Commissioners, Mayor Brown, a former Maryland governor, members of the House of Delegates from Baltimore City and County, the 4th District congressman, a state senator and newspaper editors (including Francis Scott Key's grandson). Ft. McHenry (of "Star Spangled Banner" fame) had a darker chapter in these days as the "Baltimore Bastille." Many of those arrested by federal officials were never charged with crimes and never received trials.

In the fall, Lincoln arrested allegedly disloyal members of the state legislature (Sept. 12-17, 1861), to prevent them from attending a meeting that could have voted on secession.



www.etymonline.com...



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 





then please, explain why the North KEPT their slaves, throughout the war, after the war and beyond the Emancipation Proclamation because it didn't provide a path to freedom for them.


The south was paranoid that Lincoln was going to outlaw slavery, so they seceded. Read their declarations of secessions, it flat out says why they chose to secede. I posted some of them on the last page. They did this before any anti-slavery legislation was passed, hence why the north still had slaves.

The emancipation proclamation was a war strategy, not a human rights strategy. It only affected slaves in confederate states for this reason.



and, who told you all slaves were Africans ??


I didn't say all slaves were Africans. There were some European indentured servants, but those were not the people on the plantations picking cotton in the south...Africans were. Again, read the declarations of secession, they all focus on AFRICAN slaves.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


Try reading up on "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union."

Here's the preamble:


The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.


South Carolina Declaration of Seccession

IT IS ALL ABOUT SLAVERY. The slave-holding states were pissed off that some Northern states were no longer following the Fugitive Slave Act.

Sure there were other political factors, such as the North being pro-tariffs and the South anti-tariffs -- on account of the South selling its main crop, cotton, to Europe. You do realize slaves were predominantly used for this, don't you?

There was also the issue that the number of additional slave states was going to be limited, so that slave-economy states' power would be limited in the federal government. No doubt Northern states didn't like the fact that southern states got additional representation in the House because of the 2/5-slave rule in the Constitution.

IT WAS ALL ABOUT SLAVERY.

Abolition was on the rise. Harriet Beecher's "Uncle Tom's Cabin" had a significant effect on the outlook of many, as did John Brown's unsuccessful raid at Harper's Ferry, which did make him a martyr to the cause of abolition.

As to Northerners not being too copacetic to African Americans, they weren't too enamored with German immigrants and, later, Irish immigrants either. And after that Chinese and Italian immigrants.

The border states stuck with the Union because slavery was not a major part of their economies AND being border states and knowing the North was more powerful, they weren't going to risk going to war with the Union, and hence become the front-line states being invaded. They made a pragmatic choice.

And nice, OP, quote some earlier, politically-savvy rhetoric by Lincoln when he was running for office, rather than his later thoughts once war began and he saw that slavery could be banished.

Then look at the racist Jim Crow laws in the South and all the lynchings of black men and women there throughout the post-bellum era on into the 1930's (or later possibly). Look at where the US civil rights movement had its biggest contests. It was all in the South. Sure, there's racism of all sorts throughout the US, but the worst of it for African Americans is in the South. What did the Southern Dixiecrats do after the passing of the Civil Rights Act? They quite the Democratic party and joined the Republicans. Why was this? Because they and their constituents -- predominantly whites -- wanted to keep African Americans as second-class citizens. And frankly, a lot of them didn't want them there at all if they weren't going to be slaves or subjugated sharecroppers. To this day the Republican's powerbase is in the South. This all is inextricably related to history of slavery in this region, and there is an ongoing political power struggle between majority of the Northern states and the Southern states in the guise of the two main political parties, although the former abolitionist party is now the racist party.

To claim the US Civil War was not about slavery -- amongst other things -- is plain revisionist history. But I am not surprised to see this coming from GOP'ers and Teabaggers.
edit on 7-12-2012 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 



What is different, on principle, from modern day, when the Federal Government imposes its will and dictate on States that are crafting their own laws, ie, medical marijuana, seat-belt laws, helmet laws, speed limits, drinking age, education, etc. etc.


There is a major difference. The #1 principle of the government should be protecting the rights of it's people. The rights of states are secondary. When you have a clear human rights violation, and a state that allows or does nothing about it, there has to be federal intervention. Otherwise the people aren't protected.

Laws like health care, drug legalization, driving, marriage, etc. really are not comparable to slavery.

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 



reply to post by PatrickGarrow17


STATES SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO LEGAL SLAVERY.

IF A STATE IS VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF OTHER PEOPLE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD INTERVENE.


Actually, that is not correct and goes beyond the scope and function of the federal government.

The federal constitution is an international law treatise. Congress was only supposed to act as a referee between the states (the lawful nations of the Union) in a similar way the United Nations does for Europe.



We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


That's the preamble to the constitution. Intervening to abolish slavery is well within the function of the federal government, as intended by the founding fathers.

Slavery was really a sufficient cause for the union to end the rebbellion of the South, but not the only reason...


No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation

Article I Section 10


nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Article IV Section 3.

Constitution

The "North," "union," or more accurately the US government, had a much better vision for the future of America than the Confederacy. They did us all a huge favor in beating down the secession movement. This should be evident by the ensuing history.

People who glorify the Confederacy and demonize the Union seem to me quite delusional, and probably saturated with local bias.

We're all better off because the union held, slavery was abolished, and the resulting increase of cultural diffusion between the northern and southern US. The northern states had, and have, a lot of economic qualities that the southern states benefit from and vice versa. One of the primary reasons America was successful is this easy trade of comparative advantages.

If the relationship had soured, the south and north both would have struggled...

Secession was a bad idea, slavery was worse...

The OP raises this issue an increasing population in the North being used to rain tyranny in the South....the Senate was in place, that's your check. Unfair taxes: I don't hear very many in NY threatening to secede because a lot of our federal tax money ends up going to states in the south now...

Seriously, anyone who is bitter about the legacy of the Civil War needs to get over it.

Slavery wasn't the entire story, but it was a primary issue. Secession was unconstitutional. We' should all be glad the South lost and is accepted within the US today with little prejudice.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShotGunRum
His argument was slavery had little to do with the civil war, when the truth it is had everything to do with it.

FACT: we have all been brainwashed.

History is nothing but lies and wars are NEVER what they appear to be...

This is why history makes NO sense.


"All war is based on deception." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War


HISTORY IS A LIE! ALL WARS ARE STARTED ON PURPOSE! Link


"Wars are all based on lies, could not be fought without lies" — Charles M. Young.


One group and one group alone is responsible for virtually all wars and bloodshed on the face of this planet. Religious in nature, the Synagogue of Satan is, at its essence, a grotesque, satanic cult. LINK


"War is the principal means by which Lucifer's disciples, the Cabalist (satanist) central bankers, "change the world...most wars/conflicts are orchestrated by this satanic cult."

How They Control the World



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


That may be all well and good, but you are here. No civil war "truth" is going to change the way things are today. You might also want to consider that history itself is subject to one's perception of their world therefore there can be no objective "truth" regarding motivations. You can certainly be objective about times, places and actors, but as for their motives? Only they could know and they are dead.


Humor me for a moment:

Let's say something bad happens to mankind (like is doomsday predicted on here daily) and there are few people left to start over and even fewer books. Who will carry on teaching the history of mankind and the mistakes made and will the truth be told or lies?

Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I know it must be nice to ignore the past mistakes and live only for today but yesterdays mistakes have to be remembered.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


Yep. The Dixiecrat platform and Teabagger platform is nearly identical.


Dixiecrats



The planks were adopted and 35 southern Democrats walked out in protest. They formed the States Rights Democratic Party, which became popularly known as the Dixiecrats. Their campaign slogan was “Segregation Forever!” Their platform also included “states rights” to freedom from governmental interference in an individual's or organization's prerogative to do business with whomever they wanted.

They remained in the Democratic fold, restive, until the candidacy of Republican conservative Barry Goldwater liberated them in 1964 by refreshing some of the Dixiecrat ideologies and therefore accelerated the transition from a solid South for the Democrats to one for the Republicans. Strom Thurmond switched to the Republican Party that year and remained there until his death in December 2003.

Other presidential candidates, such as Republican Richard M. Nixon in 1968, have effectively used the Southern strategy of "states' rights" and racial inequality to garner votes from the racially conservative electorate in the southern states.


www.u-s-history.com...

edit on 7-12-2012 by ShotGunRum because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by mwood
 


Yeah, history is important.

The most important lesson learned from the history of the Civil War is that slavery should never be allowed and to fight against it when it is.

So, when public schools teach the basics of the Civil War and this is emphasized, it shouldn't be considered a bad thing.

Anyone who wants to delve into more detail has that opportunity. It's not like the big bad tyrant of the North is censoring anyone who likes to talk about the Civil War beyond slavery.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by ShotGunRum
 

the South had already declared secession BEFORE Lincoln was sworn in so technically, he had no Union to defend. by the time the 1st shot was fired, a MAJORITY of states had already seceded ... Constitutionally, Lincoln really had no authority to intervene as he did.

your snipits of the declarations only highlight what YOU want them to ... unfortunately for you, i've read ALL of them from start to finish and yes, slavery was included, it was an issue, no one has said it wasn't.

it WAS the industry of the region (right or wrong doesn't really matter in this discussion) and since the South provided the 4th largest economy in the world at that time, it was important to everyone, not just the slave owners.

the North retained their slaves, after emancipation because there was NO path for their freedom until a Constitutional amendment was passed and ratified, years later.

so, you accept the EP was a sham for the most part ?
and, we can agree that it was nothing more than an influential tactic to achieve another goal entirely ?

fair enough, you didn't say that specifically but your statement implied it, that's why i asked.

there were numerous European slaves and indentured servants all throughout the states, north and south.

btw, what's with New York being in the South, anyway?
NY was indeed a slave state or is this news for you ?

oh yes they were and in the plantation homes and working the fields and raising families and, and, and ... oh YES they were.

i would suggest you link what you think are the relevant parts that support your theory and not from wiki, either.
the originals from the state archives will do.

who knows, maybe you'll learn something



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tardacus
slavery was a small part of the war when the war started it only became a much bigger part to northerners later in the war when the north was losing and people were sick of the war. the north used slavery as a rallying issue to regain support for the war.

Immediately before the war started the southern states were providing 90% of the taxes that the federal government was collecting every year but they were only receiving back about 10% of all government handouts. The south was basically funding government handouts to northern immigrants.

maryland was prevented from voting to secceed by government troops who rounded up all seccession supporters in the state government and imprisioning them for the duration of the war to prevent them from voting to secceed.
Lincoln threw the constitution out the window to prevent Maryland from secceeding [sic] which would have put the northern capital in enemy territory.


Uh... when was the Union ever losing during the Civil War? They lost some battles, but very little Northern territory was ever invaded and the Northern ports were never blockaded. Name me one major Union city or town that was ever captured. Yes, morale in the North was ebbing because of the bloodiness of the war and its long length, and there were worries that the Copperheads would win the 1864 election, but Sherman's capture of Atlanta put an end to that. And yes, the Emancipation Proclamation was a practical military expedient, as was abolition to rally support. So what? What happened near the end of the war? The passage of the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery.

To say slavery was only a small issue with respect to what caused the war, that is a bunch of nonsense. See my other post, above this one, that dispells this notion. Yeah, the war was about States' rights, but what rights were at issue? Those involving slavery.

As for what Lincoln did to the Maryland legislature, it would seem he was within his rights as he was chief executive, executing according to Congress's wishes, the suppression of insurrection. If Congress didn't wish this, it would not have provided appropriations to the military that Lincoln could use. Furthermore, if Congress didn't approve of the president's actions, it could have impeached him. But you know what? -- It didn't.

And PUH-leeze provide a source for your claim of the ante-bellum tax distribution.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 





it WAS the industry of the region (right or wrong doesn't really matter in this discussion)


Here's where people are clinging to a major fallacy and misunderstanding the function of government. Right or wrong is all that really matters.

In each of our founding documents, the rights of the people are emphasized in the introductions. The government is there so that people aren't getting abused by others that have some advantage. Slavery is abuse defined.

It's insane to fight for the right to own slaves. Revisionists love to talk about how slavery wasn't even the main issue, but it really was. If there hadn't been years of growing sentiment for the end of slavery, there would have never been these larger constitutional disputes. That was the thing that the south was really trying to hang on to.

The law shouldn't even matter. Anyone who was anti-slavery was clearly right in this conflict. Whether or not you think that was the primary reason for war, emancipation was the best result.

The EP was a sham in the same way the declaration and the founding fathers were a sham in fighting for liberty. It was too ahead of it's time to be put into full practice and policed as a law.

But look at the society we have today, and tell me that the EP , and the 13+14th amendments weren't real...

It took a very long time to enforce, but they were not a complete sham.

I can understand people being a little bit frustrated at the way the Union states are put on a pedestal in Civil War history, but I hope you aren't going as far to say you disagree with the result.
edit on 12/7/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


Name me one major Union city or town that was ever captured
would Romney, WVA count ??
it was captured 56 times

source


Yeah, the war was about States' rights, but what rights were at issue? Those involving slavery
no, those of economy and commerce (which slavery played a part) involving the over-reaching hand of an out-of-control government.
exactly the kind of government our FF warned us about.

Lincoln had no Constitutional authority as the compact was already vacated by a majority of participants.
ETA - Lincoln clearly was not America's first dictator but he was certainly the most brutal.
edit on 7-12-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA





new topics
top topics
 
39
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join


ATS Live Reality Remix IS ON-AIR! (there are 3 minutes remaining).
ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live SE6 EP6

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def