The truth about slavery and the civil war.

page: 6
39
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 

Thank you for sharing and posting i know alot of people understand this but everytime the conversation comes up where i live people just dont know the facts, and when i argue that Lincoln wasnt who people think he was i am a bigot and a stupid redneck but i completely agree and thank you for sharing the South just gets a bad rap about everything from slavery to our accents but anyway thanks again for taking time to write this thread.




posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


There were no trial for secession after the war because they knew they would lose the cases.

Yet Jefferson Davis was imprisoned in chains mind you for 2 years after the war and never charged.

If it was such an open and shut case and in your view the half-million American dead were due to his actions, why not try him?

Adding extra emoticons doesn't replace rational argument.

I just want an open, balanced view of history which means seeing both sides of the argument.
Lincoln saved the Union but at what cost?
These are things rarely mentioned in media or education today.
Sherman's grand march to the sea is taught in every school - so burning down cities and plundering farms is somehow morally superior to slavery?
I'm done with this thread btw.
Cheers,
ATA


The Southern leaders weren't tried because the North strove for reconciliation. It seemed a good idea at the time, but in retrospect it was clearly a mistake, to wit: the South is the power base of the current Republican party, with its attendant backwards, religious-centric, anti-labor and racist ideologies

You could have tried Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee and any others in any federal court in a northern city and they would have been sent to the gallows. Would it have been overturned on appeal to the same SCOTUS that gave us the Dred Scot decision? Very likely. But why hold civil trials for them? The were insurrectionist/traitors/terrorists. Hold a military drumhead tribunal for each and every scoundrel and scallywag, and be done with them.

Jefferson Davis got off very lightly. Two years in chains and confinement and then was scot free. Heck, there are known/acknowledged innocent persons who spent far more time in the Guantanamo gulag. Jeff Davis was made the scapegoat for the South and he got off with what was tantamount to a slap on the wrist. His two years in chains and confinement was meant as a sop to Northerners as well as to make sure that no re-igniting of the rebellion would happen. Davis had "plans" to head south of the border and continue the fight; if he had been allowed to and to abscond with the Confederate treasury of gold and silver bullion, I don't doubt that he would have. So keeping him on ice for a couple of years was quite prudent. Having the former leader of a revolt trussed up like that in an ignominious fashion is also dispiriting to his former minions, so it served multiple purposes.

As for Sherman, he evidently was fond of the South, but wanted to make sure the South remembered its bad choice for a long time, in order that there wouldn't be a replay. It can also be argued that his slash-and-burn strategy helped to precipitate the CSA's capitulation. It certainly played well to the Northern electorate, which was until then on the fence as to whether the country should stick with Lincoln and the paleo-Republicans or switch to the appeasing Copperheads/paleo-Democrats.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
It's very simple... the slavery aspect was *clever*. It wasn't used out of moral reasons but politically timely ones. Had slavery been in the North's favor and the South was against it... the exact same roles would have been played by the people on the opposite side.

There was simply a "new" type of slavery taking hold in the north that was beneath the eye of the law at the time... or have we forgotten the hell of the working conditions in the industrial revolution?

Look at what the political writings and speeches of today tend to boast about caring and focusing on... versus what we're coming to understand are the real wheels that makes things turn... and remember that it's not unique to our time.

There weren't tape recorders back then so anything that was recorded was *carefully* considered for the full impact and multiple layers of meaning needing to be communicated in one go to multiple levels of society in the nation.
edit on 7-12-2012 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


I don't think I said that slavery was not an issue. Just pointing out that the reasons behind and leading up to the Civil War were much more complex than a simplistic/two dimentional soundbite.

Obviously you have a tenuous grasp on the history involved, otherwise you would not have to resort to personal insults to prove a "point." I'm from Michigan and my family emigrated to the US long after the civil war, so your accusations of regional and cultural bias are rather stupid and unfounded. My interest is in understanding the history as a whole, not as simplistic soundbite, because when we give short shrift to history, we cannot learn from it and all the juvenile, idiotic smileys in the world will not change that fact.

Now, you apprently did not understand what Georgia was trying to put out, and that's okay, not many people understand the economic issues and changes preceeding the war. You are correct that slaves did count for the numbers of representation, however, you forget the 3/5ths compromise and, even with slaves being counted, the northern population was still larger and growing very rapidly with European immigrants coming over to fuel the industrial revolution. The comment about being outnumbered regionally in representation in the house was quite real. The Union had more than double the population of the Confederacy (including slaves).

Tariffs: the agricultural south was against tariffs. Southerners generally favored low tariffs because this kept the cost of imported goods low, which was important in the South's import-oriented economy. Southern planters and farmers were concerned that high tariffs might make their European trading partners, primarily the British, raise prices on manufactured goods imported by the South in order to maintain a profit on trade.
In the North, however, high tariffs were viewed favorably because such tariffs would make imported goods more expensive. That way, goods produced in the North would seem relatively cheap, and Americans would want to buy American goods instead of European items. Since tariffs would protect domestic industry from foreign competition, business interests and others influenced politicians to support high tariffs.

Incidents such as the Southern protests against the "Tariff of Abominations" in the 1820s and the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s demonstrated how deep a rift the tariff controversy was creating between North and South.

In the northeast, where 60 percent of the banks were located, there was strong movement for banks to be chartered by the federal government, the south was concerned by this as this would have created a northern monopoly on the supply of capital.

With restrictive tariffs designed to protect Northern mills, the south actually did attempt to start industrilization of their own and start textile mills in the south, but then taxation on mill equipment designed to protect northern economic interests stopped this.

When the recession of the 1850's (largely brought on by reduction of demand for American manufactured good by the Europeans) led to the panic of 1857, which lead to even more protectionist tariffs, federalization of the banks, and increased taxation of southern cotton to shore up failing northern industry.

There is no doubt that slavery was a part of secession, but it is a very superficial and two dimentional notion that it was the only cause. Had there been no slavery in the US at all, such economic disparities may very well had led to war all by themselves.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by camaro68ss
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


If it was about slavery then why didnt the norther boarder state, who had legalized slavery, not join the south? simple question. your left winger teachers and propaganda will not rewrite history under my watch. only 20% of familys owned slaves in the south. No white county boy went to war over a slave. then went to war because of Taxation without representation just like the Revolutionary war. slavery was a small part
edit on 7-12-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)


Read a history book...nothing is rewritten, its taught that the war was from the south trying to leave the union. during the war, slaves were free (as a consequence).
The south did have a slave centric economy however, and didn't like the idea that slave importing would soon be federally banned...one of the reasons they decided to skip out of the union. Of course the lower class were fed a bunch of hoohah about states rights and such, form their own country, etc...but as always, the rich were the true motivators of the move...and they were quite happy with the slave based economy.

You can get poor dumb people to fight wars for you just by stroking their nationalistic pride...age old trick.

And your watch means nothing...unless you are a accredited historian whom has the influence to keep facts into history books, your ultimately just some guy on the internet telling one half the story.


Uh, slave importation was banned in 1807. en.wikipedia.org...

"Read a history book" indeed.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ShotGunRum
 


The war was about states rights period... and all the rights that those states encompassed! The taxation place don the citizens of the south lined the pockets of many wealthy up north! A prime example is the current situation with the Health Care that has been IMPOSED by the Federal Government, I do not agree with it one bit and our state even voted to impose an act in our state constitution of OPT OUT, which I voted for by the way.... Current situation included! Our elected leaders are not watching out for us, they are watching out for themselves.... they will not take part in the health care they have imposed, they will not lose any part of their retirement due to the cuts, they had nothing to lose... This is just my opinion and that is a right that I have been granted to voice whether you agree with me or not, To each their own!!



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
The civil war was started for many reasons and slavery was not a main one. For whatever reason slavery has been used to describe what it was over, but I think it's to severely simplify the story.

The north and south are very different. In the north you could work your way from poverty to living comfortably, hold personal accountability to your economical status. The first textile mills offered women room and board for a certain time and when they were done they received a lump sum of money. Furthermore the Puritan idea of having a "town" setting, good work ethic and such influenced the way of the north.

Now the south was much more difficult to better yourself. Either you had a lot of money and owned a plantation or you had little money and worked next to your slave. Now when it was time to cash in the crops the southerner a had a lot of money to work with and American fashion wasn't very catchy. So most plantation owners would sell thier produce to countries over seas and go "well give me x amount in gold, some fine French perfume for my wife, some good china, I need a new chair..." So on and so forth. So instead of just getting money they would get money, clothes, tools, furniture and the lather from over seas.

The north taxed the south on these goods and that's what caused a lot of tension. Now they had to buy American made to save money and it wasn't the same, not nearly. And if you did to over seas for your things you got next to nothing money wise and would probably owe a lot of money.

Because of this when many people moved out west the north and south ran to get them to be on their side. Missouri had no reason to be able to own slaves. There weren't any black people in Missouri when it was made a state, but because of the tensions the south claimed it and made slaverly legal to those that didn't even use it in the first place. It want until the southern people that were at the bottom of the pyramid moved there and implanted slavery and brought what they had and few things and bought land.

The division is why Andrew Jackson became president. He wasn't a southerner he wasn't a northerner he was a western frontiersman.

The civil war is more about the country's differences in culture and perceptions of laws than slavery.

Source: history major
edit on 7-12-2012 by AudioGhost because: Source



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by AudioGhost
 


Thank you AudioGhost... I appreciate and admire your facts.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 


A captured Confederate soldier in Tennessee was asked by a Union captain why they were fighting. He answered "because y'all are down here". For the vast majority of Southern troops this is why they were fighting - not to preserve slavery as only 6% of Southerners owned slaves.

You are obviously well educated and have a wealth of knowledge on the subject but fail to mention the devastation wreaked upon the South and the continuing plundering and domination of the reconstruction era. The South paid for their sins, in blood and money. 1 in 6 adult men were killed or wounded, the economy was wrecked, their labor (slaves) were gone and what little industry that existed before the war was laid waste. Yes, they lost the war, big time. Is that not enough suffering or do they deserve all the derision we can heap upon them still?

Modern politics are still a holdover from 150 years ago and are an integral part to understanding where we are and where we might be headed. Unless we can see the war from both sides we can never heal the wounds that still echo today in our 2 party system.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShotGunRum
reply to post by randomname
 





the way they are re-writing history, lincoln is the white martin luther king jr.


While he did say racist things before the war, after the war he WAS saying Martin Luther King Jr. type things. His last speech he spoke on racial equality and allowing black people to vote.

He even reportedly bowed to a black man who bowed at him



Was Lincoln racist? Probably. But nearly everyone was back then. Maybe he said whatever to get elected. Maybe he changed over time.



if any politician said the exact same things in that excerpt of lincoln, the msm would go ballistic.


Ummm this is because it is 2012 and racism is not tolerated (other than on Fox).


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


Yes, he did change his views over time. Lincoln's views were progressive , especially after seeing them fight alongside union forces.

After seeing over 200,000 African-Americans volunteer and fight alongside Union forces, Lincoln dropped his support for plans to colonize freed slaves to Africa after the Civil War. In an 1863 speech, Lincoln stated, "there will be some black men who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet, they have helped mankind on to this great consummation, while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, they have strove to hinder it."

usgovinfo.about.com...

He did feel that the black race should be free in the country of their homeland. He mainly held the views of the majority of the population at that time.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
I will never understand why people keep fighting this battle: It doesn't matter anymore. Right or wrong, the civil war is over, that battle is done, stick a fork in it, roll the fat lady out, whatever you want to say about it. What the war was fought over changes nothing.


i agree...this war was 150 years ago!!! america is a totally different country now. trying to analyze today what the mindset was 150 years ago is an act of futility. this was not a glorious part of history. it was filled with death, torture, starvation, brutality, and misery. and the re-enactments?....guys standing in a striaght line across from other guys standing in a straight line and firing at each other, and they try and garner some type of combat stategy from that?? like the saying goes "stupid is, what stupid does"



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by spangledbanner
The South will rise again.

And I relate to how you feel. Its like finding out Santa isnt real when you realize that 'history' is nothing more than propaganda and nonsense.



Ooh good.. Will y'all own slaves again?
After your beat again, will you say the war wasn't due to slavery?

The declaration of every state that seceded in the first paragraph
claimed 'slavery was the reason'. I never understand the point of these
"slavery was not important in the civil war" threads.
It's really weird BS. And what do you want to hear after the thread?
Owning humans isn't a good reason to go to war?



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by sealing
 


That was only snippets of the orginal documents..... paragraphs that pertained to the owning of slaves... Granted it was over 150 years ago and all the southerners did not own slaves, yet we are all assumed to have owned slaves!! WE are not all racist that want to enslave nations etc...



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Hi everyone, this is my first post so bear with me!

Ive lurked on this website for a few years, but it is THIS thread that has made it VERY apparent i need to help everyone understand what exactly is going on :-)

Look folks, we know things are in a crazy mess, but no one can really tell us why (sorry for this but im not getting off topic). However when i read this thread i kept seeing where everyone is saying the the OP to "learn real history" when in fact the OP is very very right in what is actually going on!

Let me see if i can help clarify folks, REMEMBER what im about to show you will probably change most of your lives, BUT ONLY IF YOU ACTUALLY READ IT. Im going to attempt to put everyone up a link, because we all know if it doesnt have a source, then its probably BS, right?


Anyways folks, please read this carefully. You folks really really educate your self on "legal deffinitions" the differences between, legal and lawful.

As the previous poster said everyone needs to learn the true meaning of subjugation, which most of you have NOT done, and shame on you!


Well folks let me let yall in on a little secret, did you know there are 2 United States?


Most sheep will deny this until the end, and im sure we will hear many people here spouting this is not real, well folks i HATE to tell you, but its all TRUE, we have been hoodwinked.

Now let me educate yall some ;-) I will say be prepared because this may disturb you.

I will also say agian this is my first post, my point at coming here is not to start fights, its not to call name, its not to put anyone down, my purpose it to EDUCATE those seeking real truth! Remember folks, knowledge is power, and those running things behind the scenes does NOT want this public knowledge
enjoy!

""The Day Our Country Was Stolen:
How the 14th Amendment [sic]
Enslaved Us All
Without a Shot Fired

by

L. C. Lyon""

www.supremelaw.org...



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by VforVendettea
reply to post by MentorsRiddle
 


The main reason for the civil war, as any good historian knows, is unfair rules and taxation placed upon the southern states...



Now 99% of americans are suffering under unfair rules and taxation not just the southern states. .

Slavery was just an excuse. People in the north had slaves, too. The southern states did not want to pledge themselves and their property as collateral for previous war debt. Since the north won, and with the bankruptcy of the United States in 1933, everyone that has the status of "US citizen" is collateral for the national debt, along with everything they "own". US citizens are classified as DEBTORS. You CAN fix this problem by recording a UCC-1 Financing Statement. I did it and took a copy into my employer and was declared tax exempt. The IRS has a copy along with the treasury. My status is now Creditor instead of debtor.

Google: "United States Bankruptcy 1933" , "HJR-192" , and "United States is not a country". That's just a start so we can see what was done to us.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


I don't know too many people outside of the south who partake in this "fighting for Dixie" crap on a regular basis. I don't get it at all and I've lived in the south most of my life. I intellectually understand the arguments, but I get bashed because I don't see them as useful. We don't live in that world anymore and while it's nice to know what led to it, it doesn't change the world we live in now. That's why I don't see the point in fight about it. Worry about what you can change not what has passed.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I may lean a little on the confederate side with my family history. My family lived on the boarder of Tennessee. I cant remember the exact censes date but on the same page of the censes report you can find davy crocketts signature 2 lines down from my familys. This meaning he lived next door. My ancestors owned a large plantation and had 20 slaves. When the war broke out they joined the confederacy. We had 17 family members in the same cavalry unit!

Wesley Blassingame Reynolds, our direct great, great, great, great, great grandfather, served as 2nd Sgt in the 9th Tennessee Cavalry, a unit of Biffle's Battalion under General Nathan Bedford Forrest. Just three and one half months into his service to the Confederacy, Wesley was captured, after surrendering, by Lt. Col. Gaines, 50th Illinois Infantry in Lawrence County, Tennessee, December 2, 1863. His captor (a neighbor), shot him anyway. He lay in a fence corner for some time before being taken to a doctor. He somehow survived gangrene. He was confined at Pulaski, Tennessee, Louisville, Kentucky, and Rock Island, Illinois.

He was exchanged March 2, 1865,having endured some fourteen months at Rock Island Prison. He was honorably discharged.

After the war the union came in and taxed the hell out of our family. They had to sale the plantation and migrate to Arkansas. His father and wife’s father fought in the war of 1812, their fathers fought in the revolutionary war.

My family runs deep with Rebels, dam yanks took everything.
edit on 7-12-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


Well, mine runs deep with illegal aliens and polish immigrants. I have no real dog in the fight so that' probably why I find the arguments so tiring.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by belindamck
reply to post by ShotGunRum
 


The war was about states rights period... and all the rights that those states encompassed! The taxation place don the citizens of the south lined the pockets of many wealthy up north! A prime example is the current situation with the Health Care that has been IMPOSED by the Federal Government, I do not agree with it one bit and our state even voted to impose an act in our state constitution of OPT OUT, which I voted for by the way.... Current situation included! Our elected leaders are not watching out for us, they are watching out for themselves.... they will not take part in the health care they have imposed, they will not lose any part of their retirement due to the cuts, they had nothing to lose... This is just my opinion and that is a right that I have been granted to voice whether you agree with me or not, To each their own!!


I agree.
Which brings to mind the question of ---why are the state Citizens assuming the role of US citizens? Because of what was started in 1861(?) and legislated in 1871, the "Federal Government" only has jurisdiction over the 10 miles square of Washington DC and it's territories. Some areas in the sovereign states were Federal Territories like forts, arsenals, etc, but not the entire state and it's Citizens. That came about when everything was incorporated. If we use a zip code or 2 letter state abbreviation, we are admitting we live in a "Federal Zone".

Somebody else posted that there are two United States. Very true. I'm glad some are waking up. I'm getting tired of being called ignorant when I prove, documentarily, that what I say is true. Don't believe me? Goooooooogle it.
The following is for those of you who called me ignorant when I said that United States is a corporation, not a country.
28 U.S.C. § 3002

TITLE 28 > PART VI > CHAPTER 176 > SUBCHAPTER A § 3002

§ 3002. Definitions

(15) “United States” means—

(A) a Federal corporation;

(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or

(C) an instrumentality of the United States.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


I understand Camaro.... my family too runs deep and I appreciate what your family and my family fought for: STATES RIGHTS!!!!





top topics
 
39
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join