It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Forbidden History: The distraction of racism and the great American lie

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

+84 more 
posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:00 PM
  • In this thread, we will explore the truth behind the "Civil War", American and African slavery and our founding documents, as they all pertain to either each other or the subject of race. I also added my own personal opinion on racism, as well as my theory on what or who's behind it and why. Our text-books and media seem to be doing a poor job of telling us the truth behind these issues, instead opting for a more politically motivated curriculum that either ignores what isn't beneficial to them or exaggerates what is.

    When I first started this thread, it was extremely large as I was going into so much detail, that I felt it was becoming too technical and distracting to the point I want to get across. While such a wealth of information would be warranted in an academic setting, I didn't feel it was necessary here. For this reason, I drastically reduced the amount of details therein and instead decided on a general overview of each section for a much more leisurely read. If you are interested and want direction on where to go for further study, please contact me and I will be happy to point you in that direction. While Middle Eastern history was the focus of my under-grad education, American history is the focus of my continued education. Most of the information contained below, was aquired through years of study in both a formal and informal setting.


    "Whoever wins the battle, writes the history" --proverb

    I would first like to differentiate between "history as it happened" and "history as it's written" (written history and true history). Many people already know that there is a huge difference between the two and for those that don't, I hope you keep your mind open as you read through this presentation and be better prepared to form a conclusion based on the information provided (as well as your own proper research).

    I have put together this thread because I feel that the race issue is taken very much out of context and I see it not only destroying this country, but also proliferating ignorance. Many people may strongly oppose this thread because we are all lead to believe in the history that is shoved before us, since the earliest days of both our social and government (informal/formal) education. When we hear something our entire lives and come to believe it and work it into our understanding of the mechanisms that drive our current socio-political and socio-economic climate, we are inclined to whole-heartedly believe it and reject any counter-arguments that may arise and shatter this stalwart of thought and personal beliefs. Our emotions are tied into this understanding, which makes it all the more difficult to shed the biases and subjectivity of holding onto something that may be inherently false.

    “He that cannot reason is a fool. He that will not is a bigot. He that dare not is a slave.” --Andrew Carnegie

    In fact, it is not only us who have been educated in this way, as it was our parents, possibly their parents (depending on your age), our professors and teachers, our politicians and everyone we come to respect for the extraction of information, not the least of which is our popular media. For this reason, many sources that people claim to be reputable - otherwise known as mainstream - have aided, whether intentionally or not, in bringing to us this false interpretation of not only racism, but the history of our great nation that [falsely] seems to be draped with the stench of racism, though those drapes are only a modern-made cloak, designed to hide our minds from the reality of history and its path to our present. Our reality is much different than our story, the story drilled into us of blacks, whites, native Americans and the plethora of ethnic immigrants that have come to our shores in waves from the 18th through the 20th centuries and into our current times.


    "For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." --Patrick Henry

    When something has been so ingrained into our society, the truth - real history, as it happened - is hard to come by as the "history as it really happened" quickly fades away to be replaced by the "history as it was written". When the written history all but completely displaces true history, sources are hard to come by and problems can't be identified for any kind of change, ultimately stumping progress. If there is a motive behind such a displacement, then that motive is almost always contradictory to our own interests. Therefore true history, as opposed to written history, can be a roadmap for the present and a guidebook of the future.


    The intent of this thread, is to dispel the notion of racism that is being force-fed into our daily diets of information. I'm not saying that racism doesn't exist, only that it isn't as abundant as we are lead to believe, nor is it as ingrained, even when going back through history. Many people may look at this thread as racist, though I hope you would reconsider your initial impression after hearing me out because my intentions are actually to the contrary. In fact, it is normal to have such an initial impression, as we all have been indoctrinated to believe that any rebuttal of the official history on race is racist. This thread is not "for" whites, any more than blacks and my goal is to dispel the notion that black suffering is due to white discrimination or even the remnants of a turbulent history for our black brothers and sisters. My effort is to get all people, regardless of color, to look past the distraction of racism, so that we may focus together on the real issues and their perpetrating culprits who are casting the chains of oppression around the feet of the public, tripping life's slalom. It is not just the whites who are losing out for having the blame of racism shackled to our feet, as everyone ultimately pays the price. After all, we are all n_______ to them.

    Of course there are real racists today, but I firmly believe that this is learned behavior, as a consequence to the exaggerated history and white guilt that is cradling our upbringing and that goes for both sides of the black-white divide. Think about it for a moment... Some blacks are racist against whites because they are being told that we are the cause of their problems and on the other side of the coin, some whites are racist because of their anger at the policies that are being established in the wake of the same. Some whites are also angry at the race card being played by blacks who use it because they truly believe their ills are caused due to their color, as opposed to their class. It's very hard for me to believe that most racism is bread out of the differences of skin color, the notion we are lead to believe. The divide is being created before us and it is this very divide that is separating us further.


    Think about it... Can you really hate a person simply for being a different race? Ask yourself if you are really racist and how could that possibly benefit yourself. If it has no benefit, you are more than likely not going to value it, it's simple economics. Some people are angry with affirmative action or the unjust system such as the New Haven fire-fighters or the Jena 6 incident and that's reasonable but that doesn't make you hate people simply because they have a different skin tone. Blacks are angry too because they do not have liberty or an equal chance to rise to the American dream and they are told it's because of discrimination based on their color when in all reality, whites are in the same boat. If blacks and whites both were to awaken to reality and work together, we would not have injustices such as Affirmative Action or so called 'race-card' issues and the American nightmare suddenly becomes the American dream. Oppression based on class is often misidentified as racism. What is more likely, that you hate someone for no reason or benefit to yourself or that someone is benefitting off of the oppression and shifting blame as to keep the attention off of themselves?

    "Our mind is of 3 categories: what we know, what we don’t know, and what we don’t know we don’t know. Not knowing is unfortunate; not knowing that we don’t know is tragic." – W. Erhart

    Mindless TV, professional sports and processed foods all come to mind right off the bat, when one thinks of distractions away from the horrors of reality for the American people. I'm sure there are many more when you actually think about it. I also think that there are many things that keep the American public distracted and ultimately divided on relatively unimportant issues or manipulations out-right. However, I think one of the biggest manipulations and distractions that we face is racism. I believe that the self hate and shame that we are indoctrinated to accept from an early age is a distraction to keep us bickering and divided. African-Americans are led to believe that if something does not go their way, there's a good chance its due to racism. They are being oppressed all right but it's by the same institutions and the elite few who oppress everyone, blacks, whites, Asians, Latinos, really almost everyone regardless of race. Where the rubber meets the road, American oppression has nothing to do with one particular race over another. It's a blame shifting game while at the same time, getting whites to choke on the blame, as to make it believable. Generally, when you blame someone for something, they are quick to refute that blame if the blame is unwarranted so the best way to get around that obstacle is to make the target swallow the guilt and that's exactly what's happening here. They are now even telling us that deep down, on a subconscious level, we [whites] are all racist, even if you have never entertained a racist thought in your life. Their strategy is to make the African-Americans think that the oppression is simple racism at the behest of whites and at the same time, make the whites feel guilty for our alleged past and present behaviors so that neither of us will turn to the real issues and the real problem. Such oppressive laws as hate crime legislation and affirmative action come about as a result while the elite few make off with our money and liberties.

    For instance, we are led to be ashamed of our ancestors for slavery and we are urged to take responsibilitym make reperations (in some cases) and apologize for that evil time in history. In fact, chances are that you do not have any slave owners in your family tree. In fact, the world's black population has a far better chance of having ancestors who profited from slavery than do American or world whites. Only about one percent of the American population owned slaves and a good portion of that one percent weren't even white. There were many free blacks in America at the time, some of whom were slave owners themselves and this is not mentioning the vast amount of blacks who actually dominated the slave trade selling slaves out of Africa. Slavery was about money and industry, not racism. Of course, if you blame the white population instead of the real perpetrators - the corporations and elite bloodlines- then you keep the attention off of our current oppressors and the American people stay divided and distracted. It's not the whites who are responsible for this massive crime in history but rather the elite few bloodlines that control the banks and corporations of today.

    “All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.” --Galileo Galilei

    Forbidden History: Slavery

    "There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world." -- Thomas Jefferson


    First, I would like to point out that slavery was absolutely wrong no matter how we try to slice it and regardless of the information contained below, slavery can never be justified. The purpose of the information is not to justify slavery but rather to put it into context and perspecctive based on truth, a rare factor in American political history. In most cases, slavery has been exaggerated in a manner that shifts and dilutes blame by spreading that blame across an entire race, instead of a very small portion of the population who not only profited from slavery, but kept it alive for so many years.

    As a white person, you should not be ashamed of your ancestors because of slavery, though as an American (both black and white) you might want to consider it. If you are white, chances are that your ancestors had no more to do with the profiting from slavery than any black person. It is no more the fault of whites than blacks and in my opinion, it is the fault of neither but instead the elite should take that prize.


    Many of our forefathers were not slave owners. It's something like 1.4% of Americans who actually owned slaves, with a good portion of those slave owners being free blacks so the numbers of white slave owners is actually less than or around 1% of the entire white public of the United States. The common claim is that whites benefitted at the expense of blacks and that this has given white people an advantage over blacks that is even realized to this day. Such a statement couldn't be more inaccurate. Not only were blacks slave owners and some whites were slaves, but blacks were also slave traders (almost exclusively in Africa), selling most slaves to the Europeans at African ports. I'll repeat, white slave owners were a very minute population, barely even registering on the scale here in America. In fact, most Americans could have cared less about slavery as they had their own problems to worry about. Also, as most Americans at that time were devout christians, they believed that if the slaves were to be released they would not be able to conduct themselves in an order to prosper in society and please god. This was at a time when Americans didn't have much leisure and so focused on putting food in their own families mouths. The majority of Southerners either didn't agree with slavery because of employment issues or didn't care due to their own problems and even if they did care, it wouldn't matter as slavery was an elitist venture. Most Northerners couldn't care one way or another and if they did care, it was in support of slavery due to their religious views and notion that Africans were being converted from paganism to Christianity.


    Another myth about slavery in America, is that all slaves were taken here or born here against their will and while that is true for a large percentage, a lot of slaves actually came here willingly. There were many instances in which a slave would make his mark on a contract, promising to work for "X" amount of years in return for his release upon completing his contract as a free American black. Of course this was not all or even a majority but it was a noticeable portion. Also, many of the slaves that were sold by Africans were actually criminals, deserters or adulterers from their tribes. So, instead of being killed or disfigured as was their custom, they were sold off as slaves. This happened to be the majority or at least half. The other half, were due to warring tribes where the losing side would be captured and sold to the Europeans as slaves. Very rarely did people sneak into villages under the cover of darkness and kidnap families as we are led to believe. If a slave was being sold out of Africa, there was a reason that s/he was there. Africans ran the slave markets out of Africa and Europeans would simply buy these slaves and resell them here in America or wherever their was a market for them.

    Though this is mainly ignored by the educational influences of our modern era (Schooling, Hollywood, MSM, etc...), there were many free blacks in the United States and these blacks would just as often be slave owners. In fact, on a per capita basis, there were many more free black slaver owners than free white slave owners, according to Census Bureau records. Our history books and the media rarely, if ever, mention this. Why? Because it goes against the notion that whites oppress and blacks are oppressed. We constantly hear of white slave owners whipping black slaves as they pick cotton in the fields until their hands are bloodied and while this paints a good picture of racial divide, such instances were the exception, not the rule. For the most part, slaves were not physically beaten and slave drivers were not brutal. Did it happen? Absolutely, but not as much as we are led to believe and such behavior was only confined to the DEEP South, such as the depths of Louisiana and maybe Mississippi.

    The information above in no way justifies slavery or the horrors faced by some blacks, but it does put American slavery into both the proper context and perspective. Whites didn't enslave blacks, the elites did and it wasn't an issue of race, so much as it was an issue of profits. If the same conditions would have met other groups of people, they would have met the same fate and in fact, almost every race on our planet has met that fate at one time or another.

    The Civil War:


    In all realities, the "Civil War" wasn't a civil war at all, as technically a civil war is two or more factions fighting over the control of a government. Our own Civil War was more of a war for Independence, as opposed to a bonafide civil war. The Confederate States, under Jefferson Davis, didn't want to take over the United States, they simply wanted secession. The South was no more interested in taking over DC in 1861, than our founding fathers were interested in taking over England in 1776. in the early 1860s, the goal for the South was Independence, not revolution. For this reason, I like to call it the "Confederate War for Independence", instead of the "Civil War".

    "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so." --Abraham Lincoln

    The war wasn't about slavery, rather it was about taxes and sovereignty. The North favored taxes that were protectionist in nature, due to it's factories and industrial centers. The South on the other hand was reliant on agriculture and trade (cotton) with Europe so the protectionist tariffs were hurting the South. What didn't help, is a Northern dominated Congress (due to population) that was passing all of the taxes that only benefitted the North, at the expense of the South. The South felt under-represented and were getting the brunt of the taxes with little benefit.

    "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." --Abraham Lincoln, New York Daily Tribune 1862

    After the war started, the Confederate strategy was to only get a couple of victories in battles to entice Europe into intervention, thus allowing the South to achieve their goal of secession. Europe was naturally on the side of the CSA (Confederate States of America) because of cotton and other trading relationships. With that being said, Europe would not stick her nose out unless they could see that the Confederates were really serious and it wasn't a small rebellion that could be squashed just as easily. Jefferson Davis, the President of the CSA along with Robert E. Lee, the Commander of Confederate Forces of the East (or "Army of Northern Virginia"), knew that they alone couldn't take on the might of the US Army and win so their strategy was to go "balls-out" in the beginning in order to gain ground so that their friends in Europe would intervene.

    At first, Abraham Lincoln believed this to be a small rebellion that would easily be crushed by the US Army, completely underestimating the determination of the South and one of the greatest military tacticians to ever take command of an army, Robert E. Lee. When Lee's army quickly seized Fort Sumter, then marched on to some of the bloodiest battles in our history, Lincoln quickly realized that this was no small rebellion and the South would quickly be aided by Europe. If Europe entered the war on behalf of the CSA, the US would have to allow the CSU to secede. Lincoln, being the brilliant man that he was, had to do whatever it takes to keep England and France out of the war.

    Lincoln, along with his top brass, realized the most brilliant and daring plan to keep Europe out of the war, was to take the moral high ground on the issue of slavery. You see, England had just outlawed slavery herself in the years before and the French people, having just gone through a revolution not long before, were adamantly against it too. By Lincoln taking the moral highground and turning the issue of the war to slavery instead of tariffs, it would make both England and France very hesitant to come to the aid of the CSA and in fact, it worked. England quickly began looking for alternative sources for cotton and got that source through India. Instead of importing cotton from the US (or CSA), England began having India supply the cotton that she needed.

    The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't issued until September 22, 1862, over a year and four months after the war began in April of 1861 and long after war was decided so slavery was only brought up as an issue well after the war was in full swing and it's purpose was solely to keep Europe out of the war. Most Americans fighting the war were not doing so over the issue of slavery and in fact, more than a few Northerners refused to fight after the first Emancipation Proclamation was issued.

    Bringing up slavery to stop Europe from entering the war on behalf of the CSA, is not the only brilliant maneuver by Lincoln. The London Bankers were trying to drive the US into massive debt over the war so that we would be more inclined to accept a central banking system and Lincoln's brilliance prevented that. Lincoln almost single handedly defeated the London bankers by issuance of the "greenback", though I'll digress as that's for an entirely different thread.

    It's also important to note that after the war when slavery was abolished, many previous slave owners chipped in to buy a huge swath of land in Africa in order to give their freed slaves a land of their own for the best chances of former slaves to prosper. It was entirely voluntary for former slaves to either go to this new land or stay in America. These previous slave owners even paid massive amounts of money to try and help these Africans in their new land in Africa and guiding their new government. This large swath of land is today called Liberia and it is one of the most lawless and poorest countries on the face of the planet.

    If the "Confederate War for Independence", better known as the American civil war, was neither initiated nor fought over slavery, then why we are led to believe so? IMO, it goes back to dividing the races and helps blame slavery on racism. It is good versus evil, the never ending battle of American morals. In other words, it identifies slavery with racism and details the white struggles with our own inner-racism. It also helps to spread the blame of racism across the whole white spectrum, instead of pinpointing it to the elites.

    Constitution and Slavery:

    Many people believe our Constitution and other founding documents, such as the Declaration of Independence, to be contradictive, seeing how slavery was alive and well when the documents were written but they are failing to realize one thing, that those documents were written and intended for American citizens, not non-citizens. Because of this, these documents weren't contradictory, they just didn't cover non-citizens, such as slaves, whether they be African slaves, Irish slaves or Chinese slaves.

    Lets take a look at the Declaration of Independence and especially the paragraph most people associate with contradiction to the on-going slave trade at the time that it was written.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    When Thomas Jefferson wrote this document (primarily), he was writing it to be law, instead he was commissioned to write it, as an explanation to why they were breaking from the crown. I use the term they to indicate the citizens of the colonies, not the surrounding world. They didn't write this document as a charter for which all men [and women] should live in the world, only their own situation at hand. Remember, they are the ones willing to fight and sacrifice for their independence and this document is simply detailing why.

    Now, we move on to the US Constitution, a document that basically establishes the Supreme Law of the land... in the United States, of course. This document was specifically written to detail the mechanics of the federal government, then to establish the federal government's relationship with the States therein and the citizens of those states.

    When the Constitution was written and adopted on September 17, 1787 (though it was yet to be ratified), it did not contain the "Bill of Rights", an addition to the Constitution that many people today feel was contradictory to the slave trade washing up on our shores. In fact, many of our forefathers didn't like the Constitution at first, as it did not go far enough to protect the people from the tyranny that a central government could conjure, so in 1789, James Madison with Thomas Jefferson's support, introduced the first 10 Amendments as a set of articles. These 10 Amendments finally came into effect on December 15, 1791 after 3/4 of the States ratified them and we know the group today as the "Bill of Rights". It's important to note that they mostly pertained to American citizens and slaves were not considered to be American citizens.

    These documents were not contradictory because they weren't written for anyone but Americans and I can't tell you how many times that I hear people suggest we negate these documents because they claim that they didn't even make sense back then, due to their falsely perceived contradictory tone. That is simply not the case.


    The truth is, white people didn't oppress black people, the elites did. It doesn't have anything to do with race so much as it does with class. We need to wake up and realize that we are being mislead as to why things are as they are, manipulated in our beliefs and distracted from reality and we need to get out from under the illusion that slavery or oppression is our fault or even the fault of our ancestors as a whole. Not only is this hurting white people, but it is also hurting blacks and other minorities as it hides the real culprits who could care less about our race, whether it be white, black, yellow or brown. We are not going to move forward in the right direction unless we can identify the problems in our trajectory. We need to understand why things were as they were to better understand why things are as they are now. The more we are lead to believe that racism is a problem, the more racist we become and thus the more divided we are. If we are divided, there is absolutely no way that we are going to overcome the dire situation at hand.

    "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe


    edit on 13-9-2010 by airspoon because: art

  • posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:14 PM
    Wow! You really know how to put together a thread!
    I look forward to reading this when I have more time.

    S & F !!

    posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:54 PM
    Excellent thread. Put together extremely well, once again. I am going to start using that term, "Confederate War of Independence." Classic research, classic information!

    Thanks again.

    So, Why haven't we started this Revolution yet?

    posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 08:57 PM
    Jebus Airspoon!

    Another fabulous thread. I haven't the time to readily digest all the information yet, I did read the part of history of Slavery in particular, and it's very informative.

    I look forward to reading the rest and replying with more than just a Kudos!

    And IMO if you had more information, just do a part 2. Series like this one are what make ATS so great.


    posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:07 PM
    Overall, you make some good points. However, I have to disagree with part of your thesis...slavery was an integral part of the start of the Civil War.

    It was slavery that caused Legislative and Congreessional conflicts over laws covering the new territorries gained from Mexico after the Mexican War.

    It was slavery and the decsision to let new states/territories determine if they would be free or slave that caused so much contention not only in Congress, trying to maintain an unstable equilibrium, but also in the states themselves...which broke out into hostilities and electorial fraud....aka Missourri/ Kansas Border Wars of the late 1850s -1860.

    It was States Rights... an essential one being the right to have Slavery, which caused the initial Confederate Congress in Mobile, Alabama in 1860 to push secession.

    It was slavery and the fear of a slave revolt that crystalized the anti abolitionist movement in the border states of NC, Va, Tenn, and Ark.... via the "Nat Turner" Laws that came about inj the 1840s-50s...which essentially limited the rights and movement of "free negroes and colored slaves."

    It was slavery that pushed Lincoln to victory...although he did not want to disband the practice, he did want to prohibit it's growth and expansion. Further, by being elected...he galvanized the seccession movement by calling for local state millitias to quelch the seccessionist rebellion of slavce holding states...forcing states that were hesitantly pro side with the deep south and slave states.

    It was slavery that actually doomed the south, for while its white men were fighting a losing war of attrition, the slaves could not be utilized enough...even considering them as soldiers was negated by their being slaves...what do you offer a slave in return for service...freedom. Thus, undercutting the very practice you are trying to defend.

    Further, racism was and is very alive. In 1830, there were 8 free negroes that owned slaves in the whole state of NC.... there were over 30,000 free negroes in NC, and over 331,000 slaves. Their plight varied..but they were slaves never the less...and after the advernt of restrictive laws...even free slaves were oppressed and some even forced back into slavery, or faced overburdening fines for the simplist infractions. Even slave owners were fined and penalized if they couldn't keep there "property under control."

    On the other hand, becoming a free negroe after the Emmancipation Proclomation of 1862, was no great thing. Many blacks raced north or nacross enemy lines, only to find discrimination and oppression even greater... even the more so if they had had a "merciful master" back south. So many "freed negroes" were running back saouth in 1864, Union Commander US Grant declared that any "colored" heading south beyond the battle lines was to be shot on sight.

    During the summer of 1864, when the war dragged on across the wilderness of Va, riots and civil turmoil was so bad, and empathy towards freed blacks so great, that some were even hung up on the gas light poles of NY City.

    I can go on...but what is the point. Again, I feel you have some valid points, but racism has been an integral part of Americas history for better or worse and still defines us as a nation...

    vist a white or black church on Sunday morning...why is there even a need for such nomenclature? Vist a barber shop....restuarants...VFW a town I live near...there are for whites and one for blacks. Look at cultural and social events...go to beaches...lakes...swimming areas....segregation is there, if only voluntarily...segregation and racism exists both ways. Across all groups, classes, is there. And will be for a long time.

    posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:15 PM
    reply to post by AlreadyGone

    No, the only conflict of slavery before the war, was about the spread of slavery. Northerners and their sympathisers didn't want slavery to spread beyond the current borders in which it was confined. For instance, if a new territory became annexed to the US, they wanted to ensure that slavery wouldn't take root in the new land. Part if this reason was because of agricultural output, with the non-slave states not wanting to be outdone and outproduced by the slave states.

    However, slavery in the Southern states, where it already existed, was not really an issue. Of course you had your abolitionists here and there but they hardly had any influence. Furthermore, the really influential pro-slavers were the elite who actually owned slaves and the average joe could not care less past having a simple opinoin on the matter.

    Most politicians were fine with slavery, so long as it was contained within the borders of the states where it already existed and the issue was with whether it spread or not.


    posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:31 PM
    I always hated the fact that the winners of the wars wrote the history. How can we learn if we erase what it was we faught against? It appears that this elite group has always shaped history.

    posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 09:36 PM
    reply to post by airspoon

    Again, I disagree...the southern states were satisfied as long as there were equal number of slave vs free states. If the expansion of slavery was impeded and the free northern states claimed a majority in the Congress and Senate...then punitive tariffs and legislation( which already was agitating the south) would be given free reign. There was the legislative conflict.

    If the northern free states gained a majority, they might then use the numerically and thus economically superior might to force England and even France to put pressure on the southern slave states to abolish the system of slavery. There is the economic conflict.

    Socially, the conflict was ongoing and was only exasperated by "Uncle Tom's Cabin." The conflict of social and cultural stereotypes , unfortunately, did not end with the Civil War, but carry over even to today.

    For instance, what outrage would there be if a reporter asked Pres. Obama if Michelle was growing watermelons in her organic garden?

    posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:02 PM
    I really enjoyed your thoughts and the work you put into this thread.
    I like your posts in general, they are always well mannered and intelligent...

    This is an interesting position... the elitist view of slavery. I have read much of the fact that as many blacks as whites owned slaves. To see the argument put together in this way provokes much thought.

    A friend of mine recently directed me to look into the life and times of the founder of Planned Parenthood- Margaret Sanger. She was also a rabidly racist person who founded her agency largely in part to weed out the African American population, if one believes a lot of what has been written about her. She passionately believed in Eugenics too. The website I really looked the most at to read about it that my friend sent to me stated that in the United States, African Americans are now having children at below replacement rate (I believe it is 1.9 per couple). This seems to tie in with the elitist view of racism, et al. She was a rich white woman.

    A quote attributed to Margaret Sanger is:

    "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated."

    There is a lot of info on all that at this website:

    However, just google her and you will see tons more, if you are interested... and want to check that out.

    Again, great job!!

    posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:07 PM
    reply to post by AlreadyGone

    Look, I don't disagree with you there and in fact, I starred your post. However, those issues are not what lead to war, nor are they about the issue of slavery itself. Instead, they are indicative of the South/North divide. In fact, due to higher population in the North, they already had a congressional advantage. Furthermore, the speration of powers between slave and non-slave could and was being worked on diplomatically, as far as the spread of slavery (I can't remember the process off the top of my head, though I'll look it up and get back to you).

    The issues that lead to war, was the taxation issues that benefitted the North due to their industrial focussed economy, as opposed to the agricultural economy of the South. The South wanted taxes that were friendly to foreign trade, which would also have been friendly to foreign powers, such as England and France, hence the confidence of the South that Europe would come to their aid.

    Slavery and the end to slavery was only interjected to the war, as a last ditch effort to keep foreign powers from intervening. This is why it wasn't brought up until over a year after the war was in full blown progress. Again, it wasn't the issue of slavery, nor the spread of slavery that lead to hostilities, it was the taxation and sovereignity.


    posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:12 AM
    Once more ... I will concede some of your points...but the idea of Emmancipation for the South and only the South....was in the works from the get go of the war. The reason Lincoln waited until late 1862...was he wanted to build on momentum from a Union victory...there were few precious victories of any consequence prior to Antietam...and even then, it was a draw at best. Further, by "freeing" the slaves in the South, he would cut into the very force that fed, clothed, and transported, even built fortifications for the rebels.

    It was another branch of economic warfare, strategic warfare, and was a "twofer"...end slavery and quickly knock out the South's ability to wage war.

    Lastly, Slavery was brought to the absolute forefront when the Union states were growing tired of the war, the massive and mounting casualties, and resistance to enrollments was growing....Lincoln needed to push a "great moral cause."... slavery, always the big issue..became the only issue..a "crusade" if you will.

    To underline your point...slavery was not the sole issue, but it was one of the main issues... so much so that we could both reasonably argue it here 155 years later.

    Causes for the war:

    States rights...the main one to allow slavery.

    Economic...taxes and tariffs..both of which fed off of and and were in part caused by slavery. Slavery was the underpinning of the deep South's economy and that of the coastal plain... with Slave Plantations of rice, tobbacco, cotten.

    Expansion of the US...of both free and slave states.... expansion of slavery.

    Abolitionist Movement...end slavery.

    Call up and Federalizing of local state troops to put down the rebellion.

    Let me end my arguments here, Airspoon, love your've done a great job here.

    Please work on the history part of things...Lee was not in command of any army at the time of Ft. Sumter, but as an engineer...he helped with the Charleston defenses. He came into command well after Mannassas, and after Gen. Joe Johnston was wounded in the battle for Richmond in McClellan's Penninsula Campaign prior to Seven Days battle. PGT Beauregard was in command at the Sumter Bombardment.

    I, myself, am an ol' Southern great, great grandfather fought for Robert E Lee in D Company, 30th NC Regiment. He was wounded 3 times, last one at Chancelorsville, and was in a Richmond Hospital when his unit went to Gettysburg...probably why he didn't get killed. Later, he was one of 300 NC troops caught at Kelly's Ford, Va. He was imprisoned at Point Lookout, Maryland. From there, we was pardeoned and exchanged...returning home to Granville County, NC. He never owned a single slave, and ended his life a dirt farmer.

    Nobody loves the South, or it's heritage more than I do.... unfortunately, slavery is a big part of it.

    Again, good job Airspoon...

    posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:16 AM
    While I agree with the majority of your points I thought a correction was due. Lee was not in charge of the CSA forces in Charleston, it was P.G.T. Beauregard. Lee only took command after the battle of 7 Pines when Joseph E. Johnston was badly wounded.

    Racism is a tool for the PTB to control us all, regardless of color. Our common interests are far greater than our differences, and if and when we ever realize this there may be a real chance for change in America.

    posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:25 AM
    reply to post by airspoon

    I wrote a long piece about my views on racism in America, and made it into a youtube video. Basically I think we are being force fed the idea of racism to keep us from uniting against the government. Check it out:

    posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:43 AM
    reply to post by Asktheanimals

    Your right, though it was only semantics. I simply said, "Lee's army" and although that is technically wrong, I was simply referring to the armies in the east in a general sense. I wasn't suggesting that Lee commanded the battle of Fort Sumter, only designating a timeline for the armies in the east.


    posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 12:31 PM
    Awesome thread.
    I have been waiting for someone to post this info and sum it up as well as you did. Simply and utter brillance.

    posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:44 PM
    reply to post by airspoon

    What Britain and France really wanted was an America divided. Both thought that their own plans in the western hemisphere would benefit from having a Confederate Nation and a Union Nation. Thus, by helping the South they could maintain their own power more effectively.
    The South cut their own throats diplomatically by ceasing to sell Europe cotton. European warehouses were full due to an overabundant crop from previous years and they managed to keep their vast millworks busy without a new supply.
    Fear of the Union navy was another factor that kept England out of the war. By 1863 the Union navy was the most powerful in the world, something her Majesties ministers cared not to tangle with.

    posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 02:17 PM
    reply to post by Asktheanimals

    Whether Britain and France wanted America divided or not, is besides the point. Both countries had a great trading relationship with first the Southern States, then the CSA. This was before India was the big cotton producer and so countries heavily relied on the South for their cotton. The South, lead by Davis foolishly believed that both countries needed the CSA to win because the USA was leaning in a protectionist direction, which ultimately meant higher prices and taxes for American exports. At that time, cotton was one of the most valuable exports, similar to what crude is today (though not entirely). Furthermore, regardless of whether the CSA or the USA were to win the war, if these countries didn't show support of the CSA, it would have had dire consequences for their trade relationship with the world's cotton producers.

    Davis is even known to have remarked that France had no other choice than to come to the aid of the CSA. What he wasn't counting on, is the British resolve and the dynamics of their empire. England was desperate to find a way out of supporting the CSA (at least openly) but originally felt it had no other choice because of the cotton. However, England's desperation turned a page in world history, as the Brits realized that they could just as easily get their cotton from India, thereby giving them an out from supporting the CSA. This is why the CSA quickly lost support from both England and France.

    So, in effect the CSA was counting on foreign powers to win their war for independence and it was because of foreign powers that they lost, namely India. Had India not come through, England would have had no choice but to support the CSA, slaves or no slaves.

    France on the other hand, had a bitter taste in their mouths from the states not coming to their aid in the French revolution. You see, France was the deciding factor in our own revolution from the British Crown and we turned around and snubbed them with their own. Among the deciding factors of that snub, were Southerners. However, politics are politics and profit is profit.

    Now, according to England, which was under the control of the London Bankers, at least in part, only wanted the US to suffer massive debts due to the war, so that they could install a central banking system as a perceived relief to that debt. Many even argue that this could have been the reason for the instigation of war. England promising support for the CSA in an effort to give them sort of a false bravado. However, the genius of Lincoln averted their debt trap.

    For whatever reason, England did not come to the aid of the CSA and faded popular support in England was due to the Emancipation Proclamation. England didn't even really have to fight, as just showing up most likely would have been enough. However they didn't and I attribute that lack of support to the genius of Lincoln (regardless of whether you agree with the politics behind his move).

    Whether the failure of support was due to the EP or the greenback, popular support in both England and France dissipated because of the EP.


    posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 02:29 PM
    reply to post by airspoon

    How do you feel America would be today if England or France stepped in on behalf of the CSA?

    posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 02:29 PM
    Very good and interesting work with lots of different perspectives. Thank you airspoon !

    I want to add in most of western Europe the common name for the American Civil War is the Secession War (spanish : guerra de secesion, portuguese : guerra de secessão, italian : guerra di secessione americana, french : guerre de sécession, german : Sezessionskrieg) but American Civil War is being more frequently used, I guess because of globalisation that leads to uniformisation.
    Wasn't 'The Secession War' used in the USA too in the past ?

    posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 02:45 PM
    reply to post by AzoriaCorp

    Grrr. I typed out a long and thought out response to your question, then ATS crashed on me (as it seems to do all of the time).

    Anyway, I'm not about to retype all of that so I'll keep it short and simple.

    I believe that slavery was on its last legs anyway, regardless of whether the EP was introduced or if the CSA would have won. I also feel that the South was right in wanting to secede. I believe that the USA winning the war, was the beginning of the end for the American experiment and pointed us in our current trajectory.

    Sorry I couldn't give a more detailed response, it's ATS's fault.


    new topics

    top topics

    <<   2  3  4 >>

    log in