The truth about slavery and the civil war.

Originally posted by yadda333

Originally posted by camaro68ss
reply to post by yadda333

 

yes it should have, but at that time slavery was not a big deal. They could not just stop, it would have collapsed the souths economy. Just like after the war. The south was destroyed physically and economically. It doesnt really matter now.

I think the collapse of an economy based on owning people as property would've been just fine.

I can't believe you can even write that knowing that other people are going to read it.

Im putting myself in the contexts of history and that time period. Stop being so sensitive.

reply to post by yadda333


So your telling me you never went to a public school, high school, college? The only way around this would be home schooled, so unless you where home schooled then you have been through the public fool system, dont worry most of us have been

Do us a favor and read the link i posted on the last page (its not very long) and you will begin to see what we are talking about.

Yes we realize slavery was wrong, but what your not realizing, at the same time they supposedly "set free" the colored folks, they in TURN enslaved everyone, your birth (or berth since your a vessel that came through your mothers watery berth canal) certificate is proof of this.

Do yourself and everyone else here a favor and educate yourself, do not depend on some government institution to educate you, they will ONLY teach you what they want you to know and right now that seems to be human resources!

seriously dude read this, then come back and we will talk ( i promise it will not take too much of your precious time, and is VERY enlightening)

The Day Our Country Was Stolen: How the 14th Amendment Enslaved Us All Without a Shot Fired
www.supremelaw.org...

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by yadda333

Originally posted by camaro68ss
reply to post by yadda333

 

yes it should have, but at that time slavery was not a big deal. They could not just stop, it would have collapsed the souths economy. Just like after the war. The south was destroyed physically and economically. It doesnt really matter now.

I think the collapse of an economy based on owning people as property would've been just fine.

I can't believe you can even write that knowing that other people are going to read it.

Im putting myself in the contexts of history and that time period. Stop being so sensitive.

Again, do you seem to think that there were not people rallying the abolition movement? First hand accounts by slaves such as Frederick Douglass and Harriet Jacobs of the horrors of the institution of slavery? Nothing?

Nobody should ever find a way to get themselves "in the contexts of history and that time period" so that they can defend the idea of "phasing out" slavery.

Originally posted by camaro68ss
reply to post by yadda333

 

yes it should have, but at that time slavery was not a big deal. They could not just stop, it would have collapsed the souths economy. Just like after the war. The south was destroyed physically and economically. It doesnt really matter now.

15-20 years was needed to phase it out is my guess

edit on 7-12-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

Hey man your right, but lets not play into HIS game, this thread went from the REAL truth about the civil war, and now he is trying to get us onto a different and sensitive subject in order to derail or discredit this thread, so lets continue please about the truth, have any more juicy tidbits for us?

Originally posted by FreeAmericanInhabitant
reply to post by yadda333

 

So your telling me you never went to a public school, high school, college? The only way around this would be home schooled, so unless you where home schooled then you have been through the public fool system, dont worry most of us have been

Are you sure 'bout that?

How can I believe anything else you say when you're wrong about something as mundane as public education versus private education?

Originally posted by yadda333

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by yadda333

Originally posted by camaro68ss
reply to post by yadda333

 

yes it should have, but at that time slavery was not a big deal. They could not just stop, it would have collapsed the souths economy. Just like after the war. The south was destroyed physically and economically. It doesnt really matter now.

I think the collapse of an economy based on owning people as property would've been just fine.

I can't believe you can even write that knowing that other people are going to read it.

Im putting myself in the contexts of history and that time period. Stop being so sensitive.

Again, do you seem to think that there were not people rallying the abolition movement? First hand accounts by slaves such as Frederick Douglass and Harriet Jacobs of the horrors of the institution of slavery? Nothing?

Nobody should ever find a way to get themselves "in the contexts of history and that time period" so that they can defend the idea of "phasing out" slavery.

I never said there was or wasnt an abolition movement. Im telling you slavery was not the factor that started the war. This thread is about the civil war and why it was fought.

if you cant put yourself in the context of history and that time period then you will never truely know history. your putting word in my mouth, please point to the section where im defending slavery? All im point to is historical facts. Slavery is wrong now in 2012, but it was accepted up until the 13th amendment was ratified by the states.

Originally posted by yadda333

Originally posted by FreeAmericanInhabitant
reply to post by yadda333

 

So your telling me you never went to a public school, high school, college? The only way around this would be home schooled, so unless you where home schooled then you have been through the public fool system, dont worry most of us have been

Are you sure 'bout that?

How can I believe anything else you say when you're wrong about something as mundane as public education versus private education?

edit on 12/7/2012 by yadda333 because: (no reason given)

Pretty sure, as i went to a private school when i was younger and it was VASTLY different than public schools as i found out later in life, totally different, and while that still is NOT homeschooling its still a lot different. Now that am an adult, i prefer to teach myself! Knowledge is power, think those in control are going to share their power and knowledge?

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by yadda333

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by yadda333

Originally posted by camaro68ss
reply to post by yadda333

 

yes it should have, but at that time slavery was not a big deal. They could not just stop, it would have collapsed the souths economy. Just like after the war. The south was destroyed physically and economically. It doesnt really matter now.

I think the collapse of an economy based on owning people as property would've been just fine.

I can't believe you can even write that knowing that other people are going to read it.

Im putting myself in the contexts of history and that time period. Stop being so sensitive.

Again, do you seem to think that there were not people rallying the abolition movement? First hand accounts by slaves such as Frederick Douglass and Harriet Jacobs of the horrors of the institution of slavery? Nothing?

Nobody should ever find a way to get themselves "in the contexts of history and that time period" so that they can defend the idea of "phasing out" slavery.

Slavery is wrong now in 2012, but it was accepted up until the 13th amendment was ratified by the states.

edit on 7-12-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

What does this even mean?

Nobody is arguing that it is a great irony that the United States, built on the foundation of democracy, allowed the institution of slavery to remain legal for a long time. Nobody is arguing that the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law was passed.

But but but......This was not "accepted;" hence, the rallying of the abolitionists and public outcry. It was a huge social issue. It sparked one of the greatest novels of American Literature, Uncle Tom's Cabin.

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
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.

Comprehension it seems is not a strong point. I pointed out that the severity of the issue was obviously incomparable, but the premise is the same. Your understanding of the pact between States and the Federal Government show an all too often lack of knowledge on the Federal system created.

The Federal Government is only enumerated a certain list of powers. The Bill of Rights granted nothing except to specifically list out certain areas that the Government cannot encroach upon. Even then, the inclusion of the Ninth Amendment was James Madison's understanding that our Rights are countless. The Tenth Amendment specifically points out that only what has been granted to the Federal Government is what the Federal Government can do. All other powers are held to the State and the People respectively.

The whole thing was a big ugly mess and the only thing spearheading it was perhaps the interests of the wealthy elite, and probably The Crown in England.

On one side you had people trying to take away state rights and create a dangerous, centralized monster which has at this point in time destroyed the country. On the other side of it you had people claiming to stand for liberty and freedom but willingly allowing and/or participating in the subjugation of a people merely on the grounds of their genetic coding.

It is unfortunately that the truth of the loss of state's rights and the empowerment of the federal government got lost in the shuffle.

Originally posted by NavyDocUh, slave importation was banned in 1807. en.wikipedia.org...

"Read a history book" indeed.

Blah, thats what I get for writing without enough caffine. right...expansion, not export. was just going off the cuff with 20+ year old info muddling around. Point was, history class isn't teaching the north went to war because of slavery.

reply to post by Tardacus


What don't you get?

The SOUTH made it about slavery, not Lincoln.

They seceded because they were paranoid Lincoln was going to end slavery.

nvm*

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by NavyDocUh, slave importation was banned in 1807. en.wikipedia.org...

"Read a history book" indeed.

Blah, thats what I get for writing without enough caffine. right...expansion, not export. was just going off the cuff with 20+ year old info muddling around. Point was, history class isn't teaching the north went to war because of slavery.

That's true. THe North went to war to preserve the Union. As previously mentioned, slavery was permitted in states that remained loyal until the end of the war and in conquered territory. An interesting, yet oft unknown, fact is that the Union Army frequently used slave labor in the south for the war effort. The port of New Orleans and the canals around Vicksburg are two examples that come to mind.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
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.

Comprehension it seems is not a strong point. I pointed out that the severity of the issue was obviously incomparable, but the premise is the same. Your understanding of the pact between States and the Federal Government show an all too often lack of knowledge on the Federal system created.

The Federal Government is only enumerated a certain list of powers. The Bill of Rights granted nothing except to specifically list out certain areas that the Government cannot encroach upon. Even then, the inclusion of the Ninth Amendment was James Madison's understanding that our Rights are countless. The Tenth Amendment specifically points out that only what has been granted to the Federal Government is what the Federal Government can do. All other powers are held to the State and the People respectively.

Exactly my thoughts. And what most people don't realize is everything has flipped since the nation was founded. How did the lowly national/federal "gov" get power over the states and the people? The founders gave us a Republic. What happened? Why do some people say this nation was founded in Democracy? All the docs like Bill of Rights, Constitutions, etc, were drawn up with the intention of RESTRAINT.

I suppose maybe the founders figured it out that the "Governments Officers and employees" might possibly get stupid, or greedy, sometime in the future and they would have to be told their restrictions.

It used to be Man over state over national/federal government. When did that change? Why are we subjected to statutes that are only "Corporation Policy"? Public Law vs Public Policy. That's a good one, too

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Comprehension it seems is not a strong point. I pointed out that the severity of the issue was obviously incomparable, but the premise is the same. Your understanding of the pact between States and the Federal Government show an all too often lack of knowledge on the Federal system created.

The Federal Government is only enumerated a certain list of powers. The Bill of Rights granted nothing except to specifically list out certain areas that the Government cannot encroach upon.

What am I not comprehending? The southern states were severely encroaching on theses certain areas, violating every single one of the rights....

None of the things you're drawing a parallel to in current state rights issues are a violation of these national human rights, you seem to be the one who is having a hard time comprehending that the "state rights" being fought for in the civil war were basically the right to ignore the bill of rights.

10th amendment not really in issue in this matter.

reply to post by camaro68ss


Uhhh, the south already had 20 years to phase slavery out. The US constitution protected slavery for 20 years. In 1807 the protection was gone, hence why the importation of slaves was banned in 1807. Everyone knew that the importation of slaves was going to be banned and that slavery itself was going to be next. The south did not care and were greedy idiots who wanted to continue to profit off the tortures of slavery.

When the US Constitution was written in 1787, a long forgotten and peculiar provision was included in Article I, the part of the document dealing with the duties of the legislative branch:

Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

history1800s.about.com...

It's actually disgusting that our constitution ever protected slavery in the first place. No one has the right to own another human.

Excellent thread camaro68ss, this information cannot be brought to the peoples attention enough. This whole topic of the Civil War and the Northern states/Southern states issues from that period is mired in so much distortion of facts and flatout lies. Remember, history is written by the victors, and the victors of so many of these conflicts, wars and social upheavals over the centuries, all around the world, are the same corrupt and miserable power structures that have been manipulating people for far too long. They use emotionally charged subjects of any and all world events, such as genocide and slavery, in order to hammer and craft the populations into people who will not question, who will not investigate independently. We learn what their schools and media tells us are "facts and nothing BUT the facts", but are, rather, perversions of facts and truth. Keep in mind that distortion and reversal of key facts are but a few of the calling cards of these people. I think this thread would be good compliment to OPs thread here. I would strongly suggest reading all of it but, if you want to just skip to where it relates to this thread, skip to the section titled "The War of 1812" and read on through to the end. That section, including the following final sections, hit on some key stuff. Threads like yours camaro68ss are what have always made ATS the kind of site worth spending time on. Thank you.

reply to post by yadda333


I just think these southern sympathizers live in ignorance on how bad slavery was and how bad slaves were treated. I think they live in this fantasy where slaves lived in nice little comfy cabins outback massa's plantation.

They should listen and learn the realities;

Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl is a slave narrative that was published in 1861 by Harriet Ann Jacobs, using the pen name "Linda Brent". The book is an in-depth chronological account of Jacobs's life as a slave, with the decisions and choices she made to gain freedom for herself and her children. It addresses the struggles and sexual abuse that young women slaves faced on the plantations, and how these struggles were harsher than what men went through as slaves.

en.wikipedia.org...

Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass is a memoir and treatise on abolition written by famous orator and ex-slave, Frederick Douglass. It is generally held to be the most famous of a number of narratives written by former slaves during the same period. In factual detail, the text describes the events of his life and is considered to be one of the most influential pieces of literature to fuel the abolitionist movement of the early 19th century in the United States.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by yadda333

What are you arguing? That you think, like what I quoted from one poster, that the South should have been allowed to decide how they ended slavery--maybe 15-20 years to do it? That the Union overstepped their power? What does it matter as long as the end result was the abolition of slavery?

edit on 12/7/2012 by yadda333 because: (no reason given)

It's easy to pass moral judgement on those who came before us. What about today? The US is killing people in 2 senseless wars and making drone attacks that kill and average of 10 civilians for every supposed "bad guy" we get.
Shouldn't we be outraged? Yessir, we should stop it today, right?

The past was no different, we grow accustomed to what is beyond our power to control and either forget it or find rationale to justify it. Murder is as bad as slavery, is it not? Life is never so simple as to make such changes without severe sacrifice on someone's part. The South already paid, the modern US has yet to accrue their due usury.