The Briefing Room
Archives => Alternate Realities => Topic started by: IsailedawayfromFR on September 30, 2019, 12:30:37 pm
-
Antifa is the most public, in-your-face element of the communist Left's decades-long effort to vilify America as a bastion of racism and "white supremacy." Normal people know that this characterization of the United States is simply not true. We have been world leaders in promoting racial harmony and reconciliation and have bent over backwards to aid in the advancement of minorities. Today, for example, blacks, Hispanics, and women have the lowest unemployment rates in U.S. history. Furthermore, certain minority groups are eligible for racial preferences and set-asides unavailable to whites and even those minorities — for example, Asians — who excel.
The poorest people in America are better off than people in most other nations. A recent study found that when you include the myriad welfare programs available to Americans, the bottom 20 percent of income-earners in the U.S. are better off materially than everyone in most of the nations of Europe. Another study found that the bottom 10 percent in the U.S. do better than the top 10 percent in Russia and that our nation's poor do better than virtually everyone in India and better than 85 percent of those living in China.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/time_to_set_the_record_straight_on_slavery.html (https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/time_to_set_the_record_straight_on_slavery.html)
-
This article is 100% correct, but it's like spitting into the wind. Into the radical leftist wind that is.
Those people will never be convinced.
Because they don't want to be convinced. They have an agenda, and the truth be damned.
-
This article is 100% correct, but it's like spitting into the wind. Into the radical leftist wind that is.
Those people will never be convinced.
Because they don't want to be convinced. They have an agenda, and the truth be damned.
It is not the left for which this article was written.
It is sadly for the many existing within our society who have never had their history lessons, and might be receptive to learn.
-
This article was terrible.
Obviously Slavery existed and still exists in some places and capacities
Obviously it's better to be poor in a First World country than in average in a 2nd and 3rd world country.
Obviously American citizens are going to focus protests and whatnot on American issues.
Maybe I missed the point...
-
This article was terrible.
Obviously Slavery existed and still exists in some places and capacities
Obviously it's better to be poor in a First World country than in average in a 2nd and 3rd world country.
Obviously American citizens are going to focus protests and whatnot on American issues.
Maybe I missed the point...
Yep, I think you did.
The point is that the most hell is raised where the deepest pockets promise plunder, whether that is just or not...
and that the outcry over what amounts to an historical footnote in America should perhaps be reserved for areas where far more slaves were taken, and where the practice continues, officially sanctioned or not.
-
Yep, I think you did.
The point is that the most hell is raised where the deepest pockets promise plunder, whether that is just or not...
and that the outcry over what amounts to an historical footnote in America should perhaps be reserved for areas where far more slaves were taken, and where the practice continues, officially sanctioned or not.
Slavery cannot be a historical footnote in this country's history if the Civil War happened. It was a huge deal. So much so that the Constitution had to address it off the bat.
And again, Americans are going to focus on American problems first. Of course there are Human rights groups and interest groups that focus on the rest of the world. But that doesn't mean we can't focus, or shouldn't focus on the USA.
-
Slavery cannot be a historical footnote in this country's history if the Civil War happened. It was a huge deal. So much so that the Constitution had to address it off the bat.
And again, Americans are going to focus on American problems first. Of course there are Human rights groups and interest groups that focus on the rest of the world. But that doesn't mean we can't focus, or shouldn't focus on the USA.
Alright, what about slavery and the U.S. should we focus on?
-
Alright, what about slavery and the U.S. should we focus on?
Whatever the people that care about it and/or were affected by it want to focus on. They can create the agenda for their cause of concern. We can either agree or disagree with what's presented. Help or hurt the process. It's America. It's what we've done.
-
Whatever the people that care about it and/or were affected by it want to focus on. They can create the agenda for their cause of concern. We can either agree or disagree with what's presented. Help or hurt the process. It's America. It's what we've done.
Okay....that's a little vague. Are you saying because some people want to talk exclusively about something that happened to their ancestors 150+ years ago, we should all stop and try to placate them somehow?
-
Okay....that's a little vague. Are you saying because some people want to talk exclusively about something that happened to their ancestors 150+ years ago, we should all stop and try to placate them somehow?
Yes. They're allowed to make their case. We will receive it and decide whether we support their cause or don't.
Slavery may have been legally abolished 150 years ago but the Voting Rights Act happened just 50 years ago. Its' effects were still being dealt with.
That's an argument they can make.
-
Yes. They're allowed to make their case. We will receive it and decide whether we support their cause or don't.
Slavery may have been legally abolished 150 years ago but the Voting Rights Act happened just 50 years ago. Its' effects were still being dealt with.
That's an argument they can make.
What do you think their "cause" might be? I guess I'm not understanding the thrust of your (or their) argument.
I don't think anybody is arguing that slavery was a great thing. Neither were laws that kept blacks or other minorities from exercising their right to vote.
Obviously, rights that whites had should have been available to non-whites. Remember, all white males couldn't vote at the start of the U.S., and women couldn't vote until 1920.
Again, how does dwelling on a past wrong help people in the present. I'm not suggesting anybody forget the past, but to obsess on something that happened to your ancestors and not to you will not help you in the present or the future.
-
What do you think their "cause" might be? I guess I'm not understanding the thrust of your (or their) argument.
I don't think anybody is arguing that slavery was a great thing. Neither were laws that kept blacks or other minorities from exercising their right to vote.
Obviously, rights that whites had should have been available to non-whites. Remember, all white males couldn't vote at the start of the U.S., and women couldn't vote until 1920.
Again, how does dwelling on a past wrong help people in the present. I'm not suggesting anybody forget the past, but to obsess on something that happened to your ancestors and not to you will not help you in the present or the future.
If they're successful in receiving some kind of reparations, it certainly will help in the present or future.
-
If they're successful in receiving some kind of reparations, it certainly will help in the present or future.
In the short term. But do you believe for a moment that more reparations, taken from those who had nothing to do with the crime and given to those unaffected by the crime, will be enough to satiate their desire for 'justice'?
-
If they're successful in receiving some kind of reparations, it certainly will help in the present or future.
The hell it will. What it will have of the future is more reparations. and more. and more.
-
If they're successful in receiving some kind of reparations, it certainly will help in the present or future.
If you can establish a legal precedent where somebody is owed money because of what happened to their ancestors way in the distant past, what do you think the repercussions of that might be for other groups?
The fact is evil as it was, slavery was legal, and legally no slave was owed any money by the government after the abolition of slavery.
But evil things have happened to the ancestors of many millions of people. Can we go back in time and check everybody's history to see if some foreign gov. oppressed them? Certainly, many millions of Americans of all colors and ethnicities had ancestors in Europe who were oppressed by the gov.
For instance, many American Jews had family/relations murdered by the Nazis. Many American Irish are descendants of the Irish oppressed by the British and lucky to escape the potato famine and other bad situations with the clothes on their backs.
Are they owed money by those foreign govs. ? If not, why not? Where does it end?
And Jews and Catholics were discriminated against by the Protestant majority in America for many decades. Are they owed money for that discrimination
Another inarguable fact is that American blacks are far wealthier than blacks in Africa or elsewhere in the Americas. Although liberals and even many conservatives blanch at the idea that American blacks are lucky that their ancestors were enslaved, the facts are virtually none of them, American blacks, want to go back to Africa. In general blacks live far better in America than in Africa or any other country slaves were sent.
Trillions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on welfare over the last fifty years. Millions of black families have been on welfare for multiple generations. Doesn't that count as reparations?
Why don't American blacks quit complaining and be grateful to live in a country that gives them more opportunity than any other place in the world?
-
In the short term. But do you believe for a moment that more reparations, taken from those who had nothing to do with the crime and given to those unaffected by the crime, will be enough to satiate their desire for 'justice'?
Short answer, yes.
If you can establish a legal precedent where somebody is owed money because of what happened to their ancestors way in the distant past, what do you think the repercussions of that might be for other groups?
The fact is evil as it was, slavery was legal, and legally no slave was owed any money by the government after the abolition of slavery.
But evil things have happened to the ancestors of many millions of people. Can we go back in time and check everybody's history to see if some foreign gov. oppressed them? Certainly, many millions of Americans of all colors and ethnicities had ancestors in Europe who were oppressed by the gov.
For instance, many American Jews had family/relations murdered by the Nazis. Many American Irish are descendants of the Irish oppressed by the British and lucky to escape the potato famine and other bad situations with the clothes on their backs.
Are they owed money by those foreign govs. ? If not, why not? Where does it end?
And Jews and Catholics were discriminated against by the Protestant majority in America for many decades. Are they owed money for that discrimination
Another inarguable fact is that American blacks are far wealthier than blacks in Africa or elsewhere in the Americas. Although liberals and even many conservatives blanch at the idea that American blacks are lucky that their ancestors were enslaved, the facts are virtually none of them, American blacks, want to go back to Africa. In general blacks live far better in America than in Africa or any other country slaves were sent.
Trillions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on welfare over the last fifty years. Millions of black families have been on welfare for multiple generations. Doesn't that count as reparations?
Why don't American blacks quit complaining and be grateful to live in a country that gives them more opportunity than any other place in the world?
Every group would have to make their own case. The decedents of Native Americans are still receiving benefits, so the precedent exists.
-
OfTheCross (who I suspect is an impersonator of a former member) wrote:
"the Voting Rights Act happened just 50 years ago. Its' effects were still being dealt with."
One of the worst pieces of legislation of the twentieth century.
The "Civil Rights Act" was another.
-
Short answer, yes.
Every group would have to make their own case. The decedents of Native Americans are still receiving benefits, so the precedent exists.
American Indians have signed treaties that were broken by the gov. Therefore, they have a legal case. Ditto for Japanese Americans during WWII who were evicted from their homes and had many of their possessions forfeited.
Nothing like that exists for slaves. There is no legal record of them having their property forfeited by the government.
-
Short answer, yes.
Shorter answer, no.
Reparations is not about justice. It’s about vote buying.
And elections come around every two years.
-
Short answer, yes.
Awfully generous with other people's money, aincha? *****rollingeyes*****
-
American Indians have signed treaties that were broken by the gov. Therefore, they have a legal case. Ditto for Japanese Americans during WWII who were evicted from their homes and had many of their possessions forfeited.
Nothing like that exists for slaves. There is no legal record of them having their property forfeited by the government.
An argument can be made that the Compromise of 1877 directly impacted Black Americans and once again stripped them of their Constitutional rights.
I'm not here to litigate it, though. I'm just making the statement that they are entitled to make their case for their cause or concern. That should be something we agree on.
-
Slavery cannot be a historical footnote in this country's history if the Civil War happened. It was a huge deal. So much so that the Constitution had to address it off the bat.
And again, Americans are going to focus on American problems first. Of course there are Human rights groups and interest groups that focus on the rest of the world. But that doesn't mean we can't focus, or shouldn't focus on the USA.
Yankees say the War of Northern Aggression was a one issue war.
Without fighting the conflict over again, the economic sanction of forcibly divesting producers of the agricultural labor of the largest producers in the South was the final straw, but it was not the only issue which had caused the rift.
Sectional disagreements had been smoldering for decades before that threat fanned the flames.
Ultimately, it wasn't a war to free anyone, it was total war, of conquest, to force people who did not wish to remain in a compact they felt no longer served them to do so. The change from a Federal Government to a National Government was the result, and the Constitution has not been read the same since, in regards to States' Rights.
-
Yankees say the War of Northern Aggression was a one issue war.
Without fighting the conflict over again, the economic sanction of forcibly divesting producers of the agricultural labor of the largest producers in the South was the final straw, but it was not the only issue which had caused the rift.
Sectional disagreements had been smoldering for decades before that threat fanned the flames.
Ultimately, it wasn't a war to free anyone, it was total war, of conquest, to force people who did not wish to remain in a compact they felt no longer served them to do so. The change from a Federal Government to a National Government was the result, and the Constitution has not been read the same since, in regards to States' Rights.
That's right.
:beer:
-
Yankees say the War of Northern Aggression was a one issue war.
Without fighting the conflict over again, the economic sanction of forcibly divesting producers of the agricultural labor of the largest producers in the South was the final straw, but it was not the only issue which had caused the rift.
Sectional disagreements had been smoldering for decades before that threat fanned the flames.
Ultimately, it wasn't a war to free anyone, it was total war, of conquest, to force people who did not wish to remain in a compact they felt no longer served them to do so. The change from a Federal Government to a National Government was the result, and the Constitution has not been read the same since, in regards to States' Rights.
:hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands:
Even Shelby Foote has recognized that and said so:
Shelby Foote
Any Deep South boy, anyhow, and probably all Southern boys have been familiar with the Civil War as a sort of thing in their conscience going back. I honestly believe that it's in all our subconscious. This country was into its adolescence at the time of the Civil War. It really was; it hadn't formulated itself really as an adult nation, and the Civil War did that. Like all traumatic experiences that you might have had in your adolescence, it stays with you the rest of your life, certainly in your subconscious, most likely in your conscience, too. I think that the Civil War had the nature of that kind of experience for the country. Anybody who's looked into it at all realizes that it truly is the outstanding event in American history insofar as making us what we are. The kind of country we are emerged from the Civil War, not from the Revolution. The Revolution provided us with a constitution; it broke us loose from England; it made us free. But the Civil War really defined us. It said what we were going to be, and it said what we're not going to be. It drifted away from the Southern, mostly Virginia, influence up into the New England and Middle Western influence, and we became that kind of nation instead of the other kind of nation.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4454375/author-shelby-foote-meaning-civil-war-us-history (https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4454375/author-shelby-foote-meaning-civil-war-us-history)
St. George Tucker’s Jeffersonian Constitution (https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/10/01/st-george-tuckers-jeffersonian-constitution/?fbclid=IwAR1IUZmyu6E5Xk_ebo6GNmfaDrJ7LxRCRdAJYttumc_ebVTgMldbg38ORD0)
A really good piece on the subject you might enjoy @Smokin Joe.
-
An argument can be made that the Compromise of 1877 directly impacted Black Americans and once again stripped them of their Constitutional rights.
I'm not here to litigate it, though. I'm just making the statement that they are entitled to make their case for their cause or concern. That should be something we agree on.
If you want to argue from the standpoint that bad things happened to blacks that shouldn't have happened, I'm not going to argue.
But again, bad things that shouldn't have happened did happen to many people, and not just black people, over the course of civilization.
How far back do we go, and how do we judge how much people living today, who might be living great lives, are owed by people living today who had nothing to do with the misfortunes of the ancestors of the people now demanding money for misfortunes that they, themselves, didn't suffer from?
You are making the argument that black Americans are still owed money because their ancestors had bad experiences.
Well then, why don't many millions of other Americans deserve some sort of renumeration for the bad experiences their ancestors suffered from?
At some point you have to tell people that the past cannot be changed, and fixing their own lives will do them far better good than begging/demanding money for bad things that happened to their ancestors.
Unless it can be proved that a person's ancestors were cheated out of money/possessions through a broken contract (or an unconstitutional act like what happened to the Japanese), nobody is owed any money for the bad things that happened to their ancestors.
I can't make it any plainer than that, so I believe this is the end of my discussion with you on this matter.
-
Yankees say the War of Northern Aggression was a one issue war.
Without fighting the conflict over again, the economic sanction of forcibly divesting producers of the agricultural labor of the largest producers in the South was the final straw, but it was not the only issue which had caused the rift.
Sectional disagreements had been smoldering for decades before that threat fanned the flames.
Ultimately, it wasn't a war to free anyone, it was total war, of conquest, to force people who did not wish to remain in a compact they felt no longer served them to do so. The change from a Federal Government to a National Government was the result, and the Constitution has not been read the same since, in regards to States' Rights.
It may not have been the only issue. But Slavery certainly wasn't a footnote. Which is all that I said. You certainly wouldn't be living in a United States, Atlantic to Pacific America if the North hadn't won.
I reckon we'd have at least 3 or 4 countries on the mainland.
-
It may not have been the only issue. But Slavery certainly wasn't a footnote. Which is all that I said. You certainly wouldn't be living in a United States, Atlantic to Pacific America if the North hadn't won.
I reckon we'd have at least 3 or 4 countries on the mainland.
I reckon you are still FOS!
-
It may not have been the only issue. But Slavery certainly wasn't a footnote. Which is all that I said. You certainly wouldn't be living in a United States, Atlantic to Pacific America if the North hadn't won.
I reckon we'd have at least 3 or 4 countries on the mainland.
Not sure what your point is.
We would not be living in the US if Great Britain had won the Revolutionary War, either.
And slavery was an economic system throughout the world that the US unfortunately adopted when it was founded. That system was altered later on by us, prior to most of the world doing so.
So rather than curse this great country and attempting to fragment it with an unworkable scheme that has no advantages to any except a few and lots of disadvantages, you should be applauding it.
-
It may not have been the only issue. But Slavery certainly wasn't a footnote. Which is all that I said. You certainly wouldn't be living in a United States, Atlantic to Pacific America if the North hadn't won.
I reckon we'd have at least 3 or 4 countries on the mainland.
At the cost of federalism, the near total loss of state sovereignty, and a tyrannical overweening national government imposing itself, I will take plan B... And it is fixin to happen all over again.
-
:hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands: :hands:
Even Shelby Foote has recognized that and said so:
Shelby Foote
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4454375/author-shelby-foote-meaning-civil-war-us-history (https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4454375/author-shelby-foote-meaning-civil-war-us-history)
St. George Tucker’s Jeffersonian Constitution (https://www.lawliberty.org/2019/10/01/st-george-tuckers-jeffersonian-constitution/?fbclid=IwAR1IUZmyu6E5Xk_ebo6GNmfaDrJ7LxRCRdAJYttumc_ebVTgMldbg38ORD0)
A really good piece on the subject you might enjoy @Smokin Joe.
Thank You @ Bigun. My ancestors signed an oath to the Sovereign State of Maryland between the Revolution and the Constitution's ratification. To me, that clarifies the nature of the Compact, in that one was a Marylander, Virginian, Pennsylvanian, etc., first, and a Citizen of what were then described as "These United States" second (As opposed to "The United States"). The clear implication of the former being that several Sovereign States were united for the purpose of mutual defense, trade negotiations, mail, and policies, a common currency, weights, measures, etc., with some limited Federal Power to enforce and regulate specific areas and settle disputes between States, and not the National Government the Hamiltonians finally imposed which is implied by the latter.
That came after the military conquest of the Southern States which had seceded (and occupation and military domination of others) in the 1860s. That Americans were deeply divided in their belief as to how that government was to function vs the State and Local Governments is reflect in the intensity of that conflict, and the casualties inflicted thereby.
This also explains why so many fought when only one in four households in the South had one or more slaves, and fewer than 15% of combatants owned slaves. Even by the most amplified accounts, fully two thirds of the Southern troops had no direct or indirect interest in preserving the institution of Slavery, an institution which was doomed at any rate within a few decades.
In my home State (well, State of Origin, I'm transplanted, now) manumission was on the rise as crop types changed to support the dietary needs of the growing Federal District and the port and industry around Baltimore. As well, and noted, slaves were not allowed in the holds of ships being loaded (incredibly hazardous duty) because it would place a valuable asset at risk.
Keep in mind the value of those slaves owned often exceeded the value of the land and tools they worked with, including buildings. It was far cheaper to hire an immigrant for a pittance to do the dangerous work, and if they were killed, to pay off the widow (generous, that) and hire another--besides, the immigrants provided their own sustenance from their wages. (If you ever wondered why the Irish ended up being police, teamsters, firemen, longshoremen, miners, etc., well, now you know. The Irish were treated pretty shabbily.)
For those who did own slaves, sure, there was motive enough in resisting the forcible deprivation of fully half or more of their assets, without compensation, by government decree. Do that to anyone today, and they'd be up at arms, too--do that to the wealthiest 25% of a region, and it's casus belli.
So, to be historically accurate, the reasons for any individual going to war likely varied, to fight for their home State, and its continued sovereignty, to fight to protect personal or family assets, to fight what had been seen as decades of oppression by northern interests, particularly industrial ones (which the South was building in the couple of decades leading up to the war), or very simply, to defend your home State against invasion by the Armies of other States. (I reiterate, the definition of Militia in Barclay's dictionary in the 1820s was: The Army, in it's entirety, and each State had one.)
For those who believe in an Oligarchy, a deep state, a well funded cabal of special interests who exert disproportionate influence on policy, one might even be able to make the case that Abolition was pushed as an issue to provoke war, to destroy the budding industrial capability of the South before it grew enough to make the Southern source of raw materials for the Northern Mills independent of those same industrial interests and the region more self sufficient, even as the North retained domination of shipping, including the influx of immigrants from Europe, and especially Ireland).
The effects, from cultural condescension (continued even to this day with the whole Hillbilly Hick meme commonly embraced by some urbane Northerners and especially in the media) to economic exploitation that began with the carpetbaggers and continued until people and resources from other nations were cheaper to exploit, have been framed in the well-controlled accounts of history and the general Northern domination of the popular press as well, but aside from snide sanctimony, have also disparaged the contributions of those Virginians (Jefferson, Madison, et. al.) and others who framed the very fabric of this nation.
That is the lens through which our origins have been distorted into the origins of a Nation rather than a federation of united sovereign states, and in those distortions, much of the original intent of that compact (The Constitution) have been lost.
-
It may not have been the only issue. But Slavery certainly wasn't a footnote. Which is all that I said. You certainly wouldn't be living in a United States, Atlantic to Pacific America if the North hadn't won.
I reckon we'd have at least 3 or 4 countries on the mainland.
If the issue had not been pushed to a casus bellli, there would have remained These United States, likely much the same geographical distribution, and certainly from coast to coast. The incentives would have been great, indeed, for those territories beyond the Louisiana Purchase to become States as well.
The end of slavery began early in some states, and came later in others. Had those States not sought to impose their laws on the other States, war could have been avoided, and the institution would have likely died a natural death.
(BTW, there are 4 countries in North America, not counting "First Nations" Territories and Indian Reservations: US, Canada, Mexico, Belize, not counting the island nations of the Caribbean).
-
Thank You @ Bigun. My ancestors signed an oath to the Sovereign State of Maryland between the Revolution and the Constitution's ratification. To me, that clarifies the nature of the Compact, in that one was a Marylander, Virginian, Pennsylvanian, etc., first, and a Citizen of what were then described as "These United States" second (As opposed to "The United States"). The clear implication of the former being that several Sovereign States were united for the purpose of mutual defense, trade negotiations, mail, and policies, a common currency, weights, measures, etc., with some limited Federal Power to enforce and regulate specific areas and settle disputes between States, and not the National Government the Hamiltonians finally imposed which is implied by the latter.
That came after the military conquest of the Southern States which had seceded (and occupation and military domination of others) in the 1860s. That Americans were deeply divided in their belief as to how that government was to function vs the State and Local Governments is reflect in the intensity of that conflict, and the casualties inflicted thereby.
This also explains why so many fought when only one in four households in the South had one or more slaves, and fewer than 15% of combatants owned slaves. Even by the most amplified accounts, fully two thirds of the Southern troops had no direct or indirect interest in preserving the institution of Slavery, an institution which was doomed at any rate within a few decades.
In my home State (well, State of Origin, I'm transplanted, now) manumission was on the rise as crop types changed to support the dietary needs of the growing Federal District and the port and industry around Baltimore. As well, and noted, slaves were not allowed in the holds of ships being loaded (incredibly hazardous duty) because it would place a valuable asset at risk.
Keep in mind the value of those slaves owned often exceeded the value of the land and tools they worked with, including buildings. It was far cheaper to hire an immigrant for a pittance to do the dangerous work, and if they were killed, to pay off the widow (generous, that) and hire another--besides, the immigrants provided their own sustenance from their wages. (If you ever wondered why the Irish ended up being police, teamsters, firemen, longshoremen, miners, etc., well, now you know. The Irish were treated pretty shabbily.)
For those who did own slaves, sure, there was motive enough in resisting the forcible deprivation of fully half or more of their assets, without compensation, by government decree. Do that to anyone today, and they'd be up at arms, too--do that to the wealthiest 25% of a region, and it's casus belli.
So, to be historically accurate, the reasons for any individual going to war likely varied, to fight for their home State, and its continued sovereignty, to fight to protect personal or family assets, to fight what had been seen as decades of oppression by northern interests, particularly industrial ones (which the South was building in the couple of decades leading up to the war), or very simply, to defend your home State against invasion by the Armies of other States. (I reiterate, the definition of Militia in Barclay's dictionary in the 1820s was: The Army, in it's entirety, and each State had one.)
For those who believe in an Oligarchy, a deep state, a well funded cabal of special interests who exert disproportionate influence on policy, one might even be able to make the case that Abolition was pushed as an issue to provoke war, to destroy the budding industrial capability of the South before it grew enough to make the Southern source of raw materials for the Northern Mills independent of those same industrial interests and the region more self sufficient, even as the North retained domination of shipping, including the influx of immigrants from Europe, and especially Ireland).
The effects, from cultural condescension (continued even to this day with the whole Hillbilly Hick meme commonly embraced by some urbane Northerners and especially in the media) to economic exploitation that began with the carpetbaggers and continued until people and resources from other nations were cheaper to exploit, have been framed in the well-controlled accounts of history and the general Northern domination of the popular press as well, but aside from snide sanctimony, have also disparaged the contributions of those Virginians (Jefferson, Madison, et. al.) and others who framed the very fabric of this nation.
That is the lens through which our origins have been distorted into the origins of a Nation rather than a federation of united sovereign states, and in those distortions, much of the original intent of that compact (The Constitution) have been lost.
All I can say to that @Smokin Joe is :amen: There is no denying the truth!
-
Slavery is so terrible democrats invite Muslims to America, who have already set up and practiced slavery and forced prostitution. Slavery is so bad, some democrats talk to blacks today as if they were uppity slaves disrespecting the plantation the democrats have put them on. Some white masters even deny blacks rights to even be black. **nononono*
White fool guilt is a construct of Satan's minions building inventing guilt to manipulate fools that are glad to be manipulated just to garner some meager attention. In the Old Testament there was a Rehoboam guilt society, God erased them from the earth. Those that refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them, and the consequences thereof.
-
We were founded as a British Colony around 1607 and in 1787 we ratified our Constitution.
During those 180 years we did not possess Sovereign Right and control of our destiny.
As such, we are not responsible for slavery imposed by the British Crown during those years.
Our responsibility begins and ends during the 75 yeas culminating w/the Emancipation Proclamation!
-
We were founded as a British Colony around 1607 and in 1787 we ratified our Constitution.
During those 180 years we did not possess Sovereign Right and control of our destiny.
As such, we are not responsible for slavery imposed by the British Crown during those years.
Our responsibility begins and ends during the 75 yeas [sic] culminating w/the Emancipation Proclamation!
With the exception of the typo, 78 years is correct. (1865-1787=78)
-
With the exception of the typo, 78 years is correct. (1865-1787=78)
----------------
My error, apologies!
-
----------------
My error, apologies!
S'okay!
-
We were founded as a British Colony around 1607 and in 1787 we ratified our Constitution.
During those 180 years we did not possess Sovereign Right and control of our destiny.
As such, we are not responsible for slavery imposed by the British Crown during those years.
Our responsibility begins and ends during the 75 yeas culminating w/the Emancipation Proclamation!
I hate to be the one that breaks this to you @Absolom but Mr. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was very carefully crafted to make certain that it freed exactly ZERO slaves and especially those that existed in large numbers at the time in Union states.
-
I hate to be the one that breaks this to you @Absolom but Mr. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was very carefully crafted to make certain that it freed exactly ZERO slaves and especially those that existed in large numbers at the time in Union states.
Which is why I used 1865 as the date, not 1863...
-
At such a cost inhuman lives to free the black people,deniers say it was much for naught. John brown started the Christian conscience objections at Harpers Ferry. The race baiting whores abhor to acknowledge the enormous cost and the sacrifices made to free black people. The same that gladly import muslims who practice slavery to this very day. Who is your Pied Piper, real righteousness or iniquity whores posturing righteousness, but advocating iniquities/hypocrisies?
-
Yes. They're allowed to make their case. We will receive it and decide whether we support their cause or don't.
Slavery may have been legally abolished 150 years ago but the Voting Rights Act happened just 50 years ago. Its' effects were still being dealt with.
That's an argument they can make.
50 years ago? That is STILL 2 generations, easily. How many does it take to learn truth? People can vote.
-
At such a cost inhuman lives to free the black people,deniers say it was much for naught. John brown started the Christian conscience objections at Harpers Ferry. The race baiting whores abhor to acknowledge the enormous cost and the sacrifices made to free black people. The same that gladly import muslims who practice slavery to this very day. Who is your Pied Piper, real righteousness or iniquity whores posturing righteousness, but advocating iniquities/hypocrisies?
It is never enough. Yes, Cassius Clay=Mohamed Ali. Kareem Abdul Jabar=muslim. WHY? Both are blacks, who became muslims, who still believe in slavery in 2020. BARBARY COAST; Millions of white Christians were slaves to black muslims. Raped, branded, burned alive, beaten, sold, beheaded, castrated.
-
Not sure what your point is.
We would not be living in the US if Great Britain had won the Revolutionary War, either.
And slavery was an economic system throughout the world that the US unfortunately adopted when it was founded. That system was altered later on by us, prior to most of the world doing so.
So rather than curse this great country and attempting to fragment it with an unworkable scheme that has no advantages to any except a few and lots of disadvantages, you should be applauding it.
:thumbsup: