Macamus Prime
Diamond Member
- Feb 24, 2011
- 3,108
- 0
- 0
Anger issues?
Light on facts? Compared to your theory that is directly contradicted by what actually happened? You're the one that claimed history proved your belief. I'm not sure how the exact opposite happening proves it.
Do you really have so little knowledge of all the exploitation that Europe partook in?
Do you know nothing of history? Do I really need to go into more detail about the Nazis, the USSR, and Imperial Japan's exploitation of other groups? No its not the exact same as slavery in the US, but its damn close enough (group exploiting another group using violence and committing atrocities).
What do you think brought about their change? Britain has a lot of blood on their hands from what they've done to maintain control in their imperialistic endeavors. Much of Europe has in fact. A lot of it happened after they allegedly banned slavery.
You knew that Vietnam was actually originally about the French protecting their imperialism, right?
Once again, you're way off (if you think South Carolina was the only reason the Civil War took place you're astoundingly ignorant).
Slavery is very much alive and well, all over the world today. Read up on the sex trade and the abuses of refugees. Likewise, look into many of the cartels that exist all over the world and the exploitative practices used on the local peoples.
Hey, I just asked for some simple examples.
Show me the 600,000+ deaths in France, Italy, Britain, or Japan that were a result of ending slavery.
I mean by your account, history is on your side. Just show me the death and destruction other countries went through to end slavery.
It should be simple right?
As for slavery existing today, there are very few COUNTRIES that allow legalized slavery. There will always be evil people in the world doing evil things.
Show me the 600,000+ deaths in France, Italy, Britain, or Japan that were a result of ending slavery.
I mean by your account, history is on your side. Just show me the death and destruction other countries went through to end slavery.
It should be simple right?
As for slavery existing today, there are very few COUNTRIES that allow legalized slavery. There will always be evil people in the world doing evil things.
Er...
He was not indifferent, and I have no clue how you can say he was "indifferent to it politically" either, since you know there's that whole 13th Amendment among other things. Indirectly or not, it did lead to freeing the slaves which was the focal point of the entire war. They knew it wasn't going to suddenly get the South to stop fighting and return to the Union. They used it as justification for going to the South and ending slavery.
So, he wants to free the slaves, and the only way to make the South do that is to march down there. So he writes it to give them a reason to march down there, which frees the slaves (followed by later legislation that really freed all the slaves).
It was still completely about freeing the slaves though, any way you spin it. Yeah, sure it helped to win Europe over which hurt the South badly (economically) and they used it to exploit their cause, but the reason they wanted to do that is they were fighting a war over slavery, so if they win the war, they could end slavery.
I know you're being willfully ignorant (since you know, I made the case that exploiting other groups is the same as slavery, and that those countries continued to do that well after they abolished slavery).
If you're too ignorant to know anything about the many examples I mentioned, and are unwilling to read up on it, that's not my issue.
See, you're the one that's focused on it being legal. Its one thing to ban it, another to actually put an end to it. So, they ban slavery in their country and then go around the globe killing and fighting to exploit people? Yeah, sounds like they definitely ended exploitation of others without any bloodshed.
Want more examples to read up on the many exploitations of Europe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_conquest_of_the_Aztec_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_conquest_of_the_Inca_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Imperialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_colonial_empire
Hmm, now let's see what happens. War. War. War. War. War. War. War. Hmm, I'm seeing a trend here.
But then you ask the big question to some of these fiascos: Why are we in Iraq? Last I heard from Bush it was to give Iraqis freedom...and we will do that by engaging in scorched-earth warfare to create intolerable suffering to their civilian population...so they will stop fighting...so they can be free....from themselves?...??...??...???...war is peace!
I honestly can't imagine the average southerner caring, nor the average northerner. I'm not sure where we Californians fit in either. And FYI for anyone calling Lincoln a pussy for not pushing for true emancipation, its hard to get an entire economy that runs on slavery to simply stop using their equivalent of oil. The best you can do is cordone is off, and slowly shift the economy to other things while constantly nipping at the buds of slavery
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
- Jul 3, 2003
- 74,528
- 908
- 126
AstroManLuca
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2004
- 15,628
- 5
- 81
dainthomas
Lifer
- Dec 7, 2004
- 14,632
- 3,504
- 136
Obviously that reasoning doesn't apply to Iraq, because it isn't a real war. Or at least, not a war started for real reasons. "Giving people freedom from tyranny or something" is not a reason to start a war.
Afghanistan, now that was a real reason to start a war. They were openly sheltering groups who attacked us. And we did a good job there at first. However as soon as the guerrilla attacks started, we should have carpet-bombed a village a day until they stopped. War would've been over in a week.
Ichinisan
Lifer
- Oct 9, 2002
- 28,298
- 1,235
- 136
I dunno. The Republican Party was founded with the abolition of slavery as the primary platform.
pcgeek11
Lifer
- Jun 12, 2005
- 21,595
- 4,666
- 136
You obviously know very little about the history of slavery worldwide during this time period.
The Conferderate Battle Flag is no where close to being on an equal with the German Swastika.
The Confederate States that held slaves did not butcher them by the millions. Most slave owners took care of their slaves.
The German Regime did everything in its power to take over Europe and kill as many Jews as it could and in the long run wanted to eradicate them from the face of the earth.
Yeah pretty much the same thing.
Stupid.
Last edited:
pcgeek11
Lifer
- Jun 12, 2005
- 21,595
- 4,666
- 136
What about the Blacks that owned slaves. This is part of the story that never gets any discussion.
http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm
In actual facts there were only a Very Small number of whites in the south that owned slaves and most were actually treated well. I am not saying atrocities didn't happen, just that it wasn't as wide spread as the history books leads everyone to believe.
The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.
The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves. Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).
Black slave owners Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more.
According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.
To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.
http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm
In actual facts there were only a Very Small number of whites in the south that owned slaves and most were actually treated well. I am not saying atrocities didn't happen, just that it wasn't as wide spread as the history books leads everyone to believe.
The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.
The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves. Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).
Black slave owners Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more.
According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.
To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.
Fritzo
Lifer
- Jan 3, 2001
- 41,908
- 2,141
- 126
eits
Lifer
he never would have done it if the general public in the south wasn't against slavery. if everyone was for slavery, he wouldn't have tried to abolish it. however, personally, he was against slavery. there's a difference that i don't think you're appreciating.
also, the focal point of the civil war wasn't the emancipation proclamation, unless you were stampp. the focal point was southern secession and the battle at fort sumter. the south seceded because they were afraid that lincoln was going to take away their slaves.
lincoln resisted the secession of the south from the union. lincoln decided to resupply fort sumter (which was a union fort in southern territory) in a act to show the south he wasn't going to give them the fort and acknowledge their silliness. the war happened because the south was trying to resist union takeover and solidify itself as a new nation under a strong confederacy rather than federalism. THAT'S what the war was about, not slavery. lincoln used the opportunity given by the war to manipulate the south into freeing their slaves by the emancipation proclamation.
eits
Lifer
you're skewing the statistics to make it seem like more blacks owned slaves than whites. you gotta realize that there were WAY more whites than free blacks. so, even by using percentages, WAY more whites owned slaves than did blacks.
another thing is that whites used blacks as field overseers and would order them to whip, rape, beat, kill, etc any slave that got out of line. it was a way of breaking their spirit and keeping them under control. if slaves were found showing any affection or love for each other, they would be beaten, whipped, and separated in order to break any bond or unity they may have felt for each other. children were often stripped away from parents and sold or traded to other owners, lovers were separated, best friends were separated, siblings were separated. they created a way to keep blacks down.
eits
Lifer
eits
Lifer
the platforms swapped in the 1940s (iirc). the democrats were primarily southerners who supported slavery, socially conservative, and were for confederacy. the republicans were primarily northerners who supported abolition, social liberalism, as well as a strong federal government. because of the dixicrats in the 40s and how harry truman, a democrat, supported civil rights for blacks, the platforms swapped and the democrats became the republicans and the republicans became the democrats.
That's BS and is right up there with the idiocy that slavery was just going to end. Remember slavery was still prominent, even in the North. Yes, there were a lot of people against it, but those people had no power.
The government was moving to abolish slavery. The South did not want this as it was their economic strength. So, explain again, how was the Civil War not about slavery? The whole reason the South was seceding was over slavery. Yet, it wasn't about slavery? That makes literally no sense.
Read this: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2063679,00.html
The fighting began in the new states and is what really set off the Civil War. Fort Sumter was just another step, a major one, but fighting was already happening.
Last edited:
pcgeek11
Lifer
- Jun 12, 2005
- 21,595
- 4,666
- 136
Ratio. Figure it out.
I never skewed anything. I was just posting some facts. Read up on Free Black slave owners. It is very interesting.
pcgeek11
Lifer
- Jun 12, 2005
- 21,595
- 4,666
- 136
No it is not. To most slave owners the slaves were property that made them money. They took care of their property to enable them to make money. I'm not saying they were living a life of luxury or that it was right.
There were abusive slave owners that did beat and kill slaves for all sorts of reasons. They were not in the majority however. Just like the news what makes headlines is the sensational abuse and nothing was said of the owners that did not beat and kill their slaves.
Of course like the masses you will believe whatever the history books tell you and not do any real research to find out on your own...
Ichinisan
Lifer
- Oct 9, 2002
- 28,298
- 1,235
- 136
Not at all relevant to this discussion. I was talking about the founding of the party and its first president. He was legitimately anti-slavery. Period.
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,377
- 126
Read 'The Real Lincoln'. The war was fundamentally about federal powers and above all; money. The absolute best indications of what Lincoln was about can only be drawn from his own words and documents.
"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.
Abraham Lincoln ,Charleston, Illinois, 1858
The details are clear. Probably the greatest catalyst was the Morrill Tariff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff
It would have been an interesting world had the south been allowed to secede. Slavery was indeed headed for decline, as free-worker labor was proving to be more profitable and less problematic, and much healthier for communities (person works, person gets $$, person spends that $$ on goods/services locally). Slavery, like communism, is a practice that is untenable when faced with open competition.
Anyway, Lincoln is VERY far from the hero that he is made out to be in standard public education. The veneer peels away quickly upon examination, and he's a tragic, deeply flawed, and occassionally very evil person in the end.
"I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.
Abraham Lincoln ,Charleston, Illinois, 1858
The details are clear. Probably the greatest catalyst was the Morrill Tariff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff
It would have been an interesting world had the south been allowed to secede. Slavery was indeed headed for decline, as free-worker labor was proving to be more profitable and less problematic, and much healthier for communities (person works, person gets $$, person spends that $$ on goods/services locally). Slavery, like communism, is a practice that is untenable when faced with open competition.
Anyway, Lincoln is VERY far from the hero that he is made out to be in standard public education. The veneer peels away quickly upon examination, and he's a tragic, deeply flawed, and occassionally very evil person in the end.
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 31,364
- 9,237
- 136
Ah, OK. Slavery is obviously something to be admired and emulated by the rest of the world.
No of course it isnt, but slavery and the support of slavery is a terrible thing. Just because the swastika is worse dosnt mean the confederate flag is anything to be proud of.
They took care of them like a farmer looks after his livestock. Thats not a way humans should be treated, and nothing to be proud of.
And the south did everything in its power to keep treating human beings like livestock.
Yeah pretty much the same thing.
Stupid.
So, no not the same. But still reprehensible, indefensible and nothing to be proud of.
pcgeek11
Lifer
- Jun 12, 2005
- 21,595
- 4,666
- 136
Wouldn't it have been easier to just say that you were completely wrong with your comparison between the Confederate Battle Flag and a Swastika. Rather you make a post that once again attempts to twist what I posted into something entirely different.
I blame it all on the British:
The British Transatlantic Slave Trade
General Editor: Kenneth Morgan
Volume Editors: Robin Law, David Ryden and John Oldfield
The British transatlantic slave trade, which flourished from the mid-seventeenth century until the early nineteenth century, was a major conduit for the enforced migration of Africans to the Americas. Between 1660 and 1807 over three million Africans were dispatched to the Americas in British vessels. This trade has been the subject of intensive academic scrutiny over the past generation and has also attracted a growing popular curiosity.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter