They seceded then Abe started a war. They were already reducing the need for manual and that would have continued because even then machines were more efficient. And the North could have had the business selling farm equipment were it not for Abe.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
make it stop!!
- Thread starter LilAnn
- Start date
Werbung:
LilAnn
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2015
- Messages
- 256
Just for the record: the south doesn't pretend it didn't happen. I've never met anyone who denies anything that happened. But we all understand it happened a long time ago. Until this confederate flag BS, nobody let it control their lives. Now that all this shit has been stirred up, people who saw the flag everyday of their lives and never got a rash or ended up lynched for it, consider it to be something they're "subjected" to. Its also making good people racist when they never had been before. All for what?
I'm not trying to be offensive, at all. But...the people down here are very prone to prejudices. But not against people of different races. We hate yankees. The connotations of that word are A LOT worse than any racial slur I've ever heard.
I'm not trying to be offensive, at all. But...the people down here are very prone to prejudices. But not against people of different races. We hate yankees. The connotations of that word are A LOT worse than any racial slur I've ever heard.
Amen to that Lil.
But some feel it's better to stir up racial discord to take people's minds off the dismal economy and government corruption.
But some feel it's better to stir up racial discord to take people's minds off the dismal economy and government corruption.
LilAnn
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2015
- Messages
- 256
They should stir it up somewhere else. This is what happens when we get a yankee in Dixie. Honestly, all this BS is why there are a lot of people in the south who still want to secede.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
well you know when ever is a good time for the rednecks to stop having slaves, lets just wait, after all just black people.
and yes thats what you do when part of your nation trys to just up and leave. you dont let them. though if it was not for the slaves suffering more, I would have been glad if we had.
LilAnn
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2015
- Messages
- 256
I know a lot of rednecks. And, as far as I know, none of them own slaves lol.
Seriously though, we are obviously not the ones concerned with race. We aren't the ones who keep bringing it up.
As it happens the freed slaves did suffer more as there was no work and so no food or shelter. Starvation and exposure are not much fun.
Are you really going to argue that life would have been better for black people if they were forced to remain as slaves? No one is better off subjugated. Slavery was/is a complete abomination and we should not make efforts to justify it.
I'm saying that if Abe had allowed slavery to end as the rest if the world did the transition would have generated less hardship. Instead the planters lost a huge chunk of their balance sheet rendering them unable to produce the ex slaves had to go somewhere but there was nowhere to go. So many starved to death and the like. And for those that made it to the north there were Jim Crow laws to welcome them.
Lincoln chose to make this as deviating as possible for as many areas as possible.
600k+ dead, 40% of the economy destroyed and misery for all.
The point is that there was a better way and everyone knew what it was and how it worked as there were successful examples 30 years before.
Sue me if I think doing it sensably would have been better
Can you expound on this - and relate on what actions he should have taken - especially in light of the fact that seven southern states seceded before he was even in office? He was faced on his very first day in office with open rebellion.
Freedom is always a better option. I find the argument that slavery should have been allowed to continue to protect planter's balance sheets appalling and an insult to basic human dignity.
Lest we forget it was the South that went into open rebellion before Lincoln was even sworn in. Lest we forget that hostilities really began with the South attacked Fort Sumter. The preservation of the Union was worth the cost.
Let's hear them.
Last edited:
There was no open rebellion, they just left. And clearly the rhetoric and direction he championed was well known.
The rest of the world (outside of Africa) facilitated an end to slavery by addressing the financial impacts. You see some feel that it's wrong for the government to take something from you without compensation. That's why there are controls on imminent domain. You, on the other hand are perfectly ok with loosing financial ruin just because you disagreed with the law of the land.
The solution was some combination of compensation or special depreciation on these fixed assets. Read your history if you have any interest.
If you sent a carrier group Chinas territorial waters what response would you expect ? This would be seen as provocation and a shot over the bow at a minimum would.be fired.
Lincoln said he was sending.supplies (they needed food and such) but what showed up were reinforcements. Twice.
Lincoln required hostilities as there was no other way to have the south again
But he drove them off to make there be war. Ask yourself why that path, unlike every other country chose, he opted for.
This is rebellion.
Rightfully so - slavery is an abomination.
WHAT!!?? I agree 100% that no one (not the government or an individual) should take anything from anyone else without compensation. But what exactly do you call slavery?? It is taking the labor of someone's without compensation and denying their freedom. What I oppose here is your assertion that owning people and using them for free labor is acceptable because your bottom line is threatened otherwise. You don't get to take some moral high ground and play the victim because you are no longer allowed to own people.
I do have an interest - please elaborate....as a brief sentence about depreciating what I can only assume are the slaves themselves follow by a "read your history" explains absolutely nothing.
Your analogy is wrong. China is a recognized country - no country in the world recognized the confederacy. Thus the better analogy would be if the #blacklivesmatter group declared the Gulf of Mexico as their territorial waters and started attacking shipping there.
Let me see if I get this straight....Lincoln drove off the South so that there would be war....because he wanted to have the South again?
Yes Rob, the fixed assets called slaves were in some cases depreciated at an advanced rate to ease the cost of the assets being retired. It's GAAP nothing strange or different.
In 2015 slavery is generally viewed as an abomination (outside of Africa) but in mid 1800s it was not. You may not like that it was so but you don't get to change historical fact.
And as much as it disturbs you today, it was legal to trade in slaves at that time. But you wanted slaves freed and offer no compensation ? Why is it OK to seize legal assets thereby bankrupting the people who traded for them ?
You either pay fair market in cash or allow them to depreciate to
Offer compensation in the form of lower taxes. This is what every other colonial country (European countries generally) did as early as 1830s.
Lincoln had no legal or political means to reacquire the CSA except to paint them as rebelling against the USA. So he forced an un necessary confrontation. He had to have the south as it was the cash cow that paid for all his pork and.vote buying.
He did not realize it would take so long to do it. He also needed to change the 3/5ths rule as it risked his party's chances for reelection. Did you know Abe was elected with zero e l ectorial college votes ? Suppise that was a concern ?
So the Civil War was political. Those 600k dead must have been so proud.
In 2015 slavery is generally viewed as an abomination (outside of Africa) but in mid 1800s it was not. You may not like that it was so but you don't get to change historical fact.
And as much as it disturbs you today, it was legal to trade in slaves at that time. But you wanted slaves freed and offer no compensation ? Why is it OK to seize legal assets thereby bankrupting the people who traded for them ?
You either pay fair market in cash or allow them to depreciate to
Offer compensation in the form of lower taxes. This is what every other colonial country (European countries generally) did as early as 1830s.
Lincoln had no legal or political means to reacquire the CSA except to paint them as rebelling against the USA. So he forced an un necessary confrontation. He had to have the south as it was the cash cow that paid for all his pork and.vote buying.
He did not realize it would take so long to do it. He also needed to change the 3/5ths rule as it risked his party's chances for reelection. Did you know Abe was elected with zero e l ectorial college votes ? Suppise that was a concern ?
So the Civil War was political. Those 600k dead must have been so proud.
LilAnn
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2015
- Messages
- 256
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2967.html
"In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies. Lincoln's statement, however, did not satisfy the Confederacy, and on April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops returned the fire. The Civil War had begun."
"To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American voluteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened."
"In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies. Lincoln's statement, however, did not satisfy the Confederacy, and on April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops returned the fire. The Civil War had begun."
"To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American voluteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened."
Werbung:
It is entirely hypocritical to argue on one hand for the government protection of your property and and on the other use that same argument to justify the removal of any and all freedoms from a group of people. That argument is not new and certainly was around in the 1800s. You also cannot just gloss over the abolitionist movement in this country, the banning of slavery before 1800 by Great Britain - and then their banning of participation in the slave trade in 1807 I think. To argue that in the mid 1800s slavery was viewed as a non issue is simply false.
Further, you cannot reasonably make this argument and ignore the reality that slavery was a major issue that lead to Civil War. You don't secede from the Union over something that is no big deal.
I think this excerpt from Lincoln himself sums it well:
"Nearly eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for some men to enslave others is a "sacred right of self-government. ... Our republican robe is soiled and trailed in the dust. Let us repurify it. ... Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it, the practices, and policy, which harmonize with it. ... If we do this, we shall not only have saved the Union: but we shall have saved it, as to make, and keep it, forever worthy of the saving."
As for freeing the slaves with no compensation - Lincoln did not order the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863 - well after the South had started the Civil War. At that time, those who you wanted protected under the force of United States law had been in open, treasonous rebellion against the United States for several years. They deserved no protection under the law. They deserved to be summarily defeated and bankrupted for their own actions in rebellion - as was the case.
Lincoln was not elected with no electoral votes...he was elected with about 40% of the popular vote - if that is what you are getting at.
The CSA did rebel against the United States - and of course the Civil War was political - all wars are political. Those 600,000 dead answered the question of whether states could secede and ultimately eliminated the slavery abomination in the US once and for all.