PDA

View Full Version : Slavery Fact of the Day



darin
05-18-2015, 03:23 PM
Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America.

....In fact, the overwhelming percentage of the African slaves were shipped directly to the Caribbean and South America; Brazil received 4.86 million Africans alone! Some scholars estimate that another 60,000 to 70,000 Africans ended up in the United States after touching down in the Caribbean first, so that would bring the total to approximately 450,000 Africans who arrived in the United States over the course of the slave trade. :( (http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2012/10/how_many_slaves_came_to_america_fact_vs_fiction.ht ml)



Emphasis mine.

How often does Brazil 'apologize'?

Gunny
05-18-2015, 04:16 PM
Emphasis mine.

How often does Brazil 'apologize'?

"Slavery" in the US is overrated. Less than 10% of Southerners actually owned slaves. The big plantation owners. Poor dirt farmers couldn't afford to feed their own, much less a slave.

Let add a couple of other factoids to your thread:

Oppositional tribes in Africa sold slaves to Dutch traders. It isn't like anyone here went hunting them. Their own people sold them. Thai's and Filipino's do it with their children to this day.

Goofballs like to post that one picture of that one slave that was lashed badly as proof of abuse and/or refer to the movie "Roots". The fact is, slaves were a commodity that served a purpose. A slave owner beating his slaves would be like me taking a blow torch to my electrical tools then trying to go to work. Not practical at all.

We take the hit because our media gives blacks a forum. You should live in Northern VA for awhile and listen to the repeated calls for reparations. My answer was always this: find me a former slave and a former slave owner and THEN we can talk. Otherwise shut up. Go back to Africa. Here's a novel idea: get a freakin' job.

Trigg
05-18-2015, 04:35 PM
If we're adding facts, I'd like to throw out there that black slave owners are a well documented fact. They were even involved in buying them and shipping them south.

Gunny
05-18-2015, 04:57 PM
If we're adding facts, I'd like to throw out there that black slave owners are a well documented fact. They were even involved in buying them and shipping them south.

The North had slavery every bit as much as the South. They jut called it something different. European immigrants showed up with no money and were promised jobs in sweatshops working 16-18 hour days. The company loaned them money and set them up in some tenement squalor, and they never seemed to be able to pay off that debt. If they tried to quit or run, they were thrown in debtor's prison.

Same old same old. The issue of slavery was a symptom, not a cause. It was just an excuse for one side to attack the other. It was all about power, control and money.

Perianne
05-18-2015, 05:01 PM
Emphasis mine.

How often does Brazil 'apologize'?

I will bet they are sorry now.

Imagine an America without black people.

Gunny
05-18-2015, 05:04 PM
I will bet they are sorry now.

Imagine an America without black people.

Okay. You owe me a Coke and maybe a keyboard.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

LongTermGuy
05-19-2015, 09:54 AM
Okay. You owe me a Coke and maybe a keyboard.:laugh::laugh::laugh:



http://www.the-games-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/I-see-what-you-did-there-Fry.jpg

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Gunny
05-25-2015, 01:39 AM
* Slavery would have died on its own due to mechanization, and it was insupportable west of East Texas or in the Plains, so it was already contained. It would have died on its own.

* The Emancipation Proclamation, touted by all blacks, yankees and lefties as the defining moment Lincoln freed the slaves, actually only freed slaves in "states of rebellion". It didn't free ALL slaves.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
05-25-2015, 10:05 AM
* Slavery would have died on its own due to mechanization, and it was insupportable west of East Texas or in the Plains, so it was already contained. It would have died on its own.

* The Emancipation Proclamation, touted by all blacks, yankees and lefties as the defining moment Lincoln freed the slaves, actually only freed slaves in "states of rebellion". It didn't free ALL slaves.

The North still had slaves during the Civil war.. Lincoln did free slaves in enemy territory. Yet unless the North won that was an exercise in futility as he needed authority over the people he issued that edict to. At the time he issued that the matter of authority was in dispute(Civil War)! -Tyr

Perianne
05-25-2015, 10:17 AM
The North still had slaves during the Civil war.. Lincoln did free slaves in enemy territory. Yet unless the North won that was an exercise in futility as he needed authority over the people he issued that edict to. At the time he issued that the matter of authority was in dispute(Civil War)! -Tyr

So he killed American after American until he forced his thinking onto everyone. Well, not everyone. Not John Wilkes Booth.

revelarts
05-25-2015, 10:21 AM
Emphasis mine. How often does Brazil 'apologize'?
DMP do you want them to apologize?
Would you notice or post it if they did?

But I did a little research and here's are few things to consider.
1. Brazil was a Portuguese colony from the 1500s - 1822 so it's Portugal who's responsible for the bulk of that slave trade you seem concerned about an apology for.
From 1822 to 1888 Brazil has to make it's own.

But i wonder, are you saying that America has apologized to much and that's it's unfair that ...as far as you know... Brazil hasn't.
or is the problem more that in your opinion you feel :( because people have asked "too much" for apologies from the U.S. gov't.

in general folks do you feel you have --or America--- has apologized to much? Please post a list all of the official gov't apologies for slavery you know of that you have in mind. I certainly see no apologizes in this thread or in others about slavery, seems what have here are rationalizations, justifications, complaints and downplaying of U.S. slavery.

Has anyone ask you guys personally for an apology? If not don't take it personally. It's a national pride vs truth issue. Plus it's over right you all love black americans as fellow citizens and brothers and sisters today and wish them the best right?

But here's a interesting article on the subject
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/how-to-apologize-for-slavery/375650/

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
05-25-2015, 10:38 AM
DMP do you want them to apologize?
Would you notice or post it if they did?

But I did a little research and here's are few things to consider.
1. Brazil was a Portuguese colony from the 1500s - 1822 so it's Portugal who's responsible for the bulk of that slave trade you seem concerned about an apology for.
From 1822 to 1888 Brazil has to make it's own.

But i wonder, are you saying that America has apologized to much and that's it's unfair that ...as far as you know... Brazil hasn't.
or is the problem more that in your opinion you feel :( because people have asked "too much" for apologies from the U.S. gov't.

in general folks do you feel you have --or America--- has apologized to much? Please post a list all of the official gov't apologies for slavery you know of that you have in mind. I certainly see no apologizes in this thread or in others about slavery, seems what have here are rationalizations, justifications, complaints and downplaying of U.S. slavery.

Has anyone ask you guys personally for an apology? If not don't take it personally. It's a national pride vs truth issue. Plus it's over right you all love black americans as fellow citizens and brothers and sisters today and wish them the best right?

But here's a interesting article on the subject
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/how-to-apologize-for-slavery/375650/

History is history, who should apologize for mistakes made over a century ago?
Was slavery wrong? Most agree that it was.
Do I owe anybody anything because once we had slaves in this nation?
Answer: Hell no, never owned a slave, never seen a slave and damn sure owe no person because it once existed.
My ancestors were murdered and this land largely stolen from them by hook and crook.
Do I demand an apology for that?
Answer: Hell no, everybody involved in doing that is dead, dead long ago...
The problem is black demand for reparations for treatment their ancestors got..
then the race baiters -Jackson/Sharpton uses this to live like kings while stirring up hate and discord.
The dem party fuels and uses it all to defeat Republicans at election times. Its a vicious cycle based upon lies, fear, prejudice and greed.-Tyr

revelarts
05-25-2015, 11:00 AM
Concerning the 1863 emancipation proclamation another thing to note about Lincoln's acts during that time is that in December of the same year Lincoln used his war powers and issued a "Proclamation for Amnesty and Reconstruction (http://www.freedmen.umd.edu/procamn.htm)", which offered Southern states a chance to peacefully rejoin the Union if they maintained the emancipation of slaves and collected loyalty oaths from 10% of their voting population. Southern states did not readily accept the deal.

But yep, the status of slavery remained uncertain for the north in 1863 since they weren't included in the proclamation. Lincoln didn't free ALL the slaves But the 1865 13th amendment did immediately after the civil war.

revelarts
05-25-2015, 11:09 AM
History is history, who should apologize for mistakes made over a century ago?
Was slavery wrong? Most agree that it was.
Do I owe anybody anything because once we had slaves in this nation?
Answer: Hell no, never owned a slave, never seen a slave and damn sure owe no person because it once existed.
My ancestors were murdered and this land largely stolen from them by hook and crook.
Do I demand an apology for that?
Answer: Hell no, everybody involved in doing that is dead, dead long ago...
The problem is black demand for reparations for treatment their ancestors got..
then the race baiters -Jackson/Sharpton uses this to live like kings while stirring up hate and discord.
The dem party fuels and uses it all to defeat Republicans at election times. Its a vicious cycle based upon lies, fear, prejudice and greed.-Tyr


you said in another post that you were still upset with the North of things done 100 years ago.
the U.S. gov't is responsible and represents our collective history. It does offer posthumous honors to soldiers and otherslong dead from 100 year old plus conflicts and CAN just as easily offer posthumous apologies for old wrongs.

You say the problem is reparations. personally i'm not for them at this late date. i'd say MOST blacks aren't for them.
But are you saying it's OK to apologize WITHOUT reparations. sounds like you don't like the idea of apologies AT ALL Tyr'.

And the Native American's do deserve an apology. and have gotten one. I've been apart of one such apology done by a church for a massacre near the church grounds.

revelarts
05-25-2015, 11:15 AM
Concerning Lincoln and the North being brought up as again and again as not really good guys. it's a straw man. NO ONE has claimed that ANY players are perfect or saints. Not from the beginning.

here's a long except of a speech given by Fredrick Douglas in 1876 at the unveiling of a Statue built by Black Americans of Lincoln to honor him. After a long bit of praise he says this


...Fellow-citizens, in what we have said and done today, and in what we may say and do hereafter, we disclaim everything like arrogance and assumption. We claim for ourselves no superior devotion to the character, history, and memory of the illustrious name whose monument we have here dedicated today. We fully comprehend the relation of Abraham Lincoln both to ourselves and to the white people of the United States. Truth is proper and beautiful at all times and in all places, and it is never more proper and beautiful in any case than when speaking of a great public man whose example is likely to be commended for honor and imitation long after his departure to the solemn shades, the silent continents of eternity. It must be admitted, truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.He was preeminently the white man’s President, entirely devoted to the welfare of white men. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. In all his education and feeling he was an American of the Americans. He came into the Presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. His arguments in furtherance of this policy had their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race. To protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed Abraham Lincoln was not less ready than any other President to draw the sword of the nation. He was ready to execute all the supposed guarantees of the United States Constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside the slave states. He was willing to pursue, recapture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the Government. The race to which we belong were not the special objects of his consideration. Knowing this, I concede to you, my white fellow-citizens, a pre-eminence in this worship at once full and supreme. First, midst, and last, you and yours were the objects of his deepest affection and his most earnest solicitude. You are the children of Abraham Lincoln. We are at best only his step-children; children by adoption, children by forces of circumstances and necessity. To you it especially belongs to sound his praises, to preserve and perpetuate his memory, to multiply his statues, to hang his pictures high upon your walls, and commend his example, for to you he was a great and glorious friend and benefactor. Instead of supplanting you at his altar, we would exhort you to build high his monuments; let them be of the most costly material, of the most cunning workmanship; let their forms be symmetrical, beautiful, and perfect, let their bases be upon solid rocks, and their summits lean against the unchanging blue, overhanging sky, and let them endure forever! But while in the abundance of your wealth, and in the fullness of your just and patriotic devotion, you do all this, we entreat you to despise not the humble offering we this day unveil to view; for while Abraham Lincoln saved for you a country, he delivered us from a bondage, according to Jefferson, one hour of which was worse than ages of the oppression your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose.

Fellow-citizens, ours is no new-born zeal and devotion — merely a thing of this moment. The name of Abraham Lincoln was near and dear to our hearts in the darkest and most perilous hours of the Republic. We were no more ashamed of him when shrouded in clouds of darkness, of doubt, and defeat than when we saw him crowned with victory, honor, and glory. Our faith in him was often taxed and strained to the uttermost, but it never failed. When he tarried long in the mountain; when he strangely told us that we were the cause of the war; when he still more strangely told us that we were to leave the land in which we were born; when he refused to employ our arms in defense of the Union; when, after accepting our services as colored soldiers, he refused to retaliate our murder and torture as colored prisoners; when he told us he would save the Union if he could with slavery; when he revoked the Proclamation of Emancipation of General Fremont; when he refused to remove the popular commander of the Army of the Potomac, in the days of its inaction and defeat, who was more zealous in his efforts to protect slavery than to suppress rebellion; when we saw all this, and more, we were at times grieved, stunned, and greatly bewildered; but our hearts believed while they ached and bled. Nor was this, even at that time, a blind and unreasoning superstition. Despite the mist and haze that surrounded him; despite the tumult, the hurry, and confusion of the hour, we were able to take a comprehensive view of Abraham Lincoln, and to make reasonable allowance for the circumstances of his position. We saw him, measured him, and estimated him; not by stray utterances to injudicious and tedious delegations, who often tried his patience; not by isolated facts torn from their connection; not by any partial and imperfect glimpses, caught at inopportune moments; but by a broad survey, in the light of the stern logic of great events, and in view of that divinity which shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will, we came to the conclusion that the hour and the man of our redemption had somehow met in the person of Abraham Lincoln. It mattered little to us what language he might employ on special occasions; it mattered little to us, when we fully knew him, whether he was swift or slow in his movements; it was enough for us that Abraham Lincoln was at the head of a great movement, and was in living and earnest sympathy with that movement, which, in the nature of things, must go on until slavery should be utterly and forever abolished in the United States.

When, therefore, it shall be asked what we have to do with the memory of Abraham Lincoln, or what Abraham Lincoln had to do with us, the answer is ready, full, and complete. Though he loved Caesar less than Rome, though the Union was more to him than our freedom or our future, under his wise and beneficent rule we saw ourselves gradually lifted from the depths of slavery to the heights of liberty and manhood; under his wise and beneficent rule, and by measures approved and vigorously pressed by him, we saw that the handwriting of ages, in the form of prejudice and proscription, was rapidly fading away from the face of our whole country; under his rule, and in due time, about as soon after all as the country could tolerate the strange spectacle, we saw our brave sons and brothers laying off the rags of bondage, and being clothed all over in the blue uniforms of the soldiers of the United States; under his rule we saw two hundred thousand of our dark and dusky people responding to the call of Abraham Lincoln, and with muskets on their shoulders, and eagles on their buttons, timing their high footsteps to liberty and union under the national flag;...

Perianne
05-25-2015, 11:25 AM
you said in another post that you were still upset with the North of things done 100 years ago.


We are still living with the results of Lincoln's brutality.

revelarts
05-25-2015, 11:39 AM
just for the record.
i've had Perriane on ignore for about a month now.
what i've read from her on these issues adds no historical or newsworthy content and is typically pitiful ignorant racist cracks and gibberish.

tailfins
05-25-2015, 04:04 PM
Emphasis mine.

How often does Brazil 'apologize'?

They apologize almost daily: They have severe hate speech laws, extreme "affirmative action" and extreme wealth redistribution. Black minors are essentially immune from criminal punishment. Black Brazilians are a reliable socialist pro-Fidel Castro voting bloc. Remember those things before you criticize the secret assassination of street urchins in Rio de Janeiro by local shopkeepers done by payoffs to the cops. When the government refuses to prosecute criminals, you get vigilantism. The below link spells it out in detail.

http://site.adital.com.br/site/noticia.php?lang=PT&cod=84984

http://www.adital.com.br/arquivos/morte%20prematura.gif

Gunny
05-25-2015, 08:44 PM
The North still had slaves during the Civil war.. Lincoln did free slaves in enemy territory. Yet unless the North won that was an exercise in futility as he needed authority over the people he issued that edict to. At the time he issued that the matter of authority was in dispute(Civil War)! -Tyr

It was actually a simple strategic military gamble. Lincoln hoped to foment an uprising of slaves in Southern states which would have necessitated pulling troops out of the line to go home and squash the turmoil.

At the same time, he couldn't afford to alienate MD and KY.

revelarts
06-08-2015, 07:11 PM
“if slaves make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong.”
Howell Cobb
"...was, in turn, a five-term U.S. Representative from Gerogia, Speaker of the U.S. House Representatives, Governor of Georgia, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Speaker of the Provisional Confederate Congress, and Major General in the Confederate Army. He was a leader of the secession movement, and was elected president of the Montgomery convention that drafted a constitution for the new Confederacy. For a brief period in 1861, between the establishment of the Confederate States and the election of Jefferson Davis as its president, Speaker Cobb served as the new nation’s effective head of state. In his military career, Cobb held commands in the Army of Northern Virginia and the District of Georgia and Florida. ...his Georgia Reserve Corps fought against Sherman in his “March to the Sea.” Cobb commanded Confederate forces in a doomed defense of Columbus, Georgia in the last major land battle of the war, on Easter Sunday, April 16, 1865, the day after Abraham Lincoln died in Washington, D.C.."

http://deadconfederates.com/2010/10/26/real-confederates-didnt-know-about-black-confederates/

letter sent to Confederate Secretary of War James A. Seddon (http://books.google.com/books?id=N48LAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=%22howell+cobb%22+%22soldiers+of+slaves%22&source=bl&ots=kxO5xZwwr3&sig=HV6CCacydzUmjOpdEhjJ3uKR8rU&hl=en&ei=d8fETLXiB4G0lQfN9IEG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22howell%20cobb%22%20%22soldiers%20of%20slaves% 22&f=false), in January 1865

The proposition to make soldiers of our slaves is the most pernicious idea that has been suggested since the war began. It is to me a source of deep mortification and regret to see the name of that good and great man and soldier, General R. E. Lee, given as authority for such a policy. My first hour of despondency will be the one in which that policy shall be adopted. You cannot make soldiers of slaves, nor slaves of soldiers. The moment you resort to negro [sic.] soldiers your white soldiers will be lost to you; and one secret of the favor With which the proposition is received in portions of the Army is the hope that when negroes go into the Army they will be permitted to retire. It is simply a proposition to fight the balance of the war with negro troops. You can’t keep white and black troops together, and you can’t trust negroes by themselves. It is difficult to get negroes enough for the purpose indicated in the President’s message, much less enough for an Army. Use all the negroes you can get, for all the purposes for which you need them, but don’t arm them. The day you make soldiers of them is the beginning of the end of the revolution. If slaves make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong — but they won’t make soldiers. As a class they are wanting in every qualification of a soldier. Better by far to yield to the demands of England and France and abolish slavery and thereby purchase their aid, than resort to this policy, which leads as certainly to ruin and subjugation as it is adopted; you want more soldiers, and hence the proposition to take negroes into the Army. Before resorting to it, at least try every reasonable mode of getting white soldiers. I do not entertain a doubt that you can, by the volunteering policy, get more men into the service than you can arm. I have more fears about arms than about men, For Heaven’s sake, try it before you fill with gloom and despondency the hearts of many of our truest and most devoted men, by resort to the suicidal policy of arming our slaves.


During the 1830's occurred the Gag Rule controversy in Congress, during which Southern politicians tried to block even the presentation of petitions on the subject of slavery. The following quotes come from speeches made in the House and Senate during this time, taken from William Miller's book, Arguing About Slavery:

John C. Calhoun, Senator from South Carolina: "The defence of human liberty against the aggressions of despotic power have been always the most efficient in States where domestic slavery was to prevail."
James H. Hammond, Congressman from South Carolina: "Sir, I do firmly believe that domestic slavery, regulated as ours is, produces the highest toned, the purest, best organization of society that has ever existed on the face of the earth."
Hammond again, from later in the same speech: "the moment this House undertakes to legislate upon this subject [slavery], it dissolves the Union. Should it be my fortune to have a seat upon this floor, I will abandon it the instant the first decisive step is taken looking towards legislation of this subject. I will go home to preach, and if I can, practice, disunion, and civil war, if needs be. A revolution must ensue, and this republic sink in blood."
Henry Wise, Congressman (and future governor) from Virginia: "The principle of slavery is a leveling principle; it is friendly to equality. Break down slavery and you would with the same blow break down the great democratic principle of equality among men."


From the diary of James B. Lockney, 28th Wisconsin Infantry, writing near Arkadelphia, Arkansas (10/29/63): "Last night I talked awhile to those men who came in day before yesterday from the S.W. part of the state about 120 miles distant. Many of them wish Slavery abolished & slaves out of the country as they said it was the cause of the War, and the Curse of our Country & the foe of the body of the people--the poor whites. They knew the Slave masters got up the war expressly in the interests of the institution, & with no real cause from the Government or the North." [This diary is on-line at: http://userdata.acd.net/jshirey/cw186310.html.]



http://www.civilwarcauses.org/quotes.htm

http://www.freedmen.umd.edu/pow.htm

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/american-civil-war/essays/riddles-“confederate-emancipation”

darin
06-08-2015, 07:44 PM
Remember those things before you criticize the secret assassination of street urchins in Rio de Janeiro by local shopkeepers done by payoffs to the cops.]


Uh. I suppose I do not plan to criticize the secret assassination of street urchins in Rio by local shopkeepers done by payoffs to cops. Unless I was to criticize that sentence, maybe?

namvet
06-08-2015, 08:01 PM
after the civil war almost all slaves stayed put. they were free but no place to go. so, they stayed on and were paid like employees by their former owners.

namvet
06-08-2015, 08:10 PM
also the UK was involved in slavery as well. former PM Tony Blair made the apology

British Involvement in the Transatlantic Slave Trade

For well over 300 years, European countries forced Africans onto slave ships and transported them across the Atlantic Ocean.
The first European nation to engage in the Transatlantic Slave Trade was Portugal in the mid to late 1400's. Captain John Hawkins made the first known English slaving voyage to Africa, in 1562, in the reign of Elizabeth 1. Hawkins made three such journeys over a period of six years. He captured over 1200 Africans and sold them as goods in the Spanish colonies in the Americas.

http://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_45.html

Gunny
06-16-2015, 05:01 PM
So he killed American after American until he forced his thinking onto everyone. Well, not everyone. Not John Wilkes Booth.

Pretty much. That was definitely the beginning of the end of the 10th Amendment. AND, at the time, he had NO legal authority whatsoever to do so. The Supreme Court retro covered his a$$ in 1868 in Texas v White. Prior to that, nothing precluded leaving as freely as they entered.

I think that's Obama's gimmick. He's trying to violate the Constitution more than Lincoln. At least he can be 1st at something.

Gunny
06-16-2015, 05:08 PM
DMP do you want them to apologize?
Would you notice or post it if they did?

But I did a little research and here's are few things to consider.
1. Brazil was a Portuguese colony from the 1500s - 1822 so it's Portugal who's responsible for the bulk of that slave trade you seem concerned about an apology for.
From 1822 to 1888 Brazil has to make it's own.

But i wonder, are you saying that America has apologized to much and that's it's unfair that ...as far as you know... Brazil hasn't.
or is the problem more that in your opinion you feel :( because people have asked "too much" for apologies from the U.S. gov't.

in general folks do you feel you have --or America--- has apologized to much? Please post a list all of the official gov't apologies for slavery you know of that you have in mind. I certainly see no apologizes in this thread or in others about slavery, seems what have here are rationalizations, justifications, complaints and downplaying of U.S. slavery.

Has anyone ask you guys personally for an apology? If not don't take it personally. It's a national pride vs truth issue. Plus it's over right you all love black americans as fellow citizens and brothers and sisters today and wish them the best right?

But here's a interesting article on the subject
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/how-to-apologize-for-slavery/375650/

Yep. I think we've apologized too much. Well, I haven't. And won't. I never owned any slaves. I don't owe them squat.

Just how long do you think this should go on? Apologizing for crap people did before even our great great grandparents were born? We've created a complete subulture within our culture that believes they are owed something that's been gone and done for over 150 years.

In every other facet of life it's, "it's over, get over it, move on." Yet WE give it a forum to keep it alive. After all, slavery and racism means money to the people exploiting the subject, and those that exploit them.

Gunny
06-16-2015, 05:13 PM
Concerning the 1863 emancipation proclamation another thing to note about Lincoln's acts during that time is that in December of the same year Lincoln used his war powers and issued a "Proclamation for Amnesty and Reconstruction (http://www.freedmen.umd.edu/procamn.htm)", which offered Southern states a chance to peacefully rejoin the Union if they maintained the emancipation of slaves and collected loyalty oaths from 10% of their voting population. Southern states did not readily accept the deal.

But yep, the status of slavery remained uncertain for the north in 1863 since they weren't included in the proclamation. Lincoln didn't free ALL the slaves But the 1865 13th amendment did immediately after the civil war.

Why should they? They had every right to seceed if they wanted. There was no law against it. Lincoln saw something that didn't exist. There was no clause when joining the Union that said you can't leave.

If I join a gym and don't like it, are you telling me I can't quit? The fact is, the US economy would have collapsed without the South.

Gunny
06-16-2015, 05:14 PM
just for the record.
i've had Perriane on ignore for about a month now.
what i've read from her on these issues adds no historical or newsworthy content and is typically pitiful ignorant racist cracks and gibberish.

Very manly of you.