|
|
Post by archie on Oct 28, 2023 17:28:18 GMT
Thor, do some real history and find out why the war was fought. Do you think all those white southern soldiers and their leaders were fighting to be able to keep slavery? Most of them didn’t own any. No Thor. At that time the south was running a lot better than the north because of better politicians and commerce. The north depended on a lot of things that the south was smart enough to import. And the revenge of the north through their president and leaders was tax the hell out of the south. And no, Lincoln never mentioned slavery until near the end of the war. He didn’t know what to do with them.
The southern generals and fighting men were all just as American as you. Even today, things are not perfect in many ways. And both you and I have no use for racists. Glad he saved that pesky Emancipation Proclamation until the end of the war.....oh wait. As for the rest of your post, it's as batshit stupid as you. As part of what I was taught: Though Lincoln saw himself as working alongside the abolitionists on behalf of a common anti-slavery cause, he did not count himself among them. Only with emancipation, and with his support of the eventual 13th Amendment, would Lincoln finally win over the most committed abolitionists. Though Lincoln saw himself as working alongside the abolitionists on behalf of a common anti-slavery cause, he did not count himself among them. Only with emancipation, and with his support of the eventual 13th Amendment, would Lincoln finally win over the most committed abolitionists. Though Lincoln argued that the founding fathers’ phrase “All men are created equal” applied to Black and white people alike, this did not mean he thought they should have the same social and political rights. His views became clear during an 1858 series of debates with his opponent in the Illinois race for U.S. Senate, Stephen Douglas, who had accused him of supporting “negro equality.” In their fourth debate, at Charleston, Illinois, on September 18, 1858, Lincoln made his position clear. “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and Black races,” he began, going on to say that he opposed Black people having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and to intermarry with whites. |
|
|
|
Post by archie on Oct 28, 2023 17:39:53 GMT
Thor, do some real history and find out why the war was fought. Do you think all those white southern soldiers and their leaders were fighting to be able to keep slavery? Most of them didn’t own any. No Thor. At that time the south was running a lot better than the north because of better politicians and commerce. The north depended on a lot of things that the south was smart enough to import. And the revenge of the north through their president and leaders was tax the hell out of the south. And no, Lincoln never mentioned slavery until near the end of the war. He didn’t know what to do with them.
The southern generals and fighting men were all just as American as you. Even today, things are not perfect in many ways. And both you and I have no use for racists. Glad he saved that pesky Emancipation Proclamation until the end of the war.....oh wait. As for the rest of your post, it's as batshit stupid as you. Yeah, I don't have that college education. But I got mine in Connecticut the right way years ago. Northern corporations liked high tariffs (taxes) on goods the South imported, because it reduced competition with European manufacturers and allowed them to charge higher prices for often substandard goods. The tax revenue went to Washington, which used it to subsidize Northern industries (both directly and indirectly) at the expense of Southern agriculture. Cotton was especially lucrative. In 1859, the value of exported cotton totaled $161,000,000. The value of all Northern exports combined was just over $70,000,000. By 1860, the Federal budget was $80,000,000. Seventy million of that was paid by the South. One section, which amounted to 29% of the population, was paying more than 82% of the taxes. Of that, four out of five dollars was being used for internal improvements in the North. This was not good enough for Abraham Lincoln. He backed an increase in the tariff from 24% to 47% (and 51% on items containing iron). He got his way. This tariff rate was in effect until 1913. |
|
|
|
Post by thecitizen on Oct 28, 2023 18:13:10 GMT
Get a history lesson from Paleocon if you think your proccess happened more than mine. Slave owners through away money. I have no idea as to what you are talking about |
|
|
|
Post by Lomelis on Oct 28, 2023 18:58:31 GMT
This reminds of when the Taliban destroyed those ancient Buddhist statues because they were -evil-.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnnybgood on Oct 28, 2023 19:07:42 GMT
Get a history lesson from Paleocon if you think your proccess happened more than mine. Slave owners through away money. I have no idea as to what you are talking about I know |
|
DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,662
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on Oct 29, 2023 10:20:43 GMT
I don't know if it made people cry but it surely must have annoyed quite a few, given that it's celebrating a notorious racist as a hero. So big deal? In a way, yes. You can't build a so called equitable society on the celebration of the bastards that went in the way of making that society... equitable. All past should be destroyed if the figure lived in the past, before modern sensibilities truly developed and flourished? Yet then we risk ignoring the wisdom of that same past. And here comes once again that lack of discernment I was talking about earlier... Destroying monuments celebrating people that were in fact criminals is not the same as destroying their memory. In fact it's quite the opposite since it's putting them memory wise in the place where they belong, IE with all the other bastards of history. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 29, 2023 11:50:45 GMT
All past should be destroyed if the figure lived in the past, before modern sensibilities truly developed and flourished? Yet then we risk ignoring the wisdom of that same past. And here comes once again that lack of discernment I was talking about earlier... Destroying monuments celebrating people that were in fact criminals is not the same as destroying their memory. In fact it's quite the opposite since it's putting them memory wise in the place where they belong, IE with all the other bastards of history. Who wasn’t a bastard of history? Go back not too far and nearly everybody held views which, from the modern perspective, were uncouth. |
|
DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,662
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on Oct 30, 2023 9:08:42 GMT
And here comes once again that lack of discernment I was talking about earlier... Destroying monuments celebrating people that were in fact criminals is not the same as destroying their memory. In fact it's quite the opposite since it's putting them memory wise in the place where they belong, IE with all the other bastards of history. Who wasn’t a bastard of history? Go back not too far and nearly everybody held views which, from the modern perspective, were uncouth. Statues are meant to honor and celebrate people. You disagree? |
|
|
|
Post by VYPR on Oct 30, 2023 11:34:54 GMT
This reminds of when the Taliban destroyed those ancient Buddhist statues because they were -evil-. Yes, this hundred year old statue must surely have deep historical value. lol |
|
|
|
Post by VYPR on Oct 30, 2023 11:37:47 GMT
And here comes once again that lack of discernment I was talking about earlier... Destroying monuments celebrating people that were in fact criminals is not the same as destroying their memory. In fact it's quite the opposite since it's putting them memory wise in the place where they belong, IE with all the other bastards of history. Who wasn’t a bastard of history? Go back not too far and nearly everybody held views which, from the modern perspective, were uncouth. Yeah, because it was wrong for Germany to remove all the Nazi iconography after WW2. The Nazis were uncouth but it's in the past so it must be preserved at all costs! |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 30, 2023 12:51:20 GMT
Who wasn’t a bastard of history? Go back not too far and nearly everybody held views which, from the modern perspective, were uncouth. Statues are meant to honor and celebrate people. You disagree? Usually, and at first. But the Taliban shouldn’t destroy Buddha statues because it goes against their Islamic society. The statues become part of history instead of by necessity some glorification of the person. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Oct 30, 2023 12:56:26 GMT
Who wasn’t a bastard of history? Go back not too far and nearly everybody held views which, from the modern perspective, were uncouth. Yeah, because it was wrong for Germany to remove all the Nazi iconography after WW2. The Nazis were uncouth but it's in the past so it must be preserved at all costs! Genghis Khan has a ton of iconography. There’s a statue of Lenin in Seattle. Stalin has statues in surprising places. Mao as well. But they’re ok because of… well, why exactly? |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,402
Member is Online
|
Post by Paleocon on Oct 30, 2023 14:09:42 GMT
All you do is lie, don't you, boy? In the comparison between the victims affected by slavery and those affected by abortion, abortion is genocide on a 20th century tyrant scale and the effect of abortion is always the loss of life. Almost all of the slaves still possessed their lives when freedom came in 1865....aborted children always lose their lives. And the loss of life from abortion is happening today.
Unlike an animal like you, we are concerned about the children that YOUR perverted culture is slicing up, confusing and ruining today. Liberals either love the slaughter of children before birth or the mutilation of them through gender-bender doctors afterward.
 So no denial that you approve of slavery for fun and profit, eh filthy degenerate? Because Freedom. Or something. You dumb MFer, African slaves had been in what became the US for over two centuries, you retarded asshat. Further, while 'only' half a million might have come directly from Africa, the doesn't really account for all of them who were brought from elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere now does it? To think you are actually confused about why this happened: You couldn't be more of a flaming dumbass if you worked at it. Only a lying piece of filth would continue to spread the lie that I've ever supported slavery.
If you weren't so stupid you'd do a little research before posting your lies. The half million INCLUDES those brought from elsewhere in the hemisphere:
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.
And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That's right: a tiny percentage.
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.
Incredibly, most of the 42 million members of the African-American community descend from this tiny group of less than half a million Africans.
There's your daily ass kicking, brought to you by the guy who has sent his boot in most often.
|
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,686
|
Post by thor on Oct 30, 2023 14:23:19 GMT
So no denial that you approve of slavery for fun and profit, eh filthy degenerate? Because Freedom. Or something. You dumb MFer, African slaves had been in what became the US for over two centuries, you retarded asshat. Further, while 'only' half a million might have come directly from Africa, the doesn't really account for all of them who were brought from elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere now does it? To think you are actually confused about why this happened: You couldn't be more of a flaming dumbass if you worked at it. Only a lying piece of filth would continue to spread the lie that I've ever supported slavery.
If you weren't so stupid you'd do a little research before posting your lies. The half million INCLUDES those brought from elsewhere in the hemisphere:
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.
And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That's right: a tiny percentage.
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.
Incredibly, most of the 42 million members of the African-American community descend from this tiny group of less than half a million Africans.
There's your daily ass kicking, brought to you by the guy who has sent his boot in most often.
You STILL trying to defend your support for human trafficking for fun and profit, Stupid Boy? 'Only' 388,000? Fact is, Stupid Boy, I set you up here. I knew you would run to Google and wanted you to show the board, yet again, that you will go to any length to defend the practice of human trafficking for fun and profit. Especially when done by the slaver state, the CSA. Now, cry about this:  |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,402
Member is Online
|
Post by Paleocon on Oct 30, 2023 14:36:55 GMT
All past should be destroyed if the figure lived in the past, before modern sensibilities truly developed and flourished? Yet then we risk ignoring the wisdom of that same past. And here comes once again that lack of discernment I was talking about earlier... Destroying monuments celebrating people that were in fact criminals is not the same as destroying their memory. In fact it's quite the opposite since it's putting them memory wise in the place where they belong, IE with all the other bastards of history. You just made my point without realizing it. It's nothing but your sick and perverted opinion that those statues celebrate "criminals" when the reality of history beyond your cartoon level ignorance is that Confederates were neither criminals nor were they wrong in resisting an overbearing and increasingly authoritarian government. Those statues were symbols put up by the contemporaries of those honorable men, not woke idiots who never bother to look at the details of history at all, yet think they know everything 160 years later.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,402
Member is Online
|
Post by Paleocon on Oct 30, 2023 14:42:58 GMT
You couldn't be more of a flaming dumbass if you worked at it. Only a lying piece of filth would continue to spread the lie that I've ever supported slavery.
If you weren't so stupid you'd do a little research before posting your lies. The half million INCLUDES those brought from elsewhere in the hemisphere:
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.
And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That's right: a tiny percentage.
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.
Incredibly, most of the 42 million members of the African-American community descend from this tiny group of less than half a million Africans.
There's your daily ass kicking, brought to you by the guy who has sent his boot in most often.
You STILL trying to defend your support for human trafficking for fun and profit, Stupid Boy? 'Only' 388,000? Fact is, Stupid Boy, I set you up here. I knew you would run to Google and wanted you to show the board, yet again, that you will go to any length to defend the practice of human trafficking for fun and profit. Especially when done by the slaver state, the CSA. I just kicked your effeminate ass all over this forum, boy, so you set yourself up. And the person that said "only 388,000" was Henry Louis Gates, Jr., who you just accused of supporting human trafficking.
Evidently, you hate black people that introduce you to reality.
It's no wonder that the forum thinks you're a pussy.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,402
Member is Online
|
Post by Paleocon on Oct 30, 2023 14:56:41 GMT
Who wasn’t a bastard of history? Go back not too far and nearly everybody held views which, from the modern perspective, were uncouth. Yeah, because it was wrong for Germany to remove all the Nazi iconography after WW2. The Nazis were uncouth but it's in the past so it must be preserved at all costs! It's always been intellectually lazy to pretend that the Confederates were like the Nazis, when it was the Union invaders that most resemble the German Socialist war machine and the politics of Hitler. The Confederacy was not trying to take over another country, nor did they want to have a war. The CSA was more comparable to Poland in 1939.....victims of a tyrant/pervert and his ambitions and authoritarianism.....and Lincoln's avarice, the real cause of that war.
As far as iconography, look at the UK. There are statues there still to William Wallace and Oliver Cromwell. Why? Because both were right in what they did even though they lost later.
People like VYPR don't care if history becomes a cartoon, as long as the cartoon favors his false narrative and denies all others.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lomelis on Oct 30, 2023 16:52:33 GMT
This reminds of when the Taliban destroyed those ancient Buddhist statues because they were -evil-. Yes, this hundred year old statue must surely have deep historical value. lol Ok...so those buddhist statues would have been justifiably destroyed because of -evil- as long as they didn't go past that 100 year mark then it becomes not cool. That makes a lot of sense. |
|
DaveJavu
Legend
Posts: 4,662
Member is Online
|
Post by DaveJavu on Oct 30, 2023 17:31:14 GMT
Statues are meant to honor and celebrate people. You disagree? Usually, and at first. But the Taliban shouldn’t destroy Buddha statues because it goes against their Islamic society. The statues become part of history instead of by necessity some glorification of the person. Once the civilization is dead and no one remembers who the fuck that is, maybe, but not for people everyone knows were assholes, then I disagree totally. A statue of Buddha (who even if real lived thousands of years ago) can tell us about a culture that's long gone for example but, all that a confederate monument teaches us is that back then racist bastards were celebrated as heroes and you don't need a statue to be reminded of that. |
|
|
|
Post by archie on Oct 30, 2023 18:02:34 GMT
Why are so many not able to understand that the war between the north and south here in this country was not about slavery. Slavery was going on since before Christ was born all over the world. And slowly as humans mentality advanced it became as known something not the way life was supposed to be, and in the smartest countries it became illegal to own or have slaves. In the world today, look at who does have slaves, what civilization? And are they a friend of this country? Would they in a minute force you into slavery or kill you?
Think about it. And again, no the war here was not about slavery. It was because of politics.
And believe me, the politics now are against our country. We have a bad party in charge.
I think lives in our country right now are in a bit of danger. Can you believe what is going on in some of our cities? And do you know what has snuck over Joes open border?
Do you understand now why our founders gave us the 2nd amendment?
|
|
