American Revolution

[ASLANSPAL]

I thank God , Robert E. Lee saw the light at
Appomattax and surrendered totally. He could
have just surrendered the army of northern
virgina and called for a guerrella war of
attrition and hold out for a negotiated
settlement,but he did not becase he knew the
war must be stopped and country united again.

Wow! brother Jimminy you can speculate until
the cows come home but those are some big jim
dandys. Would sincerely encourage you to read
black history..research it will cause you to
repent (turn).

The horror for blacks did not end until by faith
they moved in the 50's and 60's I thank God
for them and their bravery because of them ..
I am more free and have more civil liberty.

Rutherford B. Hayes sold them out in compromise
and men,women,children,and grandparents died
in lynchings during the evil periods of southern
aparthied and jim crow.

warning: explicit picture in reference to lynching
http://www.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/library/african/2000/lynching.htm
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/lynching/lynching.htm
http://afroamhistory.about.com/od/lynching/
never ever again in this country...evil has
a consequence and we should never ...ever...forget.

 

[Scott J]

When did most of this lynching take place? During slavery, during reconstruction, or after... I bet most of it was after the south had been pillaged with tacit federal sanction.... After crimes against white southerners had routinely been ignored by a court system that was part of an effort to punish the south for the Civil War.

There is no justification for lynching. But often when governments will not protect people, vigilante justice becomes rampant.

Slavery was not the cause of all racial injustice... a very large part of the animosity from southern whites had to do with the war and northern treatment of the south afterwards.

I agree with others here. Slavery probably would have ended within a few years without the war. Economies were starting to work against the system. If it had died a natural death, the healing would have been much easier. Instead of being the considered former slavemasters, southerners themselves could lay claim to freeing the slaves.

 

[just-want-peace]

Can you just imagine the ease of reconstruction if the North had treated the South like America did Japan & Germany after WWII?

They (the aggressors) accuse us of mistreating the slaves (which in reality is akin to pouring sand in your farm tractor)* but had no hesitation in keeping the Confederacy under the old "ball & chain"!

*Why would any slave owner mistreat his slaves since the slaves were the ones who produced the power to harvest crops? I mean this is just common economics. Forget all the malicious gossip you've heard re: treatment and just use some common sense. No sensible person declines to keep and nurture that which bring him a profit. A weak/sick/maimed slave could not produce, so it just made sense to try to keep them healthy.

Not to say there was NO mistreatment, but not wholesale as so often depicted

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by just-want-peace:
*Why would any slave owner mistreat his slaves since the slaves were the ones who produced the power to harvest crops? I mean this is just common economics. Forget all the malicious gossip you've heard re: treatment and just use some common sense. No sensible person declines to keep and nurture that which bring him a profit. A weak/sick/maimed slave could not produce, so it just made sense to try to keep them healthy.

Not to say there was NO mistreatment, but not wholesale as so often depicted

[sarcasm] Yes, because removing someone from their home country and forcing them into hard labor with poor nutrition, medical care, and no human rights for the entirety of their short lives is not mistreatment at all. [/sarcasm]

Yours is the single most reprehensible statement I have ever read here, and that is saying something.

 

[Scott J]

Physical abuse of slaves was not as widespread as historical revisionism holds... It did occur though. I have seen pictures of slaves who are scarred or maimed.

Some slavemasters were more benevolent than others... but who among us would want to be a slave even under the best conditions?

... Well, maybe some would seeing how they volunteer for more government dependence/wealth confiscation.

To add to what was discussed earlier, if slavery had ended more naturally then perhaps it wouldn't have been such a shock on blacks themselves. Many of them didn't know how to be free. They had never been responsible for themselves and had no idea how to do it. That's why so many ended up becoming implicit slaves via sharecropping... which was perpetrated often by carpetbaggers who had fleeced southerners of their property.

Sharecropping was not benevolent. It was as cruel if not worse than slavery.

 

[Scott J]

Yes, because removing someone from their home country and forcing them into hard labor with poor nutrition, medical care, and no human rights for the entirety of their short lives is not mistreatment at all.

Not defending the indefensible... but it is worth noting that the cultures of Africa accepted slavery. The American Indians were tried first but made poor slaves. Many would rather have died than live as a slave.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Yes, because removing someone from their home country and forcing them into hard labor with poor nutrition, medical care, and no human rights for the entirety of their short lives is not mistreatment at all.

Not defending the indefensible... but it is worth noting that the cultures of Africa accepted slavery. The American Indians were tried first but made poor slaves. Many would rather have died than live as a slave. </font>[/QUOTE]This adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by Scott J:
Physical abuse of slaves was not as widespread as historical revisionism holds... It did occur though. I have seen pictures of slaves who are scarred or maimed.

One person held against his or her will is torture enough. But if this makes you feel better, OK.

To add to what was discussed earlier, if slavery had ended more naturally then perhaps it wouldn't have been such a shock on blacks themselves. Many of them didn't know how to be free. They had never been responsible for themselves and had no idea how to do it.

How about if it had never happened at all? There is no excuse for it, and no real excuse for it having lasted a moment longer than it did. Blame the Federal government for not being prepared to assist the newly freed slaves in learning what it is to be free.

 

[just-want-peace]

How about if it had never happened at all? There is no excuse for it, and no real excuse for it having lasted a moment longer than it did.

Come out of your liberal fantasy world TP; It DID happen & all your patronizing attitude ain't gonna change that. The question is what could have made the transition easier for all concerned? All the "feel-good" platitudes don't add squat to the answer.

Yours is the single most reprehensible statement I have ever read here, and that is saying something.

Boy, when I first read that I wondered just what I'd said that was so terrible, or that led you to that conclusion! But after reading your reply to Scott J, I just decided--well I just decided that it would be pointless to take your comment seriously!

If you're interested in truly discussing these issues, may I suggest that you calm down and QUIT reading everything that disagrees with you to be a "slave loving mentality"!

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by just-want-peace:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />How about if it had never happened at all? There is no excuse for it, and no real excuse for it having lasted a moment longer than it did.

Come out of your liberal fantasy world TP; It DID happen & all your patronizing attitude ain't gonna change that. The question is what could have made the transition easier for all concerned? All the "feel-good" platitudes don't add squat to the answer.</font>[/QUOTE]

Yeah, thanks for the history lesson, there. It did happen, but pontificating on how it was so bad that it ended early is disgusting. We are talking about human beings here, humans taken from their homes against their will (and saying "geeeee, African leaders were for it" is a straw man at best), forced to live in subhuman conditions, underfed and overworked, tortured, sold and killed. This isn't Liberal fantasy. It's facts. Grow out of your bigoted white fantasy world and look around once.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Yours is the single most reprehensible statement I have ever read here, and that is saying something.

Boy, when I first read that I wondered just what I'd said that was so terrible, or that led you to that conclusion! But after reading your reply to Scott J, I just decided--well I just decided that it would be pointless to take your comment seriously!

If you're interested in truly discussing these issues, may I suggest that you calm down and QUIT reading everything that disagrees with you to be a "slave loving mentality"! </font>[/QUOTE]Why don't you re-read what you posted in the first place, then we'll talk.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Yes, because removing someone from their home country and forcing them into hard labor with poor nutrition, medical care, and no human rights for the entirety of their short lives is not mistreatment at all.

Not defending the indefensible... but it is worth noting that the cultures of Africa accepted slavery. The American Indians were tried first but made poor slaves. Many would rather have died than live as a slave. </font>[/QUOTE]What a lot of people do not realize, and I am NOT saying this to cut anybody down or say anything about any race of people; but many of the African slaves were NOT captured by American slave vessels--they were BOUGHT from other blacks who had power in Africa and rounded up people to sell as slaves. If they didn't come to America they were shipped to other countries. This does not make the practice right, but it shows that it is more of a POWER based problem than a racial one.

It only became a racial one after the fact.

The war between the states was also NOT fought over slavery. That was a very minor detail and many northerners owned slaves. Later history revision made slavery the biggest issue. Again, it was over power and control. In fact, history shows that many slaves fought with their owners because they were happy to have a place to live, and they would often even go to church with their owners. We hardly hear about these situations, and surprisingly this occurred much more often than the revisionists would like us to believe.

 

[tragic_pizza]

"Only racial after the fact."

Yeah.

As to the rest, it sounds like a lot of urban legend hooey to me. Got any, oh, I dunno, ummm, proof of your assertions?

 

[just-want-peace]

Message deleted as not suitably Christian in nature.

Since there is no longer a way for anyone to read it , let me just say that the following Scriptures were applied by me:

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Mat 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.


Maranatha!

 

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by Phillip:
The war between the states was also NOT fought over slavery. That was a very minor detail and many northerners owned slaves. Later history revision made slavery the biggest issue. Again, it was over power and control. In fact, history shows that many slaves fought with their owners because they were happy to have a place to live, and they would often even go to church with their owners. We hardly hear about these situations, and surprisingly this occurred much more often than the revisionists would like us to believe.

I don't think this is entirely accurate. Although there were other issues, slavery was one of the big issues.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by just-want-peace:
Message deleted as not suitably Christian in nature.

Since there is no longer a way for anyone to read it , let me just say that the following Scriptures were applied by me:

Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Mat 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.


Maranatha!

Thanks for the advice. I'll remember that in future conversations with you.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Originally posted by Terry_Herrington:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
The war between the states was also NOT fought over slavery. That was a very minor detail and many northerners owned slaves. Later history revision made slavery the biggest issue. Again, it was over power and control. In fact, history shows that many slaves fought with their owners because they were happy to have a place to live, and they would often even go to church with their owners. We hardly hear about these situations, and surprisingly this occurred much more often than the revisionists would like us to believe.

I don't think this is entirely accurate. Although there were other issues, slavery was one of the big issues. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes. Some folks would like you to think it was all economics or state's rights, but the foundation of the South's economy, and the particular right to which they were holding, was slavery. Thus the so-called "revisionists" and "liberals" who dare to continue regarding slavery as the central issue are correct.

 

[Scott J]

Slavery was not the underlying issue. Phillip is very much correct.

Up until the Emancipation Proclaimation, the door remained open for southern states to quit fighting and rejoin the union with slavery undisturbed. The EP didn't apply to states that didn't leave the union- MO, DE, MD, KY.

In fact, the EP was Lincoln's trump card to prevent the "King Cotton" policy from bringing Britain into the war thus providing the south with a real navy.

Slavery was an issue for a vocal minority. It was a broad issue to the extent that it reflected a deeper, more fundamental divide over states rights.

Compare this to abortion. Legally, the abortion debate is a reflection on who is Constitutionally entitled to have their lives protected.

The Right to Life has broader implications than just abortion but abortion is a focal point.

 

[tragic_pizza]

So now it's an abortion discussion? Wow.

 

[Bro. James Reed]

I think you can run this both ways, as Scott has presented.

Those with power in the South were the ones who owned the largest plantations, had the most slaves, had the most to lose were slavery to be declared illegal, and were the biggest vocalists when it came to reasons to secede from the Union.

The regular average "Joe South" was not all concerned about slavery because it did not affect him. He was more concerned about being able to decide what was right for him, his family, and his state. The U.S.A. was seen just as more or less a title rather than a great country to throw your patriotism behind. That sort of patriotism was still reserved for you State. States had many rights and powers that trumped the Feds back then because of a little thing called the Constitution.

Abraham Lincoln, it was thought, would impose more federal regulations and laws on the states that many people felt were not in the Feds power, slavery being the centerpoint of those issues. It is just like how abortion or gay marriage is viewed today. Both are vocalized probably more than anything else by conservatives, but neither makes up what conservatives are all about.(And many fiscal conservatives would disagree entirely with the social conservatives' stand on these issues)

Britain was prepared to come to the aid of the South, probably because they had hopes of conquering us later, but when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation it basically made a show to the world that the South was fighting for slavery (only) and anyone who joined them was endorsing that position. Britain backed off so as not to seem like they were endorsing slavery to the world. Mr. Lincoln can not possibly be seen as the "Great Emancipator" because, as said above, he "freed" ONLY those slaves in the rebelling states.

Because of this, it can actually be said that the North was fighting for slavery because Lincoln allowed slavery to remain in his states while passing an Executive Order to stop it here.

The South was free before the North. How do you like them apples?

 

[JGrubbs]

The reason Lincoln was opposed to slavery in the South was because the slaves gave the South extra votes. It was all political! He solution, was to round up all the slaves and ship them out of the country, Lincoln was a white supremacist!

Only 5% to 15% of the Southerners owned slaves. You can't use the argument that the other 95% were fighting for the right of the 5% to own slaves, it was about states rights, and slavery just happened to be one of the many states rights issues.