« POPE 5 Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Is It Time for America to Break Apart? 

By: Decomposed in POPE 5 | Recommend this post (1)
Tue, 30 Jul 19 4:15 PM | 39 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Pope 5
Msg. 36908 of 62138
(This msg. is a reply to 36902 by micro)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

micro:

Re: "Slavery would have ended onits own in 30 years? Based on what evidence??? Southern planation owners depended upon the price of a slave to provide them free labor for the rest of their lives. It was an heinous crime against humanity anywhere in the world. There are no exceptions."
You've just answered your own question. Because slavery was widely recognized as a heinous crime, it WAS being wiped out throughout the world.

We've had this conversation before. The following is a reply I directed to you in January 2017. Please read it again.

micro:

Thank you for the response.

I'll try to keep this brief since I suspect you'd like to wind this down.

re: " However to pretend that the slavery issue in particular was not at the heart of everything and affected what many want to pretend was the basis for the ILLEGAL secession by the Southern States is to be like an ostrich with its head in the ground."


I made a point of showing you that secession is legal. I didn't just say it is legal, but I explained why. The 10th Amendment says that it is legal because it is not a power expressly prohibited to the states. It is, therefore, something states have the right to do.

Since you continue to call it illegal - in ALL CAPS, no less - I'd appreciate it if you would do the same. Please explain why states cannot secede. I can't even imagine what the basis is for your disagreement - except that it's something somebody told you and you just took them at their word.

re: "One question only.

If all those other countries you took time to look up ended and abolished slavery before 1861, do you honestly believe that the Southern slave holding states had ANY intention of ending that heinous institution of human debasement?"

You missed my point. I guess I wasn't clear.

YES, I honestly believe that the Southern slave holding states would have caved to the pressure to end slavery. WITHIN THIRTY YEARS.

I listed all those countries and territories that eliminated slavery prior to our Civil War not to show you that the U.S. was the only nation remaining that hadn't changed, but to show you that there had been a worldwide trend, a veritable flood, toward ending slavery throughout the world - a trend that continued right up to the start of the civil war.

Here's some information for you. The South wasn't alone. There were many places around the world that, like our South, weren't ready to end slavery in 1861 but did so just the same in the years that followed:

1862 - Cuba abolished slavery.
1863 - Surinam and Antilles abolished slavery.
1864 - Poland eliminated serfdom.
1869 - Portuguese territories.
1873 - Spain frees slaves in Puerto Rico.
1874 - Ghana ends slavery.
1877 - Egypt ends slavery.
1879 - Bulgaria ends slavery.
1884 - France ends slavery in Cambodia.
1888 - Brazil abolishes slavery.
1894 - Korea abolishes slavery.
1896 - Madagascar abolishes slavery.
1897 - Zanzibar abolishes slavery.
1899 - Ndzuwani abolishes slavery.

You seem to think that the Southern U.S. was an island unto itself. It wasn't. It would have caved to sufficient pressure. Some of these others I listed *ARE* islands unto themselves, quite literally ISLANDS, yet even they caved. World pressure in the form of trade barriers, condemnation, contempt, etc. is a remarkable thing. The South were a proud people. They would not have tolerated being treated as a bunch of savages by the rest of the world.

Most white Southerners had no slaves. They would have voted it out once it became clear that it was in their interest to do so. WITHOUT WAR.

But all that is moot. The Constitution gave the South the right to secede. They decided to do it and, in response, Lincoln took the ILLEGAL action of using the U.S. army to kill those who chose to defend that right.

He had no right to do this. He was our worst President ever. He should have employed non-violent means to coerce the South to end slavery themselves. They would have done it. Virtually everybody else did.

Lincoln didn't do it because it was never about slavery. It was about establishing an all-powerful Central government . . . one that oppresses the states to this day.

One last point.

For FAR less than the cost of the Civil War, the North could have bought out EVERY slaveholder in the South. There were only 2,000 people that owned as many as one hundred slaves. There were only 11,000 people that owned fifty. In 1860, there were 4 million slaves at an average value of 800 dollars. It would have cost 3.2 billion dollars to have ended slavery that way.

The civil war cost the North 5.2 billion dollars to wage, plus VASTLY more in damage to the South and loss of life. Add all this up and I'd assess the damage done at about 100 billion dollars.

NOW how smart do you think Lincoln was?




Avatar

Gold is $1,581/oz today. When it hits $2,000, it will be up 26.5%. Let's see how long that takes. - De 3/11/2013 - ANSWER: 7 Years, 5 Months


- - - - -
View Replies (2) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Is It Time for America to Break Apart?
By: micro
in POPE 5
Tue, 30 Jul 19 2:50 PM
Msg. 36902 of 62138

Good morning De.

I do not disagree with everything but as a student of Lincoln's life, many things that have been suggested are smply not typical or follow his normal demeanor.

He was TORN over the issue of slavery and he was against it personally and morally.

Slavery would have ended onits own in 30 years? Based on what evidence??? Southern planation owners depended upon the price of a slave to provide them free labor for the rest of their lives. It was an heinous crime against humanity anywhere in the world. There are no exceptions.

Just because someone else does something does not make it "right".

HE did not kill 2 percent of his citiens. Can we say that about every war that is fought? Maybe we should say the same thing about Korean War, Vietnam, both world wars?

Aparently he was not the only person who believed that inorder to save the United States, it is awfully hard to be UNITED when half of them are leaving to set up their own government because they preferred slavery rather than simply voluntarily end it on their own. Thus none of that would have likely happened.

Many men who fought for the Union Army did so believeing they were going to set other men free. An awful lot of Geerals felt that way. It was expressed in their writings. Chamberlain, who distinguished himself at Gettysburg, but wenton to attain t he rank of General, comaanded a division and fought with Sheridan, and became a multiple term governor of Maine, stated this was ana rmy to set other men free. He was not alone.

No sir. Slavery would not have ended onits own in 30 years if left unchecked with no pushback and resistance. That I believe is a pipe dream.

BTW, let's take your hypothesis and test it. WOULD YOU or ANYONE you know wantto be a beaten, whipped, slave for thirty years of your life???? How about most of your entire life??? Only 30 more years. Come on now, you can take it... lol!!!!!

You see my point?

WHether that would ever occur or not is mute that you think it is okay to indenture and enslave people for 30 years waiting, hoping, that the generosity of their owners of plantations would by the goodness of their hearts just let them go free.

They didn't let any go free up until now, in fact hunted them down when they escaped and murdered them brutally. I cannot understand why you think these same people would ismply just end this willingly?

I do not believe the tenth ammendment is there for a STATE of the UNION to seceed. I do not believe any of the legal scholars of the day did either. WHY would a territory apply to the United States Government to become a STATE of the United States?
That is a topic of debate and apparently the legal scholars of the day did not share your view.

WHY did the SOUTH want to remove itself from the US? So it could continue in it's crime against humanity and pretend that somehow this was about only "state's rights?"

WHAT rights? WHAT RIGHTS did the federal government try to take away from southern states?? OTHER than dealing with the issue of slavery.

AND, btw, MANY congress people from ALL of the STATES were opposed to the continuation of slavery, not LINCOLN ALONE.

What Licoln's statement reperesents that yyou cited is thathe was TORN internally with the death and bloodshedof so many men over this terrible conflict.

While the war did not start with freeing the slaves as the Primary reason, it became part of the reason. Lincoln decided to enlist escaped slaves or any black men who wanted to help fight for their freedom to help end this war and the loss of so many lives.

Lincoln had a broken heart over his grief from the loss of so much life. YET he had to bring this horrible chapter in American history to an end.

He won re-election. HOW did THAT happen if so a majority of men were not in favor of resolving this thing?

Lincoln's initial goal was to keep the United States of America intact. He initially went into Virginia to try to capture the government located in Richmond and bring a swift end to this.. No other reason..

You think Lincoln was a power mad crazed egotist? Wow. What have you been reading to support that? He wanted a United Country, and MANY agreed with that. Otherwise he could not have done what happened..

Anyway, we could talk about this for a long time and you and I are never going to agree. Perhaps you might agree that slavery was an evil thing that needed to end and never started here in the first place?

All the rest of history is what was. What we have left are the writings of the letters from the particpants and recorders of History.

We were not present so we do not have the ability to have witnesed things ourselves. Onlythe veiws through the eyes and perspective of someone else.

Nevertheless, it is NEVER RIGHT to MURDER someone because YOU don't like their politics, THAT view makes a person o better than the Antifa thugs, or ALQueda or ISIL.

That's about it from here. Nice talking about it.
We agree to disagree.

No biggie.... Thumbs Up Very Happy


« POPE 5 Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next