Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« POPE IV Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Mike Ditka: Obama is �the worst president we�ve ever had�

By: Decomposed in POPE IV | Recommend this post (2)
Sun, 15 Jan 17 10:09 PM | 89 view(s)
Boardmark this board | POPES NEW and Improved Real Board 		Msg. 18185 of 47202
(This msg. is a reply to 18180 by micro)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

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 (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Mike Ditka: Obama is �the worst president we�ve ever had�
By: micro in POPE IV
Sun, 15 Jan 17 6:12 PM 		Msg. 18180 of 47202

De,

First of all, let's be clear. I realize more than most the fight did not INITIALLY begin over by freeing slaves.

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.

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?

Why the association between your remark regarding Lincoln and your support of slavery?

Because the TWO cannot be separated.

ASK ANYONE what they MOST consider Lincoln's outstanding contributions to be and ending slavery is number one.

IF you despise Lincoln as your comment indicated, you obviously must not think much of his ending slavery once and for all. After all, as you pointed out, so many other countries around the world had come to their senses by this time, except the southern slave holding states and they were NOT ABOUT TO STOP IT either.


As you know, no other President before him would do anything about it but MANY were opposed to it and all they did was to KICK THE CAN down the road until ONE MAN with a MORAL COMPASS actually took steps to ultimately do something about it.

DID HE want and desire a WAR between the states?

No.

Did he abhor the deaths and killing and maiming? YES.

DID he have a choice in restoring this nation to become what it was, a world power and leader?

No. He had no choice. A house divided cannot stand.

He understood that as many do today worldwide.

In your stated opinion, you think he was one of the most awful Presidents of all time.


Here is why I THOUGHT you must not have liked Lincoln ending slavery.

You made a statement about a President who is KNOWN FOR ENDING SLAVERY among other things.

When you slammed him, you automatically sent the signal you must be against what he is best known for.

You gave NO INDICATION of WHY you just slammed one of the greatest Presidents in American History to many.

De, many thousands upon thousands of volunteers went to war from the North with the belief that they were fighting to end slavery and gave their lives. Was that the only reason soldiers volunteered? No, but to think or say otherwise is just ignoring the actual facts and diaries of those soldiers.

MY relatives were among those. I know it for a fact.

It also was because many wanted to end what was termed The Rebellion as well, hence the name REBELS to southern soldiers. It was not the first rebellion the government had to put down. We can look at Massachusetts for another one prior.

Please realize I am not at war with you.

You are entitled to state your opinion of what you think about a President. And you did.
You were not clear as to why. Not trying to be at odds with you, but you should realize that there are those of us who hold a far different opinion of Lincoln and actually have some closeness to that era who share a far different view.

So, let's say that I among millions more, disagree with your statement regarding Lincoln.

Was he perfect? No. Were any other Presidents? No.

I will let it go right there. No ill will toward you is intended. I hope that you and I can agree to disagree about your opinion or mine, and you have a right to express, and anyone else has a right to oppose.

Best to you,

micro...

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