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

De & Micro: Mike Ditka: Obama is '"the worst president we've ever had" 

By: monkeytrots in POPE IV | Recommend this post (4)
Mon, 16 Jan 17 12:22 AM | 79 view(s)
Boardmark this board | POPES NEW and Improved Real Board 		Msg. 18187 of 47202
(This msg. is a reply to 18185 by Decomposed)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Thank you to both of you for an illuminating and intellignt discussion from both of you.

As a transplanted Yankee, born in upstate New York, lived almost entire life in Texas, raised as a military brat in the USAF, by a wonderful mother and father - this monkey witnessed the Vietnam war as a teen, and the civil rights movement from afar, in Japan. I was in junior high in the mid-60's and, quite honestly, didn't understand segregation. Why ? Because in the military culture that we were raised in didn't tolerate, even then, discrimination - it wasn't allowed in the military, and hadn't been since, I believe, being put firmly in place by Eisenhower. My parents, however, were familiar with it; signs in local stores that had, among others, 'NO MILITARY ALLOWED'.

The base commissary was a necessity - and allowed us to stretch precious dollars further - plus, shop in peace. Texas was NOT a place where those signs were, but other parts of the country where we were stationed DID have those signs. Co. and Al. are two that stand out. Japan also had both pro and anti-American (violently so)areas, and riots (Zengakuran).

So - with that background, let me state that DE is absolutely correct (especially as a man from Virginia) in his historical account of the War between the States. The Constitutional point about state's rights is spot on, and his observations about the demise of slavery being imminent.

IF DE is black, (and I take him at his word on that) - his viewpoint and writing is 'politically acceptable' - because no 'white man' in today's world can possibly state the things he has said without being immediately labeled a 'neo-nazi white supremacist'.

I will not expound further on De's exposition, except to add that the 'tariff loving' north were doing immense damage to the economy of the South (taxes of 1928, 1932, 1933 prime examples) - and that ECONOMICS *not of slavery*, and lack of representation OF THE SOUTH, were resulting in one part of our country (the North) stealing from another through the iron fisted hand of CENTRAL TAXING AUTHORITY that was owned and controlled by the North. Sound familiar ? Still the same problem today - with different actors on both side.

Micro is correct on his stance on slavery - being an abomination. That said - what G_d Himself has to say about slavery is difficult for us, as prideful human beings that detest being owned, is particularly humbling when one stops to read and fully understand the full implications of what is said in the Bible.

I don't need to elaborate.

Again, thank you both for a very interesting back and forth on the issues involved. Well stated positions on both sides.




Avatar

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...

» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Mike Ditka: Obama is â��the worst president weâ��ve ever hadâ�
By: Decomposed in POPE IV
Sun, 15 Jan 17 10:09 PM 		Msg. 18185 of 47202

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?
 

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