Are you ashamed of your heritage?

[longly]

No one cannot be on the side of slavery and the Lord at the same time.

That’s basically why slavery disappeared from Western Europe in the early Middle Ages. I think it is in Deuteronomy that prohibition Prohibits slavery —essentially the idea that one believer should not enslave another. This was how many Europeans later interpreted it.

 

[rightwinger]

I don’t think so. If large numbers of Black Americans had moved up from the South and been able to establish their own communities, towns, and even counties where they were the majority, I think it would have been a much different story.

As for the Tulsa riot, there was no need for the World War I Black veterans to show up in uniform with their rifles. The sheriff had the courthouse under control; he was not going to give the prisoner to the mob. When the Black veterans arrived, the mob saw it as a declaration of war, and that’s what happened.

Blacks did just that in Tulsa
Built a prosperous black community and started to exert political power

The riot that you defend was just a pretext to burn them out and drive them out

 

[rightwinger]

That has holes the size of Alaska.
Buchanan is who pretty much caused the civil war, if Fremont would have won - there most likely would not have been a war in the first place. He would not have allowed the South to build a coalition and build an army that Buchanan ignored.

The die of a Civil War was cast long before Buchanan
Slavery was spreading West and Congress and earlier presidents placated the South to appease them

The election of Lincoln set off the southern hotheads

 

[Oddball]

Are you ashamed of your heritage?​

No

 

[gipper]

Why?
Because it was a union worth fighting for.

The South overreacted when Lincoln was elected. Lincoln is going to take away your slaves. He couldn’t even if he wanted to

Then they overreacted when they thought they could seize Ft Sumter without consequences.

So if you think its worth killing to keep people in your union, you’re no different from every dictator/tyrant that ever lived.

 

[longly]

Blacks did just that in Tulsa
Built a prosperous black community and started to exert political power

The riot that you defend was just a pretext to burn them out and drive them out

I wasn’t justifying anything; I was analyzing based on my knowledge of the times. Many of those in the mob had grandfathers who had fought in the Civil War and lived through the occupation, and they told them what life was like living under the Blacks. So when they saw Black soldiers in uniform, they were moved to the conclusion that the occupation had returned — that the Blacks were trying to take over. By the way, the defendant was not lynched in the end and were not even prosecuted. The lady involved refused to press charges, and they both left the area separately.

I can also analyze the motive and actions of the Black veterans. What they probably thought was that the whites were cowards and wouldn’t fight, primarily because white Southerners, for the most part, refused to participate in World War I. Southerners resisted World War I conscription, and that is true, but it was not cowardice. Their grandfathers had told them, “Don’t fight for the Yankees; they’re just using you.” So most who could resist did. It was the beginning of the peace movement in America. The Black veterans thought that if they just showed up in their uniforms with their guns, they would have cowed the whites, who would have gone home with their tails between their legs. But it didn’t turn out that way. And, by the way, the sheriff was correct in not accepting their help — that only aggravated the situation.

 

[rightwinger]

I wasn’t justifying anything; I was analyzing based on my knowledge of the times. Many of those in the mob had grandfathers who had fought in the Civil War and lived through the occupation, and they told them what life was like living under the Blacks. So when they saw Black soldiers in uniform, they were moved to the conclusion that the occupation had returned — that the Blacks were trying to take over. By the way, the defendant was not lynched in the end and were not even prosecuted. The lady involved refused to press charges, and they both left the area separately.

I can also analyze the motive and actions of the Black veterans. What they probably thought was that the whites were cowards and wouldn’t fight, primarily because white Southerners, for the most part, refused to participate in World War I. Southerners resisted World War I conscription, and that is true, but it was not cowardice. Their grandfathers had told them, “Don’t fight for the Yankees; they’re just using you.” So most who could resist did. It was the beginning of the peace movement in America. The Black veterans thought that if they just showed up in their uniforms with their guns, they would have cowed the whites, who would have gone home with their tails between their legs. But it didn’t turn out that way. And, by the way, the sheriff was correct in not accepting their help — that only aggravated the situation.

Good God!
How can you defend that?

it was blacks being killed, blacks being beaten, black houses and businesses being burned down

And you blame the blacks?

WTF is the matter with you?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The die of a Civil War was cast long before Buchanan
Slavery was spreading West and Congress and earlier presidents placated the South to appease them

The election of Lincoln set off the southern hotheads

Nope.
There would not have been a war because Fremont would not have allowed the southern states to build a strong coalition, would not have given them money to build an army (Buchanan did, and knew he was doing it) The south would have never started a war because they did not have the means to fight it without Northern money.
What would have happened is either Fremont in a 2nd term, or Lincoln would have banned slavery. The south would have tried some kind of protest, but without an army - they could have done nothing.
Instead it was the North that was unprepared and the South could have won if not for the norths superior industry and larger population.

 

[longly]

Good God!
How can you defend that?

it was blacks being killed, blacks being beaten, black houses and businesses being burned down

And you blame the blacks?

WTF is the matter with you?

Those things happen in riots and war. They happened just recently, and I don't assign blame in history. I point out mistakes; if you consider that assigning blame, well, I'm sorry, but that's the way it is—it is history. It seems you could be more objective. I think you would make a poor historian.

 

[longly]

Nope.
There would not have been a war because Fremont would not have allowed the southern states to build a strong coalition, would not have given them money to build an army (Buchanan did, and knew he was doing it) The south would have never started a war because they did not have the means to fight it without Northern money.
What would have happened is either Fremont in a 2nd term, or Lincoln would have banned slavery. The south would have tried some kind of protest, but without an army - they could have done nothing.
Instead it was the North that was unprepared and the South could have won if not for the norths superior industry and larger population.

There’s a lesson to be learned from that. I have said many times before that wars are won or lost before the first shot is ever fired. Of course, that is something of an exaggeration—there have been times when people were unprepared yet still managed to prevail. But you have to be lucky or have God on your side. I’m not sure we have God on our side anymore, and our luck can’t last forever. I can see us making mistakes now—mistakes that I hope I won’t live to see come to fruition. Unfortunately, the ones I love may.

 

[Mushroom]

Slavery was spreading West and Congress and earlier presidents placated the South to appease them

And that is known as a "lie".

After the Missouri Compromise in 1820, exactly one state entered the Union as a Slave State. And that was Texas in the Compromise of 1850.

In fact, that is what ultimately led the nation to war. As California was from the start a free territory then a free state. In fact, every territory established after 1850 was a Free Territory.

So tell us, exactly where did slavery "spread west" after the annexation of Texas in 1845? Because the facts state otherwise, and that was actually a major concern for the Southern States, as they realized that if the new territories of Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Oregon became stats, they would all become free states. Shifting the balance of power drastically against them as the only two territories they had picked up since the Missouri Compromise were Texas and Florida.

 

[Mushroom]

You have no responsibility for what your ancestors did.

But in no way should the Confederacy be celebrated.

Where in the hell did I say anything about the Confederacy?

What, are you already trying to hijack this thread and take it into a different direction?

 

[Unkotare]

...

In fact, that is what ultimately led the nation to war.

What ultimately led the nation to war was founding a country "conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" while allowing slavery to exist. Everything that followed was inevitable despite the best efforts of brilliant statesmen to keep it at bay.

 

[Mushroom]

What ultimately led the nation to war was founding a country "conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" while allowing slavery to exist.

And that was discussed in the earliest days when there were just UK colonies.

And you know, it's kind of a failure to use a quote from Abraham Lincoln from 1863 when trying to make that statement.

And yes, I am aware that he lifted it from the Declaration of Independence. But that was also not an official foundation of the nation, but a statement why it had to separate itself from England. And there was no "nation" at the time it was written. The "nation" as we know it would not be created until 1777 with the Articles of Confederation.

 

[rightwinger]

Nope.
There would not have been a war because Fremont would not have allowed the southern states to build a strong coalition, would not have given them money to build an army (Buchanan did, and knew he was doing it) The south would have never started a war because they did not have the means to fight it without Northern money.
What would have happened is either Fremont in a 2nd term, or Lincoln would have banned slavery. The south would have tried some kind of protest, but without an army - they could have done nothing.
Instead it was the North that was unprepared and the South could have won if not for the norths superior industry and larger population.

We saw how rabid the South was about keeping their slaves and later keeping blacks in their place.

The election of Lincoln was going to spark secession regardless

 

[rightwinger]

What ultimately led the nation to war was founding a country "conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" while allowing slavery to exist. Everything that followed was inevitable despite the best efforts of brilliant statesmen to keep it at bay.

The founders belief that all men are created equal did not apply to race. It referred to the concept of royalty that some are born to rule over others.

 

[rightwinger]

And that is known as a "lie".

After the Missouri Compromise in 1820, exactly one state entered the Union as a Slave State. And that was Texas in the Compromise of 1850.

In fact, that is what ultimately led the nation to war. As California was from the start a free territory then a free state. In fact, every territory established after 1850 was a Free Territory.

So tell us, exactly where did slavery "spread west" after the annexation of Texas in 1845? Because the facts state otherwise, and that was actually a major concern for the Southern States, as they realized that if the new territories of Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Oregon became stats, they would all become free states. Shifting the balance of power drastically against them as the only two territories they had picked up since the Missouri Compromise were Texas and Florida.

The Missouri Compromise was an attempt to placate the South as they saw their political power eroding as free states were added to the nation.

That is what Lincoln would have done as President not free the slaves. But the south chose to secede rather than live in a country that did not support slavery.

What makes them an evil empire

 

[iamwhatiseem]

We saw how rabid the South was about keeping their slaves and later keeping blacks in their place.

The election of Lincoln was going to spark secession regardless

Perhaps, probably. But it would have been a move that wrecked both, as their economies were intertwined and relied on each other. Without that, it would send the country into an economic collapse. It wouldn't have lasted. The South was basically broke, and would collapse in a year without the Norths money and financing.

 

[Hafar1014]

Perhaps, probably. But it would have been a move that wrecked both, as their economies were intertwined and relied on each other. Without that, it would send the country into an economic collapse. It wouldn't have lasted. The South was basically broke, and would collapse in a year without the Norths money and financing.

Which has nothing to do with the immoral defense of slavery

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Which has nothing to do with the immoral defense of slavery

Congratulations for making a point no one is arguing