Should Blacks Pay Reparations To Whites?

[Correll]

I prefer to assume you are just clueless and Causeless; but, I may be wrong, "twice a day".

Abolition of slavery was public policy after 1808. The South had Cause for Eminent Domain.

Explain how eminent domain could or should have been used to address slavery at that point in time.

And please try to ACTUALLY STATE WHAT YOU MEAN instead of hiding your meaning in word salad.

 

[danielpalos]

I prefer to assume you are just clueless and Causeless; but, I may be wrong, "twice a day".

Abolition of slavery was public policy after 1808. The South had Cause for Eminent Domain.

Explain how eminent domain could or should have been used to address slavery at that point in time.

And please try to ACTUALLY STATE WHAT YOU MEAN instead of hiding your meaning in word salad.

The South should have been compensated via Eminent Domain, since it was public policy after 1808.

 

[Correll]

I prefer to assume you are just clueless and Causeless; but, I may be wrong, "twice a day".

Abolition of slavery was public policy after 1808. The South had Cause for Eminent Domain.

Explain how eminent domain could or should have been used to address slavery at that point in time.

And please try to ACTUALLY STATE WHAT YOU MEAN instead of hiding your meaning in word salad.

The South should have been compensated via Eminent Domain, since it was public policy after 1808.

ON the surface of it, that would have been a better answer than WAR, if the North was willing to pay and the South was willing to accept.


But as nether was likely true, your words have no meaning.

Even as a thought exercise in What If.

And still, what does that have to do with the topic? THat you think there was a better way does not detract from the sacrifices of the Union soldiers.

 

[danielpalos]

I prefer to assume you are just clueless and Causeless; but, I may be wrong, "twice a day".

Abolition of slavery was public policy after 1808. The South had Cause for Eminent Domain.

Explain how eminent domain could or should have been used to address slavery at that point in time.

And please try to ACTUALLY STATE WHAT YOU MEAN instead of hiding your meaning in word salad.

The South should have been compensated via Eminent Domain, since it was public policy after 1808.

ON the surface of it, that would have been a better answer than WAR, if the North was willing to pay and the South was willing to accept.


But as nether was likely true, your words have no meaning.

Even as a thought exercise in What If.

And still, what does that have to do with the topic? THat you think there was a better way does not detract from the sacrifices of the Union soldiers.

lousy management.

 

[Correll]

I prefer to assume you are just clueless and Causeless; but, I may be wrong, "twice a day".

Abolition of slavery was public policy after 1808. The South had Cause for Eminent Domain.

Explain how eminent domain could or should have been used to address slavery at that point in time.

And please try to ACTUALLY STATE WHAT YOU MEAN instead of hiding your meaning in word salad.

The South should have been compensated via Eminent Domain, since it was public policy after 1808.

ON the surface of it, that would have been a better answer than WAR, if the North was willing to pay and the South was willing to accept.


But as nether was likely true, your words have no meaning.

Even as a thought exercise in What If.

And still, what does that have to do with the topic? THat you think there was a better way does not detract from the sacrifices of the Union soldiers.

lousy management.

So, hypothetically the southerns get a lump sum payment for their slaves. They spend it. What happens next?

 

[katsteve2012]

I've told you before, I'm not a Democrat. Neither of today's parties are concerned for the well being of America.

Sure, when is the last time you voted for a Republican?

It is not I who is making up a story about 2 political parties who have changed over time.

Says the not so artful dodger who claims Republicans and Democrats decided to "switch sides" but can't name any.

Newsflash: most if not all Democratic lawmakers who were in power in 1964, are deceased.

I'm not "claiming" anything. No need to.
It is a FACT that the South prior to the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was predominately Democratic, now it is predominately Republican.
You just refuse to acknowledge history.

Demise of the Southern Democrat Is Now Nearly Complete

Yet Carter nearly swept it in 1976, 12 YEARS LATER.

So, if they were upset over the civil rights act, they seem to have got over it, a LONG TIME AGO.

No. He did not nearly "sweep it". The popular votes as well as the electoral votes prove otherwise.

The election results of 1980, which was when Carter faced Reagan show a dramatic shift in the other direction, and actually was a near "sweep" thereby proving that presidential elections are not only cyclical, but are also not indicative of lasting change. The "real south" reemerged just 4 years later.

1976 Presidential General Election Results

View attachment 128521

So, let make make sure I understand your argument as it now stands.

1. YOu state that the white southerns of the 20th century were just as racist as the actual slave owning southerns of the 1800s.

2. THus the civil rights act of 1964, supported by the Democratic Party (as well as the Republican Party) so offended the horribly "racist" southerns that they flipped from the democratic party that supported the act to the Republican Party, which also supported the act.

3. When I show you that 12 years later, that Jimmy Carter won the South in this presidential election, you dismiss that,

4. And argue that while the 76 election wasn't important, that the 1980 election, showed the "real south" when the SOuth, went with the REST OF THE COUNTY, electing Ronald Reagan, is when the "real South Emerged".




Dude....


You are absurd.




You are emotionally committed to believing that the South is racist so that you can dismiss them and ignore their ideas/interests/ect, and are just ignoring HISTORICAL FACTS that do not support your bias.

Did you alt right people all attend the same elementary school where you learn to interpret the words of others in a completely opposite context than they were stated?



One last time I will repeat:

*White SOUTHERN lawmakers DID NOT support the Civil Rights act, and you cannot prove otherwise.

It was NORTHERN republicans AND Democrats who did so.
That is what I have stated since this troll thread was started. You can deny that to suit your delusions if you choose. But you cannot alter facts.

*The lame attempt by those like you and others to insist that republicans were all aligned in supporting the initiative is an insult to anyone who can use a computer and Google the truth. Maybe you should try to do so for a change.

*The election of Jimmy Carter in 1976 was NOT indicative of a lasting "change" in the voting patterns of the south as you are insisting. Elections are cyclical, and people often vote based more on emotion than their own self interest.

Carter was a farmer from rural Georgia and gained votes from people in the region based on that and his religious convictions.



This is not something that "I made up because of bias" as you are trying to claim. That's a ridiculous statement on your part.

It was YOU who stated that Carter won in a "near sweep" and it was not even close to that. I showed you the 1980 results which proved that Reagan actually did win in a near sweep.

And there were aspects of his campaign that involved race that influenced voting patterns to shift.

You can look up the same information that speaks to the same facts. All it takes is some time and a little less denial.

 

[IM2]

Why should we pay reparations to whites who fought in the civil war when blacks fought in it too? And then why do people actually think this is a logical argument? Blacks did not capture whites as a result of war so why then should blacks pay whites reparations when blacks did them no harm, stole nothing from them, or anything that would require reparative damages to be paid?

It's no more absurd than blacks receiving reparations from whites (who died to free them). The difference is that whites aren't asking for them.

The problem is that whites did not die to free them. And after that we had a system of segregation that lasted longer than slavery did if we count the start of the nation from 1776. This is a stupid argument that makes no sense, has no merit, is based on a false equivalence that a sane and mentally stable person would not even try arguing.

 

[IM2]

Also maybe it's time dumb whites understood that slave masters did get reparations for slaves they lost when the emancipation proclamation was signed. Then go learn what reparations actually are and why they are awarded.

 

[danielpalos]

I prefer to assume you are just clueless and Causeless; but, I may be wrong, "twice a day".

Abolition of slavery was public policy after 1808. The South had Cause for Eminent Domain.

Explain how eminent domain could or should have been used to address slavery at that point in time.

And please try to ACTUALLY STATE WHAT YOU MEAN instead of hiding your meaning in word salad.

The South should have been compensated via Eminent Domain, since it was public policy after 1808.

ON the surface of it, that would have been a better answer than WAR, if the North was willing to pay and the South was willing to accept.


But as nether was likely true, your words have no meaning.

Even as a thought exercise in What If.

And still, what does that have to do with the topic? THat you think there was a better way does not detract from the sacrifices of the Union soldiers.

lousy management.

So, hypothetically the southerns get a lump sum payment for their slaves. They spend it. What happens next?

a capital boom and plenty of labor to be hired?

 

[Correll]

Sure, when is the last time you voted for a Republican?
Says the not so artful dodger who claims Republicans and Democrats decided to "switch sides" but can't name any.

Newsflash: most if not all Democratic lawmakers who were in power in 1964, are deceased.

I'm not "claiming" anything. No need to.
It is a FACT that the South prior to the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was predominately Democratic, now it is predominately Republican.
You just refuse to acknowledge history.

Demise of the Southern Democrat Is Now Nearly Complete

Yet Carter nearly swept it in 1976, 12 YEARS LATER.

So, if they were upset over the civil rights act, they seem to have got over it, a LONG TIME AGO.

No. He did not nearly "sweep it". The popular votes as well as the electoral votes prove otherwise.

The election results of 1980, which was when Carter faced Reagan show a dramatic shift in the other direction, and actually was a near "sweep" thereby proving that presidential elections are not only cyclical, but are also not indicative of lasting change. The "real south" reemerged just 4 years later.

1976 Presidential General Election Results

View attachment 128521

So, let make make sure I understand your argument as it now stands.

1. YOu state that the white southerns of the 20th century were just as racist as the actual slave owning southerns of the 1800s.

2. THus the civil rights act of 1964, supported by the Democratic Party (as well as the Republican Party) so offended the horribly "racist" southerns that they flipped from the democratic party that supported the act to the Republican Party, which also supported the act.

3. When I show you that 12 years later, that Jimmy Carter won the South in this presidential election, you dismiss that,

4. And argue that while the 76 election wasn't important, that the 1980 election, showed the "real south" when the SOuth, went with the REST OF THE COUNTY, electing Ronald Reagan, is when the "real South Emerged".




Dude....


You are absurd.




You are emotionally committed to believing that the South is racist so that you can dismiss them and ignore their ideas/interests/ect, and are just ignoring HISTORICAL FACTS that do not support your bias.

Did you alt right people all attend the same elementary school where you learn to interpret the words of others in a completely opposite context than they were stated?



One last time I will repeat:

*White SOUTHERN lawmakers DID NOT support the Civil Rights act, and you cannot prove otherwise.

It was NORTHERN republicans AND Democrats who did so.
That is what I have stated since this troll thread was started. You can deny that to suit your delusions if you choose. But you cannot alter facts.

*The lame attempt by those like you and others to insist that republicans were all aligned in supporting the initiative is an insult to anyone who can use a computer and Google the truth. Maybe you should try to do so for a change.

*The election of Jimmy Carter in 1976 was NOT indicative of a lasting "change" in the voting patterns of the south as you are insisting. Elections are cyclical, and people often vote based more on emotion than their own self interest.

Carter was a farmer from rural Georgia and gained votes from people in the region based on that and his religious convictions.



This is not something that "I made up because of bias" as you are trying to claim. That's a ridiculous statement on your part.

It was YOU who stated that Carter won in a "near sweep" and it was not even close to that. I showed you the 1980 results which proved that Reagan actually did win in a near sweep.

And there were aspects of his campaign that involved race that influenced voting patterns to shift.

You can look up the same information that speaks to the same facts. All it takes is some time and a little less denial.

1. If the divide in support for Civil Rights was not dem vs republican, then why you think that it had anything to do with the south flipping from dem to republican?

2. the GOP as a party was pro-civil rights long before it was cool and was all along. A few southern exceptions does not change that.

3. Jimmy Carter massive success in the South, leading him to win the Presidency, does argue against the reasons you claim for the long term shift of the South, ie that is was because of Race.

4. And Reagan did not win in 80 because of race, he won because Carter was a terrible president, with a terrible record. The same southerns who voted for Carter in 76, suddenly did not become MORE RACIST 4 years later to vote against Carter and his Civil Rights support.


5. Winning all but one southern state, is a near sweep.

 

[Correll]

Explain how eminent domain could or should have been used to address slavery at that point in time.

And please try to ACTUALLY STATE WHAT YOU MEAN instead of hiding your meaning in word salad.

The South should have been compensated via Eminent Domain, since it was public policy after 1808.

ON the surface of it, that would have been a better answer than WAR, if the North was willing to pay and the South was willing to accept.


But as nether was likely true, your words have no meaning.

Even as a thought exercise in What If.

And still, what does that have to do with the topic? THat you think there was a better way does not detract from the sacrifices of the Union soldiers.

lousy management.

So, hypothetically the southerns get a lump sum payment for their slaves. They spend it. What happens next?

a capital boom and plenty of labor to be hired?

Nope. Cotton was too labor intensive. You pay real wages and the margins would become to small to support the Plantation Class. Their world would end.


The labor would leave to be small farmers supporting themselves in better conditions.

 

[danielpalos]

The South should have been compensated via Eminent Domain, since it was public policy after 1808.

ON the surface of it, that would have been a better answer than WAR, if the North was willing to pay and the South was willing to accept.


But as nether was likely true, your words have no meaning.

Even as a thought exercise in What If.

And still, what does that have to do with the topic? THat you think there was a better way does not detract from the sacrifices of the Union soldiers.

lousy management.

So, hypothetically the southerns get a lump sum payment for their slaves. They spend it. What happens next?

a capital boom and plenty of labor to be hired?

Nope. Cotton was too labor intensive. You pay real wages and the margins would become to small to support the Plantation Class. Their world would end.


The labor would leave to be small farmers supporting themselves in better conditions.

Capital would have been in plentiful supply in the South after that "reimbursement".

The Industrial Revolution was beginning; and we really could have avoided the Civil War, and made more progress on our Industrial Revolution.

 

[Correll]

ON the surface of it, that would have been a better answer than WAR, if the North was willing to pay and the South was willing to accept.


But as nether was likely true, your words have no meaning.

Even as a thought exercise in What If.

And still, what does that have to do with the topic? THat you think there was a better way does not detract from the sacrifices of the Union soldiers.

lousy management.

So, hypothetically the southerns get a lump sum payment for their slaves. They spend it. What happens next?

a capital boom and plenty of labor to be hired?

Nope. Cotton was too labor intensive. You pay real wages and the margins would become to small to support the Plantation Class. Their world would end.


The labor would leave to be small farmers supporting themselves in better conditions.

Capital would have been in plentiful supply in the South after that "reimbursement".

The Industrial Revolution was beginning; and we really could have avoided the Civil War, and made more progress on our Industrial Revolution.

People who entire business experience and workforce and culture and infrastructure were set up to grow and export cotton are NOT going to suddenly and successfully transform into industrialists.


THey might TRY. The vast majority would fail.


The South would be impoverished and marginalized for generations.

 

[katsteve2012]

Why should we pay reparations to whites who fought in the civil war when blacks fought in it too? And then why do people actually think this is a logical argument? Blacks did not capture whites as a result of war so why then should blacks pay whites reparations when blacks did them no harm, stole nothing from them, or anything that would require reparative damages to be paid?

It's no more absurd than blacks receiving reparations from whites (who died to free them). The difference is that whites aren't asking for them.

The problem is that whites did not die to free them. And after that we had a system of segregation that lasted longer than slavery did if we count the start of the nation from 1776. This is a stupid argument that makes no sense, has no merit, is based on a false equivalence that a sane and mentally stable person would not even try arguing.

Correct. I've stated the same point.

You will actually encounter people in this forum who will insist that there was no difference between Southern and Northern Democrats and Republicans, and that the "War for States" rights was a noble effort to "free the slaves", and black citizens owe a debt of gratitude to those who fought in the war, in spite of the fact that Jim Crow laws took effect almost immediately after the war and stayed in effect right up until the passing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

Legislation that really never should have had to be passed, because rights should have been in effect to begin with.

No gratitude owed.

 

[katsteve2012]

Newsflash: most if not all Democratic lawmakers who were in power in 1964, are deceased.

I'm not "claiming" anything. No need to.
It is a FACT that the South prior to the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was predominately Democratic, now it is predominately Republican.
You just refuse to acknowledge history.

Demise of the Southern Democrat Is Now Nearly Complete

Yet Carter nearly swept it in 1976, 12 YEARS LATER.

So, if they were upset over the civil rights act, they seem to have got over it, a LONG TIME AGO.

No. He did not nearly "sweep it". The popular votes as well as the electoral votes prove otherwise.

The election results of 1980, which was when Carter faced Reagan show a dramatic shift in the other direction, and actually was a near "sweep" thereby proving that presidential elections are not only cyclical, but are also not indicative of lasting change. The "real south" reemerged just 4 years later.

1976 Presidential General Election Results

View attachment 128521

So, let make make sure I understand your argument as it now stands.

1. YOu state that the white southerns of the 20th century were just as racist as the actual slave owning southerns of the 1800s.

2. THus the civil rights act of 1964, supported by the Democratic Party (as well as the Republican Party) so offended the horribly "racist" southerns that they flipped from the democratic party that supported the act to the Republican Party, which also supported the act.

3. When I show you that 12 years later, that Jimmy Carter won the South in this presidential election, you dismiss that,

4. And argue that while the 76 election wasn't important, that the 1980 election, showed the "real south" when the SOuth, went with the REST OF THE COUNTY, electing Ronald Reagan, is when the "real South Emerged".




Dude....


You are absurd.




You are emotionally committed to believing that the South is racist so that you can dismiss them and ignore their ideas/interests/ect, and are just ignoring HISTORICAL FACTS that do not support your bias.

Did you alt right people all attend the same elementary school where you learn to interpret the words of others in a completely opposite context than they were stated?



One last time I will repeat:

*White SOUTHERN lawmakers DID NOT support the Civil Rights act, and you cannot prove otherwise.

It was NORTHERN republicans AND Democrats who did so.
That is what I have stated since this troll thread was started. You can deny that to suit your delusions if you choose. But you cannot alter facts.

*The lame attempt by those like you and others to insist that republicans were all aligned in supporting the initiative is an insult to anyone who can use a computer and Google the truth. Maybe you should try to do so for a change.

*The election of Jimmy Carter in 1976 was NOT indicative of a lasting "change" in the voting patterns of the south as you are insisting. Elections are cyclical, and people often vote based more on emotion than their own self interest.

Carter was a farmer from rural Georgia and gained votes from people in the region based on that and his religious convictions.



This is not something that "I made up because of bias" as you are trying to claim. That's a ridiculous statement on your part.

It was YOU who stated that Carter won in a "near sweep" and it was not even close to that. I showed you the 1980 results which proved that Reagan actually did win in a near sweep.

And there were aspects of his campaign that involved race that influenced voting patterns to shift.

You can look up the same information that speaks to the same facts. All it takes is some time and a little less denial.

1. If the divide in support for Civil Rights was not dem vs republican, then why you think that it had anything to do with the south flipping from dem to republican?

2. the GOP as a party was pro-civil rights long before it was cool and was all along. A few southern exceptions does not change that.

3. Jimmy Carter massive success in the South, leading him to win the Presidency, does argue against the reasons you claim for the long term shift of the South, ie that is was because of Race.

4. And Reagan did not win in 80 because of race, he won because Carter was a terrible president, with a terrible record. The same southerns who voted for Carter in 76, suddenly did not become MORE RACIST 4 years later to vote against Carter and his Civil R

5. Winning all but one southern state, is a near sweep.

You never qualified you assertion of "sweep" applying only to the south.

As far as you glorifying The GOP ss being pro civil rights as a whole, there was a clear division in ideology across geography. The South was not.

"You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the confederacy and those that were not."

"Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did.

The same pattern holds true when looking at ideology instead of party affiliation. The folks over at Voteview.com, who created DW-nominate scores to measure the ideology of congressmen and senators, found that the more liberal a congressman or senator was the more likely he would vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once one controlled for a factor closely linked to geography.

That's why Strom Thurmond left the Democratic party soon after the Civil Right Act passed. He recognized that of the two parties, it was the Republican party that was more hospitable to his message. The Republican candidate for president in 1964, Barry Goldwater, was one of the few non-Confederate state senators to vote against the bill. He carried his home state of Arizona and swept the deep southern states – a first for a Republican ever.

Now, it wasn't that the Civil Rights Act was what turned the South against the Democrats or minorities against Republicans. Those patterns, as Trende showed, had been developing for a while. It was, however, a manifestation of these growing coalitions. The South gradually became home to the conservative party, while the north became home to the liberal party."

Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten

 

[S.J.]

The problem is that whites did not die to free them.

Wow, talk about denial. Thanks for that colossal display of stupidity.

 

[IM2]

The problem is that whites did not die to free them.

Wow, talk about denial. Thanks for that colossal display of stupidity.

Not denial. TRUTH.

 

[S.J.]

4. And Reagan did not win in 80 because of race, he won because Carter was a terrible president, with a terrible record. The same southerns who voted for Carter in 76, suddenly did not become MORE RACIST 4 years later to vote against Carter and his Civil Rights support.

Katsteve thinks in terms of race. He sees it as the deciding factor in any election. If his candidate wins, it's a victory over racism. If he loses, it's because racism reared it's ugly head. The funny thing is that he defends the party who gave us Jim Crow laws and the KKK.

 

[S.J.]

The problem is that whites did not die to free them.

Wow, talk about denial. Thanks for that colossal display of stupidity.

Not denial. TRUTH.

Thanks again.

 

[IM2]

The problem is that whites did not die to free them.

Wow, talk about denial. Thanks for that colossal display of stupidity.

Not denial. TRUTH.

Thanks again.

I guess whites like you have to learn the hard way that you believe a lie,

The Civil War and emancipation
1861 - 1865

To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American volunteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened.

The Civil War