bellesotico
BOXstar
Re: what would you do
Sorry Pick-Up..I didn't see your post before I wrote mine.
Sorry Pick-Up..I didn't see your post before I wrote mine.
What would you do - 200 years ago
- Thread starter dilligaf
- Start date
stevetheupsguy
sʇǝʌǝʇɥǝndsƃnʎ
Re: what would you do
I'M OUT!!!
[video=youtube;LkklW7VEBHA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkklW7VEBHA[/video]
I'M OUT!!!
[video=youtube;LkklW7VEBHA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkklW7VEBHA[/video]
Solidarity413
Well-Known Member
Re: what would you do
I get that to some people it represents "independence" But to the rest of us it just shows you're a racist. State rights may prevail for speed limits but when peoples lives are being threatened, as in the case of slavery, the nation steps in and stops it. You are eluding to the fact that Africans turned other Africans in for slavery, which I'm sure is what happened in some cases. Have you ever asked yourself what you would do in that scenario? I bet you'd put your tail between your legs and point to your brother/sister too. And if you believe that all slaves got here because Africans turned them in you're grossly misinformed.
There were no 'white' slaves, this is a silly concept. During this time the 'white' identity was still be constructed so the people you speak of being servants were mostly Irish. And at the time the Irish were not white,. The government in fact did everything they could to get the chruch back in Ireland to say they support slavery but at the time the chruch denied. However the Irish weren't slaves, they still had freedom they were just tied to master for X amount of time. They weren't beat if they could read, or their wives weren't raped in front of them.
The stars and bars may not have been associated with pro-slavery positions before the war, I'll take your word on it. However when you back such a huge issue it then becomes a defining characteristic of the symbol. It seems like a cop-out to wave the flag really. There is no other reason. There's plenty of symbols out there that represent individual rights, why use the one that has such a stained story?
I get that to some people it represents "independence" But to the rest of us it just shows you're a racist. State rights may prevail for speed limits but when peoples lives are being threatened, as in the case of slavery, the nation steps in and stops it. You are eluding to the fact that Africans turned other Africans in for slavery, which I'm sure is what happened in some cases. Have you ever asked yourself what you would do in that scenario? I bet you'd put your tail between your legs and point to your brother/sister too. And if you believe that all slaves got here because Africans turned them in you're grossly misinformed.
There were no 'white' slaves, this is a silly concept. During this time the 'white' identity was still be constructed so the people you speak of being servants were mostly Irish. And at the time the Irish were not white,. The government in fact did everything they could to get the chruch back in Ireland to say they support slavery but at the time the chruch denied. However the Irish weren't slaves, they still had freedom they were just tied to master for X amount of time. They weren't beat if they could read, or their wives weren't raped in front of them.
The stars and bars may not have been associated with pro-slavery positions before the war, I'll take your word on it. However when you back such a huge issue it then becomes a defining characteristic of the symbol. It seems like a cop-out to wave the flag really. There is no other reason. There's plenty of symbols out there that represent individual rights, why use the one that has such a stained story?
P
pickup
Guest
Re: what would you do
your post and those facts was what I was trying to aim for, couldn't pull the rabbit out of the hat so I settled with what I posted. You said the same thing better in less words.
your post and those facts was what I was trying to aim for, couldn't pull the rabbit out of the hat so I settled with what I posted. You said the same thing better in less words.
P
pickup
Guest
Solidarity413
Well-Known Member
dilligaf
IN VINO VERITAS
Re: what would you do
Danny and Belle, I was doing some searching on the Confederate Flag and I found this bit about Lee. I thought you might like to read it. This came from usflag.org. It talks a little about the 'Stars and Bars' and the 'Battle Flag' or better known as the 'Southern Cross'. I have also heard the Battle Flag refered to as the 'Union Jack'. This note is in reference to the flags.
NOTE: It is necessary to disclaim any connection of these flags to neo-nazis, red-necks, skin-heads and the like. These groups have adopted this flag and desecrated it by their acts. They have no right to use this flag - it is a flag of honor, designed by the confederacy as a banner representing state's rights and still revered by the South. In fact, under attack, it still flies over the South Carolina capitol building. The South denies any relation to these hate groups and denies them the right to use the flags of the confederacy for any purpose. The crimes committed by these groups under the stolen banner of the conderacy only exacerbate the lies which link the seccesion to slavery interests when, from a Southerner's view, the cause was state's rights.
Note contributed by BJ Meksikatsi.
This is also on the site, about Gen. Lee.
Farewell to the Army of Northern Virginia
by Robert E. Lee
After four years of arduous service, marked by unsurpassed courage and fortitude, the Army of Northern Virginia has been compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources.
I need not tell the survivors of so many hard-fought battles who have remained steadfast to the last that I have consented to this result from no distrust of them; but feeling that valor and devotion could accomplish nothing that could compensate for the loss that would have attended the continuance of the contest, I determined to avoid the useless sacrifice of those whose past services have endeared them to their countrymen. By the terms of the agreement, officers and men can return to their homes and remain until exchanged.
You may take with you the satisfaction that proceeds from the consciousness of duty faithfully performed, and I earnestly pray that a merciful God will extend to you his blessing and protection.
With an unceasing admiration of your constancy and devotion to your country, and a grateful remembrance of your kind and generous consideration of myself, I bid you all an affectionate farewell.
The Character of Lee
by John Williams Jones
He possessed every virtue of the great commanders, without their vices. He was a foe without hate; a friend without treachery; a private citizen without wrong; a neighbor without reproach; a Christian without hypocrisy, and a man without guilt. He was a Caesar without his ambition; a Frederick without his tyranny; a Napoleon without his selfishness; and a Washington without his reward. He was obedient to authority as a servant, and loyal in authority as a true king. He was gentle as a woman in life; modest and pure as a virgin in thought; watchful as a Roman vestal in duty; submissive to law as Socrates, and grand in battle as Achilles. He Lost a War and Won Immortality
by Louis Redmond
Even among the free, it is not always easy to live together. There came a time, less than a hundred years ago, when the people of this country disagreed so bitterly among themselves that some of them felt they could not go on living with the rest.
A test of arms was made to decide whether Americans should remain one nation or become two. The armies of those who believed in two nations were led by a man named Robert E. Lee.
What about Lee? What kind of man was he who nearly split the history of the United States down the middle and made two separate books of it?
They say you had to see him to believe that a man so fine could e,xist. He was handsome. He was clever. He was brave. He was gentle. He was generous and charming, noble and modst, admired and beloved. He had never failed at anything in his upright soldier's life. He was a born winner, this Robert E. Lee. Except for once. In the greatest contest of his life, in the war beween the South and the North, Robert E. Lee lost.
Now there were men who came with smouldering eyes to Lee and said: "Let's not accept this result as final. Let's keep our anger alive. Let's be grim and unconvinced, and wear our bitterness like a medal. You can be our leader in this."
But Lee shook his head at those men. "Abandon your animosities," he said, "and make your sons Americans."
And what did he do himself when his war was lost? He took a job as president of a tiny college, with forty students and four profes- sors, at a salary of $1500 a year. He had commanded thousands of young men in battle. Now he wanted to prepare a few hun- dred of them for the duties of peace. So the countrymen of Robert E. Lee saw how a born winner loses, and it seemed to them that in defeat he won his most lasting victory. There is an art of losing, and Robert E. Lee is its finest teacher. In a democracy, where opposing viewpoints regularly meet for a test of ballots, it is good for all of us to know how to lose occasionally, how to yield peacefully, for the sake of freedom. Lee is our master in this. The man who fought against the Union showed us what unity means.
Danny and Belle, I was doing some searching on the Confederate Flag and I found this bit about Lee. I thought you might like to read it. This came from usflag.org. It talks a little about the 'Stars and Bars' and the 'Battle Flag' or better known as the 'Southern Cross'. I have also heard the Battle Flag refered to as the 'Union Jack'. This note is in reference to the flags.
NOTE: It is necessary to disclaim any connection of these flags to neo-nazis, red-necks, skin-heads and the like. These groups have adopted this flag and desecrated it by their acts. They have no right to use this flag - it is a flag of honor, designed by the confederacy as a banner representing state's rights and still revered by the South. In fact, under attack, it still flies over the South Carolina capitol building. The South denies any relation to these hate groups and denies them the right to use the flags of the confederacy for any purpose. The crimes committed by these groups under the stolen banner of the conderacy only exacerbate the lies which link the seccesion to slavery interests when, from a Southerner's view, the cause was state's rights.
Note contributed by BJ Meksikatsi.
This is also on the site, about Gen. Lee.
Farewell to the Army of Northern Virginia
by Robert E. Lee
After four years of arduous service, marked by unsurpassed courage and fortitude, the Army of Northern Virginia has been compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources.
I need not tell the survivors of so many hard-fought battles who have remained steadfast to the last that I have consented to this result from no distrust of them; but feeling that valor and devotion could accomplish nothing that could compensate for the loss that would have attended the continuance of the contest, I determined to avoid the useless sacrifice of those whose past services have endeared them to their countrymen. By the terms of the agreement, officers and men can return to their homes and remain until exchanged.
You may take with you the satisfaction that proceeds from the consciousness of duty faithfully performed, and I earnestly pray that a merciful God will extend to you his blessing and protection.
With an unceasing admiration of your constancy and devotion to your country, and a grateful remembrance of your kind and generous consideration of myself, I bid you all an affectionate farewell.
The Character of Lee
by John Williams Jones
He possessed every virtue of the great commanders, without their vices. He was a foe without hate; a friend without treachery; a private citizen without wrong; a neighbor without reproach; a Christian without hypocrisy, and a man without guilt. He was a Caesar without his ambition; a Frederick without his tyranny; a Napoleon without his selfishness; and a Washington without his reward. He was obedient to authority as a servant, and loyal in authority as a true king. He was gentle as a woman in life; modest and pure as a virgin in thought; watchful as a Roman vestal in duty; submissive to law as Socrates, and grand in battle as Achilles. He Lost a War and Won Immortality
by Louis Redmond
Even among the free, it is not always easy to live together. There came a time, less than a hundred years ago, when the people of this country disagreed so bitterly among themselves that some of them felt they could not go on living with the rest.
A test of arms was made to decide whether Americans should remain one nation or become two. The armies of those who believed in two nations were led by a man named Robert E. Lee.
What about Lee? What kind of man was he who nearly split the history of the United States down the middle and made two separate books of it?
They say you had to see him to believe that a man so fine could e,xist. He was handsome. He was clever. He was brave. He was gentle. He was generous and charming, noble and modst, admired and beloved. He had never failed at anything in his upright soldier's life. He was a born winner, this Robert E. Lee. Except for once. In the greatest contest of his life, in the war beween the South and the North, Robert E. Lee lost.
Now there were men who came with smouldering eyes to Lee and said: "Let's not accept this result as final. Let's keep our anger alive. Let's be grim and unconvinced, and wear our bitterness like a medal. You can be our leader in this."
But Lee shook his head at those men. "Abandon your animosities," he said, "and make your sons Americans."
And what did he do himself when his war was lost? He took a job as president of a tiny college, with forty students and four profes- sors, at a salary of $1500 a year. He had commanded thousands of young men in battle. Now he wanted to prepare a few hun- dred of them for the duties of peace. So the countrymen of Robert E. Lee saw how a born winner loses, and it seemed to them that in defeat he won his most lasting victory. There is an art of losing, and Robert E. Lee is its finest teacher. In a democracy, where opposing viewpoints regularly meet for a test of ballots, it is good for all of us to know how to lose occasionally, how to yield peacefully, for the sake of freedom. Lee is our master in this. The man who fought against the Union showed us what unity means.
dilligaf
IN VINO VERITAS
Re: what would you do
Danny, this is another site that I found interesting. This comes from the U of Va. The link is posted below.
"Now that we have established the technical origins of the flag, the task is to trace how it has arrived at the status it holds today. The flag was a symbol of the Confederate States of America, the losing party in the Civil War. Volumes upon volumes have been written about the causes of the Civil War, but most historians agree slavery was the one single issue without which the war could have been avoided. The war was not fought over slavery in the South, but slavery in the territories, especially those acquired from Mexico in 1848. Southerner's feared any kind of government regulation of their "peculiar institution," and saw the outlawing of slavery in the territories as a sure sign that slavery in the South would soon end as well. Southerners became strong advocates of state's rights and sympathized with all those who were persecuted for being different, like the Mormons. Most historians will also agree that the war was not fought over concerns about racial inequality. Abolition was never a widely popular movement, even in the North, in the years leading up to the Civil War. The primary source of anti-slavery sentiment in the North grew from the fact that slavery was incompatible with free labor. If slavery was allowed to exist in the territories, working class white citizens would simply not be able to compete. What wage worker could compete with a slave? Northerners generally wanted the territories to be a place where white people could go to earn an honest living, without the menacing negroes. The South, on the other hand, looked at the "wage slavery" in the North as worse than slavery in the South. Southerner's thought that at least they took care of their slaves even in old age or when they were not able to work. So, at the time of the Civil War, the North and South were generally in agreement on white supremacy."
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CLASS/AM483_97/projects/sarratt/intro.html
This statement would make it seem that the Civil War was indeed about slavery. The fact that this comes out of the U of Va lends it alot of credibility. As I have said before, I have no direct experience with the South. I am not saying either, that I am disagreeing with either position. I simply lack the knowledge to make that determination.
Danny, this is another site that I found interesting. This comes from the U of Va. The link is posted below.
"Now that we have established the technical origins of the flag, the task is to trace how it has arrived at the status it holds today. The flag was a symbol of the Confederate States of America, the losing party in the Civil War. Volumes upon volumes have been written about the causes of the Civil War, but most historians agree slavery was the one single issue without which the war could have been avoided. The war was not fought over slavery in the South, but slavery in the territories, especially those acquired from Mexico in 1848. Southerner's feared any kind of government regulation of their "peculiar institution," and saw the outlawing of slavery in the territories as a sure sign that slavery in the South would soon end as well. Southerners became strong advocates of state's rights and sympathized with all those who were persecuted for being different, like the Mormons. Most historians will also agree that the war was not fought over concerns about racial inequality. Abolition was never a widely popular movement, even in the North, in the years leading up to the Civil War. The primary source of anti-slavery sentiment in the North grew from the fact that slavery was incompatible with free labor. If slavery was allowed to exist in the territories, working class white citizens would simply not be able to compete. What wage worker could compete with a slave? Northerners generally wanted the territories to be a place where white people could go to earn an honest living, without the menacing negroes. The South, on the other hand, looked at the "wage slavery" in the North as worse than slavery in the South. Southerner's thought that at least they took care of their slaves even in old age or when they were not able to work. So, at the time of the Civil War, the North and South were generally in agreement on white supremacy."
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CLASS/AM483_97/projects/sarratt/intro.html
This statement would make it seem that the Civil War was indeed about slavery. The fact that this comes out of the U of Va lends it alot of credibility. As I have said before, I have no direct experience with the South. I am not saying either, that I am disagreeing with either position. I simply lack the knowledge to make that determination.
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
Re: what would you do
Dill
And let me add one more thing. Many people dont know that when the war broke out, the north offered him a command, which he refused. Instead, he went with how the state of Virginia went, to whom he had undying loyalty. VA went confederate.
Many people also dont know that at that time, Lee's home and property was within short ride of the current white house. IT was during the war, and afterward, that the north stripped him of his home and property, and used it to bury the northern dead there. After a while, it was dedicated as a national cemetery called Arlington.
So while those words you wrote display the man we all know as R E Lee, I find that the words issued to his men somewhat bitter sweet with the ones that he uttered later.
As much as he cared for the welfare of his men, he would have fought on to the last, to keep what happened later on from occurring. And I truly believe had Lincoln not been shot, the reconstruction of the south would never happened the way it did.
Such is life.
d
Dill
And let me add one more thing. Many people dont know that when the war broke out, the north offered him a command, which he refused. Instead, he went with how the state of Virginia went, to whom he had undying loyalty. VA went confederate.
Many people also dont know that at that time, Lee's home and property was within short ride of the current white house. IT was during the war, and afterward, that the north stripped him of his home and property, and used it to bury the northern dead there. After a while, it was dedicated as a national cemetery called Arlington.
So while those words you wrote display the man we all know as R E Lee, I find that the words issued to his men somewhat bitter sweet with the ones that he uttered later.
As much as he cared for the welfare of his men, he would have fought on to the last, to keep what happened later on from occurring. And I truly believe had Lincoln not been shot, the reconstruction of the south would never happened the way it did.
Such is life.
d
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
Re: what would you do
Nope Dill, dont have much time for that.
The quote from the UVA is very interesting. On many different levels.
But what it does make plain is that the slave issue in the southern states was not what was at issue, it was elsewhere. And the thought of the federal government forcing its will upon the states was totally incompatible with the independent nature of the south.
I also find the statement
And the crown in the whole article was
And that plays right into the next statement of I have heard several historians say that many of the original founders of the KKK were not Southerners, but damnable Yankee carpet baggers from the north trying to keep that slave labor from moving north to interrupt the labor force there.
d
Nope Dill, dont have much time for that.
The quote from the UVA is very interesting. On many different levels.
But what it does make plain is that the slave issue in the southern states was not what was at issue, it was elsewhere. And the thought of the federal government forcing its will upon the states was totally incompatible with the independent nature of the south.
I also find the statement
a very interesting admission of life in the north, as persecutions of people that were different was quite active (read racism here)
And the crown in the whole article was
So racism is not a south thing after all, now was it?
And that plays right into the next statement of I have heard several historians say that many of the original founders of the KKK were not Southerners, but damnable Yankee carpet baggers from the north trying to keep that slave labor from moving north to interrupt the labor force there.
d
dilligaf
IN VINO VERITAS
Re: what would you do
Thanks Danny, you put into perspective. I did have to reread your statement, "So racism is not a south thing after all, now was it?" When I first read it I missed the 'not' in the statement. As far as 'Gods and Generals' I could not stay focused on it. It probably had alot of historical references, but I got bored with it.
Thanks Danny, you put into perspective. I did have to reread your statement, "So racism is not a south thing after all, now was it?" When I first read it I missed the 'not' in the statement. As far as 'Gods and Generals' I could not stay focused on it. It probably had alot of historical references, but I got bored with it.
M
Mike23
Guest
Re: what would you do
If he's a true 'good ol'boy' the only way to deal with'em is to take'em behind the wood shed!
If he's a true 'good ol'boy' the only way to deal with'em is to take'em behind the wood shed!
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
Re: what would you do
An action that would have been a great benifit to many a troubled youth today, but better not, might hurt their self esteem.
What a crock.
Now the outhouse, that was a real interesting place to gather during school recess.......Bettern sex ed as taught in school these days.
d
An action that would have been a great benifit to many a troubled youth today, but better not, might hurt their self esteem.
What a crock.
Now the outhouse, that was a real interesting place to gather during school recess.......Bettern sex ed as taught in school these days.
d
Solidarity413
Well-Known Member
trplnkl
555
Re: what would you do
Your line of thinking plays right into the hands of those that believe that individuals are not capable of making decisions for themselves, that the Federal Government knows what is best for everyone. The Constitution of the United States of America plainly state that right not specifically granted to the Federal Government and not specifically denied to the States will be given to the States. No where in the Constitution does it say, "State rights may prevail for speed limits but when peoples lives are being threatened, as in the case of slavery, the nation steps in and stops it.". I'm not sure where you are getting your information or ideas, but I'm thinking you are the one that is misinformed.
Backing the issue of States Rights as stated in the Constitution is what the Confederate States were fighting for, the right to regulate themselves unless that regulation was granted to the Federal Gov in the Constitution. Slavery as an issue alone was NOT a huge issue in that time.
The tarnishing of the Confederate Flag came later when other groups began using the flag as their symbol of freedom to hold onto perverted ideas and actions. The tie in with the flag and slavery was fostered by the groups of true racists, not from the States themselves.
Your line of thinking plays right into the hands of those that believe that individuals are not capable of making decisions for themselves, that the Federal Government knows what is best for everyone. The Constitution of the United States of America plainly state that right not specifically granted to the Federal Government and not specifically denied to the States will be given to the States. No where in the Constitution does it say, "State rights may prevail for speed limits but when peoples lives are being threatened, as in the case of slavery, the nation steps in and stops it.". I'm not sure where you are getting your information or ideas, but I'm thinking you are the one that is misinformed.
Pray tell if the Irish were not white, what were they? Can you supply a link to the assertions about the government (what government?) to get the church in Ireland to support slavery? Hopefully those links will also mention the other "facts" that you speak of.
Please, don't take my or Danny or Dilli's word for this, do some research of your own.
Backing the issue of States Rights as stated in the Constitution is what the Confederate States were fighting for, the right to regulate themselves unless that regulation was granted to the Federal Gov in the Constitution. Slavery as an issue alone was NOT a huge issue in that time.
The tarnishing of the Confederate Flag came later when other groups began using the flag as their symbol of freedom to hold onto perverted ideas and actions. The tie in with the flag and slavery was fostered by the groups of true racists, not from the States themselves.
If Lincoln didn't give a damn about freeing the slaves, why did he declare war on the southern secessionist states?
dannyboy
From the promised LAND
Re: what would you do
Sol
Lemme ask you something "bro".....are you a closet racist? And the only reason you dont think of yourself being a racist is because you dont fly a rebel flag in your front yard? Is that the litmus test you use, the flag?
I hate to tell you, but by the statement of color in referring to the Irish, you showed me that you are in fact, at least toward some, a racist.
Why would you feel like you need to define another person by color after already identifying them by nationality?
As for the slaves being sold by their own race to the white man, absolutely so. They were only too happy to raid the other villages and take their goods and lands, and bundle off the residents to another world for even more money. That way of collecting the slaves was much more cost effective for the white man, and after all, profit was the key to the whole enterprise. Besides, capturing the slaves was dangerous. Cant have your sailors getting killed rounding up the cargo, who would sail her home?
So yes, many if not most of the slaves were first sold by members of their own race. From all over Africa. I know that some Americans
are not comfortable with that thought, but it happens to be true.
Lots of things happen in history that some people wished they could sweep under the rug. And over time, if they can exert enough influence on the re-writing of history, maybe they can.
d
Sol
Lemme ask you something "bro".....are you a closet racist? And the only reason you dont think of yourself being a racist is because you dont fly a rebel flag in your front yard? Is that the litmus test you use, the flag?
I hate to tell you, but by the statement of color in referring to the Irish, you showed me that you are in fact, at least toward some, a racist.
Why would you feel like you need to define another person by color after already identifying them by nationality?
As for the slaves being sold by their own race to the white man, absolutely so. They were only too happy to raid the other villages and take their goods and lands, and bundle off the residents to another world for even more money. That way of collecting the slaves was much more cost effective for the white man, and after all, profit was the key to the whole enterprise. Besides, capturing the slaves was dangerous. Cant have your sailors getting killed rounding up the cargo, who would sail her home?
So yes, many if not most of the slaves were first sold by members of their own race. From all over Africa. I know that some Americans
are not comfortable with that thought, but it happens to be true.
Lots of things happen in history that some people wished they could sweep under the rug. And over time, if they can exert enough influence on the re-writing of history, maybe they can.
d
Solidarity413
Well-Known Member
Re: what would you do
As for Lincoln, I don't really think he cared. I don't think it mattered in the overall outcome (we still had the war) but I think he had other reasons to care about freeing the slaves that his good heart. The north's economy was being tanked by the south because the south had free labor. Add that with the slave revolts going on in other countries at the time and it seems pretty logical to get one step ahead of the curve. But either way, it's just my opinion and doesn't really matter because either way we still had the war.
I don't think we're going to end up agreeing, but I thank you for being civil.
First, thanks for replying with logic and acting like an adult. I really appreciate it and hope that this conversation stays this way. When you say that no where in the Constitution does it say that states can tell whether or not that their state is fit for slavery I think that it does say that. We are guaranteed things by the constitution as human beings and when those things are denied it is then within the power of the Constitution to step in and stop it. I am not one of those that thinks the Federal Government can/should tell people what to do but when your enslaving people then yes if a backward state won't stop it, it's the governments job.
I can only supply you a link to the book, I recommend reading it. I can't find any parts of the book online. http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Became-White-Noel-Ignatiev/dp/0415918251
I meant our government tried to get the chruch to support slavery. The Irish and most other ethnicities did not have a “white” identity when they first came over here, it had to be constructed that is what the book above is about.
I meant our government tried to get the chruch to support slavery. The Irish and most other ethnicities did not have a “white” identity when they first came over here, it had to be constructed that is what the book above is about.
As for Lincoln, I don't really think he cared. I don't think it mattered in the overall outcome (we still had the war) but I think he had other reasons to care about freeing the slaves that his good heart. The north's economy was being tanked by the south because the south had free labor. Add that with the slave revolts going on in other countries at the time and it seems pretty logical to get one step ahead of the curve. But either way, it's just my opinion and doesn't really matter because either way we still had the war.
I don't think we're going to end up agreeing, but I thank you for being civil.
Solidarity413
Well-Known Member
Re: what would you do
Where do you get off calling me a racist? You have no idea who I am. You have no idea where my family came from. I have a strong Irish history and excuse me for being proud of my heritage before it was destroyed by accepting a false identity. You have no idea what the Irish went through back home. How dare you jokingly call the Irish green and then call me the racist. You ignorantly use the word green when I'm sure you're unaware that actually means something to Irish people.
Why does a serious attempt to discuss get turned into sarcasm and name calling with you?
Where do you get off calling me a racist? You have no idea who I am. You have no idea where my family came from. I have a strong Irish history and excuse me for being proud of my heritage before it was destroyed by accepting a false identity. You have no idea what the Irish went through back home. How dare you jokingly call the Irish green and then call me the racist. You ignorantly use the word green when I'm sure you're unaware that actually means something to Irish people.
Why does a serious attempt to discuss get turned into sarcasm and name calling with you?
