Ok follow me on this for a bit.
Slavery was what basically put the food on the table for the plantation owner and allowed him to live the lifestyle of comfort. We all know NOW that slavery was horrible but at that time he was just making money and living the life of high cotton.
Fast forward to 2017. A drug kingpin is just making money supplying heroin to his dealers. We all know it is wrong but to him it is putting food on the table and allowing him the life of luxury he chooses to have. We all know that drugs and heroin are bad now but does he care? No it's a business transaction of property and products just as slavery was in the 1860's
Ok follow me on this for a bit.
Slavery was what basically put the food on the table for the plantation owner and allowed him to live the lifestyle of comfort. We all know NOW that slavery was horrible but at that time he was just making money and living the life of high cotton.
Fast forward to 2017. A drug kingpin is just making money supplying heroin to his dealers. We all know it is wrong but to him it is putting food on the table and allowing him the life of luxury he chooses to have. We all know that drugs and heroin are bad now but does he care? No it's a business transaction of property and products just as slavery was in the 1860's
Well, we knew then it was bad. We knew in the 1700s it was bad. But to your analogy, people were OK with putting up with it because of the economic benefit it provided; the whole cost-benefit analysis worked for them.
So how's this for a twist:
Suppose the CSA negotiated a peace, allowed to secede, and thus keep slavery. While the north would have had to negotiate trade terms because it needed the materials and goods from the south, England/Europe would have boycotted, or have imposed outrageous tariffs. There is a strong argument that the CSA would have been strangled economically, and would have ended up far worse.
of course these scenarios could play out a dozen different ways.
The right to your rights, regardless of your color. There were some 3M slaves in the south in 1860, according to the census. NONE of these were allowed to vote. So the "states" represented not people, but only those who gave themselves power to vote. It had always been so since the founding of the USA, which of course was the great flaw in our Constitution. In fact, these "small government" southerners were POed also becuase the north wasn't enforcing their fugitive slave laws.
Are you a citizen? I assume when you become a citizen you'll be allowed to vote. I thought when you marry a citizen of the US you were automatically a citizen.I pay taxes, we own property - I don't qualify to vote...
It's never as black & white as we'd like it to be.
I wholeheartedly agree that you cannot look back on history and apply current views/ethics - what happened in the past may not stand judgment by today's standards but just how long do you think the apologist era should last?
You have to accept, acknowledge, learn and move on at some point.
Are you a citizen? I assume when you become a citizen you'll be allowed to vote. I thought when you marry a citizen of the US you were automatically a citizen.
That's a common misconception, no I'm not a citizen I have a greencard ( I will naturalize once I am able to) I pay the same taxes, am subject to the same law's but don't have the same rights.
I am not saying this is a bad thing, just pointing out that not all tax payers get a vote
Just wondering here....... WHO owned the slave ships? WHO sailed to Africa and BOUGHT the slaves and brought them to the US to be sold in the south to the plantation owners (at a huge markup, I'm sure). As someone posted up thread - follow the money. As I said ....Just wondering.
The "specious arguement" would be to say that slavery was viewed as normal in 1860. It clearly was not 'normal', except in the slave-holding states, who required it to support their economy. Even those states called it their "peculiar institution" - meaning "different" or "unique" - because it was just that.
I completely agree, i don't think non citizens should vote. I was just pointing out to whoever said that if you don't pay taxes you shouldn't be able to vote that there are people who pay taxes and still can't vote.Please take no offense in my thoughts but, if you are not a legal US citizen you should not get a vote plain and simple. Now once your naturalize and legally become a citizen you should be given all the same privileges including the right to vote as all other legal citizens. Any other way and illegals or green card visitors could come and sway a vote and then leave. It would not be the will of the people and their voice via the ballot box.
I completely agree, i don't think non citizens should vote. I was just pointing out to whoever said that if you don't pay taxes you shouldn't be able to vote that there are people who pay taxes and still can't vote.
I'm sorry I must have phrased myself poorly, I know that property owners pay taxes, what I am asking about is non-property owners that also pay taxes, according to your logic they have no right to vote even though they pay in to the system.Property owners are paying taxes so therefore they are taxpayers.
Also native americans were captured and sold as slaves. I've heard of irish prisoners being sold into slavery. Some say its not true.Not entirely so, even in 1861.
Aside: How many have heard/read about the story of "honest" Abe Lincoln being born right here in NC? Whose mother was at the time of his birth an indentured (slave) servant, sold into servitude by her own mother?
There's a brand new novel out, an allegory re-experiencing historical events in the not-to-distant future. Where did I see that?...Oh yeah, right there.I've heard of irish prisoners being sold into slavery.
I can't see how very many people aren't taxpayers in one way or another. Every purchase at retail, every utility payment, etc has a tax on it. Granted, there are those that pay income tax and get more back than paid in. In the end, though, taxation is still theft.I'm sorry I must have phrased myself poorly, I know that property owners pay taxes, what I am asking about is non-property owners that also pay taxes, according to your logic they have no right to vote even though they pay in to the system.
I am here to tell you kids, when @toddje gets red-pilled on the yankee question, he is gonna be the most fearsome five-finger-death-punching Kracken the snowflakes have ever seen. Mark my words.
Oh, sorry @OverMountainMan you don't have enough tenure to know that story.
So it has somthing to do with Irish slaves?There's a brand new novel out, an allegory re-experiencing historical events in the not-to-distant future. Where did I see that?...Oh yeah, right there.
Just wondering here....... WHO owned the slave ships? WHO sailed to Africa and BOUGHT the slaves and brought them to the US to be sold in the south to the plantation owners (at a huge markup, I'm sure). As someone posted up thread - follow the money. As I said ....Just wondering.
Here is what I find interesting. There has never been a war fought, in the history of mankind, that wasn't, at its root, aboutmoneypower.
No in fact it was not wrong at the time. It was frowned upon by those that did not have slaves but slaves were the money makers for the plantation and it was ok in that time frame to own slaves. I don't argue knowing what we know now that it was wrong.
Correctomundo, Fonzi.
The cultural inferiority was almost universally (in the several states and territories, I mean) recognized then, even within the black heart of "honest" Abe. Arguably, their status wouldn't have been much more pleasant (perhaps even worse) had they been magically star-trek hyperspaced back to Africa in 1860. This may seem insensitive, but I think it's just objective reality.
Which of Lincoln's speeches are you referring to? In his inaugural address he explicitly said he was not going after slavery, and used as evidence his own many prior speeches:But it was a KNOWN wrong, even then. The founders knew it. There were multiple "compromises" to try to stave off the union breaking up prior to1860. They KNEW Lincoln was coming for slavery (see some of his speeches from 58-60). And so while it may have been a "normal thing" in the south, it was not up north and it was not in Western Europe. So to go to great lengths to secede from teh US and set up a new government with essentially the same constitution plus slavery was wrong.
I can't dispute that."Cultural inferiority"? I would argue that any "culture" which endorses slavery to be inferior at its roots.
My simple answer is the latter. My point was poorly worded; cultural quality is certainly in the eye of the beholder. I was just trying to suggest they weren't necessarily worse off in every single regard.Put it this way, for your last comments there...would you rather you and your descendants live as a well cared for slaves in perpetuity, or would you rather you and your descendants live in primative conditions as free people?
The history on which it's based involves the corsair pirates. In the afterword, the author references "In 1631 Murad led another group of raiders to the village of Baltimore, Ireland, and abducted more than a hundred local inhabitants, mostly women and children bound for sex slavery." Over a million Europeans were abducted this way in the 16th through 19th centuries.So it has somthing to do with Irish slaves?
Condensed further you'll end up with "greed" flavored with "We Are Right" to make it palatable, from nations (and mobs) to individuals.↑
Here is what I find interesting. There has never been a war fought, in the history of mankind, that wasn't, at its root, about money power.
FIFY.
We can certainly debate power vs money, but the bottom line is nations deal in power and influence. Money is just one medium of exchange by which this happens.
FIFY: In other words, he clearly said sometimes that he hated slavery, and he clearly said completely different things other times.In other words, he clearly hated slavery.
He didn't
You'll need a real reference. Illionis was a free state.
It's a commonly misunderstood fact that the emmanucipation proclamation only freed slaves in southern occupied territories.
Of course its your theory he did, so while I can't prove a negative, Ill offer you this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_who_owned_slaves
It did. Now, the emancipation proclamation freed slaves in the north.
I kid, I kid.....
Yes, the EP only freed slaves in states that were in rebellion. That left places (like Maryland) with slaves. He did that because he felt he only had the power to act unilaterally under war powers. That's why those places had to wait for the 13th amendment to have freedom.