Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Slavery is explained in the old and new king james testaments very well. It is also explained in the koran.
It is as old as time and part the common law of mother nature.
Statutory law has make it wrong, with punishments. Doesn't mean it is extinct. It has different levels that are tested daily on every working man, woman and child.
The only thing that has stopped slavery are machines.
Many liberals actually support a kind of slavery --- the bringing in of millions of cheap foreign workers who will work for less than minimum wage and no job benefits. Liberals insist that dirt cheap workers are needed to do the lowly jobs no American wants to do, and they have no problem that hundreds of them die every year in transit.
Slaves have been replaced with illegals who will work for very little pay -- and northerners use illegal labor for the same reason people owned slaves. They want their servants dirt cheap if not free. In some ways illegals are better -- the minute they act up or want a raise, you can simply bring more in and it doesn't cost you if some die in the unventilated semi-trailer or box car.
This is BS-- read the declaration I posted above. Secession happened because Lincoln was anti-slavery and won the election.
Secession happened, because lincoln was elected president without winning a single southern state. In fact Virginia, a border state didn't initially secede, but was forced into it by the illegal actions of President Lincoln, as were several other states.
BTW, if you read the document signed by the Commonwealth of Virginia, when joining the United States of America, it actually allowed for secession, so Virginia was legally, and within their rights to cede from the Union.
Do you deny that until Anthony Johnson, a Black Man, there were NO slaves, until he OWNED the first slave?
Do you deny that slavery was alive and well in the north until AFTER the end of the Civil War?
Do you deny that Ulysses Grant's family owned slaves during the Civil war?
Do you deny that the Emancipation Proclamation freed ONLY those slaves in the South, and not a single slave in the North?
And this why ever person of recent foreign heritage should ignore those generational Americans who gripe about them flying another country's flag. It's HERITAGE, not hate. Our heritage just happens to be in another country. Just like many of their heritages are rooted in something that no longer exists and that was anti-unity...yet they love it just the same.
I have always loved the look of the Confederate Battle Flag. It's grand looking and it makes southerners feel proud of their heritage. Unfortunately the flag was taken down but I think it should have remained for historical purposes. There is nothing wrong with that flag.
Yes. It had to be done for national security purposes.
That is NOT ok, I wish somebody would lock up all these people that cling to the idea of the south and it's stupid flag...and of course, it would be for national security purposes.
I want to see the proof, that every man fighting on the Confederate side of the theater of battle, was a slave owner.
Only a small percentage were rich plantation owners. Less than 3%.
The civil war was about the very same things we are going through today, with a nation split right down the middle in their respect for the US Constitution.
The 1860 census data shows the percentage of slave-owning families in the southern states. While it was rare for a family to own a lot of slaves, in some states almost 50% of the white population owned at least one.
Even if the individual person did not own slaves, they were economically dependent on slave labor because that's where the vast majority of the money in the south was coming from. While there were few families that owned a LOT of slaves, it's almost certain every white southerner would have had familial, platonic or economic ties to slave-owners.
While the North may have been fighting to preserve the Union at first, for the South the war was ALWAYS primarily about slavery. If modern-day Southerners want to "embrace" this part of their heritage, at least they could have the honesty to own the fact that the South enthusiastically embraced and primarily fought to continue a loathsome cause.
I'm sure there were plenty of brave and gallant German soldiers in WWII who weren't anti-semites, but you don't see the swastika flying over German government buildings.
Secession happened, because lincoln was elected president without winning a single southern state. In fact Virginia, a border state didn't initially secede, but was forced into it by the illegal actions of President Lincoln, as were several other states.
BTW, if you read the document signed by the Commonwealth of Virginia, when joining the United States of America, it actually allowed for secession, so Virginia was legally, and within their rights to cede from the Union.
Do you deny that until Anthony Johnson, a Black Man, there were NO slaves, until he OWNED the first slave?Anthony Johnson was NOT the first slave owner. His case in regards to his slave happened in 1664. John Punch, a VA indentured servant w ho was black was the first black man enslaved by the court system in 1640. Anthony Johnson was an indentured servant in 1640 himself when John Punch was sentenced to a lifetime of enslavement. I see you read the recent thread that erroneously said Anthony Johnson was the first slave owner. He was not. Please don't keep spreading erroneous information
Do you deny that slavery was alive and well in the north until AFTER the end of the Civil War?Slavery did not exist in the north after the civil war.
Do you deny that Ulysses Grant's family owned slaves during the Civil war?Slavery was legal during the Civil War. Grant himself did not own slaves. His wife's family did but there is no evidence that Mrs. Grant legally owned slaves.
Do you deny that the Emancipation Proclamation freed ONLY those slaves in the South, and not a single slave in the North?This is common knowledge. The majority of northern states had already gradually gotten rid of the institution of slavery.
You seem to have a lot of white guilt. Slavery happened. The south tried to hold onto to it as long as they could. A war was fought. They loss.
There is no need to find "pride" in a rebel flag. Southerners have many symbols and traditions worthy of celebration over a divisive rebel flag.
And I agree that MS Is still the most backward southern state and as a whole that state is not working on progressing educationally, economically, or socially. GA got rid if it's battle flag because it is more of a progressive state - we have pre-k for all kids (MS is the Only Southern state without free pre-k many believe due to constituents not wanting to give poor and black students free preschool, the rest of the south sees the benefits). GA hosts a lot of conventions and sporting events, especially here in Atlanta. Having that flag could cause people to view us as divisive racists and subject us to boycotts so Roy Barnes did the state a great favor by removing the flag and Sonny Purdue did the state a great favor by not putting it up to a vote as he knew the rebel flag would win and hurt the state. The GA flag now is more historical IMO since it is actually a southern, confederate flag, but doesn't have the negative associations that the battle flag has so it actually does harken back to southern and confederate history.
I have always loved the look of the Confederate Battle Flag. It's grand looking and it makes southerners feel proud of their heritage. Unfortunately the flag was taken down but I think it should have remained for historical purposes. There is nothing wrong with that flag.
The 1860 census data shows the percentage of slave-owning families in the southern states. While it was rare for a family to own a lot of slaves, in some states almost 50% of the white population owned at least one.
Even if the individual person did not own slaves, they were economically dependent on slave labor because that's where the vast majority of the money in the south was coming from. While there were few families that owned a LOT of slaves, it's almost certain every white southerner would have had familial, platonic or economic ties to slave-owners.
While the North may have been fighting to preserve the Union at first, for the South the war was ALWAYS primarily about slavery. If modern-day Southerners want to "embrace" this part of their heritage, at least they could have the honesty to own the fact that the South enthusiastically embraced and primarily fought to continue a loathsome cause.
I'm sure there were plenty of brave and gallant German soldiers in WWII who weren't anti-semites, but you don't see the swastika flying over German government buildings.
I present a product of revisionist history teaching in our nation's schools
Sent from my SPH-L300 using Tapatalk 2
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
