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.
So you support the Confederacy and love Robert E. Lee. Gotcha.
I do, but not for the reasons people have been brainwashed to believe.
Robert E. Lee was reaching out to the British royal navy for assistance and Lincoln knew that Britain had changed their laws in regards to slavery used in the production of industry.
In order to stop the Brits in the assist, Lincoln (oh chit he could win this, war strategy) made the war into a war about slavery. When in all reality, the war was about industry.
If people don't walk this back, there's a change coming, the likes no one has ever seen, as people have started at the bottom with this division and they are working their way up to the Constitution of these United States so as to shred that document based on racism and the founding fathers behaviors, values and ethics where as they were all participants in a 3000 year old way of life.
We can either be a part of the problem or a part of the solution to the problem. We decide if we will continue as a republic (rule of law) or not and it looks as if we are leaning towards, Democracy (mob rule).
btw: In a way of life, that has a span in social economics around the globe for 3000 years, everyone has ancestry tied to it, by either ownership or was one ... so say what this really is, cause it can't be about that.
Last edited by Ellis Bell; 08-22-2017 at 10:25 AM..
This one claims Ancestry.com researchers were thinking an indentured servant on his mother's side fathered children with a white woman. This violated the terms of his servitude and he received a life sentence as a slave, a harsher consequence than white indentured servants who violated their terms of servitude.
Wanted to note on the bold that the ancestor in question was John Punch/Bunch, who is considered one of the first known legal slaves in the US Colonies.
He actually was sentenced to be a slave after running away from his owner though, not due to him having children by a white woman. This occurred in 1640 and there were not miscegenation laws at that time. It was actually common that AFrican indentured servants and European servants resided together due to their class. When Punch ran away he was sentenced to be a slave. The two white men who ran away with him were only sentenced to an increase in their indenture period.
I have lines in my family that are descended of white women and African indentured servants who I have trace back to the late 1600s/early 1700s as well. It was a shock to find out this information for me.
I've discovered lots of very distant white cousins who are are also descendants of our many distant ancestors. Many of them were unaware until they got ancestry DNA test results. Some of the men were shocked to discover they had an African haplogroup as well that has been passed down from that distant ancestor who was African.
I do, but not for the reasons people have been brainwashed to believe.
Robert E. Lee was reaching out to the British royal navy for assistance and Lincoln knew that Britain had changed their laws in regards to slavery used in the production of industry.
In order to stop the Brits in the assist, Lincoln (oh chit he could win this, war strategy) made the war into a war about slavery. When in all reality, the war was about industry.
If people don't walk this back, there's a change coming, the likes no one has ever seen, as people have started at the bottom with this division and they are working their way up to the Constitution of these United States so as to shred that document based on racism and the founding fathers behaviors, values and ethics where as they were all participants in a 3000 year old way of life.
We can either be a part of the problem or a part of the solution to the problem. We decide if we will continue as a republic (rule of law) or not and it looks as if we are leaning towards, Democracy (mob rule).
btw: In a way of life, that has a span in social economics around the globe for 3000 years, everyone has ancestry tied to it, by either ownership or was one ... so say what this really is, cause it can't be about that.
For Lincoln the war was about preserving the Union. For secessionist, the war was about preserving slavery due to their dependence on it from an economical perspective.
It became about slavery not because Lee was reaching out to the British, they were not going to help him and this was plainly evident by 1862, but because of the insistence upon the Union having a more noble "cause" and the pressure Lincoln received from activists, most notably Frederick Douglass in order to put black men in the army as soldiers. The war was very unpopular amongst many northern whites, who may not have agreed with slavery in theory but who did not care about its continuance where it already was (which was basically Lincoln's stance). Douglass and other abolitionists wanted it to be about slavery because the south said it was about slavery in their articles of secession. Douglass also lobbied that making the war have a purpose to end slavery would make the north the moral authority in the conflict. Also changing the focus, Douglass felt would encourage slaves to run away from the CSA and join the Union army or effort to quicken the end of the war, which did occur. This would hurt the south as slave labor was a huge part of the economy and war effort for the South. Changing course caused a large amount of slaves to run away and basically follow around the Union Army. A large amount of them became laborers for the Union and a large amount of black men joined the war effort as soldiers. By war's end, 10% of the army and 16% of the navy were comprised of black men, which was greater than their share of the population at large. Nearly half a million blacks served in some capacity during the war effort either as sailors, soldiers, or laborers for the Union. Many people theorize that the turn of the tide for the North was due to the influx of black labor and soldiers and the change in purpose of the war to one of freedom instead of reconciliation.
For Lincoln the war was about preserving the Union. For secessionist, the war was about preserving slavery due to their dependence on it from an economical perspective.
It became about slavery not because Lee was reaching out to the British, they were not going to help him and this was plainly evident by 1862, but because of the insistence upon the Union having a more noble "cause" and the pressure Lincoln received from activists, most notably Frederick Douglass in order to put black men in the army as soldiers. The war was very unpopular amongst many northern whites, who may not have agreed with slavery in theory but who did not care about its continuance where it already was (which was basically Lincoln's stance). Douglass and other abolitionists wanted it to be about slavery because the south said it was about slavery in their articles of secession. Douglass also lobbied that making the war have a purpose to end slavery would make the north the moral authority in the conflict. Also changing the focus, Douglass felt would encourage slaves to run away from the CSA and join the Union army or effort to quicken the end of the war, which did occur. This would hurt the south as slave labor was a huge part of the economy and war effort for the South. Changing course caused a large amount of slaves to run away and basically follow around the Union Army. A large amount of them became laborers for the Union and a large amount of black men joined the war effort as soldiers. By war's end, 10% of the army and 16% of the navy were comprised of black men, which was greater than their share of the population at large. Nearly half a million blacks served in some capacity during the war effort either as sailors, soldiers, or laborers for the Union. Many people theorize that the turn of the tide for the North was due to the influx of black labor and soldiers and the change in purpose of the war to one of freedom instead of reconciliation.
That may be, but Lincoln wasn't the only one under that form of pressure. In my brief search to come back across why I understand it to have gone down the way I thought it to be, I came across ...
For secessionist, the war was about preserving slavery
The secessionist believed in a decentralized form of government for the states, thus their fight to withdraw from the union, thereby making a joining of a union a choice, if they had won, not something that would be forced upon them. The reason states do not have choice, nor individuals to only pay into their state income tax, is because the confederacy lost the war. (we are slaves to a federal centralized government, people just don't want to call it slavery)
Part of being an American in these United States is knowing the Constitution is to grant us by law a 'choice' about how we are to live our lives; how we are to reap the benefits of what we sow, which is something the government is not to encroach upon, but is something that is now being done more readily than can be appreciated by those who understand.
The Institution of Slavery began (in ancient civilizations) as a social economic construct to keep people out of debtors prison. What it evolved into is a horror that has yet to be put down. The way I see it, people would rather haggle over something that happened 150+ years ago, than face the situation they feel powerless to defeat. If only they could refocus their attention humanity just might stand a chance.
Funny, I saw some show where they were tracing heritages of white Americans and basicall all of them claimed that their family didn't own slaves. When it was all said and done, most of them had someone in their family that owned slaves. They were all distraught about it. Not sure why they were surprised or why it was such a big deal.
In 1860, the total number of free people living in the United States and its territories was 27,489,561. The number of people in the US who owned slaves was 393,975, and they owned 3,953,760 slaves. Thus, 1.4% of the population owned slaves, with an average of 10 slaves per owner.
So, yes, it is quite funny that you believe that a show determining that most white people today had someone in their family that owned slaves is somehow significant or accurate. Especially as many white Americans today are descendants of European immigrants who arrived only after the Civil War was concluded.
I am neither proud or ashamed of my race. It is not something I picked nor something I accomplished. It's a level of pigmentation-pretty stupid to get wrapped up in it. Neither will I accept undeserved guilt or shame over my race, nor accept race as an excuse for violent, criminal acts, nor as a way to claim someone else "owes" me (or I own them) for something neither of us were even involved with.
That is called being a functioning adult.
This PSA paid for by "I'm tired of this stupid crap"
If Obama himself owned slaves then we would have something to talk about. But trying to tie him somehow to someone and something from a very long time ago, done by people he never knew, is just grasping at straws.
Nice try though, we give you an 8, it had a good beat and was easy to dance to.
You have a point......but we will wait and see the reactions if President Trump family ever did this. Grasping at straws is not what most of you would be saying, and you know it!
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.
