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.
You REALLY believe that the Civil War was over slavery? You poor ignorant person. You do realize the Northern generals STILL held slaves even after the war? It was over state rights. South Carolina and southern states were importing/exporting and doing more business with Europe than with the north. When the union imposed tariffs, the south attempted to secede. In fact, Lincoln and the union only attempted to prevent slavery in new territories, not in established states. Lincoln and his cronies wanted to send the colored folk back to Africa. My family has been here since the beginning, I am a southerner - English descent WASP and what you say is so inaccurate. Do you whine about the enslavement of children in Africa by other black Africans? Or you just want to stick it to the white man?
Hello. You are wrong, wrong, wrong, more wrong, and wrong again. Please read below, it is the speech by Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens (played by Jackie Earle Haley in the "Lincoln" movie) made on March 21, 1861 discussing the cornerstone on which the Confederate States of America was founded:
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics.
So, either the Vice-President of the CSA was some rogue operater talking out of his a$$ or it sounds a lot to me like the CSA was founded because they were afraid slavery would be taken away from them. History says Stephens was the brain trust of the CSA, not Jeff Davis (think Cheney/Bush). And oh yeah, as a state, you just can't make treaty or trade with foreign countries. That is the job of the FEDERAL government as enumerated in the Constitution that South Carolina ratified and then attempted to illegally nullify at least twice. South Carolinians took it upon themselves to organize a militia and shell Ft. Sumter. That is called treason, a capital offense. All Confederates were traitors. They were lucky to have all not been executed which would have been well within the law of the U.S.
Lincoln did not try and send blacks "back" to Africa. There were very few blacks in 1863 that were actually born in Africa, so how could they go "back" to a place they had never been? Yes the U.S. wanted to use freed blacks as a tool to take control over Santo Domingo. Frederick Douglass speaking on behalf of blacks refused and almost all remained in the U.S. except for a few thousand that went to the state of Semana. For his trouble, Douglass was later made ambassador to Haiti but that was inconsequential. Rather than using blacks, the U.S. just took over the island with money and eventually occupied both countries with its military. Yes, some Africans did sell slaves. So did Europeans. Who sold other Europeans. And? I've never been quite sure what that argument was about. If a woman is selling other women in the sex trade in Southeast Asia (which still occurs today), would you buy them? My advice is for you to actually pick up some history books (not textbooks but real history books) and stop listening to conservative talk radio. Meanwhile, try and stay on topic here. If you don't like that the draft riots took place in New York and Long Island served as a shelter for draft dodgers and anti-Unionists, don't participate in the forum!
You REALLY believe that the Civil War was over slavery? You poor ignorant person. You do realize the Northern generals STILL held slaves even after the war? It was over state rights. South Carolina and southern states were importing/exporting and doing more business with Europe than with the north. When the union imposed tariffs, the south attempted to secede. In fact, Lincoln and the union only attempted to prevent slavery in new territories, not in established states. Lincoln and his cronies wanted to send the colored folk back to Africa. My family has been here since the beginning, I am a southerner - English descent WASP and what you say is so inaccurate. Do you whine about the enslavement of children in Africa by other black Africans? Or you just want to stick it to the white man?
Wow, write to hear yourself talk much?! I frankly don't give a hoot about your faux history lesson that isn't related to the thread OR Long Island. My point wasn't about "slavery" at all. It is about the immigrants in the northeast being DRAFTED (yes, drafted, yes ARMY, yes to die for what was in THEIR MINDS clearly, if not in YOURS) to fight against slavery. To any poor northerner trying to avoid conscription, it was about SLAVERY. The Irish, Italian, Slavic immigrants in NYC that became the ones to settle and develop the middle class on what is now modern day Long Island (btw, WHAT THE THREAD AND MY REPLY ARE ABOUT) were from that class.
And for the record, most anyone with a wit about them knows that "state's rights" when discussing the civil war was a euphemism for "SLAVERY." What other "state's rights" were they concerned about? Marrying cousins? Moonshine? You think they went to WAR over those or could it have been....hmmm, let's see...SLAVERY? And the lost revenue associated with freeing a bunch of slave labor from farms and plantations AND the cultural and logistical upheaval of granting rights to slaves. It has NOTHING to do with enslavement in Africa and NOTHING in either of my posts made any opinions on slavery as an issue or "stick it to the white man." I hate everyone equally.
I haven't waded through this entire thread, but the best indicators of the degree of racism on LI are the comments readers make in response to certain Newsday stories. If there's a story about criminals and they happen to be black or Hispanic, you can almost guarantee that there will be loads of comments that the paper will have to censor. You can only imagine what has been said. The same goes for any story on immigrants, illegal or otherwise. However, if you see a story on white criminals, well . . . not so much. Draw your own conclusions.
I haven't waded through this entire thread, but the best indicators of the degree of racism on LI are the comments readers make in response to certain Newsday stories. If there's a story about criminals and they happen to be black or Hispanic, you can almost guarantee that there will be loads of comments that the paper will have to censor. You can only imagine what has been said. The same goes for any story on immigrants, illegal or otherwise. However, if you see a story on white criminals, well . . . not so much. Draw your own conclusions.
all that indicates is that there's racist people on LI. You'd have a better chance at figuring the "degree of racism" by making up a number than basing anything from the comments section off a web site.
I haven't waded through this entire thread, but the best indicators of the degree of racism on LI are the comments readers make in response to certain Newsday stories. If there's a story about criminals and they happen to be black or Hispanic, you can almost guarantee that there will be loads of comments that the paper will have to censor. You can only imagine what has been said. The same goes for any story on immigrants, illegal or otherwise. However, if you see a story on white criminals, well . . . not so much. Draw your own conclusions.
The truth of the matter is that Newsday rarely does stories that describe black or hispanic criminals. The only way Newsday readers can distinguish that is if Newsday runs a picture of the criminal.
Newsday is RIDICULOUS in their policy of describing "wanted UNKNOWN criminals." They (supposedly) want the "help of the public" in finding and capturing them, but have to be "politically correct" PLUS have a double standard against whites and WILL NOT state the wanted criminal's race unless it is white. They will tell you what color sneakers and what color shirt the person wore, how tall they are estimated to be, etc., etc., yet will not disclose the race unless the person is white. How can we help find an unknown criminal if we don't know their race?
Don't kid yourself. I have noticed plenty of nasty comments on stories lambasting white criminals, such as "dirtbag" and "white trash." Newsday readers do not seem particularly forgiving of any criminals.
I haven't waded through this entire thread, but the best indicators of the degree of racism on LI are the comments readers make in response to certain Newsday stories. If there's a story about criminals and they happen to be black or Hispanic, you can almost guarantee that there will be loads of comments that the paper will have to censor. You can only imagine what has been said. The same goes for any story on immigrants, illegal or otherwise. However, if you see a story on white criminals, well . . . not so much. Draw your own conclusions.
Did you come up with this brilliant scientific method all by yourself??
Don't kid yourself. I have noticed plenty of nasty comments on stories lambasting white criminals, such as "dirtbag" and "white trash." Newsday readers do not seem particularly forgiving of any criminals.
the single moms doing heroin with the kids in the back seat is a prime example. Nobody gets a free pass, lol.
I haven't waded through this entire thread, but the best indicators of the degree of racism on LI are the comments readers make in response to certain Newsday stories. If there's a story about criminals and they happen to be black or Hispanic, you can almost guarantee that there will be loads of comments that the paper will have to censor. You can only imagine what has been said. The same goes for any story on immigrants, illegal or otherwise. However, if you see a story on white criminals, well . . . not so much. Draw your own conclusions.
???????????????????????????????????????
The closest Newsday gets to identifying the race of any suspect is to describe the color of the weapon used.
I haven't waded through this entire thread, but the best indicators of the degree of racism on LI are the comments readers make in response to certain Newsday stories. If there's a story about criminals and they happen to be black or Hispanic, you can almost guarantee that there will be loads of comments that the paper will have to censor. You can only imagine what has been said. The same goes for any story on immigrants, illegal or otherwise. However, if you see a story on white criminals, well . . . not so much. Draw your own conclusions.
My conclusion is drawn, I see an element of race baiting in your comment, and additionally, cannot understand just what you assert about CertainNewsday stories.
Which particular stories are you talking about, or is it your own `slant? When I'm sitting at lunch in the factory, I read Newsday every working day. If I'm following a certain
story related to crime, like the trials Of Heriberto Martinez or the other MS13 thugs who didn't seem to have WASP names, like Billy, Bob or John O'Donnegan, and even if there
were no mugshots or photos, wouldn't you think that I'd make the deduction of their race by myself, totally unpersuaded by Newsday's reporting of the incident?
If I happen to run across a 3-inch column about Shanequa and Tyrone Washington, being busted for shoplifting a 50" HDTV at the local Target store, I might be prone
to stereotype them, based upon my own perception of their names, but does that make me a racist, or is Newsday, just giving us the news? And as far as I can see, you haven't
been reading much more of Newsday, than the entertainment section or the comics, Does the name Adam Lanza, ring a bell with you? James Holmes? Even Bernard Madoff?
Either you are an advocate for ending NYPD's "stop and frisk" policy, or a deluded soul. Unlike your `imagination', of what Newsday must be censoring, here at c-d, there is an
opportunity for you to speak freely. next time that a racially overtoned, newsworthy article which is relative to L.I., it's political leaders or it's criminals, come here to city-data,
and present us with case arguments, not predjudiced opinion. Society has a pecking-order, always has, always will. Remember these words: "**** always rolls downhill", and
this simple truism, is another one of the laws of our everchanging universe. Get used to 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.
My conclusion is drawn, I see an element of race baiting in your comment, and additionally, cannot understand just what you assert about Certain Newsday stories. 
If I happen to run across a 3-inch column about Shanequa and Tyrone Washington, being busted for shoplifting a 50" HDTV at the local Target store, I might be prone 
