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 would have died out anyway. The leaders of the confederacy knew it.
Where are you getting this data from? It doesn't seem to be backed up by the declarations of secession which every Southern state wrote, or other first-hand historical resources of the time.
I agree that slavery would have eventually died out- but if it continued to spread across the rapidly westwardly expanding country it would have survived far longer and been more difficult to finally end. The Republicans wanted to simply contain it to the states that already had slavery, not abolish it, and yet just the threat of that containment was enough to incite a military attack on our country.
Slavery was about race in the United States and throughout the Americas. It was based upon a racial caste system. So was what we refer to as Jim Crow in the United States.
The Civil War that was fought in the United States over slavery and the issues over whether to expanded it westward were not played out in Brazil when slavery was decreed to be abolished in that nation by act of law.
My point here is that race mattered enough in the United States that the nation went to Civil War over it.
Also, a lot of black people sold by Africans as to whites in Africa, were taken prisoner after their villages were raided by rival black tribes. Some were abducted while away from their villages but rarely was it a white man doing the abducting. Whites usually couldn't handle the climate and environment of West Africa well.
There is still slavery in Chicago. But no, we don't hear about that much.
Ha, yeah right! That'll last about two hours until you're abducted by Muslims and sold into slavery.
You have a seriously distorted view of what most Muslims are like on the African continent. You have an attitude like the man that beats his girlfriend, certain she can never get a better man than him.
Or your attitude is akin to someone raised being constantly told and sent other messages as well... that they're better than everyone else.
I don't know if that is true or not but I'll take you word for it at this moment. I'm not sure what your point is because you seem to be assisting my point. And 2% of the American wealth still doesn't change the exchange rate on the U.S. dollar.
Stop evading the question now answer the question who owns the other 98% of the U.S. wealth if Blacks for 2%? And you think that's equality? Knock it off my friend.
No one said the war was fought to free the slaves. The war was fought because United States of America military assets were assaulted and occupied on April 12, 1861 at Fort Sumpter.
The reason those troops were fired on at fort sumter was the north was undertaking an invasion of the south by reinforcing and re supplying the fort...a fort that no longer was in the "united states".
The south wanted to peacefully secede and they paid for the evacuation of federal forces and the land they occupied...buildings, forts, etc... the south even offered to pay it's share of the national debt at the time.....but no....lincoln knew that a federal fort in charleston harbor would be an irritant to the south and he hoped that by reinforcing the fort he could provoke the south and it would give him an excuse to wage total war on fellow countrymen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lerner
However, the issue which did the most to incentivize this attack was the conflict between those who wanted to stop the spread of slavery to new states and territories and those who wanted it to continue.
Wrong. Read some real history.
The issue that was at the core of secession was the Morrill Tariffs.
Even the leaders of the confederacy knew that slavery would die out.
Remember that only 2% of southerners owned slaves..and many of them were black slaveowners...but that's another topic...
The average southerner couldn't have cared less about negro slaves..they were more trouble than they were worth, really and nobody wanted to go risk their life for farm animals that only the wealthiest plantation owners could afford anyway. Who would?
The north needed an "issue" because they were losing the war initially and they knew that if they could isolate the south from europe and prevent european intervention they could cripple the south. lincoln, being a typical politician, knew that if he could distract people from the real issues and create an emotional diversion to get the people to rally for the cause.
There were draft riots in the north because...no one wanted to go die to prevent the south from importing slaves. lincoln issued a showy "proclamation" that "emancipated" the slaves..but it had no legal standing in the south because the south wasn't part of the u.s. any more. notice exactly WHO the proclamation "freed" and WHERE...you HAVE read it, haven't you?
Where are you getting this data from? It doesn't seem to be backed up by the declarations of secession which every Southern state wrote, or other first-hand historical resources of the time.
Only three states specifically mentioned "slavery" as part of the reason they were seceding
Quote:
Originally Posted by lerner
I agree that slavery would have eventually died out- but if it continued to spread across the rapidly westwardly expanding country it would have survived far longer and been more difficult to finally end.
No... the industrial revolution would have ended slavery definitively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lerner
The Republicans wanted to simply contain it to the states that already had slavery, not abolish it, and yet just the threat of that containment was enough to incite a military attack on our country.
No the reason the fort was fired on was because lincoln insisted on reinforcing it, (which was a military invasion of a sovereign country) rather than accept the payment from the south for the property and withdraw peacefully like the rest of the federal facilities did at the time.
lincoln knew he wouldn't be allowed to have a federal fort in charleston harbor and he knew it would be intolerable to the south and (he hoped it) would provoke an incident...charleston wasn't part of the u.s. anymore. lincoln wanted a war...
lincoln couldn't have cared less about slaves or slavery..he even said so.......Read some real history.
At least the Chinese are building welfare roads. Sure, it's all bought and paid for with African blood but that's all sub-text...
"Welfare roads" were built in the United States too after WWII. The Americans were impressed with the German network of paved roads and the U.S. Government financed the building, the expansion that is, of the interstate roads throughout the U.S.
The Chinese have ghost cities themselves (in China). They may have advised Angola that it is better city planning to prepare the needed infrastructure for population growth--in conjunction with economic growth--ahead of time.
The slums and throughout Latin America and what Brazilians term "favelas" resulted from poor city planning. As rural people flooded into the cities they squatted on land, usually encircling the core of the city (in contrast to the "inner-cities" of the U.S. were the poor were usually placed into the core of the city and the wealthy encircled them). They built their own shelters, many times going from cardboard up to wood and then eventually constructing their homes out of brick. Since these were squatter camps they had no addresses and no public services like running water, electricity, mail delivery, garbage pick up etc.
Traditionally in Latin America the poor squatted on land, the communities were built over time out of brick and cement, with no building codes, and no property taxes to pay, and then the residents would demand the local government provide public services to them.
In other words, Latin American cities did not have the infrastructure capable (or prepared) for all the waves of rural people flooding into their cities looking for work.
You also see the same thing in mammoth cities in India like Mumbai. (you may have to click onto the "youtube" button to go on the actual youtube site to watch the Brazilian favela video, if pressing the start button pops up an "Embedding disabled.")
First off all I GOT YOUR BOY. I'm a GROWN ASS MAN and suggest u respect me as one. Once again this AINT THE JIM CROW era. Get your mind right, before u come at me. Secondly have u LOST YOUR RABBIT ASS MIND to compare ANY slavery to that of Black Slavery in the U.S. South. I bet u from the south hu where they pass that RACIST ASS mentality down from generation to generation. I bet southern would vote for slavery today. Get the **** outta here. And I also feel disrespected that u gonna sit up her and down pay the blood sweat and tears of slaves and YEAH the country was built on there backs they did MOST of the MANUAL LABOR. ARE YOU RETARDED?
You are correct. The United States like powerful empires before here were built off of slavery. It's inexpensive labor. And given the enslavement comes with the concept of owning the person and not just owning their labor, you didn't have labor rights.
After slavery ended the U.S. used cheap labor from European immigrants. Today the U.S. uses the cheap labor from Mexico.
I was rather impressed with Canada finding out on this board that Canada stopped a while ago from depending on cheap labor of immigrants to drive its economy. Canada one of the Canadians on this website said, has primarily educated immigrants moving into its nation.
The war between the states was NOT fought to "free the slaves"... Get serious.
Lincoln couldn't have cared less about slavery either way.
The Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. Comments made by Confederates attest to this. The North was not willing to allow slavery to expand into the West either, which the South wanted. The feelings of Lincoln or abolitionists (many abolitionists were racist--they believed in white superiority but not in enslaving others) are neither here nor there.
Though, I'm persuaded Lincoln over time came to view slavery as wrong.
Stop evading the question now answer the question who owns the other 98% of the U.S. wealth if Blacks for 2%? And you think that's equality? Knock it off my friend.
I'm not evading your question. I don't know if your figures are accurate or not, however, like I said for the time being I'll assume your figures are correct. And I would presume then that 98% of the wealth is owned by White-Americans.
Where did I say anything about equality?
I'm talking about the U.S. dollar and its exchange rate relative to other currencies. Exchanging U.S. dollars for Euros will get you less Euros. But exchanging the U.S. dollar for the Angolan Kwanza will get you 96 of the their dollars for every 1 of our dollars.
Or put it this way. In the U.S. $1 = $1.
But in Angola U.S. $1 = roughly Kz 96. (Kz being the equivalent Angolan symbol of $.)
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.
You have a seriously distorted view of what most Muslims are like on the African continent. You have an attitude like the man that beats his girlfriend, certain she can never get a better man than him. 
