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.
Wow, what an ignorant post. This poster is extremely prejudiced and false
Wow ladies and gentlemen this is how modern conservatives see black Americans, uneducated, drug and alcholic and welfare dependent criminals thanking our white masters.
I can't make this up. This is the warped manner in which conservatives view the workd.
conservatives continue to drift further and further away from reality.
You're right. Blacks are getting a great public education, don't have alcohol/drug dependency issues, have little dependency on welfare & aren't subjugated to the prison system. All is well, carry on.
You're right. Blacks are getting a great public education, don't have alcohol/drug dependency issues, have little dependency on welfare & aren't subjugated to the prison system. All is well, carry on.
Of course I'm right about the ignorance and bias of your viewpoint of black Americans.
You restating your wrong assertions don't make them any less wrong.
The very idea of a slave being "well treated" is absurd - like Whoopie Goldberg saying "It wasn't rape rape." If you wanted to treat a slave well, you free them. And in any case, children were often left without clothing, women (anc children) who worked in the house were subject to all sorts of horrors for minor infraction - or because one of them men of the house wished to rape them. And slaves also were not *fed* adequately, thus forcing them to break into food stores (this is where the "black people like to steal" stereotype comes from)
And in any event, the Confederacy was very clearly fighting not merely to preserve, but also to expand it. The biggest proponents of the attack on Fort Sumpter (where the South attacked US troops, thus opening the war) were the Fire-Eaters, as a way to get the slave states that remained in the Union to sign up with them instead. Same guys also wanted to re-open the slave trade. And of course, before the Civil War, there was Bleeding Kansas, and the Filibustering adventures of people like Narciso Lopez in the hopes of adding Cuba to the US as a slave state, thus changing the balance of power in the Senate.
And although most of the north wasn't fighting to end slavery, there's one very important group that was - namely, those black people who joined the Union Army, who were, naturally, just as ferocious towards the Confederate troops as the Confederates were towards them.
It's true that a handful of states outlawed slavery during the law, but for the vast majority of slaveowners, emancipation was imposed on them through force, due to their own foolishly violent desire to preserve it.
"Voluntarily" my behind. They simply ran out of enough men to fight, and then General Sherman stampeded them.
Yes all true.
The reality is that according to Lincoln the north couldn't have won the war without black soldiers.
Basically black men saved this nation in our most bloodiest war.
And how were those patriots eventually repaid?
The lost cause fiction that sanitizes the reason for the civil war and the violent brutal institution of slavery.
Drive back to the support of the rebellion the physical force which the colored people now give and promise us, and neither the present nor any coming Administration can save the Union. Take from us and give to the enemy the hundred and thirty, forty, or fifty thousand colored persons now serving us as soldiers, seamen, and laborers and we cannot longer maintain the contest.
The Civil War wasn't fought to end slavery. It was fought to keep the Confederate states from seceding. Four of the Union states were slave states. You need to learn your history before you try to bash others for not knowing it.
And why do you think they wanted to secede? Because they didn't want slavery to stop because they would lose their free work force. You must have had liberal progressive professors in college.
You need to learn American History. I'm not going to spoon feed it to you. Why should I? But I can tell you, America didn't begin slavery; but, we did end it.
You are buying into the Leftist revisionist history. You believe America is guilty. In fact, America may have been the first country in history to outlaw slavery.
Slavery still exists in the world. Do you not realize that?
*ahem*
What does any of this have to do with the discussion of how slavery affected the history of the United States!?
Drive back to the support of the rebellion the physical force which the colored people now give and promise us, and neither the present nor any coming Administration can save the Union. Take from us and give to the enemy the hundred and thirty, forty, or fifty thousand colored persons now serving us as soldiers, seamen, and laborers and we cannot longer maintain the contest.
Indeed. And you can run an interesting parallel between the rise of "Lost Cause" nonsense, and the general rise of white supremacy in the US, culminating in what historians refer to as the "Nadir of Race Ralations" from roughly 1900-1940 - as well as to already starting moves of black people to search and fight for freedom, as documented in books like "The Warmth of Other Suns" or "Right to Ride", among many others...but we're getting a bit ahead of things
And why do you think they wanted to secede? Because they didn't want slavery to stop because they would lose their free work force. You must have had liberal progressive professors in college.
It isn't relevant why they wanted to secede. It doesn't change the fact that the Northern states invaded the South to prevent them from seceding. That's like saying World War 2 was fought to end the Holocaust. It was not. World War 2 did end the Holocaust, but that doesn't make it the purpose of the war. The Civil War was fought to keep the Southern states in the Union. It was not fought to end slavery. If the Southern states had not seceded then slavery would have gone on as it always had, and slavery did indeed go on as usual in the 4 slave states that elected not to secede.
Indeed. And you can run an interesting parallel between the rise of "Lost Cause" nonsense, and the general rise of white supremacy in the US, culminating in what historians refer to as the "Nadir of Race Ralations" from roughly 1900-1940 - as well as to already starting moves of black people to search and fight for freedom, as documented in books like "The Warmth of Other Suns" or "Right to Ride", among many others...but we're getting a bit ahead of things
I have never heard of that the nadir of race relations was from 1900-1940.
It isn't relevant why they wanted to secede. It doesn't change the fact that the Northern states invaded the South to prevent them from seceding. That's like saying World War 2 was fought to end the Holocaust. It was not. World War 2 did end the Holocaust, but that doesn't make it the purpose of the war. The Civil War was fought to keep the Southern states in the Union. It was not fought to end slavery. If the Southern states had not seceded then slavery would have gone on as it always had, and slavery did indeed go on as usual in the 4 slave states that elected not to secede.
Sometimes I think the Occam's Razor approach is most suitable. For example, in medicine, students are taught, "When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses not zebras." Granted, this approach is not always the most suitable.
When folks refer to the 'Lost Cause' in reference to the American Civil War, what is the 'cause' they are referring to? (I'm just curious about your opinion regarding)
Personally, I think slavery was the 'sine qua non' of the American Civil War, the essential or necessary condition, without which, in all probability, the War would not have been.
It's more than a tad disconcerting the ACW, apparently, still divides American people.
One of the Conservative Colorado school board members recently defended her position to rewrite history on the premise that history classes aren't teaching that America is exceptional because we ended slavery "voluntarily." Apparently, she slept through her U.S. History class when they covered those four bloody years of Civil War.
Pastor and Civil Rights activist Patrick Demmer aptly sums up the real motivation behind this Conservative-led movement to whitewash history. It's all about making them feel "exceptional."
“She shouldn’t be on the education board,” said Demmer. “What her comment and that whole movement is trying to basically do is repaint history in a way that takes away the ugliness and the hurt and abuse that the African American in America suffered and endured to get to where we are right now.”
This is who is in charge of writing course work--someone who apparently is unaware that the country fought a bloody four year Civil War that ended slavery? Or perhaps she slept through English class, too, and never learned the meaning of the word "voluntary."
The Conservative version of history is not about what really happened, it is simply about making Conservatives feel good. And they say liberals operate on emotion.
The truth is, the ratification of the 13th amendment ended slavery, not the Civil War.
It wouldn't have mattered that the south lost the war.....slavery would have continued for some time after without the 13th.
Learn YOUR history.
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.
