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.
But would it have been peacefully abolished in the South? They really thought it was a right. I'm sure it would have been abolished naturally 20 or 30 years later due to the Industrial Revolution, but that is a whole generation for the people enslaved.
When you go to that link, you'll find a copy of Ebony Magazine. I was going to read that but it is a long article, however, I skimmed it and it looks to be a good read. However, don't stop there, check out all the tabbed pages.
seems that an AA at a Federal job complained about a worker wearing it on a hat. Now it's being investigated for potential racism
If I were the supervisor there, I would probably write up the guy who made the frivolous complaint. I have no patience for divisive, whining troublemakers.
"Importantly, the Commission did not find that the Gadsden Flag in fact is a racist symbol. Rather, the Commission found only that the complaint met the legal standard to state a claim under Title VII, and therefore should have been investigated by the agency rather than dismissed."
EEOC's decision simply ordered the agency - the U.S. Postal Service - to investigate the allegations. This decision addressed only the procedural issue of whether the complainant's allegations of discrimination should be dismissed or investigated. This decision was not on the merits, did not determine that the Gadsden Flag was racist or discriminatory, and did not ban it. EEOC's decision made no factual or legal determination on whether discrimination actually occurred."
If I were the supervisor there, I would probably write up the guy who made the frivolous complaint. I have no patience for divisive, whining troublemakers.
It was and Lincoln was responsible for the deaths of 750,000. Slavery was peacefully abolished elsewhere in the world without any such war.
Exactly. Slavery would have ended in the South for economic reasons when slavery become a net economic drain with the mechanization of cotton.
All of the political division we have now goes back to Lincoln foolishly trying to retain the Union. Look at a map and the political geography is pretty similar today as it was in the 1860s. The country never truly reunified - rather it has been held together by gunpoint. Northerners still think Southerners are unintelligent and Southerners still hate Yankees.
It was and Lincoln was responsible for the deaths of 750,000. Slavery was peacefully abolished elsewhere in the world without any such war.
Slavery is still happening around the world peacefully and not so peacefully. USA has criminals still doing human trafficking (the new term, pretty much right in your face in Oahu HAWAII). Middle East , India, China, Europe, Africa etc etc. Its still there. Countries know its happening, but wont put much effort into it as they all benefit financially, sexually and whatever else immorally we can think of.
And after the USA ended slavery, not Lincoln, slavery was just changed to indentured servitude, peonage, and now in a financial way (credit)
Our country is just turning a blind eye to it. Sure, we dont outright buy and sell, but we still OWN people.
Exactly. Slavery would have ended in the South for economic reasons when slavery become a net economic drain with the mechanization of cotton.
You're right; slavery would probably have died a natural death in another generation or two. But at the cost of how many millions of lives destroyed? We're talking about human beings here, not some abstract concept.
By that reasoning, we could just as easily have left Hitler alone in 1941 and let Nazi Germany burn itself out over the second half of the 20th Century. But we didn't do that, because that would have been the morally wrong thing to do. What we did instead was sacrifice over a quarter of a million of our children to bring his regime to the quickest possible end. Just as it was the right thing to do in World War II, it was the right thing to do in the Civil War as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Beagle
All of the political division we have now goes back to Lincoln foolishly trying to retain the Union. Look at a map and the political geography is pretty similar today as it was in the 1860s. The country never truly reunified - rather it has been held together by gunpoint. Northerners still think Southerners are unintelligent and Southerners still hate Yankees.
I think the social and political differences between the North and the South go back a lot further than 1860. You can say that the Civil War divided the country, and you wouldn't be wrong - but it would be just as true to say that the Civil War happened because the North and the South were already deeply divided. I don't think the differences between the North and South are that much deeper than they would have been if the war hadn't have been fought, and in fact it might have even been worse - had slavery continued until the late 1800s, the two parts of the country would probably have become even more polarized against each other.
Originally Posted by Albert_The_Crocodile;45098611
I think the social and political differences between the North and the South go back a lot further than 1860. You can say that the Civil War divided the country, and you wouldn't be wrong - but it would be just as true to say that the Civil War [I
happened [/i]because the North and the South were already deeply divided. I don't think the differences between the North and South are that much deeper than they would have been if the war hadn't have been fought, and in fact it might have even been worse - had slavery continued until the late 1800s, the two parts of the country would probably have become even more polarized against each other.
I disagree with you about the civil war and WW2, but this isn't the history forum so I won't get into that.
I agree with you about the north and south never having really been united. The north has always wanted a stronger central state than the south. The Civil War was a major turning point though. After that, the country went from one centered on the state to one that was increasingly centered on DC.
The Civil War was definitely about slavery. But slavery was also used as a vehicle to force the dominance of the federal government on the states. Virtually all of the political division in the US can be explained by the federal government imposing itself on the states regardless of the will of the people in those states.
When you go to that link, you'll find a copy of Ebony Magazine. I was going to read that but it is a long article, however, I skimmed it and it looks to be a good read. However, don't stop there, check out all the tabbed pages.
Thanks for the link. I couldn't really read the Ebony article as it wouldn't enlarge on my phone. But I'm not sure what you're saying in relation to my post. Are you saying because many black Americans fought for the Confederacy that they supported the war? Many of them probably did, being part of the "family" and that life was all they knew. The families trying to locate their ancestors who fought aren't wishing they had actually won the war and slavery hadn't been abolished naturally a generation later.
Or am I completely misinterpreting your point? I have been known to do that.
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.
