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.
I just don't think human nature would have allowed slavery to continue in its then-current form. European countries wouldn't have traded with them. The CSA would have been mostly isolated.
Sharecropping existed until the mid-20th century; was that really any different? The CSA could've technically abolished slavery but kept the same system they ended up having anyway.
I did mention the Industrial Revolution would have bypassed the CSA, which is another reason why that country wouldn't have lasted very long if they didn't abolish slavery.
The deadliest race riot in U.S. history happened in Manhattan in 1863; the Draft Riots. 120 dead.
Some nations in Europe may have not traded with the CSA, but Brazil and Cuba would have, as they were among the last nations in the Western Hemisphere to abolish slavery. And there were still places in Europe that might have traded with the CSA and looked the other way.
Here is the difference between sharecropping and slavery. Slavery, you are literally owned as property. Sharecropping, you have a better chance of getting out of it. You can pay your way out of it. You can leave and go elsewhere.
I think slavery would have lasted longer because it was more than just an economic system. It was a status symbol to own slaves. The southern aristocracy was about easy living and owning slaves was a big part of it.
And the Draft Riots were not the deadliest of the riots. The Tulsa Riot had between 120-300 people killed. Colfax riot in Louisiana in 1873, 100-150 killed. Opelousas riot, at least 200 dead.
Anyway, why are you trying to defend the Confederate cause so vigorously? The last I checked, they warred against America because their cause was to keep people in bondage. That is a cause that is not worthy of defending.
Disrespecting an important symbol of the United States calls into question their true feelings towards this country.
Quick, without looking it up, tell me everything you know about the history of The Star-Spangled Banner. Who wrote it? When was it written? Where was it written? Why was the writer in that place at that time? What inspired the words of the poem? When was it officially adopted as the national anthem? By whom? Hint: a long time after it was written.
My guess is that the vast majority of the people who get all misty-eyed over the national anthem can't answer more than one or possibly two of these questions, and that includes our president, so you'll pardon me if I can't take any of his moaning and groaning about who stands or kneels while it is played seriously.
The fact is that there are some deeply offensive sentiments expressed in the third verse of the anthem, which is almost never sung and for good reason. Words that honestly leave me a bit confused that any African-American would feel good about showing respect by standing as it is played.
Last edited by randomparent; 05-26-2018 at 10:55 PM..
Disrespecting an important symbol of the United States calls into question their true feelings towards this country.
Players kneeling had nothing to do with the anthem. It was all about a peaceful protest about injustice. Trump made it political. How is it that we kneel for God but find it dispectful when people kneel for the anthem. Where is the sense in that.
Some nations in Europe may have not traded with the CSA, but Brazil and Cuba would have, as they were among the last nations in the Western Hemisphere to abolish slavery. And there were still places in Europe that might have traded with the CSA and looked the other way.
Here is the difference between sharecropping and slavery. Slavery, you are literally owned as property. Sharecropping, you have a better chance of getting out of it. You can pay your way out of it. You can leave and go elsewhere.
I think slavery would have lasted longer because it was more than just an economic system. It was a status symbol to own slaves. The southern aristocracy was about easy living and owning slaves was a big part of it.
And the Draft Riots were not the deadliest of the riots. The Tulsa Riot had between 120-300 people killed. Colfax riot in Louisiana in 1873, 100-150 killed. Opelousas riot, at least 200 dead.
Anyway, why are you trying to defend the Confederate cause so vigorously? The last I checked, they warred against America because their cause was to keep people in bondage. That is a cause that is not worthy of defending.
I was mistaken about the riots.
We'll just have to agree to disagree about the hypotheticals.
I'm not defending the Confederates or their cause per se; I just believe in complete decentralization. The CSA was still a tyrannical would-be country with a central government; I wonder what would've happened down the road if, had they won, one or more of their states wanted to secede.
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell ...he knows to follow the money back to 1913, in the history of u.s finance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
See, this is what I don't understand--you're well aware the Federal Reserve controls and manipulates the currency, so how do you reconcile that with patriotism and military worship? All wars are bankers' wars. The reason there are so many dead soldiers are the central bankers.
Are you aware of who controls the federal reserve? Just asking and again ... not telling, as there are some things best left kept to myself. There was a blogger that I came across, several years back. A young Asian dude who knew of our untold history. He wrote a book; published it and it got him a hot seat in the President's office in China. That was back when China was buying up U.S. debt --- bonds. Needless to say, the blogger won't be writing anymore u.s. history 'stories', as he learned his lesson, so as he said in his blog. With that said ...
Quote:
so how do you reconcile that with patriotism and military worship?
Bankers didn't start the wars. They were the ones our representatives went to in order to finance them. How the military is financed has nothing to do with the showing of appreciation of what they've given for this country and our freedom.
Are you aware of who controls the federal reserve? Just asking and again ... not telling, as there are some things best left kept to myself. There was a blogger that I came across, several years back. A young Asian dude who knew of our untold history. He wrote a book; published it and in got him a hot seat in the President's office in China. That was back when China was buying up U.S. debt --- bonds. Needless to say, the blogger won't be writing anymore u.s. history 'stories', as he learned his lesson, so as he said in his blog. With that said ...
Bankers didn't start the wars. They were the ones our representatives went to in order to finance them. How the military is financed has nothing to do with the showing of appreciation of what they've given for this country and our freedom.
I am well aware; I've read The Creature from Jekyll Island.
But your last statement completely contradicts everything else you said; the wars are fought for the bankers, not for freedom.
People who fake bone spurs to get out of serving their country shouldn't be the leader of any country.
Fighting stupid overseas banker wars isn't serving your country.
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.
