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.
What I went looking for were the stories I had read, where as, those in the South rescued their Slaves from conditions in the North --- there are millions of records that give the accounts of, things that didn't make the polished history narrative, it is those records that I read go hum --- then I go onto something else --- when things like that get brought up in a discussion, it is hard to navigate back and find that which I read --- So this will have to do for now:
I trust you can read it, make sense of it, without the needed highlighting of the material.
Seems like that source depicts a better life for slaves in the North:
Quote:
Northern slaves, more often than those of the colonial South or other parts of the Americas, had filled skilled positions, working as artisans, especially in the cities. They appear as bakers, tailors, weavers, goldsmiths, and woodcut illustrators. Such status allowed them a certain power to negotiate with their masters, and win certain protections.
Emancipation lost them that protection, because the white people they competed with hated them and made sure to exclude them from those coveted positions. But the fact that unraveling slavery comes with a set of new, tough problems shouldn't count in slavery's favor.
The fact that Britain - the world's undisputed superpower at the time - passed the slave trade act in 1807 (and upheld it with their navy, at great expense) as well as the emancipation act in 1833 kicked the chair out from under slavery. The writing was on the wall.
Secession was a desperate last-minute ploy to avoid the economic upheaval that dismantling a slave economy would lead to. The influential people of the South were also those most invested in the slavery-based economy.
The South held a strong hand with their near-monopoly on cotton, but they overplayed it - a theme found again and again in that conflict, the South dealing with the world as they felt it should be rather than as it was.
Do you honestly feel that Lincoln should be defined by that? If you look at his entire body of work it would show that he was a champion for abolishing slavery and restoring rights to blacks in America.
Lincoln wasn't naive, he knew that slavery would be a very messy institution to unravel. His opposition was on moral grounds, but as can be told, he despaired at even imagining a practical way of dismantling the situation. Easier to break something than to fix it, always.
What should be done with the statues? The best solution would be to move them to a Civil War battle site....
It would be better in a museum of history. Nobody's erasing history. American history is not being "canceled." Lee will be remembered as a Confederate general. Given the aims of the Confederacy, can we not agree that Confederates should not be given places of honor as heroes?
Do you honestly feel that Lincoln should be defined by that? If you look at his entire body of work it would show that he was a champion for abolishing slavery and restoring rights to blacks in America.
That being said, I need to call this out as another red herring attempt to direct focus away from the topic at hand, which you seem exceedingly desperate to avoid discussing directly.
Many great men of honor owned slaves through the inheritance of them; kept them so as to take care of them and today they are vilified for doing so --- and they were against the whole notion of slavery. But you will hold Lincoln separate from them, why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Seems like that source depicts a better life for slaves in the North:
Emancipation lost them that protection, because the white people they competed with hated them and made sure to exclude them from those coveted positions. But the fact that unraveling slavery comes with a set of new, tough problems shouldn't count in slavery's favor.
The fact that Britain - the world's undisputed superpower at the time - passed the slave trade act in 1807 (and upheld it with their navy, at great expense) as well as the emancipation act in 1833 kicked the chair out from under slavery. The writing was on the wall.
Secession was a desperate last-minute ploy to avoid the economic upheaval that dismantling a slave economy would lead to. The influential people of the South were also those most invested in the slavery-based economy.
The South held a strong hand with their near-monopoly on cotton, but they overplayed it - a theme found again and again in that conflict, the South dealing with the world as they felt it should be rather than as it was.
Conditions of slavery in the North, that was my argument.
The Quakers beat them, then the Quakers freed them without provisions. All the while enjoying the benefits of their labor in the South. At least the people in the South are/were honest, they didn't hide their true feelings --- and those that felt differently from the law, they showed that side of themselves, as well, in the South.
Seems to me the people in the u.s. want to cover up their history, as well, liken to that of Ghana --- you can not remove the white man's story without removing (their 100 year, fight for freedom, in what constitutes as freedom these days) the black man's story, as well, because the two stories are integrated. In time the black man will forget, like in Ghana, how they rose up, they will become soft in intellect and eventually --- history repeats itself.
Imagine his difficulties in understanding the brilliance of someone like Stephen Hawkins fr'instance.
I still think one of his biggest obstacles is overcoming the underlying nonsensical libertarian ideology. It's rather stunning in its idiotic impotent irrelevance. Implausible also.
My opinion on this.
It is a matter of afflictions, but different ones. What I see is alot of mental gymnastics. What I see is someone who gaslights in the classic sense. Telling lies, weaving a web around those lies, and using those lies to try and making those that disagree with him feel stupid. Or in my case, reading such lies are just exhausting. Lying about slavery, lying about what Black Americans had to go through in the Antebellum South AND the Jim Crow South. Having to spend more time proving someone out to be a liar than actually talking about why statues to Robert E. Lee have no place in American society.
Many great men of honor owned slaves through the inheritance of them; kept them so as to take care of them and today they are vilified for doing so --- and they were against the whole notion of slavery. But you will hold Lincoln separate from them, why?
Lincoln never owned slaves. He has zero to do with this topic which is about the Robert E. Lee statue....
Please, no more whataboutisms. Let’s try to stay on topic.
It would be better in a museum of history. Nobody's erasing history. American history is not being "canceled." Lee will be remembered as a Confederate general. Given the aims of the Confederacy, can we not agree that Confederates should not be given places of honor as heroes?
This is just my opinion. When some people say that taking down Lee's statue is "tearing down history, it's not really about history. American history is in textbooks. We have ways of learning about Robert E. Lee. And given what the aims of the Confederacy were, I agree with you that Confederates do not deserve places of honor. However, THIS, this is what some people really want. Some people feel that Robert E. Lee deserves a place of honor. It's not really about history (the correct history). It's about some people revering Lee, revering the aims of the Confederacy, and being unhappy with alot of people saying "the Confederates don't deserve to be honored".
At the end of the day, one of the biggest punishments in regard to the Confederate cause is that some people now have to explain why so many statues to those undeserving of being honored are up. Those who hold true to the Confederate cause are now finding themselves fighting with those who understand that the Confederate cause was a bad cause.
I do; was Abraham Lincoln an antebellum slaver or a traitor?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruz Azul Guy
Neither as far as I can tell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Wealth might come into play as the reason Lincoln didn't have any slaves of his own, as many in that time were owned through inheritance ---- well this answers that:
Many great men of honor owned slaves through the inheritance of them; kept them so as to take care of them and today they are vilified for doing so --- and they were against the whole notion of slavery. But you will hold Lincoln separate from them, why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruz Azul Guy
Lincoln never owned slaves. He has zero to do with this topic which is about the Robert E. Lee statue....
Please, no more whataboutisms. Let’s try to stay on topic.
You were saying?
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.
