25 Percent Of Americans Open To Secession

Page 3 of 13 [ 193 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 13 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,694
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

20 Sep 2014, 8:59 pm

AspieUtah wrote:

Raptor wrote:

/\ Freeing the slaves was a byproduct of a larger objective .

Indeed. U.S. President Lincoln's opinions http://www.history.com/news/5-things-yo ... ancipation show him to have cared not a whit about slavery or black Americans generally. His Emancipation Proclamation was a military and political scheme, however welcome and commonsensible it was to abolitionists. In fact, Lincoln first publicly advocated for colonization of Liberia in 1852 and, in 1854, said that his first instinct would be "to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia" instead of simply letting them live in the United States where they and their families were born.

Remember that the draft copy of the Declaration of Independence that was considered by the Continental Congress and written by Thomas Jefferson included the idea of ending slavery. The southern colonies refused to adopt such a document, so the offending idea was emended. From the importation of the first slave to America, it seems, much of the population and its leaders disagreed with slavery, while its institution and regional economics required them to accommodate it, too. Before slavery was abolished federally, 19 "free states" ultimately abolished slavery on their own, after Christians (among others) played a major role http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat ... sh-slavery in the abolitionist movement.

But, the United States wasn't the last nation on Earth to prohibit slavery. Since its prohibition in 1863, several nations including Portugal, Brazil, Cuba, Korea, Ethiopia, China, Nepal, Thailand, Morocco, Afghanistan, Iraq and some British and French colonies had joined the abolition movement. The African nation of Niger, notably, abolished slavery as late as 2003. So, while it took a little over 87 years for the United States to abolish slavery, it was hardly dragged kicking and screaming as the final nation to do so.

I perused that article, and what it never cared to mention is how Lincoln in fact toward the end of his life came to realize that colonization of blacks back to Africa or elsewhere was unrealistic and even wrong, and that whites would just have to learn to live with them. While Lincoln may have opposed equal rights for blacks during the debates with Douglas years before (when he was trying to garner votes from a racially hostile electorate), his tune definitely had changed when he gave his last speech in life when he spoke of extending the vote to freed blacks - a speech which had convinced John Wilkes Boothe to go ahead with his assassination plot. As for emancipation being a military decision - yes, it was, but that doesn't mean Lincoln hadn't seen this as an opportunity to do the right thing. And while the Emancipation Proclamation hadn't freed any slaves, neither had the Declaration of Independence freed any American colonies - rather, it was simply the start of something bigger.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

20 Sep 2014, 9:04 pm

Raptor wrote:

/\
Probably very little crappy about it in the eyes of those who are on the dole......

Kraichgauer wrote:

Well, if big business was held to accountability in regard to staying on American shores, and paying decent wages with benefits, there wouldn't have to be many people on "the dole."

Then you all would complain that we're marginalizing out Asian brethren by hogging up all the work to ourselves over here.
"It's not fair that we should have all this prosperity while they have so little over there. America deserves some poverty for all the terrible TERRIBLE things we've done to this world. We need to know what it feels like to suffer! ", your kind would say. It's the standard liberal apologist rhetoric.

Quote:

I've found that the same people who b*tch about the public safety net

Don't you mean hammock?

Quote:

also don't believe in civil rights for people of color or the LGBT community. Hardly the sort of people who decent people would want to be associated with.

Yeah yeah, austerity is racism........ :roll:

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,694
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

20 Sep 2014, 9:05 pm

Raptor wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Sweetleaf wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Even if any of that is true, the fact remains, a Union victory ended slavery, the most wretchedly evil institution in America. That alone makes the Union cause right.

Theoretically though, that wasn't the only way to have ended slavery...perhaps it would have started dying off on its own due to people seeing how injust and sick it is, and maybe even the slaves would have started rebelling and organizing to do so, no one can say for sure. The bit of slavery being ended is one thing I think is good that came of the civil war....however maybe the only thing...so I just cannot entirely see the Union cause as being right since some of the 'cause' was things I find i disagree with. I mean I also do not think because dropping nukes on Japanese cities supposedly ended ww2 that it was 'right' or just per say...so cannot say the civil war was just or 'right' because it ended slavery.

Theoretically other means could have been used. But why should anyone have to wait for an institution like slavery to die out in order to be free? Just think how long that would take - and slavery was believed in by slave states, who after all had been willing to die and kill to defend it. As for a slave rebellion - that sort of thing had happened in the past, and had been brutally put down. When it was successful, as in Haiti, there was an absolute bloodbath when the slaves took revenge for the years of degradation and oppression. Which begs the question, would American slaves have behaved any better, considering their justified pent up rage? As for the actions of the victors during the war - I believe it was Sherman who had said something to the extent of, "War should be so terrible so that we may never love it." So yeah, there doubtlessly were preferable ways to end slavery, but the military failure of session is what had brought it about, and that's the only reality we have.

Slavery was just replaced by the practice of convict labor lease. Guess what; most of the convicts caught in that sorry mess were black. Guess what else; arrest and convictions of blacks were way up in order to feed the convict labor pool. Guess what else; the plantations that "rented" them didnt feel compelled to treat them was well since the laborers did not belong to them. Add on top of that about a century of enforced segregation and all the sudden the freeing of the slaves was not the great liberation you make it out to be. It was a sh***y situation all around for them so why not just call it like it was. The biggest difference for them in the post-Civil War era was that they could (if they weren't in prison) leave the south but most couldn't afford to.

Yes, all that bullsh*t was terrible, and meant to keep freed blacks in bondage and servitude. But what's your point? Ending slavery was still justifiable. The fact that such things were allowed to happen is proof that government had failed in it's task to protect all citizens, regardless of color, until the 1960's.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

20 Sep 2014, 9:11 pm

khaoz wrote:

Because we have become a nation of people who do not understand the concept of "united" and only care about themselves and their own interests. Unity requires a degree of sacrifice but we are a land of spoiled, self-indulgent me-ists.

This is why school children need to read Livy and study the disintegration of the Roman republic.

_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

20 Sep 2014, 9:18 pm

Raptor wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Sweetleaf wrote:

Kraichgauer wrote:

Even if any of that is true, the fact remains, a Union victory ended slavery, the most wretchedly evil institution in America. That alone makes the Union cause right.

Kraichgauer wrote:

Yes, all that bullsh*t was terrible, and meant to keep freed blacks in bondage and servitude. But what's your point? Ending slavery was still justifiable.

My point is that it ended one form of slavery only to institute another, meaning that the acts of your boy Abraham were almost for naught.

Quote:

The fact that such things were allowed to happen is proof that government had failed in it's task to protect all citizens, regardless of color, until the 1960's.

I believe it was in the 50's but that would be giving credit to a republican administration (Eisenhower) in your eyes so we'll forget about the end of school segregation in 1957 and that it was Eisenhower who cracked the whip to end segregation in the armed forces. Yep, Truman went though the motions of integrating the armed forces in 1948 but it tool a republican to force it all the way home.

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

20 Sep 2014, 9:34 pm

Raptor wrote:

/\
Probably very little crappy about it in the eyes of those who are on the dole......

Is there much difference between U.S. military veterans who agreed to serve our nation with the promise that if and when they needed state and federal assistance benefits, they would receive them ... and U.S. workers who "agreed" to contribute to state and federal assistance benefits with the promise that if and when they needed the benefits, they would receive them?

I consider both examples of "the dole" to be lawful (or at least ethical and moral) agreements where each party has the good-faith potential to receive the beneficial conditions of the agreement. But, when many veterans and workers become legally eligible for such benefits, the state and federal government parties obfuscate, delay and deny such benefits to the other agreeing parties, effectively broaching and violating the conditions of the agreement. In both cases, it was the state and federal governments that initiated negotiation of the agreements placing the presumption of equitability on them, not the veterans and workers who didn't (and probably couldn't) negotiate the agreements successfully. Fair? Legal? Ethical?

_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,694
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

20 Sep 2014, 9:39 pm

Raptor, Raptor... (shakes head derisively).
And how many black people do you think preferred slavery? As bad as things were, at least not every black American in the south was forced into prison labor. And there were many blacks who were able to buy and own their own farmland; a thing that would have been impossible during slave days. On top of that, the gains of civil rights legislation - though unjustifiably late on arrival - would never have been possible without Lincoln's achievement. So yes, Lincoln's accomplishment was worth it.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Last edited by Kraichgauer on 20 Sep 2014, 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,694
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

20 Sep 2014, 9:49 pm

Raptor wrote:

/\
Probably very little crappy about it in the eyes of those who are on the dole......

Kraichgauer wrote:

Well, if big business was held to accountability in regard to staying on American shores, and paying decent wages with benefits, there wouldn't have to be many people on "the dole."

Quote:

I've found that the same people who b*tch about the public safety net

Don't you mean hammock?

Quote:

also don't believe in civil rights for people of color or the LGBT community. Hardly the sort of people who decent people would want to be associated with.

Yeah yeah, austerity is racism........ :roll:

Now, you're definitely listening to right wing propaganda - America needs to suffer for the things it's done - really? I don't know of a single liberal who believes that outside of conservative fantasy.
No, I would not b*tch about poor Asians being left in poverty - not at the expense of American workers - but I would want to see them develop as industrial countries that share the wealth.
And yes, a safety net, not a hammock again of conservative fantasy.
And yes, austerity is motivated by racism, class contempt, and general smugness felt by the rich.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,603
Location: the island of defective toy santas

20 Sep 2014, 10:14 pm

there is just no communicating with those who worship at the altar of horatio alger. one might as well try to mix matter and antimatter.

OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

20 Sep 2014, 10:22 pm

auntblabby wrote:

let the confederate states GO, once and for all. the north will finally be free of its fundy yoke.

Wow, I'm glad I know now how you feel about Southerners.

Fundy yoke.

OK.

_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,694
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

20 Sep 2014, 10:22 pm

auntblabby wrote:

there is just no communicating with those who worship at the altar of horatio alger. one might as well try to mix matter and antimatter.

I know, but I try, and try... and try. :lol:

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,694
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

20 Sep 2014, 10:24 pm

OliveOilMom wrote:

auntblabby wrote:

let the confederate states GO, once and for all. the north will finally be free of its fundy yoke.

Wow, I'm glad I know now how you feel about Southerners.

Fundy yoke.

OK.

I'm pretty certain blabby doesn't lump all southerners together.

_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,659
Location: Long Island, New York

21 Sep 2014, 1:42 am

Succession would not be like the UK where there have been nothing more then a few riots. Take the 750,000 deaths in the civil war and multiply it by at least 10. It would go nuclear here. Union would take the large early advantage. The rebellion will have trouble getting started due to surveillance state and many red state soldiers would stay loyal to their oath to the union. But once the bloodletting starts and it is their families and towns affected this ends. More soldiers subscribe to conservative views then progressive and many tea parties are more willing to destroy everything rather then let other side win. The union by nature will be over confident as progressives tend to look at their opponents as inferior culturally and intelligence wise, so the early union success will make them really cocky.

I would guess most of you are thinking the war would never get that far because the scenario I describe is in nobody's self interest. The red state "win" would result in massive causalities and a massive depression. That is why a true secessionist rebellion is not likely to get started. But if it does get started I think emotion will take over. It will become I got to retaliate twice as hard for what you did to me. This is especially true in a civil war scenario.

_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 22 Sep 2014, 10:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,987
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

21 Sep 2014, 5:07 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

Why should anyone have to die in war? just think about how many people died...also I do not think all those fighting on the south side where exactly willing to die and kill to defend 'slavery' most of the ones who died over that where not the plantation owners and people who owned slaves now was it pretty sure many where coerced into killing and defending, not to mention there was the bit about feeling like they had the idea their home/land was threatened..whole point is slavery was a side thing, not the reason why the civil war was fought....but yes sure the civil war ended that, but does that mean the whole war was justified when it really wasn't about freeing the slaves or any great moral cause...I suppose that is up to people to decide for themselves.

_________________
We won't go back.

Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

21 Sep 2014, 5:18 am

What gives the Unionists, under a social contract conception of government (the basis for the American government system), the moral right to force individuals to be part of it if they do not wish to? If a majority of the people in New Hampshire vote to cut the ties that bind them to another, replacing the government with one that they deem able to secure their rights to life and liberty, then what would allow the Union to force them to remain?

Re. slavery, it's a shame Britain didn't retake their lost North American colonies, in order to "end slavery".

Wait, speaking of human rights violations, does that mean that conquering another country is always acceptable, as long as they're worse violators than you? So, anyone is allowed to take North Korea or Da'ash, China and Russia can team up to take Saudi Arabia, the US has the moral right to invade those two, the Commonwealth Realms of Canada, Australia, and the UK can restore the colonies to their previous place, Iceland is allowed to have the UK, and Sealand can take Iceland and become World Hegemon?

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

21 Sep 2014, 5:32 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

I'm pretty certain blabby doesn't lump all southerners together.

Just conservatives and others who differ in opinion with him.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

Page 3 of 13 [ 193 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 13 Next

Jump to:

25 Percent Of Americans Open To Secession Post Reply New Topic

25 Percent Of Americans Open To Secession