...I just realized Lincoln was the Hitler of the 19th century.

[Oscar Wao]

We're talking about slavery in the late 1700s-late 1800s, yes? In that case, it still is NOT the white's fault. It's not excusable but does not mean that it is what drove the CW either.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We're talking about slavery in the late 1700s-late 1800s, yes? In that case, it still is NOT the white's fault. It's not excusable but does not mean that it is what drove the CW either.

Non sequitur, young Wao. Captive labor of a 'despised' race so considered by whites absolutely was the main cause of the Civil War. The South did not want to give up its servant labor and the North did not want economic competition from slavery in the territories.

Now anyone who believes that most northerns were driven by abolitionism is crazy. Being anti-slavery like Lincoln and millions upon millions of northerners did not mean they were abolitionists.

 

[syrenn]

We're talking about slavery in the late 1700s-late 1800s, yes? In that case, it still is NOT the white's fault. It's not excusable but does not mean that it is what drove the CW either.

The issue of slavery did drive the civil war. Slavery did not become an officially stated issue until well past the half way point though. Lincoln was up for re- election during an unpopular war. Slavery was what moralized the fight.

The south grew the cotton
The north milled the cotton
Both grew wealthy on cotton
All was made possible by slave labor

 

[JakeStarkey]

We're talking about slavery in the late 1700s-late 1800s, yes? In that case, it still is NOT the white's fault. It's not excusable but does not mean that it is what drove the CW either.

The issue of slavery did drive the civil war. Slavery did not become an officially stated issue until well past the half way point though. Lincoln was up for re- election during an unpopular war. Slavery was what moralized the fight.

The south grew the cotton
The north milled the cotton
Both grew wealthy on cotton
All was made possible by slave labor

OK, you are right, it's semantics, not interpretation.

 

[syrenn]

We're talking about slavery in the late 1700s-late 1800s, yes? In that case, it still is NOT the white's fault. It's not excusable but does not mean that it is what drove the CW either.

The issue of slavery did drive the civil war. Slavery did not become an officially stated issue until well past the half way point though. Lincoln was up for re- election during an unpopular war. Slavery was what moralized the fight.

The south grew the cotton
The north milled the cotton
Both grew wealthy on cotton
All was made possible by slave labor

OK, you are right, it's semantics, not interpretation.

Good to know

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Slavery was wrong, guys, and it proved a pox on all Americans, as it rightfully should. And, yes, JB, racial guilt applies even to those who pretend they have none of it.

Does it also apply to the Africans who sold other Africans into slavery? If it does, how do they know which side of racial guilt they should be on? Should they feel guilty because their ancestors dealt in slaves, or should they feel free because their ancestors were slaves. Racial guilt is nothing but propaganda arising out of a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

Argued and dismissed. We are talking about "us".

Us who? Am I a white whose famly owned slaves, or am I a black whose family were slaves? Perhaps I am both. Or neither. How would you know?

Slavery existed in every culture in history. Everyone on the planet has had ancestors who have been slaves, and who have owned slaves.

 

[syrenn]

Us who? Am I a white who owned slaves, or am I a black whose family were slaves? Perhaps I am both. Or neither. How would you know?

You forgot an African who's family immigrated to the US and who's ancestors were slave catchers and traders.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Us who? Am I a white who owned slaves, or am I a black whose family were slaves? Perhaps I am both. Or neither. How would you know?

You forgot an African who's family immigrated to the US and who's ancestors were slave catchers and traders.

Damn, I sure did.

 

[syrenn]

Damn, I sure did.

Never underestimate a smart ass! *God its good to be a smart ass*

 

[JakeStarkey]

Does it also apply to the Africans who sold other Africans into slavery? If it does, how do they know which side of racial guilt they should be on? Should they feel guilty because their ancestors dealt in slaves, or should they feel free because their ancestors were slaves. Racial guilt is nothing but propaganda arising out of a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

Argued and dismissed. We are talking about "us".

Us who? Am I a white whose famly owned slaves, or am I a black whose family were slaves? Perhaps I am both. Or neither. How would you know?

Slavery existed in every culture in history. Everyone on the planet has had ancestors who have been slaves, and who have owned slaves.

So? We are still the product of our history.

 

[Liability]

Argued and dismissed. We are talking about "us".

Us who? Am I a white whose famly owned slaves, or am I a black whose family were slaves? Perhaps I am both. Or neither. How would you know?

Slavery existed in every culture in history. Everyone on the planet has had ancestors who have been slaves, and who have owned slaves.

So? We are still the product of our history.

Not really. That is, at best, an over-statement.

We are what we are.

We may have a history. And we may have learned from our history.

But we, ourselves, are NOT our own history.

I never owned another human being. I bear zero guilt over the fact that some of our forebears did.

those who insist I bear some guilt over things done long before I was even born are squarely delusional and irrational.

I have an alibi, I tell you. I wasn't there. I wasn't even born yet. Best alibi of all time. And totally valid, too.

 

[syrenn]

And what happens if it was your ancestors who died to free the slaves?

 

[jillian]

They were morally wrong?

Was Sherman morally right when he marched through the south, ordering his men to commit war crimes that he had previously had men hung for? Moral agents do not commit immoral acts in defense of morality. Perhaps you should check the morality of the people you now claim were the moral ones.

yes. they were morally wrong. there is no justification for owning another person... not ever.

was sherman right?

yes.... and he didn't commit war crimes. I really don't think it appropriate to measure warfare then against warfare now... and even then, I'm not certain that given the same limitations as to firepower, that the same type of warmaking wouldn't be appropriate.

 

[jillian]

And what happens if it was your ancestors who died to free the slaves?

was it?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They were morally wrong?

Was Sherman morally right when he marched through the south, ordering his men to commit war crimes that he had previously had men hung for? Moral agents do not commit immoral acts in defense of morality. Perhaps you should check the morality of the people you now claim were the moral ones.

yes. they were morally wrong. there is no justification for owning another person... not ever.

was sherman right?

yes.... and he didn't commit war crimes. I really don't think it appropriate to measure warfare then against warfare now... and even then, I'm not certain that given the same limitations as to firepower, that the same type of warmaking wouldn't be appropriate.

Targeting civilians isn't a war crime?

 

[jillian]

They were morally wrong?

Was Sherman morally right when he marched through the south, ordering his men to commit war crimes that he had previously had men hung for? Moral agents do not commit immoral acts in defense of morality. Perhaps you should check the morality of the people you now claim were the moral ones.

yes. they were morally wrong. there is no justification for owning another person... not ever.

was sherman right?

yes.... and he didn't commit war crimes. I really don't think it appropriate to measure warfare then against warfare now... and even then, I'm not certain that given the same limitations as to firepower, that the same type of warmaking wouldn't be appropriate.

Targeting civilians isn't a war crime?

did they target civilians?

or was the population an insurgent body?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

yes. they were morally wrong. there is no justification for owning another person... not ever.

was sherman right?

yes.... and he didn't commit war crimes. I really don't think it appropriate to measure warfare then against warfare now... and even then, I'm not certain that given the same limitations as to firepower, that the same type of warmaking wouldn't be appropriate.

Targeting civilians isn't a war crime?

did they target civilians?

or was the population an insurgent body?

The entire population along with the slaves?

 

[Kalam]

Targeting civilians isn't a war crime?

did they target civilians?

or was the population an insurgent body?

The entire population along with the slaves?

Yes. Don't bother arguing; she and her ilk use the same "insurgent population" excuse to justify slaughtering Palestinian children. Watch out, because "human shields" is up next.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Palestinian cowardly criminal "jihadists" use children as shields.

The Israeli army is the shield in front of its children.

Kalam, you are wrong before Allah, who despises you and those like you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sherman's army waged "total war" because the Southrens were bushwacking his soldiers. Thus the citizens caught it. As Sherman told Grant, "Tough luck."