Can this trend be reversed? SJWs

[Kevin]

17 minutes ago, Lhalo said:

Not true at all. Slavery was no longer economically feasible and was on its way to being extinct all over the world and like Adam alluded to, Lincoln wasn’t against slavery until it was politically advantageous. He supported the Fugitive Slave Act and even recommended deporting them to The Caribbean, South America and other places. 

I would argue he was against slavery (he wasn’t too keen on the Mexican War which  was just a land grab and an excuse to expand slavery) but not for black equality. I think the two get too intermingled, again because of our grade school indoctrination. 

 

Never heard about Lincoln and the Fugitive Slave act so I googled it. Eh take it for what it’s worth. Might be more sources out there.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/18/andrew-napolitano/napolitano-lincoln-enforced-fugitive-slave-act/

[Amazing Larry]

Slaves were only pawns in Lincoln’s main objective which was saving the Union. It was stated loud and clear in his letter to Horace Greeley.

https://www.nytimes.com/1862/08/24/archives/a-letter-from-president-lincoln-reply-to-horace-greeley-slavery-and.html

[Adam]

When the government wants us to revere someone we probably shouldn’t 

[Taylor]

1 hour ago, Lhalo said:

Slaves were only pawns in Lincoln’s main objective which was saving the Union. It was stated loud and clear in his letter to Horace Greeley.

https://www.nytimes.com/1862/08/24/archives/a-letter-from-president-lincoln-reply-to-horace-greeley-slavery-and.html

So he should have just let the Union disband and the U.S. become a bunch of independent states?

[Amazing Larry]

16 minutes ago, Taylor said:

So he should have just let the Union disband and the U.S. become a bunch of independent states?

I believe he should have let the southern states seceed into their own confederacy. It would have saved the lives of over 600,000 men and slavery would have ended anyway. Lincoln decimated state’s rights and they have never since recovered. 

“If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.'” - Thomas Jefferson

Edited February 7, 2019 by Lhalo

[Adam]

Secession is humane

[Lou]

I've changed my mind on a very important matter.

Horace is a cool name. 

[Kevin]

7 hours ago, Lhalo said:

I believe he should have let the southern states seceed into their own confederacy. It would have saved the lives of over 600,000 men and slavery would have ended anyway. Lincoln decimated state’s rights and they have never since recovered. 

“If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union …. I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.'” - Thomas Jefferson

Ironically that was Sally Hemings language when she was playing hard to get with Tommy.

[Adam]

Here's a good 30 minutes on Lincoln

 

[gotbeer]

That's just mean.  You hurt my feelings.

Morning sports update: Los Angeles Times faces backlash for Super Bowl front page

[Amazing Larry]

4 hours ago, Adam said:

Here's a good 30 minutes on Lincoln

 

Great book.

[UndertheHalo]

I find it pretty remarkable that some of you are so confident that slavery would have just gone away because “costs”.  What on earth makes you think that the status quo slave economy wouldn’t have just morphed into something even more awful in the name of cost cutting ? The southern land owners had their free labor and didn’t want to give it up. End of story.  All the complexities that go along with that truth don’t change that basic premise.  You guys just think the market solves everything no matter what.  Even slavery.  

And ill add that plenty of very notable historians would vigorously oppose the position that you’re presenting. 

 

[Blarg]

39 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

That's just mean.  You hurt my feelings.

Morning sports update: Los Angeles Times faces backlash for Super Bowl front page

That was a great headline. 

[Make Angels Great Again]

 

[arch stanton]

5 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

I find it pretty remarkable that some of you are so confident that slavery would have just gone away because “costs”.  What on earth makes you think that the status quo slave economy wouldn’t have just morphed into something even more awful in the name of cost cutting ? The southern land owners had their free labor and didn’t want to give it up. End of story.  All the complexities that go along with that truth don’t change that basic premise.  You guys just think the market solves everything no matter what.  Even slavery.  

And ill add that plenty of very notable historians would vigorously oppose the position that you’re presenting. 

 

It was just a matter of time. Slavery was officially abolished in Saudi Arabia just 97 years after the end of the Civil War

[UndertheHalo]

We’ve got a bunch of lost cause peeps on this board I see.  

[Jason]

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/428686-adidas-yanks-all-white-sneaker-created-for-black-history-month

[UndertheHalo]

I mean, who gives a shit ?

 

[Adam]

20 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

I find it pretty remarkable that some of you are so confident that slavery would have just gone away because “costs”.  What on earth makes you think that the status quo slave economy wouldn’t have just morphed into something even more awful in the name of cost cutting ? The southern land owners had their free labor and didn’t want to give it up. End of story.  All the complexities that go along with that truth don’t change that basic premise.  You guys just think the market solves everything no matter what.  Even slavery.  

And ill add that plenty of very notable historians would vigorously oppose the position that you’re presenting. 

 

The market would have had an effect but the morality surrounding slavery was already changing rapidly. Jim Powell (I think) has a couple good books on this subject. Again, slavery ending was fantastic, but it wasn't the goal and that event as a consequence doesn't absolve Lincoln of his bad motives. 

[UndertheHalo]

4 hours ago, Adam said:

The market would have had an effect but the morality surrounding slavery was already changing rapidly. Jim Powell (I think) has a couple good books on this subject. Again, slavery ending was fantastic, but it wasn't the goal and that event as a consequence doesn't absolve Lincoln of his bad motives. 

Regardless of Lincoln’s supposed cynicism the idea that there was some moral shift in the south that would have led to abolition of slavery naturally isn’t something that I think holds a lot of water.  There’s plenty of historical evidence that contradicts that idea.  Written, actual actions before, during and after the civil war.   Ron Paul is talking about how the civil war was unnecessary and the slave owners could have simply been paid off.  I wonder how that would have gone in this country.  The UK literally just finished paying off its slave buy outs in 2015. The south wanted war and it got it.  You’re right that it wasn’t just about slaves, but most of the issues go back to that.  The south didn’t want the more populous industrialized north dictating to them.  They wanted their slaves who paid no taxes to count as persons to be represented.   The south wasn't innocent or noble. 

[mtangelsfan]

8 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Regardless of Lincoln’s supposed cynicism the idea that there was some moral shift in the south that would have led to abolition of slavery naturally isn’t something that I think holds a lot of water.  There’s plenty of historical evidence that contradicts that idea.  Written, actual actions before, during and after the civil war.   Ron Paul is talking about how the civil war was unnecessary and the slave owners could have simply been paid off.  I wonder how that would have gone in this country.  The UK literally just finished paying off its slave buy outs in 2015. The south wanted war and it got it.  You’re right that it wasn’t just about slaves, but most of the issues go back to that.  The south didn’t want the more populous industrialized north dictating to them.  They wanted their slaves who paid no taxes to count as persons to be represented.   The south wasn't innocent or noble. 

Neither was the north

[Adam]

I never defended the moral fabric of the South

[UndertheHalo]

1 hour ago, mtangelsfan said:

Neither was the north

Ya well, at least one of their causes outcomes was.  This isn’t an equivalent thing.  The south was fighting to prop up their evil economic way of life. 

[UndertheHalo]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

[yk9001]

7 hours ago, Adam said:

The market would have had an effect but the morality surrounding slavery was already changing 

What in the absolute F*ck?

There are Southerners today wearing Maga hats who's grandpappy's grandpappy didn't own slaves but would own slaves today just to  put those uppity blacks in their place.

 There are places in Southern California where blacks couldn't buy homes until the 1970s.

Blacks were getting lynched regularly in the 20th century. But you think that there was some sort of morality wave in the 1800's in the South that was going to eradicate slavery? That is the most asinine thing I've ever read on this board. And I read a lot of stuff from Lifetime.