|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> 'Owning', Slaves. /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1435162335 Message started by MnSpring on 06/24/15 at 09:12:15 |
|
Title: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by MnSpring on 06/24/15 at 09:12:15 “Lake Calhoun” in Mpls MN, was named, “Lake Calhoun” in about 1817 Before that, it had Indian names. It was named after, The United States Secretary of War, John C. Calhoun. J.C. Calhoun, was from South Carolina. He was a great proponent of: states rights, limited government, and free trade. He was a Vice President. He died before the Civil War. But now, some people, want to RE-NAME that lake. And they have all the local, TV, Media, on their side. Cheese and Rice! Before Charleston, if you asked 1,000 people, who lived around the largest lake in Minneapolis, (Calhoun). Probably 1 or 2, would know it’s history. (And before someone, says: "Calhoun", is not the largest lake in the Twin City Metro area, the, largest lake, is NOT in Mpls) Yet. NOW, they want to change it’s name? Because some, ‘wanna-be’, King, said a certain Flag is bad. Guess, next is, chiseling, the faces of: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln, OFF, Mt. Rushmore, because they also, had black skinned Slaves. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/24/15 at 17:48:52 Now,don't get wound up too tight over this. FWIW, slavery wasn't limited to the South. Laws required slaves be returned if they did manage to escape to a place where slavery was illegal. The War was NOT about slavery. Make note of the date of the war, April 12, 1861, and the Emancipation proclamation, January 1, 1863 Now, in the letter to Horace Greeley, read what he said. http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm If I was gonna whip your butt for talking about my sister, you'd know that before I threw the first punch. READ, and stop believing what you were taught. As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt. I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, Somewhat contradictory to the history teachers.. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Serowbot on 06/24/15 at 18:24:47 The letter explains that Lincoln's priority is saving the Union... and not the freeing of the slaves... ... but,... that was Lincoln's priority... not the priority of the southern slave states that were trying to secede... Their priority was to keep slavery...That was the reason for secession... So,.. the war was about slavery... They also say it was about "State's rights", but that was in reference to slave owners keeping possession of their slaves when they took them into non-slave states...... It was all about slavery... If that weren't so,... why couldn't Lincoln have just said,..."Well, keep yer' dern slaves"... and prevented the war entirely?... ;D... |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/24/15 at 18:53:36 And, slavery wasn't in the north... The reasons for the war are a long conversation. The northern industrialists were playing games with legislation and screwing the South, and im sure that since you saw WHEN the declaration was made versus the start of the war and Lincoln's statement that If he could preserve the union and NOT end slavery, Then to say it was just about slavery would be kind of a stretch. I know, it's what we were taught. That letter wasn't part of any history class I was in. Like most things, there is more to the story. And, SINCE Lincoln's desire was to save the union and SINCE he said he would save the Union if it meant slavery continues then Why DIDN'T he juwsay Fine, keep your slaves? Maybe there was more to it... |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Serowbot on 06/24/15 at 19:10:38 I think denying it was about slavery is the current south's attempt to do a PC whitewash of history... ...and southerner's are so anti PC... (at least they hate when Lib's do it)... Dump the flag,.. at worst it represents slavery,.. at best, it represents treason. ...and, that side lost anyway... They had the American flag,.. switched to that one for couple of years, got their arse kicked, and switched back... If it was me,... I'd be hiding it where nobody would ever find it... ;D... |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/24/15 at 19:24:29 Well, that certainly explains Lincoln saying he would be okay with slavery continuing as long as the Union,,, Really, making flag jokes? |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by MnSpring on 06/24/15 at 19:57:08 5442554850454853270 wrote:
Nope, read history. real history, not a, 'today's re-written version of history'. The C.W. Started, BECAUSE, a, 'Government', was demanding, undue, Taxes, upon certain States, And LESS Representation. (States Rights), and was Demanding, (Because the, 'South), could PAY, but not receive. Kinna like a, 'King" said not 100 years before. The C.W., Became, about, 'Black Skinned People, slavery", Simply because, it was, the P.C. (of the day), Thing to say!. IT did NOT, Start That Way ! If it was about, 'SLAVERY", tell me WHY, Nothing was said about, the several thousands of OTHER SLAVES, who skin color was NOT black ????? It was ALL About, the Federal Government, wanting MORE MONEY ! Now, Black Skin Slavery was on the way out anyway. And the, Black Skin Slaves, on the Very Very Very, most part, were treated kindly. Of course their were the POS, 'owners', who treated them badly. (Just like today) But for the most part, they had a good life. UNLIKE, the ones that went to Salt Lake City, when, 'someone', said: " Come Here, We Will PAY YOU". Then proceeded to, Charge them for the land, the houses, the food. Golly Gee, NOW, they are hugely in DEBT, But, BUT, they get, 'Paid". Read History, REAL, History, Not fabricated, re-written, to serve some other purpose. Same thing is happening now. We have a, 'wanna-be King" Who says: ALL, States, Give up your Guns. ALL, States, Give up your freedom to choose Heath Care. ALL States, You Can NOT say certain things. ALL States, You can NOT fly a certain Flag. ALL States, You must Not, 'offend', a person, wanting to apply the 'law' from where they came. ALL States: GIVE ME MONEY !@ And on and on and on ! So like Many things, 'States Rights', don't mean, Sh&* Well, their are a great number of people, who think different ! Well unless, you live in a, 'inner city area', and are willing to work 12 hours a day, for 25.00 a hour, when a loaf of bred cost 15.00, and get, 'subsidies', from the, 'government'. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/24/15 at 20:44:12 Now,don't get wound up too tight over this. Aaaand, well, im on your side, but, dude, kinda went off the tracks a bit. I couldn't quite follow the whole thought process. I've been all over the net for the last coupla hours. I earlier stated that, well, go look..... And, IF you have any intellectual honesty and curiosity, look for stuff that contradicts what we were taught. Why? Have we ever been lied to? History classes TAUGHT that we were attacked in Nam. Nobody ever hid fifty midgets behind an elephant. But the war was just because of slavery. And I've read some very compelling things,, and I have Observed Reality that has given me reason to question nearly everything. Nearly all my life I answered the question Slavery. Now, I see there was a lot more to it. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by WebsterMark on 06/25/15 at 08:31:11 The idea of dumping the Confederate flag is just typical of today's politically correct nonsense. Walmart and a few other pussified retailers have removed anything with the Confederate flag on it. However, they'll sell Cuban flags, Palestinian flags, Iranian flags, those stupid Che tshirts with no objection. $hit, i gurantee you could find a store who wont sell a conferdeate flag, but theyll sell an ISIS flag if they could make a buck.... This is a typical example of the lefts infringement on free speech. it's always liberals who take away real freedoms. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Serowbot on 06/25/15 at 09:48:46 Here's a pretty balanced view on the causes of the Civil War... by Gordon Leidner... (It is short and worth reading.) http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/causes.htm Gordon has been a lifelong student of the Civil War and the American Revolution. His accomplishments include: Member of the Board of Directors for the Abraham Lincoln Institute Author of 4 books on Abraham Lincoln, including the popular Abraham Lincoln: Quotes, Quips, and Speeches Author of a new biography of Abraham Lincoln entitled Lincoln's Gift: How Humor Shaped Lincoln's Life and Legacy Author of several academic articles on Lincoln’s role as a Transformational Leader Author of many published articles on the Civil War Guest Lecturer at The Smithsonian Institution and Johns Hopkins University Guest Commentator on various radio programs Former president of the Lincoln Group of the District of Columbia |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by WebsterMark on 06/25/15 at 10:12:52 I think you can look at the border states during the Civil War to determine if slavery was the primary reason behind the war. slavery was not as common in the border states as in the states of the Confederacy. doesn't that give some indication that slavery was in fact the primary reason for the war? If all the southern states emancipated their slaves in 1860 for example, would there still have been a war between the north and the south over the other issues? that's a key question. I think the answer is no there would not have been a war. which again tells me slavery was the primary reason for the Civil War. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/25/15 at 10:38:48 And I have found statements that were supported by historical fact, manipulations, tariffs and unfair behavior economically beating the Undeveloped South down and saying that there would have been war, slavery or not. That it's still debated this long after, Lincoln's own statements, that slavery could continue if that's what it took to save the Union. That's him saying, Keep your slaves, dont secede,can't we all just get along? The question is, what drove states to feel the need to secede? Was it because the Northern Industrialists had united and boycotted against the slave owners? Keep in mind that slaves existed in the North , but I would expect that the degree of it was very different. I've found plenty to read. And I have years of experience watching the people who don't want you to know how things work slap a handy veil over things. It's reasonable, its compassionate, but is it really the whole story? Spend time looking for information that would challenge the teachers. Look at legislation, Pretty easy to stir people up against others who are engaged in behavior you can demonize. Yet, the Union army wasn't, for the most part, concerned about slavery. Excerpt from your article It is a fact that when the armies for the North and South were first formed, only a small minority of the soldiers on either side would have declared that the reason they joined the army was to fight either "for" or "against" slavery. The reason s for secession are the key. I'm not saying that I know all the reasons, I'm just saying that, once again,te official answer .just doesn't cut it. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by WebsterMark on 06/25/15 at 11:56:02 the questin is what drove the states to feel the need to secede? I don't think that's really the question. I think everyone knows what drove the states to secede. It was a combination of being forced to give up slavery and the fact that the north was clearly bullying the self. we don't have the same atmosphere today. That's no doubt due to Senators being elected now and evolving into national figures as opposed to appointed by the governor's and being more beholden to the states. my point is simple, assume the south did not have slavery or that the north did have slavery in equal measure to the south. now assume every other condition was identical as it was back then with the exception of slavery. Do you really think there would have been secession followed by 4 years of bloody and destructive Civil War? I just can't see that. I just don't think people were going to die for that. Especially people in the north. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/25/15 at 13:11:08 Doesn't it seem odd that the soldiers weren't for or against slavery and Lincoln's own statements that if saving the Union meant slavery continues that he would accept that? I've read what you think, Web, but what have you gone hunting to read that contradicts that? I've been trying to get you guys to actually use search terms that would lead to information about legislation/ policies, things that would tend to create friction,, things that would explain why men would go off to war. Row even POSTED that most of the soldiers hadn't joined to keep or eliminate slavery, so what were the early problems? Try reading this. I've learned quite a bit since this started. http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=20107 Look up some of the stuff mentioned. The people who were getting rich off of slavery , the beneficiaries of the tariff s, probably werent as much against slavery as they were upset that the states they were getting rick off of were about to declare themselves a separate country and start writing their own laws and working out trade agreements from the streng position of Source of supplies/raw materials That the industrialists Needed... How nice of a cover is that? Omission of important information,insulating legislative misbehavior, governmental bullying, blame it ALL on slavery.... Yep, I've learned a lot in the last two days... |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 06/25/15 at 13:18:59 A part of the real tragedy of The War Between the States was that if it could have been avoided for another 20 years, slavery would have likely died out anyhow. As agriculture began to be mechanized in the period right after 1865, and particularly with Whitney's invention of the cotton gin, slaves would have just become too expensive and bothersome to keep. Slave owners always had to fear revolt, and more than one Southern family was killed by their own slaves. Then keeping a couple of dozen female slaves picking cotton seeds out of the cotton balls when that could be done by the cotton gin in a few minutes made no economic sense. Unfortunately, the timing was off by about 20 years. And I use the term War Between the States because to a historian, a civil war is a war between two or more factions all vying to control a country. Not was not the case in TWBTS - the South had no desire to control the entire country - they simply wanted to secede and be done with it. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/25/15 at 14:14:26 The laws were screwing the South. They were upset. Only about 25% owned slaves. But everyone was suffering from the financial strains imposed on their states. It wasn't just plantation owners sons who went to war To Protect Slavery..... Would you sign up to go to war so the plantation owner down the road could keep his slaves? Now if that's not enough to make someone have a Huhhh moment... If it was just about slavery, and you didn't own slaves, why fight? What %age of the approximate 25% who owned slaves were young and tough enough to make war? It just doesn't add up. It's not shouted from the rooftops, but black men fought for the South. Reconstruction? Ohh, I don't want to go there. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 06/25/15 at 14:41:34 JOG - History is full of irony. Take a look at the American Revolution, as compared to the French and Russian Revolutions. The French and Russian conflicts were basically, perhaps a bit over simplified, revolutions of a down trodden, poverty stricken populace rising up against tyrannical monarchs who held them down and who considered the common person to be next to dirt. However, the American Revolution was basically, again a bit over simplified for this discussion, a revolution of the wealthy against what they perceived as an unfair tax system in which they had no voice in Parliament. The average colonist had it pretty good, given the time. The typical farmer, tradesman, artisan in the Colonies in no way compared to his counterpart in France at that time, nor in Russia 120 years later. Those men we refer to as the Founding Fathers were almost all very wealthy Southern planters, or New England merchants. Yet, through a campaign of firebrand writers like Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin, that wealthy class was able to convince the common man to shed his blood for the cause of the wealthy. Similar to what you correctly pointed out about the average Confederate soldier. A question I struggle with is whether, had I been alive at the time, and had been a middle class person, would I have been a revolutionary, or a loyalist. Being a fairly conservative fellow, I may well have been a loyalist, not willing to rock the boat when my life, standard of living, and all else was fairly good by the standards of the day. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/25/15 at 15:04:41 Being a fairly conservative fellow, I may well have been a loyalist, not willing to rock the boat when my life, standard of living, and all else was fairly good by the standards of the day. But legislation had beaten that standard down. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 06/25/15 at 15:07:36 JOG - Not really. I was a history major in undergraduate school, and studied this issue quite a bit. The legislation you speak of was the tax legislation that hit the wealthy. About the only thing that Parliament did that impacted the common colonist was the tea tax. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/25/15 at 16:07:40 Sorry, wrong war, loyalists,revolutionary, kinda went right by me... I've been so focused on the civil war. I've never stopped to wonder,, I just may. But, in all honesty, the idea of war, the amount of trouble someone would have to cause me before I decided it was worth getting killed over,,,,, I don't know, |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Paraquat on 06/26/15 at 06:18:24 I am just shocked that Jerry and I agree on something. ;D --Steve |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/26/15 at 07:21:46 Jerry said not willing to rock the boat when my life, standard of living, and all else was fairly good by the standards of the day. Especially considering that rocking the boat meant giving up the bed, picking up a rifle and risking getting killed. What inspired the guys to fight against the North? Since even the soldiers didn't know it was about slavery, what motivated them to join up and risk their lives and Know, without doubt, hardship and discomfort, a long camping trip, hiking to places, weather, and then fight.. For someone else to keep slaves? At least the war of independence promised to improve the lives of even those who Jerry has theoretically identified with. By removing the thumb of the oppressors,,,, Ohh, wait, but look, legislation Was in place,, The conditions in the South had been affected, for all. The material suppliers were being screwed. Yes, largely, slave labor was involved. The states that Had slaves but didnt secede, I wonder what was the backbone of THEIR economies. Seems like legislation had a big hand in causing the war. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 06/26/15 at 07:26:44 JOG - Specifically, what legislation, and what was is about? |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Pine on 06/26/15 at 08:16:46 3738343E3538333F382F3A382F5D0 wrote:
Jerry thank you sooo much for posting this!!! I would have said a similar thing but being FROM Mississippi, it seems my words would be too suspect. It is my understanding that (TWBTS) did start as economic strife, basically an industrial North versus an agricultural ( but still rich) South. When a legislative fix could not be found, affected states decided to secede. It then became a states right issue. The rally cry as a slavery issue became prominent because a quick victory by the North just was not happening. Lincoln needed something to maintain the will of the North to continue the war... because he valued the survival of the Union (all states) above anything else. Other odd tidbits I recall ( may not be factual) The State of MS abolished slavery PRIOR the the end of the war, yet the war waged on WHY.. can't be about slavery??? Owing to the statement above... that MS had already free slaves, prior to the thirteenth amendment.. they did not sign the 13th until ... 1995! (Why sign it when you already free them??) As to the right to secede. While the North decided to fight the South to prevent it, they in truth had no law to stand on. It was only AFTER the war was over that the courts made a ruling. Here is the issue: the american colonies left the rule of England, but then fought to prevent the same type action, within its own. Two-faced much? So the courts put it this way: if the PEOPLE had revolted and said they were leaving the Union then they would have been within their right. However, a State government does NOT have that ability. ( or something to that effect as I understand it). Let's be clear owning other people, considering them as property is horrible to me. I will not agree that slaves had it good, or any other such notion. I will say, as JOG pointed out, black slavery was but one form and one area. Chinese railroad "workers" were in most manners slaves, and died en masse (and suspect had a much worse time than slaves in the South). Many people who came to the US did so as "indentured servants" .. and yes these were WHITE people. So the idea that somehow the SOUTH had a lock on slavery, is BS. The idea that people controlling to the enth degree the life another was common, for any race (debt bondage) for the day, and in fact continues on to this day in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Pine on 06/26/15 at 08:28:15 PS: this also defines my position (against) the move to make the curent illegal aliens citizens. It does not FIX the problem. So use this: Slaves can be an attractive investment because the slave-owner only needs to pay for sustenance and enforcement. This is sometimes lower than the wage-cost of free labourers, as free workers earn more than sustenance; in these cases slaves have positive price. When the cost of sustenance and enforcement exceeds the wage rate, slave-owning would no longer be profitable, and owners would simply release their slaves. Slaves are thus a more attractive investment in high-wage environments, and environments where enforcement is cheap, and less attractive in environments where the wage-rate is low and enforcement is expensive. And insert migrant illegal workers for slaves. As long as corporate farms can pay a third party to supply labor at the lowest cost ( that being illegals that can't require minimum wage)... there will always be a market for such labor. Legalizing the current population (of illegals) will only serve to make them less desirable in the labor force for which they were brought here! They WILL be unemployed and greatly disadvantaged of EVER finding gainful employment. So NEW illegal workers will need to be brought in. Italicized from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_slavery |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/26/15 at 08:47:07 Ive left links to info. Tariffs, industrialists were ripping the South off. Fine points made, Pine. Jerry, if you want me to try to find more, I might, I dunno, ive spent a lot of energy on it and found enough to sway me from the Common Knowledge that Slavery was why wefought. Well, shucks, what a wonderful tool to teach the people that southern whites would fight and die to keep the black man down. The loving northerners would fight and die to free them, YYET, as Rows article pointed out, the SOLDIERS who volunteered to go to war didnt know that. Government controlled schools fail to point out the role of government in inciting the war? Naaah, Does anyone else see how much our society could be different? Its not in the politicians or law enforcement, big government wanting types to Have a society that gets along together. Divide and conquer. Look at what happened to REAL uniters. MLK, John Lennon. No lone gunmen nutjobbs go after these race baiting, division creating, creeps who come out of the woodwork when there is an Event. Where are they in between? Where are these Uniters, Every Day? We need, as a society , to get over Attitude towards people based on appearance. Does knowing where someone s great great grampa was born somehow let me know whether or not that persons heart/ character were undesirable/inferior? If someone dislikes people who are of a different color, without spending time together and judge based on Who they are, but, PREjudge, then,logically, wouldn't that person have to trust and like and appreciate and respect and GIVE to everyone who IS like himself? Everything that one would withhold from someone due to a racist attitude, I mean, if you being pink disqualifies you from being my friend, because I'm blue, wouldn't I hafta befriend the blues? Naaah, there are behaviors / ideas, attitudes, many things that would exclude a person from the Friend label. Hard enough to find people who have the qualities that I want, so I dont Exclude people based on NonBehavioral traits. Ive done more to unite the races than jackson and sharpton combined. Lower case used on purpose. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 06/26/15 at 08:59:42 Pine - I would add to your analysis that slavery ( as relating to the time of the 1800s ) makes economic sense only in situations where manual labor, and lots of it, is needed in a given economic endeavor. Such was the antebellum South. An agricultural economy before the mechanization of agriculture. Plowing done with a single bottom plow drawn by a horse could cover very little ground in a day - something makes me think less than 3 acres. Today a huge tractor drawing a gang plow can cover over 50 acres in a day. Cultivating was done by men with a hoe in their hands. Harvesting was done by men picking crops with their hands. Everything in agriculture depending upon human, manual labor, even the milking of cows. The prefect setting for slaves, or even in today's world, underpaid illegal immigrants. Before 1900, all of that began to change and slaves were no longer cheaper than mechanization in the South. Here in Ohio, we are a major producer of tomatoes. The world's largest ketchup factory is in Ohio. 40 years ago we had hordes of Mexican migrants picking tomatoes because even in the 1970s, there was no mechanical harvesting of tomatoes - they hadn't yet perfected a harvester that didn't bruise the delicate tomato. Now they have, and the migrants are gone. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by old.indian on 06/26/15 at 09:43:17 According to (documented) family history we fought on both sides of the Civil War, and the ancestor who was at Concord Bridge was a lower middle class farmer. My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I believe that part of the problem in 1775 was that England controlled trade (imports & exports) in a manner that the colonist resented. (i.e. All goods had to "pass through" England.) FYI: Of course in 1700s one side of the family held the barbering concession for the French Army, the English Army, AND the American Army..... ::) |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Pine on 06/26/15 at 10:31:40 7C737F757E7378747364717364160 wrote:
Agreed! Though, I think the reality was that ( then as now) only large scale concerns held the bulk of slaves (and migrant workers). By sheer numbers, "most" southern farmers were small family affairs, generally share-croppers.. way too poor to have slaves. Only large (mostly cotton) plantations could afford such. People do not eat cotton.. it is an export (mostly) export crop. Thus the economic fight was between (rich)slave holding cotton plantations and the industrial North. And still the REAL economic concern for migrant workers is between large corporate farms that hire them and ... everyone else. I wonder... it just hit me... What would an analysis return if the current economic situation of those related to former slaves would be compared to a future generation of former migrant workers? Ie While slaves were "freed" the economics changed to reduce the value of their labor. Of course this occurred to anyone of non-skilled farm labor (share-croppers/farmers). Why would migrant workers fare any better? The fact that they become citizens and thus protected under the law, only serves to remove the value they brought with them. (just as technology did with farming). Or maybe not... fun thinking game. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Jerry Eichenberger on 06/26/15 at 10:43:54 This comment is NOT meant to be racist, nor derisive of blacks. I think, answering Pine's question, there is one major difference between former slaves and former illegals. Slaves didn't come here of their own volition. There were captured initially, then their children were held in bondage, often for generations. How hard do you work under those conditions - probably just enough to avoid the whip of the overseer or other discipline. To the contrary, the illegals, by and large, came here voluntarily, to escape poverty and crime in their own country, and to work hard to improve their stock in life. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Pine on 06/26/15 at 16:20:44 Actually I have no doubt that each group works (or was worked) hard. It was not my intent to question that. To come here voluntarily though, does not mean they are not cheated once they get here. Even so.. I think I am still not communicating well... A group of people that come into area and are working but then are displaced either by technology or politics, don't just go away. They remain, for what-ever reason, and create a legacy of poverty for those that follow. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by HovisPresley on 06/26/15 at 16:53:21 1D24232839223F4D0 wrote:
.............................................................................................. Bearing in mind that 99% of these 'new guys' are of European descent? Ironic? |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by WD on 06/27/15 at 01:20:39 043631202736211E322138530 wrote:
"Great Wall of China Mart" refused to decorate a cake with a Confederate States Battle Standard... Biker who ordered the cake asked for it to be done with an Isis flag instead... "Great Wall of China Mart" made his Isis cake... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7ePFollQQE&feature=youtu.be June 27th has been designated "Burn a Confederate Flag Day" by the "tolerance and love" folks on the left... I'll be in the front yard, flying the battle flags of TN and the Confederacy, one of them run up the stepped mast of our sailboat. Revolver on my hip, shotgun in my lap, gray hat with a Confederate flag sporting the lightning bolt runes of the SS on my head. The War of Northern Aggression was fought over money. Northern businesses collected tariffs and customs levies from Southern ports. ALL the money went north. Northern businesses paid a pittance for Southern agricultural production, production that was worth 10x that amount on the European market. Industrial monocropping burned out hundreds of thousands of acres across the South (same thing is happening to this day with cotton, soy and fuel corn, nationwide). Less than 4% of the population in the South owned slaves. And that includes those held by the Cherokee Nation and by free men of color. Nobody wants to talk about the historical fact that the worst slave owners were themselves black... |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/27/15 at 06:59:11 WD, you're using the points I made, but I don't know where you found Less than 4% of the population in the South owned slaves. I think I had about a 25% estimate I found in some article. I think it's pretty telling that the Soldiers who were doing all that fighting and dying didn't know it was a war for/against slavery. I think it's interesting that one of the stronger articles that shows that slavery was not THE Reason was posted by someone who was trying to make it about slavery. Id expect that to at least cause someone to at least have a Hmmmm , I wonder if there wasn't Just a bit more to it.... moment. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Serowbot on 06/27/15 at 07:28:47 I'm sure there was a lot of resentment of fancy industrial northerners, by the agricultural southern folk... that, and pride, will send a young man to war. ...but the southern powers that be, were slave owners, and wanted to expand into western states as America grew. In any war, the men on ground have less stake in the overall outcome... They join because their neighbor did,.. driven by machismo. They stay and die for their brothers. It's seldom about the issues of the war. I think humans are sorta' made for it. :-?... |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/27/15 at 07:40:23 and yet, Ive posted informarion that showed that the north was ripping the south off thru northern industrialists buying legislation that favored them. IF the war had been about slavery, wouldnt that have been the norths battle cry from day one? If it had been about destroying slavery, would Lincoln have stated that his goal was to preserve the union, even if it meant slavery continues? Just address those two questions, Make them illogical, |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by stinger on 06/28/15 at 05:02:00 To some, the atrocities of the Vietnam war such as napalming of innocents and the burning of villages for example are a reason to also remove the American flag from all government buildings, social, and sporting events. Do you also agree with that? How about what we did to Japan under the American flag? Dropping a atom bomb on thousands upon thousands of innocent women and children. Do they not also have the right to object to the flying of the American flag? The flying of the confederate flag today is not about slavery. It is flown in honor of all of the loved ones that were lost to the people of the south during the war. It is part of their heritage. There is a town in Mississippi even today that carries my families last name. None of my ancestors ever owned a slave. Yet several of my ancestors died fighting for the Confederate flag. I fly my flag in honor of them. I will not take down my flag because a bunch of politically correct liberals who not only have never been a slave, or even spoken to anyone alive today that has been one demands me to. 15,000 african americans have died by the hands of other african americans since the death of Treyvon martin three years ago. It would seem they would and should be a little more concerned about that instead of what happened 150 years ago. Like I said, if the flying of the Confederate flag is offensive and should be removed, then also maybe it is time to ban the American flag. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Pine on 06/29/15 at 10:42:41 2A2D30373E3C2B590 wrote:
/well said Of course you left off the most hurt group ever by the USA.. North American natives. Though I guess a large group of them were killed off or shoved off their land prior to there being a proper US flag. PS: no I am not in favor of getting rid of the US flag. But the point is valid. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/29/15 at 12:26:21 Trail of Tears, under Jackson. Some Native Americans will Not accept a twenty dollar bill. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by pgambr on 06/30/15 at 10:10:06 Somehow I didn't see this one coming, black leaders discuss how the NRA & 2A helped freed slaves. [media]https://youtu.be/9RABZq5IoaQ[/media] https://www.youtube.com/embed/9RABZq5IoaQ?feature=player_embedded Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Rylee on 07/04/15 at 12:59:22 I wanted to read the posts concerning thus issue but I had no plan to weigh in but things have ever changed. Let me give an idea as to where I'm coming from before I respond. Born and raised in rural Alabama. My name is spelt RYLEE instead of RILEY because of General R.E.LEE. Flip side My wife is black. And when I say black I don't mean she's of African decent. I mean she's an activist for black rights. She belongs to multiple "women of color" organizations and promotes herself as such. Basically the farthest end of both sides of the fence. My house is as divided as can get. So much so that this subject has been avoided at all costs even though we both feel strongly towards our argument of the side we represent. So I'll start with this. I'm not gonna argue that the war was or was not about slavery. Because really that's not the issue. The issue is a flag. A flag that up until the civil rights movement some 100 years after the war was simply a battle flag. A flag made for a regiment much like today's military has flags designating each regiment. A flag that went thru many designs over a very short period of time because until it reached it's last design was mistaken for a lot of other things like surrender. A flag that was flown with pride by the group of men who it represented. It wasn't designed because of hatred. It wasn't designed to demean a race. It was a flag flown by a group of soilders fighting in a war like someone stated before that the majority of them didn't even care of the real reason. The majority of confederate soilders did not own slaves. I have 3 relatives burried in the confederate section at Arlington. None of them owned slaves. Not one of them even owned farms. They were all professional businessman. But they were from the south and proud of their heritage and for that they fought. What history doesn't tell you is the man who was the savior of the slaves felt they shouldn't be owned but believed they were less than equal to whites. What history doesn't tell you is the man the led the confederate armies who was married to a decendent of Washington freed the slaves he was bequeathed in wills from family members deaths. What history doesn't tell you is the man who led the union and would become president was a proud slave owner. What history doesn't tell you is the majority of our forefathers owned slaves. But again this isn't about slavery or the war that was supposedly fought just to end it. This is about a flag that thanks to a few groups who thrive on hatred of non whites decided to take it upon themselves in the 50s and 60s to use said flag as their own personal symbol. Am I condoning South Carolina or any other states for using this flag...no Am I saying that this flag does not represent hatred...no What I'm saying is this flag,this symbol like countless other symbols in history can me one thing to me and something completely different to you. This country and it's media and all those that feel they can just wipe something from us because "they" feel it's wrong is ludicrous. Let's pull a TV show that had nothing to do with racism because a car had said flag on the roof. Let's rename a lake because the man it was named after owned slaves. Let's remove and recall and products ever created because they have said flag on them. And Walmart I've got news for you. The "south" made you the multi billion dollar company you are today it's probably in your best interest to not bite that hand? I could go on and on but I'm going to close with this. I'm from the south and darn proud of it. But, I don't now nor have I ever needed a flag to show that pride. What will never change however is how I see that flag and what it means to me! |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by thumperclone on 07/04/15 at 13:59:32 swastika flag anyone? |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Kris01 on 07/04/15 at 14:02:41 The swastika is a lot older than the Nazis. If you fly the swastika flag, you're probably not of an ancient, long dead religion. You're probably a neo-Nazi full of hate. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Kris01 on 07/04/15 at 14:15:36 How the world loved the swastika - until Hitler stole it http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29644591 |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by pgambr on 07/04/15 at 14:55:46 How long till this flag goes down? http://https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Flag_of_Mississippi.svg/338px-Flag_of_Mississippi.svg.png Incidentally, this is the flag for the state of MS. Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Kris01 on 07/04/15 at 16:31:19 It won't be long - just ask Col. Reb! |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by HovisPresley on 07/04/15 at 18:35:21 Rylee, thanks for an excellent post 8-) Can I share this with you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r-VwSRzXbk Not that it has any relevance, but it's a great tune 8-) |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Rylee on 07/04/15 at 19:23:46 That is in fact an excellent tune Hovis So today while amidst the cookout at my mother in laws house I was goaded into a conversation similar to this thread. Being the only "Caucasian" person there and them knowing I'm from the south I was basically suckered into a verbal argument where I had zero support for my side/point whatever you'd call it. I got so angry I left and went home. Because my point of view was from a privileged white standing and I had no clue of the hardships of racial inequality. When all I was trying to say was I am disgusted with the media taking this to the nth degree and putting all the emphasis on a flag and not what's really going on. The confederate battle flag didn't inspire that kid to walk into the church and kill 9 African Americans. His values of white superiority weren't learned because of the flag. He didn't claim the south will rise again. He wasn't spouting racial reteric based around a flag. I'm tired of being from the south and there being an automatic assumption that I'm some backwoods redneck who hates all non whites. The look I get from people when they find out my wife is black and we have kids amazes me. Like I'm not aloud to do so because I'm from Alabama. Today was the breaking point for me Basically. For my wives family to group me into that profile because I disagreed that this issue went deeper than just a flag pushed me over the top. I'm still at home and don't plan to go back over there. I was cornered and bullied by people who are supposed to be family because of where I'm from and my pride in that. The terrible part of all this was I actually agreed with them. The media has spun all the emphasis of the killings on a flag and what it in their eyes represents. But what we aren't seeing on the news is that 9 more churches have been burned. That klan rallies are happening in capital cities throughout the south in direct response to states wanting to remove the flag from their state symbols. Out of frustration right before I left I said "if yall wanna be mad at someone for what happened be mad at the tribal leaders in Africa that sold your ancestors to the slave traders to begin with. If we're gonna get to the root of the issue let's go all the way back to where it actually started" |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by HovisPresley on 07/04/15 at 19:37:50 Oh man! It pains me (as a non-American, even) that SO much emphasis is put on the Confederate flag. I wish these people would leave the flag alone, the flag is innocent, the flag represents (in modern culture) Bo 'n' Lukes' car, Lynyrd Skynyrd, as it also equally may represent the 'South' and it's values and culture. All this emphasis on a 'flag' seems to me to miss the main point of the issue.... That flag is an identity, fly it with pride..... or you'll end up in a situation like the North of Ireland, where flag flying is illegal..... |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Kris01 on 07/04/15 at 20:41:10 6E49504F55765443554A435F260 wrote:
Please explain |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Rylee on 07/04/15 at 21:11:50 @Kris01 If memory serves me the Ulster Banner which was the Norths flag in the 50s to early 70s is illegal under British law to fly at government buildings. And the Irish Tricolour has cause riots when flown at events like St Patricks Day. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/04/15 at 22:32:22 Yeah, Rylee, you're obviously a racist. Why else would you marry ... Ohh well, I don't know anything about them, hopefully, cooler heads will prevail and someone will call to talk.. I know you were factually correct, based on what you said. Sometimes that's the worst thing. Wanna Really piss someone off? Point out facts... |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Kris01 on 07/05/15 at 05:45:23 Thanks Rylee |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Rylee on 07/07/15 at 00:00:21 So I'm guessing I got something along the lines of an apology today via email. Most of it seemed like a scripted response. And I'm sure spell check was in full force because coming from my wife's brother as bad as it may sound the grammar in the email was well above his education level. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say his wife wrote it on his behalf. The only true apologetic aspect of the email was for including me in the conversation to begin with. No apology for what followed. And I honestly felt as if I was being asked to respond with my own apology for telling them if they wanna blame someone for slavery blame the tribal leaders who sold them to slave traders to begin with. My wife has said nothing about the happenings of the day and I'm kinda glad. Life went on as usual and we've steered away from the subject all together. It's a lesson learned. Don't let yourself be pulled into a conversation where the opposing side know you stand alone in your opinion on the details. Especially when it's 1 against many! |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by mpescatori on 07/07/15 at 04:26:30 516873692A2B1A0 wrote:
Jewish Swastika, anyone ? :D http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l233/hinduunity/SwastikaIsrael1.jpg http://www.proswastika.org/e107_images/newspost_images/asia_israel_ancient_synagogue_in_capernaum_2_620.jpg Incidentally, the photo on the right is from the diggings at Capernaum, where Jesus is said to have lived (at Peter's house?) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+2%3A1-5 |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by WebsterMark on 07/07/15 at 05:53:09 1C5E44464F424F2D0 wrote:
God Bless you Rylee, you're in a rough spot. Dealing with the families of spouses is rough enough sometimes without adding race into the mix. My niece is married to a man from Haiti (he was one of her professors in school....) and my brother is a hard core racist SOB. (I would argue with reason but that's for another day...) You can imagine the fun that is sometimes.....Black-white and now add all the differences from the Haitian culture into the mix...wow... The pastor at my church is a black man married to a white woman. Absolutely wonderful people, love them to death, they would do anything for anybody, but can tell stories of the crap they go through sometimes. Good luck. Remember, you married her, not them! |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Paraquat on 07/07/15 at 07:34:52 I've put family on "time out" before where I just don't pick up the phone or make any effort to communicate. Remember "It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's darn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person." --Steve |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Rylee on 07/07/15 at 08:44:01 Let me start by saying sorry for jacking this tbread . And secondly thanks for all the kind words. The argument I was drug into to be honest looking back on it was quite amusing. Her family is actually not that bad. And they are supporters of interracial relationships. So I don't get any crap on that part. The boiling point for me in the whole endeavor was the terms "privileged white male" and how that swayed my viewpoint. The reason that was so amusing to me is because her entire family dating back generations before her is very prominent. My wife for instance for a lack of better terms is whiter than I am. All of them we're raised in multi parent homes of whom both held high paying professional jobs. They all grew up in upper middle class to wealthy suburban neighborhoods. I kept telling my brother in laws wife to please tell me about her struggles as a black women from her Newport Beach home and her USC education that was discounted because she's an African American. And the poverty she lives daily from her brand new 5 series BMW. Mind you at this point I was aggravated and mearly taking shots at anyone who wanted to keep the conversation going when it was obvious I was no longer compliant. I talked to my mother in law yesterday and she apologized and it was sincere and for that I'm grateful. She said that Stephenie (yes her name is Stephenie ) was out of line and it should have been stopped long before it reached the point it did. Her having been born and raised in Texas she understood that the flag is a symbol of heritage to most and that is it's true meaning to most southerners. She also commended me for approaching a discussion that I knew was going to turn ugly from a fact based standpoint and not just giving "my opinion" she also reiterated what I just said stating that no one present had ever really suffered serious injustice because of the color of their skin all of them having come from well raised prominent families. She went on to say she was a bit upset with her son because he was raised better than that and should have put his wife who incedentaly had an even better upbringing in check sooner so it would not of reached the point it did. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by thumperclone on 07/07/15 at 15:36:47 politics and religion are banned topics at our family gatherings race and sexual orientation don't get mentioned as all of us are varied |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/07/15 at 16:08:10 I've heard so many Mother in Law jokes... I dearly loved mine. Sounds like you got yourself a fine one, Rylee. People who fight to win, regardless of what is ethically, morally, honestly true, are jackasses. Like the kids at school, playing touch football, cheating, " winning " the game, heading in to the gym, jumping, hollering, jubilant in their " victory ". Chikkenshit,, no honor, not wanting the truth, just wanting to beat someone down, so they can justify an unfounded attitude.. I hope you hear from those who owe you an apology. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Kris01 on 07/07/15 at 17:59:54 5B475A425F4A5D4C4340414A2F0 wrote:
Probably best in most every situation. The worst (and only) fight I ever had with my best friend was about religion. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Serowbot on 07/08/15 at 17:27:12 Interesting bit o' trivia... The "Confederate flag" was never flown in any battles,.. and wasn't the official flag of the Confederacy... Here's yer' Civil War flag... among other variations... http://https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%281861-1863%29.svg/405px-Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%281861-1863%29.svg.png http://https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Conf_Navy_Jack_%28light_blue%29.svg/180px-Conf_Navy_Jack_%28light_blue%29.svg.png "The second national flag was later adapted as a naval ensign, using a shorter 2:3 ratio than the 1:2 ratio adopted by the Confederate Congress for the national flag. This particular battle ensign was the only example taken around the world, finally becoming the last Confederate flag lowered in the Civil War; this happening aboard CSS Shenandoah in Liverpool, England on November 7, 1865." So, all this hoopla is over a naval ensign flag, adopted at the end of the war... None of your ancestors died for that flag...:-/...... Full history at Wiki... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America :-?... |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Kris01 on 07/08/15 at 18:01:35 Quote:
So let's ban a flag that the people who want it banned don't even understand. ::) Thanks Serowbot. That article was interesting. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by pgambr on 07/08/15 at 18:15:55 I really can't grasp what the big deal is with this flag..... http://i59.tinypic.com/29cqdrp.jpg Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Kris01 on 07/08/15 at 18:29:01 Yee Haw! ;) |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by pgambr on 07/08/15 at 19:41:39 Quote:
May be, may be not?.... Interesting, I learned a bit I didn't know. MYTH: The Confederate Battle Flag represented the Southern Nation. FACT: Not true. While the Southern Battle flag was carried into battle, the Southern Nation had 3 different National flags during the course of the war. The First National flag was changed due to a resemblance of the US flag. The Second National flag was subsequently modified due to the similarity to a flag of truce. The Third National flag was the adopted flag of the Confederacy. The Confederate Battle Flag was never a National Flag of the Confederacy. It was carried into battle by several armies such as the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of Tennessee. Was also used as a Naval Jack by the Confederate Navy. Read more at http://m.snopes.com/2015/06/28/confederate-flag-history/#0Ua8UpBVLuDMW6Hg.99 Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by MnSpring on 07/14/15 at 15:55:19 Up Date on: Quote:
Of the 4 big, broadcast TV stations. 2 haven’t touched it, One is going NUTS over it, and 1 is so-so. The One going NUTS over it, ‘Found’, (or persuaded), a local store owner, (which it’s name was: “Calhoun xxx”.) To say: ‘I did’t know the name, ‘Calhoun’, represented such bigotry, I am going to change the name’. And this was BIG News, on Sunday Morning, on a ’segment’ which a, ‘reporter’, has her own, segment, and airs her, ‘opinion’, and calls it, 'news'. And had ONE, local elected person, (who was elected under VERY Controversial circumstances) And absolutely, NO, apposing views. I am waiting for the announcement, that those two, will have their ropes & chisels ready, to chisel, THREE faces off Mt. Rushmore ! |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/14/15 at 16:59:39 Memphis council votes to DIG UP Confederate corpse, SELL ... www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-rXLegoSqs Jul 10, 2015 · Geez. These people ain’t screwin around anymore. More from the Examiner: Late Tuesday, the Memphis, Tennessee, City Council voted unanimously to dig up ... Memphis to Dig Up Remains of Confederate General www.examiner.com/article/memphis-city-council... Jul 08, 2015 · Late Tuesday, the Memphis, Tennessee, City Council voted unanimously to dig up the remains of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest and his wife ... People are so focused on things that don't matter. Our economy, foreign policy, wars, trade deals that screw Americans and because some neutron posted a pic with a flag, everyone is hysterically focusing on stuff that, once accomplished, will not improve society. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by pgambr on 07/14/15 at 17:12:44 I anxiously await WD's response, that's his town! Best regards, |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by HovisPresley on 07/14/15 at 17:34:26 544B4D4A5750615161594B470C3E0 wrote:
...................................................................................... Well said, Justin ;) |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by Kris01 on 07/14/15 at 18:01:22 I have nothing good to say about the Memphis City Council! These morons couldn't find their butt with both hands and a compass. Memphis is a VERY racially divided city. King was killed here and I guess we'll never hear the end of that one. From what I know of Forrest, he was a great Civil War general. But since he started the KKK, he must be a bad person and we must eradicate everything about this man from the city. The city council decided a few years ago to change the names of a lot of the city parks because the names were alluding to racism/racist people. So now we're digging up bodies to prevent racism? This is going to change exactly what? :-? |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/14/15 at 18:21:26 Those evil books in school and city library, we gonna need a bonfire to purge society of the evils of racism. Racism and slavery didn't exist until someone wrote about it. Facts no longer matter. Feelings rule. I heard some idiot is suing a Bible publisher because it bothers him that the book is less than supportive of sodomites. I guess if you call it progressive it is good. I Think I see where we are progressing To, kinda like someone in kayak about fifty feet from Niagara falls. It's not just here.. screwed up is policy in lots of places. |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by MnSpring on 07/15/15 at 19:18:10 “Those evil books …” A-Yep. Reminds me of the statement: “I can’t describe porn, but I know it when I see it.” Gee, can you change that to: ‘I can’t describe, ‘evil books’, but I know one when I see it’. And is that the, ‘people’ YOU are PAYING ? People that do NOT, Pay you ??? People that, YOU, Hire ? Write those letters, and TELL them, YOU, are Paying THEM, THEY, do not pay YOU. Tell them YOU, hire them, And, YOU, can FIRE, them !!!!! |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by HovisPresley on 07/15/15 at 19:34:37 They're not 'grammar' books, by any chance, are they? ;D |
|
Title: Re: 'Owning', Slaves. Post by justin_o_guy2 on 07/15/15 at 22:38:02 Sadly, the ones standing in line to take their place suck as bad or worse. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |