Posted on 12/27/2010 10:31:54 AM PST by trumandogz
The Civil War is about to loom very large in the popular memory. We would do well to be candid about its causes and not allow the distortions of contemporary politics or long-standing myths to cloud our understanding of why the nation fell apart.
The coming year will mark the 150th anniversary of the onset of the conflict, which is usually dated to April 12, 1861, when Confederate batteries opened fire at 4:30 a.m. on federal troops occupying Fort Sumter. Union forces surrendered the next day, after 34 hours of shelling.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Aw sad your progressive pal got the zot! LOL I bet you have been crying for days now.
Send that to NS and Drew 68. They need it. I don’t have a butt hurt. It’s a very good week for me. Family, friends, Christmas, New Years coming up and to top it all off, one of the worst trolls on FR zotted much to the delight of most Freepers. Happy New Year Yank.
I have no idea. Einstein won’t say, but posted a link to an urban dictionary for the explanation but when you click the link it says no definition for POE. So, your guess is as good as mine and he isn’t saying what it is, or doesn’t know what it is.
Here is what POE’s law is. Yawnnnnnnnnnnn :)
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe’s+Law
USA USA USA USA USA
I’m afraid that it’s hopelessly over their heads RC...;-)
Winner. There should have been an over under.
I think any American, any real American who ever read, and understood and held dear to the words "we hold these truths to be self evident" and believed that people truly had the right to govern themselves would even bother with a "neutral term". Why bother? Either you believe in the freedom to self government or you don't.
The thing is, we know who won that war and those same people are winning today. The same people who don't believe in the right of self determination. There's no neutral sides here. I respect the fact you tried to offend nobody, but sometimes the enemy of freedom just needs offending. And I don't mind doing that one bit.
God bless Dixie!
~~~
Good point .. neither did we apparently have all the historical facts and the truth.
FYI .. and for what it's worth, Glenn Beck just replayed an earlier show on this chapter of our history that I'd missed. I knew nothing of this .. never heard any of this info in any of my American History classes.
He's got a huge, crack team of researchers, and they use original documents .. not history books after the 40-50's, when the progressives started altering our history, and painting America as nearly satanic in its practices.
It was a common practice all over the globe at the time. As he always recommends on all the factual data his team unearths ... don't depend on him, do your own research from original documents. But I've sure been impressed with the distortions and lies he's uncovered that I'd accepted as fact .. and it's done with tons of references and backup data.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
*snip*
Well, tonight, I want to take you over here. Let me bring over here on three, I want to bring you over here. I want to bring you into the 17th Century. We're going to talk a little bit about slavery.
We all learned about slavery in school. We all know the horrors of it. I mean, I remember watches "Roots" as a kid and thinking, oh, my gosh!
The fact that whites enslaved blacks in this country built on the idea of all men being created equal is beyond hypocritical. We know that. So, how did it happen? We know that it's a national tragedy. We also know the treasure that is Abraham Lincoln. We know how it ended with the Civil War.
But I asked the other day when we were in these meetings, does anybody know how slavery started? We know the ending, how did it start? I mean, nobody came in and said, hey, everybody, let's have slaves! That doesn't sound like that could happen.
The real insidiousness lies in the fact that it all started small and advanced into one of the worst scars in American history and global history. I mean, it's a human atrocity and it's happened time and time again.
At first, slavery wasn't full blown slavery. In fact, in the early colonial America, it wasn't slavery. It was indentured servitude.
Now, what is indentured servitude? Well, indentured servitude is not the same as slavery. I mean, there are some important differences here.
In fact, I think it shares many of the same things — where are we? Over here? — it shares many of the same things that we have in common with today's illegal immigration. I believe that illegal immigration is modern-day slavery — I've said that on the program before. But that's not quite right. Illegal immigration, the way it's happening now, is more like indentured servitude.
For instance, if you're an illegal and you're working here in New York, you're barely getting paid enough to rent a bed — not a room — a bed for eight hours. Somebody else is going to rent that same bed for the next eight hours. You have enough time to go sleep in it and then you got to go back to being at the mercy of your employer.
You don't have any real rights. The government is not going to help you. Nobody is going to help you because you don't exist. You're not in the records.
In theory, indentured servitude is like that, but indentured servitude promised a light at the end of the tunnel, because after your contract with the master was up, you got what were called at the time, "freedom dues." That was usually a little bit of land and a gun.
The most important part of freedom dues was freedom.
Indentured servitude was a common can practice throughout the globe at the time. The English, the Spanish, the Portuguese — everybody was using this indentured servitude. It was like slavery — like slavery — but not quite. And it's not an American problem — it's a human problem that happened all over the world.
Now, there were criteria in which people were used as early indentured servants. But here's what's not taught. If I said to you, who — was it a white man or a black man that was the master and indentured servant? You would say, it was like this. But the criteria at the beginning was not based on color. It was based on creed. It was non-Christians that were used as servants.
Colonists didn't identify themselves as white. They identified themselves as Englishmen or Christians. Whites, blacks, you name it — they were all used for this earliest form of slavery. In fact, if an indentured servant broke a contract, they got the same punishment regardless of color. I mean, if this guy was the owner, this guy ran away, same thing, as if this guy ran away.
It was Christianity. And that's how it was. And if you were Christian, you were a Christian, and you just said, "I accept Jesus," you could get out. I — I honestly don't know why more people didn't say, "I accept Jesus." I mean you really didn't want to do it.
Now, this is bad. But this isn't slavery. How did it happen? Nudge, a shift, slight shift, bit by bit. We shifted, we nudged, we moved just little bit from servitude to slavery — but how?
Well, here's Massachusetts, the first colony to legalize and recognize slavery. Other states soon followed. Why? Because it was profitable — like Virginia.
Now, do you know who owned the first state-sponsored slave in America? Who owned? Who was it? Who was this guy that put a slave?
You know who it was? His name was Anthony Johnson. Except, he wasn't a — he wasn't a black — he wasn't a white man. He, believe it or not, wasn't a white man. You ever heard that?
How did a black man own a black man? Well, let's start with him. Before he was an owner, what was he? He was an indentured servant. He was a black indentured servant. Not a slave.
He worked in Virginia, 1621. It's recorded in the Census. His name was Antonio. He just recorded his first name and his race.
Well, he wasn't considered a slave. He was an indentured servant. He worked in Virginia on a tobacco farm.
And his master allowed him to use his own plot of land. So, he perfected his skills on that plot of land for 15 years on that plantation. And during that time, he married. He had four children.
After all — after all of those years, Antonio finally negotiated and bought his own freedom. So, he gave money to this man and he bought his own freedom.
And that's when he decided that he was going to become an owner. He changed his name to Anthony Johnson. In 1640, Anthony and his wife bought a plot of land and hired not slaves, because there weren't slaves yet. He hired indentured servants. Got it?
Now, that same year, same year, in another place, there was another guy. Anthony was — while Anthony was doing all these things, there was a court case involving three indentured servants who had escaped. There were three. And here, there are two white guys and a black guy. Got it? This is different than Anthony, who is over here.
Now, these guys ran away. They escaped. They were caught.
Well, two of them had their servitude extended by four years and the third one had it extended for life. Can you guess which one got life? Which means you no longer can buy your freedom, so you in effect become a slave. This one.
Are you asking the same question I asked? Why did these guys only get four years and this guy got life? Oldest story of time, this was the beginning of slavery. He was black. This is the beginning of the real, real nightmare that took a long time to get out.
Now, back here, these guys. Over here, here's Anthony again. He's got his indentured servants.
Well, Anthony's slave was John Caster. John Caster, who is also black, complained to a court that Anthony had unfairly extended his terms of servitude. The court emancipated Caster and said, "You're a free man. You can go."
But Anthony went back and tried to convince a court that Caster belonged to him and should be his for life. He won the court case, believe it or not. He won the court case. And he became a slave. Do we have it? He became a slave, the first one.
I tell you this story to show you that it's a human problem. It doesn't matter — it's not a white condition or a black condition. It's a human condition. Man will enslave any man when he can.
Sorry, but the side that lost the Civil War only cared about their self-determination to buy, sell, own and enslave human beings.
It was that desire to continue to own slaves that drove the south to abandon the Union.
I know that to be fact as that is exactly what the confederate states documented in their declarations to secede from the Union.
not followed all of this thread but will later.
What the hell is a POE?
Also I can say with all honesty that he is no troll and has done a lot for the conservative cause.
You might not agree with him but he certainly is no troll.
That was a terrific book.
I agree, one of his best. His later series have become very bloated.
Yes, Sir! On Christmas Day....
Nice. I spent much of my childhood in Montgomery. No snow ever down here.
Simply because there were blacks who owned slaves does not absolve white slave owners from their reprehensible behavior. Slave owners, no matter what their race or the time they lived committed a Crime Against Humanity.
Bummer....seriously
Your first participation in War of Northern Aggression threads? Why now?
IOW it’s a way of saying “I’m so smart I make myself sick, and these knuckledragging neanderthal halfwit inbreds with low foreheads could never understand anything I say anyway, so I won’t bother. I’m just too smart for this world. They don’t realize how lucky they are to have me in their illiterate presence.”
Got it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.