Posted on 02/12/2018 3:57:10 AM PST by harpygoddess
Мне надо было попробовать. Вы, кажется, не понимаете ни английский ни какой-либо другой язык.
_______
Okay. I guess poor Southerners 50 years after the Civil War did have reasons to resent rich Northerners.
I'm not saying it was justified, but it was understandable.
And maybe there was even some justification: people all over the country had no love for monopolists and plutocrats, and postbellum Southerners suffered from the war their leaders had started years before they were born.
But did that resentment justify imposing the income tax on the country, something that would produce massive changes in the way we are governed?
______
But you are always complaining about the slightest reduction in the antebellum South's cotton profits. Every penny or dollar that didn't go into the cotton growers pockets is a theft in your eyes.
What does that mean? How is one to understand that? The profits you cherish went into the pockets of the slave owning planters. Slave labor was largely responsible for that money.
So in effect, you're in favor of slave owners and slavery. When somebody points that out to you deny it, but that's not credible.
If you really believed slavery and slave owning were wrong you wouldn't begrudge money not going into the slave owners' pockets.
You might be happy that free labor could produce products in a free country and sell them on the free market, but all your tears are for the slave masters.
What system would that be?
How the hell would you know?
But you do care about them (see above). You only deny it because it doesn't look good.
But the Jimmy Kimmel thing is strange.
He's not a New Yorker. He's Chicago-Las Vegas-Los Angeles. And he's nobody's idea of an elite (except maybe his own). He's as much of a lowlife as you could ever want. He's a bum who stumbled into a winning gig. Not your typical member of the Knickerbocker Club by any means.
But what about the president? He's a third or fourth generation New Yorker and rich (though maybe not accepted in the best clubs). I guess you hate him too.
any boy over 16 or man up to 50 years old would do for Confederate service.
I do so love these Free Republic Civil War re-enactments.
The majority would of been treated far better than where they came from, also you don’t know if it would of lasted that long. Public opinion had already shifted against slavery.
More like I don't share your biases.
And maybe there was even some justification: people all over the country had no love for monopolists and plutocrats, and postbellum Southerners suffered from the war their leaders had started years before they were born.
You keep forgetting that these people were well aware of who's armies invaded who's states.
But did that resentment justify imposing the income tax on the country, something that would produce massive changes in the way we are governed?
I doubt many people could see what it would turn into. Did anyone who voted for the Civil Rights act of 1964 ever foresee it would eventually be used to force Christians to bake Gay Wedding cakes?
But you are always complaining about the slightest reduction in the antebellum South's cotton profits.
You are personalizing it. I'm not complaining, i'm pointing out how they likely saw things. Understanding the profit motive of man, I can see how they looked at things.
Every penny or dollar that didn't go into the cotton growers pockets is a theft in your eyes.
Forcing people to pay you is a form of theft. Whether you got the money honestly or not (as in slave labor) makes no difference to a person, it is the taking of it away without consent that will cause them to resent it.
The profits you cherish went into the pockets of the slave owning planters.
Here you go again, trying to make it about me instead of about human nature and the laws of that era.
Slave labor was largely responsible for that money.
Which didn't much bother anyone involved in the collecting of the profits from it, and which the US government condoned so long as they controlled that money stream.
So in effect, you're in favor of slave owners and slavery. When somebody points that out to you deny it, but that's not credible.
Still trying to make it about me. I keep pointing out that Slavery has not got a D@mn thing to do with it, and had the South remained in the US, Slavery would have continued till at least the 1900s.
There is a reason why people on your side always try to make slavery the issue instead of what was the real issue, it's because the people you champion don't look so good when looked at from the perspective of the war being about Who was going to control and spend the money.
When looked at objectively, it becomes apparent that the fight was over controlling the European trade and the Capital produced by it. "Slavery" was just an ad hoc excuse for doing what they did to protect their profits and industries.
So far as I'm concerned, the New York Plutocrats profiting from Slavery were just as bad as the Southern Aristocrats who actually worked them. The only difference is that the New York Plutocrats turned out to be much more dangerous, and have continued running things to this very day, though there power has been shaken up lately.
Federalism. The proper demarcation between the powers of the State, and the powers of the Federal government.
We have crossed way beyond the Rubicon from where we started. The 14th amendment has become a virtual carte blanche giving courts the power to impose by diktat all sorts of ridiculous and subjective nonsense.
Among the other travesties the courts claim emanate from the 14th, we have Abortion, legalization of homosexual acts, legalization of homosexual marriage, banning of prayer in schools, Anchor Babies, UnNatural citizens like Obama being allowed to become President, Wickard, Title IX, and virtually every ridiculous Federal mandate of the Courts upon the states.
Because as I had pointed out earlier, a single ship had been decided to be sufficient to do the job previously.
Why would I care about pretentious people who lived 150 years ago? I can comment on the life of Louis XIV without having to admire him.
He's not a New Yorker. He's Chicago-Las Vegas-Los Angeles. And he's nobody's idea of an elite (except maybe his own). He's as much of a lowlife as you could ever want. He's a bum who stumbled into a winning gig. Not your typical member of the Knickerbocker Club by any means.
Social Tribe. Read about it.
But what about the president? He's a third or fourth generation New Yorker and rich (though maybe not accepted in the best clubs).
Trump has been an astonishing breath of fresh air, and I am thrilled to death that he is hated by our "elite", in New York and elsewhere.
I note that Teddy Roosevelt also came out of New York, and immediately shocked all the cronies of that system with his vehement attacks on corruption and collusion. They thought they had elected one of their own, one who would advance their interests, but to their dismay, he actually did what he believed to be in the best interests of Justice and of his Nation.
Trump is the first existential threat to the collusion of the Uniparty that I have seen since Reagan, and so far he is proving more effective than Reagan was.
Trump is attacking the "Deep State"/Crony Capitalist beast that has been gripping the capitol city ever since 1861. Mayhap he will finally pry the special interests off our throats before he finally leaves office.
Putting Clinton and Obama in jail would go a long ways towards accomplishing that.
So what conditions would make slavery an acceptable condition for you to live in?
...also you don’t know if it would of lasted that long. Public opinion had already shifted against slavery.
In the North maybe. Not in the South. Public opinion down there was strong enough to support a rebellion to protect slavery.
You mean: when looked at through your biases. You simply exclude and throw away all the non-materialistic reasons why Northerners would fight.
There is a reason why people on your side always try to make slavery the issue instead of what was the real issue, it's because the people you champion don't look so good when looked at from the perspective of the war being about Who was going to control and spend the money.
That wasn't what the war was about. I don't know who you think I "champion," but taking the motives of those who fought for the union into account, those who fought don't look so bad. They brought down an oppressive system, whether they originally intended to do so or not.
So far as I'm concerned, the New York Plutocrats profiting from Slavery were just as bad as the Southern Aristocrats who actually worked them. The only difference is that the New York Plutocrats turned out to be much more dangerous, and have continued running things to this very day, though there power has been shaken up lately.
Circulation of elites. Look it up. The Vanderbilts and Astors aren't running things anymore. And the people who are running things don't look at the world the way Commodore Cornelius or fur trader John Jacob did.
New York wasn't destroyed and economic activity wasn't completely dispersed, but the world has changed and is changing. This undying resentment you have against New York is something you'll have to work through somehow.
Yearn for the good old days do you. The good old days when 12 year old children worked 16 hours a day in the spinning mills in Massachusetts, the coal mines of Pennsylvania, or the cotton fields of Alabama. The good old days when your owner could sell your children or your wife, or your husband to the neighbor down the road, just like he could sell a dog or his mule. The good old days when the master could summon you to his bedroom, secure in the knowledge that your child would be his “property”. The days when women could not resist or vote. The good old days when we uprooted thousands of people, marched them a 1000 miles to nowhere Oklahoma, so we could have their land. The days when you were free to die of starvation because you had no money. The days when it was against the law to teach a child to read or write. the good old days when, because of your situation, you only counted as 3/5th of a person.
Yep, Lincoln’s war, ruined it for those that yearned for the good old day of Federalism.
Happy Birthday to Abraham Lincoln.
I’ve always loved that line of his - “So long as I have been here [White House], I have not willingly planted a thorn in any man’s bosom.’’ There is no doubt that Lincoln was the least egotistical and most humble of all our presidents.
And I’ll never forget the words of the late Richard Hofstadter:
“The great prose of the presidential years came from a soul that had been humbled. Lincoln’s utter lack of personal malice during these years, his humane detachment, his tragic sense of life, have no parallel in political history.” Just so!
Personally, I think it a travesty that his birthday is not a national holiday. Instead we have that insipid ‘President’s Day.’
Richard Hofstadter has a great chapter on Lincoln in his The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It. It is well worth a look. It shows Lincoln to be an adept practical politician. Make no mistake, a very great man here. And to think he only had about a year of formal education.
A characteristic of Lincoln, especially after his first two years in office was in the words of Edwin Black (quoted in Ronald White’s The Eloquent President) his vanishing ego. By that he meant Lincoln’s reluctance to use personal pronouns. Commenting on the Gettysburg Address White wrote: “The address is full of first-person references, but every one is plural. Ten times Lincoln uses the plural we and three times us. . . . In the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln says nothing of himself. At a first hearing or reading, we are aware of what is being said and not of who is saying it. Yet at a second or third hearing or reading, Lincoln’s character, the ethos or credibility, which is the first principle of Aristotle’s rhetoric, is everywhere present. His very reticence to speak about himself - how different from modern politicians - is what makes his voice by the end of the address so decisive.” Get that, not a single personal pronoun in The Gettysburg Address! The Second Inaugural consisted of 701 words, 501 of which are one syllable. The Bible and theological language were used throughout. God is mentioned 14 times. The Bible is quoted 4 times and prayer is invoked 3 times. And yet, Lincoln used personal pronouns only twice as in “I trust” and “myself.” There were several uses of plural pronouns. White suggests it’s in poor taste to use the first person singular. Note that “how different from modern politicians” above! Our last three presidents have no compunction about using that first person singular. In just one speech Obama used a personal pronoun, “I,” “Me,” “Mine,” 199 times, or every 12 seconds. What a contrast. Obama was by far the vainest and most narcissistic president in our history. How far we’ve fallen.
Aah - got it. That’s your determination, not anyone who knows anything about anything.
There are far more examples of slaves being treated well, housed etc than there are of the horror stories. The horror stories are just more fun to vilify with.
Slaves weren’t cheap, and it made sense to treat your property well. While we’re on the topic, what about all the white slaves then? There were far more of them than there were black slaves.
Africa was a complete and total crap shoot (most of it still is). Their own tribes would capture and sell these people, and do other horrible things.
I’m not so certain that life in the southern US was so horrible as compared to that.
Thanks for a great post, very moving.
Sadly, the sentiments will be lost on too many posters here.
But not on all.
Would you want to be a slave on a big cotton plantation in Mississippi?
So would you be willing to be a slave if they treated you well, gave you a house, etc.?
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.