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 ...
Let me tell you this, you are out of control and out of line.
It would appear that many here would disagree with you that we fought the Civil War over slavery.
Money was made by many, not the least of which was the African rulers who lamented the end of the slave trade more than anyone.
The Origins of the African Slave Trade
Back to History | by Piero Scaruffi
In 1807 Britain outlawed slavery. In 1820 the king of the African kingdom of Ashanti inquired why the Christians did not want to trade slaves with him anymore, since they worshipped the same god as the Muslims and the Muslims were continuing the trade like before.
The civil rights movement of the 1960’s have left many people with the belief that the slave trade was exclusively a European/USA phenomenon and only evil white people were to blame for it. This is a simplicistic scenario that hardly reflects the facts.
Thousands of records of transactions are available on a CDROM prepared by Harvard University and several comprehensive books have been published recently on the origins of modern slavery (namely, Hugh Thomas’ The Slave Trade and Robin Blackburn’s The Making Of New World Slavery) that shed new light on centuries of slave trading.
What these records show is that the modern slave trade flourished in the early middle ages, as early as 869, especially between Muslim traders and western African kingdoms. For moralists, the most important aspect of that trade should be that Muslims were selling goods to the African kingdoms and the African kingdoms were paying with their own people. In most instances, no violence was necessary to obtain those slaves. Contrary to legends and novels and Hollywood movies, the white traders did not need to savagely kill entire tribes in order to exact their tribute in slaves. All they needed to do is bring goods that appealed to the kings of those tribes. The kings would gladly sell their own kins.
This explains why slavery became “black”. Ancient slavery, e.g. under the Roman empire, would not discriminate: slaves were both white and black (so were Emperors and Popes). In the middle ages, all European countries outlawed slavery (of course, they retained countless “civilized” ways to enslave their citizens, but that’s another story), whereas the African kingdoms happily continued in their trade. Therefore, only colored people could be slaves, and that is how the stereotype for African-American slavery was born. It was not based on an ancestral hatred of blacks by whites, but simply on the fact that blacks were the only ones selling slaves, and they were selling their own kins. (To be precise, Christians were also selling Muslim slaves captured in war, and Muslims were selling Christian slaves captured in war, but neither the Christians of Europe nor the Muslims of Africa and the Middle East were selling their own kins
Yes, you are correct. The slave traders in Africa were just as evil and morally bankrupt as the slave traders and slave masters in the United States and Confederacy.
cowboyway wrote: “Which is precisely the reason why one of the main planks in the liberal yankee agenda is to eliminate Christianity.”
Exactly!
With that being the case, were those “liberal yankees” correct in 1860 when they proclaimed slavery to be an evil and morally bankrupt institution that must be eliminated?
“Have you every considered regression therapy to
treat your obsession?”
Obsession with what?
Please be more clear.
Things haven't changed much since this came out in 1953...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRyIMqXA_o8
"Great horny-toads! I'm up North! (runs back) Gotta burn my boots...they tetched Yankee soil!"
Here's a scene from the same cartoon which is rarely seen today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8D93Awa434&feature=related
Is that the only picture you have? I can see you’re still pini8ng over the demise of the zot both screen names of your pal. LONG DESERVED zots I might ad. Thanks for the bait, but you won’t get me to take it, but keep trying bozo.
Is that the only picture you have? I can see you’re still pining over the demise of the zot both screen names of your pal. LONG DESERVED zots I might ad. Thanks for the bait, but you won’t get me to take it, but keep trying bozo.
Is that the only picture you have? I can see you’re still pining over the demise of the zot both screen names of your pal. LONG DESERVED zots I might add. Thanks for the bait, but you won’t get me to take it, but keep trying bozo.
“Why should we? Us unreconstructed Rebs all understand that the reason for secession was States Rights which are well documented in the various Declarations of Secession.”
If it is well documented that State’s Rights was the reason for secession, why is it that in the Declarations of Secessions of Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas, these Confederate States elected to mention Slavery so many times?:
In fact, the words “Slave,” “Slavery” and “Slaveholding” are used 82 times!
And for some reason, the term “State’s Rights” and 10th Amendment are used a grand total of ZERO TIMES!
So, if these Declarations of Secession were all about State’s Rights as you maintain, why is it that they mention “Slavery” 82 times and do not mention “State’s Rights” at all?
They did not even bother to mention the 10th Amendment, but did state loud and clear that they wanted to continue to hold human beings in captivity and use them as slaves.
“Most do not understand how the entire economy of the south in the 1860’s was so intertwined with slavery. Plantation owners borrowed money, bought slaves, cleared land, planted fields, and hoped for a good harvest so they could pay off their loans and still make a profit.”
They must not had all that good of a business model if they could hardly make a profit while using Free Labor.
Perhaps, they should have tried their hand at some industry that could actually turn a profit without forcing people to work without pay.
Your focus is singular, obsessive and a might
irrational, lacking reasoned perspective .. as
if slavery was the only inhumanity that existed
in the world at the time and practiced in the
beginnings of this new country, society and culture.
FTR: I think it is...
“Your focus is singular...”
I am simply commenting on the subject presented by the source article.
“...as if slavery was the only inhumanity that existed
in the world at the time...”
I am in agreement with you that slavery was an inhumanity in 1860 as it was in 1760 and remains today.
If someone happens to post another article regarding inhumanity in the world, I might post on that thread as well.
I’m sorry you can’t read.
Okay, and I’ll be sure to note any hint of agreement with the libs’ pandering push for reparations.
Neither the article or any postings on this thread have even suggested an advocacy for reparations.
What, exactly, is your point?
Further, since your agenda and your ulterior motives are well known for such a question, elaborate for the peanut gallery what you wish the achieve.
You show your fifth columnist attributes quite well, you know.
PsyOps isn’t your strong suit. Maybe a trip to Deatrick will help you hone your skills.
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.