Quote:

---

Race may have been correlated with slavery in the United States. But race did not cause slavery to appear in the United States. The colonists did not get together and come up with the concept that enslaving Africans is what they needed to do. Hell the 1619 ruse is based on pirates bringing a boat into the colonies and there being debate on what to do with the slaves that were destined for other shores.

---

Race is correlated with slavery in the United States because slavery in the United States was based on slavery. What happened in Roman times is important but has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

The colonist did create laws that made it where they allowed Africans to be enslaved on North American shores and then in perpetuity.

flown-the-coop said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Very simple question. If the slaves had been white, would the civil war have been fought.

Very very basic question.

---

That's kind of like asking what kind of meat is in a hot dog. Even George Washington knows the answer to this. "Nobody knows".

What kind of a world exists where the South has white and only white slaves? You gotta shake up quite a bit to get there. The answer to that question relies on all of the assumptions that you make to invent a world where there are white slaves in the south. Because you can get there pretty much any way you want to, answering that question is just a game of mental masturbation that doesn't really have any meaning.

But, I will generally play your game.

Yes.

If all of the slaves in the south were Irish gingers instead of black people, the civil war would still have been fought, because, as our nation became more educated, and regular people that could read would read the declaration of independence and would eventually see that the institution of slavery was 100% contrary to the philosophical foundations of the country. Some states would be addicted to free ginger labor, and would revolt when they saw the institution dying. The Northern states would have zero sympathy for the Southern states, as they would feel morally superior to states that enslaved the ginger, and would take advantage of them at every opportunity to make the more philosophically sophisticated North, who still hated gingers but just didn't enslave them, more prosperous. This would explode into a powder keg, and civil war would have broken out.

---

So now illiteracy caused slavery to persist? Or that Black slaves couldn't read?

Not sure I follow how you contorted yourself to answer a very basic question, which you finally did by agreeing with me. And by agreeing war still would have broken out, you now have to conclude that race was a correlation not a causation to the Civil War.

Why are some of you so committed to the cause of the war being muh racism? I think you sort of laid it out in the gymnastics dance competition your wrote, but "more educated" and "could read" regarding why the "morally superior" North decided to ***** slap them dumb hillbillies back in line. Heck you have done a pretty good job of supporting my position. Awarded one blue diamond parachute.

---

Black slavery existed in the South because:

1. Americans believed that all men were created equal
2. They rationalized slavery by assuming that black men weren't really men, in the way that the Declaration of Independence talks about "all men".

Racism was a necessary requirement for slavery in a country founded on personal liberty. How else in the world could you argue that men should not be subject to a monarchy but that these same men should also be allowed to own other people?

All of the defenses of slavery in the south focused not on the economics of slavery or what was happening in Timbuktu, it focused on how white men are men, and black men are somehow lesser.

Can you find me a historical argument from pre-civil war south that rationalizes the institution of slavery in the liberty loving USA that DOESN'T rely on race? There are quite a few rationalizations that do rely on race already in this thread.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Quote:

---

Race may have been correlated with slavery in the United States. But race did not cause slavery to appear in the United States. The colonists did not get together and come up with the concept that enslaving Africans is what they needed to do. Hell the 1619 ruse is based on pirates bringing a boat into the colonies and there being debate on what to do with the slaves that were destined for other shores.

---

Race is correlated with slavery in the United States because slavery in the United States was based on slavery. What happened in Roman times is important but has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

The colonist did create laws that made it where they allowed Africans to be enslaved on North American shores and then in perpetuity.

---

Rome wasn't founded on the idea that all men are created equal.

Some men were powerful in Rome because the Empire of Rome was basically God in their society. All things had to bow to the importance, preservation, and expansion of the Empire.

We were founded on the idea that men have intrinsic worth that does not come from the state, but, comes from God. Racism was the only way to justify such an idea and still excuse slavery. Rome didn't have that moral paradox to deal with.

I agree with you but that full of poop wants to keep talking about the history of slavery around the world in an attempt to distract from the fact that slavery in the United States was predicated on enslaving Africans.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Quote:

---

Race may have been correlated with slavery in the United States. But race did not cause slavery to appear in the United States. The colonists did not get together and come up with the concept that enslaving Africans is what they needed to do. Hell the 1619 ruse is based on pirates bringing a boat into the colonies and there being debate on what to do with the slaves that were destined for other shores.

---

Race is correlated with slavery in the United States because slavery in the United States was based on slavery. What happened in Roman times is important but has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

The colonist did create laws that made it where they allowed Africans to be enslaved on North American shores and then in perpetuity.

---

Don't think the colonists had rights to create their own laws. Seems like a revolution or similar occurred.

And I am not talking use Roman times, Timbuktu and others had heydays that ran from the 6th and 7th centuries until the 17th and 18th centuries.

So if ginger haired whiteys had been more appropriate for working in southern plantations and blacks better adapted to cold factories in the North, then we would not have fought the civil war? You seem bizarrely convicted that colonists then founders then evidently just southerners all had it in for the Blacks. Was it all blacks, African blacks, sort of blacks, not black but not quite the right color?

Africans were chosen because they made the best physical slaves offered on the market at the time. That may sound cold and crude, but that was how it was determined at the time. You can project from that the root of later racism in the United States particularly after the Civil War, but to act like it was Whitey hating Blacks led to slavery in the US. That is untrue.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I agree with you but that full of poop wants to keep talking about the history of slavery around the world in an attempt to distract from the fact that slavery in the United States was predicated on enslaving Africans.

---

Name calling. Awesome.

You want to IGNORE history around the world to support a false narrative. And you continue to ignore slavery exited here for longer than it did after we formed these United States.

If you want to apologize for it and pay reparations. Have at it. I suffer from no such guilt based on what some liberal textbook maker tried to convince me of.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I agree with you but that full of poop wants to keep talking about the history of slavery around the world in an attempt to distract from the fact that slavery in the United States was predicated on enslaving Africans.

---

I disagree with you here to a degree.

Slavery was started in North America prior to the birth of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Slavery in North America pre-dates the ideas that floated around churches in Virginia in the mid 1700s that gave rise to the ideas of the USA. Slavery continued in the US after the foundation of the USA due to the rationalization that black people were not really men in the eyes of God.

BusterAg said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Quote:

---

Race may have been correlated with slavery in the United States. But race did not cause slavery to appear in the United States. The colonists did not get together and come up with the concept that enslaving Africans is what they needed to do. Hell the 1619 ruse is based on pirates bringing a boat into the colonies and there being debate on what to do with the slaves that were destined for other shores.

---

Race is correlated with slavery in the United States because slavery in the United States was based on slavery. What happened in Roman times is important but has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

The colonist did create laws that made it where they allowed Africans to be enslaved on North American shores and then in perpetuity.

---

Rome wasn't founded on the idea that all men are created equal.

Some men were powerful in Rome because the Empire of Rome was basically God in their society. All things had to bow to the importance, preservation, and expansion of the Empire.

We were founded on the idea that men have intrinsic worth that does not come from the state, but, comes from God. Racism was the only way to justify such an idea and still excuse slavery. Rome didn't have that moral paradox to deal with.

---

I find it odd you say this but a read of the US Constitution finds no such mention of words like black, African or negro. Does not appear in any of the Amendments either.

Seems like they would have clarified this since race was such an important factor. The 3/5ths clause uses "other persons". It called for enslaved persons to be counted as 3/5ths and free people, including free black people to be counted fully. So racist!

Slave Trade and Fugitive Trade clauses also failed to enshrine our inherent racism into our Constitution.

BusterAg said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I agree with you but that full of poop wants to keep talking about the history of slavery around the world in an attempt to distract from the fact that slavery in the United States was predicated on enslaving Africans.

---

I disagree with you here to a degree.

Slavery was started in North America prior to the birth of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Slavery in North America pre-dates the ideas that floated around churches in Virginia in the mid 1700s that gave rise to the ideas of the USA. Slavery continued in the US after the foundation of the USA due to the rationalization that slaves black people were not really men in the eyes of God.

---

FIFY. Read the Constitution.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I agree with you but that full of poop wants to keep talking about the history of slavery around the world in an attempt to distract from the fact that slavery in the United States was predicated on enslaving Africans.

---

Name calling. Awesome.

You want to IGNORE history around the world to support a false narrative. And you continue to ignore slavery exited here for longer than it did after we formed these United States.

If you want to apologize for it and pay reparations. Have at it. I suffer from no such guilt based on what some liberal textbook maker tried to convince me of.

---

You are changing the subject.

I need make no apologies.

1. Slavery is, was, and forever will be evil based on the core ideas of the USA.
2. The foundation of the USA was nothing short of a miracle. The founding fathers deserve a lot of praise. They took huge risks, and the idea that all men have inalienable rights bestowed by their creator was antithesis to the idea of God ordained monarchies, which was prevalent at the time.
3. Racism was used to justify slavery in such a society. That sort of racism is, was, and forever will be evil based on the core ideas of the USA.
4. It's a shame that it took our country so long to realize #3 is true, but, we did eventually. That is to our credit.
5. Most of the racism that exists in the USA today is due to people in power that want to keep racism alive to basically enslave vast swaths of people by making them dependent on the state, which they need to remain in power.
6. I didn't found this country, so I deserve no praise about the importance of individual liberty in the world today. But, I have never owned slaves, and am not guilty of that sin, either. I offer no apologies, but also make no defense, either.

flown-the-coop said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I agree with you but that full of poop wants to keep talking about the history of slavery around the world in an attempt to distract from the fact that slavery in the United States was predicated on enslaving Africans.

---

I disagree with you here to a degree.

Slavery was started in North America prior to the birth of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Slavery in North America pre-dates the ideas that floated around churches in Virginia in the mid 1700s that gave rise to the ideas of the USA. Slavery continued in the US after the foundation of the USA due to the rationalization that slaves black people were not really men in the eyes of God.

---

FIFY. Read the Constitution.

---

Again, find me any philosopher from 1778 to 1878 justifying slavery that did not rely on racism.

Didn't ask you to make an apology, told you that you can if you want, I will not. And it's not trying to change any subject. Good lawt.

1. Agree, though it seems many liberals are absolutely not just fine with but committed to the concept. And it still persists throughout the US and the world. And it runs across all races.
2. Wrong. They were tired of being taxed into oblivion and being told what to do from thousands of miles away.
3. Wrong. Jeebus, if you cannot understand this then I cannot help you any further. But you can keep trying to express fiction as fact.
4. No shame. We have done more on this front than any other country or populace since the creation of man.
5. Wrong. Elitism and division by economic classes is something that all Dems and many Rs support. It's a big factor in the Deep State and it includes various racist ideologies.
6. Thank god. And you may call slavery a sin but that concept is highly individualized. I don't support it, condone it, tolerate it, etc - but applying your morals is just a personal view and not a policy or fact.

Let's focus on 3.

There are plenty of quotes on this thread where slavery was justified because slaves were negro.

No philosopher existed that tried to justify slavery that didn't rely on racism. That is a 100% falsifiable fact, not an opinion. If such a philosopher existed, was important, and you can point him out, I would be wrong.

Bet.

You have the ability to prove me wrong. This thread has already proven the existence of such arguments that racism WAS the rationalization for slavery.

BusterAg said:

---

Let's focus on 3.

There are plenty of quotes on this thread where slavery was justified because slaves were negro.

No philosopher existed that tried to justify slavery that didn't rely on racism. That is a 100% falsifiable fact, not an opinion. If such a philosopher existed, was important, and you can point him out, I would be wrong.

Bet.

You have the ability to prove me wrong. This thread has already proven the existence of such arguments that racism WAS the rationalization for slavery.

---

The Indian caste system and any concept of royalty along with nobility-serfdom are holding on line 1.

You are wrong. No need to bet.

This thread has included a few selected quotes and texts from the several articles of secession and the VP of the confederacy. I don't think any of those folks were "philosophers", though that is an odd distinction.

flown-the-coop said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Let's focus on 3.

There are plenty of quotes on this thread where slavery was justified because slaves were negro.

No philosopher that believed in the ideas of individual liberty that the USA was founded on that tried to justify slavery that didn't rely on racism. That is a 100% falsifiable fact, not an opinion. If such a philosopher existed, was important, and you can point him out, I would be wrong.

Bet.

You have the ability to prove me wrong. This thread has already proven the existence of such arguments that racism WAS the rationalization for slavery.

---

The Indian caste system and any concept of royalty along with nobility-serfdom are holding on line 1.

You are wrong. No need to bet.

This thread has included a few selected quotes and texts from the several articles of secession and the VP of the confederacy. I don't think any of those folks were "philosophers", though that is an odd distinction.

---

Ok, I edited it for you.

Kind of changing the subject to bring Indian philosophy into a discussion of USA slavery. I would say that it is not germane.

I would also argue that all politicians are, in some way, philosophers, in that they have to defend their positions, based on their own ideas or the ideas of other philosophers.

You still can't find me a person in antebellum south that justifies the existence of slavery without also relying on racism. It doesn't exist, and you are just ignoring that very important fact.

BusterAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Let's focus on 3.

There are plenty of quotes on this thread where slavery was justified because slaves were negro.

No philosopher that believed in the ideas of individual liberty that the USA was founded on that tried to justify slavery that didn't rely on racism. That is a 100% falsifiable fact, not an opinion. If such a philosopher existed, was important, and you can point him out, I would be wrong.

Bet.

You have the ability to prove me wrong. This thread has already proven the existence of such arguments that racism WAS the rationalization for slavery.

---

The Indian caste system and any concept of royalty along with nobility-serfdom are holding on line 1.

You are wrong. No need to bet.

This thread has included a few selected quotes and texts from the several articles of secession and the VP of the confederacy. I don't think any of those folks were "philosophers", though that is an odd distinction.

---

Ok, I edited it for you.

Kind of changing the subject to bring Indian philosophy into a discussion of USA slavery. I would say that it is not germane.

I would also argue that all politicians are, in some way, philosophers, in that they have to defend their positions, based on their own ideas or the ideas of other philosophers.

You still can't find me a person in antebellum south that justifies the existence of slavery without also relying on racism. It doesn't exist, and you are just ignoring that very important fact.

---

No, not doing your research when you dismiss the Indian caste system as not germane to slavery. Clearly you have no concept of the lower castes in that society.

You believing politicians are philosophers explains a lot. Nothing further to discuss on that.

But here is one quote, from John C Calhoun, US Rep, Sec of War, VPOTUS, Senator and Secretary of State in the 50 years leading up to the Civil War.

Quote:

---

"I hold then, that there never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one portion of the community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of the other."

---

No mention of race there.

Quote:

---

"Slave labor is a wasteful labor, and it requires a large territory to make it profitable… All that we assert is the right of the Southern people to go with that species of property into the Territories." - Jefferson Davis

---

You could argue what is intended by "species" but I contend he is inferring slaves in general much as Calhoun did.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I agree with you but that full of poop wants to keep talking about the history of slavery around the world in an attempt to distract from the fact that slavery in the United States was predicated on enslaving Africans.

---

Name calling. Awesome.

You want to IGNORE history around the world to support a false narrative. And you continue to ignore slavery exited here for longer than it did after we formed these United States.

If you want to apologize for it and pay reparations. Have at it. I suffer from no such guilt based on what some liberal textbook maker tried to convince me of.

---

Apologies, must have been auto-correct on my phone.

I don't care about apologizing for or paying for reparations for slavery. Neither of those do anything for the people who were enslaved and only punishes people who had nothing to do with it. You are literally the only person on here talking about that because you can't stay on topic. You just jump from one thing to another because your arguments are generally just garbage. Nobody in this discussion feels guilty about slavery.

As I stated before, slavery had been the natural order of things for much of humankind and thankfully, we realized that it shouldn't be that way. Our realization was a natural progression based on Enlightenment principles, and we are all better for those Western philosophies. We are talking specifically about slavery in the United States. That's it.

BTW - If the US was focused so much on individual liberties, then why did Lincoln and his northern cohorts respect the individual liberties of the southerners to go a difference direction? The democratically elected to do so, as a people.

You seem to be undermining your own arguments at this point. Take a bit to regroup if needed.

Quote:

---

John C. Calhoun, a 19th-century US Senator and Vice President, famously declared slavery a "positive good" rather than a "necessary evil," defending it as the proper foundation for a stable society. He argued that Black people were inferior to whites and that enslavement secured equality and prosperity for white people.

---

Quote:

---

Jefferson Davis, as a staunch defender of slavery and the President of the Confederate States of America, made numerous racist comments during his political career to justify slavery and assert the inferiority of Black people. He believed slavery was a "divinely ordained" institution and that white liberty depended on it.
Key racist statements and beliefs attributed to Jefferson Davis include:

• Asserting Natural Inequality: In an 1860 speech before the U.S. Senate, Davis stated that the "inequality of the white and black races" was "stamped from the beginning" and was "the will of God," arguing that Black people were not fit to govern themselves.

---

Keep trying.

flown-the-coop said:

---

BTW - If the US was focused so much on individual liberties, then why did Lincoln and his northern cohorts respect the individual liberties of the southerners to go a difference direction? The democratically elected to do so, as a people.

You seem to be undermining your own arguments at this point. Take a bit to regroup if needed.

---

I have never argued that Lincoln starting the civil war was legal. I believe that Lincoln provoked the civil war, and that the war was illegal.

That doesn't undermine my very rational conclusion that slavery is antithesis to the core ideas of the USA as founded and communicated by the founding fathers, and that racism was used in antebellum south to justify slavery in a society that believed in individual liberty.

The first is not a fact or quote but someone's summation of Calhoun.

I would also contend that if the slaves were white then you can substitute "negro" with "limey mick *******" in all of those quotes.

Can you find me where when slavery was being introduced in what was to become the USA there was a presentment of all the different colors of slaves and the ones here uniquely said "we will only take the Black African ones"?

Cause that is what you are trying to imply. And it's false. You know this, but you want to keep the racism trope going. Fine, but you will keep getting knocked down cause it's a false premise.

BusterAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

BTW - If the US was focused so much on individual liberties, then why did Lincoln and his northern cohorts respect the individual liberties of the southerners to go a difference direction? The democratically elected to do so, as a people.

You seem to be undermining your own arguments at this point. Take a bit to regroup if needed.

---

I have never argued that Lincoln starting the civil war was legal. I believe that Lincoln provoked the civil war, and that the war was illegal.

That doesn't undermine my very rational conclusion that slavery is antithesis to the core ideas of the USA as founded and communicated by the founding fathers, and that racism was used in antebellum south to justify slavery in a society that believed in individual liberty.

---

War is never legal or illegal.

Your rational conclusion ignores the realities of what slave inventory was available and what was best suitable for southern plantations and equate that so some inherent racism of white southerners.

And you skipped passed the inconvenience that black, negro and African do not appear in our founding dockamentz.

There you go "cherry-picking" those quotes to support your claims again.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

I agree with you but that full of poop wants to keep talking about the history of slavery around the world in an attempt to distract from the fact that slavery in the United States was predicated on enslaving Africans.

---

Name calling. Awesome.

You want to IGNORE history around the world to support a false narrative. And you continue to ignore slavery exited here for longer than it did after we formed these United States.

If you want to apologize for it and pay reparations. Have at it. I suffer from no such guilt based on what some liberal textbook maker tried to convince me of.

---

Apologies, must have been auto-correct on my phone.

I don't care about apologizing for or paying for reparations for slavery. Neither of those do anything for the people who were enslaved and only punishes people who had nothing to do with it. You are literally the only person on here talking about that because you can't stay on topic. You just jump from one thing to another because your arguments are generally just garbage. Nobody in this discussion feels guilty about slavery.

As I stated before, slavery had been the natural order of things for much of humankind and thankfully, we realized that it shouldn't be that way. Our realization was a natural progression based on Enlightenment principles, and we are all better for those Western philosophies. We are talking specifically about slavery in the United States. That's it.

---

I would go farther to say that the abolition of slavery was a natural progression from ideas that primarily originated with Jesus, which were a clarification of ideas within the Tora. But, you don't have to go all the way back to Moses to come to the conclusion of individual liberty being natural rights that are endowed on the individual and that it is self-evident that these rights are inalienable. But, that is a different discussion.

flown-the-coop said:

---

The first is not a fact or quote but someone's summation of Calhoun.

I would also contend that if the slaves were white then you can substitute "negro" with "limey mick *******" in all of those quotes.

Can you find me where when slavery was being introduced in what was to become the USA there was a presentment of all the different colors of slaves and the ones here uniquely said "we will only take the Black African ones"?

Cause that is what you are trying to imply. And it's false. You know this, but you want to keep the racism trope going. Fine, but you will keep getting knocked down cause it's a false premise.

---

Quote:

---

9th of July, 1640.
Whereas Hugh Gwyn hath by order from this Board Brought back from Maryland three servants formerly run away from the said Gwyn, the court doth therefore order that the said three servants shall receive the punishment of whipping and to have thirty stripes apiece one called Victor, a Dutchman, the other a Scotchman called James Gregory, shall first serve out their times with their master according to their Indentures, and one whole year apiece after the time of their service is Expired. By their said Indentures in recompense of his Loss sustained by their absence and after that service to their said master is Expired to serve the colony for three whole years apiece, and that the third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural Life here or elsewhere.

---

Transcription Source: H. R. McIlwane, ed., Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia 16221632, 16701676 (Richmond: Library of Virginia, 1924), 466467.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

There you go "cherry-picking" those quotes to support your claims again.

---

Youn guys should go protest the Sul Ross statue and get all this white guilt and systemic racism off your chests.

Quit contorting history to satisfy your participation ribbon in the Whipeepo Club for combatting racism.

You can keep saying it but nobody here feels guilty for something we had no part in. I'm truly sorry you don't have the intellectual ability to understand that.

let's not forget that most Southern men were poor and not slave holders.

they had to compete for low wage jobs which the slave market was undercutting.

the wealth of the Confederacy came from the minority of slave holders

I don't see how anyone can plausibly claim that the South was not based on white supremacy and racism. there is no other justification for slavery as was practiced in the United States.

flown-the-coop said:

---

The first is not a fact or quote but someone's summation of Calhoun.

I would also contend that if the slaves were white then you can substitute "negro" with "limey mick *******" in all of those quotes.

Can you find me where when slavery was being introduced in what was to become the USA there was a presentment of all the different colors of slaves and the ones here uniquely said "we will only take the Black African ones"?

Cause that is what you are trying to imply. And it's false. You know this, but you want to keep the racism trope going. Fine, but you will keep getting knocked down cause it's a false premise.

---

Do you really want me to find a racist quote from Calhoun? I can if you want to make the assertion that none exist.

Racism against the mick is still racism. Irish is a sub-race. But, if you want to argue about the definition, prejudice against the ginger is still prejudice, and prejudice against a person based on their genetic heritage that is so strong you can use it to justify slavery is just as evil as racism, even if it is not technically racism based on the definition of racism you choose.

Slavery in North America pre-dated Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

My point is singular. Slavery is an antithesis to the Declaration of Independence, and the co-existence of slavery and philosophical foundation of the ideas of the USA was rationalized based on racism. That is a perfectly falsifiable fact that you have not addressed and, in my opinion, is impossible to refute.

What were the terms of the individual "Indentures" referenced?

You are making an insinuation it was race based, but it could have been the first two had different terms of involuntary servitude.

Keep up your America is racist mantra. It's been entertaining, but it's grown boring. Have fun!

flown-the-coop said:

---

ETFan said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Very simple question. If the slaves had been white, would the civil war have been fought.

Very very basic question.

---

If my grandma had two wheels she'd be a bicycle? Yes? Ok, therefore the civil war wasn't about slavery. Also, Trump is basically better than Washington and Lincoln combined!


Oki doki

---

If your grandma had two wheels she would indeed be a bicycle. It's right in the name.

You feeling okay this morning?

---

Edit: won't thread. Don't wanna derail

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

You can keep saying it but nobody here feels guilty for something we had no part in. I'm truly sorry you don't have the intellectual ability to understand that.

---

More ad Homs. Nice.

You have been presented with a wealth of information and an opportunity to reconsider the false narratives you have been led to believe. I can only offer the cup of knowledge, but I cannot make you drink from it.

WTF is a falsifiable fact? I cannot address something that is referred to by some made up term.

BTW - The example above had a Dane, a Scotsman and an African. All 3 were indentured servants, all 3 treated as fugitive "slaves" and returned to the owner. So in that example they were all treated equally regarding the terms of their servitude, though their terms seem to indicate a difference based on nationality, maybe race.

And then treating Irishmen differently is now subracist? Another new term.

I hope by now you both realize you are NOT going to convince me that slavery in America was based on some inherent racism versus the facts and circumstances of the slave economy GLOBALLY at that time.

You can keep trying, but not sure what the point is.

flown-the-coop said:

---

What were the terms of the individual "Indentures" referenced?

You are making an insinuation it was race based, but it could have been the first two had different terms of involuntary servitude.

Keep up your America is racist mantra. It's been entertaining, but it's grown boring. Have fun!

---

You tell me. I provided a source that did exactly what you asked.

Americans have been racist. American laws have been racist. America isn't racist.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

reineraggie09 said:

---

pinche gringo said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

The 13th amendment barely passed the House without the southern states. If they were still in the union, it would never have been close. Much less ratification. Just stay in the U.S. and vote against it.

If, by some means, they do ban slavery, then secede. Doing it early took away their voting power.

Also, if the position of the U.S. was that secession was illegal, why weren't the southern states given a vote in the 13th amendment?

---

Maybe because it really wasn't all about slavery…

---

Underneath the Lincoln Memorial is a gift shop/restroom. On the wall is a speech from Lincoln. "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." It wasn't about Slavery.

---

Quote:

---

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

---

The always ignored part of the letter and the context is often ignored as well. Lincoln was trying to keep the border states from seceding. He was a masterful politician that understand the issues better than most.

And the South seceded because of slavery.

---

Why are both side of this debate using absolutes. Such BS. Sure slavery was a big part of it but there was also a huge debate regarding tariffs, constitutional debate regarding Federal vs State power, which is still going on to this day. The North wanted tariffs, expanded Federal power, and an end to slavery. The South hated tariffs given it was an export economy. And it wanted the power of the central government checked.

Also the Union was not innocent at Sumter and neither was the South. They were both pressing each other.

So why dont all you absolutest pull off the angle wings and get real. It takes two sides to have a civil war, especially when both sides had major cultural and economic goals and each side was in the way of the other.