Posted on 02/19/2023 8:11:50 AM PST by rktman
I disagree, as I said: “political prisoners who suffered longer and more horribly than did Nelson Mandela”
As others stated, he deserved to be in prison. Now if you want to talk about Cuba, then I think you need to compare Mandela to Castro or his buddy Che.
And the story starts out about black people, those mentioned with Spanish names were black.
Please. Give it a rest.
It actually celebrates the day that Texas slaves finally heard about the emancipation proclamation, 18 months after it had taken effect. Not a proud moment in the history of the Lone Star State.
When is white history month?
America is built on Individualism. As soon as we accept the collectivism of Black Group pride or White group pride or Blue group pride we advance collectivism and America loses.
“White people freed them at the cost of a lot of blood and treasure.”
If the South was fighting to preserve slavery, who was fighting to free the slaves?
If the South was fighting to preserve slavery, who was fighting to free the slaves?
I doubt that many who fought in the war did so to ‘free the slaves’. That said, my original point still stands: the slaves didn’t free themselves. They were freed by the exertions of others.
Charles R. Drew. Contribution? Blood banking, blood transfusions. Died after being denied a transfusion.
“White people freed them at the cost of a lot of blood and treasure.”
I don’t want to put too fine a point on this because it seems you and I think along the same lines. Still, it is important to test the popular belief that white northerners freed (the slaves) at the cost of a lot of blood and treasure.
By one telling, the blood and treasure was not spent to free the slaves; it was done to preserve the brotherhood of the Union and the economic and political advantages provided by the Union to the North. I’m talking about money.
On the other hand, if the blood and treasure really was spent in order to “free the slaves” then the war was totally unnecessary.
The founding fathers included in the U.S. Constitution the clearly defined amendment process to peacefully abolish slavery. War was not needed to amend the constitution.
Constitutional slavery was - well, constitutional - and overthrowing constitutional slavery by the use of violence was overthrowing the U.S. Constitution.
If Lincoln took up arms and levied war against the states to overthrow constitutional slavery, he would be guilty of treason.
Maybe he is.
Bingo! Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas or the late Walter Williams
So did you actually read the story?
The point was people are treated worse than Mandela, and their story isn’t told because it’s against the communist narrative.
So what that he brought up Mandela as a perennial martyr for comparison? That is often even meant tongue in cheek, like a back-handed smack at Mandela.
I give up trying to go on a tangent in a thread and contradict the PC victors’ view of the Civil War as about slaves.
So I left it to you!
If Lincoln took up arms and levied war against the states to overthrow constitutional slavery, he would be guilty of treason.
The fact is, that Lincoln wasn’t even on the ballot in the slave states and when he was elected most of the slave states seceded from the Union before he took office. The South simply couldn’t abide the fact that Lincoln was President. Lincoln refused South Carolina’s demand that Ft. Sumpter be surrendered thus making the South fire the first shots.
During the first part of the war, runaway slaves were returned to their masters, since the Army had no legal reason to seize the lawfully owned property of civilians. Some commanders did give runaway slaves sanctuary, I believe they were referred to as ‘contrabands’. The runaways legal status became murky as the war progressed and became more bloody.
I read your profile to see where you are coming from to get some idea why you engaged me. You apparently like intellectual discussion. I thought you were one of the “you didn’t read the whole story” police, which FR has plenty of.
And from Maryland. As a youngster I had a girl friend in College Park and somewhere up there in-laws took me to oyster feasts (could have been clams). Was fun up there. I’m talking early ‘70’s.
I say it's racist to ignore that fact.
Lincoln was careful to make a lot of things clear, although one clear statement often conflicted with another of his clear statements.
Set aside for a moment his House Divided speech in which he clearly predicted the end of slavery without clearly saying how a supermajority of states would peacefully agree.
His first inaugural address clearly mentioned slavery.
By the time of the Gettysburg address he was clearly saying something entirely different.
Says he: “Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived (to the proposition that all men were created equal) and so dedicated, can long endure.”
Here, Lincoln says not only was the war being fought to free the slaves (new birth of freedom), but that the war was being fought for the purpose of racial equality.
Despite Lincoln's claim, I doubt many in the North were fighting for those purposes. I say that based on what the North did to black people before the war; and during the war; and after the war.
Get back to me of discussions of Hitlers policy wins. Obama and the other grinning fool of SA are on par with that guy. They just cause hatred and killing on the down low.
Lincoln was clear that he thought slavery was wrong. A lot of people thought that. But he also understood that it was legal where it existed and he had no power or right to end slavery.
In his ‘House Divided Speech he said the nation could not forever be half slave and half free it would have to become all of one or all of the other. He made no secret of which outcome he’d prefer.
And you are right, by the time of the Gettysburg Address, things had changed. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves under Confederate control on January 1, 1863, but by Gettysburg in July 1864, lots of slaves had emancipated under its provisions and by that time it became clear that slavery was going to come to an end when the South was defeated.
I agree with you that the vast majority of Union soldiers weren’t fighting to free the slaves. I can’t imagine their being that altruistic. They were fighting because they were drafted, because they wanted the bounty, or because they were patriotically fighting to save the nation. But at the end of the day, by defeating the south, they did end slavery in the United States.
Before the Civil War there was talk of how to end slavery peaceably. Besides the Constitutional problems, there was the problem of expense. The U.S. government didn’t have the money to compensate slave owners like say the U.K. did in its colonies.
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.