First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
American Civil War
5463 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles
Offline
Posted 6/17/08

asamiueto wrote:

why would abe lincoln be considered a great president when he was responsible for 600,000 - 700,000 american deaths?

the war could have easily been avoided.



Like World War 2 could have been avoided by a few Years if England did not try to save Poland.
probably most of the Jews would have been Genocided out of Europe but then again they weren't White Americans.

It was good that the Civil War happened. Like it was good that the Nazis were crushed.
Posted 6/18/08

Sulla wrote:


asamiueto wrote:

why would abe lincoln be considered a great president when he was responsible for 600,000 - 700,000 american deaths?

the war could have easily been avoided.



Like World War 2 could have been avoided by a few Years if England did not try to save Poland.
probably most of the Jews would have been Genocided out of Europe but then again they weren't White Americans.

It was good that the Civil War happened. Like it was good that the Nazis were crushed.


bringing up ww2 and nazis is irrelevant.

the main issue of the civil war was states rights over the federal government, not slavery. read up before you type again.


22632 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / California
Offline
Posted 6/27/08

Sulla wrote:


asamiueto wrote:

why would abe lincoln be considered a great president when he was responsible for 600,000 - 700,000 american deaths?

the war could have easily been avoided.



Like World War 2 could have been avoided by a few Years if England did not try to save Poland.
probably most of the Jews would have been Genocided out of Europe but then again they weren't White Americans.

It was good that the Civil War happened. Like it was good that the Nazis were crushed.


one your wrong WWII could not have been avoided there were certain parties involved belive it or not.
and plus poland was'nt even the reason also so your wrong there too.

now to say that it was that the civil war happaned everybody in their right mind should feel ashamed to say that.
i mean think about it, here it is the union say's okay african-american oh excuse me this is the war "BLACKS"
are free but on one condition you will have to fight for it. and on top of that they still harbored feelings about them
what you should watch is glory and all that. and not to mention the confed's they were just stupid and too idealistic
i mean come on do you really think my people would be slaves fer long aint happening we would have started our own
war against them F#%K$ if we had to
5463 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles
Offline
Posted 6/27/08

yunghove wrote:


Sulla wrote:


asamiueto wrote:

why would abe lincoln be considered a great president when he was responsible for 600,000 - 700,000 american deaths?

the war could have easily been avoided.



Like World War 2 could have been avoided by a few Years if England did not try to save Poland.
probably most of the Jews would have been Genocided out of Europe but then again they weren't White Americans.

It was good that the Civil War happened. Like it was good that the Nazis were crushed.


one your wrong WWII could not have been avoided there were certain parties involved belive it or not.
and plus poland was'nt even the reason also so your wrong there too.

now to say that it was that the civil war happaned everybody in their right mind should feel ashamed to say that.
i mean think about it, here it is the union say's okay african-american oh excuse me this is the war "BLACKS"
are free but on one condition you will have to fight for it. and on top of that they still harbored feelings about them
what you should watch is glory and all that. and not to mention the confed's they were just stupid and too idealistic
i mean come on do you really think my people would be slaves fer long aint happening we would have started our own
war against them F#%K$ if we had
to


I am Black and yes Our people suck at unity so we would have been slaves for another 70 years and we would have never fought our way out of it.

Posted 6/27/08
The only good things that came from it were, the end of slavery and that Guns N Roses song
1836 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M / NJ, USA
Offline
Posted 6/27/08
lol....i entered this thread to see if any intelligent discussion was going on aaaaaand the answer is no. so typical of cr threads.
5463 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles
Offline
Posted 6/27/08

vittoriano wrote:

The only good things that came from it were, the end of slavery and that Guns N Roses song


Jazz and Rock came from freed Blacks. White Women with no ass would be dancing to slow Country songs. And the show Howdy Doody and Life with Father would still be on TV.
Posted 6/27/08

Sulla wrote:


vittoriano wrote:

The only good things that came from it were, the end of slavery and that Guns N Roses song


Jazz and Rock came from freed Blacks. White Women with no ass would be dancing to slow Country songs. And the show Howdy Doody and Life with Father would still be on TV.


629 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / greed island
Offline
Posted 6/27/08
didn't the confederate states try to secede because lincoln got elected? correct me if i'm wrong... ^_^
54 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / F / America
Offline
Posted 6/29/08 , edited 6/29/08
LMFAO. THis is hilarious. But, the war was economic reasons. The south did not want to loose their slaves, because their whole economy was dependent upon the slaves. What were they going to do? Pick the cotton themselves? Pullease. President Lincoln did not start the war to free the slaves. This war was fought for the unity of States. It wasn't until the middle of the war when President Lincoln decided to free the slaves. Even then, the Union soldiers weren't too happy about that fact. Slavery was frowned upon in the North, but it was so rare in the North that there were actually prominent blacks. But, anyway, the Civil War was needed probably cause I would not be here (Probably would be. I'd be in the house anyway, since I'm so high yellow. Probably would be able to read and write as well. House slaves usually were able to because they conducted the business. I'd probably want to help out Harriet Tubman.), Or I would have been with the genteel black society in New Orleans. Did you know that they had a genteel society? Someone left that out in the high school history books. They actually allowed interracial marriage before slavery ended. It wasn't until the jim crow laws when they started having segregation. As for many Asians would not be in America today. Ku Klux Klan would still be running around rampant, which actually didn't come about until much after the slavery. And Gay rights, where would that be? (Homophobes no answer needed). I think Abe Lincoln's one of the best presidents because of his decision making, and his refusal to allow the confederacy to succeed. (Man wasn't thinking about freeing no slaves).

If the Civil war did not occur, please believe that America would not have any welcoming atmosphere for any race. But who cares now? My momma do, but let's not bring that up. Go BARACK OBAMA! Love OBAMA LIke some chicken made by MOMMA.
4577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / Hinamizawa
Offline
Posted 6/29/08
the CONFEDERATES are racist
817 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Cebu City, PH
Offline
Posted 7/11/08

asamiueto wrote:

why would abe lincoln be considered a great president when he was responsible for 600,000 - 700,000 american deaths?

the war could have easily been avoided.



The Confederate rednecks were W.A.S.P.s (White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant). They were dreaming of a White race dominating the Continent. In their dream world a free American citizen must qualify for these three requirements. Even Catholics and non-Protestant Christian Whites were persecuted in the South. Blacks and non-Caucasian people can live in their dream world but as slaves.

There were many poor Whites in the South before the Civil War. The situation was comparable to pre-World War II Germany where there were many poor Germans and prosperous Jews. In the pre-Civil War south, the land-owning White people were dependent on agriculture and they want to keep Negro slaves working on their farmlands without wages. This was why the Southerners were very supportive to the pro-slavery political factions.

Lincoln cannot be directly blamed for the thousands of American deaths during the war. These were the cost of defending unity, racial equality, and most of all, freedom. It was a war that the Southern secessionists started. Lincoln never wanted war. He wanted the racial oppressions to be stopped through peaceful and lawful means. The federal Union government saw the Confederacy and its aggression as a rebellion that was against the Constitution. But then the war got ugly. That's how all wars would turn out to be.
Posted 7/11/08 , edited 7/11/08

yuki1986 wrote:


asamiueto wrote:

why would abe lincoln be considered a great president when he was responsible for 600,000 - 700,000 american deaths?

the war could have easily been avoided.



The Confederate rednecks were W.A.S.P.s (White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant). They were dreaming of a White race dominating the Continent. In their dream world a free American citizen must qualify for these three requirements. Even Catholics and non-Protestant Christian Whites were persecuted in the South. Blacks and non-Caucasian people can live in their dream world but as slaves.

There were many poor Whites in the South before the Civil War. The situation was comparable to pre-World War II Germany where there were many poor Germans and prosperous Jews. In the pre-Civil War south, the land-owning White people were dependent on agriculture and they want to keep Negro slaves working on their farmlands without wages. This was why the Southerners were very supportive to the pro-slavery political factions.

the confederacyLincoln cannot be directly blamed for the thousands of American deaths during the war. These were the cost of defending unity, racial equality, and most of all, freedom. It was a war that the Southern secessionists started. Lincoln never wanted war. He wanted the racial oppressions to be stopped through peaceful and lawful means. The federal Union government saw the Confederacy and its aggression as a rebellion that was against the Constitution. But then the war got ugly. That's how all wars would turn out to be.


the south was not dreaming of a super white race.
not comparable to nazi germany in any way.
lol, for even thinking so.

the north imported the slaves (kinda hypocritical?)
the north didn't need slaves as they were industrialized.
if they did, they would have used them.
don't fool yourself to thinking otherwise.

lincoln made no attempts at diplomacy - just war.
the confederacy was about state rights vs the federal government
(it is still going on today constantly).
the confederacy believed that if a state has the right to join the union - it has the right to leave it.

you state "defending unity, racial equality, and most of all, freedom" =
lol, you obviously don't live in the usa


817 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Cebu City, PH
Offline
Posted 7/12/08

asamiueto wrote:


yuki1986 wrote:


asamiueto wrote:

why would abe lincoln be considered a great president when he was responsible for 600,000 - 700,000 american deaths?

the war could have easily been avoided.



The Confederate rednecks were W.A.S.P.s (White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant). They were dreaming of a White race dominating the Continent. In their dream world a free American citizen must qualify for these three requirements. Even Catholics and non-Protestant Christian Whites were persecuted in the South. Blacks and non-Caucasian people can live in their dream world but as slaves.

There were many poor Whites in the South before the Civil War. The situation was comparable to pre-World War II Germany where there were many poor Germans and prosperous Jews. In the pre-Civil War south, the land-owning White people were dependent on agriculture and they want to keep Negro slaves working on their farmlands without wages. This was why the Southerners were very supportive to the pro-slavery political factions.

the confederacyLincoln cannot be directly blamed for the thousands of American deaths during the war. These were the cost of defending unity, racial equality, and most of all, freedom. It was a war that the Southern secessionists started. Lincoln never wanted war. He wanted the racial oppressions to be stopped through peaceful and lawful means. The federal Union government saw the Confederacy and its aggression as a rebellion that was against the Constitution. But then the war got ugly. That's how all wars would turn out to be.


the south was not dreaming of a super white race.
not comparable to nazi germany in any way.
lol, for even thinking so.

the north imported the slaves (kinda hypocritical?)
the north didn't need slaves as they were industrialized.
if they did, they would have used them.
don't fool yourself to thinking otherwise.

lincoln made no attempts at diplomacy - just war.
the confederacy was about state rights vs the federal government
(it is still going on today constantly).
the confederacy believed that if a state has the right to join the union - it has the right to leave it.

you state "defending unity, racial equality, and most of all, freedom" =
lol, you obviously don't live in the usa




Where did you get all that conspiracy hate crap? I never read in the history books of the North importing slaves. That must have been in the black market and in the minority. This kind of argument does not represent the Northern majority. And I'm not a fool to believe that your baseless argument is true. If the basis of your argument are rumors and conspiracy theories, then my basis are sound scholarly facts.

Yes, I don't live in the U.S. but I've been there. I've seen all those racial discrimination in our present time. But the question is, were you there in the 1860's? You never lived in those times. You got yourself some handed-down information. All of us have. The difference between yours and mine is that I'm basing on information considered by the majority as facts.

Why do you blame Abraham Lincoln so much with that war? The country was already divided before he became president. Have you read about the pre-war events and the Fort Sumter incident? You'll know who fired the first shot. War should not have happened if that incident did not happen. If they want to secede, the South must have continued to do it peacefully. Lincoln was not blamed by the majority of the American people for the war, he was praised by the people for successfully leading his country through its greatest crisis.

Be a fool for what you believe. You have the right to do so.
Posted 7/12/08 , edited 7/12/08

yuki1986 wrote:


asamiueto wrote:


yuki1986 wrote:


asamiueto wrote:

why would abe lincoln be considered a great president when he was responsible for 600,000 - 700,000 american deaths?

the war could have easily been avoided.



The Confederate rednecks were W.A.S.P.s (White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant). They weredreaming of a White race dominating the Continent. In their dream world a free American citizen must qualify for these three requirements. Even Catholics and non-Protestant Christian Whites were persecuted in the South. Blacks and non-Caucasian people can live in their dream world but as slaves.

There were many poor Whites in the South before the Civil War. The situation was comparable to pre-World War II Germany where there were many poor Germans and prosperous Jews. In the pre-Civil War south, the land-owning White people were dependent on agriculture and they want to keep Negro slaves working on their farmlands without wages. This was why the Southerners were very supportive to the pro-slavery political factions.

the confederacyLincoln cannot be directly blamed for the thousands of American deaths during the war. These were the cost of defending unity, racial equality, and most of all, freedom. It was a war that the Southern secessionists started. Lincoln never wanted war. He wanted the racial oppressions to be stopped through peaceful and lawful means. The federal Union government saw the Confederacy and its aggression as a rebellion that was against the Constitution. But then the war got ugly. That's how all wars would turn out to be.


the south was not dreaming of a super white race.
not comparable to nazi germany in any way.
lol, for even thinking so.

the north imported the slaves (kinda hypocritical?)
the north didn't need slaves as they were industrialized.
if they did, they would have used them.
don't fool yourself to thinking otherwise.

lincoln made no attempts at diplomacy - just war.
the confederacy was about state rights vs the federal government
(it is still going on today constantly).
the confederacy believed that if a state has the right to join the union - it has the right to leave it.

you state "defending unity, racial equality, and most of all, freedom" =
lol, you obviously don't live in the usa




Where did you get all that conspiracy hate crap? I never read in the history books of the North importing slaves. That must have been in the black market and in the minority. This kind of argument does not represent the Northern majority. And I'm not a fool to believe that your baseless argument is true. If the basis of your argument are rumors and conspiracy theories, then my basis are sound scholarly facts.

Yes, I don't live in the U.S. but I've been there. I've seen all those racial discrimination in our present time. But the question is, were you there in the 1860's? You never lived in those times. You got yourself some handed-down information. All of us have. The difference between yours and mine is that I'm basing on information considered by the majority as facts.

Why do you blame Abraham Lincoln so much with that war? The country was already divided before he became president. Have you read about the pre-war events and the Fort Sumter incident? You'll know who fired the first shot. War should not have happened if that incident did not happen. If they want to secede, the South must have continued to do it peacefully. Lincoln was not blamed by the majority of the American people for the war, he was praised by the people for successfully leading his country through its greatest crisis.

Be a fool for what you believe. You have the right to do so.


what happened to your white supremacy argument??

of course you're not from the usa, otherwise you would have known that all major ports were all in the north.

let me help you with it (nice copy and paste for you....get your map too):

The effects of the New England slave trade were momentous. It was one of the foundations of New England's economic structure; it created a wealthy class of slave-trading merchants, while the profits derived from this commerce stimulated cultural development and philanthropy. --Lorenzo Johnston Greene, “The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776,” p.319.
Whether it was officially encouraged, as in New York and New Jersey, or not, as in Pennsylvania, the slave trade flourished in colonial Northern ports. But New England was by far the leading slave merchant of the American colonies.

The first systematic venture from New England to Africa was undertaken in 1644 by an association of Boston traders, who sent three ships in quest of gold dust and black slaves. One vessel returned the following year with a cargo of wine, salt, sugar, and tobacco, which it had picked up in Barbados in exchange for slaves. But the other two ran into European warships off the African coast and barely escaped in one piece. Their fate was a good example of why Americans stayed out of the slave trade in the 17th century. Slave voyages were profitable, but Puritan merchants lacked the resources, financial and physical, to compete with the vast, armed, quasi-independent European chartered corporations that were battling to monopolize the trade in black slaves on the west coast of Africa. The superpowers in this struggle were the Dutch West India Company and the English Royal African Company. The Boston slavers avoided this by making the longer trip to the east coast of Africa, and by 1676 the Massachusetts ships were going to Madagascar for slaves. Boston merchants were selling these slaves in Virginia by 1678. But on the whole, in the 17th century New Englanders merely dabbled in the slave trade.

Then, around 1700, the picture changed. First the British got the upper hand on the Dutch and drove them from many of their New World colonies, weakening their demand for slaves and their power to control the trade in Africa. Then the Royal African Company's monopoly on African coastal slave trade was revoked by Parliament in 1696. Finally, the Assiento and the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) gave the British a contract to supply Spanish America with 4,800 slaves a year. This combination of events dangled slave gold in front of the New England slave traders, and they pounced. Within a few years, the famous “Triangle Trade” and its notorious “Middle Passage” were in place.

Rhode Islanders had begun including slaves among their cargo in a small way as far back as 1709. But the trade began in earnest there in the 1730s. Despite a late start, Rhode Island soon surpassed Massachusetts as the chief colonial carrier. After the Revolution, Rhode Island merchants had no serious American competitors. They controlled between 60 and 90 percent of the U.S. trade in African slaves. Rhode Island had excellent harbors, poor soil, and it lacked easy access to the Newfoundland fisheries. In slave trading, it found its natural calling. William Ellery, prominent Newport merchant, wrote in 1791, “An Ethiopian could as soon change his skin as a Newport merchant could be induced to change so lucrative a trade as that in slaves for the slow profits of any manufactory.”[1]

Boston and Newport were the chief slave ports, but nearly all the New England towns -- Salem, Providence, Middletown, New London – had a hand in it. In 1740, slaving interests in Newport owned or managed 150 vessels engaged in all manner of trading. In Rhode Island colony, as much as two-thirds of the merchant fleet and a similar fraction of sailors were engaged in slave traffic. The colonial governments of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania all, at various times, derived money from the slave trade by levying duties on black imports. Tariffs on slave import in Rhode Island in 1717 and 1729 were used to repair roads and bridges.

The 1750 revocation of the Assiento dramatically changed the slave trade yet again. The system that had been set up to stock Spanish America with thousands of Africans now needed another market. Slave ships began to steer northward. From 1750 to 1770, African slaves flooded the Northern docks. Merchants from Philadelphia, New York, and Perth Amboy began to ship large lots (100 or more) in a single trip. As a result, wholesale prices of slaves in New York fell 50% in six years.

On the eve of the Revolution, the slave trade “formed the very basis of the economic life of New England.”[2] It wove itself into the entire regional economy of New England. The Massachusetts slave trade gave work to coopers, tanners, sailmakers, and ropemakers. Countless agents, insurers, lawyers, clerks, and scriveners handled the paperwork for slave merchants. Upper New England loggers, Grand Banks fishermen, and livestock farmers provided the raw materials shipped to the West Indies on that leg of the slave trade. Colonial newspapers drew much of their income from advertisements of slaves for sale or hire. New England-made rum, trinkets, and bar iron were exchanged for slaves. When the British in 1763 proposed a tax on sugar and molasses, Massachusetts merchants pointed out that these were staples of the slave trade, and the loss of that would throw 5,000 seamen out of work in the colony and idle almost 700 ships. The connection between molasses and the slave trade was rum. Millions of gallons of cheap rum, manufactured in New England, went to Africa and bought black people. Tiny Rhode Island had more than 30 distilleries, 22 of them in Newport. In Massachusetts, 63 distilleries produced 2.7 million gallons of rum in 1774. Some was for local use: rum was ubiquitous in lumber camps and on fishing ships. “But primarily rum was linked with the Negro trade, and immense quantities of the raw liquor were sent to Africa and exchanged for slaves. So important was rum on the Guinea Coast that by 1723 it had surpassed French and Holland brandy, English gin, trinkets and dry goods as a medium of barter.”[3] Slaves costing the equivalent of £4 or £5 in rum or bar iron in West Africa were sold in the West Indies in 1746 for £30 to £80. New England thrift made the rum cheaply -- production cost was as low as 5½ pence a gallon -- and the same spirit of Yankee thrift discovered that the slave ships were most economical with only 3 feet 3 inches of vertical space to a deck and 13 inches of surface area per slave, the human cargo laid in carefully like spoons in a silverware case.

A list of the leading slave merchants is almost identical with a list of the region's prominent families: the Fanueils, Royalls, and Cabots of Massachusetts; the Wantons, Browns, and Champlins of Rhode Island; the Whipples of New Hampshire; the Eastons of Connecticut; Willing & Morris of Philadelphia. To this day, it's difficult to find an old North institution of any antiquity that isn't tainted by slavery. Ezra Stiles imported slaves while president of Yale. Six slave merchants served as mayor of Philadelphia. Even a liberal bastion like Brown University has the shameful blot on its escutcheon. It is named for the Brown brothers, Nicholas, John, Joseph, and Moses, manufacturers and traders who shipped salt, lumber, meat -- and slaves. And like many business families of the time, the Browns had indirect connections to slavery via rum distilling. John Brown, who paid half the cost of the college's first library, became the first Rhode Islander prosecuted under the federal Slave Trade Act of 1794 and had to forfeit his slave ship. Historical evidence also indicates that slaves were used at the family's candle factory in Providence, its ironworks in Scituate, and to build Brown's University Hall.[4]

Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South. Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. Rhode Island slavers alone imported an average of 6,400 Africans annually into the U.S. in the years 1805 and 1806. The financial base of New England's antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping. And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean.

Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands. William Lloyd Garrison made his first mark as an anti-slavery man by printing attacks on New England merchants who shipped slaves from Baltimore to New Orleans.

Long after the U.S. slave trade officially ended, the more extensive movement of Africans to Brazil and Cuba continued. The U.S. Navy never was assiduous in hunting down slave traders. The much larger British Navy was more aggressive, and it attempted a blockade of the slave coast of Africa, but the U.S. was one of the few nations that did not permit British patrols to search its vessels, so slave traders continuing to bring human cargo to Brazil and Cuba generally did so under the U.S. flag. They also did so in ships built for the purpose by Northern shipyards, in ventures financed by Northern manufacturers.

In a notorious case, the famous schooner-yacht Wanderer, pride of the New York Yacht Club, put in to Port Jefferson Harbor in April 1858 to be fitted out for the slave trade. Everyone looked the other way -- which suggests this kind of thing was not unusual -- except the surveyor of the port, who reported his suspicions to the federal officials. The ship was seized and towed to New York, but her captain talked (and possibly bought) his way out and was allowed to sail for Charleston, S.C.

Fitting out was completed there, the Wanderer was cleared by Customs, and she sailed to Africa where she took aboard some 600 blacks. On Nov. 28, 1858, she reached Jekyll Island, Georgia, where she illegally unloaded the 465 survivors of what is generally called the last shipment of slaves to arrive in the United States.

after you check those facts.

check that nothing is as it seems in the usa.
of course lincoln was to be made the "hero" - he saved the union.
you think 600,000+ lives were justified for racial freedom, peace, and love

suppose you think we are in iraq to free it's people too
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.