First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
American Civil War
817 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Cebu City, PH
Offline
Posted 7/13/08

asamiueto wrote:


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


What a copy and paste waste! That's about the 18th century. We're talking about the 19th century here. Much change happened between these two centuries. Your copy-paste crap seems nearer between the American Revolution to the War of 1812.

Of course there are ports that allowed slave trade in the 18th-century North. But by the middle of the 19th century ships that carried European immigrants docked these ports, not slave ships! And that last story in your copy-paste crap that is about a ship in 1858 was sailing to Charleston S.C. And where did she unloaded her shipment? Georgia. These two locations are in the South.

Next time, check your geography, and also if you copy-paste about something, make sure it is contextual and relevant - especially in our topic's timetable. It's like your taking references about World War II when our topic would be War in Iraq.
Posted 7/13/08 , edited 9/15/08

yuki1986 wrote:


asamiueto wrote:


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


What a copy and paste waste! That's about the 18th century. We're talking about the 19th century here. Much change happened between these two centuries. Your copy-paste crap seems nearer between the American Revolution to the War of 1812.

Of course there are ports that allowed slave trade in the 18th-century North. But by the middle of the 19th century ships that carried European immigrants docked these ports, not slave ships! And that last story in your copy-paste crap that is about a ship in 1858 was sailing to Charleston S.C. And where did she unloaded her shipment? Georgia. These two locations are in the South.

Next time, check your geography, and also if you copy-paste about something, make sure it is contextual and relevant - especially in our topic's timetable. It's like your taking references about World War II when our topic would be War in Iraq.


you're missing the points, as usual let me spell it out for you:
the copy and paste was a history lesson for in slave trading, as you had no clue.

read it again sherlock - it was a New York importer that docked in the south
to sell slaves in 1858. i highlighted it in red so you can O_O. so, that basically throws out your last reply - good job, lol.


-1 for you (for not reading & trying to capitalize of your error )

the three points you tried to bring up (from your first post, can you remember? scroll^)
= you failed. i'll refresh your dimness:

1.) the confederacy was not trying to build a super nazi like race.

-2 for you

2.) the north imported / sold the slaves as they did any commodity (from day one to the eve of the civil war) . if they didn't do it they wouldn't have been here. they did it out of greed, unlike what you were taught/think - they were not honest good guys and that gave candy to slaves that you think.

-3 for you

3.) yes lincoln is to blame for these 600,000+ deaths.
you ask why? he was the president at the time.
the saying here goes "the buck stops at the top".
there were ways to avoid all this = google is your friend.

-4 for you

4) i don't live in the south or have even been there (except for airport crossovers).

-5 for you

-5 for your grand total

next time - stick to Filipino history


you are dismissed


26851 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Few kilometres fr...
Offline
Posted 7/13/08
this thread reminds me of the prediction of john titor
817 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Cebu City, PH
Offline
Posted 7/13/08 , edited 7/13/08

asamiueto wrote:

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.


Hahaha! Like I said, this is the BLACK MARKET! These are done by criminal profiteers and not by the law-abiding Northern majority. It's just like your everyday news about illegal human trafficking, and a few corrupt government officials. These are just done by the few who want to profit more by breaking the law and taking advantage of the situation while they still can.

How can you relate this article to Abraham Lincoln anyway? I can't even find his name here.

I see that this articles are facts, but where's the national or government policy permitting these illegal activities. NO, I CAN'T READ IT HERE... It was OUTLAWED.

I'm really sorry but you're documented facts never made it to the history books because they're just old newspaper crime stories that were mostly forgotten as time goes by.

To sum it up, your argument against Linc is just a whole bagful of crap!

Well then, if you're a redneck I might understand your situation here that you have a grudge against Linc and the Union for winning the war. Losers can do nothing but rant and gnash their teeth in the dark.
Posted 7/13/08
im studying this topic n nothing goes in my brain >_< meow
460 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M / in total darkness
Offline
Posted 7/13/08

Jachina wrote:


chinky_sonny wrote:


cnw64 wrote:

Didnt u create a war thread already ? I'm lost :wacko:


Yeah, but that was about the World War II

you should do one about the korean war,
American civil war? it was boring, americans killing americans.


there was a newsletter ....just few days ago...that ....the us orderd to kill....thousends of south korean officials...during the war....o_Õ) ..."because they were afraid they would ..go over to north"....

ps.

we hadnt anything about us history during school...only ...about slavery ......martin.l.king .....malcom x........
633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York, NYC
Offline
Posted 7/27/08
okay i think these threads are made so she can get some help on her history essay or something.. someone's lazy to do their research!
1542 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23
Offline
Posted 8/26/08

leechlife wrote:

okay i think these threads are made so she can get some help on her history essay or something.. someone's lazy to do their research!


SO can you now contribute to this?

36562 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Corner of No and...
Offline
Posted 8/26/08 , edited 9/15/08
Who? South (Confederates) vs North (Union)

Why? Because the South seceded - they tried to make themselves separate from the rest of the united states, going so far as to call themselves the "Confederate States of America".

Support? North - supported by free states and 5 slaveholding border states. South - everyone else.

When? 1862-1865

How many? About 3 million fought - around 620,000 died.

Outcome? North pwned South (which was to be expected since the North had the South greatly outnumbered: as I recall the North had something like 2,200,000 soldiers and the South only had like 1,064,000) - they burned down/destroyed most of the South. Slaves were freed.

Repercussions? Millions of dollars needed to rebuild which took several years. Secession repudiated. Amendments 13-15. Lincoln assassinated.
3929 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / My body lives in...
Offline
Posted 9/15/08

Sulla wrote:

I believe Siny wants help for a report she is doing it seems this way.


hi. i know you can do better than that

5463 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Los Angeles
Offline
Posted 9/15/08

saiyukilover wrote:

Who? South (Confederates) vs North (Union)

Why? Because the South seceded - they tried to make themselves separate from the rest of the united states, going so far as to call themselves the "Confederate States of America".

Support? North - supported by free states and 5 slaveholding border states. South - everyone else.

When? 1862-1865

How many? About 3 million fought - around 620,000 died.

Outcome? North pwned South (which was to be expected since the North had the South greatly outnumbered: as I recall the North had something like 2,200,000 soldiers and the South only had like 1,064,000) - they burned down/destroyed most of the South.

Repercussions? Millions of dollars needed to rebuild which took several years. Secession repudiated. Amendments 13-15. Lincoln assassinated.


The Negroes were freed from slavery. You must be a foreigner.
36562 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Corner of No and...
Offline
Posted 9/15/08 , edited 9/15/08

Sulla wrote:


saiyukilover wrote:

Who? South (Confederates) vs North (Union)

Why? Because the South seceded - they tried to make themselves separate from the rest of the united states, going so far as to call themselves the "Confederate States of America".

Support? North - supported by free states and 5 slaveholding border states. South - everyone else.

When? 1862-1865

How many? About 3 million fought - around 620,000 died.

Outcome? North pwned South (which was to be expected since the North had the South greatly outnumbered: as I recall the North had something like 2,200,000 soldiers and the South only had like 1,064,000) - they burned down/destroyed most of the South.

Repercussions? Millions of dollars needed to rebuild which took several years. Secession repudiated. Amendments 13-15. Lincoln assassinated.


The Negroes were freed from slavery. You must be a foreigner.


-_- I'm from Colorado and I can see you don't know much about the constitution.

The 13th Amendment abolished slavery.

So there are no more misunderstandings:
14th Amendment: Guaranteed rights for everyone regardless of race, specifically, African Americans/newly freed slaves.
15th Amendment: Made sure that people could vote no matter their race.

So, which country are you from?
Posted 9/15/08
the south should have freed them on one condition = that they couldn't stay in the south.
248 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / Somplace w/ a com...
Offline
Posted 9/15/08

saiyukilover wrote:


Sulla wrote:


saiyukilover wrote:

Who? South (Confederates) vs North (Union)

Why? Because the South seceded - they tried to make themselves separate from the rest of the united states, going so far as to call themselves the "Confederate States of America".

Support? North - supported by free states and 5 slaveholding border states. South - everyone else.

When? 1862-1865

How many? About 3 million fought - around 620,000 died.

Outcome? North pwned South (which was to be expected since the North had the South greatly outnumbered: as I recall the North had something like 2,200,000 soldiers and the South only had like 1,064,000) - they burned down/destroyed most of the South.

Repercussions? Millions of dollars needed to rebuild which took several years. Secession repudiated. Amendments 13-15. Lincoln assassinated.


The Negroes were freed from slavery. You must be a foreigner.


-_- The 13th Amendment abolished slavery.

So, which country are you from?


lol pwned. =D

248 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / Somplace w/ a com...
Offline
Posted 9/15/08 , edited 9/15/08

asamiueto wrote:

the south should have freed them on one condition = that they couldn't stay in the south.


racist. my avi thinks your quote is gay.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.