A quote from the civil war, before it ended. You all should read this.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Wow, do people forget that the racism was mostly from the south?... Entire southern towns people were part of the KKK... Do people forget this?...

I remember reading about some entire towns of black people being either murdered, and those who survived had to flee white men...

In one particular case, the Rosewood Massacre in the early 20th century, a white woman who was married but was having an affair with another white man, blamed a black man and said he raped her. The entire town turned against black people, many were hanged or burned alive, and this wasn't an isolated case...

At least 6 black men, and two whites were murdered/killed. Hundreds of white men from nearby towns combed Rosewood, and the nearby swamps and forests hunting for black people...

The Rosewood massacre was a violent, racially motivated conflict that took place during the first week of January 1923 in rural Levy County, Florida, United States. At least six blacks and two whites were killed, and the town of Rosewood was abandoned and destroyed in what contemporary news reports characterized as a race riot. Racial disturbances were common during the early 20th century in the United States, reflecting the nation's rapid social changes. Florida had an especially high number of lynchings in the years before the massacre, including a well-publicized incident in December 1922.

Rosewood was a quiet, primarily black, self-sufficient whistle stop on the Seaboard Air Line Railway. Spurred by unsupported accusations that a white woman in nearby Sumner had been beaten and possibly raped by a black drifter, white men from nearby towns lynched a Rosewood resident. When black citizens defended themselves against further attack, several hundred whites combed the countryside hunting for black people, and burned almost every structure in Rosewood. Survivors hid for several days in nearby swamps and were evacuated by train and car to larger towns. Although state and local authorities were aware of the violence, they made no arrests for the activities in Rosewood. The town was abandoned by black residents during the attacks. None ever returned.

Although the rioting was widely reported around the country, few official records documented the event. Survivors, their descendants, and the perpetrators remained silent about Rosewood for decades. Sixty years after the rioting, the story of Rosewood was revived in major media when several journalists covered it in the early 1980s. Survivors and their descendants organized to sue the state for having failed to protect them. In 1993, the Florida Legislature commissioned a report on the events. As a result of the findings, Florida became the first U.S. state to compensate survivors and their descendants for damages incurred because of racial violence. The massacre was the subject of a 1997 film directed by John Singleton. In 2004, the state designated the site of Rosewood as a Florida Heritage Landmark.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

Events like this were common in the early 20th century in southern states, you can only imagine how bad it must have been in the earlier decades when KKK members proudly displayed their racism against mainly blacks...

But now people in the south are claiming the north was completely racist?... There probably were some cases of people in the north who were racists but the first cities and states that abolished/banned slavery were states and people in the north, meanwhile the southerners wanted to keep their slaves and allow slavery...

I see that the "rewritting of history" is being done now by at least some southerners, not by Lincoln and the northerners...

Anyway, as for the claim that the nrotherners wanted the plantations in the south?... Are you serious?... the north won, and who were still the owners of plantations in the south?... that's right RICH DEMOCRATS... these were the same people that caused the racist murders done by the KKK against blacks, it wasn't the northerners...

reply to post by Southern Guardian
easy, because then, they were "criminals" too.
harboring criminals is just as illegal today as it was then and extradition is common practice.

you cannot frame what happened then with the societal standards of today.
that was then, this is now ... and the parallels are downright scary.

which part of Southern blacks were free DURING THE WAR are you missing?
not after Lincoln's unbalanced proclamation.

get over the racist BS already ... it doesn't apply.

The fact that the Southern states refused to respect the laws of Northern states is a demonstration of this.

as asked previously, which laws ??
i don't recall stories of freeman being captured in the North and placed into Southern slavery.
[a story or two may exist but i haven't read'em]
so once more please, which Northern laws were they refusing to respect?

without picking apart your last sentences, may i refer you to Article IV of the US Constitution (of that time)

constitution.org...
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due

yes, this was amended, but, it was the "agreement" the Northern states violated.

reply to post by xstealth


So THIS is how you guys talk when you think there are no Blacks around.

And you wonder. You wonder why the r word is slung around . I am sooooo glad people who think like this are so outnumbered they have become irrelevant to their own race let alone the entire planet.

In other words....

WHATEVAHHHH !

reply to post by ElectricUniverse
no dear, those were the direct effects of Reconstruction.
you know, the government hand in making everything alright

yes, atrocities happened for many, many more years.
however, these behaviors were the RESULT of the Norths victory, not a reason for the battle.

Secret Message in Lincoln’s Pocketwatch, 1861
americanhistory.si.edu...

“The first gun is fired. Slavery is dead. Thank God we have a President who at least will try.” He then signed and dated the inscription and closed the dial. Dillon told The New York Times in 1906 that to his knowledge, no one ever saw the inscription.

Originally posted by skepticconwatcher
reply to post by xstealth

 

So THIS is how you guys talk when you think there are no Blacks around.

And you wonder. You wonder why the r word is slung around . I am sooooo glad people who think like this are so outnumbered they have become irrelevant to their own race let alone the entire planet.

In other words....

WHATEVAHHHH !

I think like this when blacks are around too. And trust me, you won't hear anything racist out of my mouth that compares to the NAACP, Black Panthers, Acorn or the average negroid in the grocery store calling their friends slang and complaining openly about crackers.

Race doesn't impact my love of liberty.

Those who say the civil war was all about slavery are as wrong as those who pretend slavery was only of minor import in the conflict. No, many in the North did not care about 'equality' as much as they cared about subverting the economic system of chattel slavery in favor of their own form of wage-based 'slavery', but the institution of slavery in the South was very much front and center. Yes, it also marked a turning point in terms of the Federal govs relationship with the states, and many other small bits of nuance to boot. And yes, the average southerner had little to benefit from slavery and was mainly fighting for their home, But for those who were rich and powerful in the South, slavery did very much matter. Massive fortunes were built on it, and the removal of it meant an end to that form of wealth.

Originally posted by Honor93
easy, because then, they were "criminals" too.

Those black slaves were not "criminals" because they didn't commit any crime. They were slaves merely on the basis of being born black. Under the laws of most Northern states they are not so. I also have to wonder how many northern born blacks were turn to slaves in the South as well, given your excuses here. I'm sure there were a good number of them.

Do you think that all those slaves in America in the 19th century were criminals? For what reason were they criminals? Because they were born black? Is this what you believe today?

get over the racist BS already

I'll do so after you get over your own personal bigotry. Being born black and a slave in the 19th century did not automatically make you a criminal. Maybe in the twisted minds of many southerns and people like yourself today that is the case, but not in reality.

reply to post by Stormdancer777
goodness gracious, did you really think people wouldn't look for themselves
from your link ...

The actual engraving says:
Jonathan Dillon
April 13-1861
Fort Sumpter [sic] was attacked
by the rebels on the above
date J Dillon
April 13-1861
Washington
thank God we have a government
Jonth Dillon

nice embellishment there without quoting or directing anyone to the truth.

Originally posted by xstealth
Race doesn't impact my love of liberty.

Race may not have any "personal" impact for your love for liberty, but it certainly had an impact for many folks back then and today. Slavery, segregation laws, miscegenation laws, all hinged on the belief of race and ethnicity.

Originally posted by xstealth

Originally posted by fenceSitter
Sorry - I thought you were trying to apply this quote to some situation in the world today. Once upon a time men could speak honestly and wisely and people would listen. Now it seems that propaganda is the preferred method of communication regardless if there is any truth behind it or not.

I was, General Cleburne and many other Confederates saw the cost of the war. If they were not victorious, we would lose our liberties and freedoms.

It held true.

It was not the "Civil War" as the victors taught, but in reality it was our "2nd war of independence"



Listen to the words of this speach by Stonewall.

Ironic that those who were worried about our liberties and our freedoms wanted certain people to not have them....


How could you sit there and talk about freedom in any context if you are going to deny a person freedom based on their skin color?

Lincoln was a racist homosexual... and those confederates were hypocrites. The real reality is we could never have liberty and freedom, because neither side ever wanted it for everybody.

This is the lesson of the "Civil War" not that if the confederates won it would have been Honky Dorey, because it wouldn't have been...

By any means.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by xstealth
Race doesn't impact my love of liberty.

Race may not have any "personal" impact for your love for liberty, but it certainly had an impact for many folks back then and today. Slavery, segregation laws, miscegenation laws, all hinged on the belief of race and ethnicity.

It's mighty convenient to claim when something doesn't go your way. My white wife is experiencing problems getting promoted in her company that she's been with for 4 years with 4 year superior reviews, because the management says they have to promote more people with 'ethnic backgrounds' to comply with the law. They are promoting drug using slackies who talk on their phone all day or throw ghetto fits when they don't like something.

I didn't get a government grant, but my black friend did in high school. I had much better grades, but I am white.

I find it absolutely disgusting that the term 'racist' is thrown around every day as a weapon. I read about it or hear it every single day. The term 'racist' causes white people to fear it almost as bad as being called a paedophile. Many people, especially politicians cave their ideas out of fear of being classified as a racist.


Segregation as of 2012 goes both ways, and all blacks have lost their right to complain. I don't care if people think I'm racist. I'm really not, but everyone has a right to be racist if they want. I don't care and won't judge them for it.

reply to post by Southern Guardian
that's pure propaganda and you know it.
first, not all slaves were black.
second, many were bought and generations were born so some level of care was provided.
third, as per the "Constitutional agreement" (not the moral standard), those who fled were "criminals" and property.
We didn't write it or live it so why argue it today?

got news for ya, NY & Maryland (not so southern states) had more slaves on their records than 4 southern states combined. look at the records for yourself.

i don't need to wonder, i still listen to re-counted audio history at the library, do you?
would highly suggest it if you never have.
there are some compelling, intriguing, heart-wrenching and inspiring tales to be heard.

ah geez, can't you stay on topic with your own questions?
you were on Northern laws that the Southern states were breaking/infringing.
are you going to identify WHICH laws or just jump to a new angle?

yes, slaves who fled state boundaries were criminals, according to the laws/practices of the day.
attack, attack, got anything fresh?

Being born black and a slave in the 19th century did not automatically make you a criminal

true, however, no one but you has inferred such in this thread.

ETA: question for anyone ... are the Northern students now being taught that the "only or majority" slave population were blacks ?? have we really sunk that low ??

do you folks realize that slavery had been practiced on this continent for nearly 300yrs BEFORE the Constitution was signed and another 100yrs BEFORE the first shot was fired in the civil war ??

still not defending the practice but it was what it was and it certainly wasn't exclusive of the black population.

While I am most certainly intrigued by the truth of the civil war and the motives behind both sides I cannot help but notice the extreme irony in this thread. Though I imagine the motives on an individual basis vary as widely as they do today. The truth I am sure is obscured like all the rest of history is kept hidden from the general public. However if we are to judge by the merits and the outcome I would suggest if Lincon's intention was to truly free the slaves then his efforts have failed miserably. The great irony in this thread as the word "slavery" is tossed back and forth so much, I would suggest now instead of just blacks being slaves with iron chains, it seems the entire global population is in bondage to encompass all races to labor for their masters while the plantation owners live the good life in the big mansion. The plantations are simply bigger now and the chains are technological and fiscal instead of iron. Anyone who believes they are free should simply try to decide for themselves if they want to wear their seat belt or smoke a joint.

Originally posted by Anonymous Avatar
While I am most certainly intrigued by the truth of the civil war and the motives behind both sides I cannot help but notice the extreme irony in this thread. Though I imagine the motives on an individual basis vary as widely as they do today. The truth I am sure is obscured like all the rest of history is kept hidden from the general public. However if we are to judge by the merits and the outcome I would suggest if Lincon's intention was to truly free the slaves then his efforts have failed miserably. The great irony in this thread as the word "slavery" is tossed back and forth so much, I would suggest now instead of just blacks being slaves with iron chains, it seems the entire global population is in bondage to encompass all races to labor for their masters while the plantation owners live the good life in the big mansion. The plantations are simply bigger now and the chains are technological and fiscal instead of iron. Anyone who believes they are free should simply try to decide for themselves if they want to wear their seat belt or smoke a joint.

This is exactly the point I was trying to make.

Neither side in the civil war wanted true liberty, they both contained those who wanted to restrict it from specific individuals.

It didn't matter who won, the outcome would have become the same. Enslave everyone who isn't a slave owner [read business.]

You can also see how the federal government doesn't really like independent business and they favor the corporations.

The corporations are the slave owners, everyone else... is the slave.

Originally posted by xstealth
My white wife is experiencing problems getting promoted in her company that she's been with for 4 years with 4 year superior reviews, because the management says they have to promote more people with 'ethnic backgrounds' to comply with the law.

I'd bet it's not a good feeling to know how your wife is being discrimminated based on her race right? It's not a nice feeling being on the receiving end of racism right? But hey, States were doing this to blacks and non-whites for years, and the vast majority of the white residents in those states supported those measures. All in the name of "states rights" we tolerated millions of blacks and other non-whites being enslaved, those slaves being raped by their slave masters, blacks being treated like animals, for the sake of "states rights". For years we tolerated racial segregation laws where the state government told you who you could and couldn't marry, who you were allowed to sell property to, where you could buy property, what you could do on your own property. All for the sake of states rights. Now what you're experiencing through your wife is discrimmination at the business level, but in this country businesses generally have the right to hire people to their preferences.

You're learning first hand through the unfortunate experiences of your wife how a racially driven society can influence your wife and your lifestyle. I don't support affirmative action any more than racial segregation laws, the latter however is something people like Ron Paul and his supporters want states to have the right to enforce again nevertheless.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by xstealth
Race doesn't impact my love of liberty.

Race may not have any "personal" impact for your love for liberty, but it certainly had an impact for many folks back then and today. Slavery, segregation laws, miscegenation laws, all hinged on the belief of race and ethnicity.

good, i'm glad you went there.
now, please differentiate between the ancient practice of slavery that was already in full swing when the Constitution was crafted ... compared to ... miscegenation (?spelling) and segregation, both, Federal standards [all bad decisions] but very much a part of the Northern victory.

so please, explain to me again how the Feds implemented this great equality and freedom you claim they fought for.

reply to post by Honor93


What why would I provide a link to an article if I didn't think people would read it.

reply to post by Stormdancer777
ummm, maybe because it's required.
a better question would be why would you quote ONLY the misrepresentation of the inscription ??

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

They were trying to escape from constitutional government, which would eventually have outlawed slavery, as free states entered the US in the west. Secession was enacted in order to preserve and extend private tyranny a thousand times more odious than anything we endure today.

The idea that the south favored "small government" is nonsense. What they favored was maintaining the 'property rights' of a favored few at the price of thousands of lives. Southern planters loved the government, as long as it was being used to maintain their power and wealth.

Wow, thanks heavens at least some people are remembering the facts. I am, and have been a book worm. Even during school days every week, more than two decades ago, I would go to the library and get about 6 books on everything from history to paranormal cases i have been interested in.

I remember reading the early history of the 20th century in the U.S., and the crimes committed by southerners against black people. Yes there were some white people in the north who were also racist, but the most racism occurred in the south.

Here is a website that shows some of the black towns which have been razed and erased from history books by racists in the south and the socialist elites rewritting history about the north...

www.theroot.com...

Anyway, it is nothing more than a lie to claim that Lincoln instituted "the Feds" or Big government when the Republic of the United States/the Union existed even before lincoln became President.

Also, I do remember that the south ran out of money, not only were they outnumbered but they had been running out of money while the north had not such problems, yet people are claiming that what the northerner wanted were the riches of the south?...

To this day the owners of the larger southern plantations are still descendents of the old RICH DEMOCRATS...

Republicans back in those days, and the Republican Party was the Party of the People, including the poor people, meanwhile the Democrat Party was the party of the rich elites...

Prior to the year 2000 the Republican Party was still using the color Blue, while the Democrats used the color Red. I remember this which for a while confused me because I remember very well that before the year 2000 the Republican Party states were always represented in Blue, while Democrat states were represented in Red.

These same rich southerner elites and their descendents have been rewritting history and have changed the goals of the parties to destroy what was once the Party of the People which originally was the Republican Party.

This rewritting of history is so obvious that even the colors used to define each party have been changed, and for a good reason. For centuries the color of the Democrat Party was RED, meanwhile the color of the Republican Party was BLUE, but this has been changed due to the fact that Democrat goals are very similar to the goals of socialists/communists, and this is the reason for the change and rewritting of history by the rich elites.

Here is the statement of another person who remembers this well.

...
In the United States, since the year 2000, the mass media has begun to associate red with the Republican Party, but the party has not adopted red in any official sense. I personally speculate that the association of red with the Republican party stems from the Democratic party's desire to distance themselves from the association with Socialism and Communism. But that's a conclusion you'll have to make for yourself.
...

Link

The rewritting of history is, and has been done by the socialist elites.

Even today, if you look at who are the rich elites who have the most power, who are the first people you would name?

George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs, even young people like Mark Zuckerberg, the Google guys/Eric Schmidt , John Kerry, and even people like Mike Bloomberg are liberal Democrats/progressives, or are on the fence with the socialist/leftwinger goals.



Also, exactly what are the goals of world elites, and their groups such as the UN?... Are they trying to implement a true Free Market/Capitalist system? or a socialist/fascist controlled system?...