RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death'

RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (3/23/2009 9:49:40 PM)
What were the other things settled? Military and economic might can trump written law of the constitution? That afterwards the treatment of southern states was okay because others felt they were in the moral right? Seems like this country has not settled either of those things.

Owner59 -> RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (3/23/2009 11:40:33 PM)
Succession,nullification and state`s rights (and who had the biggest dick).

Termyn8or -> RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (3/23/2009 11:44:46 PM)
To the OP - a jumpthrough There were abolishionist states, slavery had already been outlawed in a few. Actually Blacks fought on both sides of the civil war. Slavery was not what caused the civil war, face it people, they were just not all that concerned. Personally I find it lacking in our Founding Fathers' foresight not to place an outright ban on the practice from the beginning. Maybe you don't have a race but I do, and my race sees slavery as inefficiant. It is cheaper to pay a Man his day's wages and send him off rather than to provide for all his needs. Here we had a system which is so vehemently opposed by most normal, or near normal people, which bears quite a bit of similarity to what the unions demanded from GM for instance. Cradle to grave. I am basking in the irony right now. Glad you brought it up. T

MadAxeman -> RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (3/24/2009 4:15:30 AM)
Silly old basker

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (3/24/2009 6:17:12 AM)
Ahhh so you agree. So why do you have a problem with our previous Pres doing the same? Using military and economic strength in violation of written law, and doing it all because he felt he was morally right? quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Succession,nullification and state`s rights (and who had the biggest dick).

slvemike4u -> RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (3/24/2009 7:15:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or To the OP - a jumpthrough There were abolishionist states, slavery had already been outlawed in a few. Actually Blacks fought on both sides of the civil war. Slavery was not what caused the civil war, face it people, they were just not all that concerned. Personally I find it lacking in our Founding Fathers' foresight not to place an outright ban on the practice from the beginning. Maybe you don't have a race but I do, and my race sees slavery as inefficiant. It is cheaper to pay a Man his day's wages and send him off rather than to provide for all his needs. Here we had a system which is so vehemently opposed by most normal, or near normal people, which bears quite a bit of similarity to what the unions demanded from GM for instance. Cradle to grave. I am basking in the irony right now. Glad you brought it up. T Same question for you Term,name one southern state,not a border state,that abolished slavery prior to the Civil War. It wasn't till 1865 that the Confederate gov. allowed the enlistment of blacks into the CSA....desperation does indeed make for strange bedfellows. Any similarity between the institution of slavery and the relationship between the UAW and GM......would seemt to be in your mind...and your mind only.

Termyn8or -> RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (3/24/2009 8:08:10 AM)
Florida And my point was that the UAW seems to want all the advantages or being a slave for the members, but without the chains. Simply hiring a Man to do a job does not mean you owe him an income for life, and they didn't simply kick old slaves off the plantation when they could no longer work, or did they ? The major proponents of the Confederacy did not care all that much about slavery, they saw the actions of the US govt in relation to the economy and money supply as a prelude to what is happening today, as the Founding Fathers would see it. But Washington was progressive and started the long road to hell with their good intentions, the road on which we seem to be at the end of these days. Perhaps the wrong side won ? Sure slavery was an issue for some, but it was not the main impetus for the attempted seccesion of the southern states. And the abolishion of slavery would be required for us to be able to call ourselves a civilised nation, or nation state and gain acceptance as such in the rest of the world. It would have been abolished anyway. It would have to be or we would indeed be an island. Seen as uncivilised. Thinking backwards for a moment, if the south had won what would be the difference ? A different postage stamp and a different set of internet domains by now. That would probably be about it. T

slvemike4u -> RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (3/24/2009 8:37:30 AM)
Revisionist bullshit in its entirety.Florida did not abolish slavery prior to the Civil War....cite one source to support that statement please...just one. "The major proponets of the Confederacy did not care about slavery"...are you joking?

Termyn8or -> RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (3/24/2009 8:48:56 AM)
"all that much" If you are going to quote, quote. There was alot more going on than that at the time, do you deny that ? I'll have to check into the Florida thing. T

slvemike4u -> RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (3/24/2009 8:55:28 AM)
It seems some have a need to paint the Civil War as being brought about by an issue other than slavery.So be it,though the thread is about former President Jimmie Carter's assertion that slavery which he see's as the impetus for the war need not have been fought(btw as seems amusing that some Southern men Pres.Carter included have a need to refer to the war as "the War Between the States...I will let that one go)If we have a need to rehash the cause of the war,perhaps another thread is needed.This one is about Carter's assertions that slavery would have died a natural death.Which by the way i agree with(no civilised nation would have condoned slavery with the dawn of the 20th century)....though the timeline involved would have condemmed untold millions to untold years of bondage and the overseers lash.

slvemike4u -> RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (3/24/2009 9:03:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or "all that much" If you are going to quote, quote. There was alot more going on than that at the time, do you deny that ? I'll have to check into the Florida thing. T Check all you please Term,Florida was a slaveholding state and a member of the Confederacy,as such was directly affected by the Emancipation Proclamation which went into effect on Jan 1st 1863. As far as a lot more going on,yes Term there was "a lot more going on" all of it dwarfed by the one overriding issue of the day ...slavery and its future.If the south could not expand the practice slavery would become their curse.What to do with the everexpanding population of slaves if new territories weren't available in which to sell off surplus numbers of slaves.The value of slaves like all things was firmly tied to the market place ie: supply and demand.....Without expansion slavery would become a yoke around the neck of the slave holding states...more and more slaves worth less and less value.Diffusion thru expansion was the only way to protect the interest of slave holders in the South.

Termyn8or -> RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (3/24/2009 9:07:40 AM)
OK, let's let the birden of proof lite upon those who would seem better able. Show ME where the US government was about to outlaw slavery in all states. That was not happening to my knowledge at the time. So how would that be a reason for attempted sessecion ? T

slvemike4u -> RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (3/24/2009 9:16:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or OK, let's let the birden of proof lite upon those who would seem better able. Show ME where the US government was about to outlaw slavery in all states. That was not happening to my knowledge at the time. So how would that be a reason for attempted sessecion ? T And therin lies the real irony of the war Term.The south seceeded for fear of government seizure of private prop.ie:slaves.Lincoln had no such power....the South was protected by the very thing they stripped themselves of by seceeding...the Constitution. However if slavery wasn't spread and new states were admitted as "free states" the balence of power in the House would have shifted.Free states would have had the votes to eventually amend the Constitution,thereby attaining the very outcome Carter was talking about ...a peacful end to slavery.Of course the slave holding interest's in the south could see the handwriting on the wall.Containment of slavery to only those states where it was at then practiced was the first bell in the death knell of the institution.This they could not stand by and watch happen...hence the war.

Termyn8or -> RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (3/24/2009 9:28:25 AM)
Hmmmmm. T

UPSG -> RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (3/24/2009 11:51:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Former President Jimmie Carter comments in a new Lincoln book:In Lincoln's Hand:His Original Manuscript's With Commentary By Distinguished Americans. Carter comments on a passage in which Lincoln wrote"I am almost ready to say this is probably true-that god wills this contest,and wills that itshall not end yet" Carter found the statement troubling stating"He (Lincoln)ignores the fact that the tragic combat might have been avoided altogether,and that the leaders of both sides,overwhelmingll Christian,were violating a basic premise of their belief as followers of the Prince of Peace."He concluded with "a legitimate question for historians is how soon the blight of slavery would have been terminated peacefully in America,as in Great Britain and other civilized societies". Britain banned the slave trade in 1807 and abolished slavery altogether in 1833....by 1861 America had not followed suit.How much longer would this immoral institution have gone on in America?Is this just further proof that Former President Carter was and is too moral a man for the office he once occupied?Is there any evil in this world this man would see as worth the scourge of war....or does he beleive one can pray their way through anything? Some say that the U.S. Civil War (one of the most brutal for its time) shaped the U.S. character toward war - helping make them a very tough and aggressive people. Slavery lasted slightly longer in Brazil but it was banned with little to no fighting (war). In the United States the South wanted to expand slavery Westward, had they been willing to just keep it in the South the war might never have come about. All-in-all the Emancipation did little for the quality of life of Black-Americans. However, under Reconstruction Black-American's quality of life and opportunities grew. I suppose it's arguable that another route besides war could have ended slavery, and increased Black-American's quality of life, but that is subject to many variables.

Vendaval -> RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (3/24/2009 1:16:46 PM)
Fast Reply - I found a great resource for this debate, a Web-site with a map of the U.S. at the start of the Civil War. The dates of Northern states becoming abolitionist are included along with Law Summaries, historical essays and slave population estimates. Click on the link below to view. "This map depicts the slave and non-slaveholding states at the outbreak of the Civil War, along with the dates when each non-slaveholding state legally ended slavery. In the 1850s, the issue of slavery's spread into the western territories divided the nation politically and spawned new political parties, including the Republican Party--which was dedicated to the non-expansion of slavery westward. Southern whites bitterly contested the threat to slavery posed by northern "free soil" politicians, abolitionists, and militant anti-slavery advocates, such as John Brown. Much was at stake for whites and blacks in the nation in 1860, including the very future of slavery itself. Southern whites feared the outbreak of slave rebellions, and almost everyone in the nation talked seriously about the possibility of a civil war between the North and the South." http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/geography/slavery_abolition_us.htm

slvemike4u -> RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (3/24/2009 1:28:57 PM)
USPG perhaps Brazil did not need a war to do away with the evil of slavery due to the fact it was not divided sectionally along the lines of free and slave state. The Abolitionist movement in the North never did supply slave holders in the south an answer to one of the most perplexing questions of the day......what comes next? Post abolition most southern states would have some pressing social problems,once removing the chains...what was to become of the newly freed? What would have been their citizenship status?Would these newly freed peoples turn on their former masters?A census taken after freedom was granted would have shown the former taskmasters to now be members of a minority in their own state,something no Virginian,South Carolinian or any other member of the white ruling class could ever have accepted. In effect USPG I don't think it is arguable ,to end slavery war was needed.That are a whole new political solution...which at the time was not on the horizon . ...From Lincoln's second inaugural..... " One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." 3 With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations." 4

pahunkboy -> RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (3/24/2009 3:38:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or The major proponents of the Confederacy did not care all that much about slavery, they saw the actions of the US govt in relation to the economy and money supply as a prelude to what is happening today, as the Founding Fathers would see it. Bingo. This is exactly what is happening today. But ya know Term, people like slavemike wont realize this until 50% of their life savings/value is wiped out. Maybe more. Virgina and South Carolina I thought were the other 2 states. Go to a local city hall meeting. Note the players. Who makes the rules? The affluent of said community. This happens even more on the national scale. Everything is about money. Nothing else. Extracting money out of the masses. If a person thinks that is crazy, then fine. But in 5 years, when your house is not worth the payment on it, and your stock is worth not much compared to food and utilities, and oodles of people around you are in bad shape financially, then hold on to the delusion that everything in life is fair and the deck is not stacked. Keep squandering today's time to deny it all- rather then set a plan into motion to CYA. We today are not the best and the brightest. We are fake, phonies who just happen to be in history at an opportune time. In the course of history we got lucky. That luck has now ended.

slvemike4u -> RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (3/24/2009 3:48:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or The major proponents of the Confederacy did not care all that much about slavery, they saw the actions of the US govt in relation to the economy and money supply as a prelude to what is happening today, as the Founding Fathers would see it. Bingo. This is exactly what is happening today. But ya know Term, people like slavemike wont realize this until 50% of their life savings/value is wiped out. Maybe more. Virgina and South Carolina I thought were the other 2 states. Go to a local city hall meeting. Note the players. Who makes the rules? The affluent of said community. This happens even more on the national scale. Everything is about money. Nothing else. Extracting money out of the masses. If a person thinks that is crazy, then fine. But in 5 years, when your house is not worth the payment on it, and your stock is worth not much compared to food and utilities, and oodles of people around you are in bad shape financially, then hold on to the delusion that everything in life is fair and the deck is not stacked. Keep squandering today's time to deny it all- rather then set a plan into motion to CYA. We today are not the best and the brightest. We are fake, phonies who just happen to be in history at an opportune time. In the course of history we got lucky. That luck has now ended. Pahunkboy damm right I don't get it....and I am not likely to.Your and Term's assertion's in this instance are just plain wrong.By the way,whether you realize it or not any slavery issue by definition was ,in part large part as a matter of fact,about money. Please don't lose any sleep worrying about my ass Pahunk...it is covered well.

maz123 -> RE: Jimmie Carter...slavery would have died a "natural death' (3/26/2009 4:55:37 AM)
Brazil did not need a civil war- but the British threatened the remaining slave nations of south America with a complete economic blockade enforced by the world's largest navy of the time. 'The Rise and Fall of the British Empire' Edward James. James implies that the end of slavery in the US gave the British an implied right to be more pro-active in ending slavery through out the world- it coincided with efforts in the Sudan and Zanzibar.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875