The truth on slavery.....

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Vivenne Ray: You'll learn most about slavery with some critical reading. That is hhow most of us learned what we did. They don't exactly have classes on slavery. One thing I've noticed is that just because of race you think that white slavery is less than black slavery. There is no difference. It's called chattel slavery. That means that the slave was literally owned by the owner. They had no rights, no property of their own, and no humanity. A slave existed solely for the benefit of the owner. Now you insert race. I could say that only a racist would acknowledge the one drop rule (one drop of slave blood made you a slave) but why be insulting.
Slaves were brought to the US from Africa by the English, French, Dutch, Portuguese, and Spanish. Most African slaves were sold to Europen slavers by their fellow slaves. A word of note, Obama's family in Africa has been definitely linked to the slave trade but not in a good way. I guess that means no statues of that former president. Anyway, back to the new world. The first African slave was brought to what would be the United States in 1637 by the English in the colony of Virginia. Have to remember that, English law, not US law. That wouldn't exist for another 150 years.
So we had three kinds of slavery in the new world; chattel, voluntary indenturement, and criminal indenturement. Occassionally England, France, and Spain would empty their prisons by sending the inmates (male and female) to the colonies. Criminals would serve out their semtence and be "freed" to fend for themselves in the new world. In many cases a voluntary indentured servant would make some wages so when their term expired they may have some money and a skill but that is entirely up to the owner. An owner could do what they wanted with their servant including beating and rape. It was all good, clean fun right? Here is the difference, an indentured servant was a human being and had some basic rights. An owner who killed a servant would have to answer to some justice. A slave owner could hang every single slave he (or she) owned and no one cared.
Back to that definition of a drop of blood; a grandchild of the original African slave could have been the result of two generations of forced sex by white owners. They could like white and if they escaped could probably pass for white but as long as they are in servitude were stuck being slaves. Thomas Jefferson's wife was the half sister of a slave named Sally Hemmings. The widower Jefferson took up with his slave Sally and had children with her. He took her to France where she served as the lady of the household. Why didn't he free her? He couldn't according to state law. Oh, he could free her but she would still be black according to the law and unable to marry Jefferson. She could not live with Jefferson without marriage in those days so their only option to remain together was as owner and slave. Jefferson was not the only. A future Vice-President of the United States Richard Johnson was married to a woman named Julia Chinn in Kentucky. She was considered to be 1/8th black and that made her black according to the law, like it or not. They had two daughters, both went to the best schools and both were married to men of property.


Other law makers also had odd relationships with women of color because of state law and contemporary beliefs.

Have to go, finish this later. If you have any questions...

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Well that's true a permit gave the Alt-right permission to hold the rally in Charlottesville and the First Amendment allows them free speech. It was expected to be a peaceful rally and it should have been, regardless of anyone's opinion of their cause. Law Enforcement did fail in keeping the situation under control. Leftist groups had no business interfering. I am very hard pressed to lay the blame on one group in this incident. I think all parties involved brought a lot on themselves. Just think this basically happened over a statue. Taking down a statue is suppose to make the country more racially cohesive? Not a chance, it must first come from within.

Jim

The city initially denied the permit, but they filed suit and the Judge ruled that the first amendment apply's equally to everyone in America, and it was unlawful to deny the permit to the people protesting the removal of the statue.
"Judge Grants Injunction, Jason Kessler Can Have Unite the Right Rally at Emancipation Park" http://www.nbc29.com/story/36115819/...ncipation-park

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The "other" group wouldn't have been there if not for the alt-right invasion.

More false equivalency.

the ALT LEFT a.k.a that "other group" shouldn't have been there at all you idiot. they had no permit to do so. they'd show up at an Easter egg hunt if they thought they could get some news footage for the 6 o'clock newscast.


do you condemn the ALT LEFT/ANTIFA/progressive communist/anarchists ?

YES or NO

[goodolboy]

In regards to the Civil war, the fact is the war was NOT started over slavery. The South wanted to govern themselves, not unlike the birth of the United states when they left the Crown, and for many of the same reasons.


https://youtu.be/yXo9tRB4S3E

https://youtu.be/RPOnL-PZeCc

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

In regards to the Civil war, the fact is the war was NOT started over slavery. The South wanted to govern themselves, not unlike the birth of the United states when they left the Crown, and for many of the same reasons.

And not unlike Californians NOW who wish to separate from the U.S.

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

And not unlike Californians NOW who wish to separate from the U.S.

Yes, I keep asking my Liberal friends if they think the US should go to war with CA like they did the south if they were to actually secede. I have yet to get a answer.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

The city initially denied the permit, but they filed suit and the Judge ruled that the first amendment apply's equally to everyone in America, and it was unlawful to deny the permit to the people protesting the removal of the statue.
"Judge Grants Injunction, Jason Kessler Can Have Unite the Right Rally at Emancipation Park" http://www.nbc29.com/story/36115819/...ncipation-park

Well the city should have planned how they were going to accommodate this rally better, knowing the possibility of an opposing group would intervene. Blocking off streets and diverting traffic away from the rally, having a stronger police presence at the start and maintaining order at the least bit of trouble, ect. This rally didn't have to be a clusterfuck. Then leftist want to chastise Trump or anyone else for not using the right wording to condemn what happened. Big ding for America that day.

Jim

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

In regards to the Civil war, the fact is the war was NOT started over slavery. The South wanted to govern themselves, not unlike the birth of the United states when they left the Crown, and for many of the same reasons.


https://youtu.be/yXo9tRB4S3E

https://youtu.be/RPOnL-PZeCc

correct. many in the media want to claim the Civil War was over slavery. what it really was about was State's Rights of self regulation vs. the Federal Government. that slavery was one of those rights being challenged doesn't make the Civil War expressly about slavery, it was about the right of States to allow slavery or not.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

Yes, I keep asking my Liberal friends if they think the US should go to war with CA like they did the south if they were to actually secede. I have yet to get a answer.

That is because it is a dumbass question.

If Cali wants to leave, let them.

Or any other state.

Texas was talking about leaving a few years back.

Let whoever wants to leave out.


Think about it no Texas and no Cali...
.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

correct. many in the media want to claim the Civil War was over slavery. what it really was about was State's Rights of self regulation vs. the Federal Government. that slavery was one of those rights being challenged doesn't make the Civil War expressly about slavery, it was about the right of States to allow slavery or not.

You dumbass fucker!



.

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Well the city should have planned how they were going to accommodate this rally better, knowing the possibility of an opposing group would intervene. Blocking off streets and diverting traffic away from the rally, having a stronger police presence at the start and maintaining order at the least bit of trouble, ect. This rally didn't have to be a clusterfuck. Then leftist want to chastise Trump or anyone else for not using the right wording to condemn what happened. Big ding for America that day.

Jim

IMO, it was a setup to cause chaos. The city revoked the permit before the start time, told the police to stand down, then marched the permitted protesters right through the alt left/Antifa so that fights would break out.

The Antifa is well known for their violence and tactics to start shit with conservatives, as has been well documented through the election. Then the media painted one side as all Nazi's and the Antifa as gentle flower children protesting for peace. The video's and first hand accounts paint a much different picture.

"Leftist "Antifa" protesters stormed a county government building in Minnesota, seized and burned the county flag - then replaced it with an Antifa flag - on Monday." http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-ba...sedAtCountyBld

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by WTF

You dumbass fucker!



.

Can you show a link for a bill in congress to abolish all slavery before the start of the civil war? Surely they would have at least attempted to write a bill and pass a law abolishing slavery before resorting to a bloody civil war.

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by WTF

That is because it is a dumbass question.

If Cali wants to leave, let them.

Or any other state.

Texas was talking about leaving a few years back.

Let whoever wants to leave out.


Think about it no Texas and no Cali...
.

So why did Lincoln go to war with the south when they wanted to leave?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by goodolboy

So why did Lincoln go to war with the south when they wanted to leave?

Beats the fuck out of me...maybe he wanted a Theater named after him!



.

[goodolboy]

Originally Posted by WTF

Beats the fuck out of me...maybe he wanted a Theater named after him!



.

Let me give you a hint. $$


"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.
"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year."


Does this sound like a guy willing to start a war over slavery?