Ignorance gone to seed

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • RED
    Very Senior Member - OFC
    • Aug 2009
    • 11689

    #1

    Ignorance gone to seed

    Our stooges can make or quote some really ignorant statements and then wave them in front of us.

    The first gun that was fired at Fort Sumter sounded the death-knell of slavery...
    That is a totally false statement by a racist General that also once said:

    Let the law of kindness be your guide. Thus acting, you will soon obtain their (blacks) confidence; you will then find them docile, impressionable, fully imbued with the spirit of subordination.
    That one star General was completely ignoring history.

    During the Revolution, the French abolished slavery in 1794 and again in 1849. The British Empire abolished the slave trade in 1807 and all slavery in 1833. The U.S. outlawed the importation of slaves on 01/01/1808. In 1861 there were 33 States and only 11 of those allowed slavery and seceded. Slavery was on its deathbed LONG before the Civil War.

    The total population of the U.S. in 1860 was 33.4 million. The population of the Confederacy was 5.5 million "free," and 3.5 million enslaved (Civil War Facts - National Park Service). So essentially you had about 23 million people from a rich and industrial region against 5.5 million farmers. Cannons Vs. pitchforks, invading hordes vs people fighting for their homes and livelihoods. Some were rich plantation owners, most were poor dirt farmers trying to defend a few acres and their sod homes and log shacks. In many of the battles the Confederates were out manned, out gunned, and out supplied. In the Battle of Prairie Grove, Arkansas, the confederate infantry were given a handful of parched corn, 4 rounds of ammo for their rifles. They forced marched 50 miles from Fort Smith through the mountains and met the Union Army. The rebels had approximately 14 smooth barreled cannons (range 6-800 yards) against 30 Parrot rifled guns (range 1,200-1600 yards). The outcome was predictable.

    Slavery was an institution that was dying world wide and Fort Sumter had nothing to do with it.
    Last edited by RED; 09-16-2020, 08:45.
  • Roadkingtrax
    Senior Member
    • Feb 2010
    • 7835

    #2
    A piecemeal quote from Red, a liar of no consequence, on this forum, or to this great country, both of which that are denigrated by his very presence.

    Read the entire 1863 statement.
    Last edited by Roadkingtrax; 09-16-2020, 10:26.
    "The first gun that was fired at Fort Sumter sounded the death-knell of slavery. They who fired it were the greatest practical abolitionists this nation has produced." ~BG D. Ullman

    Comment

    • togor
      Banned
      • Nov 2009
      • 17610

      #3
      Slavery in the South was still profitable enough for people to secede over it. And yes there were dreams of expanding southward to Latin America, where some descendants still hold ante-bellum style balls.

      One can point out that the spring planting in 1866 went much as it had for years before, that outlawing slavery did not bring immediate change. But that's no endorsement of slavery, just the reality of life in the region.

      Articles of secession make it clear that preservation of slavery was of primary importance. Otherwise there's no secondary grievance that comes close to causing secession and hostilities. There was regional peer pressure to quit the union and maybe that was enough for Arkansas.

      Comment

      • lyman
        Administrator - OFC
        • Aug 2009
        • 11268

        #4
        slavery was still profitable for the English, Dutch and a country or 2 to still provide transports, despite the fact that it was banned,

        and profitable enough for the tribes in Africa to conquer and enslave each other,

        - - - Updated - - -

        Originally posted by RED

        Slavery was an institution that was dying world wide and Fort Sumter had nothing to do with it.

        it's still in existence, , just a thing no one wants to acknowledge,

        and not talking about here in the US

        Comment

        • Vern Humphrey
          Administrator - OFC
          • Aug 2009
          • 15875

          #5
          Originally posted by lyman
          slavery was still profitable for the English, Dutch and a country or 2 to still provide transports, despite the fact that it was banned,

          and profitable enough for the tribes in Africa to conquer and enslave each other,

          - - - Updated - - -




          it's still in existence, , just a thing no one wants to acknowledge,

          and not talking about here in the US
          There are slaves in the US -- we call it "human trafficking" and some of the leading lights in BLM have indulged in it.

          Comment

          • RED
            Very Senior Member - OFC
            • Aug 2009
            • 11689

            #6
            Originally posted by lyman
            slavery was still profitable for the English, Dutch and a country or 2 to still provide transports, despite the fact that it was banned,

            and profitable enough for the tribes in Africa to conquer and enslave each other,

            - - - Updated - - -




            it's still in existence, , just a thing no one wants to acknowledge,

            and not talking about here in the US
            No... that is a nonsensical statement. There are people in every country violate laws and societal norm. There is no civilized country I know of that has laws on the books that allow slavery. I don't consider some places the world that are ruled by radical muslims and other radical lawless extremists to be "cicilized." Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and most of the "Stans." have instances of slavery that are overlooked but still criminal. Other uncivilized areas exist here too. Minneapolis, Portland, Chicago, LA, NYC, come to mind. They are ruled by outright tyrants that enslave their people by encouraging riots, burnings, violence, and anarchy to the point a real American with a job and car insurance can't walk his dog in the neighborhood without being attacked by violent members of the Stooges religion.
            Last edited by RED; 09-16-2020, 01:56.

            Comment

            • RED
              Very Senior Member - OFC
              • Aug 2009
              • 11689

              #7
              Read the entire 1863 statement.
              Yes do that.

              In that statement general was attempting to get his troops to quit killing each other with what we call "Negligent Discharges." In effect he was begging his officer to treat his troops like children and take measures to be sure they stayed "subordinate."

              https://www.nytimes.com/1863/06/28/a...n-ullmann.html

              HEADQUARTERS, BRIG.-GEN. ULLMANN, NEW-ORLEANS, June 10, 1863.

              GENERAL ORDERS No.7. -- I. The late deplorable accident in the Second U.S.V., occurring from the negligent handling of firearms, admonishes the General Commanding, that it is his duty to issue this order.

              These accidents have been so frequent in the army, that the usual plea of thoughtlessness shall, in this command, no longer avail. No officer or soldier has a right to be ignorant of the danger to others, as well as to himself, of trifling with a loaded weapon. Negligence in such cases is culpability. In the armies of other nations, nearly the same punishment is meted out to him who injures his fellow soldier with a firearm by negligence, as by design. It is just.
              Last edited by RED; 09-16-2020, 01:55.

              Comment

              • lyman
                Administrator - OFC
                • Aug 2009
                • 11268

                #8
                Originally posted by RED
                No... that is a nonsensical statement. There are people in every country violate laws and societal norm. There is no civilized country I know of that has laws on the books that allow slavery. I don't consider some places the world that are ruled by radical muslims and other radical lawless extremists to be "cicilized." Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and most of the "Stans." have instances of slavery that are overlooked but still criminal. Other uncivilized areas exist here too. Minneapolis, Portland, Chicago, LA, NYC, come to mind. They are ruled by outright tyrants that enslave their people by encouraging riots, burnings, violence, and anarchy to the point a real American with a job and car insurance can't walk his dog in the neighborhood without being attacked by violent members of the Stooges religion.
                you mentioned Civilized, not me,

                1st world or 3rd world, it till happens, and in the open,

                what happens here, as Vern mentioned (and likely in other as you say Civilized countries) likely happens there too

                Comment

                Working...