A. Lincoln.

ABSTRUSE said:
That is why I would want you to go to fill in the blanks. I believe it's haunted as well, that land was consecrated in blood there has to be some kind of vibration there.


I'm not really very senstivie, but there is a feel to those hallowed places that defies words to relay it.
 
ABSTRUSE said:
I would like to think they would, don't you?

I know that in general people care about themselves(includes their immedate family) Reality is so for from idealism.
 
Oddly enough, slavery of Indians in California was legalized briefly AFTER the Civil War - you just don't hear about it.

I'd like to think we'd speak out about it, but my cynicism about human nature leads me to doubt.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
Where it still exists, people stand against it snake. But, like many ills, it tends to rare it's head again and again. In the former soviet union trafficing in women is a big money maker for the russian mob. In many african states, it exists.

Erradicating it is like wiping out cock roaches in your home. Even when they are gone, you must remain vigilent, least they return.

I do not believe anyone raised in the west could look the other way if slavery were being practiced in their homeland, but we know it is being practiced elsewhere and we do tend to say not my problem. I'm really not certain your question has an answer.

Could by believe that boat loads of people are shackled and transported across international waters into slavery?
 
BlackSnake said:
Could by believe that boat loads of people are shackled and transported across international waters into slavery?

It depends on your definition of slavery. A lot of Chinese smuggled into the country arrive as virtual slaves. Oweing the cartels that got them here the lions share of their earnings for years to come.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
I'm not really very senstivie, but there is a feel to those hallowed places that defies words to relay it.
Well start pumping what meds you need and pick me up when the weather gets warmer...we're going to Gettysburg!!
 
cloudy said:
Oddly enough, slavery of Indians in California was legalized briefly AFTER the Civil War - you just don't hear about it.

I'd like to think we'd speak out about it, but my cynicism about human nature leads me to doubt.

It make me feel bad about myself. When you know about what happens, not in some far away countries, but places where Americans vacation for weekend outings.

"The proclamation did not reflect Lincoln's desired solution for the slavery problem. He continued to favor gradual emancipation, to be undertaken voluntarily by the states, with federal compensation to slaveholders, a plan he considered eminently just in view of the common responsibility of North and South for the existence of slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation was chiefly a declaration of policy, which, it was hoped, would serve as an opening wedge in depleting the South's great manpower reserve in slaves and, equally important, would enhance the Union cause in the eyes of Europeans, especially the British."
 
BlackSnake said:
I know that in general people care about themselves(includes their immedate family) Reality is so for from idealism.
I think people are good in general and if given the truth will see to rectifying it.
 
BlackSnake said:
It make me feel bad about myself. When you know about what happens, not in some far away countries, but places where Americans vacation for weekend outings.

"The proclamation did not reflect Lincoln's desired solution for the slavery problem. He continued to favor gradual emancipation, to be undertaken voluntarily by the states, with federal compensation to slaveholders, a plan he considered eminently just in view of the common responsibility of North and South for the existence of slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation was chiefly a declaration of policy, which, it was hoped, would serve as an opening wedge in depleting the South's great manpower reserve in slaves and, equally important, would enhance the Union cause in the eyes of Europeans, especially the British."


At the time it was issued, it ws purely a PR move. Something like France outlawing SUV's in California. They can pass the law, but they have no authority to try and enforce it. Lincoln only abolished slavery in states in rebelllion against the union. Had he tried it in all states, the likelyhood is that the border states would have succeeded. And if they had, DC would have been surrounded by hostile powers.

AS it was, the border states remained in the union camp and the lot of slaves wasn't changed, except in area's wehre federal authority had already been resotred within the Confederacy.
 
ABSTRUSE said:
I think people are good in general and if given the truth will see to rectifying it.

I'd like to agree, but ...

Could you believe this: "At this moment, millions of men, women, and children—roughly twice the population of Rhode Island—are being held against their will as modern-day slaves."
 
BlackSnake said:
I'd like to agree, but ...

Could you believe this: "At this moment, millions of men, women, and children—roughly twice the population of Rhode Island—are being held against their will as modern-day slaves."
I beleive it especially after reading what Mat had posted in her links and the knowledge that most goods are made through slave labor.
 
ABSTRUSE said:
I beleive it especially after reading what Mat had posted in her links and the knowledge that most goods are made through slave labor.


If you just google 'Slavery in the 21st Century', you'll be amazed at the stuff that comes up. I simply posted the first two on the list.
 
matriarch said:
If you just google 'Slavery in the 21st Century', you'll be amazed at the stuff that comes up. I simply posted the first two on the list.
So if you look at it this way, we few here have already taken the first steps by bring this knowledge to light. The more people read about the chances are that the word can be spread and people will react to it.
As the one article stated it is cost efficient to do, we spend more on a battleship than on saving people from their personal right to be free.
 
ABSTRUSE said:
So if you look at it this way, we few here have already taken the first steps by bring this knowledge to light. The more people read about the chances are that the word can be spread and people will react to it.
As the one article stated it is cost efficient to do, we spend more on a battleship than on saving people from their personal right to be free.


Governments will ALWAYS spend more on armaments to defend a country from perceived external threats from other armies, than on any other category in their budget.

Freedom has to wait in line.
 
You'd have to agree that it would take Moses to make it right. When you tell Farao to let my people go, where will you lead them?
 
ABSTRUSE said:
So if you look at it this way, we few here have already taken the first steps by bring this knowledge to light. The more people read about the chances are that the word can be spread and people will react to it.
As the one article stated it is cost efficient to do, we spend more on a battleship than on saving people from their personal right to be free.


Nobody has battleships anymore. The last, the Missouri, was decomissioned during Clinton's administration.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
The US civil war is perhaps unique in history, in that the loosers wrote most of the history books on it.
I'll buy that some of the books were written by the losers, but I think the primary story has been set by writers from the North.

It wasn't until I moved to a Southern state after a Northern upbringing that I started to hear the other side.

For example, I heard one speaker, an articulate apparently educated re-creator speak claim it was Northern historians who established the idea after the war, that the war was about ending slavery. To the South, he claimed, the conflict was about the right to secede from the Union if they so chose.

He contended that Robert E. Lee was never prosecuted for treason, as was apparently considered, by the North because the powers to be were not sure that Virginia could convict or the US Supreme Court would uphold the conviction if it occured.

Turns out, the US Constitition does not say if a state can or cannot secede from the Union. It does not address the matter.

Therefore if the matter made it to court, the court would have to look at prior law. The Articles of Confederation specifically said States could secede.

Further, the US Constitution was a result of a gathering charged with updating the Articles of Confederation. Attendees took it upon themselves to throw it out and come up with the US Constitution.

Thus, a court case might not only decide that secession was legal, but that forcing the seceding states back into the union by force was illegal, and indeed the entire US Constitiution was not valid!

These were the ideas I heard one afternoon, and I keep meaning to read up on.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
Nobody has battleships anymore. The last, the Missouri, was decomissioned during Clinton's administration.

The last two U.S. battleships -- the USS Iowa and the USS Wisconsin -- have been decommissioned and reactivated several times in their 60-year history. The last ship to fire its guns in support of U.S. troops ashore was the USS Wisconsin in 1991.
 
matriarch said:
Governments will ALWAYS spend more on armaments to defend a country from perceived external threats from other armies, than on any other category in their budget.

Freedom has to wait in line.


If you cannot defend yourself or your fredoms, then how do you hope to allow others to have them? It's a circular argument Mats. nations build up military might to defend themselves. If you have no ability to defend yourself, then you have absolutely no ability to project force. If you cannot project force, then you have no ability to influence those nations where it exists to modify their behavior.

If none had the military might, Saddam hussien would still own Kuwait.

At bottom, their freedom came down to other nations seeing them abused and using their military might to free them.

I think equatinging a cause to it's costs in military terms is facetious. For the cost of <insert piece of ordiance> you could do this, is pretty much political subtrafuge.

If we gave people who make such claims the cost of a B-1 bomber in cash and put no stricture on how they spent it, i'm willing to bet it would do nothing more than create the need to spend more. Much like McArthur claiming he could win the war in six months if given control over the military assets he enumerated. When given, he progressed no faster than Nimitz in the Central pacific and only increased his demands to accomplish the goal.
 
BlackSnake said:
The last two U.S. battleships -- the USS Iowa and the USS Wisconsin -- have been decommissioned and reactivated several times in their 60-year history. The last ship to fire its guns in support of U.S. troops ashore was the USS Wisconsin in 1991.


New Jersey. Four Iowa class batleships were built. And through their service life they have, combined, seen service in four major conflicts, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf. Clinton decommissione dthem a final time. Missouri is now a national monument at Pearl Harbor.

IIRC New Jersey, Iowa and Wisconsin are mothballed again. Not sure. I do hope they haven't been sent to the breaker's yard. i don't think there has ever been a more beautiful or elegant class of warships ever desinged.
 
Colleen Thomas said:
Nobody has battleships anymore. The last, the Missouri, was decomissioned during Clinton's administration.
Well now I feel stupid...thanks alot.......*running away sobbing*..wahhhhhhhhh
 
H. Miller on 15 Jan 06 posted after authorities discovered the horror "Slavery in Portland" ..men are trafficked into Oregon and then held as slaves...
 
Back
Top