61
   

The Confederacy was About Slavery

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2017 01:21 pm
@InfraBlue,
Oh here we go with the Zionists Rolling Eyes
Foofie
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2017 01:24 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

Just curious...
Is there anyone here who thinks both of these things are true?
1) All things remaining status quo, the free market itself would've eventually phased slavery out of existence, just as a result of changing economic demands?
2) This would've been a preferable outcome to fighting the Civil War and all the accompanying upheaval.


I believe that history, as we read it, or taught it, is many times like the dissimulation we find in the job world. Meaning, bosses might tell employees that the office is moving to another state because the company can hire cheaper employees there, due to salary and fewer benefits, but possibly because office space is now so expensive where they presently are. So, my question is whether the South's emotionalism was a way for the north to fight a war that ended the southern banking system (slaves had mortgages taken on them in the deep south) and during Reconstruction northern banks could expand their territory as the south was resuscitated economically? Sounds far fetched? I believe that real history is all mucked up with dissimulation. Not that it's true, but someone had to eventually benefit from collapsing the southern banking system with the Emancipation Proclamation and ensuring that the war had to be fought until there was total surrender. Perhaps, I'm wrong, but I don't accept everything I read.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2017 01:25 pm
@Foofie,
You may have missed the post where snood admitted his weren't honest questions. He was just looking to sucker the bigots among us to reveal themselves.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2017 01:30 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:

Just curious...
Is there anyone here who thinks both of these things are true?
1) All things remaining status quo, the free market itself would've eventually phased slavery out of existence, just as a result of changing economic demands?
2) This would've been a preferable outcome to fighting the Civil War and all the accompanying upheaval.


I believe that history, as we read it, or taught it, is many times like the dissimulation we find in the job world. Meaning, bosses might not tell employees that the office is moving to another state because the company can hire cheaper employees there, due to salary and fewer benefits, but possibly because office space is now so expensive where they presently are. So, my question is whether the South's emotionalism was a way for the north to fight a war that ended the southern banking system (slaves had mortgages taken on them in the deep south) and during Reconstruction northern banks could expand their territory as the south was resuscitated economically? Sounds far fetched? I believe that real history is all mucked up with dissimulation. Not that it's true, but someone had to eventually benefit from collapsing the southern banking system with the Emancipation Proclamation and ensuring that the war had to be fought until there was total surrender. Perhaps, I'm wrong, but I don't accept everything I read. So, to answer your question, the Civil War might have been a purposeful war for ulterior motives of those we would not even think of. So, the thread might also ask, "was the Civil War just a war to preserve the Union?" As this thread now stands, it seems to be only from the south's perspective.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2017 01:32 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
opinions are useless

look for the facts - you may find it helpful in this, and other, discussions


Wow, the hypocrisy is out of this world!
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2017 01:36 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
It seems that, but for the hotheads, it was an unnecessary war.


The north could have negotiated, even after Ft Sumter. The north was more than happy to gain all the financial benefits of slavery that accrued to them. Lincoln was a racist himself as were most northerners.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2017 01:37 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Oh here we go with the Zionists Rolling Eyes

He is an enabler, though.
Foofie
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2017 01:37 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

Foofie wrote:
I am just concerned about keeping the divisions in this country tamped down...

This concern of yours impels you to opine contrarily to the history of the issue. Deceit merely enables denialism. You're being an enabler--with the Zionists as well.


Your accusation above is not specific. Since I have no involvement with Israel's politics, I have no idea what you are alluding to.
Foofie
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2017 01:39 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Oh here we go with the Zionists Rolling Eyes

He is an enabler, though.


You must be specific, if you want people to believe your accusation.

0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  5  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2017 01:41 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
Your accusation above is not specific. Since I have no involvement with Israel's politics, I have no idea what you are alluding to.

I'm alluding to the Israel/Zionist apologia that you've posted here on A2K.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2017 04:24 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue decides who are execrable human beings and then decides that anyone who might disagree with his estimation is an apologist for said execrable human beings.

It's a neat rhetorical trick.
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2017 04:38 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
And a little odd to boot considering that both the north and the south were fully engaged in a genocide against Native Americans
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2017 04:41 pm
@camlok,
Actually I agree with you on this
camlok
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2017 04:48 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
You are a study, Finn!
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2017 04:50 pm
@camlok,
camlok wrote:

You are a study, Finn!


And not one your sadly restricted mind is bound to fathom.
camlok
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2017 05:08 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
"... in confusion/hypocrisy/dishonesty", I forgot to add.

It's easy to fathom 'cause it's so bloody apparent in most every post.

Your reluctance to engage, when it should be easy for you to surmount such a tiny obstacle, "my sadly restricted mind", is telling.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2017 05:19 pm
@camlok,
Blah, blah blah
camlok
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2017 05:24 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
This is not doing a thing for the new image you are trying to craft, Finn.

All the zeros we were getting were for you agreeing with me. But your "blah blah blah" was well supported by those cowards who run around pushing buttons.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Jun, 2017 11:24 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
"Execrable?" Keep flailing at your straw men. It's all you have.
newmoonnewmoon
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2017 08:48 am
@InfraBlue,
I dont think this conversation being held is about slavery..
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/26/2022 at 07:01:39