What Would Lincoln Say?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
63

[quote]pushharder wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

Eh. I disagree. Massive disparity between the poor and the rich, people starving in the ghettos in cities, no fair wages, no unions, no women’s suffrage, no racial equality… sounds like fun if you’re a rich white male, but not much for anyone else.

Sounds like the rest of Europe back then, actually.

Btw, the things you mentioned were not unique to the American experiment. Like you said they were common to Europe as well.

I believe “the good” in those things you mentioned would have found their way into American society without a leviathan federal government sweeping it’s angry tail around.

For instance, despite Southern plantation owners’ desire to maintain slavery it would’ve collapsed soon under it’s own economic weight or so the theory goes.
[/quote]

“So the theory goes” is not a valid foundation when that system is enslaving humans. It could have taken another two generations for that system to die out (assuming it would). That’s how many millions of blacks affected and further humiliated and denigrated.

And that would be a further abomination, a deepening of the wound already so prominent in our country’s past. I don’t agree.

I depend on capitalism to make money, not to fix societal ills. Why? Because the essence of capitalism is driven by greed. While that’s a good thing (because I really don’t care what drives people, as long as it drives them) it does not lend itself to fixing social problems, especially social problems that get in the way of making more money.

It must have a counterweight, and the government is that.

Who wants the government in every facet? I don’t. I’m pro NRA, pro-abortion, pro-suicide, pro drug, and for the most part, anti-law. I don’t wear my seatbelt, I hate the smoking in bars was banned, and I think laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets are insane. I don’t want a utopia, because utopias are fucking boring, and I don’t expect everyone to ever have a fair shot at anything- that’s life.

And my entire life, and career, revolves around politics. Nobody knows how Federal mandates can fuck shit up like I do. Even mandates that come from Trenton are, for the most part, retarded.

But there’s no way in hell that I’m ever going to be against working welfare. I’m not going to believe that military spending needs to be the most important thing in the budget, I don’t think that taxes are useless, and I don’t eat up the bullshit propaganda that the American government hands out like candy. I’m pro-union, pro worker, and I think that the rich will rip you off and rape you in a second (which they just have with the last bailout package).

So, more or less, someone is going to control you. It’s either going to be big corporations or a bigass government. So I would rather have the elected government reppin me then the alternative.

Your rights are stripped far more by things like the Patriot Act than they ever will be by a Democrat.

64

And by the way, if you look closely at your politics, you’ll see that honestly your state fucks things up way more than Washington does.

Mandates coming out of state capitals are absolutely asinine, and have much greater effect on your towns and your local situation then Federal mandates do. I wish more people realized this… state’s shouldn’t be able to legislate shit. Municipalities should have far, far more rights than they do right now to legislate themselves.

Obviously this isn’t for things like abortion and gay marriage, but it is very relevant for issues that are actually… you know, important, like education, infrastructure, property taxes, etc.

65

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Otep wrote:
pushharder wrote:

She might have asked the question of Lincoln, “If emancipation of the slaves were such a critical issue (and it was) why didn’t the federal government make a grand offer to buy all of them and set them free?”

Because they couldn’t afford to.

I’m using pretty round numbers here, but from what the internet tells me, there were a little over 4 million slaves in the US in 1860 (census). Average market price a few years before the Civil war was a little less than $1700 per slave.

Doing the math, that puts claiming Eminent Domain at about $6.8 billion when the GDP of America was about $4.3 billion.

I’ve heard a figure of $1,000 for the market cost of the average slave.

What was the cost of the Civil War?[/quote]

the dispution in the costs of a slave probably have to do with the variety of slaves purchasable. Slaves being people, some are old and would fetch a lower price than one in the prime of his life. Even accepting a rough figure of $1k, you end up with a total cost of compensation higher than America’s GDP.

It might not have been that bad of an idea though.

From what I can find, both sides combined spent a total of $3.3 billion in federal outlays for the war and incurred over $6 billion in combined outlays and property damage.

This does not include the emotional costs of people actually dying.

Huh. Food for thought.

66

Much better world today, all the slaves are overseas, working in sweatshops for virtually nothing, sending goods to USA that USA hasn’t paid for with its massive foreign debt.

Lincoln was not anti slavery. He said in his election campaign he had no intention of destroying slavery in the south - the entire economy of the south depending on slavery. LINCOLN WAS NEVER ANTI SLAVERY. He was just another politician.

The whole anti-slavery bullshit is used to moralise a vicous war on your own people.

And slavery wasn’t abolished - just moved offshore. Pure slavery today is bigger than it ever was back then. Pure slavery, where people are slaves/sex slaves. Then on top of that, you have the “slavery” of inequality of working conditions in other countries that provide your goods.

Hardly anyone cares about reality, they’d rather moralise and self-promote and fabricate history and fabricate current events.

67

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
pushharder wrote:

Your rights are stripped far more by things like the Patriot Act than they ever will be by a Democrat.
[/quote]

How many Democrat Senators voted against the Patriot Act? One, was it?

Well, then I anticipate that the Obama Administration will implement a speedy and complete restoration of all of the rights stripped by the Patriot Act, and a relinquishment of all of the executive powers unconstitutionally seized by his predecessor.

Actually, I don’t anticipate it at all. Do you?

68

Black slaves in Georgia, 1941.

[quote]Magarhe wrote:
Much better world today, all the slaves are overseas, working in sweatshops for virtually nothing, sending goods to USA that USA hasn’t paid for with its massive foreign debt.
[/quote]

Alas, it just isn’t so.

The 13th Amendment reads:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

That “except” precedes a very important clause. Convicts are de facto slaves.

The United States imprisons more black people than any other country in the world. Including South Africa during the bad old days of Apartheid.

Indeed, there were more black men in prison in the United States in 2005 (1,300,020) than the total number of male black slaves in this country in 1840 (1,244,384).

So in a sense, the institution of black slavery in the United States was transformed rather than abolished, with ownership of the slaves passing from wealthy individuals to state and federal judiciaries.

69

[quote]Otep wrote:

From what I can find, both sides combined spent a total of $3.3 billion in federal outlays for the war and incurred over $6 billion in combined outlays and property damage.

This does not include the emotional costs of people actually dying.[/quote]

Nor does it include the cost of impoverishing and politically ruining the South, of stripping some of its best people (General Robert Lee among them) of their citizenship, and of destroying the myth of self-determination of the States, upon which the Union was founded, and which Lincoln himself loftily referenced in his first inaugural address:

[i]"Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection.

"It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, 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.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.

"I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended.

While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it.

"I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse.

"I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution–which amendment, however, I have not seen–has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service.

“To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”[/i]

Lincoln gave this address on March 4, 1861. Fort Sumter was captured by the Confederacy a little more than one month later.

How different this country would be today if the amendment Lincoln referred to (which would have been essentially a reaffirmation and fortification of the 10th amendment’s guarantee that the powers not delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution would be reserved to the States, or to the people) had actually been ratified before hostilities commenced.

It might not have prevented the Civil War, but it might have placed one more obstacle between the Federal Government and its goal of becoming the intrusive and dictatorial leviathan we all know and love today.

71

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Black slaves in Georgia, 1941.

Magarhe wrote:
Much better world today, all the slaves are overseas, working in sweatshops for virtually nothing, sending goods to USA that USA hasn’t paid for with its massive foreign debt.

Alas, it just isn’t so.

The 13th Amendment reads:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

That “except” precedes a very important clause. Convicts are de facto slaves.

The United States imprisons more black people than any other country in the world. Including South Africa during the bad old days of Apartheid.

Indeed, there were more black men in prison in the United States in 2005 (1,300,020) than the total number of male black slaves in this country in 1840 (1,244,384).

So in a sense, the institution of black slavery in the United States was transformed rather than abolished, with ownership of the slaves passing from wealthy individuals to state and federal judiciaries.[/quote]

So, in your estimation, all 1.3 million are/were innocent? Just slaves shoved in a pen at taxpayer expense? And the US benefits how from their enslavement?

73

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:

So, in your estimation, all 1.3 million are/were innocent?

[/quote]

Their “guilt” or “innocence” is irrelevant. Likely a good number of the West Africans packed onto slave ships in the 19th were “guilty” of something, like of being on the losing side in a bush war, or being a member of the wrong tribe, or of being in the wrong place at the wrong time when the slave traders showed up.

Similarly, a good number of people behind bars today are there for relatively minor parole violations, nonviolent or victimless “crimes,” or as a result of draconian “three strikes” laws in force in 13 states.

Yes. Shoved into a pen at taxpayer expense. We’re all slave owners, by that reckoning.

It benefits in the same way every slave owner has ever benefited from the ownership of slaves: it is tremendously profitable.

Federal Prison Industries Inc. is a wholly owned government corporation that produces goods and services from the labor of inmates, i.e. slave labor.

FPI now produces all military helmets, ammunition belts, bullet-proof vests, ID tags, shirts, pants, tents, bags, and canteens. Along with war supplies, prison workers supply 98% of the entire market for equipment assembly services; 93% of paints and paintbrushes; 92% of stove assembly; 46% of body armor; 36% of home appliances; 30% of headphones/microphones/speakers; and 21% of office furniture.

FPI’s net sales in 2008 were 854 million dollars. It pays its “employees” anywhere between 21 cents and a dollar an hour.

74

[quote]pushharder wrote:
White slaves in Georgia, 1994.[/quote]

Masterfully done, sir.

76

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:

So, in your estimation, all 1.3 million are/were innocent?

Their “guilt” or “innocence” is irrelevant. Likely a good number of the West Africans packed onto slave ships in the 19th were “guilty” of something, like of being on the losing side in a bush war, or being a member of the wrong tribe, or of being in the wrong place at the wrong time when the slave traders showed up.

Similarly, a good number of people behind bars today are there for relatively minor parole violations, nonviolent or victimless “crimes,” or as a result of draconian “three strikes” laws in force in 13 states.

Just slaves shoved in a pen at taxpayer expense?

Yes. Shoved into a pen at taxpayer expense. We’re all slave owners, by that reckoning.

And the US benefits how from their enslavement?

It benefits in the same way every slave owner has ever benefited from the ownership of slaves: it is tremendously profitable.

Federal Prison Industries Inc. is a wholly owned government corporation that produces goods and services from the labor of inmates, i.e. slave labor.

FPI now produces all military helmets, ammunition belts, bullet-proof vests, ID tags, shirts, pants, tents, bags, and canteens. Along with war supplies, prison workers supply 98% of the entire market for equipment assembly services; 93% of paints and paintbrushes; 92% of stove assembly; 46% of body armor; 36% of home appliances; 30% of headphones/microphones/speakers; and 21% of office furniture.

FPI’s net sales in 2008 were 854 million dollars. It pays its “employees” anywhere between 21 cents and a dollar an hour. [/quote]

Wow. We just go out and round up blacks so that we can make war upon a peaceful world! The police, defense attorneys, judges, congress, courts…they’re all in on it! Brilliant!

It can’t be as simple as the fact that these people actually commit crimes! Well…the white one’s do. The black one’s? Well…they’re just slaves. Locked up to make guns for the murderous Uncle Sam!

77

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:

So, in your estimation, all 1.3 million are/were innocent?

Their “guilt” or “innocence” is irrelevant. Likely a good number of the West Africans packed onto slave ships in the 19th were “guilty” of something, like of being on the losing side in a bush war, or being a member of the wrong tribe, or of being in the wrong place at the wrong time when the slave traders showed up.

Similarly, a good number of people behind bars today are there for relatively minor parole violations, nonviolent or victimless “crimes,” or as a result of draconian “three strikes” laws in force in 13 states.

Just slaves shoved in a pen at taxpayer expense?

Yes. Shoved into a pen at taxpayer expense. We’re all slave owners, by that reckoning.

And the US benefits how from their enslavement?

It benefits in the same way every slave owner has ever benefited from the ownership of slaves: it is tremendously profitable.

Federal Prison Industries Inc. is a wholly owned government corporation that produces goods and services from the labor of inmates, i.e. slave labor.

FPI now produces all military helmets, ammunition belts, bullet-proof vests, ID tags, shirts, pants, tents, bags, and canteens. Along with war supplies, prison workers supply 98% of the entire market for equipment assembly services; 93% of paints and paintbrushes; 92% of stove assembly; 46% of body armor; 36% of home appliances; 30% of headphones/microphones/speakers; and 21% of office furniture.

FPI’s net sales in 2008 were 854 million dollars. It pays its “employees” anywhere between 21 cents and a dollar an hour. [/quote]

Ok, but no matter what then, we’re slave owners. Unless we do away with imprisonment.

78

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
pushharder wrote:
White slaves in Georgia, 1994.

Masterfully done, sir.

I knew you and maybe only you would appreciate it.[/quote]

I did indeed. And just in case anyone out there has had an education so deficient as to induce them to ask “what do you mean, the institution of white slavery?” here is a little perspective.

In 1855, Frederic Law Olmsted, the landscape architect who designed New York’s Central Park, was in Alabama on a pleasure trip and saw bales of cotton being thrown from a considerable height into a cargo ship’s hold. The men tossing the bales somewhat recklessly into the hold were Negroes, the men in the hold were Irish.

Olmsted inquired about this to a shipworker. “Oh,” said the worker, “the niggers are worth too much to be risked here; if the Paddies are knocked overboard or get their backs broke, nobody loses anything.”

Before British slavers traveled to Africa’s western coast to buy Black slaves from African chieftains, they sold their own White working class kindred (“the surplus poor” as they were known) from the streets and towns of England, into slavery. Tens of thousands of these White slaves were kidnapped children.

In fact the very origin of the word kidnapped is kid-nabbed, the stealing of white children for enslavement (recall that David Balfour, protagonist of Robert Louis Stevenson’s novel Kidnapped, is a white “kid” who is “nabbed” and put onto a ship for transport to America, to work as a slave.)

According to the English Dictionary of the Underworld, under the heading kidnapper is the following definition: “A stealer of human beings, esp. of children; originally for exportation to the plantations of North America.”

The center of the trade in child-slaves was in the port cities of Britain and Scotland:

“Press gangs in the hire of local merchants roamed the streets, seizing ‘by force such boys as seemed proper subjects for the slave trade.’ Children were driven in flocks through the town and confined for shipment in barns…So flagrant was the practice that people in the countryside about Aberdeen avoided bringing children into the city for fear they might be stolen; and so widespread was the collusion of merchants, shippers, suppliers and even magistrates that the man who exposed it was forced to recant and run out of town.” (Van der Zee, Bound Over, p. 210).

White slaves transported to the colonies suffered a staggering loss of life in the 17th and 18th century. During the voyage to America it was customary to keep the white slaves below deck for the entire nine to twelve week journey. A white slave would be confined to a hole not more than sixteen feet long, chained with 50 other men to a board, with padlocked collars around their necks. The weeks of confinement below deck in the ship’s stifling hold often resulted in outbreaks of contagious disease which would sweep through the “cargo” of White “freight” chained in the bowels of the ship.

Ships carrying white slaves to America often lost half their slaves to death. According to historian Sharon V. Salinger, “Scattered data reveal that the mortality for [White] servants at certain times equaled that for [black] slaves in the ‘middle passage,’ and during other periods actually exceeded the death rate for [black] slaves.” Salinger reports a death rate of ten to twenty percent over the entire 18th century for black slaves on board ships enroute to America compared with a death rate of 25% for white slaves enroute to America.

I wonder when the Irish and Scottish will demand their reparations.

79

[quote]ProwlCat wrote:

Wow. We just go out and round up blacks so that we can make war upon a peaceful world! The police, defense attorneys, judges, congress, courts…they’re all in on it! Brilliant!

It can’t be as simple as the fact that these people actually commit crimes! Well…the white one’s do. The black one’s? Well…they’re just slaves. Locked up to make guns for the murderous Uncle Sam![/quote]

Pardon me for saying so, but you strike me as a rather silly person.

I direct your attention to what I actually wrote, particularly this passage:

Similarly, a good number of people behind bars today are there for relatively minor parole violations, nonviolent or victimless “crimes,” or as a result of draconian “three strikes” laws in force in 13 states.

No mention about anyone “rounding up blacks.”

No mention about “making war on a peaceful world.”

No mention of a conspiracy of police, judges, attorneys et al.

No mention of black people locked up without having committed crimes.

No mention of anyone “making guns for a murderous Uncle Sam.”

In short, I neither said nor implied anything contained in your sarcastic little quote above.

80

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
ProwlCat wrote:

Wow. We just go out and round up blacks so that we can make war upon a peaceful world! The police, defense attorneys, judges, congress, courts…they’re all in on it! Brilliant!

It can’t be as simple as the fact that these people actually commit crimes! Well…the white one’s do. The black one’s? Well…they’re just slaves. Locked up to make guns for the murderous Uncle Sam!

Pardon me for saying so, but you strike me as a rather silly person.

I direct your attention to what I actually wrote, particularly this passage:

Similarly, a good number of people behind bars today are there for relatively minor parole violations, nonviolent or victimless “crimes,” or as a result of draconian “three strikes” laws in force in 13 states.

No mention about anyone “rounding up blacks.”

No mention about “making war on a peaceful world.”

No mention of a conspiracy of police, judges, attorneys et al.

No mention of black people locked up without having committed crimes.

No mention of anyone “making guns for a murderous Uncle Sam.”

In short, I neither said nor implied anything contained in your sarcastic little quote above.[/quote]

Uh, yeah. I’m silly. Have you considered that you actually have a mental problem?