Why would it be surprising? Blacks are human too. A black man, James Lewis, who was a prominent member of the New Orleans community was among the leaders of the lynch mob. He was one of the signers of a letter that threatened the Italian community with extrajudicial violence (lynching).
Is there a difference?
No, it focuses on the North’s belief in the potential for individuals to achieve economic self-sufficiency through free labor and the impact that introducing slave labor could have on this economic ideology. The concern is centered around the disruption of economic opportunities and the benefits to those with existing means. The emphasis here is on how slavery would directly influence economic prospects.
Unless it is your burner account, you have no idea. I am going by what he wrote, which was false. End of story. He implied White Americans so, there is no point in bringing up the rest of the world.
As to the rest, you are proving my point.
So, why would they have fought or sacrificed their lives to end slavery? Unless those in power promised them personal/financial gain, while also convincing them that slavery would affect their own lives. Sound familiar?
The Northern elites did not care; their priority was maintaining power and increasing wealth. This was achieved through producing military supplies, weapons, transportation and railroads, banking, etc.
The South faced a similar situation. People believe it was solely wealthy plantation owners, but in reality, most did not own slaves. Just a bunch of people being lied to.
It is the same game over and over.
That sounds philosophical and moral.
Is that more important than the fact they did? I mean, why the need to diminish their sacrifice by saying it was self serving?
These were not mercenaries but citizens. You believe that they were incapable of acting out of morality but were able to understand the economic argument you present? Were all of those young men majoring in economics? The fact is, they came from states that had already abolished slavery. That happened because they found it morally reprehensible and against the ideals that the nation claimed it stood for. They fought in the Civil War to get land and money? Those that lived went back home.
It was a hate crime on black people committed by a white man.
How is that title divisive?
It does touch on some philosophical elements, intertwined with economic and practical concerns but, not moral.
You may believe it does. I don’t.
Why would I be against someone deciding to fight to provide a better life for themselves and/or their family?
I know many people in the Military who did just that. They did not join to “protect our freedoms.” Some do and that is fine but, many join for the benefits.
Again, I did not say all of them.
Do people of today understand economics when they are told immigrants our “taking their jobs” and all other talking points they blame for their lack of upward mobility? They are sold a story and they believe it.
Again, they were promised bounties, wages, veterans’ benefits, land grants, and job opportunities after the war. The land was not all hundreds of miles West.
Only because color gets redacted from almost every crime article except for when a white man kills a black man.
This time I agree it’s a complete hate crime and thus I don’t really have a problem with they way it’s reported. It seems pretty factual. The guy was a real scum bag and now we give the Libs another so called poster child.
I know many who didn’t, including myself. My grandfather left college, along with many classmates, to join the military during WW2. He didn’t need any benefits as he was already attending a prestigious university and was planning on returning to finish his education after the war. The GI Bill did not exist when he joined. He joined to serve his nation.
Wages? Like what they we’re already getting from their jobs? Veteran’s benefits? Sure they could get a pension of a few dollars a month but you needed to lose a limb or your sense of sight or something. Land grants? The Homestead Act was not limited to veterans.
He’s referring to the capitalization of the B in black. How does the author know they were Black and not black?
But not opressors.
Only white people lynch. That’s the rule. I thought that was common knowlege.
Yes.
Wheter it’s sports, sex, or lynching, I reckon there is a difference between active participants and mere spectators.
According to a letter by Walter Stone Poor, a Union soldier from Maine, his reason for fighting for the Union in the war was to end slavery, a cause he stated he would gladly give his life for:
What a splendid cause is this on which we are engaged. I think it is the grandest that ever enlisted the sympathies of man. Nobler even than the Revolution for they fought for their freedom while we fight for that of another race. I firmly believe that the doom of slavery is fixed and if it is not wholly rooted out by the present war, measures will be taken to wipe it out forever. If such an event can be consummated by any sacrifice of mine, it shall be cheerfully made. I could die for this as readily as I could lie down to rest at the close of a day of wearisome toil. Men have called this age dull. They can do so no more … War is bad, heaven knows, but slavery is far worse. If the doom of slavery is not sealed by the war, I shall curse the day I entered the Army, or lifted a finger in the preservation of the Union. Of the old Union we have had enough and more than enough.
— Walter Stone Poor, letter to George Fox (May 15, 1861), emphasis added
Just because you and @zecarlo are on the topic, check out Atun Shei’s series “checkmate lincolnites.” It’s good, tons of references and entertaining.
Rwanda?
If you watch a lynching, you probably approve of it.
The lower case w… uppercase B.
Pathetic pandering for one sole purpose… division
Exactly… such loathsome pukes.
They think so lowly of black Americans they hope a big B will make them happy
And? I already acknowledged that some do, and some don’t.
Serving during WW2 is a little different don’t you think. The threat was just a smidge greater. The outcome of World War II would have far-reaching implications for international stability and security.
Also, serving your country has nothing to do with being morally against slavery. It could just be a sense of obligation. Being a part of the Blue team.
Did they all have jobs? Was the workforce booming? Was there not a sense of obligation/pressure?
The Homestead Act was a topic since the 1840s and it was not until 1862 that it was signed into law. I wonder why? Maybe more incentive?
The Northern elites did not care about slavery; their priority was maintaining power and increasing wealth. This was achieved through producing military supplies, weapons, transportation and railroads, banking, etc
“During the war, Congress also passed several major financial bills that forever altered the American monetary system. The Legal Tender Act authorized the federal government to print and use paper money, called “greenbacks,” to pay its bills and finance the war. Even though greenbacks were not backed by similar amounts of gold and silver, creditors were required to accept them at face value. By the end of the war, the government had printed over $500 million in greenbacks, and the American financial system’s strict reliance on transactions in gold or silver ended. The National Bank Act created a national banking system to reduce the number of notes issued by individual banks and create a single federal currency. The Internal Revenue Act eased inflation primarily by placing excise taxes on many luxury items such as tobacco and jewelry. More famously, the first U.S. income tax was imposed in July 1861, at 3 percent of all incomes over $800 up to 10 percent for incomes over $100,000 to help pay for the war effort.”
There is always a reason.
And? There are countless accounts of American soldiers being for a war only to later be completely against it.
Maybe it’s not as simple, and cold, as you would like it to have been.
To continue, how would this be so, if we were actually oppressed in America.
From one of our publications:
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4099803,00.html
From the article. “They make up only 2% of US population, but 25% of 400 wealthiest Americans.”
Black magic, gentile baby’s blood, Baal, Moloch and George Soros, duh.
I mean, culture and how it influenced the way Jews navigated in societies where they were seen as outsiders at best and parasites at worst, couldn’t possibly play a role.
