jlf1961
Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML
It took Germany only about 20 years to wipe away their sense of identity as the fascist race. The Southern states have been desperately clinging to their identity as traitors for 150 years. It's Lincoln's fault. He should have hung the bastards.
May I point out something?
How long is the US going to cling to its history of wiping out the American Indians? Of breaking every treaty they ever made with the American Indians?
Look, forced slavery is the most abhorrent institution on the planet.
Every attempt to end slavery prior to the civil war was either stopped by congressmen from the north, or by southerners who saw their wealth going down the toilet.
Hell, the southern plantation owners saw the flaw in slavery almost from the beginning, loans were made (even by northern banks) with the slaves as collateral for the loans, not the land, not the potential crop, not the facilities on the plantations, but the slaves.
Even when opposed to the institution, the banks in the north would loan money to southern plantation owners using slaves as collateral, and when the loans could not be paid, did those northern bankers take the slaves and free them?
No, they took the slaves and sold them to repay the damn loan.
Boston shipping companies would sail their ships out of Boston harbor, call on ports on the African Ivory coast, sell goods, buy slaves and then sail those slaves to the West Indies, sell the slaves to buy rum then sail to southern states ports, sell rum, buy cotton and sail that back to the ports in the north.
This continued even after the civil war, the US navy was running down American flagged vessels, impounding the ships with slaves as cargo.
When the ports opened to American flagged ships in India, China, and the rest of the far east, American ships sailed from northern ports, and picked up loads of indentured individuals and either sailed them to Africa or to the west coast to build the transcontinental railroad.
Of course, this was fine since the indentured Chinese and Indians were working off their passage... at 4 cents a day minus whatever they were forced to buy at company stores.
But they were paid 10 cents a day for their work.
Former slaves working on the Union Pacific railroad were paid for their work, at less than a quarter of what white workers were paid.
But they were paid.
Share croppers in both the north and south did all the work and got a part of the harvest for themselves, and got what was left after they paid for the seed, the food they ate while working the farm, the clothes they had to buy....
But they were paid something.
My point is that even though the North opposed slavery, even after the war they did not keep the promises they made to the freed slaves. Hell, black troops in the Union army were not paid the same as white troops, were poorly equipped as compared to white troops, because they were black.
After the war, the famed buffalo soldiers, all black regiments fighting the indians in the southwest were put in the worst posts. Barracks with no heat, supplied with meat and food that was little better than what the US government was giving the indians on the reservations.
Oh yes, the north fought to end slavery, but did nothing to help the people freed.
But the south are the evil ones.
Was it any less racist for the US government to put indians on land that no white farmer or rancher wanted because it was worthless? Until gold was found, or something else the government wanted, then they stole that land forcing indians to even worse locations.
Vincent, the generals who fought for the south not only lost everything they had, but they lost their rights as American citizens for the most part. Robert E. Lee lost his home because it was turned into a cemetery for union soldiers.
Over ninety percent of the soldiers in the confederate army never owned a slave, owned farms on land no one else wanted, and were drafted to fight a war for the rich land owners.
These people wanting to tear down the statues also want to tear down the memorials to those men as well. They didnt fight for slavery, they fought for their homes or they were drafted, and fought cause they had no choice.
Of my entire family from North Carolina, only one fought for the south, and he was full blood Cherokee. He fought for the south because he saw American troops force his family from their homes after many of them fought for President Jackson against the Creek indians. He watched his mother, father and three siblings die along the trail of tears.
He was captured by Union troops and hung for taking scalps of union troops he killed.
Some of the other family members were part of a group that rode into Marshal NC to steal flour, salt and other staples the Confederate regional commander would not allow them to have since they refused to fight for the south. When a bunch were captured after that raid, it resulted in the Shelton Laural massacre.
My point is that some of these honored heroes fought for the south for reasons that had nothing to do with slavery. Creeks and Cherokees formed units in the Confederate army as way to get revenge for the trail of tears.
And even those statues are on the chopping block.
The simple fact is that the US has a history of racial injustice that continued after the civil war, and not a single one of these people who want to take down the statues of southern generals wants to admit that.
It is the epitome of American Hypocrisy.
But it is all okay, since the stars and stripes, won.
_____________________________
Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?
You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.
Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI
|
RE: Okay, if statues of southern gererals are promoting... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread