Jackson County, North Carolina, Leaders Vote to Keep Confederate Statue in Sylva — With Changes

[GenemZ]

I don't know about today, but after the war, the South would've kept slavery, no two ways about it.

Of course. Better to divide a nation for instant results? A division that lasted many years after the war and festered a form of bigotry in the south that was the result of the North destroying the prosperity of the South. The North began to treat the South as if it were its slave in many cruel ways. I am from up north. Moved to Georgia about twenty years ago. But after speaking to someone who grew up here and learned of all the nasty things the North did to the South after the war? One injustice cured with major surgery led to another injustice.

In fact, after the war and the emancipation of slaves, Southern States passed anti-vagrancy laws, so that freed black slaves who would not be employed, would be arrested and put on chain gangs working in fields doing the jobs they were suppose to be freed from.

Heck, blacks didn't even get the right to vote in states like Alabama, until the Civil Rights Act was signed by President Johnson in 1964.

There was a deep resentment in the south from the North's mal-treatment and forced imposed changes that destroyed the south for many years. The freed blacks took the brunt of it.

Yeah had the Union lost, slavery would've continued and things would be far different in this country, have no doubt about it

Something I think you need to discover:

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Of course. Better to divide a nation for instant results? A division that lasted many years after the war and festered a form of bigotry in the south that was the result of the North destroying the prosperity of the South. The North began to treat the South as if it were its slave in many cruel ways. I am from up north. Moved to Georgia about twenty years ago. But after speaking to someone who grew up here and learned of all the nasty things the North did to the South after the war? One injustice cured with major surgery led to another injustice.



There was a deep resentment in the south from the North's mal-treatment and forced imposed changes that destroyed the south for many years. The freed blacks took the brunt of it.



Something I think you need to discover:

Yeah I get that the South resented the Union ending of slavery. Heck, it's why Lincoln was shot.

BTW, I've been to Georgia and to Stone Mountain, where the KKK was founded.

 

[GenemZ]

Yeah I get that the South resented the Union ending of slavery. Heck, it's why Lincoln was shot.

BTW, I've been to Georgia and to Stone Mountain, where the KKK was founded.

And? .......

To be forced to free four million slaves in your own back yard was bound to cause great problems for all concerned. It was predictable.

God in His wisdom had the Jews expelled from Egypt after being freed for that reason. Imagine if the Jews were forced to stay in Egypt? That would have caused horrible problems for them long term.

The North should have offered the four million freed slaves safe haven in some northern states if the well-being of the freed slaves were truly their concern.

 

[GenemZ]

And as the article you linked, in conjunction with what the historian Janet Kearns Goodwin has written, Lincoln brought an end to slavery in steps as he knew politically, he couldn't just end it with on an EO. Again, his private writings to his friends, he wrote about how he saw slavery as immoral.

The first sentence in the article you linked:

1. Lincoln wasn’t an abolitionist.
Abraham Lincoln did believe that slavery was morally wrong, but there was one big problem: It was sanctioned by the highest law in the land, the Constitution.

He did believe slavery was morally wrong and he eventually believed that freed slaves could be equal to that of whites, but it was an evolved position of which he arrived at before his death. The article you linked stated;

Obama evolved his position on gays eventually, only after he saw it was in his favor with his voters to do so. His original premise was the correct one.

 

[GenemZ]

Yeah I get that the South resented the Union ending of slavery. Heck, it's why Lincoln was shot.

BTW, I've been to Georgia and to Stone Mountain, where the KKK was founded.

Still waiting for your position after seeing that video you pushed aside...

 

[Albion]

You seriously think we would still have slavery today if the North did not win?

Certainly not. The Confederacy itself was phasing it out and had already banned the African slave trade.

 

[GenemZ]

Certainly not. The Confederacy itself was phasing it out and had already banned the African slave trade.

That was the answer he ran from, and I was looking for. Not sure if it was already banned at that time, but I thought it was being worked towards.

The issue was states rights. Imposing an immediate change did not allow for a graceful change. It just dumped a mess upon the south. Principalities and powers was out to destroy this new threat to their lusted for one world order.

Our states rights began to be crushed by that war. Lincoln unconstitutionally learned how to use federal funds to take control of the states. The state of Indiana's congress wanted to secede. The governor did not want to. So, Lincoln dipped into the federal reserves and kept the governor afloat. Its like what they did later with the imposed 55 mph limit. States were to be denied federal money for their roads if the states did not comply with the dictates of the federal throne. Freedoms we no longer know used to be for our sense of liberty. With freedom comes its own set of problems. That is why certain people want socialism today. For freedom requires and demands personal responsibility.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The issue was states rights. Imposing an immediate change did not allow for a graceful change.

An immediate change? The fight over restricting slavery preceded the founding of the country with numerous "compromises" made between then and the Civil War. British colonies abolished it in the 1830's.

It just dumped a mess upon the south. Principalities and powers was out to destroy this new threat to their lusted for one world order.

Our states rights began to be crushed by that war. Lincoln unconstitutionally learned how to use federal funds to take control of the states.

Boy, those southerners propagandized you real good, didn't they?

 

[GenemZ]

Boy, those southerners propagandized you real good, didn't they?

I study history where I can find it. I got much of that that from a retired US Navy Senior Chief I used to work with. He is very knowledgeable about some of the details. He told me about the trade problems the north imposed upon the south, but I can not remember all the details at this time.

An immediate change? The fight over restricting slavery preceded the founding of the country with numerous "compromises" made between then and the Civil War. British colonies abolished it in the 1830's.

Radical and immediate change. Sure they were floating ideas. Did England face the same upheaval like the USA did? No... Were slave owners penalized in England after the laws were passed? No. It was not forced, nor imposed, upon the British people. They found a graceful way to put an end to it.

Yet, you still have no idea what I spoke about. Look at the likes of Pelosi and Schumer today. We live in a world that has always had fake news to some extent. And, was always attacking systems for liberty and freedom of mankind by finding faults and attacking them, rather than patiently finding solutions to cause the least harm.

 

[Albion]

An immediate change? The fight over restricting slavery preceded the founding of the country with numerous "compromises" made between then and the Civil War.

You are referring mainly to compromises relating to the status of NEW states to be added to the Union, not to significant changes in the laws regarding slavery as they applied to the states already admitted to the Union.

If anything, the attempts to change them (as with the Dredd Scott decision, for example) went the other way.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I study history where I can find it. I got much of that that from a retired US Navy Senior Chief I used to work with. He is very knowledgeable about some of the details. He told me about the trade problems the north imposed upon the south, but I can not remember all the details at this time.

You're citing a buddy of yours? Really?

Radical and immediate change. Sure they were floating ideas. Did England face the same upheaval like the USA did? No... Were slave owners penalized in England after the laws were passed? No. It was not forced, nor imposed, upon the British people. They found a graceful way to put an end to it.

What are you talking about? Yes, it was forced on the British people.
Slave Trade Act 1807 - Wikipedia
Slavery Abolition Act 1833 - Wikipedia

England and the US both banned the international trade of slaves in the same year. Britain then went farther, banning slavery altogether in 1833 and buying out the slaveowners.

Yet, you still have no idea what I spoke about. Look at the likes of Pelosi and Schumer today. We live in a world that has always had fake news to some extent. And, was always attacking systems for liberty and freedom of mankind by finding faults and attacking them, rather than patiently finding solutions to cause the least harm.

You're right. I have no idea what you're talking about.

You are referring mainly to compromises relating to the status of NEW states to be added to the Union, not to significant changes in the laws regarding slavery as they applied to the states already admitted to the Union.

These new compromises were fought in the first place because states were concerned over the ensuing shifts in power balance in the Senate. The fact that these compromises preceded the Civil War by decades illustrates the fact that the move to abolish slavery was not immediate or sudden - it had been going on for over a century. Abolition did not have to be a sudden shock to the Southern economy - it could have been handled gracefully. The fact is that the south fought abolition for a long time and then rebelled before that predicted shock could happen.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

That was the answer he ran from, and I was looking for.

I didn't run from the question but showed how flawed this idea was.

Once again, if slavery was being phased out anyway, then why did southern states pass anti-vagrancy laws, knowing that freed slaves would not find jobs and could be arrested an placed on chain gangs working the fields of the wealthy plantation owners ?

These wealthy plantation owners still controlled their states and they need free laborers to work their fields, or they'd end up having to pay people to do the work. Instead, they got their states to pass the anti-vagrancy laws in order to help keep freed slaves int he fields as prisoners.

 

[GenemZ]

You're citing a buddy of yours? Really?

So, why should I listen to you? Are you more a person than he is?

What are you talking about? Yes, it was forced on the British people.
Slave Trade Act 1807 - Wikipedia
Slavery Abolition Act 1833 - Wikipedia

England and the US both banned the international trade of slaves in the same year. Britain then went farther, banning slavery altogether in 1833 and buying out the slaveowners.

It was forced. The Law always is a force. There would be no need for law otherwise.

But, its not always brutal and sloppy in its execution.


Just like they did in the United States? Slave owners were not reimbursed for their losses.

(from your link)
Payments to slave owners

Main articles: Slave Compensation Act 1837 and London Society of West India Planters and Merchants
The Act provided for payments to slave-owners. The amount of money to be spent on the payments was set at "the Sum of Twenty Million Pounds Sterling".[21] Under the terms of the Act, the British government raised £20 million[22] to pay out for the loss of the slaves as business assets to the registered owners of the freed slaves. In 1833, £20 million amounted to 40% of the Treasury's annual income[23] or approximately 5% of British GDP at the time.[24] To finance the payments, the British government took on a £15 million loan, finalised on 3 August 1835, with banker Nathan Mayer Rothschild and his brother-in-law Moses Montefiore; £5 million was paid out directly in government stock, worth £1.5 billion in present day.[25] The money was not paid back by the British taxpayers until 2015,[26] when the British Government decided to modernise the gilt portfolio by redeeming all remaining undated gilts. The long gap between this money being borrowed and its repayment was due to the type of financial instrument that was used, rather than the amount of money borrowed.[27]
Half of the money went to slave-owning families in the Caribbean and Africa, while the other half went to absentee owners living in Britain.[22] The names listed in the returns for slave owner payments show that ownership was spread over many hundreds of British families,[28] many of them (though not all[29]) of high social standing. For example, Henry Phillpotts (then the Bishop of Exeter), with three others (as trustees and executors of the will of John Ward, 1st Earl of Dudley), was paid £12,700 for 665 slaves in the West Indies,[30] whilst Henry Lascelles, 2nd Earl of Harewood received £26,309 for 2,554 slaves on 6 plantations.[31] The majority of men and women who were paid under the 1833 Abolition Act are listed in a Parliamentary Return, entitled Slavery Abolition Act, which is an account of all moneys awarded by the Commissioners of Slave Compensation in the Parliamentary Papers 1837–8 (215) vol. 48.[32]

 

[GenemZ]

I didn't run from the question but showed how flawed this idea was.

Once again, if slavery was being phased out anyway, then why did southern states pass anti-vagrancy laws, knowing that freed slaves would not find jobs and could be arrested an placed on chain gangs working the fields of the wealthy plantation owners ?

These wealthy plantation owners still controlled their states and they need free laborers to work their fields, or they'd end up having to pay people to do the work. Instead, they got their states to pass the anti-vagrancy laws in order to help keep freed slaves int he fields as prisoners.

If it was ended correctly, and in due time, slaves would not have been not vagrants as they found themselves tossed out of what had been their occupations. Liberia was a very good option as an alternative for those so wishing to do so. It would have been humane.

I said it was in the process of coming to pass. Not that it was immediately being phased out. These wealthy plantation owners can still be found today among those seated in congress. They need to be phased out... "drained out."

The selfish wealthy are always the kind of mind that will exploit others wherever they may find themselves. In Russia they were the Communist leaders of the people. Those who are of such a soul will always lie, distort, and grab what they can...

 

[iluvatar5150]

So, why should I listen to you? Are you more a person than he is?

I don't expect you to trust me blindly. If I have a source, I'll post it.

It was forced. The Law always is a force. There would be no need for law otherwise.

You said it wasn't forced in England. You were wrong.

But, its not always brutal and sloppy in its execution.

True.

Just like they did in the United States? Slave owners were not reimbursed for their losses.
Payments to slave owners

I'm not sure why you quoted that all back to me since I'm the one who acknowledged that those slaveowners were bought out. Slaveowners weren't compensated for their losses because those slave owners started a war. Usually, the country that starts and then loses a war doesn't then get compensated for doing so afterwards.

There's an argument to be made that the US government didn't have enough money to buy out all the slaves at the going rate in 1860. However, as you describe, the writing had been on the wall for some time and Southerners could have used any of the Compromise bills from previous decades to negotiate for themselves a favorable exit strategy allowing them to give up slavery without the ensuing economic shock. But they didn't. They kept fighting for slavery; and over time, Southern feelings calcified against the perception of slavery as an immoral institution that ought to be abolished at all. The century following Reconstruction provides plenty of evidence slavery wasn't merely an economic institution for southerners - it was also a symbol of their perceived superiority over a separate group of people who deserved to be subjugated.

No, Lincoln Could Not Have 'Bought the Slaves'

 

[iluvatar5150]

If it was ended correctly, and in due time, slaves would not have been not vagrants as they found themselves tossed out of what had been their occupations.

Slaves became vagrants because they were denied the ability to integrate into society.

 

[GenemZ]

You said it wasn't forced in England. You were wrong.

I agreed, that law is forcing. But, in the south it was a brutal action. Forcing would be like the government today demanding everyone stay home and not work during this fabricated scheme that they are using to exploit human fears concerning the Covid 19. The south and north just came out of a major war. The north was treating the south like a defeated enemy nation, rather than providing a healing gesture. It was brutal to the south.

Principalities and Powers were hoping to see the new nation implode and be gone. God's grace prevailed.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If it was ended correctly, and in due time, slaves would not have been not vagrants as they found themselves tossed out of what had been their occupations. Liberia was a very good option as an alternative for those so wishing to do so. It would have been humane.

I said it was in the process of coming to pass. Not that it was immediately being phased out. These wealthy plantation owners can still be found today among those seated in congress. They need to be phased out... "drained out."

The selfish wealthy are always the kind of mind that will exploit others wherever they may find themselves. In Russia they were the Communist leaders of the people. Those who are of such a soul will always lie, distort, and grab what they can...

It's an assumption that slavery would've eventually ended.

If so, why didn't slavery end before the Civil War and why did Southern States constantly vote in pro-slave Congressmen to send to Washington ? Why did pro-slave southern states continually elect pro-slave governors and state reps into the state legislatures ?

Why ? Because they had no intention of ending slavery and the attitudes of the racists in the South showed that it would never have ended.

Heck, blacks still could not vote in some Southern states until 1964.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I agreed, that law is forcing. But, in the south it was a brutal action. Forcing would be like the government today demanding everyone stay home and not work during this fabricated scheme that they are using to exploit human fears concerning the Covid 19.

Wow, ok. That puts things in a somewhat different light.

The south and north just came out of a major war. The north was treating the south like a defeated enemy nation, rather than providing a healing gesture. It was brutal to the south.

Principalities and Powers were hoping to see the new nation implode and be gone. God's grace prevailed.

The aftermath certainly wasn't all rainbows and kittens, but the north tried to extend a bunch of healing gestures while the South took every opportunity they could to further subjugate blacks. And again, if the South wanted a peaceful transition, they could've asked for one instead of starting a war.

 

[GenemZ]

Slaves became vagrants because they were denied the ability to integrate into society.

Liberia was the best option. All expenses paid by the US government...

That is when reparations should have been paid, and generously so. After all, when the Lord had the Jews leaving Egypt, the Egyptians poured into the Jews pockets much gold to see them on their way.

The slave mentality Jews later took that gold and had it melted into a golden calf. Again, that is why God must discipline those who are coming out of a slave mentality. Many of those Jews were killed by the Lord while in the wilderness. They used to break camp and leave many tombstones behind each time they did.

Yet, the manna served from heaven would have kept everyone in perfect health as long as they were not stressing out in rebelliousness. No ones sandals wore out during that 40 year journey.

Yet the LORD says, "During the forty years that I led you through
the wilderness, your clothes did not wear out, nor did the sandals
on your feet." Deut 29:5



Remember how the Lord your God led you all the way in the wilderness
these forty years, to humble and test you in order to know what was in
your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands. He humbled
you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which
neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does
not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth
of the Lord. Your clothes did not wear out and your feet did not swell
during these forty years. Know then in your heart that as a man
disciplines his son, so the Lord your God disciplines you." Deut 8:2-5​

Caleb was faithful during those years in the wilderness. He was just as strong at eighty five years old as he had been at forty!

Likewise...

The slaves in the south after being freed needed to go through their own kind of wilderness experience.. For many slaves became Christians. They needed to suffer to come out of their slave mentality... just like we all do after we are made freed slaves having been slaves to our sin natures before our spiritual emancipation.