Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer showtimemulti showtimemulti showtimemulti  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis Water Sports Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion
Customer Discussions > History forum

Ending Slavery Through War


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 631 posts in this discussion
Posted on Jun 27, 2010 5:12:05 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 27, 2010 5:15:00 AM PDT
COLIN: With comments like this you are well on your way to being an educated idiot ....the anglosphere world that we live in is a result of the British Empire....hmmm ...I wonder what the japano-sphere would have looked like ?

MARK: Come on, Colin. That's taking things just a bit out of context, don't you think? I have said many times on various threads, which I know you are reading, that a strong case CAN be made for Pax Americana and to that I'll add the British Empire. I personally don't make the case, but it can be made.

Both empires were sprung from Englightenment values, even if the imperialism part contradicts those values. I have never anywhere even hinted that a "japano-sphere" world would be equivalent to an "angloshpere" world. Just that it is possible that some good happened here and there in "Japano-sphere."

Is that such a terrible admission? We can't pick and choose just the parts of history that confirm our viewpoint. We have to look at all of it.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2010 3:22:47 PM PDT
Pat Answer says:
Mark Ledbetter,
Greetings.

"We can't pick and choose just the parts of history that confirm our viewpoint."

Unfortunately, we can. And do. All our ideologies tend to depend on it.

Posted on Jun 28, 2010 4:38:43 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2010 5:35:00 PM PDT
PAT ANSWER: "We can't pick and choose just the parts of history that confirm our viewpoint."
Unfortunately, we can. And do. All our ideologies tend to depend on it.

MARK: I humbly concede you the point and bow to your obviously superior wisdom.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2010 6:37:56 PM PDT
Mark bennett says:
"Both empires were sprung from Englightenment values"

In the British case, I dont know that I agree with that. British imperial history can in some sense be taken all the way back to the 100 years war in France. The imperial experience in India was rooted in commerical activity. But as the scale of the commerical activity increased, the needs of business almost willed empire into existence. Either that or the corruption of the trading companies led to internal collapse and government takeovers which created an empire.

The best case for enlightenment values would be in British activity in North America (excluding the islands) and maybe activities in India past a certain point (maybe the 1840s or maybe the government take-over after the mutiny).

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2010 1:15:34 AM PDT
Angloshpere world? That does sound a bit like manifest destiny.

Posted on Jun 29, 2010 4:10:58 AM PDT
MARK L: "Both empires were sprung from Enlightenment values"

MARK B: In the British case, I dont know that I agree with that... The imperial experience in India was rooted in commercial activity... led to internal collapse and government takeovers which created an empire.

MARK L: Good point. Rooted is not exactly the right word. I guess what I meant was that the administration of empire was in the hands of people who had absorbed Enlightenment values and that those values would occasionally affect their actions. Thus, they would sometimes bring a whiff of the Enlightenment to areas of the world that hadn't gone through it. Being imperial masters, they would, of course, often bring more than a whiff of the authoritarianism and barbarity that inevitably accompany empire.

JONATHAN: Angloshpere world? That does sound a bit like manifest destiny.

MARK L: It certainly does. White man's burden and all.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2010 7:07:32 AM PDT
Pat Answer says:
Mark Ledbetter,
Greetings.

"...obviously superior wisdom" (?)
Jaded cynicism, probably, but I claim no wisdom of any kind, superior or otherwise. I hope you understood my "unfortunately" to mean that I agreed with your larger point.

Posted on Jun 29, 2010 9:03:52 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 29, 2010 10:46:05 AM PDT
B. A. Dilger says:
As a creature of the Anglosphere, while there is room for improvement, it's Greek and Jewish roots, Roman and Christian values, make a blend of world culture that has truly survived in Darwinian style. The U.S. embeds this in it's laws and government, while it's culture is truly global. We are the world, whether some societies object to it or not.

Posted on Oct 25, 2012 6:55:04 PM PDT
American Slave - The Torture, Cruelty and Mistreatment of African American Slaves: The Cruel and Barbarous Treatment of the African American Slave (AMERICAN SLAVE SERIES)

Did most slaves prefer freedom over captivity given their experiences during reconstruction period? Freedom and starvation over slavery and security. Many believed that where they where was the will of God, most being Christian. Reading the interviews with slaves it appears 50:50. I also find it quite surprising that a lot of the ex-slaves that gave interviews where still missing the plantation and in some cases their owners/masters. Wondering what other peoples thoughts are on this.

Posted on Oct 25, 2012 8:31:32 PM PDT
Yog-Sothoth says:
PAT ANSWER: "We can't pick and choose just the parts of history that confirm our viewpoint."

One fact that remains "glossed over" by the supporters of the "the Union fought to free slaves" meme is, even after the Southern States seceded there were FOUR "Union States" (out of the remaining 23, or 21%) that were slave-holding States - AND ANOTHER "slave State" was admitted (WVa) to the Union in 1863!!! (In addition, slavery still legally continued in "those States or parts of States" no longer "in a state of rebellion" or under Federal control. This included the State of Tennessee, most of Louisiana and Arkansas).

Ask a few "what if's":
What if: the South did NOT fire on Ft. Sumter? Would Lincoln have tried another provocation to make the CSA "fire the first shot"? Would he have still fought a war to "free the slaves"?

What if: The Confederacy was allowed to seceed without conflict (or even - had they won the War)? How much longer would slavery have STILL existed in the remaining US? Would those "loyal" slave States (MO., MD, DE, KY) have remained, or seceeded as well, and joined the CSA? How much longer would slavery have existed in North America? (It didn't end in S. America till the 1880's)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2012 3:36:21 AM PDT
Debunker says:
How long did those states remain "slave" states after the war ended?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2012 8:20:56 AM PDT
Bubba says:
"I have yet in fact to meet a conquered people that would agree the conquerors did them "good"."

Perhaps some/many Japanese would agree that being conquered by the Allies did them "good". It certainly did good for Honda and Sony.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2012 8:29:03 AM PDT
Mark

My opinion, for what it is worth, it depends on the goals of the war. Japans goal was not the end of slavery. It was a incident by product. The actions of the US were motivated almost entirely by the pending build up of slavery question. One might say that the war was about conquest of a seceded country. Although I find that one a little hard to swallow. But iot also must be balanced with the harm done to the conquered. That is really the rub.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 28, 2012 9:01:53 PM PDT
L. King says:
I'd be surprised if you hadn't considered it, but have you refered to Walzer's Just And Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations?

Walzer discusses the morality of outside intervention towards the end of the book. Like all actions, the moral case varies with the situation.

Applying morality after the fact is problematic as moral judgement takes into account the intentions of participants, though in practice there is a tendency to rewrite history as if that intent were actually there, either to blame or to honour.

Posted on Oct 29, 2012 7:37:39 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 29, 2012 7:46:15 PM PDT
Yog-Sothoth says:
Debunker: "How long did those states remain "slave" states after the war ended?"

Slavery ended throughout the USA with the enactment of the 13th Amendment on December 6, 1865, one day short of eight months after Lee's surrender, and seven months after the last battle of the Civil War (Palmito Ranch, TX May 13, 1865).

The US Government did not even propose the 13th Amendment until Jan 31, 1865, after it was obvious that the South was lost. You'd think if the Union was "fighting to end slavery", they'd have ended it within themselves in 1861 0r 62, and avoided the hypocrisy of "battling" a practice they themselves practiced. Seems like, "Once we make THEM give it up, then WE will."

The Southern States could NOT be re-admitted to the Union until they had ratified the 13th Amendment. Since secession was not recognized as being constitutionally legal, that would make any secession "null and void", therefore the State was never OUT of the Union - how can the State be "re-admitted", if they never legally left?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 3:29:17 PM PDT
no war can be justified afer the fact

you need a clear and compelling reason before starting war
and need to have ruled out all other alternatives too - first

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 3:30:25 PM PDT
the usa civil war was about states rights
slavery was just an excuse

lincoln wanted to destroy the constitution and enable a fasicst capable federal govt like we have now

without him we would not have many of our current problems

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 3:32:07 PM PDT
Wulfwig Fox says:
Would America be a better place with slavery spread across the continent?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 3:34:31 PM PDT
no

but we would be a better place with a weaker federal govt and all our states rights back

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 3:38:09 PM PDT
Wulfwig Fox says:
A weaker federal government and slavery?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 3:49:39 PM PDT
a weaker federal govt

slavery would have disappeared anyway like it did everywhere but north africa today where the moslems do it with slaves from other countries to the south

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 3:52:18 PM PDT
Wulfwig Fox says:
Sometimes you can't wait for seriously criminal activities to just go away.

You have to take a moral stand.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 3:53:38 PM PDT
starting a war is not a moral stand

most immoral thing you can do
baby bush is the most evil man to ever live

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 3:56:08 PM PDT
Wulfwig Fox says:
Attempting to break up the Union was a criminal action.

The South was like a highwayman saying 'your money or your life and it's your fault if I kill you.'

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 31, 2012 4:01:05 PM PDT
nonsense

it was states rights

the federal contract they signed had been abrogated
there was no legal moral or ethical reason they could not leave once that happened
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the History forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  44
Total posts:  631
Initial post:  Jun 25, 2010
Latest post:  Dec 21, 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions