Slavery

I BLACK PEOPLE

Jim Paint wrote: cadet_sergeant wrote: what happened to native americans, Black, chinese, irish and many other groups, can't be changed. wether your family was slave owners, where slaves themselfs or didnt come over till after slavery was abolished they still gained benifites caused by slavery and oppression. my family was enslaved in Italy, by their own family hence; Pepiton (we are the slaves) and Pepitone (the royalty and owners) apparently the Pepitone's just decided we were inferior and enslaved us, im unsure how it exactly happened.  What century was that in. Â

 it started late 16th century (approximently) till the middle of the 19th century when my great great grandpa and grandma escaped into spain.  

Edited by cadet_sergeant

cadet_sergeant wrote: what happened to native americans, Black, chinese, irish and many other groups, can't be changed. wether your family was slave owners, where slaves themselfs or didnt come over till after slavery was abolished they still gained benifites caused by slavery and oppression. my family was enslaved in Italy, by their own family hence; Pepiton (we are the slaves) and Pepitone (the royalty and owners) apparently the Pepitone's just decided we were inferior and enslaved us, im unsure how it exactly happened.

What century was that in.
 

IT WAS WRONG NO MATTER WHAT IT DID FOR US

I believe it may be harder for the poor black kid, but it is still entirely possible. Also, what AA doesn't take into account are the many poor white families. It pretty much assumes all blacks are poor and all whites are stable. 

The War of Northern Aggression was fought primarily over the issue of States Rights, the right of the individual states to determine thier own path, as originally intended, not a over controling central Federal Government favoring the industrial northern states by official policy.

Slavery was a secondary issue, wherein the Stars and Stripes supported slavery longer than the less than four years of the Stars and Bars. Several Northern States during the war still had forms of slavery supporting industrial concerns.

Grants policy of "Total War" was original in that to destroy your enemies ability to make war, you shorten the war. The narrow swaths Sherman cut through Georgia from Atlanta to Savanna was a small part of the concept, limited in scope, but it did have a dramatic impact on those affected as well as the Southern Military Commands future ability to make and sustain the war effort.

South Carolinas State Government, (The Confederate Government was not firmly established nor had any control of Confederate issues at the time), proposed a bombardmant of Ft Sumpter only after diplomatic attempts were made for the Northern garrison to agree to leave the state territory peaceably, the final decesion for the bombardment was made in error at the time, without written or supporting orders from a command, by a local artillery commander, the appearence of a Northern resupply ship entering the area instigated the beginning of the bombardmant to prevent resupply of the besieged forts garrison. And only after the fact did the Southern authorities justify the action.

Many southern troops were from the poorer end of thier society, and had no stake in the slave issue, only protecting thier homes and thier way of life. The Southern Officer corps were for the most part West Point trained and many were originally offered commands in the Northern Armies before they returned to thier home states in the south to fight for thier state. Lee was a Virginian first and American second, that was the Southern mindset of the times, allegiance to thier state first, those states under a Confederacy supporting states rights, not a Federal Government demanding a controling overall authority over state governments.

Slavery has exsited since the beginning of time and still exsists throughout the world, and somewhere in America today someone is working under conditions resembling slavery in some form or condition. And no Government edict, demand, law, policy or program, no matter how noblely inspired, will ever change the human animals desire for power over another.



Edited by oldsoldier

Snake6 wrote: Jim Paint wrote: Roll Tide wrote: Snake6 wrote: Yes, Fort Sumter was the sovergn territory of the state of SC, the union refused to surrender the territory to its rightful owners, therefore SC attacked to regain its territory. Remember history is only told from the view of the side that wins. The fact that the North was disturbingly brutal during the invasion of the South is usually left out. We learned about it.  Grant didn't like burning all the farms and such, but if he didn't the money would fund the south. And if the south IS all about just being independent, why did Lee take the offensive and march north?  He may have been able to just defend the south, instead of trying to conquer the north.   Lee did not make the diescion to attack north, that was Davis. The march north is what screwed the CSA over, the idea behind it was to demoralize the population of the north and turn public opinion against the war. It didnt work.

Ah, I always thought Lee would have known better.
 

Jim Paint wrote: Roll Tide wrote: Snake6 wrote: Yes, Fort Sumter was the sovergn territory of the state of SC, the union refused to surrender the territory to its rightful owners, therefore SC attacked to regain its territory. Remember history is only told from the view of the side that wins. The fact that the North was disturbingly brutal during the invasion of the South is usually left out. We learned about it.  Grant didn't like burning all the farms and such, but if he didn't the money would fund the south. And if the south IS all about just being independent, why did Lee take the offensive and march north?  He may have been able to just defend the south, instead of trying to conquer the north.

Lee did not make the diescion to attack north, that was Davis. The march north is what screwed the CSA over, the idea behind it was to demoralize the population of the north and turn public opinion against the war. It didnt work.

I think you misunderstood that.

I know I'm probaly wrong about most.  I am friends with a gothic kid, but hes not into it like most of them.  And I dont like most of them, for the fact that many sneer at me when I have never even seen them.  The same as when I go downtown, I get dirty looks walking to reds games from "gangstas and thugs".


Edited by Jim Paint

Hades wrote: Jim, It is racist/prejuduce because your defining the people with whom you label gangsta' or thug off their appearance without ever having gotten to know them personally or seen their actions. I am guessing you havent seen too much gang activity ever in your lifetime. Therefore to judge someone by their apperence alone is prejudious. Then to catagorize the people you deem gangsta into one big group and give it a negative label is racist.

I think gothic kids dress weird too, and I don't hate all whites.