Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(History Channel)   On this day in history, in 1862, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, outlawing slavery throughout the entire* nation. And everyone lived happily ever after (*offer not valid in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware)   (history.com) divider line
    More: Vintage, American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln, preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln's inauguration, anti-slavery proclamation, Emancipation Proclamation, emancipation proclamation  
•       •       •

985 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 22 Sep 2021 at 1:20 PM (3 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



82 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-09-22 11:10:28 AM  
Or New Orleans
 
2021-09-22 11:37:37 AM  

Harry Wagstaff: Or New Orleans


Or Tennessee. It was phrased as a punishment for areas currently in rebellion. Very few people in the north really wanted to fight a war solely on behalf of black people.
 
2021-09-22 1:08:13 PM  

ArkPanda: Harry Wagstaff: Or New Orleans

Or Tennessee. It was phrased as a punishment for areas currently in rebellion. Very few people in the north really wanted to fight a war solely on behalf of black people.


...Very few people in the north really wanted to fight a war solely on behalf of ANYONE NOT WHITE, MALE AND A LANDOWNER.

Fixeded.
 
2021-09-22 1:21:54 PM  
That's information that will soon be illegal to teach in schools.
 
2021-09-22 1:22:26 PM  
Joe Manchin feels that Lincoln should have acted bilaterally
 
2021-09-22 1:22:33 PM  
And 4 years later, on June 19th, the Last slaves were freed. It took federal troops marching into Texas in order to accomplish it.
And that's why we celebrate Juneteenth.
 
2021-09-22 1:22:45 PM  
I don't listen to hip hop, subby.
 
2021-09-22 1:24:37 PM  

ArkPanda: Harry Wagstaff: Or New Orleans

Or Tennessee. It was phrased as a punishment for areas currently in rebellion. Very few people in the north really wanted to fight a war solely on behalf of black people.


**or prisons
 
2021-09-22 1:26:07 PM  

ArkPanda: Harry Wagstaff: Or New Orleans

Or Tennessee. It was phrased as a punishment for areas currently in rebellion. Very few people in the north really wanted to fight a war solely on behalf of black people.


Well, and the whole issue that there was no Constitutional way to abolish slavery in the states not currently in rebellion. Executive Orders can only do so much, and while the President had considerable leeway in the rebellious states by using his war powers, he didn't have that power in the other states.

I think he would have been OK if the 13th Amendment had passed sooner.
 
2021-09-22 1:26:21 PM  
Interestingly enough...since Lincoln's proclamation was a war-time effort to disrupt the economy of the south and Congress could have reversed the Emancipation Proclamation after the war was over. It was the 13th amendment that actually ended slavery, except as punishment for a crime.
 
2021-09-22 1:27:35 PM  
People like to shiat on it because it technically freed no slaves but the implications of the order on the slaves that lived in areas that would be soon controlled by the Union meant holding slaves as property wouldn't last in the US as long as the North won
 
2021-09-22 1:28:33 PM  

Meatsim1: People like to shiat on it because it technically freed no slaves but the implications of the order on the slaves that lived in areas that would be soon controlled by the Union meant holding slaves as property wouldn't last in the US as long as the North won


So how do you feel about paying reparations to the descendants of enslaved people?
 
2021-09-22 1:32:40 PM  

austerity101: Meatsim1: People like to shiat on it because it technically freed no slaves but the implications of the order on the slaves that lived in areas that would be soon controlled by the Union meant holding slaves as property wouldn't last in the US as long as the North won

So how do you feel about paying reparations to the descendants of enslaved people?


Well, maybe if the crackers did cough up that 40 acres and a mule, they wouldn't be so farking afraid to teach the factual history of America. You know, CRT. Reparations might go a long way into helping whitey feel better about secretly saying the N word when they watch Fox News coverage of BLM protests... whatyya think?
 
2021-09-22 1:33:42 PM  
Just the other day I saw my first confederate flag on a truck up here in Fairbanks, Alaska.  I can't quite remember... how much fighting in the civil war happened up here?
F*cking racist douche canoe.
 
2021-09-22 1:34:30 PM  
external-preview.redd.itView Full Size
 
2021-09-22 1:35:36 PM  

SirEattonHogg: [external-preview.redd.it image 585x438]


Maybe we can come to a Compromise...?
 
2021-09-22 1:36:03 PM  

austerity101: Meatsim1: People like to shiat on it because it technically freed no slaves but the implications of the order on the slaves that lived in areas that would be soon controlled by the Union meant holding slaves as property wouldn't last in the US as long as the North won

So how do you feel about paying reparations to the descendants of enslaved people?


I think it's a mistake, especially if it's not done in conjunction with a far broader effort to undo the systemic racism in our society. Even if it were possible to accurately and fairly place a monetary value on the value of the stolen labor and effects of post-war oppression then if systemic racism were not addressed whatever money you gave recipients would only have a temporary affect.

Personally I feel a better investment is into general welfare for all like universal healthcare, education, public banking, etc will go further to address lasting affects of racism and class oppression than issuing checks for a few thousand dollars to individuals who can prove they have ancestors who were enslaved
 
2021-09-22 1:37:46 PM  

Cafe Threads: ArkPanda: Harry Wagstaff: Or New Orleans

Or Tennessee. It was phrased as a punishment for areas currently in rebellion. Very few people in the north really wanted to fight a war solely on behalf of black people.

...Very few people in the north really wanted to fight a war solely on behalf of ANYONE NOT WHITE, MALE AND A LANDOWNER.

Fixeded.


you're mixing up your wars (revolution vs civil war) the Republican Party and Union cause had millions of progressive supporters (not just in the US either, tens of thousands of European and Canadian progressives joined the Union army). These were the same people who would go on to pass the home-stead act, the Morrill act (created land-grant schools), the 13th amendment and the 14th amendment.

I mean Marx was an outspoken supporter of Lincoln and the Union Cause.

The emancipation proclamation was as broad as it could be considering the constitution and situation with Union states that still had slavery. (but wouldn't by the end of 1865)
 
2021-09-22 1:39:07 PM  

CheatCommando: ArkPanda: Harry Wagstaff: Or New Orleans

Or Tennessee. It was phrased as a punishment for areas currently in rebellion. Very few people in the north really wanted to fight a war solely on behalf of black people.

Well, and the whole issue that there was no Constitutional way to abolish slavery in the states not currently in rebellion. Executive Orders can only do so much, and while the President had considerable leeway in the rebellious states by using his war powers, he didn't have that power in the other states.

I think he would have been OK if the 13th Amendment had passed sooner.


Right, he was limited in what he could do.

I think if there was no civil war, Lincoln probably would have accomplished very little and lost in 1864. They did it to themselves.
 
2021-09-22 1:39:56 PM  

austerity101: Meatsim1: People like to shiat on it because it technically freed no slaves but the implications of the order on the slaves that lived in areas that would be soon controlled by the Union meant holding slaves as property wouldn't last in the US as long as the North won

So how do you feel about paying reparations to the descendants of enslaved people?


I'm still waiting for my check from the Roman Empire.
 
2021-09-22 1:40:57 PM  
The fear of slave uprisings in the minds of Southerners prior to and during the Civil War cannot be understated. Along with many other objectives with the EP, instilling some fear in the hearts of men off to war while the olds, childrens, and womens, ran the place back home was a small part of it. The energy and resources and funds the South may have spent to keep this information away from their slaves cannot realistically be counted, but you can bet it was greater than minimal.

Realistically 'freeing the slaves' may have been one of the last items of accomplishment intended by the EP.
 
2021-09-22 1:47:31 PM  

rudemix: The fear of slave uprisings in the minds of Southerners prior to and during the Civil War cannot be understated. Along with many other objectives with the EP, instilling some fear in the hearts of men off to war while the olds, childrens, and womens, ran the place back home was a small part of it. The energy and resources and funds the South may have spent to keep this information away from their slaves cannot realistically be counted, but you can bet it was greater than minimal.

Realistically 'freeing the slaves' may have been one of the last items of accomplishment intended by the EP.


legally it couldn't, the men who wrote it knew that, which is why they then started pushing the 13th amendment.
 
2021-09-22 1:47:37 PM  

Herr Flick's Revenge: austerity101: Meatsim1: People like to shiat on it because it technically freed no slaves but the implications of the order on the slaves that lived in areas that would be soon controlled by the Union meant holding slaves as property wouldn't last in the US as long as the North won

So how do you feel about paying reparations to the descendants of enslaved people?

I'm still waiting for my check from the Roman Empire.


The US still exists.
 
2021-09-22 1:49:06 PM  

Meatsim1: austerity101: Meatsim1: People like to shiat on it because it technically freed no slaves but the implications of the order on the slaves that lived in areas that would be soon controlled by the Union meant holding slaves as property wouldn't last in the US as long as the North won

So how do you feel about paying reparations to the descendants of enslaved people?

I think it's a mistake, especially if it's not done in conjunction with a far broader effort to undo the systemic racism in our society. Even if it were possible to accurately and fairly place a monetary value on the value of the stolen labor and effects of post-war oppression then if systemic racism were not addressed whatever money you gave recipients would only have a temporary affect.

Personally I feel a better investment is into general welfare for all like universal healthcare, education, public banking, etc will go further to address lasting affects of racism and class oppression than issuing checks for a few thousand dollars to individuals who can prove they have ancestors who were enslaved


What do you mean, "Investment"? A payment for injury isn't an investment. We don't say, "The plaintiff doesn't deserve this award for damages because it wouldn't be a good investment." You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what reparations are--they're restitution, not investment.
 
2021-09-22 1:50:08 PM  

Cafe Threads: ArkPanda: Harry Wagstaff: Or New Orleans

Or Tennessee. It was phrased as a punishment for areas currently in rebellion. Very few people in the north really wanted to fight a war solely on behalf of black people.

...Very few people in the north really wanted to fight a war solely on behalf of ANYONE NOT WHITE, MALE AND A LANDOWNER.

Fixeded.


Very few people in the North wanted to fight a war

fixed again
 
2021-09-22 1:54:17 PM  

austerity101: Herr Flick's Revenge: austerity101: Meatsim1: People like to shiat on it because it technically freed no slaves but the implications of the order on the slaves that lived in areas that would be soon controlled by the Union meant holding slaves as property wouldn't last in the US as long as the North won

So how do you feel about paying reparations to the descendants of enslaved people?

I'm still waiting for my check from the Roman Empire.

The US still exists.


semantics but I'm less for reparations for slavery (the mountain of bodies the civil war created kinda squared that debt) but very much for reparations for segregation; it was much more widespread and millions of people who suffered directly from it are still very much alive.
 
2021-09-22 1:55:26 PM  

austerity101: Meatsim1: People like to shiat on it because it technically freed no slaves but the implications of the order on the slaves that lived in areas that would be soon controlled by the Union meant holding slaves as property wouldn't last in the US as long as the North won

So how do you feel about paying reparations to the descendants of enslaved people?


Why just enslaved people?  Blacks in the North lived horrible lives as 3rd class citizens, endured devastating discrimination and spent their lives in abject poverty.  But that's ok because they weren't *actual* slaves.
 
2021-09-22 1:58:33 PM  

Private_Citizen: And 4 years later, on June 19th, the Last slaves were freed. It took federal troops marching into Texas in order to accomplish it.
And that's why we celebrate Juneteenth.


Texas has always loved enslaving Black people. Fought two wars for it.
 
2021-09-22 2:00:33 PM  

ArkPanda: Harry Wagstaff: Or New Orleans

Or Tennessee. It was phrased as a punishment for areas currently in rebellion. Very few people in the north really wanted to fight a war solely on behalf of black people.


It was as far as Lincoln could possibly push them matter and have any potential legal justification.

He had no authority to end slavery, that was up to Congress (which they did via the 13th amendment). But the military had the authority to seize assets being used to further the rebellion (ie slaves). And once seized by the military they could be granted freedom.

But beyond its immediate effect it did practically end black slavery in the United States as there were too few slaves outside its scope for them to be a significant economic factor.
 
2021-09-22 2:07:46 PM  

pschwarz0717: Cafe Threads: ArkPanda: Harry Wagstaff: Or New Orleans

Or Tennessee. It was phrased as a punishment for areas currently in rebellion. Very few people in the north really wanted to fight a war solely on behalf of black people.

...Very few people in the north really wanted to fight a war solely on behalf of ANYONE NOT WHITE, MALE AND A LANDOWNER.

Fixeded.

Very few people in the North wanted to fight a war

fixed again


not true, only around 4% of 2.1 million or so men who fought in the Union Army were conscripts. another 9% were paid substitutes. meaning 87% were volunteers.

For perspective around 70% of the military in WW2 were conscripted.
 
2021-09-22 2:16:28 PM  

CheatCommando: ArkPanda: Harry Wagstaff: Or New Orleans

Or Tennessee. It was phrased as a punishment for areas currently in rebellion. Very few people in the north really wanted to fight a war solely on behalf of black people.

Well, and the whole issue that there was no Constitutional way to abolish slavery in the states not currently in rebellion. Executive Orders can only do so much, and while the President had considerable leeway in the rebellious states by using his war powers, he didn't have that power in the other states.

I think he would have been OK if the 13th Amendment had passed sooner.


The War was always about Slavery. The South made that clear.

The whole point of the Emancipation  was to kneecaps the Confederates from getting direct help from the Europeans and the United Kingdom.

Lincoln was an astute politician, and knew the exact timing of when do things. Had he did so sooner, he would have proven the south right about being a tyrant and he would lose the support of the moderates in the North.

Lincoln could not have acted military until Fort Sumpter was fired on. The general consensus was that the South had a legal right to leave.
 
2021-09-22 2:19:14 PM  

SirEattonHogg: [external-preview.redd.it image 585x438]


Hey!
We freed the slaves before Lincoln!

But as usual, Republican politicians made us slave em up again so their boy Abe could do a little glory-doggin'

Missouri. What can't we screw up.


/ I hate politics.
// So do slaves
/// Big business always votes last
 
2021-09-22 2:23:06 PM  

Badafuco: SirEattonHogg: [external-preview.redd.it image 585x438]

Maybe we can come to a Compromise...?


Yeah?  Show me
 
2021-09-22 2:23:51 PM  

austerity101: Meatsim1: austerity101: Meatsim1: People like to shiat on it because it technically freed no slaves but the implications of the order on the slaves that lived in areas that would be soon controlled by the Union meant holding slaves as property wouldn't last in the US as long as the North won

So how do you feel about paying reparations to the descendants of enslaved people?

I think it's a mistake, especially if it's not done in conjunction with a far broader effort to undo the systemic racism in our society. Even if it were possible to accurately and fairly place a monetary value on the value of the stolen labor and effects of post-war oppression then if systemic racism were not addressed whatever money you gave recipients would only have a temporary affect.

Personally I feel a better investment is into general welfare for all like universal healthcare, education, public banking, etc will go further to address lasting affects of racism and class oppression than issuing checks for a few thousand dollars to individuals who can prove they have ancestors who were enslaved

What do you mean, "Investment"? A payment for injury isn't an investment. We don't say, "The plaintiff doesn't deserve this award for damages because it wouldn't be a good investment." You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what reparations are--they're restitution, not investment.


a theory of tort doesn't work either since the US government would be subject to sovereign immunity (also the catch-22 slavery was legal up until the US government made it illegal).
 
2021-09-22 2:24:14 PM  

Meatsim1: Even if it were possible to accurately and fairly place a monetary value on the value of the stolen labor and effects of post-war oppression then if systemic racism were not addressed whatever money you gave recipients would only have a temporary affect.


That is a possible thing.  We know what the economy of the Confederacy looked like.  We know how much wealth was generated.  We know what labor rates were.   Calculating the value of the wealth generated is kind of the easiest part of that equation.   While slavery might have gone away, the wealth it generated didn't.  That wealth sent a whole lot of former slave owner's kids up for the good life, and absolutely none of it was passed down to the slaves that created it.    They *and their descendants* are due that money, just like Whitey McSlaver's grand-kids were.
 
2021-09-22 2:25:04 PM  

austerity101: Meatsim1: austerity101: Meatsim1: People like to shiat on it because it technically freed no slaves but the implications of the order on the slaves that lived in areas that would be soon controlled by the Union meant holding slaves as property wouldn't last in the US as long as the North won

So how do you feel about paying reparations to the descendants of enslaved people?

I think it's a mistake, especially if it's not done in conjunction with a far broader effort to undo the systemic racism in our society. Even if it were possible to accurately and fairly place a monetary value on the value of the stolen labor and effects of post-war oppression then if systemic racism were not addressed whatever money you gave recipients would only have a temporary affect.

Personally I feel a better investment is into general welfare for all like universal healthcare, education, public banking, etc will go further to address lasting affects of racism and class oppression than issuing checks for a few thousand dollars to individuals who can prove they have ancestors who were enslaved

What do you mean, "Investment"? A payment for injury isn't an investment. We don't say, "The plaintiff doesn't deserve this award for damages because it wouldn't be a good investment." You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what reparations are--they're restitution, not investment.


I mean "investment" to mean a use of public money in this case.

If your goal with reparations is a restitution for victims how can that work since the victims are dead? If the goal is to undo the damages of slavery, Jim Crow, and other forms of oppression on the descendants of slaves then I think we need to do more than give cash to them because the racism systemic to the system will make that a temporary gain for them.
 
2021-09-22 2:28:52 PM  

special20: austerity101: Meatsim1: People like to shiat on it because it technically freed no slaves but the implications of the order on the slaves that lived in areas that would be soon controlled by the Union meant holding slaves as property wouldn't last in the US as long as the North won

So how do you feel about paying reparations to the descendants of enslaved people?

Well, maybe if the crackers did cough up that 40 acres and a mule, they wouldn't be so farking afraid to teach the factual history of America. You know, CRT. Reparations might go a long way into helping whitey feel better about secretly saying the N word when they watch Fox News coverage of BLM protests... whatyya think?


Reparations would mean "whitey" is now free to say the "N" word.   That debt would be paid  Re-investing in areas that deserve it would be a good idea.  Any cash payouts would be the worst thing race relations have ever seen.   You'd create an entire industry devoted to getting that money right back out and you'd be as likely as a lottery payout at creating generational wealth.
 
2021-09-22 2:35:44 PM  

CheatCommando: ArkPanda: Harry Wagstaff: Or New Orleans

Or Tennessee. It was phrased as a punishment for areas currently in rebellion. Very few people in the north really wanted to fight a war solely on behalf of black people.

Well, and the whole issue that there was no Constitutional way to abolish slavery in the states not currently in rebellion. Executive Orders can only do so much, and while the President had considerable leeway in the rebellious states by using his war powers, he didn't have that power in the other states.

I think he would have been OK if the 13th Amendment had passed sooner.


Lincoln had been for the 13th amendment from day 1.  But the Emancipation Proclamation needed to be 1. legal, and thus only covered areas of the Confederacy not already occupied by US troops, and 2. avoid killing support for the war.

The reason he had to wait so long to push it was that he wanted some sort of victory first.  Antietam (called Sharpsburg in the South) was close enough (McClellen couldn't do better than a draw even after being handed Lee's plans), so the Proclamation was ordered.

/the actual document is on paper, so the archives rarely trots it out

Cafe Threads: ArkPanda: Harry Wagstaff: Or New Orleans

Or Tennessee. It was phrased as a punishment for areas currently in rebellion. Very few people in the north really wanted to fight a war solely on behalf of black people.

...Very few people in the north really wanted to fight a war solely on behalf of ANYONE NOT WHITE, MALE AND A LANDOWNER.

Fixeded.


I should point out that the South needed conscription a year before the North.  And of course the Southerners were willing to fight for anyone who owned 50 "attractive African Americans" and thus was exempt from Conscription (the North, of course required "Yankee Money" to get out of service.  Lincoln made a big deal about paying his and his son's weregeld to the country).

The North eventually found plenty of soldiers willing to fight for the freedom of those not white, male, and a landowner and the US Colored Forces were born.  But only after white soldiers realized that the whole "being a soldier" was more than marching around and impressing girls.  There was also the "Johnny Reb is really trying to kill you" and the horror of Civil War medicine (which was vastly better than anything previous, but still nowhere near enough).

And of course (and I'm sure this was true as long as we had segregated troops*), the colored forces were typically the preferred units to send to their deaths.  In at least one instance, they were left to die and invented the modern retreat (with units stationary and covering moving units, and switching.  Presumably this was only possible with a rifle and pointless with muskets).

/* according to a WashPost series of articles before the internet killed newspapers, they had a series on the Korean War
//the claim was that Truman "officially" desegregated the troops, but it took the Korean War (presumably the starting debacle) to make them do it
///planners gave up trying to match soldiers with the "correct" units and just moved anybody they could into position
 
2021-09-22 2:36:12 PM  

Rent Party: Meatsim1: Even if it were possible to accurately and fairly place a monetary value on the value of the stolen labor and effects of post-war oppression then if systemic racism were not addressed whatever money you gave recipients would only have a temporary affect.

That is a possible thing.  We know what the economy of the Confederacy looked like.  We know how much wealth was generated.  We know what labor rates were.   Calculating the value of the wealth generated is kind of the easiest part of that equation.   While slavery might have gone away, the wealth it generated didn't.  That wealth sent a whole lot of former slave owner's kids up for the good life, and absolutely none of it was passed down to the slaves that created it.    They *and their descendants* are due that money, just like Whitey McSlaver's grand-kids were.


Even if you could accurately identify the slaves who worked in a perticular place and those slaves descendants and the descendants of the owner of that place that doesn't mean those descendants' current wealth is still derived from that slave labor.

If in the 6 generations since the Civil War the wealth created from that slavery was lost for whatever reason, say someone's granddaddy made a bunch of bad investments or cut out the kids from the inheritance or whatever. Are you going to find the descendants of whoever he wasted that money on and go after them?

So even if you could identify these people I don't know if I like the idea of going to someone who may be poor or middle class themselves and saying 6 generations ago your ancestors owned slaves and so you need to pay up.
 
2021-09-22 2:38:54 PM  
Dave Chappelle - Reparation for Slavey
Youtube x8LroCgg3uc
 
2021-09-22 2:40:29 PM  

Meatsim1: Rent Party: Meatsim1: Even if it were possible to accurately and fairly place a monetary value on the value of the stolen labor and effects of post-war oppression then if systemic racism were not addressed whatever money you gave recipients would only have a temporary affect.

That is a possible thing.  We know what the economy of the Confederacy looked like.  We know how much wealth was generated.  We know what labor rates were.   Calculating the value of the wealth generated is kind of the easiest part of that equation.   While slavery might have gone away, the wealth it generated didn't.  That wealth sent a whole lot of former slave owner's kids up for the good life, and absolutely none of it was passed down to the slaves that created it.    They *and their descendants* are due that money, just like Whitey McSlaver's grand-kids were.

Even if you could accurately identify the slaves who worked in a perticular place and those slaves descendants and the descendants of the owner of that place that doesn't mean those descendants' current wealth is still derived from that slave labor.

If in the 6 generations since the Civil War the wealth created from that slavery was lost for whatever reason, say someone's granddaddy made a bunch of bad investments or cut out the kids from the inheritance or whatever. Are you going to find the descendants of whoever he wasted that money on and go after them?

So even if you could identify these people I don't know if I like the idea of going to someone who may be poor or middle class themselves and saying 6 generations ago your ancestors owned slaves and so you need to pay up.


That money would come from the confederate state budgets, not the descendants of slaveholders.   You tally up the money owed, pool it, and it can be distributed in a manner that suits the recipients.  Maybe that's a check.  Maybe that is a funding source for the kinds of programs you are talking about.  But it ain't you that gets to decide that.  It is up to the people that money is owed to to decide that.
 
2021-09-22 2:43:49 PM  

yet_another_wumpus: The North eventually found plenty of soldiers willing to fight for the freedom of those not white, male, and a landowner and the US Colored Forces were born.  But only after white soldiers realized that the whole "being a soldier" was more than marching around and impressing girls.  There was also the "Johnny Reb is really trying to kill you" and the horror of Civil War medicine (which was vastly better than anything previous, but still nowhere near enough).


I have an entire collection of letters from my gg uncles to my ggg grandfather from their time in the civil war.   The early letters, just after they volunteered were all very much gung-ho cheerleaderism.   Then they they got their first taste of getting shot at.  At Shiloh.   The tone of those letters were very, very different.

The north never had issues raising regiments, but early in the war no one expected it to last as long as it did.  There were a whole lot of 90 day enlistments because they thought that is about how long it would last.   Getting those guys to stick around was sometimes problematic.
 
2021-09-22 2:44:05 PM  

austerity101: Meatsim1: People like to shiat on it because it technically freed no slaves but the implications of the order on the slaves that lived in areas that would be soon controlled by the Union meant holding slaves as property wouldn't last in the US as long as the North won

So how do you feel about paying reparations to the descendants of enslaved people?


I'd be curious how someone would determine who actually was responsible for slavery, and for racism, being a separate issue, and in what quantifiable amounts.

Nobody on either side of my family came to the US until the 1910s and later, and my wife is a 2nd-generation Danish immigrant (and boy did her folks start regretting their choice to come here in the 1970s). So I'd be curious how, say, my wife could be forced to pay reparations for something which had ended over a century before her parents even became Americans.

One thing is for sure at least. Certainly nobody is going to serious suggest that "all white people are responsible for slavery regardless."  That would just be idiotic and tantamount to the person who says it admitting that they're a troll and asking to be reported/blocked.
 
2021-09-22 2:47:51 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-09-22 2:49:00 PM  

Lvl 19 bureaucrat: pschwarz0717: Cafe Threads: ArkPanda: Harry Wagstaff: Or New Orleans

Or Tennessee. It was phrased as a punishment for areas currently in rebellion. Very few people in the north really wanted to fight a war solely on behalf of black people.

...Very few people in the north really wanted to fight a war solely on behalf of ANYONE NOT WHITE, MALE AND A LANDOWNER.

Fixeded.

Very few people in the North wanted to fight a war

fixed again

not true, only around 4% of 2.1 million or so men who fought in the Union Army were conscripts. another 9% were paid substitutes. meaning 87% were volunteers.

For perspective around 70% of the military in WW2 were conscripted.


And how many volunteered because they knew they would be conscripted anyway and volunteering generally got you in a better situation? That is always an issue with the number of conscripts

Also, the WWII number is garbage. The government banned volunteering (outside specific circumstances) in late 1942 because they had more volunteers than they could handle, so virtually everyone after that had to be a conscript.
 
2021-09-22 2:50:33 PM  

Rent Party: That money would come from the confederate state budgets, not the descendants of slaveholders.


I get you, but it's probably worth mentioning that the person who started the whole reparation discussion in this thread started it with asking an individual to pay said reparations, and has said multiple times in multiple threads that reparations should be paid from individuals, as well as from state coffers.  And he's by no means the only person who frames the discussion of reparations that way, which means how and why individuals are targeted by any program of reparations needs to be included in a discussion.

I personally think doing so poisons the well of the discussion, because targeting individuals makes it necessarily about the individual and therefore inherently derails the argument for or against the entire concept. But people keeping asking things like "are YOU ok with paying reparations", and that isn't going to stop any time soon.  It's genuinely irritating, because the conceptual discussion is one that should be had on the national level, but as long as it's used as an individual attack or the well is poisoned by bad actors forcing the discussion to the individual level, the discussion can't meaningfully happen.
 
2021-09-22 2:54:26 PM  

FightDirector: Rent Party: That money would come from the confederate state budgets, not the descendants of slaveholders.

I get you, but it's probably worth mentioning that the person who started the whole reparation discussion in this thread started it with asking an individual to pay said reparations, and has said multiple times in multiple threads that reparations should be paid from individuals, as well as from state coffers.  And he's by no means the only person who frames the discussion of reparations that way, which means how and why individuals are targeted by any program of reparations needs to be included in a discussion.

I personally think doing so poisons the well of the discussion, because targeting individuals makes it necessarily about the individual and therefore inherently derails the argument for or against the entire concept. But people keeping asking things like "are YOU ok with paying reparations", and that isn't going to stop any time soon.  It's genuinely irritating, because the conceptual discussion is one that should be had on the national level, but as long as it's used as an individual attack or the well is poisoned by bad actors forcing the discussion to the individual level, the discussion can't meaningfully happen.


I wish I could smart you twice, because yeah, that's basically it.   "WHY ME  HAVE TO PAY!  ME NOT EVEN THERE!" is disingenuous, as is "YOU HAVE TO PAY!!  YOU DID IT EVEN THOUGH NOT THERE!!"

It's a question of economics, policy, and justice.   And other than justice, we have those figured out.
 
2021-09-22 2:54:54 PM  

Uncontrolled_Jibe: special20: austerity101: Meatsim1: People like to shiat on it because it technically freed no slaves but the implications of the order on the slaves that lived in areas that would be soon controlled by the Union meant holding slaves as property wouldn't last in the US as long as the North won

So how do you feel about paying reparations to the descendants of enslaved people?

Well, maybe if the crackers did cough up that 40 acres and a mule, they wouldn't be so farking afraid to teach the factual history of America. You know, CRT. Reparations might go a long way into helping whitey feel better about secretly saying the N word when they watch Fox News coverage of BLM protests... whatyya think?

Reparations would mean "whitey" is now free to say the "N" word.   That debt would be paid  Re-investing in areas that deserve it would be a good idea.  Any cash payouts would be the worst thing race relations have ever seen.   You'd create an entire industry devoted to getting that money right back out and you'd be as likely as a lottery payout at creating generational wealth.


Interesting - do we know how generational wealth has worked out for native American tribes that were allowed to open gambling casinos?
 
2021-09-22 3:01:29 PM  

special20: Uncontrolled_Jibe: special20: austerity101: Meatsim1: People like to shiat on it because it technically freed no slaves but the implications of the order on the slaves that lived in areas that would be soon controlled by the Union meant holding slaves as property wouldn't last in the US as long as the North won

So how do you feel about paying reparations to the descendants of enslaved people?

Well, maybe if the crackers did cough up that 40 acres and a mule, they wouldn't be so farking afraid to teach the factual history of America. You know, CRT. Reparations might go a long way into helping whitey feel better about secretly saying the N word when they watch Fox News coverage of BLM protests... whatyya think?

Reparations would mean "whitey" is now free to say the "N" word.   That debt would be paid  Re-investing in areas that deserve it would be a good idea.  Any cash payouts would be the worst thing race relations have ever seen.   You'd create an entire industry devoted to getting that money right back out and you'd be as likely as a lottery payout at creating generational wealth.

Interesting - do we know how generational wealth has worked out for native American tribes that were allowed to open gambling casinos?


I know it is only one data point (as I only know one enrolled tribal member) but the casinos are sending both of his kids to college.   And the reservation I grew up around has gone from straight ghetto to Las Vegas style destination.

Seems to be working out.
 
2021-09-22 3:04:52 PM  

Rent Party: Meatsim1: Rent Party: Meatsim1: Even if it were possible to accurately and fairly place a monetary value on the value of the stolen labor and effects of post-war oppression then if systemic racism were not addressed whatever money you gave recipients would only have a temporary affect.

That is a possible thing.  We know what the economy of the Confederacy looked like.  We know how much wealth was generated.  We know what labor rates were.   Calculating the value of the wealth generated is kind of the easiest part of that equation.   While slavery might have gone away, the wealth it generated didn't.  That wealth sent a whole lot of former slave owner's kids up for the good life, and absolutely none of it was passed down to the slaves that created it.    They *and their descendants* are due that money, just like Whitey McSlaver's grand-kids were.

Even if you could accurately identify the slaves who worked in a perticular place and those slaves descendants and the descendants of the owner of that place that doesn't mean those descendants' current wealth is still derived from that slave labor.

If in the 6 generations since the Civil War the wealth created from that slavery was lost for whatever reason, say someone's granddaddy made a bunch of bad investments or cut out the kids from the inheritance or whatever. Are you going to find the descendants of whoever he wasted that money on and go after them?

So even if you could identify these people I don't know if I like the idea of going to someone who may be poor or middle class themselves and saying 6 generations ago your ancestors owned slaves and so you need to pay up.

That money would come from the confederate state budgets, not the descendants of slaveholders.   You tally up the money owed, pool it, and it can be distributed in a manner that suits the recipients.  Maybe that's a check.  Maybe that is a funding source for the kinds of programs you are talking about.  But it ain't you that gets to decide that.  It is up to the people that money is owed to to decide that.


Well in my opinion that's a bad idea because it doesn't address systemic racism and because you'll not be able to accurately identify descendants of slaves or get the ones you do identify to agree on how money set aside for reparations is spent. I mean say you identify 3 million people in Georgia who are eligible

And I've never see an account of how much reparations would be that makes sense. I mean how much does someone with one ancestors who was a slave get vs someone who's family was entirely enslaved.
 
Displayed 50 of 82 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.