Search:

[QUOTE=Ganelon;874694]If they did give a shit answer me this. Why the Jim Crow laws? And why was the military segregated for a long time? I’m just saying, the North probably did away with slavery because it didn’t affect their economy much. They didn’t have many slaves to begin with; they only had indentured servants. It’s easy to be an abolitionist when it personally doesn’t affect you, isn’t it[/QUOTE]

First of all, the North did not invent Jim Crow laws. Secondly, Abraham Lincoln wasn't even president when Jim Crow laws expanded and started affecting a majority of black people. Thirdly, the South still had black people farming their plantations even after slavery ended, through a method called sharecropping.

The reason Jim Crow laws lasted so long was most likely because upcoming presidents and political parties favored state laws, it's really that simple. It turns out that making social change in an era of extreme racism is really difficult.

[QUOTE=Ganelon;874712]The north could’ve repealed it or prevented their passing, they didn’t. I’m not saying the south wasn’t racist; in saying the north was too, and that if they had really given a shit about blacks they wouldn’t have allowed the south to pass those laws. They were probably less racist than the south, but that doesn’t mean that they weren’t racist.[/QUOTE]

Again, Jim Crow laws were state laws. There is very little the Union could have done about it at the time. They just had a massive war over the ratification of the 13th Amendment. You really think they wanted another war with the amount of idiots at the time that were in favor of state rights?

[QUOTE=Helz;873900]Would it help if I pointed out that the Union was majority republican?.[/QUOTE]

Sir, did you know that the swastika was a symbol of peace until Hitler used it on his political platform?

Originally Posted by Ganelon

If they did give a shit answer me this. Why the Jim Crow laws? And why was the military segregated for a long time? I’m just saying, the North probably did away with slavery because it didn’t affect their economy much. They didn’t have many slaves to begin with; they only had indentured servants. It’s easy to be an abolitionist when it personally doesn’t affect you, isn’t it

First of all, the North did not invent Jim Crow laws. Secondly, Abraham Lincoln wasn't even president when Jim Crow laws expanded and started affecting a majority of black people. Thirdly, the South still had black people farming their plantations even after slavery ended, through a method called sharecropping.

The reason Jim Crow laws lasted so long was most likely because upcoming presidents and political parties favored state laws, it's really that simple. It turns out that making social change in an era of extreme racism is really difficult.

Originally Posted by Ganelon

The north could’ve repealed it or prevented their passing, they didn’t. I’m not saying the south wasn’t racist; in saying the north was too, and that if they had really given a shit about blacks they wouldn’t have allowed the south to pass those laws. They were probably less racist than the south, but that doesn’t mean that they weren’t racist.

Again, Jim Crow laws were state laws. There is very little the Union could have done about it at the time. They just had a massive war over the ratification of the 13th Amendment. You really think they wanted another war with the amount of idiots at the time that were in favor of state rights?

Originally Posted by Helz

Would it help if I pointed out that the Union was majority republican?.

Sir, did you know that the swastika was a symbol of peace until Hitler used it on his political platform?

[QUOTE=Ganelon;872946]Let me rephrase this:
For the north, the war was about secession and keeping the union intact. For the south, the war was about slavery. I’m saying the Union didn’t give a shit about slavery (or about freedom), at least not to extent where they attacked the south to free the slaves.

I also don’t think it was Northern greed that led to the war - I think the North simply wanted to keep the Union intact.[/QUOTE]

The southern states wanted state rights so that they can keep slaves. They feared that with the election of Abraham Lincoln, their state rights (slavery was a state right at that time) would be diminished. While this was happening, the Northern states were expanding westward, gaining more states that favored federal laws over state laws. This is why the Southern states seceded. Because state rights favored slavery and discrimination, and the North wanted to take away state rights. State rights in the United States are shit because even after the Civil War, Jim Crow laws (more state rights) became a thing regardless.

So yes, at its very core principle, the North wanted to take away or restrict slavery as hypocritical as it may seem from someone like Abe Lincoln.

Originally Posted by Ganelon

Let me rephrase this:
For the north, the war was about secession and keeping the union intact. For the south, the war was about slavery. I’m saying the Union didn’t give a shit about slavery (or about freedom), at least not to extent where they attacked the south to free the slaves.

I also don’t think it was Northern greed that led to the war - I think the North simply wanted to keep the Union intact.

The southern states wanted state rights so that they can keep slaves. They feared that with the election of Abraham Lincoln, their state rights (slavery was a state right at that time) would be diminished. While this was happening, the Northern states were expanding westward, gaining more states that favored federal laws over state laws. This is why the Southern states seceded. Because state rights favored slavery and discrimination, and the North wanted to take away state rights. State rights in the United States are shit because even after the Civil War, Jim Crow laws (more state rights) became a thing regardless.

So yes, at its very core principle, the North wanted to take away or restrict slavery as hypocritical as it may seem from someone like Abe Lincoln.

[QUOTE=naz;869416]Mag....have u looked at them?
[IMG]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Emancipation_Memorial.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

This one seems to be taken out of context. It clearly says "EMANCIPATION" on the statue. For a time where slavery was indoctrinated into American tradition, Abraham Lincoln could be seen as a symbol of social progressiveness for that[I] [B]era[/B][/I]. That African-American male in that statue is Archer Alexander, a runaway slave that hid in the Northern states with the help of another abolitionist until the the 13th Amendment was ratified. That abolitionist (William Greenfield Eliot) included Alexander into the statue to reflect Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation of slaves. It might look a bit wrong, but this statue isn't anywhere close in terms of racism compared to other statues.

Originally Posted by naz

Mag....have u looked at them?

This one seems to be taken out of context. It clearly says "EMANCIPATION" on the statue. For a time where slavery was indoctrinated into American tradition, Abraham Lincoln could be seen as a symbol of social progressiveness for that era. That African-American male in that statue is Archer Alexander, a runaway slave that hid in the Northern states with the help of another abolitionist until the the 13th Amendment was ratified. That abolitionist (William Greenfield Eliot) included Alexander into the statue to reflect Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation of slaves. It might look a bit wrong, but this statue isn't anywhere close in terms of racism compared to other statues.