BuffaloBill Posted November 26, 2013 Author Posted November 26, 2013 Not at all. The difference being slavery is illegal. Laws don't stop anything from happening; we still have murders, rapes, drugs, etc. That doesn't mean our society has ANY tolerance for them - because we don't. The real issue is priority, which liberals don't understand. If the government is in the business of making sure everyone has cable television and a cell phone, they're not going to have the resources to go after things like that. It's something I've always railed about, to deaf ears among the liberal "intelligencia". I'm not sure these things are a huge problem in the United States, even though our government regularly wipes its ass with the Constitution because the citizenry is indoctrinated/stupid. Pretty much everything I've read show it being more rampant outside our borders, with Asia and the old Eastern Bloc leading the way. When I was in the military, we got regular briefings about human trafficking - what to look for, where/how to report it, and the penalties if you were involved in it. Even today civilians and contractors are briefed on it at least annually. It's taken it very seriously, especially overseas. The underlying truth to the situation is that as long as the economics work it will go on. While not all trafficking is tied to prostitution it is easy to postulate that this is the case. If this is to stop the money trail has to be turned upside down. I suppose this is among the basic reasons why the libertarians out there say the practice should be legalized. If your into taxes you could then pile on with a hefty sin tax.
boyst Posted November 26, 2013 Posted November 26, 2013 It's like a game of cat and mouse, only using a three legged, retarded, delusional mouse. or hyperbole because points and arguments cannot be made with irrational thought processes. And not that I am going to get in to it with Gatorpup but NC, the majority of the population, was Pro Union. The Western half of the state, primarily. But the Eastern portions of the state as well. Tour some of the forts. Spend some time researching it and you would see this. The majority population of NC was against the war and more in favor of Union policy then Confederate.
K-9 Posted November 26, 2013 Posted November 26, 2013 or hyperbole because points and arguments cannot be made with irrational thought processes. And not that I am going to get in to it with Gatorpup but NC, the majority of the population, was Pro Union. The Western half of the state, primarily. But the Eastern portions of the state as well. Tour some of the forts. Spend some time researching it and you would see this. The majority population of NC was against the war and more in favor of Union policy then Confederate. Regardless of how the majority of the population felt, a majority of state representatives in Raleigh voted to succeed none the less. How was this possible if there was such a strong pro-union lobby, particularly in the more populated eastern section of the state? I'm not arguing your point at all, I'm just at a loss as to how an elected representative government in NC got it so wrong with regard to the will of its people.
DC Tom Posted November 26, 2013 Posted November 26, 2013 It was?? Then why were slaves so expensive? Why was slave trading so profitable? Why were not more slave holders emancapating this obsolete system? Can you provide ANY evidence that there was a "large body of thought" that the slaves should be educated??? I can show the opposite, that it was illegal to educate slaves. Boy, talk about revisionist history. History is not your strong suit No, I can't provide any evidence, because it's in primary sources not available online (such as: the writings of policy-makers who thought slaves should be educated), therefore in your little idiot-world it doesn't exist. More the fool you to think that the Confederacy was some monolithic bloc that moved lock-step with respect to slaves. Or that all the slave states represented a monolithic bloc themselves - Delaware, Maryland, and Kentucky were all slave states in the Union. MD and KY didn't outlaw slavery until after the war. The history of slavery in Delaware is particularly informative - as the state economy became more industrialized, the pressure to manumit slaves on economic grounds increased, which very much included the gradual education and manumission of the slave population. Much the same was happening in Virginia. Generally, it was recognized everywhere that slavery was a dying institution. Reasonable people were arguing about how it should be ended. The minority of unreasonable absolutists - Northern abolitionists in New England and Southern reactionary slaveholders in the deep South (states like SC and Alabama, which did explicitly secede and fight over slavery) are ultimately the ones that prompted a war.
3rdnlng Posted November 26, 2013 Posted November 26, 2013 (edited) Regardless of how the majority of the population felt, a majority of state representatives in Raleigh voted to succeed none the less. How was this possible if there was such a strong pro-union lobby, particularly in the more populated eastern section of the state? I'm not arguing your point at all, I'm just at a loss as to how an elected representative government in NC got it so wrong with regard to the will of its people. They were confused as to what they were voting for. To succeed or not to secede? Edited November 26, 2013 by 3rdnlng
B-Man Posted November 26, 2013 Posted November 26, 2013 They were confused as to what they were voting for. To succeed or not to secede? How many "accidently voted for Pat Buchanan ? .
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 26, 2013 Posted November 26, 2013 No, I can't provide any evidence, because it's in primary sources not available online (such as: the writings of policy-makers who thought slaves should be educated), therefore in your little idiot-world it doesn't exist. More the fool you to think that the Confederacy was some monolithic bloc that moved lock-step with respect to slaves. Or that all the slave states represented a monolithic bloc themselves - Delaware, Maryland, and Kentucky were all slave states in the Union. MD and KY didn't outlaw slavery until after the war. The history of slavery in Delaware is particularly informative - as the state economy became more industrialized, the pressure to manumit slaves on economic grounds increased, which very much included the gradual education and manumission of the slave population. Much the same was happening in Virginia. Generally, it was recognized everywhere that slavery was a dying institution. Reasonable people were arguing about how it should be ended. The minority of unreasonable absolutists - Northern abolitionists in New England and Southern reactionary slaveholders in the deep South (states like SC and Alabama, which did explicitly secede and fight over slavery) are ultimately the ones that prompted a war. This is a perfect summary. Well stated.
boyst Posted November 26, 2013 Posted November 26, 2013 Regardless of how the majority of the population felt, a majority of state representatives in Raleigh voted to succeed none the less. How was this possible if there was such a strong pro-union lobby, particularly in the more populated eastern section of the state? I'm not arguing your point at all, I'm just at a loss as to how an elected representative government in NC got it so wrong with regard to the will of its people. rhey did succeed in seccesseeding Regardless of how the majority of the population felt, a majority of state representatives in Raleigh voted to succeed none the less. How was this possible if there was such a strong pro-union lobby, particularly in the more populated eastern section of the state? I'm not arguing your point at all, I'm just at a loss as to how an elected representative government in NC got it so wrong with regard to the will of its people. I am far from an expert on this but know that majority doesn't always rule. The landowners and powers that be were the ones pulling the strings. A very large population in NC fought in the war, and died, but a great many did not agree with the fight or cause. Fort Macon is a great example. In the start of the war it was quickly seized and overtaken by Confederate troops. Not long after a heavy Union army came in and faced little resistance on their march in to the Fort. They battled it out and won and held the fort with ease during the war largely because the Eastern NC population did not support the war and those that did were off fighting other battles. Fort Macon is an awesome place, btw
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted November 26, 2013 Posted November 26, 2013 No, I can't provide any evidence, You should have stopped right there. It's really all you needed to say Generally, it was recognized everywhere that slavery was a dying institution. Yes, except in the places we are talking about, IN THE SOUTH! It was not yet dying there, it was still enormously profitable. You just don't know what you are talking about. As I have already stated and documented, not only was it still not dying the South was actively trying to expand it. How does your ignorant ass explain away the Compromise of 1820, the Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Law, the Lacompton Constitution, all about slavery, and all things the South said they would seceed over if they did not get there way? Huh?
DC Tom Posted November 26, 2013 Posted November 26, 2013 You should have stopped right there. It's really all you needed to say Yes, except in the places we are talking about, IN THE SOUTH! It was not yet dying there, it was still enormously profitable. You just don't know what you are talking about. As I have already stated and documented, not only was it still not dying the South was actively trying to expand it. How does your ignorant ass explain away the Compromise of 1820, the Compromise of 1850, the Fugitive Slave Law, the Lacompton Constitution, all about slavery, and all things the South said they would seceed over if they did not get there way? Huh? You clearly stopped learning about this in second grade.
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted November 26, 2013 Posted November 26, 2013 More the fool you to think that the Confederacy was some monolithic bloc that moved lock-step with respect to slaves. Or that all the slave states represented a monolithic bloc themselves - Delaware, Maryland, and Kentucky were all slave states in the Union. MD and KY didn't outlaw slavery until after the war. The history of slavery in Delaware is particularly informative - as the state economy became more industrialized, the pressure to manumit slaves on economic grounds increased, which very much included the gradual education and manumission of the slave population. Much the same was happening in Virginia. Great Tom, the states with the smallest slave populations didn't leave the Union. That's more supporting my argument, not yours. Tell me one free state that seceeded because of this over intrusive federal government you clowns have dreamed up? Can you? Why was that? Can you just answer that question? And to your point of slavery dying, even during the war, with slavery dying even faster, Lincoln offered to buy up and free all the border states slaves, at a good prices! The answer from those slaveholders: No You clearly stopped learning about this in second grade. That's not an argument! But here is one: If you wrote the nonsense you have for a college paper you would get an F for lack of sources and using fiction in a history paper. Give it up
DC Tom Posted November 26, 2013 Posted November 26, 2013 That's not an argument! But here is one: If you wrote the nonsense you have for a college paper you would get an F for lack of sources and using fiction in a history paper. Give it up If I were writing a college paper, I'd be citing the sources. I'm not providing them to you because they're not online, so you wouldn't consider them authoritative anyway, idiot that you are.
K-9 Posted November 26, 2013 Posted November 26, 2013 They were confused as to what they were voting for. To succeed or not to secede? Touche. But I think my meaning was clear.
Koko78 Posted November 26, 2013 Posted November 26, 2013 (edited) They were confused as to what they were voting for. To succeed or not to secede? They had to vote for secession to see what would be in it. Edited November 26, 2013 by Koko78
GG Posted November 26, 2013 Posted November 26, 2013 Yes, except in the places we are talking about, IN THE SOUTH! It was not yet dying there, it was still enormously profitable. As it was in NYS ...
DC Tom Posted November 26, 2013 Posted November 26, 2013 Yes it is. No it isn't. It's a factual statement of his level of knowledge based on empirical observation. "Argument" implies there's a countervailing point of view, which there clearly isn't.
Jauronimo Posted November 26, 2013 Posted November 26, 2013 No it isn't. It's a factual statement of his level of knowledge based on empirical observation. "Argument" implies there's a countervailing point of view, which there clearly isn't. No, you came here for an argument.
Trump_is_Mentally_fit Posted November 26, 2013 Posted November 26, 2013 No it isn't. It's a factual statement of his level of knowledge based on empirical observation. "Argument" implies there's a countervailing point of view, which there clearly isn't. The sad thing is, most of the people reading this board probably actually believe you are right and I'm wrong. I'll think about that the next time one of your little cronies complains about the ignorance of the American electorate.
boyst Posted November 26, 2013 Posted November 26, 2013 The sad thing is, most of the people reading this board probably actually believe you are right and I'm wrong. I'll think about that the next time one of your little cronies complains about the ignorance of the American electorate. i don't believe tom any more then I believe you. And vice versa. You look pretty dumb debating tom toe to toe. And that is your fault. Tom is clearly above average intelligence and more educated then most but the dude would argue with a wall if it would say anything at all. That you don't let go shows you to be dumb. Tom won't give up. This is just practice for him to make insults, play with a new toy until he bored and a way for him to pass the time- not by actually making an argument but taking apart anyone elses. That's why he has such a poor reputation to so many idiots. He simply reminds them they have no business saying anything or speaking. Whether he is right or wrong doesn't matter. Its that he will rope a dope you and get you dancing to his music. Call it his charm So, dance monkey.... dance.
Recommended Posts