SomaliNet Forums

[quote="Duh"]Intellex oh shut up! Go die! looooool[/quote]


i love you too calooley

Grant,

Never the less, I have the utmost respect for Lincoln most notably for taking a grave decision to hold the Union together under great pressure and to end slavery.

Regarding the Abolitionists, I watched the movie, "Amazing Grace" that spoke of the life of the famous English Abolitionist William Wilberforce. It was great movie that provided insight into British slavery which was responsible for bringing slavery to the New Colonies.

The most interesting aspect of the movie was how the issue of ending slavery got sold to the parliament to ban it. It took years and slick political engineering to get it passed. Lincoln did personally oppose slavery but he had to put enough political capital to end it and to sell it to his supporters in the Union. The fact the South ceded from the Union and the Confederacy's declaration of war, brought an opportunity to end slavery by creating a larger issue, the Unity of the Republic, on which the antislavery issue became attached. Had the Confederacy not taken declared war and secession from the Union, I do believe Lincoln would have never been able to end slavery

AW,

I agree completely.

Grant,

There are some like Ron Paul who believe that slavery would have ended after the take off of the industrial revolution in the USA. Industralization would have rendered labor intensive practices as not being cost effective than using mechanized machinery.

Do you buy into the argument ?

AW,

I doubt that slavery in the US could have survived WWII. But before that time, if the issue of "States Rights" had not been resolved, the various regions of the country were so segmented and incommunicado, just about anything could have been going on. Prior to the civil war many slaves had moved into skilled positions as blacksmiths, potters, glassworkers, printers etc., and others were sent into brothels. Slavery supported more than just a plantation economy.

So I think Ron Paul's explanation is a bit simplistic.

The movement towards freedom and civil rights followed a media glare on ugly realities. Which followed upon the ability of the common man to be aware of what was going on across regional lines. As an example, the reality of Jim Crow was not readily apparent in the North. My childhood was spent in Ohio, and I first entered a school system there. THE FIRST BLACK PEOPLE I EVER SAW IN MY LIFE WERE A RED CAP AND A SHOESHINE BOY AT THE TRAIN STATION IN CHICAGO WHEN I TOOK A TRIP TO UTAH AT ABOUT THE AGE OF 11 about 1954. This was not because of segregation. It was because black people did not live in that part of Ohio. The condition of sharecroppers in the South and lynchings were rarely an item on the radio news. We got our first TV in 1953. Big City newspapers did not penetrate deeply into the small towns or rural areas.

Then and now, I think it is mostly about the message and the available media.

is there white history month?

No just for the minorities Hypercative .

i assume white history day is every day.
lol