Do you think the slaves were owed reparations?

if they are not African, what are they really??

 

so you make some random, unsourced quotes taken from who knows where as proof that africans were enslaving eachother for generation upon generation, enslaving babies, branding slaves, whipping slaves, force feeding them, keeping them in shackles and a million of torture methods JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE BORN SLAVES?

thats a crazy theory, you must have access to some highly sort after documents from the Ptolemic or Roman Empires in Egypt as they were the ONLY europeans to have ventured into Africa prior to the Trans Atlantic Slave so called Trade

 

pretty much. the trans sahara slave trade was the african wing of the wider arab slave trade that also encompassed parts of europe and arabia.

 

Sherman was only ONE of the generals who used it as a recruitment tool for freed slaves. Many others used it as well, and Lincoln knew the promise was being made. The government went along with it until after the war.

So basically many black soldiers who served in the union army went without pay. They were serving on the promise that they would be paid after the war with 40 acres and a mule. The government knew about the promises Sherman and others were making to them,and waited until after the war to make it clear that the government wouldn't be living up to those promises.

 

YOU are the one that missed the point- which was that some black people look at the entire scenario, not just what they think gives them the right to be offended and demand reparations or justice- especially when they aren't the people who were involved. They also demand it from others that had nothing to do with slavery- that were, like my great-grandfather, immigrants from Europe in the 1870's. When you blame everything in your life for what happened to people of your race 200 years ago, it's highly self-serving.

We now have had a black president. we have black prosecutors, mayors, surgeons, pilots, and black in every area of society- some incredibly wealthy. The idea they should "step up" is no different than what my generation expected from me and everybody else- and I did. Trash people come in every race, and they are self-made; the result of their own mindset and choices. America has bent over backwards to correct racism. While those efforts may not be perfect- neither are the people we have tried to help, who often spit on those sacrificing to help them. There are good people and bad people- and it IS THEIR CHOICE, not mine. I will respsect a respectable man of any color- but that is something earned by your conduct, not due you because of your color. Any color.

 

The article I quoted from is well-footnoted, had you bothered to look, but it wasn't a lengthy, comprehensive compendium of all the knowledge on this subject. Dig into it yourself and you will find AMPLE evidence to convince you that yes, (emotional, hysterical gushing aside), African Blacks did put other African Blacks into slavery. Don't have an apoplectic fit -- White Europeans took other White Europeans into slavery, too. Slavery of many different forms was actually a fairly commonplace practice of nearly all cultures and civilizations until about 150 years ago....

YES -- White people in what we call Italy today took White people in what we call Germany today as slaves! That's why, if ANYBODY is going to be paid 'reparations' for slavery, I want to be paid because of what the ancestors of today's Italians did to my German ancestors. I'm sure you see the logic in that... besides if anybody is going to be stupid enough to start paying 'reparations' for this kind of thing, I want in on the FREE STUFF, along with everybody else....

 

So fighting for their own freedom wasn’t worthy of their efforts? They had to be paid to do so?

Pathetic

 

The union wasn't fighting for their freedom The war was NEVER about freeing slaves. The war was about keeping states from seceding. end of story. Even the "emanipation" proclaimation wasnt about freeing slaves, as it didnt free anyone. It was an order to take possession of all property owned by rebels. This included slaves. The slaves weren't actually freed legally until after the war. Many of the southern slaves taken by union soldiers were forced to join the union army. The main reason Sherman and others started promising compensation after the war was to keep them from simply deserting.

 

Well I don’t disagree. In fact I agree wholeheartedly. But you’re talking about the unions motivation. The black populations best chance at freedom was the north winning that war.

If you won’t fight for your freedom, with or without compensation, then you don’t deserve it.

 

ithought that the point of this exchange was to establish whether "blacks enslaved blacks" in africa before the colonization of the 15th century [excluding POW's] ?
im not aware of you offering a primary source here, unless imissed it amongst all of the racist rants diluting all the worthy content.

 

I think the Union paid the practice for that moral turpitude through our Civil War. The South should have merely been reimbursed for their property upon emancipation.

 

Don't worry, Esau, you surely haven't violated any 'rules' as far as I'm concerned. This is a political forum, and we're supposed to have fervent, heated debates about politically-connected topics. So, fire away -- preferably about the thread-topic -- reparations....

 

Freed slaves and the Union Army "scratched each other's backs". Lincoln needed more many more warm bodies for the increasingly unpopular war, and, the freed slaves, many of whom had never worked anywhere but on some farm or plantation, needed to be able to eat, and be able to earn enough of a living to survive. The two went hand-in-hand....

 

iwill raise you one individual case, one of many just to highlight that THIS HAPPENS. it is of a man, a victim of the concentration camps who died. his descendants received $400,000 in the 2014 arrangement with france to compensate victims AND descendants of the Nazi crimes. the negotioater is stuart elizenstat.

due to jewish influence during those war years [and imo the fact they are white] they were able to garner support to not only gain a prime piece of real estate but also to galvanize support within the spheres of military power that enabled them to subject the "persecutors" to make recompense over the following half a century, to the tune of $70 billion.
that so called african americans never had that entrenched foundation within the establishment during the post slavery years SHOULD NOT disqualify them from reparations that the White Jewish Europeans receive. The question is an ethical one based around an arbitrary cut off point of several years and has no real legal definition. therefore if WJE's can receive billions from 2 years of horrific persecution 80 years ago by europeans then why cant so called african americans for 400 years of horrific persecution 180 years ago by europeans?

 

so the same party that is responsible for slavery (and even fought a war to try and keep it) now wants to give repartitions? That's funny!
I'm thinking republicans should get the reparations because they have Abe Lincoln to thank for their freedom.

 

You are one of the ones who will have to be sent to a re-education camp. Eventually you will pay and thank the government for the privilege of doing so.

 

Thank you sir, may I have another.

 

END OF STORY

The war and secession was ALL to do with slavery regardless of what you've been taught to believe..

 

You raise an interesting ethical and legal point. I did find a wiki about Stuart Eizenstat, and he has been very active in the area of "Holocaust Asset Restitution". Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_E._Eizenstat . I found another wiki concerning "Holocaust Era Asset Restitution Taskforce": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_Era_Asset_Restitution_Taskforce

These efforts on behalf of victims of the Nazi confiscations of property owned by European Jews before, and during the Holocaust were focused on the return of the contents of bank accounts, businesses, other financial instruments, real estate, artwork, jewelry, and other assets that could be traced to individuals and their families who brought action to secure the return of these assets after World War II. Truthfully, the establishment of similar "standing" for Black Americans would be very problematic for many reasons.

Most obvious would be the fact that whereas the Jewish people had things they owned stolen from them before they were summarily thrown out of their home country, or later, into a concentration camp, the American Black slave population would only rarely have had any such documentation to support their ownership of items that they could state were stolen from them. In any event, it is most likely that such items would have already been stolen from them before they ever boarded the slaver ships to be brought to America to be sold.

The situations, then, are very dissimilar, and it is made all the more confusing by the passing of time, because the last American slave passed away in 1971, more than 47 years ago.

 

The brat who pulled my ponytails in primary owe me reparations... he made me suffer

 

Yeah , I bet ole Ben Carson' was a terrible surgeon. Being that he's a minority and all right?

 

Utterly false and I can prove it.

The south did not go to war to preserve slavery because they had no NEED to do so. The North had already capitulated. It was called the Corwin amendment. An amendment which would have ended secession and guaranteed slavery as an inalienable constitutional right. An amendment which had already passed Congress, had full support from Lincoln and had already been ratified by multiple union states.

Now tell me. Why would ANYONE choose to risk EVERYTHING they have to engage in a war that they KNEW they had little to no chance of winning in order to accomplish the EXACT same goal of the preservation of slavery that they could have accomplished with zero risk and a 100% guarantee of success simply by signing a piece of paper?

Don’t worry. I’ll wait.

 

The SOUTH went to war to preserve slavery, the North went to war to preserve the UNION. The North didn't care one bit about the slaves themselves. In fact, most northerners didn't even want freed slaves to be given any rights at all.

 

Read the post above. The south did not go to war to save slavery. That’s patently absurd.

Less than 6% of the white population in the south owned slaves. That means 94% of them broke their backs in the fields daily to compete against that free slave labor. To assert that the 94% went to war and sent their children to fight and die so that the 6% could keep their slaves is preposterous.

Moreover if the argument is that the leadership of the confederacy, many of whom were slaveowners, wanted to preserve slavery, then why would they not simply sign the Corwin amendment?

 

yeah generally people don't mention things that only exist in your mind.

I think it's funny you're upset that nobody made the stupid argument you wanted them to. You're upset that nobody believes something that ridiculous. You're upset that the right-wing isn't as stupid as you have told yourself they are.

Pathetic.