BilliJo Aldrin
-
Posts
4,947 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Knowledge Base
Posts posted by BilliJo Aldrin
-
-
2 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:
Are you referring to the number of deaths in the Civil War? Because 620,000 died.
Yes you are right, I'm not sure where I got the 100,000 from. Thank you for the correction
-
The colonies chose to break away from Britain, and backed up their action by force of arms, and they won
The Confederate states chose to break away from the United States, and backed up their action by force of arms, and they lost.
That's the only difference.
-
1 minute ago, janetosilio said:
Also the Confederate states' secession was illegal.
Section 10 of the US Constitution:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; ..
So by creating the CONFEDERATE States of America, they were breaking a clause they agreed back in 1789? Revisionism is awesome!
While they are a member of the Union.
They had already individually withdrawn from the union and were free independant countries. They did NOT create the confederacy while still part of the United States.
-
8 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:
I am not going to argue about he causes of the Civil War but I do have a degree in history and I do know that the primary cause of the Civil War was slavery. There were other related issues but that was primary, slavery made war in evitable
No, war was not inevitable. He could have let the 7 original states depart in peace. Lincoln pushed the country into his war to preserve the Union. The blood of 100,000 people is on his hands.
Slavery would have died a natural death sooner or later, just as it died out in the northern states
-
9 minutes ago, Aislin Ceawlin said:
Not sure if anyone has brought this up, I haven't read forward. Actually, as recently as now! I'm referring to the baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for the gay couple.
Should he have the right to refuse?
And who's "rights" should trump in this ridiculous suit from the Peoples Islamic State of Canada?
A Muslim Barber in Ontario, Canada, was sued by a woman after he refused to cut her hair saying his religion does not allow him to touch women, according to media reports.
Omar Mahrouk, co-owner of the Terminal Barber shop said his staff and himself are of Muslim faith which prohibits them from touching a woman who is not a member of their family.
Faith McGregor turned to Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in June saying she was denied a “business haircut” because of her gender, which is against woman’s right, adding that she felt like a “second-class citizen.”
“For me it was just a haircut and started out about me being a woman.
Now we’re talking about religion versus gender versus human rights and businesses in Ontario,” McGregor told the Toronto Star.
“We live for our values. We are people who have values and we hold on to it. I am not going to change what the faith has stated to us to do. This is not extreme — this is just a basic value that we follow,” said Karim Saaden, co-owner of the Terminal Barber Shop.
“In our faith, for instance, I can cut my mother’s hair, I can cut my sister’s hair, I can cut my wife’s hair, my daughter’s hair,” he added.
The 35-year-old filed woman the complaint requesting Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to force barbers to provide haircuts to both women and men.
McGregor is not seeking monetary damages, but wants the tribunal to force the shop to offer haircuts to both genders.
According to the Toronto Star, the barbershop suggested McGregor return for a haircut by barber willing to cut her hair, however she turned down the offer.http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/11/16/249931.html
-
1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:
I don't believe that.
Money played a part in it, and sometimes the sole part for greedy people cashing in as the chaos ensued. But there's writings from many people going years back before the war saying slavery needed to end.
Slavery is like smoking, once you decide its bad, you try and make everyone stop doing it.
The United States of America was founded as a slave owning country. The main disagreement about slavery was whether it should be allowed to spread into new territories. THAT is the issue that was fought over for decades.
There was never any movement to repeal slavery in the states where it already existed, but it was realized that unless there continued a parity between slave states and free states, at some point in time, the federal government might try to ban it in all states.
Abraham Lincoln was willing to propose a constitutional amendment guaranteeing slavery in the states it currently existed in.
-
1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:
What was the fight over?
On November 6, 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States -- an event that outraged southern states. The Republican party had run on an anti-slavery platform, and many southerners felt that there was no longer a place for them in the Union. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina seceded. By Febrary 1, 1861, six more states -- Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas -- had split from the Union. The seceded states created the Confederate States of America and elected Jefferson Davis, a Mississippi Senator, as their provisional president.
In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law -- a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies. Lincoln's statement, however, did not satisfy the Confederacy, and on April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops returned the fire. The Civil War had begun.
Immediately following the attack, four more states -- Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee -- severed their ties with the Union. To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however -- most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American voluteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened. -
1 hour ago, Pamela Galli said:
Primarily, as I said, it was. There is no question about that.
It was fought over whether a state had the right to leave the union. Slavery was irrelevant.
I suppose next you'll tell us WWII was fought to end the Holocaust.
-
2 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:
I think it is beyond clear it would not in some places. Too many places. Just look around today for abundant evidence of that. (Or look to the Civil War, which was fought primarily because emancipation was not going to happen without law.)
Without laws regulating capitalism there would be no protection of minority rights.
Here we go again, the war was fought to free the slaves.... except it wasn't.
-
1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:
When a person or group has power over another person or group they almost never give their power position up without a fight. You can learn that from reading History.
And why would anyone want to give up power?
Look what happened to Rhodesia and South Africa
-
Just now, Innula Zenovka said:
You're doubtless more familiar with US constitutional law than am I, but I'd thought Brown v Board of Education went the other way.
I am not quite sure what deciding with whom you want to associate has to do with anything, though. I mean, when I go to a restaurant with someone, I would would say I'm associating with my companion not with the party on the next table. Similarly, when I get on a bus or the London Underground I wouldn't say I was associating with all the other passengers who happen to be using it at the same time. And certainly if I use a public restroom I would not say I am associating with other people who happen to be using it at the same time. Certainly not!
You still haven't been able to give me a straight answer to my simple question, I note.
I can't answer it. I can't see into the hearts and minds of millions of business owners in the South.
Obviously laws forced it to end. I have no idea if it would have ended naturally or not, but we'll never find out will we?
-
2 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:
That was not meant towards you just so you know, or to just any one side..I'm not a fan of either the left or the right when it comes to this subject..At least these days..Neither seem to want to do much more than just bicker to bicker..
I usually stay away from these threads when they turn this way..Mainly because they are not part of any sort of a cure or attempt at one but more, they just end up being fuel for the fire..
I probably should have kept my peace in this one as well,but it just kind of spilled out a little..
Oh I know, it takes at least two people to keep a thread going.
*waiting to hear people start saying "ok, I'm done , I'm not going to post again"*
-
Lets not forget, money, not race is the ultimate deciding factor in the unequil distribution of goods and services.
I suppose we need to rectify that inequality next.
-
9 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:
I don't know why you find it so difficult to answer a simple question.
Clearly some restaurants served people of different skin colours in different sections of the restaurant, and bus companies carried people of different colours in different different sections of the same bus. Though obviously some restaurants did simply refuse to accommodate black customers.
Do you say that this discrimination and segregation would have ended anyway, because of market forces, or do you share my view that legislation was necessary to put an end to it?
No need to go off at tangents about the US civil war or anything else. I am asking a perfectly simple question about discrimination in the provision of goods and services in the USA some 50 years ago. Why do you find it so difficult to answer?
Separate but Equal was decided to be legal by the supreme court.
As I said before, I'm opposed to forced segregation as well as forced integration.
In a free society, people must have the right to decide who they want to associate with, and who they don't want to associate with
-
2 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:
I agree..
Threads that take a turn like these, never end well and always seem to get filled with misinformation and anger and go dark fast..
People only have to graze close to the subject before the course gets changed..I'm sure I don't have to say that out loud to anyone really..
In my opinion from my own observation..people never seem to be looking for actual education or results or wanting to communicate,but more just to argue about what they have learned..I never hear much about personal experiences from others..yet so many are the expert of what is going on..
These threads always seem to have this left and right feel to me, with this north and south civil war still on thing..
How can we expect people to move on when people are still fighting a war that ended long ago.?
Until people really want to fix something,it's always gonna go dark.
Guess its time for LL to put a lock on the thread... no wait... they are on break till Tuesday
*grins*
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Innula Zenovka said:
Presumably not. And clearly some restaurants served people of different skin colours in different sections of the restaurant, and bus companies carried people of different colours in different different sections of the same bus. Though obviously some restaurants did simply refuse to accommodate black customers.
Do you say that this discrimination and segregation would have ended anyway, because of market forces, or do you share my view that legislation was necessary to put an end to it?
I suppose you'll say slavery wouldn't have ended either unless we fought a war in which 100,000 people died.
-
3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:
Well that just goes back to my original contention that owners of private businesses should be able to decide who they want to serve.
I'm sure the restaurant down the street served everyone.
*shrugs*
-
Just now, Innula Zenovka said:
I didn't ask you that. You said that you had worked in retail, where there is only one colour, green. Clearly, though, that wasn't the case in parts of the USA some 50 years ago, when some businesses providing goods and services weren't interested in the colour of your money if your skin was the wrong colour.
I am simply asking you if you think that that situation -- which I am sure we both agree was thoroughly undesirable -- would have changed anyway, because of market forces, or if you think it needed legislation to change it.
I suspect there were very few merchants that would have refused to accept your money regardless of your skin color.
There wouldn't have been white and colored bathrooms in major departments stores if blacks were not allowed in the front door would there?
-
3 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:
I don't quite understand. Do you think that discrimination in the provision of goods and services in some parts of the USA would have ended anyway, because of market forces, without the need for any legislation, or would you agree with me that legislation was necessary?
I think that there is a market to provide goods and services to anyone that has the money to buy such things. I hope you aren't going to tell me that black people in the Jim Crow South were unable to buy food or clothes or cars, or gasoline or furnishings for their homes
-
2 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:
However, that clearly wasn't the case in some parts of the USA as recently as 50 years ago, and businesses that discriminated on racial grounds managed to prosper.
Do you not think that laws forbidding discrimination against people on the grounds of their ethnic background may have had a lot to do with any changes that that happened since?
Of course, and if we just had more and more and more laws, we could legislate a true heaven on earth.
*rolls eyes*
-
1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:
It's easy to judge others when you have no ability to empathize. But reality is so much more complex than your simplistic assessments. I guess it gives you a sense of power huh...to believe you're so special that you could handle anything that comes your way, and that those who are unable to are, as you say "choosing to wallow in the mire of their own existence because they haven't tried harder to succeed".
Abuse, neglect, forced slavery, prejudice...this causes damage in the Psyche that is immensely difficult to overcome, and has damaging effects even across generations. Some people do overcome, but it's almost always because they were lucky enough to find a supportive environment to help them. We are who we are because of the wings others have given us. We still have a choice to fly or not, but the flight is 100% easier when given a base to take off from.
You were given a base, but you're spoiled and just don't know it, and think it's all down to 'special strong you'. Check your privilege.
I really wouldn't mind if it was just you and your delusions, but your attitude is so blaming and abusive to others who have had to endure such pain AT OUR HANDS, and so I have to confront you.PS -- Generational poverty in the black community was not caused by LBJ...it was caused by slavery.
You know what, go tell all that to a successful black person. Ask him if he succeeded because of the handouts he was given to assuage white guilt.
-
I'm off to log in to SL, anyone wants to hang out, shoot me an IM
-
Why is it that whenever I post on a thread with a controversial topic, the thread has a little "hot" marker beside the topic?
-
A few years ago we were looking for a house to rent so we sent off an e-mail about an interesting looking one we saw on Craigslist.
The reply that came back....
Hi, we are a missionary family living in Africa and need someone to rent our lovely house from us."
Needless to say we didn't provide any information, or even bother to reply
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Should commercial ventures and estates in SL be allowed to discriminate?
in Merchants
Posted
No, America won because we were aided by the French. If France hadn't provided money and manpower, the revolution would have died.
Jefferson Davis wanted more than anything to have the Confederacy recognized by Britain and France, because if they aided the South, The South would have retained its independance.
Late in the war Davis sent an emmisary to France and Britain asking if they would recongnize the South if the South ended slavery. The response... such a question was years too late.
In the end Jefferson Davis himself would have freed the slaves and armed them if it was in his power, if it meant preserving the Confederacy.