Are We Setting Ourselves Up To Cancel Football in the Fall

19,796 Views | 273 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by Jacques Strap
BluesBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Facts people. No need to destroy our Country for all future generations....

Additionally - if you choose to wear a mask. I wouldn't touch a single one made in China. Who knows what has been put in those fibers that then get embedded in your lungs..

Fact 1: The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19.
The recent Stanford University antibody study now estimates that the fatality rate if infected is likely 0.1 to 0.2 percent, a risk far lower than previous World Health Organization estimates that were 20 to 30 times higher and that motivated isolation policies.
In New York City, an epicenter of the pandemic with more than one-third of all U.S. deaths, the rate of death for people 18 to 45 years old is 0.01 percent, or 11 per 100,000 in the population. On the other hand, people aged 75 and over have a death rate 80 times that. For people under 18 years old, the rate of death is zero per 100,000.
Of all fatal cases in New York state, two-thirds were in patients over 70 years of age; more than 95 percent were over 50 years of age; and about 90 percent of all fatal cases had an underlying illness. Of 6,570 confirmed COVID-19 deaths fully investigated for underlying conditions to date, 6,520, or 99.2 percent, had an underlying illness. If you do not already have an underlying chronic condition, your chances of dying are small, regardless of age. And young adults and children in normal health have almost no risk of any serious illness from COVID-19.

Fact 2: Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.
We can learn about hospital utilization from data from New York City, the hotbed of COVID-19 with more than 34,600 hospitalizations to date. For those under 18 years of age, hospitalization from the virus is 0.01 percent per 100,000 people; for those 18 to 44 years old, hospitalization is 0.1 percent per 100,000. Even for people ages 65 to 74, only 1.7 percent were hospitalized. Of 4,103 confirmed COVID-19 patients with symptoms bad enough to seek medical care, Dr. Leora Horwitz of NYU Medical Center concluded "age is far and away the strongest risk factor for hospitalization." Even early WHO reports noted that 80 percent of all cases were mild, and more recent studies show a far more widespread rate of infection and lower rate of serious illness. Half of all people testing positive for infection have no symptoms at all. The vast majority of younger, otherwise healthy people do not need significant medical care if they catch this infection.

Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.
We know from decades of medical science that infection itself allows people to generate an immune response antibodies so that the infection is controlled throughout the population by "herd immunity." Indeed, that is the main purpose of widespread immunization in other viral diseases to assist with population immunity. In this virus, we know that medical care is not even necessary for the vast majority of people who are infected. It is so mild that half of infected people are asymptomatic, shown in early data from the Diamond Princess ship, and then in Iceland and Italy. That has been falsely portrayed as a problem requiring mass isolation. In fact, infected people without severe illness are the immediately available vehicle for establishing widespread immunity. By transmitting the virus to others in the low-risk group who then generate antibodies, they block the network of pathways toward the most vulnerable people, ultimately ending the threat. Extending whole-population isolation would directly prevent that widespread immunity from developing.

Fact 4: People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.
Critical health care for millions of Americans is being ignored and people are dying to accommodate "potential" COVID-19 patients and for fear of spreading the disease. Most states and many hospitals abruptly stopped "nonessential" procedures and surgery. That prevented diagnoses of life-threatening diseases, like cancer screening, biopsies of tumors now undiscovered and potentially deadly brain aneurysms. Treatments, including emergency care, for the most serious illnesses were also missed. Cancer patients deferred chemotherapy. An estimated 80 percent of brain surgery cases were skipped. Acute stroke and heart attack patients missed their only chances for treatment, some dying and many now facing permanent disability.

historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thee University said:

Good answers.

I personally believe that no president has benefitted more from revisionist history than Lincoln.
From what I've seen, most of the revisionist history on Lincoln is highly critical. I guess it's a matter of perspective. I don't understand the argument, made by some, that Pres. Lincoln should have let the southern states secede when it was unconstitutional. And he certainly was obligated to defend the nation against domestic treasonous rebels. The constitutional case is very clear and every president takes a solemn oath to defend it.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Waco1947
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thee University said:

Good answers.

I personally believe that no president has benefitted more from revisionist history than Lincoln.
Share with me one or two revisionist concepts of the history of Lincoln
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I just did: those who blame him for the Civil War. It's ludicrous because in all the early events leading to the war, he was reacting to what the South did.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pretty sure he was against butt sex and abortion. That would make him enemy number one for you.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Waco1947
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

I just did: those who blame him for the Civil War. It's ludicrous because in all the early events leading to the war, he was reacting to what the South did.
Good point I don't disagree. So revisionist history is good?
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I guess it depends on one's point of view. Nowadays, I tend to think revisionist history is not so good because those who often do it are either being contrarian or have a dubious worldview guiding them (socialists, fascists, bigots, etc).

I don't know if it has ever been a good idea. It often is more propaganda than history.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
EvilTroyAndAbed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

PartyBear said:

historian said:

Stefano DiMera said:

Everyone makes mistakes. True leadership is knowing and admitting you have and moving forward to correct. The buffoon in charge hasnt. FDR Reagan and Bush are rolling in their grave that this guy is our leader.

I could care less about the media or Hollywood. I dont look to them as role models or as leaders.
Nor should you. Unfortunately, many people do listen to the media & Hollywood and they believe them.

As for Trump's narcissism, I saw the same thing with Obama and similar problems with Clinton & Bush 43. That's why I said what I did about Baby Boomers, aka the "me" generation. I cannot recall any of them ever admitting to making a mistake. Maybe W did because he occasionally did demonstrate genuine leadership.
Your first sentence of your second paragraph is absurd. There is nothing more to say about it.
I don't think Obama ever gave a speech that he did not make it all about himself. If he did, I do not recall hearing it. He was more of a narcissist than Trump--and that's saying a lot.
This could quite possibly be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this site. No one in the history of our nation has been dumber or as big of a narcissist than our current president. I have no party affiliation. I just hate idiots, and no one has ever shown his combination of incompetence and narcissism, no one.
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
EvilTroyAndAbed said:

historian said:

PartyBear said:

historian said:

Stefano DiMera said:

Everyone makes mistakes. True leadership is knowing and admitting you have and moving forward to correct. The buffoon in charge hasnt. FDR Reagan and Bush are rolling in their grave that this guy is our leader.

I could care less about the media or Hollywood. I dont look to them as role models or as leaders.
Nor should you. Unfortunately, many people do listen to the media & Hollywood and they believe them.

As for Trump's narcissism, I saw the same thing with Obama and similar problems with Clinton & Bush 43. That's why I said what I did about Baby Boomers, aka the "me" generation. I cannot recall any of them ever admitting to making a mistake. Maybe W did because he occasionally did demonstrate genuine leadership.
Your first sentence of your second paragraph is absurd. There is nothing more to say about it.
I don't think Obama ever gave a speech that he did not make it all about himself. If he did, I do not recall hearing it. He was more of a narcissist than Trump--and that's saying a lot.
This could quite possibly be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this site. No one in the history of our nation has been dumber or as big of a narcissist than our current president. I have no party affiliation. I just hate idiots, and no one has ever shown his combination of incompetence and narcissism, no one.


Then you're no partisan.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Thee University
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Most texts about the Civil War and biographies of Abraham Lincoln gloss over his shortcomings with the excuse that the ends somehow justified the means. But as historians continue to excavate Lincoln's life and times, with each unturned stone, another fable is tarnished, and truth revealed.
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thee University
How long do you want to ignore this user?
John Wilkes Booth made a martyr out of Lincoln. From which, his legacy was reconstructed through written accounts (more than 16,000 books have been published), memorialized on Mount Rushmore and in the lavish memorial in Washington, DC, and lionized in movies.
GrowlTowel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thee University said:

John Wilkes Booth made a martyr out of Lincoln. From which, his legacy was reconstructed through written accounts (more than 16,000 books have been published), memorialized on Mount Rushmore and in the lavish memorial in Washington, DC, and lionized in movies.


Right or wrong, he did save the republic and freed the slaves. Kind of big deals in their own right.

Methods? Argument there I grant you.
Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

I just did: those who blame him for the Civil War. It's ludicrous because in all the early events leading to the war, he was reacting to what the South did.


Well, if he hadn't been elected, the Civil War may have been delayed, or even cancelled.
Timbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We're actually debating the Civil War that happened 160 years ago? People, this Virus thing is causing mental problems.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Timbear said:

We're actually debating the Civil War that happened 160 years ago? People, this Virus thing is causing mental problems.


We discuss the Civil War on occasion with or without the virus. Educated people are like that.
jdkingbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You, sir, are full of bull**** !!
jdkingbear
Timbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So... DC is showing he's educated because he's talking about the Civil War? That's choice.
Thee University
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

historian said:

I just did: those who blame him for the Civil War. It's ludicrous because in all the early events leading to the war, he was reacting to what the South did.


Well, if he hadn't been elected, the Civil War may have been delayed, or even cancelled.
That might have meant between 600,000 to 800,000 Americans would not have been needlessly slaughtered.

The Industrial Revolution of the late 19th Century would at the same time have made slavery largely unprofitable.

The Civil War was really about the Federal government taking away states rights.

This paved the way for the Federal Reserve in 1913, World War 1 in 1914, the Great Depression in 1929, World War 2 in 1941 and the United Nations.

Only 4% of Americans owned slaves. Many owners treated them well as evident by how some slaves fought for the South. Yes, many were treated poorly.

Those 600,000 dead is about the same as 6,000,000 today given US Population at the time

This virtual US Holocaust was not to free the slaves.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thee University said:

D. C. Bear said:

historian said:

I just did: those who blame him for the Civil War. It's ludicrous because in all the early events leading to the war, he was reacting to what the South did.


Well, if he hadn't been elected, the Civil War may have been delayed, or even cancelled.
That might have meant between 600,000 to 800,000 Americans would not have been needlessly slaughtered.

The Industrial Revolution of the late 19th Century would at the same time have made slavery largely unprofitable.

The Civil War was really about the Federal government taking away states rights.

This paved the way for the Federal Reserve in 1913, World War 1 in 1914, the Great Depression in 1929, World War 2 in 1941 and the United Nations.

Only 4% of Americans owned slaves. Many owners treated them well as evident by how some slaves fought for the South. Yes, many were treated poorly.

Those 600,000 dead is about the same as 6,000,000 today given US Population at the time

This virtual US Holocaust was not to free the slaves.


I am not going to address your entire post point by point, I will simply note the impossibility of the bolded statement: one cannot own another human being while simultaneously treating him or her "well."
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

I just did: those who blame him for the Civil War. It's ludicrous because in all the early events leading to the war, he was reacting to what the South did.
To elaborate on my earlier point:

During the 1860 election campaign, the Democrats chose Stephen A. Douglas as their candidate. Southern Democrats hated that a northerner (a Senator from Illinois) was chosen, so they broke away, had their own convention, and nominated a Southern Democrat as their candidate. With the Democratic party split, they guaranteed a Lincoln electoral victory. They had no one to blame but themselves for the election results.

After Lincoln won the election (with only 40%--the lowest margin for any victor in US history), the southern states began to secede, starting with South Carolina in late December. Lincoln argued that this was unconstitutional. He was determined to maintain the integrity of the Union, his constitutional duty. The southerners saw him as a radical abolitionist (he wasn't). He promised to maintain slavery where it existed but refused to allow it to expand. Some moderates in Congress arranged the Crittendon Compromise in order to avoid war but it failed because southerners insisted on expanding slavery to the west & Lincoln refused. The Republican party had been founded on the fact that slavery was evil & must not be allowed to expand.

After the inauguration, more southern states seceded. In his inaugural address, Lincoln held out the hope for peace, repeated his promise not to touch slavery in the south, & placed the onus of war on the South.

The Civil War began when Confederate forces fired upon federal forces at Ft. Sumter at the entrance to Charleston Harbor. It was a federal installation and, as commander in chief, the soldiers there were under Lincoln's command. It was a blatant act of war and resulted in Pres. Lincoln mobilizing the full forces of the U.S. to suppress what was, by definition, a domestic rebellion.

Yes, Lincoln took some extreme measures in pursuit of victory, as most war time presidents have done, including the first income tax in US history, conscription, and suspending habeas corpus in Maryland. This last one, though, is explicitly authorized in the constitution. And he had congressional support for each of these measures.

At first, Lincoln was determined not to do anything about slavery as he had promised. He even reversed the orders of some subordinates who had freed slaves on their own. But events changed his mind. By the summer of 1861, he realized that freeing the slaves was now politically viable. It would undermine the south, destroying the foundation of their society, it would forestall any serious European effort to aid the South, and it would transform the war from one of Union to one of freedom. The Gettysburg Address from November 1863 said it very well: it was about "a new birth of freedom." He announced the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in September and it went into effect on January 1, 1863. Even in his most famous act, he gave the South a choice: end the rebellion and you can keep your slaves. It exempted the border states and those Confederate areas under Union occupation. They chose to ignore it. Most important, it did transform the war and it guaranteed that slavery would be gone in the end.

There is so much more I could say about it, but hopefully this will suffice.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thee University said:

That might have meant between 600,000 to 800,000 Americans would not have been needlessly slaughtered.

The Industrial Revolution of the late 19th Century would at the same time have made slavery largely unprofitable.

The Civil War was really about the Federal government taking away states rights.

This paved the way for the Federal Reserve in 1913, World War 1 in 1914, the Great Depression in 1929, World War 2 in 1941 and the United Nations.

Only 4% of Americans owned slaves. Many owners treated them well as evident by how some slaves fought for the South. Yes, many were treated poorly.

Those 600,000 dead is about the same as 6,000,000 today given US Population at the time

This virtual US Holocaust was not to free the slaves.
The Industrial Revolution in the US began in the 1770s, albeit slowly. By the 1830s it was fully on its way, but almost entirely in the north. It accelerated dramatically after the Civil War resulting in the US becoming the wealthiest nation in human history.

The Civil War was about a lot of things, the South's insistence on "state's rights" were just one of them. But when you look closely at all of the things going on during the antebellum years (economically, socially, politically, etc), the central feature is the debate over slavery. All the other issues were also about slavery (sometimes indirectly), and especially the expansion of slavery into new territories in the west.

States rights is a legitimate issue, and the growth of federal power at the expense of the states is a real problem that began under Pres. Washington. True, it accelerated during the Civil War, but much more so after the turn of the 20th century. Progressivism gave us the 16th, 17th, 18th, & 19th amendments, one of which has already been repealed and only one of the others should remain. Progressivism also gave us the Federal Reserve, for good or evil, and the beginning of the dramatic growth of federal bureaucracies (these increased much more under the New Deal & the Great Society). Progressivism also gave the world arguably the first fascist state: the US during WWI.

Yes, a tiny number of whites owned slaves. Although some slave owners treated their slave relatively better than others, they still owned and controlled them. Many more were ruthless and brutal. As DC pointed out, treating another human as property (like a horse or cow) is inherently evil. Although a propaganda novel, I think Uncle Tom's Cabin illustrates these dynamics brilliantly. I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to understand the different kinds of slave owners and the different issues at stake.

The death toll of the Civil War was horrendous: greater (or almost as great) as all other wars in US history combined. But the southerners were to blame for that at every stage. See my post above.

Comparing the Civil War to the Holocaust is wrong (same with Columbus, America's Indian wars, etc). The only real comparison in US history is abortion on demand today: 50 million innocents murdered for frivolous & stupid reasons, the perversion of the law & other institutions to uphold it, the sacrifice of Americans' other rights in the name of this great evil, etc.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
perrynative
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How about those Cowboys??? Maybe the enlightened few can get the rest of the peons up to speed on the pros and cons. Football what?
Timbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hey Y'all, keep saving those Dixie Cups 'cause the South's gonna rise again!
Timbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The reason for so many deaths was that Battle Strategy had not kept up with modern ( for that day) weapon innovation.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The US Civil War was the first example of total war being fully utilized, not WWI.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Thee University
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Thee University said:

D. C. Bear said:

historian said:

I just did: those who blame him for the Civil War. It's ludicrous because in all the early events leading to the war, he was reacting to what the South did.


Well, if he hadn't been elected, the Civil War may have been delayed, or even cancelled.
That might have meant between 600,000 to 800,000 Americans would not have been needlessly slaughtered.

The Industrial Revolution of the late 19th Century would at the same time have made slavery largely unprofitable.

The Civil War was really about the Federal government taking away states rights.

This paved the way for the Federal Reserve in 1913, World War 1 in 1914, the Great Depression in 1929, World War 2 in 1941 and the United Nations.

Only 4% of Americans owned slaves. Many owners treated them well as evident by how some slaves fought for the South. Yes, many were treated poorly.

Those 600,000 dead is about the same as 6,000,000 today given US Population at the time

This virtual US Holocaust was not to free the slaves.


I am not going to address your entire post point by point, I will simply note the impossibility of the bolded statement: one cannot own another human being while simultaneously treating him or her "well."
I'll address your response by first reminding you that Northern merchants profited from the transatlantic triangle trade of molasses, rum and slaves, and at one point in Colonial America more than 40,000 slaves toiled in bondage in the port cities and on the small farms of the North. In 1740, one-fifth of New York City's population was enslaved.

Where would all these slaves had been had they not been brought to South America, the Caribbean and America? I am a descendent of the first slaves.......the so called indentured servitude...........the Irish. I contend that a very large number of Americans paid a very steep price to come to the "new world". Had they not come (forcibly or on their own) where would their families be today in 2020?

Do I want to go back to England or Ireland? Do American blacks want to go back to Africa?

Many of the slaves were treated well. An injured or sick slave cannot work efficiently. Not all of the 4% who owned slaves treated their slaves well. I just contend that if things were so bad or are so bad today there is nothing stopping folks from heading back to their true homeland and living there.

If you don't want to live here in the good ole USA, haul @SS back to where your ancestors started out.

I kind of like it here but I do harbor horrible feelings for the treatment of the American Indian and the Mexicans who lived on these United States way before the Europeans arrived.

If anyone deserves reparations and sympathy it is the American Indian!!
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thee University said:

D. C. Bear said:

Thee University said:

D. C. Bear said:

historian said:

I just did: those who blame him for the Civil War. It's ludicrous because in all the early events leading to the war, he was reacting to what the South did.


Well, if he hadn't been elected, the Civil War may have been delayed, or even cancelled.
That might have meant between 600,000 to 800,000 Americans would not have been needlessly slaughtered.

The Industrial Revolution of the late 19th Century would at the same time have made slavery largely unprofitable.

The Civil War was really about the Federal government taking away states rights.

This paved the way for the Federal Reserve in 1913, World War 1 in 1914, the Great Depression in 1929, World War 2 in 1941 and the United Nations.

Only 4% of Americans owned slaves. Many owners treated them well as evident by how some slaves fought for the South. Yes, many were treated poorly.

Those 600,000 dead is about the same as 6,000,000 today given US Population at the time

This virtual US Holocaust was not to free the slaves.


I am not going to address your entire post point by point, I will simply note the impossibility of the bolded statement: one cannot own another human being while simultaneously treating him or her "well."
I'll address your response by first reminding you that Northern merchants profited from the transatlantic triangle trade of molasses, rum and slaves, and at one point in Colonial America more than 40,000 slaves toiled in bondage in the port cities and on the small farms of the North. In 1740, one-fifth of New York City's population was enslaved.

Where would all these slaves had been had they not been brought to South America, the Caribbean and America? I am a descendent of the first slaves.......the so called indentured servitude...........the Irish. I contend that a very large number of Americans paid a very steep price to come to the "new world". Had they not come (forcibly or on their own) where would their families be today in 2020?

Do I want to go back to England or Ireland? Do American blacks want to go back to Africa?

Many of the slaves were treated well. An injured or sick slave cannot work efficiently. Not all of the 4% who owned slaves treated their slaves well. I just contend that if things were so bad or are so bad today there is nothing stopping folks from heading back to their true homeland and living there.

If you don't want to live here in the good ole USA, haul @SS back to where your ancestors started out.

I kind of like it here but I do harbor horrible feelings for the treatment of the American Indian and the Mexicans who lived on these United States way before the Europeans arrived.

If anyone deserves reparations and sympathy it is the American Indian!!


They could not be said to have been "treated well" unless one considers them to have been subhuman. This is independent of "Northern merchants," Irish indentured servants or American Indians, and this is not a reparations argument.
Wichitabear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Thee University said:

D. C. Bear said:

Thee University said:

D. C. Bear said:

historian said:

I just did: those who blame him for the Civil War. It's ludicrous because in all the early events leading to the war, he was reacting to what the South did.


Well, if he hadn't been elected, the Civil War may have been delayed, or even cancelled.
That might have meant between 600,000 to 800,000 Americans would not have been needlessly slaughtered.

The Industrial Revolution of the late 19th Century would at the same time have made slavery largely unprofitable.

The Civil War was really about the Federal government taking away states rights.

This paved the way for the Federal Reserve in 1913, World War 1 in 1914, the Great Depression in 1929, World War 2 in 1941 and the United Nations.

Only 4% of Americans owned slaves. Many owners treated them well as evident by how some slaves fought for the South. Yes, many were treated poorly.

Those 600,000 dead is about the same as 6,000,000 today given US Population at the time

This virtual US Holocaust was not to free the slaves.


I am not going to address your entire post point by point, I will simply note the impossibility of the bolded statement: one cannot own another human being while simultaneously treating him or her "well."
I'll address your response by first reminding you that Northern merchants profited from the transatlantic triangle trade of molasses, rum and slaves, and at one point in Colonial America more than 40,000 slaves toiled in bondage in the port cities and on the small farms of the North. In 1740, one-fifth of New York City's population was enslaved.

Where would all these slaves had been had they not been brought to South America, the Caribbean and America? I am a descendent of the first slaves.......the so called indentured servitude...........the Irish. I contend that a very large number of Americans paid a very steep price to come to the "new world". Had they not come (forcibly or on their own) where would their families be today in 2020?

Do I want to go back to England or Ireland? Do American blacks want to go back to Africa?

Many of the slaves were treated well. An injured or sick slave cannot work efficiently. Not all of the 4% who owned slaves treated their slaves well. I just contend that if things were so bad or are so bad today there is nothing stopping folks from heading back to their true homeland and living there.

If you don't want to live here in the good ole USA, haul @SS back to where your ancestors started out.

I kind of like it here but I do harbor horrible feelings for the treatment of the American Indian and the Mexicans who lived on these United States way before the Europeans arrived.

If anyone deserves reparations and sympathy it is the American Indian!!


They could not be said to have been "treated well" unless one considers them to have been subhuman. This is independent of "Northern merchants," Irish indentured servants or American Indians, and this is not a reparations argument.
Then what the hell are we arguing about! If your not happy in today's America get the hell out I'm tired of this crap of unfairness and racism
Russell Gym
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Can't you guys get a room at the Eric Tresoks Inn?
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wichitabear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Thee University said:

D. C. Bear said:

Thee University said:

D. C. Bear said:

historian said:

I just did: those who blame him for the Civil War. It's ludicrous because in all the early events leading to the war, he was reacting to what the South did.


Well, if he hadn't been elected, the Civil War may have been delayed, or even cancelled.
That might have meant between 600,000 to 800,000 Americans would not have been needlessly slaughtered.

The Industrial Revolution of the late 19th Century would at the same time have made slavery largely unprofitable.

The Civil War was really about the Federal government taking away states rights.

This paved the way for the Federal Reserve in 1913, World War 1 in 1914, the Great Depression in 1929, World War 2 in 1941 and the United Nations.

Only 4% of Americans owned slaves. Many owners treated them well as evident by how some slaves fought for the South. Yes, many were treated poorly.

Those 600,000 dead is about the same as 6,000,000 today given US Population at the time

This virtual US Holocaust was not to free the slaves.


I am not going to address your entire post point by point, I will simply note the impossibility of the bolded statement: one cannot own another human being while simultaneously treating him or her "well."
I'll address your response by first reminding you that Northern merchants profited from the transatlantic triangle trade of molasses, rum and slaves, and at one point in Colonial America more than 40,000 slaves toiled in bondage in the port cities and on the small farms of the North. In 1740, one-fifth of New York City's population was enslaved.

Where would all these slaves had been had they not been brought to South America, the Caribbean and America? I am a descendent of the first slaves.......the so called indentured servitude...........the Irish. I contend that a very large number of Americans paid a very steep price to come to the "new world". Had they not come (forcibly or on their own) where would their families be today in 2020?

Do I want to go back to England or Ireland? Do American blacks want to go back to Africa?

Many of the slaves were treated well. An injured or sick slave cannot work efficiently. Not all of the 4% who owned slaves treated their slaves well. I just contend that if things were so bad or are so bad today there is nothing stopping folks from heading back to their true homeland and living there.

If you don't want to live here in the good ole USA, haul @SS back to where your ancestors started out.

I kind of like it here but I do harbor horrible feelings for the treatment of the American Indian and the Mexicans who lived on these United States way before the Europeans arrived.

If anyone deserves reparations and sympathy it is the American Indian!!


They could not be said to have been "treated well" unless one considers them to have been subhuman. This is independent of "Northern merchants," Irish indentured servants or American Indians, and this is not a reparations argument.
Then what the hell are we arguing about! If your not happy in today's America get the hell out I'm tired of this crap of unfairness and racism


I did not say anything about "today's America" or unfairness or racism. I simply said that one cannot really say that a slave was "treated well" by the person who enslaved him or her.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thee University said:

If anyone deserves reparations and sympathy it is the American Indian!!
No one deserves "reparations" for what somebody else did 200 years ago. Once you start down that path, if you really want justice, then everyone owes everyone else "reparations" for what someone's ancestors did to someone else. It's an obvious scam and extortion racket.

As for indentured servitude, that cannot be compared to slavery except in the harshness--at at time when a lot of people were treated harshly. The big difference is that indentured servants were under contract for a limited time, and then they were set free. Some people volunteered for it so they could come to America and have a chance at a new life.

The Indians were mistreated--by all the Europeans. The Americans or British were no different than the Spanish, Portuguese, French, Dutch, Russians, etc. However, we should not forget that most Native Americans died from European diseases like smallpox (no natural immunity) and those who died violently were more likely to be killed by other Americans than Europeans.

We are so used to history being used to push some political agenda that we are often unaware that it's being misused by the ignorant or those willing to exploit the ignorance of others.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
jupiter
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thank goodness College Sports are always such great money makers for schools

Thee University
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:


We are so used to history being used to push some political agenda that we are often unaware that it's being misused by the ignorant or those willing to exploit the ignorance of others.
Abraham Lincoln's legacy is a great example.

Lincoln entered the presidency on shaky political ground. Even though he was elected president, he had done so with almost no support from the South and less than forty percent of the popular vote. In a move that many referred to as "political genius," Lincoln appointed his political rivals to cabinet positions, ostensibly to destroy enemies by making them friends a move that would lead to disloyalty and backroom drama.

Moreover, those cabinet appointments caused disappointment with allies who had supported Lincoln's candidacy. Joseph Medill of the Chicago Tribune was especially miffed he didn't receive anything from the new president saying, "We made Abe and by God we can unmake him."

At the time Southern states began seceding, many of the Union forts within their borders were abandoned, save a few. Consider that the US Military (and government) at the start of the Civil War resembled little like what we have today. The United States had a standing army of about sixteen thousand men in 1861, most of whom served in poorly equipped outposts.

Fort Sumter, a sparsely populated duty collection point in Charleston harbor, was one of the few forts where Union personnel remained. As was evident from Lincoln's contemporaries, an attempt to send Union troops into any of the Confederate states would provoke a war.

Lincoln knew that if South Carolina and the Confederacy allowed the fort to be provisioned, it would make a mockery of their sovereignty. And if the Confederacy fired on the Union ships, it would have been the Confederacy, not Lincoln who fired the first shots of the war.

"He was a master of the situation," wrote Lincoln's private secretaries John G. Nicolay and John Hay. "Master if the rebels hesitated or repented, because they would thereby forfeit their prestige with the South; master if they persisted, for he would then command a united North."

Lincoln knew what he was doing when he ordered Fort Sumter to be resupplied. He was a cunning politician and Fort Sumter was his opportunity. He seized it believing it would be a short war. He couldn't have been more wrong.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thee University said:

historian said:


We are so used to history being used to push some political agenda that we are often unaware that it's being misused by the ignorant or those willing to exploit the ignorance of others.
Abraham Lincoln's legacy is a great example.

Lincoln entered the presidency on shaky political ground. Even though he was elected president, he had done so with almost no support from the South and less than forty percent of the popular vote. In a move that many referred to as "political genius," Lincoln appointed his political rivals to cabinet positions, ostensibly to destroy enemies by making them friends a move that would lead to disloyalty and backroom drama.

Moreover, those cabinet appointments caused disappointment with allies who had supported Lincoln's candidacy. Joseph Medill of the Chicago Tribune was especially miffed he didn't receive anything from the new president saying, "We made Abe and by God we can unmake him."

At the time Southern states began seceding, many of the Union forts within their borders were abandoned, save a few. Consider that the US Military (and government) at the start of the Civil War resembled little like what we have today. The United States had a standing army of about sixteen thousand men in 1861, most of whom served in poorly equipped outposts.

Fort Sumter, a sparsely populated duty collection point in Charleston harbor, was one of the few forts where Union personnel remained. As was evident from Lincoln's contemporaries, an attempt to send Union troops into any of the Confederate states would provoke a war.

Lincoln knew that if South Carolina and the Confederacy allowed the fort to be provisioned, it would make a mockery of their sovereignty. And if the Confederacy fired on the Union ships, it would have been the Confederacy, not Lincoln who fired the first shots of the war.

"He was a master of the situation," wrote Lincoln's private secretaries John G. Nicolay and John Hay. "Master if the rebels hesitated or repented, because they would thereby forfeit their prestige with the South; master if they persisted, for he would then command a united North."

Lincoln knew what he was doing when he ordered Fort Sumter to be resupplied. He was a cunning politician and Fort Sumter was his opportunity. He seized it believing it would be a short war. He couldn't have been more wrong.
Lincoln's name was not even on the ballot in several southern states.

I don't think there is any question that Lincoln was masterful at politics. But I don't know that he thought the war would be short. Many people did at the time but if Lincoln did, he soon realized that this was a different kind of war than anyone anticipated. He seemed to understand, even before his generals, that this was going to be total war--before that term came into vogue or was understood the way it was in the 20th century.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.