quote:

ORIGINAL: SoulPiercer

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

The southern states seceded, in part, due to the slavery issue.

The southern states seceded because Lincoln campaigned against the expansion of slavery beyond the southern states. He did not campaign for the abolishment of slavery.

The civil war was fought to return the southern states to the Union.

The Emancipation Proclamation didn't even free all slaves. It only freed slaves in the states that had seceded. It wasn't done to end slavery. I was done to prevent the British from getting involved in the war. At the time, the British favored the southern states. If the British had sided with the south, it would appear that Britain (which had already abolished slavery) went to war in support of slavery.

quote:

1860 Democratic Convention Number 1 - Charleston, South Carolina

It sounded like a good idea to Democratic leaders of 1860 who decided to hold the party's convention in a Southern state. They felt this symbolic act of "healing" would not only help win the region in the election, but solidify the Union, as well. They were wrong, twice.

Shortly after the convention began on April 23, the Southern Democratic delegations began to press their long-rumored plan to walk out unless a plank calling for passage of a federal slave code for the territories was included in the party platform. Such a code, they hoped, would secure the practice of slavery not only in the North, but in the largely unsettled areas of the expanding nation.

Southern delegates were already opposed to the party's leading candidate, Stephen A. Douglas, over his Freeport Doctrine -- a concept Douglas put forth during the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 that a territory's failure to pass laws enforcing slavery would, by default, outlaw slavery in that territory.

Then, there were the "fire-eaters," a group of Southern Democrats who actually wanted the Republican candidate to win the election, thus hastening the secession of the slave states.

As you might imagine, Northern Democrats in Charleston felt a bit insecure -- politically, if not physically.

When Douglas' anti-slavery plank was finally voted into the platform over a previous vote in favor of a pro-slavery plank, 50 Southern delegates made good their promise and dramatically walked out of the convention.

Loss of those 50 left the convention without enough delegates to give Douglas the nomination, although a staggering 57 ballots had been taken.

Left with few alternatives, the remaining Northern Democrats voted to adjourn and try again six weeks later -- this time in the much more friendly confines of Baltimore, Maryland.

1860 Democratic Convention Number 2 - Baltimore, Maryland - June, 1860

When the mainly Northern Democrats gathered again in Baltimore, guess who showed up? The same Southern delegates who had walked out on the Charleston convention were back demanding to be seated.

In a major credentials battle, some of the Southern delegates were readmitted to the convention floor while others were not. The rancor of this debate led to yet another walkout -- this time by 110 delegates.

This time, the walkouts decided to hold their own "Southern Rights Convention," at which they nominated Kentuckian John C. Breckinridge and adopted a platform supporting passage of federal slave codes.

Meanwhile, back at their "real" convention, "loyal" Democrats nominated Stephen A. Douglas and adopted a platform in support of the Constitution and the Supreme Court, and opposed to slavery. So much for the "united we stand."

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

That is BS. Name one person in this Country who is now benefiting from slavery that happened 150 years ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: veronica7

The very same people who are against reparations are the ones who are usually benefitting economically through the inheritances from the slave trade. The psychological damage and very real pathology in black families alone is incalculable. Acutally no amount of money will undo the damge the legacy of slavery has caused. Most people who are not well versed in psychology, the effects of racism, or the history of slavery and its effects are reactive to the notion of reparations without having studied anything. At the very least monies should be put toward helping people who are still suffering from the effects of slavery and toward educating the public about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

That is BS. Name one person in this Country who is now benefiting from slavery that happened 150 years ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DavanKael

In answer to the title of the thread: an empahtic "no".

1. Who was legally responsible for slavery?
****No one still living. 
The tribes sold captured individuals from other tribes that were the result of tribal warfare.  They were transported via ship, some living through the passage, others not, and became slaves.  Many slaves were captives prior to being sold into slavery. 
No single culpability but there's no one living who is legally responsible nor is there anyone living in America who was a slave of the ear of which you speak. 

2. Who should be paid? 
****No one.

3. What about the Civil War? Slavery did not end by evaporation. It took a catastrophic civil war
****You're wrong.  The Civil War was fought over secession and states rights, not slavery.  Lincoln wanted to send the Africans back to Africa; he was no great savior to the black people; it was politics. 

EVERY culture has had slavery and NO group of people has been immune; it's just a matter of how recently in history it's happened.  Boo-hooing over wrongs done the ancestors of a people is disempowering and insulting and, imo, downright stupid. 
Davan

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

That is BS. Name one person in this Country who is now benefiting from slavery that happened 150 years ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: veronica7

The very same people who are against reparations are the ones who are usually benefitting economically through the inheritances from the slave trade.

quote:



The psychological damage and very real pathology in black families alone is incalculable. Acutally no amount of money will undo the damge the legacy of slavery has caused. Most people who are not well versed in psychology, the effects of racism, or the history of slavery and its effects are reactive to the notion of reparations without having studied anything.

quote:



At the very least monies should be put toward helping people who are still suffering from the effects of slavery and toward educating the public about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Thanks PV - not too sure anyone read my post apart from you; mind you, its a bit of thread ender I guess?

And as for this talk of the terrible Brits (not referring to your comment PV), bear in mind that most of us suffered too at the hands of our ruling classes (mostly the descendants of the Normans) - thats how/why so many of us got over there and to Canada, S Africa, Australia, N Zealand and so on.

If you want to find those who should pay up - if anyone should - take a walk in Wall Street and the Square Mile.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

Should blacks get reparations?

quote:

ORIGINAL: veronica7

The very same people who are against reparations are the ones who are usually benefitting economically through the inheritances from the slave trade. The psychological damage and very real pathology in black families alone is incalculable. Acutally no amount of money will undo the damge the legacy of slavery has caused. Most people who are not well versed in psychology, the effects of racism, or the history of slavery and its effects are reactive to the notion of reparations without having studied anything. At the very least monies should be put toward helping people who are still suffering from the effects of slavery and toward educating the public about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
The southern states seceded, in part, due to the slavery issue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomImus

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
The southern states seceded, in part, due to the slavery issue.

That doesn't make it a civil war.