I haven’t had it firmly in mind you had such a close university connection. I would have been predisposed to argue less with you had I known–to whatever degree I’m assuming now.

I thought you were just some guy with a blog, then one having a family connection, then one devoting a bit of private time to it I assumed from the consequential effects from the documentary? Didn’t think about what you actually might do to earn a living. Guest Lecturer? Assoc Prof? Whatever, its all good. Your students should be flooding this blog? Why aren’t they????

I was thinking about what one should “DO” once fully informed of the living consequences. I think I have more knowledge about TLC than those who are totally uniformed and what I take from this knowledge base is to treat everyone as individuals and not to assume any one thing based on their ethnic background. Group averages/norms may establish different baselines between groups, but not for individual members of those groups. Outside of probabilities with great variation, group statistics mean little in application to individuals.

As I understand it your “Plan of Action” regarding reparations is that none are due. After becoming more informed than most, certainly including myself, you have concluded reparations are not warranted.

Pretty subtle stuff. The difference between putting pressure towards ending the institution of slavery, getting invaded as a result, defending yourself and ending slavery vs fighting to end slavery. The difference between concluding reparations are not due, but that recognition for the benefits received by todays society should be made. More than semantics. An apology of some nature Plus anything else? If there was ever a Plan of Action, it would certainly include an apology of some sort. Would it include anything else?

I studied alternative medicine/health food/naturalistic medicine/vegetarianism for awhile. I couldn’t consider that study valid if at the end of it I did not decide to utilize certain principles expounded/revealed/developed. So, I did diet/herbs/tantra for a few months. For some reason, it did not take, took too much effort. I’m in some in between status now.

Its is worthwhile to study history in general. Racial History, military history, social history, religious history, Gender Studies, economic history===etc. All have their living consequences. What to think, what to do?

Maintaining a blog like this is really admirable. I think I would create a reference area and collect those items you come across that “touch on” the living consequences whether you agree with them or not. Certainly they could be edited in and out. Don’t ever edit completely out==just an off blog location of those really abhorrent things you come across/get sent? Such things may be insignificant now, who knows what the future will bring.

I think the Articles of Secession I linked to are just really excellent for all sorts of things. Once copied, sorted, and pasted, that reference might spark/confirm issues as yet unraised? Lots of others too. Hey===all it takes is time and attention???? Well, another post without me finding a link to learn html coding. >>>>> A google second later: this looks good: http://www.web-source.net/html_codes_chart.htm

Bias: family values are so infused with TLC that they don’t fairly form a second variable. I think you got some white guilt floating around. But that is another subject and I left my Rorschachs at home. (smile.)

I wouldn’t agree with everything that you listed, but I think you’re on the right track as far as sorting out areas of agreement and disagreement.

I agree with your insistence on specifics, by the way. I simply reject the idea that I need to advocate any plan for reparations at all.

Its not just educational because there is a constant bias*. A bias that there is a “living consequence” but as you told me==that is a conclusion

Bobbo, I don’t see that as a bias, but rather as a purpose of the blog — to elucidate this history and its living consequences.

Now, you could certainly argue that there aren’t any living consequences of this history today. However, I believe that’s flat-out wrong, and I don’t know anyone who teaches this material who would give such arguments any attention, except perhaps to raise them in order to debunk them.

As for what, specifically, those living consequences are, I do have an obligation to present arguments in a balanced way. However, I think you would agree that, if anything, I bend over backwards in presenting information and conclusions in a non-judgmental way. Certainly, you’ve repeatedly taken me to task for that very approach.

I’m sure the living consequences plays a role in that but there are many other factors as well, the biggest one in my mind being “family values”

The two aren’t separate, bobbo. Of course cultural values play an important role in issues like education, income, and homeownership, to name just a few. However, where do the values that you believe contribute to success or failure come from? For one thing, poorer communities, and those with fewer resources or more hardships, tend to exhibit the values you associate with failure, regardless of race. For another, black communities in this country come by such values in large part because of the history they have endured and the lessons which have been learned (and which will take many generations to unlearn, as all cultural values tend to do).

Now, if you are suggesting that values are a more important factor in the persistence of racial inequality than the more direct consequences of this history, I would suggest that there is a wealth of evidence to indicate that this is not the case, and that there is only wild supposition to suggest that values play the dominant role.

In the end, what you/we think/know is of minimum value, its what you DO that is all important.

That sounds nice, bobbo, until you stop to think that what I propose to do is to educate. It isn’t about what I know, but what others know that counts. And I do believe that greater public understanding about the issues covered on this blog will, in the long run, dramatically change how people in this country look at race today.

Why no anti-black information? Why no pro white heritage information?

I think that I provide information, all the time, about contrary views, if only to present those views and argue against them.

If you’re asking why I don’t spend any time blogging about people who are overtly racist and hostile to blacks, well, I don’t see the point. While overt racism still plays a role in our society, this isn’t the 1950s. I think most of us have decided how we feel about that, and I don’t believe those views are going to become any more significant than they are right now.

Why no info on reverse discrimination?

I’ve touched on that topic before, and I was speaking about that very issue in Boston this morning. I’ll see whether I can pull together a short essay on affirmative action and “reverse discrimination” this week, based on the information and ideas I was presenting today.

Comparison to what other countries have experienced?

I’ve mentioned other countries frequently on this blog, to highlight parallel efforts to deal with similar issues or to point out the ways in which those countries actually view race very differently. I think there are important comparisons to be made, but other countries generally have very different experiences with slavery and/or race, and so it’s more a matter of explaining those differences and why they don’t approach these issues in the same way.

Darn, forgot: think Mission Statement. Every blog should have one. Nothing wrong with being an information source.

Feel free to e-mail me and suggest changes to the “about the blog” page, which certainly has the tone of a mission statement at several points. I’m always open to suggestions, especially about expressing my ideas more clearly.

Slavery is a violation of Natural Law and our Founding Principles.
There was a CW.
Enslaved people deserved compensation of some sort at their liberation.
Reparations at this time is too difficult to calculate beyond a general program.
The ultimate goal was expressed by MLK.

I hope I didn’t push that too far?

My ONLY purpose in a “plan of action” is that getting specific helps clarify issues that remain hidden when held sub-voce.

I perceive more than just education in your site’s content and the “attitude” of your responses. Its not just educational because there is a constant bias*. A bias that there is a “living consequence” but as you told me==that is a conclusion. I agree blacks today “as a group” enjoy the American Experience less than whites as a group. I’m sure the living consequences plays a role in that but there are many other factors as well, the biggest one in my mind being “family values” taught on mother’s knee and in the garage/back yard by dear old Dad.

Some ideas while correct really have no utility. Some ideas while correct and utilitarian are not acceptable.

In the end, what you/we think/know is of minimum value, its what you DO that is all important. Plans of Action, even minimal ones are the meat of any issue.

Skipping over the details slightly addressed before, for myself, I think the greatest boon/help to blacks would be for society to offer a race neutral social safety net (health and education–jobs of kind) and a real, constant, multi-faceted value system of individual merit not based on class/race. We are on that road now, hope we continue.

*bias: giving only one side of an argument. Why no anti-black information? Why no pro white heritage information? Why no info on reverse discrimination? A review of attempts to address the disadvantages of being black in America. Comparison to what other countries have experienced? When “information” doesn’t lead to good and bad results, it has been filtered. That filter may have most of your plan of action caught in its fibers?

For what its worth. //// bobbo.

As I’ve said before, the purpose of this blog is educational. It is not meant to inspire political or social action, and I do not urge any particular course of action on anyone.

So, yes, the plan for this blog is to educate and to serve as a resource. You say that isn’t enough, but what could possibly be wrong with that? I don’t believe that a class, a textbook, a lecture or a blog needs to do more than educate on a topic.

If I wanted to push a political agenda, like the president is promoting health care reform, then of course I would need to provide a nuts-and-bolts plan. But that’s not my aim here. As for my overall approach to the living consequences, you’ve already stated half of it without needing to be told, and the rest is also described on the “about the blog” page.

More later, but the gravamen:

“I’ve offered my plan of action to you before, bobbo. Each time, you rejected it as insufficient, and insisted that I produce a detailed plan for reparations.” //// I don’t/can’t recall any plan about anything from you. Now, I “believe you,” I’m just pointing out how dense your loyal opposition is AND its why I asked for a link that you haven’t provided. I tried to search your website for “plan” and “plan of action” but got no where. Neither does a Google search–may be a few days before only THIS thread shows up? I went back to your home page. Nothing. I went to your “about this blog” page. No plan. But “the purpose of this blog should incorporate/refer to/be inextricably entwined in such a plan?

To wit: “This blog is devoted to exploring the history and legacy of the slave trade and slavery in the United States………..Because many Americans remain unaware of the full extent of this history, they cannot properly appreciate the impact of this history and its legacy on racial justice and inequality today.” //// Is this your plan? To educate, to inform, to be a resource?? Like Obama’s healthcare plan–a direction is not enough. You need a nuts and bolts PLAN to push an agenda. Otherwise you get too many birthers like ME!!!!

Please link to what you call your plan? That “thing” that I have rejected before? xxx bobbo

Seems to me your controlled reactions must be an exercise in suppression?

It’s interesting, bobbo, that you see my reactions as controlled and suppressed. Why? I’m constantly learning and being challenged, so it’s not that life isn’t interesting. And it’s surely not because I’m refraining from expressing myself fully and openly ….

I notice how long/unwieldy your response is.

Indeed, my responses are often too long. It’s a matter of available time: as someone once said, I don’t always have the time to write more concisely.

The raw territories presumably would vote whether they wanted to be free or slave. Again presumably, this would determine which USA they wanted to join, if not start a third country?

I’m fairly certain, bobbo, that the various territories would have been incorporated as states into whichever nation, the Union or the Confederacy, possessed them. Just as U.S. continental possessions invariably chose to become states, not to petition to join another nation. It was the terms of admission into the Union (and presumably into the Confederacy) which determined whether a state would be slave or free.

I posted the North fought for no reason or just to protect itself from an invading force. I can’t imagine how you concoct “self defense” into an intention to prevent secession.

I do believe that the Union was motivated to fight in large part by a desire to prevent the South from seceding. This doesn’t mean that there weren’t elements in the Union which would have preferred to see the South secede, or which preferred that outcome to a bloody civil war. But those elements did not, in the end, prevail.

THAT decision came later after the North defeated the South. You certainly are manufacturing reasons of no impact at the time after the dust has settled.

Preventing secession was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a reason for the war which only emerged afterward. Many in the Union were, in fact, determined to launch a war to prevent secession, and it might even be said that they succeeded. I also don’t believe that there was any question about whether, if the Union won, the southern part of the country would remain in the Union.

You don’t fight to preserve something that cannot stand, you fight to preserve what will endure.

That may be, but you’re assuming that the Union saw the end of slavery as a necessity, and that there was the political will to do so.

In fact, the U.S. was unable to agree on ending slavery before the war, and even the North was deeply divided on the question, with no will whatsoever to act. That reality changed somewhat with the advent of the war, but as I’ve noted, even in 1865, the U.S. Congress was struggling to achieve a consensus to end slavery. Abolition was hardly a foregone conclusion.

No. Forced means having no other options.

I think your response defeats itself, bobbo. Your “no” refers to my statement that this is a matter of semantics, concerning the definition of “forced.” To prove that it isn’t, you argue what the definition of “forced” should be.

Since you suggest consulting a dictionary, Merriam-Webster defines “force” as, among other things, “compelling by physical, moral, or intellectual means,” or to “cause,” especially by “logical necessity.”

Far from being a “philanderer of the truth,” I am using a definition consistent with the dictionary. Your claim that “forced” can only refer to “having no other options,” not merely having only bad options, is not.

Huh? If the North did not defend itself and beat the South Militarily–ie, the South seceded and the North did nothing or invaded and lost, the institution of Slavery would have continued. How would that have significantly changed the Plantation system?

You’re right, bobbo. You were arguing that both the Japanese and the Confederates should have refrained from what they did, and so I read too quickly and assumed you were referred to not attacking at Pearl Harbor and not seceding from the Union.

You were, in fact, suggesting that the Confederacy should have declared its secession but refrained from attacking federal installations in the Confederacy.

This might have been a wiser course of action, but you’re the one making several assumptions in arguing that this would have allowed slavery to continue. Could a sovereign nation have continued to exist with another nation’s military bases inside of it? Would it have been politically feasible to continue allowing the resupply of those bases? Would the Union have permitted secession indefinitely?

I don’t know the answers to these questions, but I do know that the leadership of the Confederacy felt they had little choice, in the end, if they were to preserve the institution of slavery.

it seems to me it was also other poor whites the plantation owners did not want to share their wealth with. Wage Slavery/share cropping is only a half step above slavery itself.

That’s my understanding, as well, except that I’d be hesitant about so casually comparing chattel slavery to the lives of free whites in the U.S. in the 19th century.

I would guess the building up of forces was not a “goad” as it was good planning

Perhaps. My sense, though, is that the Union did relatively little to build up its installations in the South during this period, and what they did do was not necessarily in order to strength their defenses. As for overall Union military strength, I’m not sure how much that changed, relatively to Confederate strength, during the same period. In other words, I think you’re dismissing too quickly the argument that Lincoln wasn’t able, politically, to attack the southern states, and needed to goad them into attacking his forces.

What is “causation” in something as complex as the CW? Slavery is/isn’t the base/root cause of the CW all depending on semantics. I can see it. Why can’t you?

I’m not talking about causation, bobbo.

Slavery surely was one of the causal factors which produced the Civil War. I’ve said so repeatedly.

That doesn’t mean, however, that the war was fought by either side in order to end slavery. Not even in part.

There’s a difference between what causes events, and what motivates people to act. This isn’t a trivial difference, and it surely matters when we’re talking about whether or not the U.S. today deserves credit for the way in which slavery ended.

It will not grow and prosper and survive the meddling of foreign powers if it does not grow large and powerful. Slavery has got to stop.

That’s your argument, bobbo. I would suggest that this isn’t true at all: that slavery had caused the U.S. to prosper, and set in on a path to eclipse the other great powers within another half-century or so.

What would have happened if slavery had not ended in the U.S. Surely more economic prosperity, and presumably eventually slavery would have become economically less useful and died out. Would the U.S. also have suffered disadvantages, through being “divided”? I don’t know.

The North achieves its long stated goals: a house united able to take its rightful place in the world.

But, bobbo, the North had never stated the abolition of slavery as a goal.

If it had, perhaps you could argue that it fought the Civil War in part to end slavery. But the North didn’t agree on abolition until after the war was almost over, and after sentiment towards slavery and the South had changed drastically in the North.

Gee, then the South was pretty stupid and they weren’t forced.

No, as I’ve said, the South was worried that slavery was doomed if they stayed in the Union. This is entirely different from whether or not the Union would have launched a war against the South to end slavery.

The South started a war to preserve slavery and they lost the war and they lost slavery, but the war wasn’t about preventing slavery. “”” oooookkkkkaaaayyyyy””””

The war wasn’t about “preventing” slavery, bobbo. It was certainly, from the southern perspective, partly about preserving slavery.

What am I saying that isn’t clear? The leadership of the South wanted fiercely to preserve slavery, and felt that slavery was doomed to a slow death if the South remained in the Union. This was a political issue, to be resolved by removing themselves from that political system.

The Union, on the other hand, was decidedly of mixed opinion about the merits of slavery. Until, that is, the war was fought, after which the abolitionist side was able to (barely) win support for ending southern slavery.

Isn’t this basic high school history?

I gave you only a little bit of the anti-slavery laws being passed in the North. I gave you the very document that South Carolina seceded with.

If you’ll recall, that document indicated that some within the South feared slavery would end within the federal system, as I’ve argued. That document did not indicate what northern political sentiments were.

Why fight the whole war with slavery legal in the North and then with the War Won and thereafter make slavery illegal?

If you’ll recall, there were repeated attempts in the North to abolish slavery before the war, each of which fell far short of success.

During the war, there were efforts to arrange for abolition after the war, which also failed, but came closer. Near the end of the war, there was another effort at securing abolition, which succeeded.

In other words, political sentiment in the North changed over time. Specifically, the impact of years of bloody warfare, as always, included the demonization of the enemy and everything they were believed to stand for. More people felt that slavery was inherently evil … while, at the same time, fewer people connected to slavery economically felt able to speak up for preserving slavery.

You say Lincoln was smart enough to goad the South into attacking, but not smart enough to keep his motivation out of sight … if thats what it took to win the war????

I haven’t said that Lincoln was personally opposed to slavery, or even that he was personally unwilling to wage civil war in order to end it. I think the latter is a stretch, but it’s certainly possible. It was widely suspected in certain quarters at the time.

I’ve been talking about the war aims, and the motivations, of the Union, not of any particular person in the Union, even the commander-in-chief.

What does the House divided speech mean to You James?

That Lincoln argued, in public, that slavery was ultimately bad for the Union and would not last?

When you look to the past, you engender tribal, religious, and sectarian disputes THAT NEVER END.

That’s not an argument, bobbo, that’s an assertion. You’re offering a conclusion without argument, and then arguing that the case in point is an example.

It is simply not true that every time anyone looks to the past, they engender disputes that never end.

Thats directly what you are doing by suggesting there is anything that needs to be sorted out.

Hardly. To believe that, you’d have to believe that no one is particularly bothered by the racial injustice left over from this dark history, and that any effort to deal with it will inevitably result only in worse tensions. I believe neither.

the rest of us who unmolested are happy to accept what we have as the status quo

I think you grossly underestimate, bobbo, the number of Americans who are not content with the status quo when it comes to how slavery and racial discrimination have left matters.

Have you never listened to anyone talking furiously on this subject? Have you never seen a riot produced by such inequities?

Or do you merely assume that these incidents must be caused, in every case, by someone focused on the past?

I thought you expressly rejected any plans?

Sigh. I merely expressly reject any plans for reparations, bobbo. And, once again, I do so because I don’t support reparations in the first place.

I’ve offered my plan of action to you before, bobbo. Each time, you rejected it as insufficient, and insisted that I produce a detailed plan for reparations.

I just keep getting the impression that you would be for that. You constantly say you are not, rinse, repeat.

And yet, you persist in saying that I am, causing me to choose between repeating myself, or ignoring you ….

whats your plan of reparations vs how does one acknowledge what is due in view of the living consequences? I can’t judge until I see what you plan/suggest to do.

I’ve told you before what I plan to do, and believe that others should do, about the living consequences of slavery and discrimination.

Am I misreading you here, or are you offering me a choice between advocating for reparations or else for “what is due” for slavery and discrimination? I reject both options wholeheartedly.

“Merely stopped.” Civil War was a mere stop? Kinda dismissive of 625,000 dead?

Not dismissive of the deaths. Just dismissive of the idea that they relate to slavery in the way that you believe.

Those dead did not sacrifice themselves in order to end slavery. And even if they had, that would mean that the nation had “merely” ceased to practice that evil behavior, not done anything at all about what it had already done.

if resolution was needed, the TIME to get it done was 150 years ago.

I can’t argue with you there.

Of course, nothing was done. And if it were now 149 years ago, or 145 years, I suspect you wouldn’t try arguing that it was already too late. Slippery slope, isn’t it?

What is “owed” to BOTH SIDES after the lawsuits lapsed was a society grounded in “non-discrimination”

So once a little time has passed, without the victims being allowed to sue for compensation, you say that the proper solution has become no further discrimination? But leaving what has already been done alone?

I can think of many reasons why it may be far too late to do anything now, assuming that lawsuits or a political solution were in order then. But I can’t see how you would even begin to argue that non-discrimination in the future, with tremendous inequities persisting because of past discrimination, would somehow be just (in your words, “what is ‘owed’ to both sides”). At most, I would think you’d have to argue that nothing can realistically be done now, but that this is in no way “just,” merely the pragmatic reality.

How do you get type into italics, bold, underlined etc?

The WordPress system allows relatively simple HTML code in its comments: italics, bold, links, etc. Are you familiar with HTML? I can’t show you directly, since the system would translate the examples as actual comments, but I could spell it out if you’d like.

1. We’re always having fun, bobbo, aren’t we?/// Well, I do. I don’t see how YOU could be though. Seems to me your controlled reactions must be an exercise in suppression? Only getting a “new idea” every once in a while would make keeping this blog interesting to me. YOU changed my mind on the causes/lack there of for the CW. Not so much “changed” as giving me the insight as to how one thinks if they can’t imagine slavery being the cause. So, your blog works for me.

2–GAG ME!!!! Scrolling Up to get your next sentence I notice how long/unwieldy your response is. Thats “good” like Harry Potter is good I suppose. I may have to skip the less interesting/repetitive elements. But I see you need help.

“The Union did fight in order to prevent the South from seceding, but how would secession have spread slavery further?” /// The raw territories presumably would vote whether they wanted to be free or slave. Again presumably, this would determine which USA they wanted to join, if not start a third country?

3. Union did fight in order to prevent the South from seceding, but how would secession have spread slavery further? /// Earlier I posted the North fought for no reason or just to protect itself from an invading force. I can’t imagine how you concoct “self defense” into an intention to prevent secession. THAT decision came later after the North defeated the South. You certainly are manufacturing reasons of no impact at the time after the dust has settled.

4. And how would fighting in order to preserve the Union, and coincidentally managing to prevent that further spread, be seen as fighting to end slavery? /// “A House divided against itself cannot stand.” You don’t fight to preserve something that cannot stand, you fight to preserve what will endure.

5. The actions of the North were of the many threads leading to the CW but nothing “forced” anything.

I’m sure this is purely a matter of semantics, bobbo. /// No. Forced means having no other options. It does not mean choosing a bad option that seemed like the best at the time. Silly to argue about what words mean when there is a dictionary to bring order/understanding to your position. Its the technique of a philanderer of the truth. Someone who wants to remove the burden of the consequences of making choices. No choice, no burden. History does not force any outcome. Thats why studying it does not make it predictive.

6. I’m not sure that those southerners who wanted to continue profiting from slavery, and had no intention of sharing their society equally with black slaves, would agree with you. /// Huh? If the North did not defend itself and beat the South Militarily–ie, the South seceded and the North did nothing or invaded and lost, the institution of Slavery would have continued. How would that have significantly changed the Plantation system? You are making several unstated assumptions that as best as I can spy them make no sense at all.

7–I’m not sure that those southerners who wanted to continue profiting from slavery, and had no intention of sharing their society equally with black slaves, would agree with you. /// Only an aside, but it seems to me it was also other poor whites the plantation owners did not want to share their wealth with. Wage Slavery/share cropping is only a half step above slavery itself. They were the typical repuglicans of their day. “I got mine, I’m going to keep it.” and the poor white ignorant trash supporting their leaders to their own detriment are pretty much the same as the dumb asses today rioting to prevent better healthcare. History is depressing.

8. unless the Japanese also agreed to surrender their new imperial possessions in Asia. /// Thats right. 80%, make it 60% of option No2 instead of 0% of option One. Chess rather than checkers.

9. ….. For instance, was Lincoln trying to goad the Confederacy into attacking Union forces …. /// Heh, heh. Yes, everything is intentional. Why not attack on day one with no reserves? Any idiot would build up supplies. I would guess the building up of forces was not a “goad” as it was good planning even if such Northern Preparation “forced” the South to Act asap before the North was even more prepared to repel or defend itself. Close, but still not really the same thing. But that all goes to military practice, not in the scope here.

10–That phrase means that one side or the other wanted the outcome and fought, at least in part, for that purpose. /// Talk about making a semantical argument!! What is “causation” in something as complex as the CW? Slavery is/isn’t the base/root cause of the CW all depending on semantics. I can see it. Why can’t you?

You have this Nation where Natural Law says “all men are created equal” and this Nation must make its way in a world surrounded by superior powers. The Nation is half free and half slave. It is divided. It will not grow and prosper and survive the meddling of foreign powers if it does not grow large and powerful. Slavery has got to stop. Ordinances are passed to achieve this end. An anti-slaver is elected President. The South sees these developments as an infringement on their desire for a few repuglicans to make a lot of money and they don’t care about National Power in the World of Nations. They just want to sell cotton, so they ATTACK!!! They lose. The North achieves its long stated goals: a house united able to take its rightful place in the world. Semantics.

11. The Union would never have gone to war to end slavery. That much is clear. And, of course, the other side was fighting to preserve slavery. /// Gee, then the South was pretty stupid and they weren’t forced. Good thing the South didn’t have access to all this information. Speaking of semantics, do you understand what “inextricably entwined” means? Pretty entwined: The South started a war to preserve slavery and they lost the war and they lost slavery, but the war wasn’t about preventing slavery. “”" oooookkkkkaaaayyyyy”"”"

12. At best, slavery’s end was a happy byproduct of the fact that the Union went to war for other reasons and, once it had done so, and had demonized slavery, reluctantly concluded that it should impose the end of slavery on a defeated South./// Hah, hah. Long arguments are soooo revealing. We have to do this again after a few beers. I gave you only a little bit of the anti-slavery laws being passed in the North. I gave you the very document that South Carolina seceded with. The House Divided Speech. I guess the only “cause” of anything is what is put on a bumper sticker? Damn!!! No bumpers back then. No wonder its so hard to figure out. === Is sarcasm better or worse than repeating myself?

13–No. The Union could not agree to end slavery if it won. This didn’t change until the war was almost over, when Congress finally, barely, managed to agree to end slavery. /// The argument you make actually flows in exactly THE OTHER DIRECTION. Why fight the whole war with slavery legal in the North and then with the War Won and thereafter make slavery illegal? Doesn’t that just undeniably demonstrate the “underlying agenda” not put on a bumpersticker in order to win the war first? Remember there were a lot of stupid repuglicans back then who if activated would have made winning the war more difficult if not impossible. You say Lincoln was smart enough to goad the South into attacking, but not smart enough to keep his motivation out of sight ((actually only out of “in your face”)) if thats what it took to win the war???? House Divided Speech means absolutely nothing to you? What does the House divided speech mean to You James?

14 I think you’ll find yourself hard-pressed to demonstrate that history tells us what is best here, but I await your argument. /// I gave my argument. When you look to the past, you engender tribal, religious, and sectarian disputes THAT NEVER END. Middle East looking to the past, their solution is in the future. You can wait for Godot, or suck it up and move on.

15. For one thing, the wound caused by unresolved racial injustice is festering all by itself. I’m not causing that to happen by broaching the subject and suggesting that we should sort out what’s happened and what to do about it. /// Thats directly what you are doing by suggesting there is anything that needs to be sorted out. Thats the injury of your living consequences. There is due regard for the past, normally engaged in by a few book writing egg heads, and the rest of us who unmolested are happy to accept what we have as the status quo/the given, and move on from there. You are well intentioned, but unintendedly very wrong headed.

16–For another thing, I do have a concrete plan of action. /// Damn!!!! You do????? I thought you expressly rejected any plans? Holy semantics Batman!!! Where is it posted. Delete Everything I have ever posted. Bring me a nice iced koolaid. I await the link or your precise of it. You may be lying in the weeds a la Abraham Lincoln keeping your ultimate goals to yourself. I don’t wish to force your hand prematurely.

17. Just because you wish I were in favor of reparations for slavery /// No, I’m not. From our exchanges, I just keep getting the impression that you would be for that. You constantly say you are not, rinse, repeat. Semantics: whats your plan of reparations vs how does one acknowledge what is due in view of the living consequences? I can’t judge until I see what you plan/suggest to do. Link?

18. How could it? Terrible things happened, and the fact that the nation merely stopped those actions doesn’t resolve anything. /// I see your point, you don’t see mine. xxxx. I’m wavering. 40 acres and a mule? Return to Africa/Liberia? Reconstruction? xxx “Merely stopped.” Civil War was a mere stop? Kinda dismissive of 625,000 dead? ((http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualties_of_war)). Well, if resolution was needed, the TIME to get it done was 150 years ago. What is “owed” to BOTH SIDES after the lawsuits lapsed was a society grounded in “non-discrimination” simple recognition that we all are unfortunately “the same” in all things that matter.

19–If by “moving on” you still mean “acting color-blind without addressing the underlying racial disparities,” then I’m quite certain that approach is the slowest one possible for changing our current circumstances. /// Hey, there it might be. Pragmatically, I think just the opposite.

I’m sure I missed a lot. ONe draft only. How do you get type into italics, bold, underlined etc? Do you have a link showing how to do it?

Respectfully yours, bobbo.

Indian Warriors: The Untold Story of the Civil War

Various tribes choose sides, fight and help tip the balance of the Civil War.

Why would American Indians take up either side? Promises? They know the white man speaks with forked tongue. Also interesting how “variable” the Indian response to the “black white man” was before the CW at least. Some made them slaves, others set them free, in and out of their own tribes.

Seems to me those red bastards who “volunteered” to keep the black man down deserve some special place in the living consequences–but those fighting the South still should pay for the benefits they received from slavery. Maybe your position is “right” (whenever you get one) but beyond computation?

I did see you posted rather quickly above. I’ve given my best today. I saw one sentence–still no give. Hah, hah. Well, I’m posting because I still get something out of it. No fun at all if my opinion never changes.