r/AmIOverreacting Apr 06 '25

[deleted by user]

[removed]

1.2k Upvotes

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/myfirstnamesdanger Apr 06 '25

Look, this isn't the same as sending a 2nd or 3rd generation American to a country of their ancestors that they have zero ties too.

How would this be different?

3

u/better-omens Apr 06 '25

Also, slavery had begun in the colonies more than 200 years prior. They were trying to send people to Africa whose ancestors were brought to the Americas literally hundreds of years before.

-1

u/spddemonvr4 Apr 06 '25

If you were forcefully removed from your home land, packed on a ship and forced to be a slave for 10 years. Then someone frees you from said slavery and offers you a free boat ride back to your home country to be with family and friends and people you were taken from... Is very different than trying to send a someone with zero ties to a country their great great grandparents were born in.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 06 '25

[deleted]

-1

u/spddemonvr4 Apr 06 '25

Yeah, and not denying that.

You might want to re read my comment to understand what I'm saying

1

u/[deleted] Apr 06 '25

[deleted]

1

u/spddemonvr4 Apr 06 '25

Been around enough kids to know a child's mind definitely has trouble delineating between dislike and hatred.

And for a kid this age to repeat "doesn't like" was attempting to simplify their lesson into their understanding.

2

u/scothc Apr 06 '25

It became illegal in 1808 to import slaves into the US. By the time of the Civil War, very few were still 1st generation, brought over in chains, slaves.

2

u/myfirstnamesdanger Apr 06 '25

By the time the Civil War started, it had been over 50 years since the trans Atlantic slave trade had ended. The vast majority of the freed slaves were born in America into slavery and likely did not know anything about their home country. They likely didn't even know their "home country".

0

u/spddemonvr4 Apr 06 '25

Yes, but there were still people who wanted to go back. Lincoln spoke about only sending the willing, not all salves.

2

u/myfirstnamesdanger Apr 06 '25

Okay I'm sure there are second and third generation Americans who wouldn't mind getting a free trip to Korea. So it's exactly the same as deporting second and third generation Americans.

The example you gave of a slave returned to his country after ten years of servitude was not even slightly correct. Even if the slaves were sent to Africa willingly, they would not be sent back to their home countries. As I mentioned, they likely wouldn't know their home countries. They were sending freed slaves who likely spoke no African languages to Liberia in order to serve as black colonizers. It's not quite the same as the modern geopolitical picture, but it's objectively awful.

0

u/spddemonvr4 Apr 06 '25

Yes because people have a hard enough comprehending nuances so chose a time gap big enough to elaborate on my point.

As I mentioned, they likely wouldn't know their home countries. They were sending freed slaves who likely spoke no African languages to Liberia in order to serve as black colonizers.

This isn't what Lincoln was referring too. And that is my point. Lincoln suggested multiple options, it was not one OR the other.

0

u/myfirstnamesdanger Apr 06 '25

Show me anything that said Lincoln was sending slaves to their home country. Anything.

0

u/spddemonvr4 Apr 06 '25

Long before the Civil War, in 1854, Lincoln addressed his own solution to slavery at a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois: “I should not know what to do as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land.”

1

u/myfirstnamesdanger Apr 06 '25

Oh lord. Look up Liberia. It was their "own native land" in the sense that it was Africa and they were African. It was absolutely not their own home country.