Less the 2% of American whites owned slaves?

Would it be considered slavery to contract an OS worker for say 2k a year? No days off, under full supervision of the employer who can keep the confined, remove visa ect to protect their investment (stop them running off). Much like the Saudi system. Thats probably cheaper than owning slaves.

 

We are respectable Negroes.......

With Dignity Former Slaves Speak Across Time and liberals were flabbergated.

As part of its series commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, the Opinionator section of the NY Times is featuring a piece by Karenna Gore Schiff. Out of Time explores the politics surrounding the WPA's efforts to record the oral histories of former slaves during the 1930s and 1940s.


There are some great nuggets here: the fights over memory and representation; and its various artistic and historical projects; and how the very idea of "documentary" projects were part of a broader populist turn towards everyday people--as opposed to "great" men and women--and the importance of their life stories and experiences to understanding the grand American narrative.

While it is fashionable in Republican circles to bemoan the federal government as a source of all evil, a bogeyman to be drowned in the bathtub, the WPA projects in particular, and the New Deal more generally, are powerful examples of how the State can do so much good.


It is chilling and inspiring to hear the ancestors speak across time. History is real. It ain't even past. Some would urge us to forget the past.

Caught Out of Times is a teachable moment, it reaches back to the past and meditates on how the voiced experiences of former slaves are almost "Homeric" in their power. . Many slaves’ expressed disapproval of the Northern army....this was genuine. Ward writes of “astonishing empathy” for masters and mistresses and documents touching and deeply humane instances of slaves acting beyond the constraints of bondage, like carrying their masters’ bodies over long distances to be buried at home. Furthermore, in the immediate human context of war, slaves’ interests overlapped with those of slaveholders; they wanted to protect food and livestock from incoming troops not only because they had been ordered to, but because their own sustenance was at stake.
. Adam Goodheart points out that at the dawn of the war, mixed-race slaves were more likely to join the Confederate effort (technically, the Confederacy never accepted them as enlisted troops but gladly put them to work): ”Human nature is a complicated thing.”
An appeal to "human nature," and a desire to go beyond "good guys" and "bad guys" in our historiography is laudable,

Harriet Smith’s soft, melodic voice conjures up the image of her as a girl, sitting atop a white fence watching the troops go by, surprised by the sight of “colored soldiers in droves,” and filled with wonder when a black orphan girl neighbor (who had had her arm cut off while operating a molasses mill) ran off with one of them. Approximately 300,000 black men would serve in the Union army (and thousands would also join the Confederate effort, including Fountain Hughes’s father, who was killed at Gettysburg) but the sight was particularly shocking to all Southerners in the early days of the war.[/QUOTE]

Black Confederate soldiers who served to help protect the Confederacy>>>>

http://www.blackconfederatesoldiers.com/img/hp/main/mi1_1.jpg

 

The Civil War was not fought to free slaves. That was a political angle employed by Lincoln after the war had started. He was also a criminal for not allowing the states to cecede, as was their right.

 

http://www.blackconfederatesoldiers.com/img/hp/base/ba12.jpg

 

As ole honest abe said...if i could preserve the union and not free the slaves i would do so.

Lest we forget ....he also wanted to send the negroes back to Africa.

 

Slavery in the antebellum South was not a monolithic system; its nature varied widely across the region. At one extreme one white family in thirty owned slaves in Delaware; in contrast, half of all white families in South Carolina did so. Overall, 26 percent of Southern white families owned slaves. In 1860, families owning more than fifty slaves numbered less than 10,000; those owning more than a hundred numbered less than 3,000 in the whole South. The typical Southern slave owner possessed one or two slaves, and the typical white Southern male owned none. He was an artisan, mechanic, or more frequently, a small farmer. This reality is vital in understanding why white Southerners went to war to defend slavery in 1861. Most of them did not have a direct financial investment in the system. Their willingness to fight in its defense was more complicated and subtle than simple fear of monetary loss. They deeply believed in the Southern way of life, of which slavery was an inextricable part. They also were convinced that Northern threats to undermine slavery would unleash the pent-up hostilities of 4 million African American slaves who had been subjugated for centuries.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/slavery.htm

 

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/slavery/southern_slavery_as_it_was.htm#ConclusionSouthern Slavery As It Was

 

Um...why would he have used that as a political angle if it was not a popular idea to begin with? What is the point of using a political angle that is unpopular?

And the war itself determined that it was not their right. The courts backed him up after the fact.

The Supreme Court ruled that states do NOT have the right to unilaterally secede. The southern states were traitors to their nation, and got off easy.

They could personally leave whenever they wished...but the land legally belongs to the United States of America, and they cannot take it with them without US consent.

 

No. Because you would be consenting to a contract.

Slaves never consented to a contract. They never AGREED to become slaves. It was imposed on them.

 

You are correct.

 

Lincoln imposed heavy tariffs onto the South and needed to keep them apart of the Union in order to continue to make a ton of money for his states in the North. The whole reason why he didn't want them to secede in the first place. Lincoln even supported the 'Corwin Amendment', which would've given the states rights to continue slavery, without intervention from the Congress.

True the states don't have a explicit right to secede. HOWEVER, nothing in the Constitution denies them from being able to do it either. However, I wouldn't just say the Southern states were traitors to the nation, I'd also include Lincoln in with that as well.

 

In the movies you see Mr. Lincoln proclaiming the slaves are freed.....then you see hordes of Negroes fleeing the Plantations and hitting the roads....then the music plays, the negroes shout haleujah and the camera fades away.

In real life what happend to the Slaves after Mr. Lincoln technically proclaimed them free?...whee did they go?, Mr. Lincoln in real terms made them homeless, what did they do?, Where did they work? and so forth.................since Mr. Lincoln in his mad rush to free the flaves purely for political reasons made no provisions for the Negroes....they were simply left to fend for themselves....a popular myth is that they fled up North ...a few --a very few only were able or willing to do that.

In Reality they were free to provide food, shelter, medical care, and retirement for
themselves and their families since the plantation owners were no longer
responsible for them. Oh yeh Hallaeujah!

Many of them became sharecroppers or employees of the
plantations for the same masters and in truth not much change in the status quo if any.

Employees were paid only when there was work to be done so they
had no income except during planting, cultivating, and harvest seasons. They would have starved that first winter had it not been for the charity of their former masters.


Sharecroppers had income only at harvest time, most of which was probably used
to repay loans taken out to get through the previous year.

. Actually, contrary to liberal myths and outright propaganda...... most slaves had been treated
well (or at least humanly) under slavery. The plantation owner's livelihood
depended on having healthy field hands.

The majority stayed in the South mainly because that was home, but several hundred
made it across the Missouri-Kansas border while the Civil War was still being
fought. After the war, any able-bodied ex-slave could go north (or west) where
they would face much of the same discrimination as in the South. The
unluckiest ones were probably those who were repatriated to Liberia.

Thus anyone who studies those times and this particular topic can understand very quickly that the black and white scenario, the good and evil scenario, the evil white Plantation scenario and so forth self righteously put forth by hypocritical, naive and un-informed bleeding heart liberals is hyperboloe and deception that alienated the races even farther and today has resulted in such hatred (especially from the Negro side) that the races are further apart than anytime in our history.

As with most things in life the topic of slavery, the War Between The States and the results of Slaves being freed are much more complex than the liberals want to believe. They want to keep playing the same old movie of black victimhood and White Racism...many have been deceived by that and many still are...thus all of our flawed social programs, the tragedy visited upon our once excellent Public School System, the destruction of so many elegant neighborhoods in our big cities, the horrendous amount of drugs and crime in the black ghettoes....all of this in truth is linked not to white racism or slavery for that matter but in truth in to how slavery was ended and the social chaos resulting from the legislation passed by bleeding heart liberals.....these do gooders have brought America to her knees and the beat goes on...millions of illegals streaming into the country, jobs still going overseas, horrendous black crime(as I post this the leading the story on the news here is how two black teenagers shoot a woman whilst she is out walking her baby in a stroller and then they kill her baby) the news covienently for the sake of political correctnes leave out that these 'teens' as they refer to them are black.....yes the beat goes on. The question is for how long?

 

How does that change what I just said?

The Supreme Court disagreed, and they have the final say in the matter.

Lincoln was elected, and was the legitimate leader of the United States. Per the Supreme Court decision I quoted earlier, he was within his rights to defend American sovereignty, legally speaking. In what way was he a traitor?

 

I agree. Starvation and death is preferable to slavery. I would rather be dead than enslaved. How about you?

According to who? Former slave owners? LOL

And yet, as much as their current situation sucked, how many of them volunteered for slavery again? How many of them were eager to restore the old system and return to slavery?

I am ok with hatred towards white racists. Especially those who engage in or defend the institution of slavery. Hate can be a very useful emotion.

You cannot be that clueless...Modern America is more wealthy, more militarily powerful, and more technologically advanced than any nation in human history. The vast majority of the top universities are American. Even our poor have so much to eat that they become obese. We seem to have done just fine without slavery.

 

Because:
Emancipation Proclamation Was Also Foreign Policy
Kept Europe Out Of U.S. Civil War
http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od...tion-Proclamation-Was-Also-Foreign-Policy.htm

Fascist.

 

Being a fascist is still a step above slaver or racist. So as labels go, I could do worse.

 

The Civil War was not the only way to do away with slavery in America. It was, in fact, a spectacularly bad way of going about it.

Let us also not forget that your glorious Union proceeded to segregate blacks and otherwise mistreat them even after their emancipation.

 

The South could have solved the problem of slavery at any time. They chose wealth over morality

You say that as if it is analogous to slavery.

No matter what the Union did to them, it was better than slavery.

 

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/coma/images/issues/201202/higginson2-wide.jpg


Obviously well fed, adequate housing with fine clothes ...a typical nice slave family and quite content.

 

Meanwhile back in Africa their cousins don't seem to be faring quite as well to say the least>>>>>>>http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu216/rhymz4jesus/AFRICAN%20AMERICAN%20ART/slaves-1.jpg

 

I know...and yet...they did not seem to be lining up to be slaves. Strange huh?

Is it possible there is something you are missing?

 

I dare anyone to contrast this idylic lifestyle...close to nature and God with the horrendous lives of the aborigines in Africa...hounded by Africa wars, cannibals, starvation and disease.

Even the poor white laborers up North worked from daylight to dark in sweat shops and in the fields for barely enough wages to buy necessites did not have it nearly as well.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.negroartists.com/writings/kentucky%20Born%20in%20Slavery%20Slave%20Narratives%

 

It does not matter what you dare, the empirical evidence is clearly against you. THEY obviously did not think slavery was better. Even you don't...unless you are going to tell me you'd prefer being a slave. Why were runaway slaves punished if slavery was so appealing?

So the only possible alternatives are that you really are that hypocritically delusional, or that you are lying.

So why did they not volunteer to be slaves? Guaranteed food and shelter, right?

 

Your lack of knowledge of that glorious period of American History is astounding. Slavery at that time was race based....if whites were enslaved it would have upset the whole social strata...plus whites did not make good slaves....that had been tried before as well as enslaving Indians ....neither group made good slaves...but the Africans made excellent slaves...to the point many believed (and there is some evidence for it)that Africans were created by God to be servants to White Folk.

- - - Updated - - -

Aunt Harriet Smith was a black woman from Homestead Texas and Aunt Phoebe Boyd from Dunnsville Virginia, both slave narratives.
Aunt Harriet Smith was married to Jim Smith. During one of her interviews Harriet was asked how long ago she could remember from her slave days, she could remember all the way back when she was thirteen years old. Harriet could successfully remember everyone’s names as well, all the white children, her owner, everyone of the slaves she was around, and people she came into contact with on a regular basis. Her owner had first purchased her grandmother and from then on owned the rest of her family from there on down.
One thing she was extremely faithful to was church. They allowed the white people to go to church in the morning and the black people were allowed to go at night. They had a white preacher and he was always telling them to behave themselves. If the black slaves were to act up then the preacher would tell there owners and they would be punished. She believed that there was a God, and he would help them. The slaves were never taught to read and write.
Harriet said that the white people were good to them. Her owner never hurt any of them. Her owner treated her well. [continues]

 

Your shallow thoughts are pathetic....the Africans if they had known how well they would be treated in America would of course have volunteered in a heartbeat....the only problem...most of the slaves sold by their African Kings to Europeans wound up in South America....where they indeed suffered greatly...very few liberals understand the great difference in the way slaves were treated in South America and the way Southrn Folk treated their slaves....and the number of slaves in South America was many times larger than the number of slaves in America.