Civil war Books From the Southern Perspective

Now you are talking about indentured servitude, which was not clear in your original post, and such servants were not limited to the Irish.

Almost 70 thousand of 100 thousand indentured servants did not live out their contract, but if they did, then, yes, the had their head right and freedom dues coming to them.

Negro Chattel Slavery was cheaper for the owners than bringing over indentured servants: lifetime labor, no head rights, no freedom dues, and the children of a slave mother were lifetime slaves.

 

Cause a lot of people didn't like calling Irish slaves even though they were. The first slaves in America were the Irish.

Those slaves were irreplaceable when it came to Chattel time, I wouldn't call that "cheap". No new African slaves were being brought in. And you are talking about 2 different time frames.

 

Wj5's ID of Irish identured servants as "slaves" is factually wrong.

Negro chattel slavery was cheaper than indentured servitude as I explained above.

No African slaves were introduced into the US legally after the law in 1808 prevented the importation of slaves.

The slaves during the next five decades rose in value.

 

noooo...eliminating a society through slavery is also genocide...the romans often practiced it, dispersing entire ethnic groups through slavery, they would be permanently wiped from existence as a distinct people...

 

probably untrue..the english condemned their own poor, servants, debtors and criminals to indentured service, it's possible there were Irish but more likely English...

 

Just because they weren't "chattel" doesn't mean they weren't slaves. To believe otherwise is to be disingenuous.

Really? How so? Irish were still brought into the US well into the 1850's, long after the prohibition on African slaves. Even before that, to capture the Irish, all the English needed to do was empty out the prisons and send them to the colonies. Getting slaves from Africa pre 1808 was higher risk and more expensive due to the length of the trip.

And when things have a finite quantity, do they become more or less expensive? Do you not believe that black slaves were traded and sold between plantations.

Your last comment right here shows how you acknowledge that blacks slaves were more expensive than Irish slaves/indentured servants.

 

No, before African slaves were a thing, Irish made up 70% of the slaves in the colonies, and their population was cut in half in less than 10 years.

 

Sounds like he follows the Christian Identity movement.

 

Uhhh, what?

You are aware that the US was no longer an English "Colony" by the 1850's, right?

What you did have however was a group known to history as "Redemptioners", who came in the early and middle parts of the 19th century. However, these individuals sold themselves into servitude, generally for a period of 3-5 years to pay for their passage.

And 60% of them were Germans. The majority of the rest came from other Central European nations. And the main port that this operation worked out of was Rotterdam in the Netherlands, not England. The Irish made up a small number of this group of immigrants. Most Irish could not afford transit to the Netherlands to take this option.

You are obviously confusing America with Australia. They are 2 different countries. We have Mel Gibson, they have Paul Hogan.

 

The Irish were still being imported at indentured servants as were the Asians.

Yes, and they had the worst jobs possible.

Cause no one could have put themselves in harms way like the middle easterners or Cubans are doing now right? It was a huge time period between the 1600s and 1850s, where most of the Irish had been exported by the 1850s, so those who did make the journey did so.

Funny, but yes the English did take the Irish to America colonies before Africa was ever used as the main hub for slavers.

 

Actually, the majority of them were brought over as farmhands. They had rights and they had legal protection, unlike slaves.

And the worst part of their time was not in the US, but in transit. This trade was simply viewed as another form of "cargo", so they were often placed in the holds of slave ships for their passage to the New World. Fed poorly and even shackled to their beds. But once they arrived in the US they were treated like any other worker.

The closest similarity we have in the US today is the military. You have a set period of service, they are mandated to take care of your during that time, failure to meet your duties can be punished. And everybody in that condition volunteers for it. And many of the contracts even mandated things like teaching them to read and write, in addition to the standard end of contract, which mandated the servant being given a suit of clothes and tools for their trade.

You are obviously confusing indentured servants with either convict labor or debt bondage.

Yes, as indentured servants primarily. With a set period of service. They were not slaves.

 

To some extent, but not completely. The irish had to fight for their "protection" that's why they formed gangs. If a black slave was mistreated by anyone other than their master, there was hell to pay. And the Irish servants, farm hands, slaves, what ever you want to define them as, were forced into producing African babies because it was a way to get a bigger stock of slaves for a lesser price. It became so prevalent that there were laws introduced to squashed the practice because it was eating away at profits for the slavers.

Except no, they weren't. The irish were there to do the most dangerous jobs, jobs that even slave masters didn't want to risk their property to do.

Right, through false promises. And the slave period of America had several eras it went through. The Irish in the beginning were slaves.

They were used in the same light.

Get hung up on the definition all you want, facts remain that they could be killed if they ran away. They were worked to death many times so the master didn't have to pay the severance. They did the most brutal of jobs and dangerous ones.

 

Wj5 is without any authority redefining terms and definitions from American history.

The Irish, the Asians, the Chicanos, and others were not “slaves.”

To suggest they were is to be disingenuous and unfactual regarding our history.

No significant numbers of Irish were brought into the US in the 1850s as indentured servants. Foreign service indentured servitude was almost nil after the 1750s. Negro chattel import slavery was illegal after 1808. The intra-American slave trade has no application to this discussion.

That black slaves were recognized on cost benefit analysis as a better labor commodity than indentured servants is why the foreign service trade in the latter was almost dead by the 1780s. Irish criminal gang activity in the mid-19th century has nothing to do with this discussion.

The Irish were treated no differently than any other immigrants in America than the Negro chattel slaves brought to North America. No one can say the Irish did “the most dangerous jobs,” for that undoubtedly went to the Asian laborers in the West.

Slavers were not at risk for the most dangerous jobs in the South, because they were more valuable in cost benefit labor than whites, Asians, and Hispanics.

The Irish were never “slaves” or slaves in law, and if such were given as an answer on an exam, it would be marked wrong.

Wj5 simply wants to redefine meanings and terms, and he is unhappy that will not be permitted. Indentured servants were not convict laborer nor were they bondange debtors. Once again, Wj5 misdefines terms and meanings.

The fact remains indentured servants were not slaves.

 

Treatment of Slaves [South] and Free Blacks [North/ Europe]


“I am at a loss to imagine the source of that prejudice which subsist against him [ the negro] in the northern states, a prejudice unknown in the south, where the domestic relations between the African and European are so much more intimate”
-English Abolitionist Marshall Hall

“They fare better than the poor of any of our citizens are more warmly clad, work less, and are a thousand-fold more cheerful and contented”
-Daniel Hundley, viewed slavery in Alabama

“Sir, there does not exists on the face of the earth, a population so poor, so uterley destitute of comforts ,convinces , and decencies of life as the unfortunate blacks in Philadelphia,New York and Boston. Liberty has been to them the greatest of calamities the heaviest of curses... go home and emancipate your free negroes. When you do that, we will listen to you with more patience”
-Sen Robert Y Hayne of South Carolina in debate with Daniel Webster

“The free colored people were looked upon as an inferior caste to whom liberty was a curse, and their lot worse than that of slaves”
-Abolitionist William Lloyd arrison Biography

To many, the treatment of blacks in the south under slavery was far better not only than that of free blacks in the north, but that of the white industrial workers in Europe and America as well. American president John Adams said “That in some countries the laboring poor were called freedmen, in others they were called slaves, but that the difference as to the state was imaginary only” A Nobel Prize winning book written by Robert Fogel, Time on the Cross, showed that the slaves in the south were treated better than slaves anywhere in world, and treated better than free blacks in the north and factory workers in the north. They worked less, were fed more, received better medical care, and had more living area. And a Virginian who visited NYC in 1855 said

“Never had we seen white servants before....accustomed to less considerable and more hard work than were our negro servants.”
Letitia M Burwell A Girls life in Virginia Before the war 1895 reprint sprinkle publishing Harrisonberg Virginia 2001

Free blacks in the north had higher death rates than southern slaves. In 1860, the population growth was 23% for southern slaves and 1.7% for free northern blacks.


“It was a pleasant paradox to find that where the colored people are not free, they have in many ways the most liberty”
-Nehemiah Adams a South Side View of Slavery 1854



“He said that colored people could associate with whites much more easily and comfortable at the south than at the north. This is the reason he preferred the south”
-Fredrick Law Olmstead speaking with of a black man who lived in LA and NY

“The prejudice of the race appears to be stronger in the states which have abolished slavery, than in those were it still exists”
-Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America

“In 1860 in New York City there were women and children working 16 hour days for starvation wages, 150,000 unemployed, 40,000 homeless, 600 brothels (some with girls as young as 10), and 9,000 grog shops where the poor could temporarily drown their sorrows. A Southern planter who reflected on the circumstances in which he had been born, observed the everyday life around him, and examined his Christian conscience, saw no reason to forever meekly accept the hatred and abuse of strangers who claimed moral authority over him.”
-Clyde Wilson Lies my Teacher Told me


After the war, very few slaves left for the north, as they felt their treatment was better in the south than it would be in the north. During the war the slaves could have easily raised up and freed themselves as the north called them to do, but as slave owning Kate Stone said “we would be helpless should the negros rise since there are few men left at home. It is only because negros do not want to kill us that we are still alive.” During the war, the south was first to use blacks in the military and gave them equal pay, while the north did not. The south was first to appoint black officers in the war. A slave from Missouri said “colored people and whites associate more in the south than in the north. They go to parties together, dance together, colored people enjoy themselves more in the south.”

“The prejudice of color is not nearly as strong in the south as the north [in the south] it is not at all uncommon to see black slaves of both sexes shake hands with white people when they met. And interchange friendly personal inquiries, but at the north I do not remember to have witnessed this once neither Boston, NY, Philadelphia would white persons generally like to be seen shaking hands with black in the streets”
-English abolitionist James S Buckingham in 1842

“It has struck me that the slaves there are much better off in many respects than the poor in England who are doomed to labors and starve”
-1824, Mary Helan Herring Middelton

“[Northern abolition] seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.”
-Mississippi Declaration of Causes for Succession

“Our plan is more profitable [non slave factory workers] we take care of no children or sick people, except as paupers, while owners of slaves have to provide for them from birth till death”
-John Haley, 17th Maine

“Negro woman are carrying black and white babies together in arms, black and white children are playing together out of doors, to see the train go by”
-Northerner Fredrick Olmsted, A Journey in the Seaboard Slave States

“Treating them [blacks] on every occasion with utmost marked contempt”
-Rep. Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, speaking of northerners

“The difference between us is, that our slaves are hired for life and well compensated; there is no starvation, no begging, no want of employment among our people, and not too much employment either. Yours are hired by the day, not cared for, and scantily compensated, which may be proved in the most painful manner, at any hour in any street of your large towns. Why, you meet more beggars in one day, in any single street of the city of New York, than you would meet in a lifetime in the whole South.”
-James Henry Hammond cotton is king speech , J

 

false on all accounts. Thread upcoming on this forum and i look forward to the discussion.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-legality-of-secession-in-antebellum-america.8095853/
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...e-political-effects-of-the-civil-war.8093078/
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...n-the-upper-south-american-civil-war.8088497/
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...southern-secession-the-cotton-states.8088501/
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...he-cotton-states-causes-of-secession.8088502/

 

very true.

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ation-about-slavery-in-the-old-south.8094230/
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/politically-incorrect-information-about-slavery.8094227/

 

and yes the population blossomed under slavery in america, and when slavery ended, the population drastically reduced. Thus by your own definition, slavery is the opposite of genocide.

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ation-about-slavery-in-the-old-south.8094230/

 

1stvermont misses that the major point that the Irish were worse off than the slaves: they were not.

No Christian Identity or Christian Dominionist arguments and POVs are accepted as valid.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Cry-F...ocphy=9031550&hvtargid=pla-434685845249&psc=1



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Cry_of_Freedom_(book)


BTW in the decades after the Civil War, history was a field dominated by
Scot Irish sorts like McPherson who have a culture of retelling history.
And they were of the Confederacy.

It is more modern PC version that it was all about slavery that is a sad, fiction of history.


Moi

​

 

The South could not have sought to change the Constitution? The U.S. was not maintained in one piece? There must be some odd sense of "false" that exists in some imaginary place.

 

The economic system of the South was based upon slavery. The economic system of the South was the source of the conflict with the rest of the nation. Slavery is inextricable from the calculation.

 

lets ignore historical observation, facts, and just go with Jakes opinion based on nothing. That seems to be how he decided truth.

 

I have read mcpherson and you will find him quoted often in my posts. However he is a modern marxist of the Lincoln cult and very pro north. Good book though. I am told the south wrote the history. Why is it than today everyone is educated by the northern version? even if there was a time when the southern view was common, it is not today. Just read the many posts on this thread.

 

and you said the south wrote the history yet you [without even knowing it] are coming from the northern rewrite of history perspective. What is missing is hat actually happened and what the civil war was about. I once thought Lincoln are greatest president since he freed the slaves and saved the Constitution. What if i told you those are both demonstrable false historically. Stick around threads are coming on various subject on the civil war. First I was just going to post these books but i see the threads are needed here more than most places.

 

partially true yes. Your conclusion is false and its not the only source of conflict, read my linked threads.