States' Rights to own slaves. Read the damn secession documents -- the CSA Constitution -- and the words of thousands of statesmen, preachers, and slavery advocates in the leadup to the war. They said it a million times over. And they cared only about States Rights for themselves -- the North could go to hell with their "States' Rights" -- and they said so. Institutional racism died an "organic death." lol What imaginary world are you living in? One hundred years later, it was finally ended with force of law -- with the South kicking and screamin all the way. & Another one of the "slavery would have just died out'ers" -- Ha! The south made it its express purpose to expand slavery, to the territories, to Mexico, Latin America, and Cuba. They thought Cotton was King, and the world would bow at their feet at their extremely precious mass consumer commodity. & Every time I see that crazy line like "Slavery was dying out" or it would have been abolished on its own... I like to inquire... When someone can give me a good answer to what would have been done with these folks...in the second column,below, (a population growing by leaps and bounds) then I'll believe slavery might have had a chance to 'die out.' State ---Free Population ---Slave Population (1860) Mississippi --------354,674 ---- 436,631 South Carolina-- 301,302 --- 402,406 Georgia --------- 505,088 ---- 462,198 Alabama -----519,121 ---- 435,080 Louisiana ------376,276 ---- 331,726 Texas --------- 421,649 ---- 182,566 Arkansas ------324,335--- 111,115 North Carolina -661,563 --331,099 Tennessee--- 834,082--- 275,719 Florida ------- 78,679 ---- 61,745 Kentucky -----930,201 --- 225,483 Virginia -----1,105,453 ---490,865 To date, not one has even tried to answer that question in the many thousands of conversations I have taken part in over the decades re: Civil war. No one can. Usually the thread dies off after that.
South Carolina: http://www.civil-war.net/pages/southcarolina_declaration.asp Note that they complain about the rights of states. But, their primary example is ... SLAVERY. Saying that slavery wasn't the issue in South Carolina just doesn't hold water, given their specific concerns.
Yeah, right...I've heard this argument before. Problem is, is that there are numerous testimonies from, you know people...who were actually, slaves...... I am not going to go the typical route by showing you slave testimonies. Let's go a different route addressing "Truth is slaves were worth so much money that abuse was bad for business." This work isn't contemporary, it was written when slavery was in full swing, with content from slave owners themselves.... These "businessmen" had no problem burning alive, raping, cutting (known as hobbling) their slaves. They had no problem with making them work naked, without out shelter, treating wounds with salt water, being whipped to death, etc. You can say whatever you like. The problem with arguments like yours, is that we have from slave owners on how they treated their slaves. So save the revisionist history...it's boring. The ironic part is quite a few of the testimonies and cruelties are proudly boasted by slave owners themselves, in local newspapers...the smart businessmen, you speak of.... http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/weld/weld.html
No, they didn't. By 1807 - and with the explosion of the As far as the importation of slaves ban -- ha! They didn't need to important them, they were breeding them here. Like horses and cows -- because that's how they were seen. Farm animals. There were actual breeding locations. Some of the early forms of eugenics. Bred for strength, endurance, health, etc.. To maximize profits. No need to import. Cheaper to make them here. And make they did. By the millions.
So you admit you know nothing. How can one even carry on a subject if they have not read the words of the southerners themselves - via their Declaration of Causes and secession statements?
I think the point is not him wanting to prove his ignorance daily. It's the point that this person is truly a mentally, and disturbingly unhinged human being. He's lost control of himself, is the way I see it. And the thing is, he brought this mental condition upon himself. He thought that he would skirt around just like he did in the days of the mafia Casinos and other crooked ventures he was involved in, and folks would never discover this corrupt lifestyle of his. "WRONG"! And now that he is in a daily defense mode, he has only his ignorance of the job to fall back on. Which sets up a mental drain for anyone. I think the Scarborough team explained it perfectly; http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/president-trump-s-dizzying-series-of-interviews-934409795987
We've been down this road. You're the one who advocates you paying a lower rate than others. You are the one getting subsidized by other tax payers
He's probably one of those who have a Gone with the Wind image of the South bubbling over with kindly, benevolent slaverapist masters.
Do you have a source? I do. “Although President Jackson owed his election to the presidency to southern slaveholder votes, he was an ardent unionist who was willing to risk civil war in order to defy South Carolina's nullification threats. In the proclamation that follows, Jackson declared nullification illegal and became the first President to declare the Union indissoluble. He then asked Congress to empower him to use force to execute federal law; Congress promptly enacted a Force Act. Privately, Jackson threatened to "hang every leader...of that infatuated people, sir, by martial law, irrespective of his name, or political or social position." He also dispatched a fleet of eight ships and a shipment of 5000 muskets to a federal installation in Charleston harbor.” Digital History, Printable Version, Andrew Jackson Denounces Nullification in a Presidential Proclamation, Digital History ID 371, Author: Andrew Jackson, Date:1832 http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=371
Highly disturbing and important link. Thanks. It's hard to figure how we managed to end up with a president so out of touch and hardly even interested in reality.
No, the Civil War was fought because the Southern States left the Union. The Civil War was fought over the issue of secession - which is treason. The same issue Jackson had to deal with. “TO SECRETARY CASS. Washington, December 17, 1832. confidential My D'r sir, If I can judge from the signs of the times Nullification, and secession, or in the language of truth, disunion, is gaining strength, we must be prepared to act with promptness, and crush the monster in its cradle before it matures to manhood. We must be prepared for the crisis. The moment that we are informed that the Legislature of So Carolina has passed laws to carry her rebellious ordinance into effect, which I expect tomorrow we must be prepared to act. Tenders of service is coming to me daily and from Newyork, we can send to the bay of charleston with steamers such number of troops as we may please to order, in four days. We will want three divisions of artillery, each composed of nines, twelves, and Eighteen pounders, one for the East, one for the west, and one for the center divisions. How many of these calibers, are ready for field service How many musketts with their compleat equipments are ready for service. How many swords and pistols and what quantity of fixed ammunition for dragoons, Brass pieces for the field, how many, and what caliber. At as early a day as possible, I wish a report from the ordinance Department, on this subject, stating with precision, how many peaces of artillery of the caliber, are ready for the field, how many good musketts etc. etc., and at what place in deposit. yrs. respectfully” MANUSCRIPT/MIXED MATERIAL, Image 1 of Andrew Jackson to Lewis Cass, December 17, 1832, https://www.loc.gov/resource/maj.01082_0244_0245/?sp=1&st=text.
None of that seems to directly contradict my post. You are correct about freed black Americans who were indeed persecuted by Southern white racists. Nevertheless, black Americans were far better off as free American citizens. They could leave the South and they often successfully defended themselves with armed force. Hence the start of gun control laws in the US.
I find this line of logic profoundly offensive. You're essentially suggesting that slavery protected humans from the lethal violence of bigots. Yes, there certainly was hardship that affected freed slaves in profound ways. But, you either aren't thinking this through clearly or you are attempting some sort of totally unacceptable deflection.
It cost $40,000.00 for a slave. A slave that would be fully depreciated by bad health or death. How much did it cost to hire Irish labor that did not have to be fed or cared for in any way? There was more to slavery than economic gain. “The tendency, representing a quasi-biological differentiation, of the Portuguese toward slavery – a differentiation that Keller compares to that of certain ants studied by Darwin – found in the American Indian an easy prey. The number of Indians possessed by a colonist, whether under the name of “pieces” or disguised as “administrados,” came to be an index of his power and social standing; these slaves became the capital with which he installed himself on the land (the value of the land itself being secondary). At the same time, each “piece” took the place of commodities or money; for debts were paid and provisions acquired with slaves or by “ransoming.” Copper colored coins were later to be substituted for these “pieces of Guinea” –in reality, fleshly coins, all of them, coins that, being readily corruptible and subject to decay, constituted an uncertain, an unstable variety of capital.” Freyre, Gilberto. 1967. The Masters and the Slaves, A Study of the Development of Brazilian Civilization. New York: Alfred A Knopf, p. 154.
At the time of the cusp of the Civil war, and some years earlier there was not a single black - free or slave - who was an American citizen. Gun control for blacks came many years earlier, and later most southern states forbade any gun ownership.
Read the post I was responding to which asserted that life was better for blacks under slavery than after the Civil War and their emancipation. In fact, blacks were clearly far better off as free Americans than they were under slavery. Black Americans could legally escape from the Jim Crow South and those that remained developed strong family and community support structures that were often able to protect them from racist brutality. Free black Americans in the South were not passive.
Please say where you got that $40,000 figure from. I've seen old posters that showed one slave going for $2000 (I'm still looking for it). Slave prices varied. Slaves being imported to the indigo/sugar plantations in the French West Indies were so cheap they were literally worked to death and there are records where plantation owners have careful formulas of the cost of food vs work vs death by slow starvation to maximize profit. Slaves WERE an expensive commodity in the AnteBellum South but they could be BRED quite profitably
I saw, (granted, after my post) -- still, a lot of people seem to be unaware of that fact about not single free black in this country pre-civil war was a citizen.
