Another lie debunked-Africans did nothing before the white man

[westwall]

More propaganda and bullshit. The only reason they died is because they didnt want the south to start enslaving white men. If they were so worried about Black people being free why did they allow slavery to still exist in the north?

Hmmm....Slavery did not exist in the Northern States...at the time of the Civil War. I doubt any whites were worried about being enslaved..perhaps you could shoot me a link from that time bemoaning the possibility? I will note that the shameful Dred/Scot decision did recognize the right for Southern slave-owners to pursue their "property" all the way to the Canadian border.

Dred Scott

"The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.

Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Dred Scott died nine months later."

A lot of the troops on the Northern side hated slavery..and thought the blacks were totally inferior. They hated the Institution---that's all. Some for religious reasons..some economic...some ethical...some because they were told to by the media of the day. Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long..but they were drafted..so they had no choice-they fought. Most soldiers don't fight for great causes..they fight for their buddy next to them..and to not seem a coward.

With a handful of exceptions...everyone of that time was racist by our standard....even the advocates for Emancipation

Where do you get this idea that the Irish were by definition racists? Seems to me they would have been aware that Britain had been sending thousands of Irish slaves ("indentured servants") to the West Indies, which would have bestowed a degree of sympathy. I can't connect these dots.

As for attitudes in the north, in the election of 1860, the same one that elected Lincoln and preceded the War, one of the states held a referendum on whether black people should be allowed to vote. The results came back decisively "No", they should not. The state was New York.

Well..indentured servitude was not slavery--although there were certainly many abuses. As for the Irish immigrants...they held blacks responsible for the draft...and rioted...one of NYC's worst riots..immortalized at the end of the movie 'Gangs of New York"..resulted in the lynching of any person of color unlucky enough to be caught on the streets.

The "Irish Slaves" position..is absurd..to any who read history--it has become one of the perennial positions trotted out by racists...a search of this board will no doubt find many threads.

I'm not a movie watcher and certainly not about to take one as a history lesson. Is that all you have to go on? Because the flaw in that "logic" doesn't even need to be articulated.

Tens of thousands of Irish captives were indeed sent to the Americas by Henry Cromwell (Oliver's son). They're more accurately called 'indentured servants' in that, being white, they could work off their "debt" after some finite time whereas the black African slaves had their status in perpetuity. But they were captured from Ireland and they were enslaved, so the point stands.

>> In the 1650s, after Oliver Cromwell had conquered Ireland in a series of massacres, he left his brother, Henry, as the island’s governor. In the next decade Henry sold thousands of Irish people, mostly women and children, as slaves to the West Indies. Estimates range between 30,000 and 80,000. The higher number seems quite likely, in the light of a letter Henry Cromwell wrote to a slaver, saying “it is not in the least doubted you may have such a number of them as you think fitt [sic]… I desire to express as much zeal in this design as you could wish.”

This Henry of the Uprighte Harte, as he called himself, said in another letter to a slaver who wanted only girls, “I think it might be of like advantage fitt to sende 1500 or 2000 young boys aforementioned. We could well spare them…” The Irish slaves, most of them women, were mated with the Africans. There is “a tradition” – as historians sometimes call something which they have good reason to believe but can’t prove – that up to the early nineteenth century there were blacks on some of the islands who spoke Gaelic. In any case, the West Indian accent becomes much more comprehensible when the Irish slaves are taken into account.

... Why were these people sold into slavery? Henry gives us clues: “Concerning the young women, although we must use force takeinge them up, yet it beinge so much to their owne goode…” And in another letter, the one in which he suggests some men be taken too: “who knows but that it may be the meanes to make them Englishmen, I mean rather Christians.” In other words, Henry was trying to sell off as many pagans as he could. This was at the height of the English witch-craze, which was a pogrom against those who still adhered to the Celtic religions. Ireland was the stronghold for the old beliefs. This, better than anything else, explains the mercilessness of Cromwell’s massacres there.<< -- Ventura: Hear That Long Snake Moan pp. 8-9

>> Those transported unwillingly were not indentures. They were political prisoners, vagrants, or people who had been defined as "undesirable" by the English state.[1] Penal transportation of Irish people was at its height during the 17th century, during the Cromwellian conquest and settlement of Ireland (1649-1653).[1] During this period, thousands of Irish people were sent to the Caribbean, or "Barbadosed", against their will.[2] ---- Wiki: Irish Indentured Servants​

You're actually suggesting I'm "racist" for knowing my own ancestral land's history while you quote from frickin' movies?

You might want to talk with Liam Hogan about this. He is a historian. He lives in Ireland. Irish were not slaves and while Irish did not have it easy, they had the advantage of being white.

All of my work on the “Irish slaves” meme (2015–’19)
Liam Hogan
Mar 12, 2017

All of my work on the “Irish slaves” meme (2015–’19)

They in many cases were treated worse than slaves. Irish working in the factories had a lower life expectancy than slaves did, as an example.

They were universally disliked, and the Sullivan Act was passed to specifically target them.

They had no white privilege.

Far from it.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Hmmm....Slavery did not exist in the Northern States...at the time of the Civil War. I doubt any whites were worried about being enslaved..perhaps you could shoot me a link from that time bemoaning the possibility? I will note that the shameful Dred/Scot decision did recognize the right for Southern slave-owners to pursue their "property" all the way to the Canadian border.

Dred Scott

"The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.

Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Dred Scott died nine months later."

A lot of the troops on the Northern side hated slavery..and thought the blacks were totally inferior. They hated the Institution---that's all. Some for religious reasons..some economic...some ethical...some because they were told to by the media of the day. Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long..but they were drafted..so they had no choice-they fought. Most soldiers don't fight for great causes..they fight for their buddy next to them..and to not seem a coward.

With a handful of exceptions...everyone of that time was racist by our standard....even the advocates for Emancipation

Where do you get this idea that the Irish were by definition racists? Seems to me they would have been aware that Britain had been sending thousands of Irish slaves ("indentured servants") to the West Indies, which would have bestowed a degree of sympathy. I can't connect these dots.

As for attitudes in the north, in the election of 1860, the same one that elected Lincoln and preceded the War, one of the states held a referendum on whether black people should be allowed to vote. The results came back decisively "No", they should not. The state was New York.

Well..indentured servitude was not slavery--although there were certainly many abuses. As for the Irish immigrants...they held blacks responsible for the draft...and rioted...one of NYC's worst riots..immortalized at the end of the movie 'Gangs of New York"..resulted in the lynching of any person of color unlucky enough to be caught on the streets.

The "Irish Slaves" position..is absurd..to any who read history--it has become one of the perennial positions trotted out by racists...a search of this board will no doubt find many threads.

I'm not a movie watcher and certainly not about to take one as a history lesson. Is that all you have to go on? Because the flaw in that "logic" doesn't even need to be articulated.

Tens of thousands of Irish captives were indeed sent to the Americas by Henry Cromwell (Oliver's son). They're more accurately called 'indentured servants' in that, being white, they could work off their "debt" after some finite time whereas the black African slaves had their status in perpetuity. But they were captured from Ireland and they were enslaved, so the point stands.

>> In the 1650s, after Oliver Cromwell had conquered Ireland in a series of massacres, he left his brother, Henry, as the island’s governor. In the next decade Henry sold thousands of Irish people, mostly women and children, as slaves to the West Indies. Estimates range between 30,000 and 80,000. The higher number seems quite likely, in the light of a letter Henry Cromwell wrote to a slaver, saying “it is not in the least doubted you may have such a number of them as you think fitt [sic]… I desire to express as much zeal in this design as you could wish.”

This Henry of the Uprighte Harte, as he called himself, said in another letter to a slaver who wanted only girls, “I think it might be of like advantage fitt to sende 1500 or 2000 young boys aforementioned. We could well spare them…” The Irish slaves, most of them women, were mated with the Africans. There is “a tradition” – as historians sometimes call something which they have good reason to believe but can’t prove – that up to the early nineteenth century there were blacks on some of the islands who spoke Gaelic. In any case, the West Indian accent becomes much more comprehensible when the Irish slaves are taken into account.

... Why were these people sold into slavery? Henry gives us clues: “Concerning the young women, although we must use force takeinge them up, yet it beinge so much to their owne goode…” And in another letter, the one in which he suggests some men be taken too: “who knows but that it may be the meanes to make them Englishmen, I mean rather Christians.” In other words, Henry was trying to sell off as many pagans as he could. This was at the height of the English witch-craze, which was a pogrom against those who still adhered to the Celtic religions. Ireland was the stronghold for the old beliefs. This, better than anything else, explains the mercilessness of Cromwell’s massacres there.<< -- Ventura: Hear That Long Snake Moan pp. 8-9

>> Those transported unwillingly were not indentures. They were political prisoners, vagrants, or people who had been defined as "undesirable" by the English state.[1] Penal transportation of Irish people was at its height during the 17th century, during the Cromwellian conquest and settlement of Ireland (1649-1653).[1] During this period, thousands of Irish people were sent to the Caribbean, or "Barbadosed", against their will.[2] ---- Wiki: Irish Indentured Servants​

You're actually suggesting I'm "racist" for knowing my own ancestral land's history while you quote from frickin' movies?

Nope..I'm suggesting you're an ignorant fool..for, among other things, inferring that I called you..anything at all!

As for the offending movie ref.--if you weren't such an obvious historical naif--you'd be able to easily look up the NYC draft riots of the civil war--and learn for yourself. But instead you choose to focus on my ref.'ing movie..and not on the content.

Then come up with an actual legitimate source. I'd be soundly embarrassed if I tried to make a historical point by pointing to a frickin' movie. Yet that's what you did. Isn't it.

As for your knowledge of your land's 'history'-- not impressed--as you would have known that many people who were not Irish were indentured..that it was a common response to debtor's prison..only a fool would equate Slavery..with the children being enslaved in perpetuity..with indentured servitude..which was for a set length of time. Just because there were abuses..or that the indentured servants CONTRACTS were bought and sold--does not make them slaves..and it, for sure, does not in any way mitigate the perpetual enslavement of Africans.

The poor Irish..gimme a break!

I made that distinction at the top above, which apparently you skipped right past, and the fact REMAINS it's people taken by force ("although we must use force takeinge them up") in an actual historical event that before that post you insisted did not happen and was the fantasy of "racists". NOR did I say or imply that it "mitigated" anything about Africans --- you pulled that out of your ass. I posted SOLELY on your ass-sertion that Irish were by nature "racists'. THAT'S IT. I even bolded the relevant part referenced, and I RE-quote:

Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long

That's YOU. And now proven wrong, you can't admit you were WRONG the whole time.

Even after, you can't admit it, putting "history" in quotes as if it's not real after it's been documented. Then you want to pretend I'm a "historical naif" because I don't quote fucking MOVIES??

Go fuck yourself, dishonest hack.

"Racist by nature" is not "racist as the day is long' which they were. The Irish immigrants hated the blacks..because they knew that the Irish were just one small step above the Blacks..and they feared losing even that bit of social superiority..perceived, anyway. Historical naif..because anyone with more than a superficial knowledge of the era would have known about the NYC draft riots..known they were real..and would not have thrown out the Faux 'you quoted a movie' bs--to try and devalue the historical accuracy of my point. It is not my job to give you an education...it's yours to have one in the first place.

 

[westwall]

Our arguments are supported by the facts we have shown to your face. The fantasy is your argument. Well actually it's more like a delusion. You've been shown that everything you have believed in your life is a lie. Instead of accepting the facts, you want to flail and kick like a 3 year old when it's told it can't have something. Your entire life has been fake news son.

More propaganda and bullshit. The only reason they died is because they didnt want the south to start enslaving white men. If they were so worried about Black people being free why did they allow slavery to still exist in the north?

Hmmm....Slavery did not exist in the Northern States...at the time of the Civil War. I doubt any whites were worried about being enslaved..perhaps you could shoot me a link from that time bemoaning the possibility? I will note that the shameful Dred/Scot decision did recognize the right for Southern slave-owners to pursue their "property" all the way to the Canadian border.

Dred Scott

"The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.

Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Dred Scott died nine months later."

A lot of the troops on the Northern side hated slavery..and thought the blacks were totally inferior. They hated the Institution---that's all. Some for religious reasons..some economic...some ethical...some because they were told to by the media of the day. Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long..but they were drafted..so they had no choice-they fought. Most soldiers don't fight for great causes..they fight for their buddy next to them..and to not seem a coward.

With a handful of exceptions...everyone of that time was racist by our standard....even the advocates for Emancipation

There were still slaves in the north. Not many, but some. They were grandfathered as part of the freeing of slaves in the north.

Indentured servitude was slavery. Just a type that you could buy your way out of. Many never did.

Incorrect. Indentured servitude was not slavery and many people did work out of it.

Indentured Servants In The U.S.
Indentured servants first arrived in America in the decade following the settlement of Jamestown by the Virginia Company in 1607.

The idea of indentured servitude was born of a need for cheap labor. The earliest settlers soon realized that they had lots of land to care for, but no one to care for it. With passage to the Colonies expensive for all but the wealthy, the Virginia Company developed the system of indentured servitude to attract workers. Indentured servants became vital to the colonial economy.

The timing of the Virginia colony was ideal. The Thirty Year's War had left Europe's economy depressed, and many skilled and unskilled laborers were without work. A new life in the New World offered a glimmer of hope; this explains how one-half to two-thirds of the immigrants who came to the American colonies arrived as indentured servants.

Servants typically worked four to seven years in exchange for passage, room, board, lodging and freedom dues. While the life of an indentured servant was harsh and restrictive, it wasn't slavery. There were laws that protected some of their rights. But their life was not an easy one, and the punishments meted out to people who wronged were harsher than those for non-servants. An indentured servant's contract could be extended as punishment for breaking a law, such as running away, or in the case of female servants, becoming pregnant.

For those that survived the work and received their freedom package, many historians argue that they were better off than those new immigrants who came freely to the country. Their contract may have included at least 25 acres of land, a year's worth of corn, arms, a cow and new clothes. Some servants did rise to become part of the colonial elite, but for the majority of indentured servants that survived the treacherous journey by sea and the harsh conditions of life in the New World, satisfaction was a modest life as a freeman in a burgeoning colonial economy.

In 1619 the first black Africans came to Virginia. With no slave laws in place, they were initially treated as indentured servants, and given the same opportunities for freedom dues as whites. However, slave laws were soon passed – in Massachusetts in 1641 and Virginia in 1661 –and any small freedoms that might have existed for blacks were taken away.

As demands for labor grew, so did the cost of indentured servants. Many landowners also felt threatened by newly freed servants demand for land. The colonial elite realized the problems of indentured servitude. Landowners turned to African slaves as a more profitable and ever-renewable source of labor and the shift from indentured servants to racial slavery had begun.

Indentured Servants In The U.S. | History Detectives | PBS

Wow. Thanks for making my point. The phrase "earned their freedom" kind of makes your claim incorrect.

 

[Pogo]

Where do you get this idea that the Irish were by definition racists? Seems to me they would have been aware that Britain had been sending thousands of Irish slaves ("indentured servants") to the West Indies, which would have bestowed a degree of sympathy. I can't connect these dots.

As for attitudes in the north, in the election of 1860, the same one that elected Lincoln and preceded the War, one of the states held a referendum on whether black people should be allowed to vote. The results came back decisively "No", they should not. The state was New York.

Well..indentured servitude was not slavery--although there were certainly many abuses. As for the Irish immigrants...they held blacks responsible for the draft...and rioted...one of NYC's worst riots..immortalized at the end of the movie 'Gangs of New York"..resulted in the lynching of any person of color unlucky enough to be caught on the streets.

The "Irish Slaves" position..is absurd..to any who read history--it has become one of the perennial positions trotted out by racists...a search of this board will no doubt find many threads.

I'm not a movie watcher and certainly not about to take one as a history lesson. Is that all you have to go on? Because the flaw in that "logic" doesn't even need to be articulated.

Tens of thousands of Irish captives were indeed sent to the Americas by Henry Cromwell (Oliver's son). They're more accurately called 'indentured servants' in that, being white, they could work off their "debt" after some finite time whereas the black African slaves had their status in perpetuity. But they were captured from Ireland and they were enslaved, so the point stands.

>> In the 1650s, after Oliver Cromwell had conquered Ireland in a series of massacres, he left his brother, Henry, as the island’s governor. In the next decade Henry sold thousands of Irish people, mostly women and children, as slaves to the West Indies. Estimates range between 30,000 and 80,000. The higher number seems quite likely, in the light of a letter Henry Cromwell wrote to a slaver, saying “it is not in the least doubted you may have such a number of them as you think fitt [sic]… I desire to express as much zeal in this design as you could wish.”

This Henry of the Uprighte Harte, as he called himself, said in another letter to a slaver who wanted only girls, “I think it might be of like advantage fitt to sende 1500 or 2000 young boys aforementioned. We could well spare them…” The Irish slaves, most of them women, were mated with the Africans. There is “a tradition” – as historians sometimes call something which they have good reason to believe but can’t prove – that up to the early nineteenth century there were blacks on some of the islands who spoke Gaelic. In any case, the West Indian accent becomes much more comprehensible when the Irish slaves are taken into account.

... Why were these people sold into slavery? Henry gives us clues: “Concerning the young women, although we must use force takeinge them up, yet it beinge so much to their owne goode…” And in another letter, the one in which he suggests some men be taken too: “who knows but that it may be the meanes to make them Englishmen, I mean rather Christians.” In other words, Henry was trying to sell off as many pagans as he could. This was at the height of the English witch-craze, which was a pogrom against those who still adhered to the Celtic religions. Ireland was the stronghold for the old beliefs. This, better than anything else, explains the mercilessness of Cromwell’s massacres there.<< -- Ventura: Hear That Long Snake Moan pp. 8-9

>> Those transported unwillingly were not indentures. They were political prisoners, vagrants, or people who had been defined as "undesirable" by the English state.[1] Penal transportation of Irish people was at its height during the 17th century, during the Cromwellian conquest and settlement of Ireland (1649-1653).[1] During this period, thousands of Irish people were sent to the Caribbean, or "Barbadosed", against their will.[2] ---- Wiki: Irish Indentured Servants​

You're actually suggesting I'm "racist" for knowing my own ancestral land's history while you quote from frickin' movies?

Nope..I'm suggesting you're an ignorant fool..for, among other things, inferring that I called you..anything at all!

As for the offending movie ref.--if you weren't such an obvious historical naif--you'd be able to easily look up the NYC draft riots of the civil war--and learn for yourself. But instead you choose to focus on my ref.'ing movie..and not on the content.

Then come up with an actual legitimate source. I'd be soundly embarrassed if I tried to make a historical point by pointing to a frickin' movie. Yet that's what you did. Isn't it.

As for your knowledge of your land's 'history'-- not impressed--as you would have known that many people who were not Irish were indentured..that it was a common response to debtor's prison..only a fool would equate Slavery..with the children being enslaved in perpetuity..with indentured servitude..which was for a set length of time. Just because there were abuses..or that the indentured servants CONTRACTS were bought and sold--does not make them slaves..and it, for sure, does not in any way mitigate the perpetual enslavement of Africans.

The poor Irish..gimme a break!

I made that distinction at the top above, which apparently you skipped right past, and the fact REMAINS it's people taken by force ("although we must use force takeinge them up") in an actual historical event that before that post you insisted did not happen and was the fantasy of "racists". NOR did I say or imply that it "mitigated" anything about Africans --- you pulled that out of your ass. I posted SOLELY on your ass-sertion that Irish were by nature "racists'. THAT'S IT. I even bolded the relevant part referenced, and I RE-quote:

Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long

That's YOU. And now proven wrong, you can't admit you were WRONG the whole time.

Even after, you can't admit it, putting "history" in quotes as if it's not real after it's been documented. Then you want to pretend I'm a "historical naif" because I don't quote fucking MOVIES??

Go fuck yourself, dishonest hack.

"Racist by nature" is not "racist as the day is long' which they were. The Irish immigrants hated the blacks..because they knew that the Irish were just one small step above the Blacks..and they feared losing even that bit of social superiority..perceived, anyway. Historical naif..because anyone with more than a superficial knowledge of the era would have known about the NYC draft riots..known they were real..and would not have thrown out the Faux 'you quoted a movie' bs--to try and devalue the historical accuracy of my point. It is not my job to give you an education...it's yours to have one in the first place.

Ever heard the old advice, "when you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is quit diggin'"?

Yet dig you did, didn't you. The bolded passage above that even as you read this mouthing your words you're ignoring, is a Sweeping Generalization and as such, invalid as an argument. Moreover it's the same one you got busted on in the first place, yet here you come expecting different results because you can't read.

You're way out of your league here, obviously.

 

[IM2]

Now since people want to try making whites into slaves, shall we discuss the 100 years after slavery? Were whites denied opportunity by the American system of apartheid after slavery was ended on paper? Where were the white codes? Or white sundown towns?

 

[Pogo]

Our arguments are supported by the facts we have shown to your face. The fantasy is your argument. Well actually it's more like a delusion. You've been shown that everything you have believed in your life is a lie. Instead of accepting the facts, you want to flail and kick like a 3 year old when it's told it can't have something. Your entire life has been fake news son.

More propaganda and bullshit. The only reason they died is because they didnt want the south to start enslaving white men. If they were so worried about Black people being free why did they allow slavery to still exist in the north?

Hmmm....Slavery did not exist in the Northern States...at the time of the Civil War. I doubt any whites were worried about being enslaved..perhaps you could shoot me a link from that time bemoaning the possibility? I will note that the shameful Dred/Scot decision did recognize the right for Southern slave-owners to pursue their "property" all the way to the Canadian border.

Dred Scott

"The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.

Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Dred Scott died nine months later."

A lot of the troops on the Northern side hated slavery..and thought the blacks were totally inferior. They hated the Institution---that's all. Some for religious reasons..some economic...some ethical...some because they were told to by the media of the day. Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long..but they were drafted..so they had no choice-they fought. Most soldiers don't fight for great causes..they fight for their buddy next to them..and to not seem a coward.

With a handful of exceptions...everyone of that time was racist by our standard....even the advocates for Emancipation

There were still slaves in the north. Not many, but some. They were grandfathered as part of the freeing of slaves in the north.

Indentured servitude was slavery. Just a type that you could buy your way out of. Many never did.

Incorrect. Indentured servitude was not slavery and many people did work out of it.

Indentured Servants In The U.S.
Indentured servants first arrived in America in the decade following the settlement of Jamestown by the Virginia Company in 1607.

The idea of indentured servitude was born of a need for cheap labor. The earliest settlers soon realized that they had lots of land to care for, but no one to care for it. With passage to the Colonies expensive for all but the wealthy, the Virginia Company developed the system of indentured servitude to attract workers. Indentured servants became vital to the colonial economy.

The timing of the Virginia colony was ideal. The Thirty Year's War had left Europe's economy depressed, and many skilled and unskilled laborers were without work. A new life in the New World offered a glimmer of hope; this explains how one-half to two-thirds of the immigrants who came to the American colonies arrived as indentured servants.

Servants typically worked four to seven years in exchange for passage, room, board, lodging and freedom dues. While the life of an indentured servant was harsh and restrictive, it wasn't slavery. There were laws that protected some of their rights. But their life was not an easy one, and the punishments meted out to people who wronged were harsher than those for non-servants. An indentured servant's contract could be extended as punishment for breaking a law, such as running away, or in the case of female servants, becoming pregnant.

For those that survived the work and received their freedom package, many historians argue that they were better off than those new immigrants who came freely to the country. Their contract may have included at least 25 acres of land, a year's worth of corn, arms, a cow and new clothes. Some servants did rise to become part of the colonial elite, but for the majority of indentured servants that survived the treacherous journey by sea and the harsh conditions of life in the New World, satisfaction was a modest life as a freeman in a burgeoning colonial economy.

In 1619 the first black Africans came to Virginia. With no slave laws in place, they were initially treated as indentured servants, and given the same opportunities for freedom dues as whites. However, slave laws were soon passed – in Massachusetts in 1641 and Virginia in 1661 –and any small freedoms that might have existed for blacks were taken away.

As demands for labor grew, so did the cost of indentured servants. Many landowners also felt threatened by newly freed servants demand for land. The colonial elite realized the problems of indentured servitude. Landowners turned to African slaves as a more profitable and ever-renewable source of labor and the shift from indentured servants to racial slavery had begun.

Indentured Servants In The U.S. | History Detectives | PBS

I ain't the one trying to call it "slavery", that would be fuck-nuts with the cartoon cigar up there. I drew the distinction immediately. He's dishonest enough to try to pin it on me because his own position fell apart.

The first black Africans on the North American continent btw were brought to what is now South Carolina in 1526, nearly a century prior to 1619. I've posted about that elsewhere.

 

[IM2]

More propaganda and bullshit. The only reason they died is because they didnt want the south to start enslaving white men. If they were so worried about Black people being free why did they allow slavery to still exist in the north?

Hmmm....Slavery did not exist in the Northern States...at the time of the Civil War. I doubt any whites were worried about being enslaved..perhaps you could shoot me a link from that time bemoaning the possibility? I will note that the shameful Dred/Scot decision did recognize the right for Southern slave-owners to pursue their "property" all the way to the Canadian border.

Dred Scott

"The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.

Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Dred Scott died nine months later."

A lot of the troops on the Northern side hated slavery..and thought the blacks were totally inferior. They hated the Institution---that's all. Some for religious reasons..some economic...some ethical...some because they were told to by the media of the day. Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long..but they were drafted..so they had no choice-they fought. Most soldiers don't fight for great causes..they fight for their buddy next to them..and to not seem a coward.

With a handful of exceptions...everyone of that time was racist by our standard....even the advocates for Emancipation

There were still slaves in the north. Not many, but some. They were grandfathered as part of the freeing of slaves in the north.

Indentured servitude was slavery. Just a type that you could buy your way out of. Many never did.

Incorrect. Indentured servitude was not slavery and many people did work out of it.

Indentured Servants In The U.S.
Indentured servants first arrived in America in the decade following the settlement of Jamestown by the Virginia Company in 1607.

The idea of indentured servitude was born of a need for cheap labor. The earliest settlers soon realized that they had lots of land to care for, but no one to care for it. With passage to the Colonies expensive for all but the wealthy, the Virginia Company developed the system of indentured servitude to attract workers. Indentured servants became vital to the colonial economy.

The timing of the Virginia colony was ideal. The Thirty Year's War had left Europe's economy depressed, and many skilled and unskilled laborers were without work. A new life in the New World offered a glimmer of hope; this explains how one-half to two-thirds of the immigrants who came to the American colonies arrived as indentured servants.

Servants typically worked four to seven years in exchange for passage, room, board, lodging and freedom dues. While the life of an indentured servant was harsh and restrictive, it wasn't slavery. There were laws that protected some of their rights. But their life was not an easy one, and the punishments meted out to people who wronged were harsher than those for non-servants. An indentured servant's contract could be extended as punishment for breaking a law, such as running away, or in the case of female servants, becoming pregnant.

For those that survived the work and received their freedom package, many historians argue that they were better off than those new immigrants who came freely to the country. Their contract may have included at least 25 acres of land, a year's worth of corn, arms, a cow and new clothes. Some servants did rise to become part of the colonial elite, but for the majority of indentured servants that survived the treacherous journey by sea and the harsh conditions of life in the New World, satisfaction was a modest life as a freeman in a burgeoning colonial economy.

In 1619 the first black Africans came to Virginia. With no slave laws in place, they were initially treated as indentured servants, and given the same opportunities for freedom dues as whites. However, slave laws were soon passed – in Massachusetts in 1641 and Virginia in 1661 –and any small freedoms that might have existed for blacks were taken away.

As demands for labor grew, so did the cost of indentured servants. Many landowners also felt threatened by newly freed servants demand for land. The colonial elite realized the problems of indentured servitude. Landowners turned to African slaves as a more profitable and ever-renewable source of labor and the shift from indentured servants to racial slavery had begun.

Indentured Servants In The U.S. | History Detectives | PBS

Wow. Thanks for making my point. The phrase "earned their freedom" kind of makes your claim incorrect.

Actually it doesn't when you compare that to blacks who could not earn their freedom for doing the same work for the same amount of time. Nice try mighty disingenuous one.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Well..indentured servitude was not slavery--although there were certainly many abuses. As for the Irish immigrants...they held blacks responsible for the draft...and rioted...one of NYC's worst riots..immortalized at the end of the movie 'Gangs of New York"..resulted in the lynching of any person of color unlucky enough to be caught on the streets.

The "Irish Slaves" position..is absurd..to any who read history--it has become one of the perennial positions trotted out by racists...a search of this board will no doubt find many threads.

I'm not a movie watcher and certainly not about to take one as a history lesson. Is that all you have to go on? Because the flaw in that "logic" doesn't even need to be articulated.

Tens of thousands of Irish captives were indeed sent to the Americas by Henry Cromwell (Oliver's son). They're more accurately called 'indentured servants' in that, being white, they could work off their "debt" after some finite time whereas the black African slaves had their status in perpetuity. But they were captured from Ireland and they were enslaved, so the point stands.

>> In the 1650s, after Oliver Cromwell had conquered Ireland in a series of massacres, he left his brother, Henry, as the island’s governor. In the next decade Henry sold thousands of Irish people, mostly women and children, as slaves to the West Indies. Estimates range between 30,000 and 80,000. The higher number seems quite likely, in the light of a letter Henry Cromwell wrote to a slaver, saying “it is not in the least doubted you may have such a number of them as you think fitt [sic]… I desire to express as much zeal in this design as you could wish.”

This Henry of the Uprighte Harte, as he called himself, said in another letter to a slaver who wanted only girls, “I think it might be of like advantage fitt to sende 1500 or 2000 young boys aforementioned. We could well spare them…” The Irish slaves, most of them women, were mated with the Africans. There is “a tradition” – as historians sometimes call something which they have good reason to believe but can’t prove – that up to the early nineteenth century there were blacks on some of the islands who spoke Gaelic. In any case, the West Indian accent becomes much more comprehensible when the Irish slaves are taken into account.

... Why were these people sold into slavery? Henry gives us clues: “Concerning the young women, although we must use force takeinge them up, yet it beinge so much to their owne goode…” And in another letter, the one in which he suggests some men be taken too: “who knows but that it may be the meanes to make them Englishmen, I mean rather Christians.” In other words, Henry was trying to sell off as many pagans as he could. This was at the height of the English witch-craze, which was a pogrom against those who still adhered to the Celtic religions. Ireland was the stronghold for the old beliefs. This, better than anything else, explains the mercilessness of Cromwell’s massacres there.<< -- Ventura: Hear That Long Snake Moan pp. 8-9

>> Those transported unwillingly were not indentures. They were political prisoners, vagrants, or people who had been defined as "undesirable" by the English state.[1] Penal transportation of Irish people was at its height during the 17th century, during the Cromwellian conquest and settlement of Ireland (1649-1653).[1] During this period, thousands of Irish people were sent to the Caribbean, or "Barbadosed", against their will.[2] ---- Wiki: Irish Indentured Servants​

You're actually suggesting I'm "racist" for knowing my own ancestral land's history while you quote from frickin' movies?

Nope..I'm suggesting you're an ignorant fool..for, among other things, inferring that I called you..anything at all!

As for the offending movie ref.--if you weren't such an obvious historical naif--you'd be able to easily look up the NYC draft riots of the civil war--and learn for yourself. But instead you choose to focus on my ref.'ing movie..and not on the content.

Then come up with an actual legitimate source. I'd be soundly embarrassed if I tried to make a historical point by pointing to a frickin' movie. Yet that's what you did. Isn't it.

As for your knowledge of your land's 'history'-- not impressed--as you would have known that many people who were not Irish were indentured..that it was a common response to debtor's prison..only a fool would equate Slavery..with the children being enslaved in perpetuity..with indentured servitude..which was for a set length of time. Just because there were abuses..or that the indentured servants CONTRACTS were bought and sold--does not make them slaves..and it, for sure, does not in any way mitigate the perpetual enslavement of Africans.

The poor Irish..gimme a break!

I made that distinction at the top above, which apparently you skipped right past, and the fact REMAINS it's people taken by force ("although we must use force takeinge them up") in an actual historical event that before that post you insisted did not happen and was the fantasy of "racists". NOR did I say or imply that it "mitigated" anything about Africans --- you pulled that out of your ass. I posted SOLELY on your ass-sertion that Irish were by nature "racists'. THAT'S IT. I even bolded the relevant part referenced, and I RE-quote:

Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long

That's YOU. And now proven wrong, you can't admit you were WRONG the whole time.

Even after, you can't admit it, putting "history" in quotes as if it's not real after it's been documented. Then you want to pretend I'm a "historical naif" because I don't quote fucking MOVIES??

Go fuck yourself, dishonest hack.

"Racist by nature" is not "racist as the day is long' which they were. The Irish immigrants hated the blacks..because they knew that the Irish were just one small step above the Blacks..and they feared losing even that bit of social superiority..perceived, anyway. Historical naif..because anyone with more than a superficial knowledge of the era would have known about the NYC draft riots..known they were real..and would not have thrown out the Faux 'you quoted a movie' bs--to try and devalue the historical accuracy of my point. It is not my job to give you an education...it's yours to have one in the first place.

Ever heard the old advice, "when you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is quit diggin'"?

Yet dig you did, didn't you. The bolded passage above that even as you read this mouthing your words you're ignoring, is a Sweeping Generalization and as such, invalid as an argument. Moreover it's the same one you got busted on in the first place, yet here you come expecting different results because you can't read.

You're way out of your league here, obviously.

Well..that I'm out of my league when talking with you is a given.....***smiles***

https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/the-irish-brigade

"Many historians say that the Battle of Gettysburg was the Civil War’s turning point toward Union victory. It was also the turning point for the Irish Brigade. By the summer of 1863, the tragically high numbers of casualties in the Brigade led many Irish soldiers and their families to believe that the Union Army was taking advantage of their willingness to fight by using them as cannon fodder. They were further infuriated by the National Conscription Act, passed in March of that year, which made every unmarried man in the Union between the ages of 21 and 45 subject to a draft lottery unless he could hire a replacement or pay a $300 fee. As many working-class Irish people saw it, this was discrimination: They were poor men being forced to fight in a “rich man’s war.” At the same time, many Irish people had come to believe that the government’s reasons for fighting the war had changed: It was not about preserving the Union any longer but about ending slavery—a cause that most Irish people in the U.S. emphatically did not support.

These tensions boiled over in New York City on July 13, about a week after the Battle of Gettysburg, when thousands of Irish immigrants took to the streets for five days in violent protest against the draft law—and, more generally, against the black people they blamed for the war. Mobs assaulted any black person they saw on the street, ransacked and burned homes in African-American neighborhoods, and looted stores owned by blacks and “sympathetic” whites. Federal troops arrived in the city on July 16 to quell the disorder. At least 120 people, most of them African-American, died in the violence.

This outburst of racist violence marked the end of organized Irish participation in the Civil War, though individual Irishmen continued to serve as soldiers in the Union Army. The Irish Brigade diminished greatly in size and disbanded for good in 1864."

The Divide Between Blacks and the Irish


What explains the attitude of people whose experience in Ireland and the United States one might have thought would predispose them to sympathy with all victims of slavery and racial oppression? It was not the inevitable consequence of blind historic forces, still less of biology, but of choices made among available alternatives.

In 1834 a mostly Irish mob in Philadelphia rampaged through the black district. By the time they subsided, two black people were killed and many beaten. Two churches and upwards of 20 homes were laid waste, their contents looted or destroyed. A committee appointed to investigate the riot identified as a principal cause the belief that some employers were hiring black workers over whites.

Such events were common at the time. No less a witness than Abraham Lincoln warned in 1837 that "accounts of outrages committed by mobs form the everyday news of the times."

Black workers had traditionally been an important part of the waterfront workforce in New York, Philadelphia and other northern cities, as well as Baltimore, Charleston, New Orleans and other Southern ports. In 1850, Irish laborers in New York demanded the dismissal of a black laborer who was working alongside them.

During the strike of 1852 and again in 1855, 1862 and 1863, Irish longshoremen battled black workers who had been brought in to take their places. The underlying cause of the New York Riot of 1863, misnamed the Draft Riot, was the employment of black workers on the docks. According to one historian, in Philadelphia, as in New York, "Irish gangs not only drove blacks out of jobs, they also served as surrogate unions." There, the race riot of 1849 and the longshore strike of 1851 were simply different tactical phases of the same struggle.

In August 1862, a largely Irish mob in Brooklyn attacked the black employees, chiefly women and children, who were working in a tobacco factory. The mob, having driven the black employees to the upper stories of the building, then set fire to the first floor. The factory was allowed to reopen only when the employer promised to dismiss the Negroes and hire Irish.

Irish attitudes toward the free Negro in the North led them to oppose abolition. In 1838 an Irish mob burned just-completed Pennsylvania Hall, built by subscription to serve as a center for abolitionist meetings. It was not that the Irish supported slavery: They would have been happy to see slavery abolished, provided all the black folk could have been kept on the plantations or shipped out of the country altogether. Since such an outcome could not be guaranteed, throughout the 19th century they were solid supporters of the Democratic Party, which before the Civil War protected slavery in the South and after the War sought to restrict the rights of the freed people.


Carry on...

 

[IM2]

More propaganda and bullshit. The only reason they died is because they didnt want the south to start enslaving white men. If they were so worried about Black people being free why did they allow slavery to still exist in the north?

Hmmm....Slavery did not exist in the Northern States...at the time of the Civil War. I doubt any whites were worried about being enslaved..perhaps you could shoot me a link from that time bemoaning the possibility? I will note that the shameful Dred/Scot decision did recognize the right for Southern slave-owners to pursue their "property" all the way to the Canadian border.

Dred Scott

"The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.

Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Dred Scott died nine months later."

A lot of the troops on the Northern side hated slavery..and thought the blacks were totally inferior. They hated the Institution---that's all. Some for religious reasons..some economic...some ethical...some because they were told to by the media of the day. Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long..but they were drafted..so they had no choice-they fought. Most soldiers don't fight for great causes..they fight for their buddy next to them..and to not seem a coward.

With a handful of exceptions...everyone of that time was racist by our standard....even the advocates for Emancipation

There were still slaves in the north. Not many, but some. They were grandfathered as part of the freeing of slaves in the north.

Indentured servitude was slavery. Just a type that you could buy your way out of. Many never did.

Incorrect. Indentured servitude was not slavery and many people did work out of it.

Indentured Servants In The U.S.
Indentured servants first arrived in America in the decade following the settlement of Jamestown by the Virginia Company in 1607.

The idea of indentured servitude was born of a need for cheap labor. The earliest settlers soon realized that they had lots of land to care for, but no one to care for it. With passage to the Colonies expensive for all but the wealthy, the Virginia Company developed the system of indentured servitude to attract workers. Indentured servants became vital to the colonial economy.

The timing of the Virginia colony was ideal. The Thirty Year's War had left Europe's economy depressed, and many skilled and unskilled laborers were without work. A new life in the New World offered a glimmer of hope; this explains how one-half to two-thirds of the immigrants who came to the American colonies arrived as indentured servants.

Servants typically worked four to seven years in exchange for passage, room, board, lodging and freedom dues. While the life of an indentured servant was harsh and restrictive, it wasn't slavery. There were laws that protected some of their rights. But their life was not an easy one, and the punishments meted out to people who wronged were harsher than those for non-servants. An indentured servant's contract could be extended as punishment for breaking a law, such as running away, or in the case of female servants, becoming pregnant.

For those that survived the work and received their freedom package, many historians argue that they were better off than those new immigrants who came freely to the country. Their contract may have included at least 25 acres of land, a year's worth of corn, arms, a cow and new clothes. Some servants did rise to become part of the colonial elite, but for the majority of indentured servants that survived the treacherous journey by sea and the harsh conditions of life in the New World, satisfaction was a modest life as a freeman in a burgeoning colonial economy.

In 1619 the first black Africans came to Virginia. With no slave laws in place, they were initially treated as indentured servants, and given the same opportunities for freedom dues as whites. However, slave laws were soon passed – in Massachusetts in 1641 and Virginia in 1661 –and any small freedoms that might have existed for blacks were taken away.

As demands for labor grew, so did the cost of indentured servants. Many landowners also felt threatened by newly freed servants demand for land. The colonial elite realized the problems of indentured servitude. Landowners turned to African slaves as a more profitable and ever-renewable source of labor and the shift from indentured servants to racial slavery had begun.

Indentured Servants In The U.S. | History Detectives | PBS

I ain't the one trying to call it "slavery", that would be fuck-nuts with the cartoon cigar up there. I drew the distinction immediately. He's dishonest enough to try to pin it on me because his own position fell apart.

The first black Africans on the North American continent btw were brought to what is now South Carolina in 1526, nearly a century prior to 1619. I've posted about that elsewhere.

Tens of thousands of Irish captives were indeed sent to the Americas by Henry Cromwell (Oliver's son). They're more accurately called 'indentured servants' in that, being white, they could work off their "debt" after some finite time whereas the black African slaves had their status in perpetuity. But they were captured from Ireland and they were enslaved, so the point stands.

Yes I know the Spanish had slaves. But the context of this discussion refers to the time period this was called America to include the American colony.

 

[Pogo]

I'm not a movie watcher and certainly not about to take one as a history lesson. Is that all you have to go on? Because the flaw in that "logic" doesn't even need to be articulated.

Tens of thousands of Irish captives were indeed sent to the Americas by Henry Cromwell (Oliver's son). They're more accurately called 'indentured servants' in that, being white, they could work off their "debt" after some finite time whereas the black African slaves had their status in perpetuity. But they were captured from Ireland and they were enslaved, so the point stands.

>> In the 1650s, after Oliver Cromwell had conquered Ireland in a series of massacres, he left his brother, Henry, as the island’s governor. In the next decade Henry sold thousands of Irish people, mostly women and children, as slaves to the West Indies. Estimates range between 30,000 and 80,000. The higher number seems quite likely, in the light of a letter Henry Cromwell wrote to a slaver, saying “it is not in the least doubted you may have such a number of them as you think fitt [sic]… I desire to express as much zeal in this design as you could wish.”

This Henry of the Uprighte Harte, as he called himself, said in another letter to a slaver who wanted only girls, “I think it might be of like advantage fitt to sende 1500 or 2000 young boys aforementioned. We could well spare them…” The Irish slaves, most of them women, were mated with the Africans. There is “a tradition” – as historians sometimes call something which they have good reason to believe but can’t prove – that up to the early nineteenth century there were blacks on some of the islands who spoke Gaelic. In any case, the West Indian accent becomes much more comprehensible when the Irish slaves are taken into account.

... Why were these people sold into slavery? Henry gives us clues: “Concerning the young women, although we must use force takeinge them up, yet it beinge so much to their owne goode…” And in another letter, the one in which he suggests some men be taken too: “who knows but that it may be the meanes to make them Englishmen, I mean rather Christians.” In other words, Henry was trying to sell off as many pagans as he could. This was at the height of the English witch-craze, which was a pogrom against those who still adhered to the Celtic religions. Ireland was the stronghold for the old beliefs. This, better than anything else, explains the mercilessness of Cromwell’s massacres there.<< -- Ventura: Hear That Long Snake Moan pp. 8-9

>> Those transported unwillingly were not indentures. They were political prisoners, vagrants, or people who had been defined as "undesirable" by the English state.[1] Penal transportation of Irish people was at its height during the 17th century, during the Cromwellian conquest and settlement of Ireland (1649-1653).[1] During this period, thousands of Irish people were sent to the Caribbean, or "Barbadosed", against their will.[2] ---- Wiki: Irish Indentured Servants​

You're actually suggesting I'm "racist" for knowing my own ancestral land's history while you quote from frickin' movies?

Nope..I'm suggesting you're an ignorant fool..for, among other things, inferring that I called you..anything at all!

As for the offending movie ref.--if you weren't such an obvious historical naif--you'd be able to easily look up the NYC draft riots of the civil war--and learn for yourself. But instead you choose to focus on my ref.'ing movie..and not on the content.

Then come up with an actual legitimate source. I'd be soundly embarrassed if I tried to make a historical point by pointing to a frickin' movie. Yet that's what you did. Isn't it.

As for your knowledge of your land's 'history'-- not impressed--as you would have known that many people who were not Irish were indentured..that it was a common response to debtor's prison..only a fool would equate Slavery..with the children being enslaved in perpetuity..with indentured servitude..which was for a set length of time. Just because there were abuses..or that the indentured servants CONTRACTS were bought and sold--does not make them slaves..and it, for sure, does not in any way mitigate the perpetual enslavement of Africans.

The poor Irish..gimme a break!

I made that distinction at the top above, which apparently you skipped right past, and the fact REMAINS it's people taken by force ("although we must use force takeinge them up") in an actual historical event that before that post you insisted did not happen and was the fantasy of "racists". NOR did I say or imply that it "mitigated" anything about Africans --- you pulled that out of your ass. I posted SOLELY on your ass-sertion that Irish were by nature "racists'. THAT'S IT. I even bolded the relevant part referenced, and I RE-quote:

Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long

That's YOU. And now proven wrong, you can't admit you were WRONG the whole time.

Even after, you can't admit it, putting "history" in quotes as if it's not real after it's been documented. Then you want to pretend I'm a "historical naif" because I don't quote fucking MOVIES??

Go fuck yourself, dishonest hack.

"Racist by nature" is not "racist as the day is long' which they were. The Irish immigrants hated the blacks..because they knew that the Irish were just one small step above the Blacks..and they feared losing even that bit of social superiority..perceived, anyway. Historical naif..because anyone with more than a superficial knowledge of the era would have known about the NYC draft riots..known they were real..and would not have thrown out the Faux 'you quoted a movie' bs--to try and devalue the historical accuracy of my point. It is not my job to give you an education...it's yours to have one in the first place.

Ever heard the old advice, "when you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is quit diggin'"?

Yet dig you did, didn't you. The bolded passage above that even as you read this mouthing your words you're ignoring, is a Sweeping Generalization and as such, invalid as an argument. Moreover it's the same one you got busted on in the first place, yet here you come expecting different results because you can't read.

You're way out of your league here, obviously.

Well..that I'm out of my league when talking with you is a given.....***smiles***

https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/the-irish-brigade

"Many historians say that the Battle of Gettysburg was the Civil War’s turning point toward Union victory. It was also the turning point for the Irish Brigade. By the summer of 1863, the tragically high numbers of casualties in the Brigade led many Irish soldiers and their families to believe that the Union Army was taking advantage of their willingness to fight by using them as cannon fodder. They were further infuriated by the National Conscription Act, passed in March of that year, which made every unmarried man in the Union between the ages of 21 and 45 subject to a draft lottery unless he could hire a replacement or pay a $300 fee. As many working-class Irish people saw it, this was discrimination: They were poor men being forced to fight in a “rich man’s war.” At the same time, many Irish people had come to believe that the government’s reasons for fighting the war had changed: It was not about preserving the Union any longer but about ending slavery—a cause that most Irish people in the U.S. emphatically did not support.

These tensions boiled over in New York City on July 13, about a week after the Battle of Gettysburg, when thousands of Irish immigrants took to the streets for five days in violent protest against the draft law—and, more generally, against the black people they blamed for the war. Mobs assaulted any black person they saw on the street, ransacked and burned homes in African-American neighborhoods, and looted stores owned by blacks and “sympathetic” whites. Federal troops arrived in the city on July 16 to quell the disorder. At least 120 people, most of them African-American, died in the violence.

This outburst of racist violence marked the end of organized Irish participation in the Civil War, though individual Irishmen continued to serve as soldiers in the Union Army. The Irish Brigade diminished greatly in size and disbanded for good in 1864."

The Divide Between Blacks and the Irish


What explains the attitude of people whose experience in Ireland and the United States one might have thought would predispose them to sympathy with all victims of slavery and racial oppression? It was not the inevitable consequence of blind historic forces, still less of biology, but of choices made among available alternatives.

In 1834 a mostly Irish mob in Philadelphia rampaged through the black district. By the time they subsided, two black people were killed and many beaten. Two churches and upwards of 20 homes were laid waste, their contents looted or destroyed. A committee appointed to investigate the riot identified as a principal cause the belief that some employers were hiring black workers over whites.

Such events were common at the time. No less a witness than Abraham Lincoln warned in 1837 that "accounts of outrages committed by mobs form the everyday news of the times."

Black workers had traditionally been an important part of the waterfront workforce in New York, Philadelphia and other northern cities, as well as Baltimore, Charleston, New Orleans and other Southern ports. In 1850, Irish laborers in New York demanded the dismissal of a black laborer who was working alongside them.

During the strike of 1852 and again in 1855, 1862 and 1863, Irish longshoremen battled black workers who had been brought in to take their places. The underlying cause of the New York Riot of 1863, misnamed the Draft Riot, was the employment of black workers on the docks. According to one historian, in Philadelphia, as in New York, "Irish gangs not only drove blacks out of jobs, they also served as surrogate unions." There, the race riot of 1849 and the longshore strike of 1851 were simply different tactical phases of the same struggle.

In August 1862, a largely Irish mob in Brooklyn attacked the black employees, chiefly women and children, who were working in a tobacco factory. The mob, having driven the black employees to the upper stories of the building, then set fire to the first floor. The factory was allowed to reopen only when the employer promised to dismiss the Negroes and hire Irish.

Irish attitudes toward the free Negro in the North led them to oppose abolition. In 1838 an Irish mob burned just-completed Pennsylvania Hall, built by subscription to serve as a center for abolitionist meetings. It was not that the Irish supported slavery: They would have been happy to see slavery abolished, provided all the black folk could have been kept on the plantations or shipped out of the country altogether. Since such an outcome could not be guaranteed, throughout the 19th century they were solid supporters of the Democratic Party, which before the Civil War protected slavery in the South and after the War sought to restrict the rights of the freed people.


Carry on...

So now you think you can post your dishonesty in bold and it makes it all better? And you STILL don't get what "Sweeping Generalization" means?

I'm done with your mendacity, Hacknoid. FUCK outta here.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

More propaganda and bullshit. The only reason they died is because they didnt want the south to start enslaving white men. If they were so worried about Black people being free why did they allow slavery to still exist in the north?

Hmmm....Slavery did not exist in the Northern States...at the time of the Civil War. I doubt any whites were worried about being enslaved..perhaps you could shoot me a link from that time bemoaning the possibility? I will note that the shameful Dred/Scot decision did recognize the right for Southern slave-owners to pursue their "property" all the way to the Canadian border.

Dred Scott

"The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.

Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Dred Scott died nine months later."

A lot of the troops on the Northern side hated slavery..and thought the blacks were totally inferior. They hated the Institution---that's all. Some for religious reasons..some economic...some ethical...some because they were told to by the media of the day. Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long..but they were drafted..so they had no choice-they fought. Most soldiers don't fight for great causes..they fight for their buddy next to them..and to not seem a coward.

With a handful of exceptions...everyone of that time was racist by our standard....even the advocates for Emancipation

There were still slaves in the north. Not many, but some. They were grandfathered as part of the freeing of slaves in the north.

Indentured servitude was slavery. Just a type that you could buy your way out of. Many never did.

Incorrect. Indentured servitude was not slavery and many people did work out of it.

Indentured Servants In The U.S.
Indentured servants first arrived in America in the decade following the settlement of Jamestown by the Virginia Company in 1607.

The idea of indentured servitude was born of a need for cheap labor. The earliest settlers soon realized that they had lots of land to care for, but no one to care for it. With passage to the Colonies expensive for all but the wealthy, the Virginia Company developed the system of indentured servitude to attract workers. Indentured servants became vital to the colonial economy.

The timing of the Virginia colony was ideal. The Thirty Year's War had left Europe's economy depressed, and many skilled and unskilled laborers were without work. A new life in the New World offered a glimmer of hope; this explains how one-half to two-thirds of the immigrants who came to the American colonies arrived as indentured servants.

Servants typically worked four to seven years in exchange for passage, room, board, lodging and freedom dues. While the life of an indentured servant was harsh and restrictive, it wasn't slavery. There were laws that protected some of their rights. But their life was not an easy one, and the punishments meted out to people who wronged were harsher than those for non-servants. An indentured servant's contract could be extended as punishment for breaking a law, such as running away, or in the case of female servants, becoming pregnant.

For those that survived the work and received their freedom package, many historians argue that they were better off than those new immigrants who came freely to the country. Their contract may have included at least 25 acres of land, a year's worth of corn, arms, a cow and new clothes. Some servants did rise to become part of the colonial elite, but for the majority of indentured servants that survived the treacherous journey by sea and the harsh conditions of life in the New World, satisfaction was a modest life as a freeman in a burgeoning colonial economy.

In 1619 the first black Africans came to Virginia. With no slave laws in place, they were initially treated as indentured servants, and given the same opportunities for freedom dues as whites. However, slave laws were soon passed – in Massachusetts in 1641 and Virginia in 1661 –and any small freedoms that might have existed for blacks were taken away.

As demands for labor grew, so did the cost of indentured servants. Many landowners also felt threatened by newly freed servants demand for land. The colonial elite realized the problems of indentured servitude. Landowners turned to African slaves as a more profitable and ever-renewable source of labor and the shift from indentured servants to racial slavery had begun.

Indentured Servants In The U.S. | History Detectives | PBS

I ain't the one trying to call it "slavery", that would be fuck-nuts with the cartoon cigar up there. I drew the distinction immediately. He's dishonest enough to try to pin it on me because his own position fell apart.

The first black Africans on the North American continent btw were brought to what is now South Carolina in 1526, nearly a century prior to 1619. I've posted about that elsewhere.

You're pretty stupid..gotta admit! Show me where i called indentured servitude slavery....my entire point is that it was not..at all...and that crypto-racists like to say that it was.

I'm amused at how you choose to lie and dissemble in your vain attempt to devalue what I'd said..and how I destroyed your false equivalency re. indentured servitude and Slavery.

 

[22lcidw]

its comical all of the Progs here knowing specific dates and years even the time of the day from hundreds of years past, yet they can't figure out how to go to school and really learn. Today it is easier not to. Black slaves, white slaves any slaves back then would have jumped at the opportunity to get an education and improve themselves. Especially if the price was right and is for many.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Nope..I'm suggesting you're an ignorant fool..for, among other things, inferring that I called you..anything at all!

As for the offending movie ref.--if you weren't such an obvious historical naif--you'd be able to easily look up the NYC draft riots of the civil war--and learn for yourself. But instead you choose to focus on my ref.'ing movie..and not on the content.

Then come up with an actual legitimate source. I'd be soundly embarrassed if I tried to make a historical point by pointing to a frickin' movie. Yet that's what you did. Isn't it.

As for your knowledge of your land's 'history'-- not impressed--as you would have known that many people who were not Irish were indentured..that it was a common response to debtor's prison..only a fool would equate Slavery..with the children being enslaved in perpetuity..with indentured servitude..which was for a set length of time. Just because there were abuses..or that the indentured servants CONTRACTS were bought and sold--does not make them slaves..and it, for sure, does not in any way mitigate the perpetual enslavement of Africans.

The poor Irish..gimme a break!

I made that distinction at the top above, which apparently you skipped right past, and the fact REMAINS it's people taken by force ("although we must use force takeinge them up") in an actual historical event that before that post you insisted did not happen and was the fantasy of "racists". NOR did I say or imply that it "mitigated" anything about Africans --- you pulled that out of your ass. I posted SOLELY on your ass-sertion that Irish were by nature "racists'. THAT'S IT. I even bolded the relevant part referenced, and I RE-quote:

Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long

That's YOU. And now proven wrong, you can't admit you were WRONG the whole time.

Even after, you can't admit it, putting "history" in quotes as if it's not real after it's been documented. Then you want to pretend I'm a "historical naif" because I don't quote fucking MOVIES??

Go fuck yourself, dishonest hack.

"Racist by nature" is not "racist as the day is long' which they were. The Irish immigrants hated the blacks..because they knew that the Irish were just one small step above the Blacks..and they feared losing even that bit of social superiority..perceived, anyway. Historical naif..because anyone with more than a superficial knowledge of the era would have known about the NYC draft riots..known they were real..and would not have thrown out the Faux 'you quoted a movie' bs--to try and devalue the historical accuracy of my point. It is not my job to give you an education...it's yours to have one in the first place.

Ever heard the old advice, "when you find yourself in a hole the first thing to do is quit diggin'"?

Yet dig you did, didn't you. The bolded passage above that even as you read this mouthing your words you're ignoring, is a Sweeping Generalization and as such, invalid as an argument. Moreover it's the same one you got busted on in the first place, yet here you come expecting different results because you can't read.

You're way out of your league here, obviously.

Well..that I'm out of my league when talking with you is a given.....***smiles***

https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/the-irish-brigade

"Many historians say that the Battle of Gettysburg was the Civil War’s turning point toward Union victory. It was also the turning point for the Irish Brigade. By the summer of 1863, the tragically high numbers of casualties in the Brigade led many Irish soldiers and their families to believe that the Union Army was taking advantage of their willingness to fight by using them as cannon fodder. They were further infuriated by the National Conscription Act, passed in March of that year, which made every unmarried man in the Union between the ages of 21 and 45 subject to a draft lottery unless he could hire a replacement or pay a $300 fee. As many working-class Irish people saw it, this was discrimination: They were poor men being forced to fight in a “rich man’s war.” At the same time, many Irish people had come to believe that the government’s reasons for fighting the war had changed: It was not about preserving the Union any longer but about ending slavery—a cause that most Irish people in the U.S. emphatically did not support.

These tensions boiled over in New York City on July 13, about a week after the Battle of Gettysburg, when thousands of Irish immigrants took to the streets for five days in violent protest against the draft law—and, more generally, against the black people they blamed for the war. Mobs assaulted any black person they saw on the street, ransacked and burned homes in African-American neighborhoods, and looted stores owned by blacks and “sympathetic” whites. Federal troops arrived in the city on July 16 to quell the disorder. At least 120 people, most of them African-American, died in the violence.

This outburst of racist violence marked the end of organized Irish participation in the Civil War, though individual Irishmen continued to serve as soldiers in the Union Army. The Irish Brigade diminished greatly in size and disbanded for good in 1864."

The Divide Between Blacks and the Irish


What explains the attitude of people whose experience in Ireland and the United States one might have thought would predispose them to sympathy with all victims of slavery and racial oppression? It was not the inevitable consequence of blind historic forces, still less of biology, but of choices made among available alternatives.

In 1834 a mostly Irish mob in Philadelphia rampaged through the black district. By the time they subsided, two black people were killed and many beaten. Two churches and upwards of 20 homes were laid waste, their contents looted or destroyed. A committee appointed to investigate the riot identified as a principal cause the belief that some employers were hiring black workers over whites.

Such events were common at the time. No less a witness than Abraham Lincoln warned in 1837 that "accounts of outrages committed by mobs form the everyday news of the times."

Black workers had traditionally been an important part of the waterfront workforce in New York, Philadelphia and other northern cities, as well as Baltimore, Charleston, New Orleans and other Southern ports. In 1850, Irish laborers in New York demanded the dismissal of a black laborer who was working alongside them.

During the strike of 1852 and again in 1855, 1862 and 1863, Irish longshoremen battled black workers who had been brought in to take their places. The underlying cause of the New York Riot of 1863, misnamed the Draft Riot, was the employment of black workers on the docks. According to one historian, in Philadelphia, as in New York, "Irish gangs not only drove blacks out of jobs, they also served as surrogate unions." There, the race riot of 1849 and the longshore strike of 1851 were simply different tactical phases of the same struggle.

In August 1862, a largely Irish mob in Brooklyn attacked the black employees, chiefly women and children, who were working in a tobacco factory. The mob, having driven the black employees to the upper stories of the building, then set fire to the first floor. The factory was allowed to reopen only when the employer promised to dismiss the Negroes and hire Irish.

Irish attitudes toward the free Negro in the North led them to oppose abolition. In 1838 an Irish mob burned just-completed Pennsylvania Hall, built by subscription to serve as a center for abolitionist meetings. It was not that the Irish supported slavery: They would have been happy to see slavery abolished, provided all the black folk could have been kept on the plantations or shipped out of the country altogether. Since such an outcome could not be guaranteed, throughout the 19th century they were solid supporters of the Democratic Party, which before the Civil War protected slavery in the South and after the War sought to restrict the rights of the freed people.


Carry on...

So now you think you can post your dishonesty in bold and it makes it all better? And you STILL don't get what "Sweeping Generalization" means?

I'm done with you, Hacknoid. FUCK outta here.

Who gives a fuck what you're done with..idiot with delusions of intelligence. All is in bold because it is a quote--from the links you won't read.....can you cogently refute them?

No, i thought not...you should reread our exchanges..you don't come off looking all the good. ***smiles***

Your anger pleases me....it is a sign of defeat.

 

[Pogo]

More propaganda and bullshit. The only reason they died is because they didnt want the south to start enslaving white men. If they were so worried about Black people being free why did they allow slavery to still exist in the north?

Hmmm....Slavery did not exist in the Northern States...at the time of the Civil War. I doubt any whites were worried about being enslaved..perhaps you could shoot me a link from that time bemoaning the possibility? I will note that the shameful Dred/Scot decision did recognize the right for Southern slave-owners to pursue their "property" all the way to the Canadian border.

Dred Scott

"The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.

Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Dred Scott died nine months later."

A lot of the troops on the Northern side hated slavery..and thought the blacks were totally inferior. They hated the Institution---that's all. Some for religious reasons..some economic...some ethical...some because they were told to by the media of the day. Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long..but they were drafted..so they had no choice-they fought. Most soldiers don't fight for great causes..they fight for their buddy next to them..and to not seem a coward.

With a handful of exceptions...everyone of that time was racist by our standard....even the advocates for Emancipation

There were still slaves in the north. Not many, but some. They were grandfathered as part of the freeing of slaves in the north.

Indentured servitude was slavery. Just a type that you could buy your way out of. Many never did.

Incorrect. Indentured servitude was not slavery and many people did work out of it.

Indentured Servants In The U.S.
Indentured servants first arrived in America in the decade following the settlement of Jamestown by the Virginia Company in 1607.

The idea of indentured servitude was born of a need for cheap labor. The earliest settlers soon realized that they had lots of land to care for, but no one to care for it. With passage to the Colonies expensive for all but the wealthy, the Virginia Company developed the system of indentured servitude to attract workers. Indentured servants became vital to the colonial economy.

The timing of the Virginia colony was ideal. The Thirty Year's War had left Europe's economy depressed, and many skilled and unskilled laborers were without work. A new life in the New World offered a glimmer of hope; this explains how one-half to two-thirds of the immigrants who came to the American colonies arrived as indentured servants.

Servants typically worked four to seven years in exchange for passage, room, board, lodging and freedom dues. While the life of an indentured servant was harsh and restrictive, it wasn't slavery. There were laws that protected some of their rights. But their life was not an easy one, and the punishments meted out to people who wronged were harsher than those for non-servants. An indentured servant's contract could be extended as punishment for breaking a law, such as running away, or in the case of female servants, becoming pregnant.

For those that survived the work and received their freedom package, many historians argue that they were better off than those new immigrants who came freely to the country. Their contract may have included at least 25 acres of land, a year's worth of corn, arms, a cow and new clothes. Some servants did rise to become part of the colonial elite, but for the majority of indentured servants that survived the treacherous journey by sea and the harsh conditions of life in the New World, satisfaction was a modest life as a freeman in a burgeoning colonial economy.

In 1619 the first black Africans came to Virginia. With no slave laws in place, they were initially treated as indentured servants, and given the same opportunities for freedom dues as whites. However, slave laws were soon passed – in Massachusetts in 1641 and Virginia in 1661 –and any small freedoms that might have existed for blacks were taken away.

As demands for labor grew, so did the cost of indentured servants. Many landowners also felt threatened by newly freed servants demand for land. The colonial elite realized the problems of indentured servitude. Landowners turned to African slaves as a more profitable and ever-renewable source of labor and the shift from indentured servants to racial slavery had begun.

Indentured Servants In The U.S. | History Detectives | PBS

Wow. Thanks for making my point. The phrase "earned their freedom" kind of makes your claim incorrect.

Actually it doesn't when you compare that to blacks who could not earn their freedom for doing the same work for the same amount of time. Nice try mighty disingenuous one.

And that's why I made the distinction at the beginning between indentured servants (whites) whose captive servitude was temporary, and slaves (blacks) whose captured servitude was permanent. But during the period OF that servitude they're both captive.

The only reason this came up at all was that sweeping slur on the Irish as a whole. And then he wants to throw a hissyfit because he got called on it. That dood dug hisself a hole he'll never get out of.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

its comical all of the Progs here knowing specific dates and years even the time of the day from hundreds of years past, yet they can't figure out how to go to school and really learn. Today it is easier not to. Black slaves, white slaves any slaves back then would have jumped at the opportunity to get an education and improve themselves. Especially if the price was right and is for many.

It's not a failing of just the Progs....plenty on the far-right are dirt ignorant..in a way that should not exist..here in the 21st century.

 

[sparky]

African chiefs urged to apologise for slave trade

~S~

 

[Pogo]

its comical all of the Progs here knowing specific dates and years even the time of the day from hundreds of years past, yet they can't figure out how to go to school and really learn. Today it is easier not to. Black slaves, white slaves any slaves back then would have jumped at the opportunity to get an education and improve themselves. Especially if the price was right and is for many.

Actually it's comical that you haven't heard that "Progs" left the scene a century ago, speaking of edumacation or lack thereof.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Hmmm....Slavery did not exist in the Northern States...at the time of the Civil War. I doubt any whites were worried about being enslaved..perhaps you could shoot me a link from that time bemoaning the possibility? I will note that the shameful Dred/Scot decision did recognize the right for Southern slave-owners to pursue their "property" all the way to the Canadian border.

Dred Scott

"The decision of the court was read in March of 1857. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney -- a staunch supporter of slavery -- wrote the "majority opinion" for the court. It stated that because Scott was black, he was not a citizen and therefore had no right to sue. The decision also declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional.

While the decision was well-received by slaveholders in the South, many northerners were outraged. The decision greatly influenced the nomination of Abraham Lincoln to the Republican Party and his subsequent election, which in turn led to the South's secession from the Union.

Peter Blow's sons, childhood friends of Scott, had helped pay Scott's legal fees through the years. After the Supreme Court's decision, the former master's sons purchased Scott and his wife and set them free.

Dred Scott died nine months later."

A lot of the troops on the Northern side hated slavery..and thought the blacks were totally inferior. They hated the Institution---that's all. Some for religious reasons..some economic...some ethical...some because they were told to by the media of the day. Many of the Northern soldiers were Irish immigrants..who were as racist as the day is long..but they were drafted..so they had no choice-they fought. Most soldiers don't fight for great causes..they fight for their buddy next to them..and to not seem a coward.

With a handful of exceptions...everyone of that time was racist by our standard....even the advocates for Emancipation

There were still slaves in the north. Not many, but some. They were grandfathered as part of the freeing of slaves in the north.

Indentured servitude was slavery. Just a type that you could buy your way out of. Many never did.

Incorrect. Indentured servitude was not slavery and many people did work out of it.

Indentured Servants In The U.S.
Indentured servants first arrived in America in the decade following the settlement of Jamestown by the Virginia Company in 1607.

The idea of indentured servitude was born of a need for cheap labor. The earliest settlers soon realized that they had lots of land to care for, but no one to care for it. With passage to the Colonies expensive for all but the wealthy, the Virginia Company developed the system of indentured servitude to attract workers. Indentured servants became vital to the colonial economy.

The timing of the Virginia colony was ideal. The Thirty Year's War had left Europe's economy depressed, and many skilled and unskilled laborers were without work. A new life in the New World offered a glimmer of hope; this explains how one-half to two-thirds of the immigrants who came to the American colonies arrived as indentured servants.

Servants typically worked four to seven years in exchange for passage, room, board, lodging and freedom dues. While the life of an indentured servant was harsh and restrictive, it wasn't slavery. There were laws that protected some of their rights. But their life was not an easy one, and the punishments meted out to people who wronged were harsher than those for non-servants. An indentured servant's contract could be extended as punishment for breaking a law, such as running away, or in the case of female servants, becoming pregnant.

For those that survived the work and received their freedom package, many historians argue that they were better off than those new immigrants who came freely to the country. Their contract may have included at least 25 acres of land, a year's worth of corn, arms, a cow and new clothes. Some servants did rise to become part of the colonial elite, but for the majority of indentured servants that survived the treacherous journey by sea and the harsh conditions of life in the New World, satisfaction was a modest life as a freeman in a burgeoning colonial economy.

In 1619 the first black Africans came to Virginia. With no slave laws in place, they were initially treated as indentured servants, and given the same opportunities for freedom dues as whites. However, slave laws were soon passed – in Massachusetts in 1641 and Virginia in 1661 –and any small freedoms that might have existed for blacks were taken away.

As demands for labor grew, so did the cost of indentured servants. Many landowners also felt threatened by newly freed servants demand for land. The colonial elite realized the problems of indentured servitude. Landowners turned to African slaves as a more profitable and ever-renewable source of labor and the shift from indentured servants to racial slavery had begun.

Indentured Servants In The U.S. | History Detectives | PBS

Wow. Thanks for making my point. The phrase "earned their freedom" kind of makes your claim incorrect.

Actually it doesn't when you compare that to blacks who could not earn their freedom for doing the same work for the same amount of time. Nice try mighty disingenuous one.

And that's why I made the distinction at the beginning between indentured servants (whites) whose captive servitude was temporary, and slaves (blacks) whose captured servitude was permanent. But during the period OF that servitude they're both captive.

The only reason this came up at all was that sweeping slur on the Irish as a whole. And then he wants to throw a hissyfit because he got called on it. That dood dug hisself a hole he'll never get out of.

Actually, oh stupid one...i never said all Irish at all...I did say the Irish draftees...and the Irish immigrants..and history supports my assertion...you wish to employ exceptionalism..and postulate that there may have been a small percentage of non-racist Irish immigrants/ sure..go for it---but maybe you should read the historical data...before you immolate yourself on this issue. No matter...I'm a bit bored by it all....time for some reading....

 

[22lcidw]

its comical all of the Progs here knowing specific dates and years even the time of the day from hundreds of years past, yet they can't figure out how to go to school and really learn. Today it is easier not to. Black slaves, white slaves any slaves back then would have jumped at the opportunity to get an education and improve themselves. Especially if the price was right and is for many.

Actually it's comical that you haven't heard that "Progs" left the scene a century ago, speaking of edumacation or lack thereof.

Taxpayers do not have much say. Even though we think we do. Groups and fiefdoms control things. Things can improve. But it will take tough decisions and some will definitely be left behind so others can have a much better chance to succeed. Otherwise this will go on forever. Or until we reach taxation maximus and people revolt over it.

 

[IM2]

This thread is about the fact that a civilization existed in Africa that was equal to Europe. But because racists can't fathom the thought that blacks actually could function without whitey, we get all kinds of off topic bullshit from punk ass white boys who need a foot put up their white asses. This thread is not about whites crying about how they were slaves, it is not about how the Irish were treated or anything other than the fact that the African continent was full of nations of people and they had everything Europe had and then some. It was not limited to some saltine ass demarcation using the sahara. Egyptians were dark and light skinned black people, yet there were other great African empires besides Egypt.

Now that is what this thread is about. If you want to talk about what happened to the Irish, make a thread. If you want to pretend whitey actually fought to free slaves in America, start a thread. All off topic posts from this point on will be reported. And don't start crying when it happens.

Africa, you won't see on TV