Was America too slow to free the slaves or is the record pretty good given the plant's history?

[Picaro]

Their slave based economy was well established before the Dems came around

They were also primarily Baptist. Does that make Baptist’s the religion of slavery?

but all those that owned slaves became the democrats

to date not a single republican ever owned slaves,,,so that stain is on he democrat party and no one else

Many Republicans owned slaves including Ulysses S Grant

wrong he was a democrat then

Now you are making shit up

NO,,,YOU ARE MAKING STUFF UP

even if I give you grant that still means only one,,,unless you can name another

The war wasn't over slavery, so the whole issue is moot anyway. But, many Republicans in the border states probably owned some slaves, but the border stare economies were already more industrialized than the cotton south so they were increasingly too expensive, compared to immigrant labor, which didn't need to be fed year round and so were expendable, left to starve and die in the winters and slow seasons.

In any case, Lincoln's plan was to force them to stay on the plantations, but they had to be paid wages, since they were 'free' now n stuff; he decided $3 a month was plenty for a negro, and set that as their 'freeman's pay scale'.

 

[Corodon]

The U.S. banned imports of slaves within 10 years or so of its founding, reached its maximum territorial viability and limits by 1840 or so, and was on its way out by 1850. Our history as a slave nation is very brief relative to the rest of the planet, and any reading of history shows it to be less brutal than others as well. Slaves were better off than the majority of 'free' laborers throughout the first half of the 19th century, though their rights were less than they were in the 17th and 18th century under Dutch and other European countries' colonies.

It should also be noted than when the U.S. offered to send some freed slaves back to Africa, they immediately set themselves up as slave owning plantation owners themselves. Blacks weren't opposed to slavery per se, just their own personal enslavement; they were just fine with owning them themselves, as the records of property assessments of places like New Orleans show; free blacks that could afford slaves had them.

I disagree with a few phrases of your post, particularly the "better off" notion, but mostly I strongly agree.

Perhaps the worst thing about the American experience with enslavement was the association of status with color. For most of human history such was not the case. Slavery was an equal opportunity oppressor.

The poisonous consequences of creating an ineffaceable association of appearance and oppression hardly needs elaboration.

So how did this happen? I believe it was because of the genetic advantages black Africans had, specifically resistance to malaria, that enhanced their chance of surviving the environment in the agricultural regions they were used. Whites (including indentured servants) or Native Americans just dropped like flies; they weren't worth the investment. Black Africans, unfortunately, were hardier stock.

 

[Corodon]

The war wasn't over slavery, so the whole issue is moot anyway. But, many Republicans in the border states probably owned some slaves, but the border stare economies were already more industrialized than the cotton south so they were increasingly too expensive, compared to immigrant labor, which didn't need to be fed year round and so were expendable, left to starve and die in the winters and slow seasons.

I disagree as a general statement, though it's true is was NOT a simple issue.

The greatest case for preserving the right to own slaves was wrapped up in John Calhoun's Nullification argument, but to appeal to it to say the Civil War wasn't about slavery is akin to saying Pelosi's opposition to The Wall is about fiscal prudence.

 

[Picaro]

]I disagree with a few phrases of your post, particularly the "better off" notion, but mostly I strongly agree.

It's a position based on contemporary evidence, backed up by demographic data available from the period, and also by first hand accounts by eyewitnesses like Fredrick Law Omstead, an abolitionist, and his travels through the South to Texas in his journal. White immigrant labor had no social safety nets, outside what small charity was available from churches, and had to rely on factory work if any was available when the agricultural jobs ended, which left many of them out in the cold, and with little food, making them susceptible to cholera and other epidemics, which were routine after the waves of immigrants started appearing, and that remained the case until well into the 20th century. Studies show that even 'natives', defined as those here 3 generations or longer, were also affected by the massive influxes; average heights and lifespans after 1820 show an average loss of height of 15% and also a lifespans shortened by the same amount over the periods. While alcoholism was rampant, with a per capita consumption 3 times that of Europeans, it can only partly account for the decline in health.

Perhaps the worst thing about the American experience with enslavement was the association of status with color. For most of human history such was not the case. Slavery was an equal opportunity oppressor.

The Irish would disagree; they suffered from discrimination as well, only worse, since no one regarded them as worth the money to feed or save when they weren't employed. Omstead also notes their treatment, along with poor Germans, compared to slaves. I'll cite some from his diary if anybody cares to know what an eyewitness report from one of the era's more notable abolitionists says about the division of labor then, like who was getting the crappy dangerous jobs and who wasn't, or whose skeletons those are in the banks of the river levees, just covered over where they dropped on the job by the 10's of thousands over the years.

And besides, you would wrong about that; the Arab slavers demanded African male slaves be castrated, via full frontal castration, before purchasing them, and they were in the African slave business far longer than we; don't think they were castrating whites or any other colors the same way. So yes, color did matter, far longer than the colonies existed.

The poisonous consequences of creating an ineffaceable association of appearance and oppression hardly needs elaboration.

This is judging the past by modern popular notions, and doesn't really mean anything as far as history goes; slavery has been around a long time,

I will recommend a good history of early American settlement in the south, where one can indeed find a difference in the way slaves were treated and what rights they had then compared to the growth of chattel slavery and the decline of their rights and liberties, which did worsen over time as their numbers increased. White slavery finally disappeared early on, but was mostly a distinction without a difference, since being 'free' labor meant a more insecure livelihood and a 35% chance of early death from disease and malnutrition, high childhood mortality, etc., while slaves had the same mortality percentages as whites, and their 'value' calculated up to the age of 70 on average, mortality being higher in the south than the north, because of the swamps and year round disease possibilities. Northern cities like New York City had slums where childhood morality ran into 200 to 300 per 1,000, and nobody blinked a eye at it. They were expendable; thousands of replacements landed at the docks every week.

So how did this happen? I believe it was because of the genetic advantages black Africans had, specifically resistance to malaria, that enhanced their chance of surviving the environment in the agricultural regions they were used. Whites (including indentured servants) or Native Americans just dropped like flies; they weren't worth the investment. Black Africans, unfortunately, were hardier stock.

Yes, nothing to disagree with there; they were bought in Africa from black slave traders there because of their resistance to some tropical diseases, which, ironically is also related to their sickle cell anemia susceptibility.

 

[Picaro]

The war wasn't over slavery, so the whole issue is moot anyway. But, many Republicans in the border states probably owned some slaves, but the border stare economies were already more industrialized than the cotton south so they were increasingly too expensive, compared to immigrant labor, which didn't need to be fed year round and so were expendable, left to starve and die in the winters and slow seasons.

I disagree as a general statement, though it's true is was NOT a simple issue.

The greatest case for preserving the right to own slaves was wrapped up in John Calhoun's Nullification argument, but to appeal to it to say the Civil War wasn't about slavery is akin to saying Pelosi's opposition to The Wall is about fiscal prudence.

Actually we have all sorts of evidence it wasn't about slavery at all, and from such sources as Lincoln himself, and what his newly seated Congress concentrated on first, which was the intro of the tariff bill, which prompted the first state to secede, followed by attempts to blockade that state's ports, which prompted the rest to secede, beginning with Buchanan's attempt, and Lincoln's enthusiastic hopes the same would happen with his attempt to provoke his illegal war. The Republicans wanted massive government subsidies for railroads ans corporate welfare freebies for them and their states, at the south's expense; none of what they wanted would have benefited the south while taxing them heavily. In fact Lincoln's faction lost heavily in the mid-terms of 1862 because many suspected he was making the war about slavery, and he only stayed in power because of his personal private army controlling the ballot boxes in the border states. The Lincoln Myth has been exploded here many many times already.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Was America too slow to free the slaves or is the record pretty good given the plant's history? Does the evil of slavery taint our county more or less than others?

The banks own my house, the banks own my car, the banks own me!

Yes, I would say that America is far too slow to free me!

I owe, I owe...it's off to work I go...

Don't buy shit that puts you in debt.

 

[rightwinger]

Their slave based economy was well established before the Dems came around

They were also primarily Baptist. Does that make Baptist’s the religion of slavery?

but all those that owned slaves became the democrats

to date not a single republican ever owned slaves,,,so that stain is on he democrat party and no one else

Now they are Republican

Had nothing to do with the economic institution of slavery

name me 2 that switched to republicans???

The voters switched

BULLSHIT!!!

PROVE IT

 

[rightwinger]

]I disagree with a few phrases of your post, particularly the "better off" notion, but mostly I strongly agree.

It's a position based on contemporary evidence, backed up by demographic data available from the period, and also by first hand accounts by eyewitnesses like Fredrick Law Omstead, an abolitionist, and his travels through the South to Texas in his journal. White immigrant labor had no social safety nets, outside what small charity was available from churches, and had to rely on factory work if any was available when the agricultural jobs ended, which left many of them out in the cold, and with little food, making them susceptible to cholera and other epidemics, which were routine after the waves of immigrants started appearing, and that remained the case until well into the 20th century. Studies show that even 'natives', defined as those here 3 generations or longer, were also affected by the massive influxes; average heights and lifespans after 1820 show an average loss of height of 15% and also a lifespans shortened by the same amount over the periods. While alcoholism was rampant, with a per capita consumption 3 times that of Europeans, it can only partly account for the decline in health.

Perhaps the worst thing about the American experience with enslavement was the association of status with color. For most of human history such was not the case. Slavery was an equal opportunity oppressor.

The Irish would disagree; they suffered from discrimination as well, only worse, since no one regarded them as worth the money to feed or save when they weren't employed. Omstead also notes their treatment, along with poor Germans, compared to slaves. I'll cite some from his diary if anybody cares to know what an eyewitness report from one of the era's more notable abolitionists says about the division of labor then, like who was getting the crappy dangerous jobs and who wasn't, or whose skeletons those are in the banks of the river levees, just covered over where they dropped on the job by the 10's of thousands over the years.

And besides, you would wrong about that; the Arab slavers demanded African male slaves be castrated, via full frontal castration, before purchasing them, and they were in the African slave business far longer than we; don't think they were castrating whites or any other colors the same way. So yes, color did matter, far longer than the colonies existed.

The poisonous consequences of creating an ineffaceable association of appearance and oppression hardly needs elaboration.

This is judging the past by modern popular notions, and doesn't really mean anything as far as history goes; slavery has been around a long time,

I will recommend a good history of early American settlement in the south, where one can indeed find a difference in the way slaves were treated and what rights they had then compared to the growth of chattel slavery and the decline of their rights and liberties, which did worsen over time as their numbers increased. White slavery finally disappeared early on, but was mostly a distinction without a difference, since being 'free' labor meant a more insecure livelihood and a 35% chance of early death from disease and malnutrition, high childhood mortality, etc., while slaves had the same mortality percentages as whites, and their 'value' calculated up to the age of 70 on average, mortality being higher in the south than the north, because of the swamps and year round disease possibilities. Northern cities like New York City had slums where childhood morality ran into 200 to 300 per 1,000, and nobody blinked a eye at it. They were expendable; thousands of replacements landed at the docks every week.

So how did this happen? I believe it was because of the genetic advantages black Africans had, specifically resistance to malaria, that enhanced their chance of surviving the environment in the agricultural regions they were used. Whites (including indentured servants) or Native Americans just dropped like flies; they weren't worth the investment. Black Africans, unfortunately, were hardier stock.

Yes, nothing to disagree with there; they were bought in Africa from black slave traders there because of their resistance to some tropical diseases, which, ironically is also related to their sickle cell anemia susceptibility.

Racist propaganda

Ask how many of those immigrants or Irish were willing to trade places with a slave

 

[progressive hunter]

but all those that owned slaves became the democrats

to date not a single republican ever owned slaves,,,so that stain is on he democrat party and no one else

Many Republicans owned slaves including Ulysses S Grant

wrong he was a democrat then

Now you are making shit up

NO,,,YOU ARE MAKING STUFF UP

even if I give you grant that still means only one,,,unless you can name another

The war wasn't over slavery, so the whole issue is moot anyway. But, many Republicans in the border states probably owned some slaves, but the border stare economies were already more industrialized than the cotton south so they were increasingly too expensive, compared to immigrant labor, which didn't need to be fed year round and so were expendable, left to starve and die in the winters and slow seasons.

In any case, Lincoln's plan was to force them to stay on the plantations, but they had to be paid wages, since they were 'free' now n stuff; he decided $3 a month was plenty for a negro, and set that as their 'freeman's pay scale'.

no republican ever owned slaves, so stop spreading lies

its the democrats that are stained by slavery and only them

 

[Soupnazi630]

Second of all I decided nothing, reality proves you to be an uneducated jackass

You're in about as much contact with reality as a goldfish in a bowl. You even live your life off some old 1990s comedy show. You're right. You DON'T decide ANYTHING. Know even less.

Like I said your insight sucks

You made a fool of yourself here and got owned now run along boy

 

[toobfreak]

Second of all I decided nothing, reality proves you to be an uneducated jackass

You're in about as much contact with reality as a goldfish in a bowl. You even live your life off some old 1990s comedy show. You're right. You DON'T decide ANYTHING. Know even less.

Like I said your insight sucks

You made a fool of yourself here and got owned now run along boy

You're not nearly bright enough to be condescending to anyone here, much less have any idea about your own insights much less another persons. I'd ask you how you know or to prove a single thing you said, but we both know it was just so much typical Leftist flatulence coming out of your ass trying to hide the fact that you're really clueless about anything.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Second of all I decided nothing, reality proves you to be an uneducated jackass

You're in about as much contact with reality as a goldfish in a bowl. You even live your life off some old 1990s comedy show. You're right. You DON'T decide ANYTHING. Know even less.

Like I said your insight sucks

You made a fool of yourself here and got owned now run along boy

You're not nearly bright enough to be condescending to anyone here, much less have any idea about your own insights much less another persons. I'd ask you how you know or to prove a single thing you said, but we both know it was just so much typical Leftist flatulence coming out of your ass trying to hide the fact that you're really clueless about anything.

You think im a leftist.

You are way more left than I am, you little liberal boy,

The burden is not on me to prove a damn thing it is on you for making stupid statements which I called you on. You claimed insight where you have none because you are a FOOL.

No one here is a slave bitch so fuck off with your ignorant crap just go away so I will make you into my bitch again

 

[toobfreak]

Second of all I decided nothing, reality proves you to be an uneducated jackass

You're in about as much contact with reality as a goldfish in a bowl. You even live your life off some old 1990s comedy show. You're right. You DON'T decide ANYTHING. Know even less.

Like I said your insight sucks

You made a fool of yourself here and got owned now run along boy

You're repeating. Better stick a cork in the other ear.

 

[Pilot1]

How many MEN died in the Civil War again? No, I don't feel "guilty". We were the ONLY country in the world to go to war to end slavery, which was only ONE issue the war was fought over.

 

[toobfreak]

You think im a leftist.

You're just an a-hole. About a year ago, we ran a thread where we all tested ourselves to determine our political leanings. I think I tested farther right than anyone else. Where were you? Why don't you go look it up, take the test and report back to us your results and see how far right you are of me? I still have a copy of my results.

 

[Soupnazi630]

You think im a leftist.

You're just an a-hole. About a year ago, we ran a thread where we all tested ourselves to determine our political leanings. I think I tested farther right than anyone else. Where were you? Why don't you go look it up, take the test and report back to us your results and see how far right you are of me? I still have a copy of my results.

I do not need a test boy the fact is you are more left than I am

 

[Soupnazi630]

Second of all I decided nothing, reality proves you to be an uneducated jackass

You're in about as much contact with reality as a goldfish in a bowl. You even live your life off some old 1990s comedy show. You're right. You DON'T decide ANYTHING. Know even less.

Like I said your insight sucks

You made a fool of yourself here and got owned now run along boy

You're repeating. Better stick a cork in the other ear.

And I am still right boy and still own your weak little punk ass

Better shut yyour cock sucker before I make you look like a bigger fool

 

[JBvM]

"...all men are created equal..."
A little slow, yes.

which is a combination of myth and lie

It is neither. It is quite accurate and true.

First off, men/people are not created. Second, go visit a baby ward in a hospital and tell me all the newborns are equal.

 

[JBvM]

America should have freed its slaves by 1805. Most of the civilized world did so by then.

But cotton became king at that time and there was a fortune to be made. Free labor made it possible for more profit to be made

thank you

 

[JBvM]

America should have freed its slaves by 1805. Most of the civilized world did so by then.

But cotton became king at that time and there was a fortune to be made. Free labor made it possible for more profit to be made

doesnt matter since it ended 150 yrs ago

try keeping up would ya

the arguments over states right are older

so I guess you're into being consistent on principle, eh?