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

[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.

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

You are the most left person I know.

 

[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.

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

You're right. Having any ongoing dialog with you whatsoever makes me look an utter, blithering idiot. If you are Right, you are what gives rightwingers a bad name.

 

[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.

Racist propaganda

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

I don't do time travel, and what you really mean is the historical record doesn't match up with you leftists being all butt hurt because all those blue collar proles your Party shit on took the south Republican in the 1970's and 1980's, and you need to make up lies in order to bash them for their uppityness and not being stupid enough to cut their own throats by voting for you dope addled commie sympathizers. You have never done anything to free slaves, and neither has your Party, you're just typical frauds, like all Democrats. Your only interest is for the political hackery of lying about it all for modern myth-making.

 

[Picaro]

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

Rubbish. Go play with the other nutjobs; you're as ignorant as they are.

 

[Picaro]

Before PC Fascism took over academia and the media, observations like this one, from an obvious KKK member and hardline racist I would guess, given this quote from him, would make it into texts, to maintain balanced context ...

“The ten million Negroes inhabiting this country, who themselves or whose ancestors went through the school of American slavery, are in a stronger and more hopeful condition, materially, intellectually, morally, and religiously, than is true of an equal number of black people in any other portion of the globe.”

– Booker T. Washington

Just who the hell is this guy, anyway? ... Let's try and get him fired and ruin his career! ...

 

[Picaro]

Slavery in the Arab World. The Arabs’ treatment of black Africans can aptly be termed an African Holocaust. Arabs killed more Africans in transit, especially when crossing the Sahara Desert, than Europeans and Americans, and over more centuries, both before and after the years of the Atlantic slave trade. Arab Muslims began extracting millions of black African slaves centuries before Christian nations did. Arab slave traders removed slaves from Africa for about 13 centuries, compared to three centuries of the Atlantic slave trade. African slaves transported by Arabs across the Sahara Desert died more often than slaves making the Middle Passage to the New World by ship. Slaves invariably died within five years if they worked in the Ottoman Empire’s Sahara salt mines. Black Africans did not enjoy immunity to many of the diseases found in the Arab world, which also resulted in high death rates.

Slaveholders in the Muslim world often castrated black African male slaves to serve as harem guards. This is a prime reason there are not many communities of blacks living in the non-African Muslim world today, despite the millions of black African slaves sold into the Muslim world. Many African boys did not survive their castration surgery. As late as 1903, there were still 194 African eunuchs in service to the Ottoman ruling family.

African women were enslaved by Arabs more than African men. Few black slave children survived in the Muslim world. In 1860, when 3,000 black female slaves were set free in Zanzibar, only 5% of them had children. Because under Islamic law a concubine bearing the child of the master could become a wife and her children would then share in the inheritance, Middle Eastern wives and children of masters had a strong incentive to interfere with the sex lives of female slaves and cause brutal abortions. Islamic jurisprudence historically allowed abortions in the first four months of pregnancy, long before the West allowed it. Islamic tradition supports the view that the soul enters the fetus at 120 days. If a concubine had the only son, the threat to the wife was even greater. The Koran allowed Muslim men to have as many concubines as they could afford, in addition to four wives.

The Arab history of anti-black racism predates European anti-black racism by several centuries. The early Islamic empire exhibited all the characteristics of anti-black racism, and blacks suffered the lowest form of bondage. By 869 A.D., black African slaves in southern Iraq, the despised Zanj, launched an extended slave revolt that threatened Baghdad until 883 A.D. The main reasons we have not heard more about the horrors of slavery in the Muslim world are that Muslims did not express moral outrage against slavery and wrote no abolitionist literature against the institution of slavery. Dr. Thomas Sowell characterizes the moral indignation against New World slavery, and the lack of any such indignation against the Muslim or non-Western world, as “selective moral indignation.” The moral outrage against slavery was and is, in the grand historical context, a European-inspired cause gaining significant traction only in the 1760s. Europeans took photographs of chained black African slaves in Arab slave-trading vessels on the East Coast of Africa in the 1880s. Slavery persisted openly in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries in the latter half of the twentieth century, 100 years after slavery was abolished in the United States. As late as 1960, African Muslims still sold slaves when they arrived on pilgrimages, as a way to finance their pilgrimages. Arab nations lagged far behind the rest of the world in abolishing slavery: Saudi Arabia and Yemen in 1962, United Arab Emirates in 1963, Oman in 1970 and Mauritania officially in 1981. Today, according to U.S. State Department figures, Muslim nations condone international human trafficking more than Western countries do.

David Livingstone observed in Africa the horrendous slave trading practices of Arab and pagan slave traders, decades after Great Britain had begun to suppress the international slave trade, and almost a century after Lord Mansfield, with the stroke of a pen, freed slaves in England. The Ottoman Empire resisted British efforts to suppress slavery and the slave trade. Over the course of 70 years, 2,000 British sailors died to free 160,000 slaves. While Islam urged improved treatment of slaves in some ways, the rapid expansion of the Muslim empire rapidly increased the number of slaves, leading to crueler treatment. Africa and the Middle East never developed the moral abolitionist fervor seen in Western nations. Slavery is now most prominent in Africa.

From the time of the Crusades until the early 1800’s, Barbary pirates or corsairs from Muslim North Africa raided European coasts and waters, selling captive Europeans as slaves in North African ports and Istanbul. Barbary corsairs attacked shipping in the Mediterranean Sea and Atlantic Ocean, raiding the coasts of Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Britain, Ireland, and Africa for slaves. Some Mediterranean islands and coasts in Spain and Italy were abandoned due to the threat of Barbary slave raiding. The United States initially paid tribute to the Barbary pirates to obtain the return of American captives. After building ships, the United States fought the First and Second Barbary Wars to stop this slave trading and piracy. In fact, the desire to defend American shipping and sailors from Barbary piracy gave re-birth to the U.S. Navy. The Marine Hymn refers to the Battle of Derne on “the shores of Tripoli.” The traditional Mameluke sword worn by Marine officers today is based on the one given Marine First Lt. Presley O’Bannon by Prince Hamet of Tripoli.”

Prison & Slavery - A Surprising Comparison

Bolded a part of the citation many need to keep in mind when reading all the scumbag leftist propaganda all about how evul America is n stuff.

 

[progressive hunter]

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

Rubbish. Go play with the other nutjobs; you're as ignorant as they are.

how am I the ignorant one???

its you that didnt know only democrats owned slaves

wouldnt that make you the ignorant one

 

[progressive hunter]

"...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.

all the newborns are equal...naked and ignorant

 

[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.

all the newborns are equal...naked and ignorant

birth defects?

 

[rightwinger]

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

Not worth discussing with you

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Cost us 600,000 lives to figure out that owning other humans was not a good practice

 

[progressive hunter]

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

Not worth discussing with you

in other words you know I'm right so are gonna run and hide,,,

GOT IT

I really don blame you,,if the blacks ever see through the welfare and figure out it was he dems that ran the KKK and slavery they might turn on you and burn you out of your homes

 

[rightwinger]

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

Not worth discussing with you

in other words you know I'm right so are gonna run and hide,,,

GOT IT

I really don blame you,,if the blacks ever see through the welfare and figure out it was he dems that ran the KKK and slavery they might turn on you and burn you out of your homes

I have read your replies. You just ignore or deny evidence provided

You are not really worth engaging in serious discussion

 

[Picaro]

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.

Cost us 600,000 lives to figure out that owning other humans was not a good practice

Cost us far more than that; Lincoln also murdered that many 'freed' blacks as well. Maek it some 1,200,000 lives to get rich speculators free railroads and massive land grants along with protective tariffs that made a lot of Yankees and their corporations very very wealthy at the public's expense, is all. Not much different than today with Bill Clinton' policies and Obama's., only they just reverse the cash flow to a sleazy commie country, now that commies and Wall Street are all on the same page now, and have enough of you yapping clueless porch puppies running around posting deflections and imbecilic memes for them.

 

[progressive hunter]

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

Not worth discussing with you

in other words you know I'm right so are gonna run and hide,,,

GOT IT

I really don blame you,,if the blacks ever see through the welfare and figure out it was he dems that ran the KKK and slavery they might turn on you and burn you out of your homes

I have read your replies. You just ignore or deny evidence provided

You are not really worth engaging in serious discussion

you have yet to name a single republiccan that owned slaves, or anything that refutes that it is democrats that are stained by slavery and not the country as a whole

so go ahead and hide from reality all you want,,doesnt change a thing

 

[JBvM]

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.

Cost us 600,000 lives to figure out that owning other humans was not a good practice

Cost us far more than that; Lincoln also murdered that many 'freed' blacks as well. Maek it some 1,200,000 lives to get rich speculators free railroads and massive land grants along with protective tariffs that made a lot of Yankees and their corporations very very wealthy at the public's expense, is all. Not much different than today with Bill Clinton' policies and Obama's., only they just reverse the cash flow to a sleazy commie country, now that commies and Wall Street are all on the same page now, and have enough of you yapping clueless porch puppies running around posting deflections and imbecilic memes for them.

wow!

strange type or revisionist stuff

but interesting how sick a mind can be

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Cost us 600,000 lives to figure out that owning other humans was not a good practice

Cost us far more than that; Lincoln also murdered that many 'freed' blacks as well. Maek it some 1,200,000 lives to get rich speculators free railroads and massive land grants along with protective tariffs that made a lot of Yankees and their corporations very very wealthy at the public's expense, is all. Not much different than today with Bill Clinton' policies and Obama's., only they just reverse the cash flow to a sleazy commie country, now that commies and Wall Street are all on the same page now, and have enough of you yapping clueless porch puppies running around posting deflections and imbecilic memes for them.

Mindless propaganda

 

[rightwinger]

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

Not worth discussing with you

in other words you know I'm right so are gonna run and hide,,,

GOT IT

I really don blame you,,if the blacks ever see through the welfare and figure out it was he dems that ran the KKK and slavery they might turn on you and burn you out of your homes

I have read your replies. You just ignore or deny evidence provided

You are not really worth engaging in serious discussion

you have yet to name a single republiccan that owned slaves, or anything that refutes that it is democrats that are stained by slavery and not the country as a whole

so go ahead and hide from reality all you want,,doesnt change a thing

Sure I did

Ulysses S Grant for one. There were also Republicans in border states like Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri who owned slaves

Slavery was an economic and moral decision, not a political one

Now, go back to ignoring and denying while you post.....You can’t name a single Republican

 

[progressive hunter]

no republican ever owned slaves, so stop spreading lies

its the democrats that are stained by slavery and only them

Not worth discussing with you

in other words you know I'm right so are gonna run and hide,,,

GOT IT

I really don blame you,,if the blacks ever see through the welfare and figure out it was he dems that ran the KKK and slavery they might turn on you and burn you out of your homes

I have read your replies. You just ignore or deny evidence provided

You are not really worth engaging in serious discussion

you have yet to name a single republiccan that owned slaves, or anything that refutes that it is democrats that are stained by slavery and not the country as a whole

so go ahead and hide from reality all you want,,doesnt change a thing

Sure I did

Ulysses S Grant for one. There were also Republicans in border states like Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri who owned slaves

Slavery was an economic and moral decision, not a political one

grant was a democrat at that time,,,and just because you say its true doesnt make it true
funny how the republican party was founded on anti-slavery but still owned slaves,,,I don believe it for a minute


of course if you can provide some proof I am more than willing to read it

 

[JBvM]

Not worth discussing with you

in other words you know I'm right so are gonna run and hide,,,

GOT IT

I really don blame you,,if the blacks ever see through the welfare and figure out it was he dems that ran the KKK and slavery they might turn on you and burn you out of your homes

I have read your replies. You just ignore or deny evidence provided

You are not really worth engaging in serious discussion

you have yet to name a single republiccan that owned slaves, or anything that refutes that it is democrats that are stained by slavery and not the country as a whole

so go ahead and hide from reality all you want,,doesnt change a thing

Sure I did

Ulysses S Grant for one. There were also Republicans in border states like Kentucky, Maryland and Missouri who owned slaves

Slavery was an economic and moral decision, not a political one

grant was a democrat at that time,,,and just because you say its true doesnt make it true
funny how the republican party was founded on anti-slavery but still owned slaves,,,I don believe it for a minute


of course if you can provide some proof I am more than willing to read it

Southern White Conservative Christians used to control the Democratic party. They fought to save slavery, and then fought to save Jim Crow laws