Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the American civil war really over??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
    I find it fascinating how often these threads alone have attracted mention of the small number of black slaveowners. I'm yet to work out what their purpose is, apart from some interesting trivia (which I'm pretty sure is not the purpose).
    I can't speak for everyone, but my reason was to demonstrate that it wasn't a racial thing. If all slave owners where white, then the racial argument could stand. However, the people selling them the slaves in Africa and an actual percentage of owners in the states where black. Blacks owning black slaves.....hardly racially based I think.

    Comment


    • 7th,

      I can't speak for everyone, but my reason was to demonstrate that it wasn't a racial thing. If all slave owners where white, then the racial argument could stand.
      sorry, that doesn't work. if you could show that there were significant numbers of white slaves owned by white plantation owners, maybe.

      for the black slave owners, it might not have been about race; but for white slave owners, it was a happy congruence between what they believed was good morals and profit.

      for the vast majority, southerners truly believed that as the "sons of Ham", black people were better off as slaves. this was the cultural basis of the myth of the happy slave, singing away while doing good honest work and generally loyal, overemotional, and not very bright. (this view lasted for a LONG time; just view most movies from the 1930s-1950s and see what roles blacks played.)

      if you were a benevolent plantation owner, you viewed this as a type of "noblesse oblige" to treat your slaves decently; if you were a more common sort of plantation owner, this interpretation would quickly shade off into the view that blacks didn't understand what was good for them, which in reality was defiance. this led to the development of a very organized and complex system of oppression by the mid-19th century-- professional slave catchers, professional slave breakers, professional overseers, slave codes REQUIRING catching runaway slaves, "breeding women", and even the organization of work to increase division among the slave population (the origin of the term "house slave"). mid-19th century slavery was far more organized, racial, and downright brutal than its counterpart in the 17th or 18th century, where the indentured servant was the closest the US got to white slavery.

      was slavery all about race? of course not, there was a profit motive. but racism explains why southerners didn't seek to import white slaves (a market, albeit on a much smaller scale, among the Barbary corsairs), or why poor white southerners, despite having much more in common with the slaves than their rich white cousins, were willing to fight and die to uphold the institution.
      Last edited by astralis; 14 Dec 09,, 17:29.
      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Shek View Post
        1. Yes, I knew that Davis was against secession for much of his time in the Senate. However, I believe you are referring to the six resolutions, which were an attempt to consolidate opinion amongst Democrats against popular sovereignty, the prevailing policy of his own party at the time. Instead of preventing secession, his resolutions ended up splitting the party and electing Lincoln, which the Southern Democrats then used as an excuse to start secession and then the war. He was also part of the team that created the compromises post-secession but pre-war that the South rejected.
        The reason the Civil War can not be put to rest is because of the blame game. 100% responsibility for slavery should not be placed upon the South.

        It began in Africa, and was approved by our forefathers in our Constitution, which shouted "white supremacy" from day one. Slaves, by the boat fulls, were shipped in New York Harbors, just as in Southern Harbors. Slaves were owned by Northerners and Southerners, white men as well as black, whether it be for domestic purposes, profit motives, or prominence, it was a part of each and every one of the original 13. Don't give me percentages, of the States, cuz they are moot to the point.

        Slaves were retained by our politicians, the ones I claim could have done more to curb the slave issue, which is why I think they did not press it enough.

        Just steps away from the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall in Philadelphia, archaeologists recently unearthed remains of a secret passageway that President George Washington's slaves used to enter and exit from his presidential home in the late 1790s, when the city served as the nation's capital.

        Not far from where the Declaration of Independence was signed nearly 230 years ago, there stands evidence of the hypocrisy that shrouded the burgeoning nation at its birth.

        "As you enter the heaven of liberty, you literally have to cross the hell of slavery," observed Michael Coard, leader of a group of Philadelphians working to have the slave tunnel recognized at the site."

        Hypocrisy is what kept slavery alive. Talking "free the slaves" out of one side of your mouth, while one is working in your back yard.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Julie View Post
          The reason the Civil War can not be put to rest is because of the blame game. 100% responsibility for slavery should not be placed upon the South.
          Nor should the responsibility of the war be placed solely upon the Confederate states.;)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Julie View Post
            The reason the Civil War can not be put to rest is because of the blame game. 100% responsibility for slavery should not be placed upon the South.

            It began in Africa, and was approved by our forefathers in our Constitution, which shouted "white supremacy" from day one. Slaves, by the boat fulls, were shipped in New York Harbors, just as in Southern Harbors. Slaves were owned by Northerners and Southerners, white men as well as black, whether it be for domestic purposes, profit motives, or prominence, it was a part of each and every one of the original 13. Don't give me percentages, of the States, cuz they are moot to the point.

            Slaves were retained by our politicians, the ones I claim could have done more to curb the slave issue, which is why I think they did not press it enough.

            Just steps away from the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall in Philadelphia, archaeologists recently unearthed remains of a secret passageway that President George Washington's slaves used to enter and exit from his presidential home in the late 1790s, when the city served as the nation's capital.

            Not far from where the Declaration of Independence was signed nearly 230 years ago, there stands evidence of the hypocrisy that shrouded the burgeoning nation at its birth.

            "As you enter the heaven of liberty, you literally have to cross the hell of slavery," observed Michael Coard, leader of a group of Philadelphians working to have the slave tunnel recognized at the site."

            Hypocrisy is what kept slavery alive. Talking "free the slaves" out of one side of your mouth, while one is working in your back yard.
            Not to mention the Irish and Scots slaves that kicked it all off, curtesy of Cromwell and the English lords. It was only when the economies of buying Africans from their kin in Africa became more economically viable that the number of black slaves overtook and surpassed whites.
            Many are the Celtic families in the US now who are descended from slave stock.
            In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

            Leibniz

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
              Nor should the responsibility of the war be placed solely upon the Confederate states.;)
              Precisely, though I cited "original 13." :)
              Last edited by Julie; 14 Dec 09,, 22:08.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                Not to mention the Irish and Scots slaves that kicked it all off, curtesy of Cromwell and the English lords. It was only when the economies of buying Africans from their kin in Africa became more economically viable that the number of black slaves overtook and surpassed whites.
                Many are the Celtic families in the US now who are descended from slave stock.
                I was looking from time to time trying to find something on that as well as Asian slaves. Not having much luck though.

                Comment


                • pari,

                  It was only when the economies of buying Africans from their kin in Africa became more economically viable that the number of black slaves overtook and surpassed whites.
                  actually, for whites it was indentured servantry, which was a different kettle of fish from slavery. indentured servants were let go with land, tools, and some money to call their own after their time was up.

                  however, this ended due to the carribean economy, which was the TRUE cash cow of the new world (not the backwater 13 colonies). small sugar plantations don't pay, and it became far less attractive once indentured servants figured that out. plantation owners turned to black slavery shortly thereafter, and economies of scale soon meant that black slaves became cheaper and cheaper, which led to a boom in the slave trade by the early 19th century.
                  There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                  Comment


                  • Indentured Servants' Experiences 1600-1700

                    Indentured Servants' Experiences 1600-1700
                    BEFORE THE JOURNEY: "Many of the spirits [people who recruited indentured servants] haunted the London slums and those of Bristol and other seaports. It was not difficult to find hungry and thirsty victims who, over a dinner and much liquor, would sign anything before them. The spirit would then hustle his prey to his headquarters to be added to a waiting company of others, safely kept where they could not escape until a ship was ready for them. An easier way was to pick up a sleeping drunk from the gutter and put him aboard a vessel for America, where, with no indenture, he could be sold to his own disadvantage and with the American planter's gain. Children were valuable and could be enticed with candy to come along with a spirit. Sometimes they, and older people too, were seized by force."

                    THE JOURNEY: The ocean journey to America usually took eight to twelve weeks. Indentured servants were packed into the ships tightly, often being held in the hold without a chance to get fresh air. "Every two weeks at sea the[indentured servant] passengers received an allowance of bread. One man and his wife, having eaten their bread in eight days, staggered before the captain and begged him to throw them overboard, for they would otherwise starve before the next bread day. The captain laughed in their faces, while the ship's mate, even more of a brute, gave them a bag of sand and told them to eat that. The couple did die before the next ration of bread, but the captain charged the other passengers for the bread the two would have eaten if they had survived."

                    UPON ARRIVAL IN AMERICA: Some indentured servants had their contract of service worked out with waiting American colonists who would be their masters for four to seven years. Others, upon arrival, were bought and sold much in the same manner as slaves. An announcement in the Virginia Gazette read, "Just arrived at Leedstown, the Ship Justitia, with about one Hundred Healthy Servants, Men Women and Boys. . . . The Sale will commence on Tuesday the 2nd of April."

                    TREATMENT BY THEIR MASTERS: Indentured servants had few rights. They could not vote. Without the permission of their masters, they were not allowed to marry, to leave their houses or travel, nor buy or sell anything. Female indentured servants were often raped without legal recourse. Masters often whipped and beat their indentured servants. One man testified: "I have seen an Overseer beat a Servant with a cane about the head till the blood has followed, for a fault that is not worth the speaking of...."

                    WORK IN AMERICA: In the 1600s, most indentured servants were put to work in the tobacco fields of Virginia and Maryland. This was hard manual labor under the grueling hot summer sun, under which Europeans were not accustomed to working. Overseers were often cruel, beating the servants to make them work faster and harder.

                    AFTER CONTRACT WAS COMPLETED: Although many masters craftily figure out ways to extend an indentured servant's bondage (through accusing the servant of stealing, impregnating a female indenture servant, etc.), most indentured servants who survived the frrst four to seven years in America were freed. The master was required (depending upon the rules of the colony) to provide his former servant with the following: clothing, two hoes, three barrels of corn, and fifty acres of land.

                    Full Sail - TeacherVision.com

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                      pari,



                      actually, for whites it was indentured servantry, which was a different kettle of fish from slavery. indentured servants were let go with land, tools, and some money to call their own after their time was up.

                      however, this ended due to the carribean economy, which was the TRUE cash cow of the new world (not the backwater 13 colonies). small sugar plantations don't pay, and it became far less attractive once indentured servants figured that out. plantation owners turned to black slavery shortly thereafter, and economies of scale soon meant that black slaves became cheaper and cheaper, which led to a boom in the slave trade by the early 19th century.
                      Your'e mistaking time periods. From James II to Cromwell it's estimated over 300,000 Irish alone were sold as slaves in the West indies and America.


                      Oddly enough this is from a Rastafarian web site, but it outlines pretty much what I've read elsewhere


                      The Slaves That Time Forgot

                      By John Martin

                      They came as slaves; vast human cargo transported on tall British ships bound for the Americas. They were shipped by the hundreds of thousands and included men, women, and even the youngest of children.

                      Whenever they rebelled or even disobeyed an order, they were punished in the harshest ways. Slave owners would hang their human property by their hands and set their hands or feet on fire as one form of punishment. They were burned alive and had their heads placed on pikes in the marketplace as a warning to other captives.

                      We don’t really need to go through all of the gory details, do we? After all, we know all too well the atrocities of the African slave trade. But, are we talking about African slavery?

                      King James II and Charles I led a continued effort to enslave the Irish. Britain’s famed Oliver Cromwell furthered this practice of dehumanizing one’s next door neighbor.

                      The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the New World. His Proclamation of 1625 required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies. By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat. At that time, 70% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves.

                      Ireland quickly became the biggest source of human livestock for English merchants. The majority of the early slaves to the New World were actually white.

                      From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade. Families were ripped apart as the British did not allow Irish dads to take their wives and children with them across the Atlantic. This led to a helpless population of homeless women and children. Britain’s solution was to auction them off as well.

                      During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In this decade, 52,000 Irish (mostly women and children) were sold to Barbados and Virginia. Another 30,000 Irish men and women were also transported and sold to the highest bidder. In 1656, Cromwell ordered that 2000 Irish children be taken to Jamaica and sold as slaves to English settlers.

                      Many people today will avoid calling the Irish slaves what they truly were: Slaves. They’ll come up with terms like “Indentured Servants” to describe what occurred to the Irish. However, in most cases from the 17th and 18th centuries, Irish slaves were nothing more than human cattle.

                      As an example, the African slave trade was just beginning during this same period. It is well recorded that African slaves, not tainted with the stain of the hated Catholic theology and more expensive to purchase, were often treated far better than their Irish counterparts.

                      African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African.

                      The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.

                      In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves.

                      This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

                      England continued to ship tens of thousands of Irish slaves for more than a century. Records state that, after the 1798 Irish Rebellion, thousands of Irish slaves were sold to both America and Australia.

                      There were horrible abuses of both African and Irish captives. One British ship even dumped 1,302 slaves into the Atlantic Ocean so that the crew would have plenty of food to eat.

                      There is little question that the Irish experienced the horrors of slavery as much (if not more in the 17th Century) as the Africans did. There is, also, very little question that those brown, tanned faces you witness in your travels to the West Indies are very likely a combination of African and Irish ancestry.

                      In 1839, Britain finally decided on it’s own to end it’s participation in Satan’s highway to hell and stopped transporting slaves. While their decision did not stop pirates from doing what they desired, the new law slowly concluded THIS chapter of nightmarish Irish misery.

                      But, if anyone, black or white, believes that slavery was only an African experience, then they’ve got it completely wrong.

                      Irish slavery is a subject worth remembering, not erasing from our memories. But, where are our public (and PRIVATE) schools???? Where are the history books? Why is it so seldom discussed?

                      Do the memories of hundreds of thousands of Irish victims merit more than a mention from an unknown writer? Or is their story to be one that their English pirates intended: To (unlike the African book) have the Irish story utterly and completely disappear as if it never happened.

                      None of the Irish victims ever made it back to their homeland to describe their ordeal. These are the lost slaves; the ones that time and biased history books conveniently forgot.
                      Some of my own ancestors who came the NZ were indentured servants, my great great great granmother being one.
                      Last edited by Parihaka; 14 Dec 09,, 22:47.
                      In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                      Leibniz

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
                        I was looking from time to time trying to find something on that as well as Asian slaves. Not having much luck though.
                        Here's another link with better references/quotes


                        http://www.ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/SLAVES.TXT
                        In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                        Leibniz

                        Comment


                        • That is above and beyond barbaric and disgusting.

                          Comment


                          • pari,

                            how many of the irish indentured servants/slaves were sent to the 13 colonies vice the Caribbeans?

                            similarly, the issue of mulattos in the US did not arise from breeding programs between irish and blacks, but from plantation owner rape.
                            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Julie View Post
                              The reason the Civil War can not be put to rest is because of the blame game. 100% responsibility for slavery should not be placed upon the South.
                              This is a complete red herring. Point out where someone has claimed that slavery didn't exist at one point in the Northern states or didn't exist in the border states as the Civil War was raging. You won't find it.

                              However, the fact that slavery existed was not sufficient to start a Civil War. The GOP and Northern Democrats participated in the peace conferences post-secession/pre-Sumter where the compromises would have resulted in the 13th Amendment explicitly allowing slavery to remain where it existed, removing any potential doubt about the status of slavery in the United States.

                              However, because the South wanted to remove the restrictions on the expansion of slavery that had existed since even before the Constitution, they didn't accept the compromise solutions. Jefferson Davis then ordered that Fort Sumter be fired on, despite the objection of Toombs in his cabinet that it would mark the start of a bloody civil war.

                              George Washington's ownership of slaves didn't force the South to secede, and it didn't force Davis/Beauregard to fire on Fort Sumter and start the Civil War. Yet, that's the argument you're making. There simply isn't a causal connection there.
                              "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Julie View Post
                                That is above and beyond barbaric and disgusting.
                                Well, slavery eh. William Wlberforce is one of my all-time hero's, and call me a softy but I can never sing Amazing Grace without getting teary-eyed.
                                In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                                Leibniz

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X