• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mock Slave Auction Brings Some Spectators to Tears

danarhea said:
And those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Click to expand...

Or those who choose it doesn't matter or who believe 'we're so great it WON'T happen to us' - when in reality it can and might.
 
Morality Games said:
That's not the judgment I'm making, but you have a very relaxed view of southern society's complicity in the institution of slavery.
Click to expand...

pssst...FYI, the north benefitted from slavery too.
 
OscarB63 said:
pssst...FYI, the north benefitted from slavery too.
Click to expand...

Slow down, slow down; when you tell them that the northern textile mills got their cotton from southern plantations for half the price they would have, if the plantations had to pay hired hands, their heads will definitely explode.
 
apdst said:
Slow down, slow down; when you tell them that the northern textile mills got their cotton from southern plantations for half the price they would have, if the plantations had to pay hired hands, their heads will definitely explode.
Click to expand...

it's O.K. because the owners of the northern textile mills were white, so that still fits in with their "all whites are evil racists" mantra.
 
OscarB63 said:
it's O.K. because the owners of the northern textile mills were white, so that still fits in with their "all whites are evil racists" mantra.
Click to expand...
Wait a minute.... I thought it was only white southerners that were evil racists. You people need to get your story straight.

.
 
OscarB63 said:
it's O.K. because the owners of the northern textile mills were white, so that still fits in with their "all whites are evil racists" mantra.
Click to expand...

We're not evil, we're just ambitious and misunderstood.
 
apdst said:
Actually, there were only 13 slave owners at the Constitutional Convention. They were: Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Jefferson, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington. 15, if you include Madison and Franklin, who later freed their slaves.

But, hey, let's don't let facts get in our way.
Click to expand...

This is false. There were 12 PLANTATION OWNERS. I read the wikipedia article you copy and pasted all those names from verbatim. I know you're not knowledgeable enough about this issue to actually recite those names. Please learn actual facts? Here is what the Wikipedia article you copy and pasted those names from actually says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States

Twelve owned or managed slave-operated plantations or large farms: Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Jefferson, Mason, Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and Washington. Madison also owned slaves, as did Franklin, who later freed his slaves and was a key founder of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society. Alexander Hamilton was opposed to slavery and, with John Jay and other anti-slavery advocates, helped to found the first African free school in New York City. Jay helped to found the New York Manumission Society and, when he was governor of New York in 1798, signed into law the state statute ending slavery as of 1821.
Click to expand...

You know, plagiarism is a horribly dishonest thing. What makes your gross misunderstanding of what you're reading even worse is that you couldn't even count the number of plantation owners properly.

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=293

Of the 55 Convention delegates, about 25 owned slaves. Many of the framers harbored moral qualms about slavery. Some, including Benjamin Franklin (a former slave-owner) and Alexander Hamilton (who was born in a slave colony in the British West Indies) became members of antislavery societies.
Click to expand...

You're welcome to retract your lies anytime.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
This is false. There were 13 PLANTATION OWNERS. I read the wikipedia article you copy and pasted all those names from too. Please learn actual facts?
Click to expand...

Cough up some evidence. Thanks in advance.
 
I've found information pointing to some delegates, not previously mentioned, eg. Luther Martin, owning slaves.

Then there are some like Wythe and Dickenson who were former slave owners turned abolitionists that haven't been mentioned.

One specific delegate was surprisingly missing from the previous lists of slave owners: Robert Morris.

Morris was perhaps even worse than a slave owner, he was a slave trader.

The earlier list was most definitely wrong as far as total number of slave owners at the drafting of the constitution. I've specifically listed 4 additional ones that were slave owners at some point in their lives, one of whom was actually a slave trader.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
I've found information pointing to some delegates, not previously mentioned, eg. Luther Martin, owning slaves.
Click to expand...

Martin also opposed counting slaves for purposes of representation.

“t ought to be considered that national crimes can only be and frequently are punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a national sanction and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of Him who is equally Lord of all and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master.”
—Luther Martin, Constitutional Convention Delegate. James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. III, pg. 211.
Click to expand...




One specific delegate was surprisingly missing from the previous lists of slave owners: Robert Morris.
Click to expand...

Morris had gotten out of the slave business, by the 1787 convention. He was also from Pennsylvania, which had abolished slavery in 1780.



The earlier list was most definitely wrong as far as total number of slave owners at the drafting of the constitution. I've specifically listed 4 additional ones that were slave owners at some point in their lives, one of whom was actually a slave trader.
Click to expand...

Actually, you only added one name to the list, that owned slaves in 1787.

Ultimately, there wasn't a, "large percentage", of the founders that owned slaves in 1787 and there was a large percentage of the founders that wanted to abolish slavery.

So, the notion that the founders weren't interested in abolishing slavery, or that there was a large percentage of them that owned slaves, or supported slavery is completely erroneous.
 
Hatuey said:
This is false. There were 12 PLANTATION OWNERS. I read the wikipedia article you copy and pasted all those names from verbatim. I know you're not knowledgeable enough about this issue to actually recite those names. Please learn actual facts? Here is what the Wikipedia article you copy and pasted those names from actually says:

Founding Fathers of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



You know, plagiarism is a horribly dishonest thing. What makes your gross misunderstanding of what you're reading even worse is that you couldn't even count the number of plantation owners properly.



Digital History



You're welcome to retract your lies anytime.
Click to expand...

You just said it was 13 plantation owners. Now, you're calling it 12. What's it gonna be?

BTW, just so we'll all know, tell us the names of all 25 of those slave owners, who owned slaves when they attended the 1787 convention. As always, thanks in advance.
 
apdst said:
Martin also opposed counting slaves for purposes of representation.
Click to expand...


Which has no bearing on the fact that he, himself, owned slaves. He just wanted the northern states to have a representative advantage from not counting them.



Morris had gotten out of the slave business, by the 1787 convention. He was also from Pennsylvania, which had abolished slavery in 1780.
Click to expand...

Most of his slave trading occured in places other than Pennsylvania.


Actually, you only added one name to the list, that owned slaves in 1787.
Click to expand...

Which proves that your list was not accurate. If it's not accurate, you have no ability to lay claim that otehrs are misinformed.

In fact, the proper course is to say "Looks lik eI was wrong" instead of defending your inaccuracies.

Plus, nobody limited the slave ownership to 1787. Remember, the original claim was that a large percentage of founding fathers were slave owners. The discussion about Delegates at the convention is a red herring in many ways. The point is that a large percentage of the founding fathers were slave owners. Thus, showing that they owned slaves at any point in their lifetime fulfills this description.



Ultimately, there wasn't a, "large percentage", of the founders that owned slaves in 1787 and there was a large percentage of the founders that wanted to abolish slavery.
Click to expand...

There was a large percentage of founding fathers were slave owners and there was a large percentage of them who were abolishionists. It's not like it's a dichotomy (as a majority vs. a minority would be)


Even assuming that the evidence posted by Hatuey (which, unlike your claims, has not been proven to be innaccurate) which claim 25 of 55 delagates owned slaves, and we use the numbers what you posted (with the addition of those I added to the list, of course) we get two possible numbers. 15 out of 55 if we exclude those who probably didn't own slaves in 1787, such as Franklin, Wythe, Morris, and Dickenson (Madison was a slave owner pretty much his entire life), or 19 out of 55 if we are more honest and include those people in the rankings.

This means that, at minimum somewhere between 27% and 35% of the founding fathers who were delegates at the Constitutional convention owned slaves in their lives. One out of every three or four at a minimum.

Now, this is a large percentage. For example, if 27-35% of your brain were to stop functioning, it would be considered extensive brain damage. If you lost 27% of your limbs, it would be a large percentage.

Is it a majority? Of course not, but nobody claimed it was.

But remember, this doesn't include signatories to the DoI or Articles of Confederation.

So, the notion that the founders weren't interested in abolishing slavery, or that there was a large percentage of them that owned slaves, or supported slavery is completely erroneous.
Click to expand...

The founders weren't interested in anything universally except establishing a nation. Hell, a good number of them opposed teh damned constitution itself.

But many were in favor of abolition and many were not. There were differences in opinion on the matter.
 
Tucker Case said:
Which has no bearing on the fact that he, himself, owned slaves. He just wanted the northern states to have a representative advantage from not counting them.
Click to expand...

Any docs to prove that that was his opinion?





Most of his slave trading occured in places other than Pennsylvania.
Click to expand...

But, not all.




Which proves that your list was not accurate. If it's not accurate, you have no ability to lay claim that otehrs are misinformed.

In fact, the proper course is to say "Looks lik eI was wrong" instead of defending your inaccuracies.

Plus, nobody limited the slave ownership to 1787. Remember, the original claim was that a large percentage of founding fathers were slave owners. The discussion about Delegates at the convention is a red herring in many ways. The point is that a large percentage of the founding fathers were slave owners. Thus, showing that they owned slaves at any point in their lifetime fulfills this description.
Click to expand...

I gave you a list of people who owned slaves at the time of the 1787 convention. Ok, I missed one. However, hatuey can't put a name to everyone of the, "25", founders that owned slaves in 1787.





There was a large percentage of founding fathers were slave owners and there was a large percentage of them who were abolishionists. It's not like it's a dichotomy (as a majority vs. a minority would be)


Even assuming that the evidence posted by Hatuey (which, unlike your claims, has not been proven to be innaccurate) which claim 25 of 55 delagates owned slaves, and we use the numbers what you posted (with the addition of those I added to the list, of course) we get two possible numbers. 15 out of 55 if we exclude those who probably didn't own slaves in 1787, such as Franklin, Wythe, Morris, and Dickenson (Madison was a slave owner pretty much his entire life), or 19 out of 55 if we are more honest and include those people in the rankings.

This means that, at minimum somewhere between 27% and 35% of the founding fathers who were delegates at the Constitutional convention owned slaves in their lives. One out of every three or four at a minimum.

Now, this is a large percentage. For example, if 27-35% of your brain were to stop functioning, it would be considered extensive brain damage. If you lost 27% of your limbs, it would be a large percentage.

Is it a majority? Of course not, but nobody claimed it was.

But remember, this doesn't include signatories to the DoI or Articles of Confederation.



The founders weren't interested in anything universally except establishing a nation. Hell, a good number of them opposed teh damned constitution itself.

But many were in favor of abolition and many were not. There were differences in opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...


No, there wasn't a large percentage. The point that the opposition is trying to make is, A) most of the founders were slave owners and B) even more supported slavery, or didn't care. Both notions have been proven to be false.
 
apdst said:
So, slavery is a cultural thing, now? :lamo

Like I said, when the dust settles, it's the only argument that ya'll have.

How 'bout you go into detail on how the South's culture ane economy was built totally around slavery. Can't wait hear this.
Click to expand...

If you're really honest about the conditions in the South even up to the Civil Rights era, you'd acknowledge that servatude was the cultlural lifestyle of the South. Even when slavery was abolished, white Southerns did everything they could to keep Blacks indebted to them. The only real difference between how Northern Whites treated Black compared to Southern Whites where servatude is concerned was that Blacks in the north got paid for their services as a condition of labor even during times of slavery. The wages weren't fair in the least, and sometimes a day's hard work wasn't "satisfactory enough" to warrant payment, but at least Blacks received some measure of "fair compensation" for the work performed, whereas Blacks in the South often times worked a generation as indentured servents to pay-off debts imposed by their White counterparts.

Whether one wishes to admit it or not, servatude was a predominate cultural thing of the South that soon matriculated to the North. That's not being racist or liberal. It's just being honest about one period in time in our nation's history.

Now, I won't get into the "who owned more slaves" debate but IMO it's a ridiculous argument. Initially, the slave trade posed more of a benefit to the south than the nother, but both side profitted from it. The only reason it ended was because someone had the courage to stop it for the good of the nation regardless of whether that "good intention" was for economic reasons or humanitarian.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
If you're really honest about the conditions in the South even up to the Civil Rights era, you'd acknowledge that servatude was the cultlural lifestyle of the South. Even when slavery was abolished, white Southerns did everything they could to keep Blacks indebted to them. The only real difference between how Northern Whites treated Black compared to Southern Whites where servatude is concerned was that Blacks in the north got paid for their services as a condition of labor even during times of slavery. The wages weren't fair in the least, and sometimes a day's hard work wasn't "satisfactory enough" to warrant payment, but at least Blacks received some measure of "fair compensation" for the work performed, whereas Blacks in the South often times worked a generation as indentured servents to pay-off debts imposed by their White counterparts.

Whether one wishes to admit it or not, servatude was a predominate cultural thing of the South that soon matriculated to the North. That's not being racist or liberal. It's just being honest about one period in time in our nation's history.
Click to expand...

So, it's all about 'dem evul, racist, white southerners, now? Explain to us what that has to do with the constitutional convention of 1787.
 
apdst said:
So, it's all about 'dem evul, racist, white southerners, now? Explain to us what that has to do with the constitutional convention of 1787.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything like that. So, please don't try to twist my words. History has shown their were Black slave owners as well. But regardless of who owned whom, slavery was wrong. It was a terrible means to an economic end that has hinder a class of people from achieving much over the generations. But in many ways Blacks have caught up to their white counterparts which was what many whites feared even after the Civil Rights Act was passed.

I am but a handful of Blacks who don't see racism in every statement one makes. It would seem some of us still need to drop the hatred from their hearts and minds.
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
I didn't say anything like that. So, please don't try to twist my words. History has shown their were Black slave owners as well. But regardless of who owned whom, slavery was wrong. It was a terrible means to an economic end that has hinder a class of people from achieving much over the generations. But in many ways Blacks have caught up to their white counterparts which was what many whites feared even after the Civil Rights Act was passed.

I am but a handful of Blacks who don't see racism in every statement one makes. It would seem some of us still need to drop the hatred from their hearts and minds.
Click to expand...

Ok and at what point are you going to stop going on a in a totally diffferent direction?
 
And what direction might that be?

The point of this thread is slavery in American history. Either one acknowledges it or not. Many people still believe slavery was good for the nation. I believe it was bad, but regardless of my opinion on the matter slavery did happen in this country. I find nothing wrong with discussing the issue. We do need to be reminded of such things from time to time if for no other reason than to remind us of a dark and evil time in our nation's history so that we shall not repeat it. But to play it up or to ignore it is to dishonor all who came before us to move this country further toward "establishing a more perfect union".

I'm all for inclusion, not exclusion. Where do you stand?
 
Objective Voice said:
And what direction might that be?

The point of this thread is slavery in American history. Either one acknowledges it or not. Many people still believe slavery was good for the nation. I believe it was bad, but regardless of my opinion on the matter slavery did happen in this country. I find nothing wrong with discussing the issue. We do need to be reminded of such things from time to time if for no other reason than to remind us of a dark and evil time in our nation's history so that we shall not repeat it. But to play it up or to ignore it is to dishonor all who came before us to move this country further toward "establishing a more perfect union".

I'm all for inclusion, not exclusion. Where do you stand?
Click to expand...

The, "the founders were slave owners and racists and didn't care about abolishing slavery", argument was taking on water, fast. Kinda like this,

images


so, you swoop in with the line about how southerners--as a whole--have been oppressing black for the past 900 years and it's bad and blah-blah-blah...

That's the direction I'm talking about.
 
apdst said:
Any docs to prove that that was his opinion?
Click to expand...


Look him up. He opposed unequal representation, and eventually, he opposed ratification of the constitution. And your quote of him was about the slave trade, not the practice of keeping slaves or representation.

Remember: "The slave trade was a bone of contention for many, with some who supported slavery abhorring the slave trade." Constitutional Topic: Slavery - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net



But, not all.
Click to expand...

Almost all.






I gave you a list of people who owned slaves at the time of the 1787 convention.
Click to expand...

An incomplete list.

Ok, I missed one.
Click to expand...

You didn't miss anything. Missing something would imply that you did some reasearch. You copied another persons research into delegates who were owners and operators of slave-worked pantations and passed it off as your own knowledge.

you also misrepresented their work as being a comprehensive list of all of the delegates who were slave owners. That misrepresentation, as I have shown, is false.

Here's another example of a person who is known to have bought and sold slaves after 1787 that was a delegate: William Richardson Davie (N. Carolina, he did not sign the final draft of the constitution)

That's two "you" :)lol:) missed.

But, wait, here's another: Alexander Martin. He owned slaves in 1787, too.

That's three.

Face it, you tried to pretend you knew what you were talking about, and it's been proven that you didn't. Just admit it and let's move on.

However, hatuey can't put a name to everyone of the, "25", founders that owned slaves in 1787.
Click to expand...

He can, however, provide a source that has not been proven wrong thus far. You mistakenly made a claim that your own source didn't support (even though you failed to cite that source) AND I've since shown that your claims were false (multiple times over now).

I've also now named more than one person who was not included on your list that owned slaves in 1787. Do I have to name eveyr single one for you to admit that, when you were plagarizing someone else, you were talking out of your ass?





No, there wasn't a large percentage.
Click to expand...

Saying that repeatedly doesn't make it true, though.

The point that the opposition is trying to make is, A) most of the founders were slave owners and
Click to expand...

Nobody said most. It's bad enough that you're a plagarizer, but please stop lying.






Both notions have been proven to be false.
Click to expand...

the only thing that's been proven false is your false claims.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
The, "the founders were slave owners and racists and didn't care about abolishing slavery", argument was taking on water, fast. Kinda like this,

images


so, you swoop in with the line about how southerners--as a whole--have been oppressing black for the past 900 years and it's bad and blah-blah-blah...

That's the direction I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

Then you completely missed the tenure of the discussion as well. For the OP had nothing to do with which Founding Fathers or how many of them owned slaves. It was about slavery being part of our nation's history - plain and simple. Anything else complicates the matter and turns a simple reminder of history into these petty arguments that really take away from the issue at hand.

Civil War re-enactments take place across this country every year. They happen in the north and in the south, in the east...I'm not sure how many take place in the west, if any, but they are reminders of where this country was, what led up to the war and where this country has been and where it may someday go. They're also staunch reminders of a dark time in our nation's history where crimes against humanity took place in earnest. The tears shed by those participants who took on the part of slaves speak loudly to the pain slavery wrought upon a people. We should never forget their pain, not then and certainly not now.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Look him up. He opposed unequal representation, and eventually, he opposed ratification of the constitution. And your quote of him was about the slave trade, not the practice of keeping slaves or representation.

Remember: "The slave trade was a bone of contention for many, with some who supported slavery abhorring the slave trade." Constitutional Topic: Slavery - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net





Almost all.








An incomplete list.



You didn't miss anything. Missing something would imply that you did some reasearch. You copied another persons research into delegates who were owners and operators of slave-worked pantations and passed it off as your own knowledge.

you also misrepresented their work as being a comprehensive list of all of the delegates who were slave owners. That misrepresentation, as I have shown, is false.

Here's another example of a person who is known to have bought and sold slaves after 1787 that was a delegate: William Richardson Davie (N. Carolina, he did not sign the final draft of the constitution)

That's two "you" :)lol:) missed.

But, wait, here's another: Alexander Martin. He owned slaves in 1787, too.

That's three.

Face it, you tried to pretend you knew what you were talking about, and it's been proven that you didn't. Just admit it and let's move on.



He can, however, provide a source that has not been proven wrong thus far. You mistakenly made a claim that your own source didn't support (even though you failed to cite that source) AND I've since shown that your claims were false (multiple times over now).

I've also now named more than one person who was not included on your list that owned slaves in 1787. Do I have to name eveyr single one for you to admit that, when you were plagarizing someone else, you were talking out of your ass?







Saying that repeatedly doesn't make it true, though.



Nobody said most. It's bad enough that you're a plagarizer, but please stop lying.








the only thing that's been proven false is your false claims.
Click to expand...

No, not almost all. Not even almost half. See? That's where your argument and the facts part ways.
 
apdst said:
No, not almost all. Not even almost half. See? That's where your argument and the facts part ways.
Click to expand...

He usually imported the slaves into delaware and New Jersey to avoid paying the high import taxes Pennsylvania charged. Tell me where my argument and the facts part ways.

And, just so you know, I require more than you just saying "nope, you're wrong" in order to believe what you say when it's known for a fact that you lie, make **** up, and plagiarize other people's work.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom