• 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!

Nikki Haley: 'I could not look my kids in the face and justify that flag'

So do you deny that slavery was still going on up north? Or do you think it was only a southern thing? Remember how the slaves got here in the first place. They were brought from Africa, some traded for rum in the Caribbean, then some were brought to the north, who in turn sold them to the south. I never denied that the south at the time was wanting to preserve slavery, however it was on the way out. A lot of plantation owners worked their own fields. Not to mention the north was taxing the south ridiculous tariffs to pay off the War of 1812, and because the north had the votes in Congress, there was pretty much nothing the South could do about it.

Yes, some northerners were slave owners. At least we agree that the preservation of slavery was a pillar in the southern states platform. And who was it that pointed out that slavery was only just "officially" outlawed a couple years ago in Mississippi? You absolutely cannot say how long that scourge would have continued, it's hypothetical. One things certain, if it had been your ancestors that had suffered the often unbearable oppression of slavery, you'd likely not trivialize the institution as you do presently.
 
Last edited:
Yeah? Since when?

Since they wanted homeland security, the Patriot act, TSA, a way WAY over the top pentagon budget, just to name a few.
 
Yes, some northerners were slave owners. At least we agree that the preservation of slavery was a pillar in the southern states platform. And who was it that pointed out that slavery was only just "officially" outlawed a couple years ago in Mississippi? You absolutely cannot say how long that scourge would have continued, it's hypothetical. One things certain, if it had been your ancestress that had suffered the often unbearable oppression of slavery, you'd likely not trivialize the institution as you do presently.

So I guess you never understood that even blacks owned slaves also? Black Slave Owners Civil War Article by Robert M Grooms Chew on that food for thought.
 
Since they wanted homeland security, the Patriot act, TSA, a way WAY over the top pentagon budget, just to name a few.

Well, the first two examples you listed don't apply, but you got me on the TSA.
 
Well, the first two examples you listed don't apply, but you got me on the TSA.

Well you may not think they apply, but they were brought to you by BUSHCO!! And the two guys that could have prevented the Patriot Act from even coming to a vote, both of whom had reservations over the bill, just coincidently had their offices anthraxed with anthrax that originated from a military base not far from DC, and the crime was conveniently never solved. Needless to say, both men jumped on the PA bandwagon. Conservatives know how to get what they want too.
 
We had to do something after we were sucker punched on 9/11 but now its gone too far.

Sucker punched, lol! Whew, we sure have digressed from the op don't ya reckon?
 
Lemme guess you didn't read it?

Let me!! ;) no, of course I didn't, who doesn't know that there were black slave owners. The Jews are running a prison camp in Gaza too!
 
Admit it, no one saw it coming. We knew al quaeda was up to no good but no one saw a disaster of this proportion coming. Even the firemen were caught off guard.

Oh dear lord, not tonight dear, I've got to go to bed, :2wave:
 
Me too but admit that no one saw 9/11 coming. Like I said even the firemen were caught completely off guard. They even admitted it!

No I won't do that, and to explain why would take too long, derail the thread topic which we've strayed too far from as it is, and get us naughty points! Another thread, another day.
 
<...>Not to mention the north was taxing the south ridiculous tariffs to pay off the War of 1812, and because the north had the votes in Congress, there was pretty much nothing the South could do about it.

lol.

Her posts are like reading a cartoon.
 
Just curious what difference it makes that some blacks owned slaves.

Some did. Very few, by the percentages. But there's a reason the Lost Causers so often refer to the "black slaveholders."

It has a lot to do with assuaging the guilt of the fully white man, who sought to preserve his superiority over the black race, in some states where the population of slaves were more majority than free -- and was willing to die to keep White Supremacy intact.
 
"Black Slaveowners" is pushed by David Grooms, and comes up repeatedly from the Lost Causers.

Grooms plays fast and loose with his numbers and has been debunked repeatedly.

Grooms writes for the Barnes Review. What is the Barnes Review?

Barnes Review

The Barnes Review is a bi-monthly magazine founded in 1994 by Willis Carto, dedicated to historical revisionism such as Holocaust denial.

^ "Willis A. Carto: Fabricating History". Anti-Defamation League.

But let's get beyond that.

It is certainly true there were black slaveowners, but I'm sure, as many know, those free blacks were often prisoners in their own states.
Laws in many Southern states forbade them to even leave the state - unless it was permanent, they were restricted in commerce, legal matters, etc...; just simply living for a free black, even ones who had built up wealth was not as some would have you believe.

As the war approached, even more laws were written that could snatch away their "freedom" at any given moment
...and of course, Dred Scott made it clear they were not even citizens of the country they lived in. read that again: Even Free Blacks were not citizens of the country they lived in

Yes, some black slaveowners bought slaves to purchase their kin's freedom, sometimes a husband would purchase a wife, some did it for economic, pragmatic reasons, and some were just as dastardly as their fully white counterparts. All true.

But Grooms inflates numbers by playing with statistics and presenting a much different picture than actually was.
He also fails to mention a good portion of those "negro slaveowners" were mulattoes -- by all appearances, quite white. But coal black, brown or white - still, all in all, the numbers were very, very small.

Also, the preponderance of those (what are referred to as) "black slaveholders" were actually Colored Creoles.

An important legal distinction, which I'll explain in my next post.

Not to veer too off-topic, but I think a few might find it interesting.
 
Antoine Dubuclet is brought up by Grooms. It's true he was a wealthy slaveholder.

In fact most of the slaveholders brought up in the "black slaveholder" discussion came from Louisiana, and that state was rather unique. They were "Colored Creoles," - many were upwardly mobile, wealthy and a disproportional number owned slaves.

The distinction is often blurred though when referring to them as "Black slaveowners" as

1) most looked quite fair skinned by appearance.

2) many were of European ancestry, not considered "African" or "Black" - and were given special status for a time.

"By 1843, the Colored group was no longer named as legislative special case, but they still considered themselves exempt, and the courts still usually upheld their special status. Numerous court cases held that the Colored Creoles were not considered Black regarding freedom papers, curfews, and the like. But by the 1850s, the courts had begun to treat all but the wealthiest and most powerful Colored Creoles as free Blacks."

The One-Drop Rule Arrives in the Postbellum Lower South | | The Color Line and the One-Drop Rule

In fact it was considered an insult to call a Colored Creole a "Free Black."

Legally, They were "Colored" a serious distinction made by numerous courts.

A Free Black there was not allowed a trial by Jury BUT! “Free persons of Colour" *were* entitled to a trial by jury.

"Justice Porter went on to explain that, since the [Colored Creole] was not Black..."

Legal History of the Color Line: The Rise and Triumph of the One-drop Rule

It's a rather fascinating nugget regarding the caste system back then which some probably didn't care to hear, (or maybe even bother to read) -- but I enjoy sharing these little bits of history. It's how I roll.
icon_smile.gif


How many knew there three legal color lines back then? White, Colored, and Black.
 
So do you deny that slavery was still going on up north? Or do you think it was only a southern thing? Remember how the slaves got here in the first place. They were brought from Africa, some traded for rum in the Caribbean, then some were brought to the north, who in turn sold them to the south. I never denied that the south at the time was wanting to preserve slavery, however it was on the way out. A lot of plantation owners worked their own fields. Not to mention the north was taxing the south ridiculous tariffs to pay off the War of 1812, and because the north had the votes in Congress, there was pretty much nothing the South could do about it.

Does this make the symbol of a nation that started a war to preserve slavery better?
 
I see with #3 you admit that Lincoln was not the saint people have been indoctrinated to think he was. Glad to see someone else admit it.

In other words you can't actually refute the other points I made. Noted. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom