Mock Slave Auction Brings Some Spectators to Tears

Grant said:

Neither the French or the British have their hands clean, or are in any position to lecture Americans about their past. This game of oneupmanship being played by the Europeans is one they will lose should they ever want to get serious about it.

Click to expand...

just one more reason we should've let Hitler kick their ungrateful arses.

OscarB63 said:

most non-slave owners were poor people who didn't give a **** about slavery. they were just trying to keep their families from starving.

Click to expand...

I agree with this, Oscar.

But I'm a bit surprised you think this way based on comments I've seen from you regarding other people in a similar position who exist in teh world today. Do you not think that there is some complicity form these non-slave owners for not "standing up" to their slave owning, extremist bretheren?

Tucker Case said:

I agree with this, Oscar.

But I'm a bit surprised you think this way based on comments I've seen from you regarding other people in a similar position who exist in teh world today. Do you not think that there is some complicity form these non-slave owners for not "standing up" to their slave owning, extremist bretheren?

Click to expand...

sure, plenty of blame to go around for EVERYBODY.

OscarB63 said:

sure, plenty of blame to go around for EVERYBODY.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. :lol: My mistake.

j-mac said:

Oh please tell us what the 3/5 clause was all about then, if you would.


j-mac

Click to expand...

It was about how much political power the slave states would have. The south wanted to count slaves as whole people, for the purposes of congressional representation. This way, they'd get more seats in congress. The north wanted slaves to count as zero people, so that the slave states would have less congressional representation. Both sides tried to rationalize it, but really it was just about power. End result? "Well, let's just split the difference."

apdst said:

Show us what percentage of the Founders owned slaves. Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

Digital History

Of the 55 Convention delegates, about 25 owned slaves.

Click to expand...

25/55 x 100 = 45%

Are you going to argue what a 'large percentage' is now? Better yet, are you going to argue that Italy didn't have any concentration camps and nobody died as a result of fascism?

Deuce said:

It was about how much political power the slave states would have. The south wanted to count slaves as whole people, for the purposes of congressional representation. This way, they'd get more seats in congress. The north wanted slaves to count as zero people, so that the slave states would have less congressional representation. Both sides tried to rationalize it, but really it was just about power. End result? "Well, let's just split the difference."

Click to expand...

Ok, so the free north, (mostly filled with conservatives at the time) were against slavery, and the south, argued before being politically liberal, wanted slavery. So what has really changed? Today's liberal want's to keep the AA community under their boot as well.

j-mac

Hatuey said:

Digital History



25/55 x 100 = 45%

Are you going to argue what a 'large percentage' is now? Better yet, are you going to argue that Italy didn't have any concentration camps and nobody died as a result of fascism?

Click to expand...

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.

j-mac said:

Ok, so the free north, (mostly filled with conservatives at the time) were against slavery, and the south, argued before being politically liberal, wanted slavery. So what has really changed? Today's liberal want's to keep the AA community under their boot as well.

j-mac

Click to expand...

Quite correct.

Lincoln was a Republican and his opponents were Democrats.

That Democrat tradition carried right through to George Wallace and Robert Byrd, and yet they claim to represent the AA.

Amazingly, they pulled it off too.

Well it's definitely a sensitive subject.

Remember the school teacher who was suspended (maybe eventually fired) because she reenacted the slave-trade with her black students?

Aunt Spiker said:

Well it's definitely a sensitive subject.

Remember the school teacher who was suspended (maybe eventually fired) because she reenacted the slave-trade with her black students?

Click to expand...

Yeah, God forbid she actually teach them any history in her history class. :rofl

OscarB63 said:

any number to back up your biased opinion? I got my numbers from the 1850 census. where did you get yours? your ass?

most non-slave owners were poor people who didn't give a **** about slavery. they were just trying to keep their families from starving.

Click to expand...

I was wrong. It was 25% of white farmers.

You have a pretty sympathetic opinion. How did the Klu Klux Klan, with its broad array of membership in all rungs of society, stop people's families from starving?

Saying that the majority of southern whites did not benefit economically from slavery is one thing (although there are ways of challenging that assertion, since slavery figured heavily into their economy). They definitely had cultural and social investments in slavery as an institution.

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

Click to expand...

A fact is only as good as its contribution to truth. The premises you are trying to assert have no more reality than your opponent's.

Morality Games said:

I was wrong. It was 25% of white farmers.

You have a pretty sympathetic opinion. How did the Klu Klux Klan, with its broad array of membership in all rungs of society, stop people's families from starving?

Click to expand...

just can't let go of the "all white people are racists" mantra can you?

OscarB63 said:

just can't let go of the "all white people are racists" mantra can you?

Click to expand...

Because, at the end of the day the, "yooz-a-white, bigot/racist/homophobe/sexist", is the only argument that Libbos really have.

OscarB63 said:

just can't let go of the "all white people are racists" mantra can you?

Click to expand...

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.

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...

That's because Southern society, as a whole, wasn't as complicit in the institution of slavery as you Leftists want to make out.

But, of course, that's not the version of history that you want everyone to except.

So far, we have one poster claiming that nearly half of the delegates at the 1787 Constitutional Convention were slave owners. Untrue.

And another poster saying that 25% of all whites in the south owned slaves. Again, untrue.

Where do the lies end?

apdst said:

That's because Southern society, as a whole, wasn't as complicit in the institution of slavery as you Leftists want to make out.

But, of course, that's not the version of history that you want everyone to except.

So far, we have one poster claiming that nearly half of the delegates at the 1787 Constitutional Convention were slave owners. Untrue.

And another poster saying that 25% of all whites in the south owned slaves. Again, untrue.

Where do the lies end?

Click to expand...

Complicity in slavery is not limited to slave ownership when an entire economy + culture is built around it.

EDIT:

Mistaking southern whites for southern farmers isn't much of a leap in a casual debate when the subject is an agriculture-focused society.

Morality Games said:

Complicity in slavery is not limited to slave ownership when an entire economy + culture is built around it.

Click to expand...

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.

Erod said:

Let us not forget that every world power in world history to that point was built on the backs of oppression and slavery. The United States was no different.

When you have no established currency other than labor, how do you pay that labor? You force it, as ugly as that it is. And lest we forget, the African "businessmen" who sold these slaves were black men themselves, and the practice still carries on in Africa to this day.

History didn't begin the day we were born, unlike liberals tend to think. America isn't the bastion of slavery, it was one of hundreds of civilizations that was built with slavery as a component.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but if you think the lack of currency is the cause of slavery in world history, you need a serious injection of reality. Currency in one form or another has existed as long as human civilization. And the United States, and ever other slave holding nation, had a currency during the times of their enslavement of other peoples.

Also ask you're how does one hold an auction, without a currency?

So, slavery is a cultural thing, now?

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...

Africans exemplified a kind of bogeymen in the Western consciousness. The theory was that the humid and tangled environment they developed in impaired their physiology to the point they were unable to advance beyond the state of primitive man; people believed they had a very robust cunning (not quite rationality) and the unrestrained desires of animals. This lead people to believe they were predisposed dysfunctional sociopaths, and that freeing them would lead to the disintegration of society (in essence, roving bands of free blacks would kill the white men and children and rape the white women, reducing society to a perpetual state of conflict).

When the question of slavery was raised in the religious, artistic, scientific and political discussions, the consensus was that while it would have been ideal to have left Africans in Africa, it was in the best interest of both races for slavery to continue, because Africans were capable of rational and morally responsible action. The African had a very negative presence in Southern culture.

Economically? Well, for example, the labor provided by slave-owning plantations was central to attracting the imports southern society as a whole required to thrive.

Morality Games said:

Africans exemplified a kind of bogeymen in the Western consciousness. The theory was that the humid and tangled environment they developed in impaired their physiology to the point they were unable to advance beyond the state of primitive man; people believed they had a very robust cunning (not quite rationality) and the unrestrained desires of animals. This lead people to believe they were predisposed dysfunctional sociopaths, and that freeing them would lead to the disintegration of society (in essence, roving bands of free blacks would kill the white men and children and rape the white women, reducing society to a perpetual state of conflict).

When the question of slavery was raised in the religious, artistic, scientific and political discussions, the consensus was that while it would have been ideal to have left Africans in Africa, it was in the best interest of both races for slavery to continue, because Africans were capable of rational and morally responsible action. The African had a very negative presence in Southern culture.

Economically? Well, for example, the labor provided by slave-owning plantations was central to attracting the imports southern society as a whole required to thrive.

Click to expand...

Translation?: "All white folks are racists an skeered-uh-da-black man".

I stopped reading your rediculous retort after the first sentence.

apdst said:

Translation?: "All white folks are racists an skeered-uh-da-black man".

I stopped reading your rediculous retort after the first sentence.

Click to expand...

That's not how debates are supposed to work, but at least it saves me the trouble of another response.

Morality Games said:

That's not how debates are supposed to work, but at least it saves me the trouble of another response.

Click to expand...

Well, to begin with, responses have to make at least a little bit of sense and not be filled with dumbass talking points.

At the very least, you could post something--anything--to support your post. Without that, it's nothing but your own warped rambling about nothing. I bet Jared Loughner would love to have a debate with you.

TOJ said:

But didn't those dirty slave owning bastards in the USA and/or their forebearers come from UK, France, and other EU countries? :doh

.

Click to expand...

Oh come on now... let's not ruin a good old 'America hating' post.

Grant said:

Quite correct.

Lincoln was a Republican and his opponents were Democrats.

Click to expand...

People tend to forget, or at least ignore, that back then Republicans were liberals and Democrats were conservatives. Southern opponents of Lincoln constantly accused him of being a liberal. It wasn't until the mid 20th century that a socially liberal faction of the Democratic party really took hold, and this caused all of the conservative-Jim Crow Democratic representatives of Southern states to literally walk out of a DNC after it was declared that civil rights would be a platform of the Democratic Party. They then formed the States Rights Democratic Party. This was basically another secession solely done out of racist motivations, except this time it was only a political secession. The States Rights Democratic Party had no economic policy whatsoever and was only concerned with segregation and maintaining Jim Crow laws. When the party failed, Republicans saw an opportunity to get Southern White votes who were disgruntled with the Democratic Party for embracing civil rights. Republicans began heavily promoting "States Rights" on their campaign trail, which really was code word for "If we are in office, we will let you decide what rights blacks have or won't have in your states". They also adopted very socially conservative and religious issues on their platforms such as pro-life, gun rights, prayer in schools, etc. This is all known as the Southern Strategy. In response Southerners adopted the economic policies of the Republican party which really never benefited them historically, being that Southerners are traditionally labor, blue collar, military and tradesmen type workers; not bankers and wall street execs.