Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's not forget that the first slave owner in America was a black man who owned both black and white slaves...HE started the whole mess!
You are speaking of Anthony Johnson (b1600 - 1670)?
He was not the first slave owner, but the first black slave owner.
He was captured by a rival tribe in Angola and then sold to a merchant with the Virginia Company. Being he came to America as a slave, would not his owner have beaten him out as the first slave owner?
You are speaking of Anthony Johnson (b1600 - 1670)?
He was not the first slave owner, but the first black slave owner.
He was captured by a rival tribe in Angola and then sold to a merchant with the Virginia Company. Being he came to America as a slave, would not his owner have beaten him out as the first slave owner?
This is very confusing . A black man owning black slaves ? I didn't know that existed. I see that he lived a long time ago. I wonder if he treated his slaves well?
I went and found this article on the subject it does say he was the first black slave owner and it also mentions a judge ordering black indentured servants back to Africa. I found this part particularly interesting.
"By 1699, the number of free blacks prompted fears of a “Negro insurrection.” Virginia Colonial ordered the repatriation of freed blacks back to Africa. Many blacks sold themselves to white masters so they would not have to go to Africa. This was the first effort to gently repatriate free blacks back to Africa. The modern nations of Sierra Leone and Liberia both originated as colonies of repatriated former black slaves"
LOL We probably both oughta do something like that!
But I DID want to post this link that I meant to in the earlier reply. And in the FWIW department, you are a worthy opponent, even though we obviously vehemently disagree!
It does appear from this article that both the north and south were aware that England disapproved strongly of slavery and the had to abolish slavery if they wanted to appeal to them.
I was shocked to see that the confederate ambassadors were even willing to give up some of their slavery rights to gain England's approval, here is a quote from the article .
"Confederate emissaries in Europe were pushing for recognition of the rebellious states. Adams also noted that the rebels were advocating to the government in London that they would even be willing to accept a prohibition on the import of slaves and “freedom of all blacks born hereafter.” It was an astonishing thing for them to cede, but as Adams noted “the pressure of the popular feeling” throughout the UK “was so great” that it required such a move by Confederates if they hoped to gain recognition from the British government"
I was shocked to see that the confederate ambassadors were even willing to give up some of their slavery rights to gain England's approval,
You mean that they leaked, floated, hinted or suggested that if Palmerston or France would recognize the rebellious states that the south would begin the emancipation and eventual abolition of slavery, an idea that got gained as much traction as freeing slaves to fill the diminishing ranks of Lee's armies. Well, by the time any of these proposals were discussed in southern circles, Lincoln had been elected, Lee was on the run and the fat lady was waiting in the wings.
You mean that they leaked, floated, hinted or suggested that if Palmerston or France would recognize the rebellious states that the south would begin the emancipation and eventual abolition of slavery, an idea that got gained as much traction as freeing slaves to fill the diminishing ranks of Lee's armies. Well, by the time any of these proposals were discussed in southern circles, Lincoln had been elected, Lee was on the run and the fat lady was waiting in the wings.
Not only was it too late, but it was a hollow offer in that it was made by a representative of the central Confederate government, which by the Confederate Constitution, had no authority to free any slaves.
Article One, Section Nine, Clause Four:
Quote:
"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
Last edited by Grandstander; 04-25-2014 at 02:37 PM..
Not only was it too late, but it was a hollow offer in that it was made by a representative of the central Confederate government, which by the Confederate Constitution, had no authority to free any slaves.
Nor was it ever going to get authority, just as it didn't get authority to emancipate those who were to be recruited to fight in their muck depleted and half starved army.
=Grandstander;34515887] My post contained nothing personal it was entirely on message. That you instantly go personal in reply is why I have not bothered arguing with you in this thread apart from taking the trouble to point out that you were relying on a bogus cliche.
Yes, I agree that my reply last night was a little "over the line" as in "personal"...but I didn't intend it that way and, for that? I apologize. At the same time, though? It is there for the record, about how you have presumed to believe that some other posters are "awed" by you. Can you deny that? Do you actually believe it?
With that said though, it was not "out of line" as in factual information presented as a reply to what was itself a mostly spurious premise to begin with. Further? I will say for sure, there is a definite (IMHO) "undertone" in most of your posts and phrasings that that impart a self-assumed sense of intellectual superiority that have no basis to the degree you presume.
Just as a mild example? Your above comment about why (you) don't bother to argue with me? This is truly laughable! For example? You "took the trouble"? What does that mean and imply?
Wellllll, I apologize again if I caused you some inconvenience in your busy schedule to take the time out didactically instruct me on how I was wrong. It really must be a constant job to do such a thing...
Quote:
I provided examples of how such a belief is false. The rest of your response was basically "no" without supporting reasons.
Read it again. You provided examples...but the examples you provided were countered and dealt with plenty of supporting reasons...and
So what is the issue? But to be fair? Tell you what? Present them again with a little more clarity and I will be happy to answer them again. No problem at all.
=westernwilly;34520219] I do not think that I have ever read anything more wrong on this subject, in life. There is just too much to cover here. To get an idea of how the black population in the northern states got there, then read about the Great Migration. There were two of them and they both took place in the 20th century. For the rest, and for a reason for why there was a "Great Migration", see the Jim Crow Laws.
I am sure there is (see bolded part), because it is an inconvenient fact. And I know about the Jim Crow laws. Now wanna talk about the "Second Migration". That is, blacks moving back Down South? So which one matters most -- if such terms can be used? Apparently, many are coming back to the land that was their roots.
Quote:
You are either getting your facts from some radical, right wing, blog or your are simple making them up. Heck, you may be on the up and up, but just simply are not an educated historian and have been given misinformation. however, regardless of the reason, you are flat out wrong.
LOL You can keep saying I am wrong until Hell freezes over, but once again, here is the site. It is not "my facts" at all. Just because you don't like that your historically metaphorical Santa Claus doesn't exist, doesn't mean a damn thing as to whether "he" does or not.
In poker parlance? Read this and weep, along with the bibliography, and tell me if I am making this all up...
PS. New York is not even close to being the worst race riot ever. Look instead to Tulsa, OK in 1921.
Yes, it is. And I know about Tulsa. But what is really being discussed is what parts of the country and what era they were in. That is, if the North was the real bastion of freedom and equality and all?
Then why did most of them occur up there and during that particular era?
Finally, one of the real points to make is that most of us in the South -- both black and white -- have come to terms and etc, with our past and doing a great job of it. On the other hand? There are all too many northerners who -- either out of historical ignorance and/or denial -- refuse to accept their own...
=Grandstander;34530200]You have got the wrong poster, Tex. I have never written anything remotely akin to what you state above.
Yes, you did. And it ain't really no big deal, but it stemmed from a discussion/debate from several years ago when you and I butted heads. Which the metaphorical head-butting is no biggie at all -- far as that goes -- but I can definitely provide a post which backs up what I state for the record. Why in the world would I lie about it...?
Quote:
An apology followed by a repeat of the insults is hardly an apology.
Welllll, let's get it straight, ok? I earlier apologized because I -- in introspective consideration -- got to thinking that perhaps I was a little harsh and all. For THAT, I apologized, and still do.
However, it was not an apology as in the sense of backtracking on the essence of the larger reply to your own groundless premises. And as I said, I will go back and find it. While I do though? Do you want to state for the same record that you never claimed any such thing? Just say so, and we can make a friendly bet...
Also? It seems that your idea of an "insult" boils down to any disagreement at all. Perhaps you need to stop being so "sensitive"...
Not only was it too late, but it was a hollow offer in that it was made by a representative of the central Confederate government, which by the Confederate Constitution, had no authority to free any slaves.
Article One, Section Nine, Clause Four:
Sounds like the south was getting desperate, unless they would change their own constitution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
