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.
One big problem I see with slavery lasting too long is that at some point slavery would clearly contradict the whole idea of the U.S being a democracy. You can't have the U.S being an example of democracy while allowing slavery.
Lincoln had no plan at all and was playing politics, not being altruistic. The American African population is still trying to dig out of the rut of helplessness he left them in.
In support of that point, mass immigration of mostly southern and eastern Europeans in the 1880s-1920s period.
Again, the main thrust of the action was against "slave labor" in favor of "wage labor", not against slavery itself, in spite of all the ideological rhetoric - the fumes of the action - that is still prevalent even today.
I know it's subtle, but ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto
You know the old saying about being careful of what you wish for.
One big problem I see with slavery lasting too long is that at some point slavery would clearly contradict the whole idea of the U.S being a democracy. You can't have the U.S being an example of democracy while allowing slavery.
That point was day one, which is why Jefferson's clause about the evils of slavery was excised from the Declaration of Independence. The whole idea of the US being anything but a democracy for the privileged was an illusion, it just took decades, even centuries, for a critical mass of people to be uncomfortable with the contradiction.
That point was day one, which is why Jefferson's clause about the evils of slavery was excised from the Declaration of Independence. The whole idea of the US being anything but a democracy for the privileged was an illusion, it just took decades, even centuries, for a critical mass of people to be uncomfortable with the contradiction.
I'd point out that the contraction of slavery in America with Christianity had been pointed out by Roger Williams (the man who is ultimately responsible for the First Amendment) all the way back in the mid 1600s.
Roger Williams doesn't get a lot of press, but he was the man who first coined the phrase that Jefferson cribbed as "wall of separation between Church and State."
He founded Rhode Island as the first colony to provide absolute religious freedom, and even included atheists and Muslims in his writings about the need for absolute religious freedom.
He founded the first Baptist congregation in America.
He was a trusted advisor and friend to the Indians, speaking a number of Indian languages. That got him into trouble with the Massachusetts governments because he'd preach "Jesus is real, but those guys are trying to steal your land."
He was the first American Abolitionist.
That point was day one, which is why Jefferson's clause about the evils of slavery was excised from the Declaration of Independence. The whole idea of the US being anything but a democracy for the privileged was an illusion, it just took decades, even centuries, for a critical mass of people to be uncomfortable with the contradiction.
Indeed. Not to mention Jim Crow also was clearly anti-democratic. Yet, it took states being forced to change by the supreme court to do away with it.
Indeed. Not to mention Jim Crow also was clearly anti-democratic. Yet, it took states being forced to change by the supreme court to do away with it.
And back to the violent uprising part of the OP's question when a local government refused to comply with the US Supreme Court decision it took the federal government sending in the US Army with fixed bayonets when a federalized state National Guard/Militia refused to back up the limited numbers of US Marshals.
Only after that point was made that the Jim Crow was really on the way of being killed
... the whole idea of the U.S being a democracy ....
Where on earth do you get this idea?
This "democracy" is not a technical legal term, I do not read about it in the Constitution, I do not read about it in the Declaration of Independence.
"democracy" is one of those ideological fume words - it sounds sweet and feels good like a puff of perfumed air - but there is no reality of it on the ground, or among humans in society, never was, never will be.
I was browsing online several years ago, and ran across a site which had a confederate school book. There was a section which tried to explain why blacks were used as slaves. It recalled how several decades if not a century earlier, the British had tried to use people from India as slave labor under the lash, in much the same way as the south was doing it, and it was an utter failure. As I recall, it said the people fiercely resisted it to such a degree, they refused to do the work properly and so often would lay down their life resisting the master and murdering the overseer, sabotaging the plantation, ect ect. They did that so often the British (I think it was the British they referred to) had to give up on using them for slaves because the same problem repeated itself on multiple plantations.
Therefore, I believe the key to how the slaves could have avoided being locked into generational slavery, rested upon the first boatloads of black slaves who arrived in the Americas back in the 1700's. Most people today would rather fight or die, than be a slave under those conditions. Had the first round of black slaves resisted to that degree, there would soon no longer be a large scale plantation slave system like that. They might have used prison labor for that, to some degree, but would soon abandon the idea of bringing over blacks from Africa.
As it was, just from watching the mini series Roots, Toby was a hard case, but he was the exception, not the rule. Newly arrived blacks to the plantation were often trained by other blacks to forget their past and taught to speak only English, accept their new name given by the master, and taught to do all the the work tasks required on the plantation without complaint or resistance. I suspect the reasoning for this behavior was that life on the plantation must have been slightly more palatable to them, or should I say, not much worse than what they had back in Africa.
I was browsing online several years ago, and ran across a site which had a confederate school book. There was a section which tried to explain why blacks were used as slaves. It recalled how several decades if not a century earlier, the British had tried to use people from India as slave labor under the lash, in much the same way as the south was doing it, and it was an utter failure. As I recall, it said the people fiercely resisted it to such a degree, they refused to do the work properly and so often would lay down their life resisting the master and murdering the overseer, sabotaging the plantation, ect ect. They did that so often the British (I think it was the British they referred to) had to give up on using them for slaves because the same problem repeated itself on multiple plantations.
Therefore, I believe the key to how the slaves could have avoided being locked into generational slavery, rested upon the first boatloads of black slaves who arrived in the Americas back in the 1700's. Most people today would rather fight or die, than be a slave under those conditions. Had the first round of black slaves resisted to that degree, there would soon no longer be a large scale plantation slave system like that. They might have used prison labor for that, to some degree, but would soon abandon the idea of bringing over blacks from Africa.
As it was, just from watching the mini series Roots, Toby was a hard case, but he was the exception, not the rule. Newly arrived blacks to the plantation were often trained by other blacks to forget their past and taught to speak only English, accept their new name given by the master, and taught to do all the the work tasks required on the plantation without complaint or resistance. I suspect the reasoning for this behavior was that life on the plantation must have been slightly more palatable to them, or should I say, not much worse than what they had back in Africa.
Very racist point of view.
Many African slaves resisted, even to the point of death. Your point is that if more had been murdered that slavery would have failed?
"Roots" is fictional, autobiographies of slaves is truth. Read those non-fiction writings and see how slaves desperately wanted freedom, not at all happier in slavery than they were in Africa where they were kidnapped. I have not read a single instance of a slave wanting to remain if they had a chance to be free.
One of the last remaining former slaves, living in Florida, cried (age close to 100, he wasn't sure exactly) talking about his family he never saw again after he was kidnapped and sold into slavery in the United States.
The external debt of Haiti is one of the main factors that has caused the country's persistent poverty. After the slaves declared themselves free and the country independent in 1804, France, with the complicity of its allies, demanded that the newly formed country pay the French government and French slaveholders the modern equivalent of US $21 billion dollars for the "theft" of the slaves' own lives and the land that they had turned into profitable sugar and coffee-producing plantations. This independence debt was financed by French banks and the American Citibank, and finally paid off 143 years later, in 1947....
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.
