Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-24-2014, 01:04 PM
 
Location: Central Florida
2,062 posts, read 2,531,723 times
Reputation: 1938

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Yes, I have read this, Ovcatto...but there has probably been no greater deification in American history as that of Lincoln. And for what reason, I can't fathom. He was extremely in tune with northern sentiment of the day, which really favored just eliminating the whole problem by shipping blacks back to Africa, or banning them from the western territories at all. Most northerners couldn't have cared less if the slaves were free, so long as they didn't have to live with them.

Anyway, my next reply is shortly coming as to your earlier one...

Did anyone ever seriously advocate shipping the slaves back to Africa? I just found this information online about the subject .
American Colonization Society


I know during the Irish potato famine when millions of Irish farmers and their families starved to death the English land owners finally started shipping them to America. This seems similar to that to me except Africa didn't really have the jobs and hope for a better life that America had. It would be more like the pilgrims starting from scratch.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-24-2014, 01:10 PM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,407,431 times
Reputation: 24780
Talking why does the south still threaten to sucede?

Please...

A small (but loud) group of confederate sympathizers chewing on sour grapes does not constitute "the South."

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2014, 01:53 PM
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,539 posts, read 21,184,825 times
Reputation: 16936
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanguardisle View Post
Did anyone ever seriously advocate shipping the slaves back to Africa? I just found this information online about the subject .
American Colonization Society


I know during the Irish potato famine when millions of Irish farmers and their families starved to death the English land owners finally started shipping them to America. This seems similar to that to me except Africa didn't really have the jobs and hope for a better life that America had. It would be more like the pilgrims starting from scratch.
With the Irish, many had lived under conditions much like serfdom. They paid landrent with crops. If there wasn't enough to feed themselves, they still paid. When famine came, the British still maintained their exports instead of giving the food they had to the starving. With the famine, more estates were being consolidated and centralized as well. The Irish were unwanted and excess bodies. Once they couldn't pay the rent, to the landowners they were excess population and not any of their problem. If they died or got on a ship didn't matter so long as they left.

But the slavers who took slaves among their own to sell were operating a business and the slaves were the business. It was much closer to the system which brought the earlier 'excess population' under indenture to labor under servitude for the wealthy in the new colonies. It too was an organized business run along side the slave business, and later the convict business was run by the same companies in the same ships.

The starving and sick Irish came because they had nowhere else. To many they were not welcome and they were considered disposable. They did things like build the railroads, but at a terrible cost. It's said that there was at least one death per mile of track, and today mass graves are being found along side the tracks.

Slaves had some individual value. The crews and factories the immigrants ended up among were made up of people who had no individual value. They were used because they were there. The ones using them had little connection to the ones who set in motion their immigration. They were simply using an availble resource.

Ironically, as slaves were replaced with share cropers, it reverted. If share cropers wouldn't produce, they were evicted and there wasn't a problem replacing them with someone who would.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2014, 07:42 PM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,533,044 times
Reputation: 5943
Grandstander?

You and I have butted heads before, and I know your screen moniker is apt as to your seemingly inflated opinion of yourself (LOL...I remember a few times you actually stated outright that some posters seem to be "in awe" of you! I think you really believe it! Oh well...). But really, other than that aspect, you are interesting to argue with...

Quote:
=Grandstander;34503207]The above is no longer true, generally or otherwise. I would first point to the obvious...you are here writing your version and interpretation of the events....are you one of the winners?
I have already pointed out the "obvious" you speak of on quite a few previous threads.

That is? Of course I am giving my own version of it all. So what?

That is the whole point from the start. I do give a very biased version. Same as northern apologists/partisans on this topic who grew up believing in the moral righteousness of a crusading North coming down the "free the slaves.", give their own biased version. Or whatever it might be.

History is not an objective subject...just like the Ft. Sumter thing, for example. In northern history, it is presented as an event which indicated a desire on the part of the South to start a war and was justifiably responded to. From the Southern point of view (which I share), it was fully justified on the grounds that the fort was in CSA territorial waters and occupied by troops from a foreign nation which had signaled hostile intentions aforehand, and just needed an excuse to start a war themselves...

In fact, I can't blame them at all if that is all they ever grew up reading and hearing. Which goes back to the advantages held by either side. To wit:

1. The "North" (and their believers or whatever), has the advantage of years of "winners history" which has simply been naturally accepted as "truth." All the way from school textbooks to mainstream media and all.

2. The "South" has (increasingly) the advantage of presenting facts -- thanks to the internet in many ways -- of presenting factual information that has never come out before. I LOVE it.

So anyway, ok? What are you saying that I have never said before, myself? Your whole tone comes across as one who presumes a supercilious and didactic outlook. Please elaborate and be specific...?

Quote:
Further, following the Civil War there was such an enormous production of memoirs, arguments conducted in the press by former rebel leaders, and lecture tours, that it eventually received the collective name of "Lost Cause Literature."
See above. Of course there are...now. And high time, wouldn't you say? Point is (and always has been), it is a long time coming and for good reasons. The South had the best constitutional arguments on its side. But for the longest time, it was the general

Quote:
I am unaware of any of these works being censored. The war's losers wrote more history than you could read in a lifetime.
Just because you are "unaware" of it, doesn't mean the appellation of "censored" doesn't apply to the historical reality.

Also? While you are probably right in that the books/sites coming out in comparatively modern times are more than can be read in a lifetime? However? Take the flip side as in how many on the other side could possibly be read in even three or four of them?

Uhhhh, war "losers" wrote more? Would you really like to make a comparative mathematical debate out of this one term of "mainstream" books and school texts, in this regard? If so? Say so and we can go.

Quote:
Finally, what was "Mein Kampf" if not history written by a war's loser? What are all those books about the Vietnam War written by Americans doing on the shelves? How many of them do you find as opposed to books on that war written by former VC's?
Geez. What does this have to do with anything at all?

Quote:
The cliche you are employing may have once had a valid application, but clearly that is no longer the case. It certainly has no application to the American Civil War.
Yes, it does. See above again! It has only been comparatively recently the Southern side of it has been truly presented. And it literally infuriates/baffles/confuses some of those who cling to the traditional "winners history."

Last edited by TexasReb; 04-24-2014 at 08:26 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2014, 07:54 PM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,533,044 times
Reputation: 5943
Quote:
=ovcatto;34508549]I think that I will be extending the Lenten Season, thus giving the mods a much needed rest.

(see status)
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!

Have a good evening!


Teal | The Emancipation Proclamation and U.S. Foreign Policy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2014, 10:03 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,004,388 times
Reputation: 21237
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Grandstander?

You and I have butted heads before, and I know your screen moniker is apt as to your seemingly inflated opinion of yourself (LOL...I remember a few times you actually stated outright that some posters seem to be "in awe" of you! I think you really believe it! Oh well...). But really, other than that aspect, you are interesting to argue with...
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. I provided examples of how such a belief is false. The rest of your response was basically "no" without supporting reasons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 01:18 AM
 
Location: Myrtle Creek, Oregon
15,293 posts, read 17,592,452 times
Reputation: 25230
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanguardisle View Post
Did anyone ever seriously advocate shipping the slaves back to Africa? I just found this information online about the subject .
American Colonization Society
Liberia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 08:41 AM
 
447 posts, read 492,769 times
Reputation: 478
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
No, it wasn't. Most of the blacks in the northern states were there because that part of the country was where slavery on the American continent first began (Massachusetts was the first to legalize slavery).



No, it isn't. The analogy is ludicrous and doesn't hold up at all in terms of the writing of history. The northeastern states made a pure profit off the slave trade, and later wanted to deny it.

The northern states only abolished slavery because they found it was much easier and convenient to hire and fire "free" workers" bound by labor contracts and to the "company store", not out of any altruistic concerns for black people. Also? None of them abolished it outright, only when there would be no economic inconvenience.

Here is a good one:

Northern Emancipation

Edgar McManus, the historian of Northern slavery, finds that �abolitionists of the 1780's belonged to the business elite which thirty years before had reaped handsome profits from the slave trade. The precipitous decline of the trade after 1770 apparently sharpened the moral sensibilities of those who had formerly profited. ... The leaders of the abolition movement were honorable men who sincerely regarded slavery as a great moral wrong. But it is also true that they embraced antislavery at a time when it entailed no economic hardship for their class.�




This "point" makes absolutely no sense in turn. Try and be a little more explanatory in what point you are trying to make (whatever it might be). For one thing, as a general rule, abolitionists were generally despised in the northern states (the worst race-riot in American history as related to the War was in New York City and the violence was directed at blacks).



By the way? New Jersey was actually the last state to officially outlaw slavery. Regardless though, the most "segregated" cities in the US were in northern states...and the most violent resistance in northern cities (Boston, MA, Pontiac, MI), and Dr. King once said along the lines of "If you want to teach a white Southerner how to hate, send him to Chicago.."

So just come to terms with it and yourself. You are a self-righteous northerner who cannot stand the fact that some of your own region's history can come back to haunt you!

Before signing off though, gotta add this one for the edification of those New Englanders who think Rhode Island was some sort of bastion of freedom and liberation...

Slavery in Rhode Island
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.

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.

PS. New York is not even close to being the worst race riot ever. Look instead to Tulsa, OK in 1921.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 08:45 AM
 
447 posts, read 492,769 times
Reputation: 478
One more thing. New Jersey was not the last state to abolish slavery. The were not even close!
Mississippi is the last as they only ratified the 13th amendment 150 years after the fact. 1/30/2014.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2014, 09:05 AM
 
Location: Earth
4,505 posts, read 6,461,503 times
Reputation: 4962
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!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top