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.
Slaves were routinely beaten and abused. Females sexual assaulted. On the part about "braking or damaging the body" you evidently have not read any slave codes - laws about slave punishments or the WPA slave narratives or others published by actual slaves during the ante-bellum period. Slaves were not seen as people or anything worthy of respect and if they didn't behave in the way their master or society wanted, they would have severe punishment or be killed no matter their monetary value as they would be seen as a threat to the system based on having any sort of rebellious spirit/behavior.
...I agree with the green. However, I'm not sure you could classify the black women being raped as a part of them being slaves. Rap was fairly common for white women in those days as well.
...The rest I believe was more propaganda. Not being completely insane, I do believe what you say did happen. From what I gather, it was used to instill fear into the slaves. Many stories were over dramatized and some were made up. From the records of many plantations and slaves, slavery wasn't the worse case scenario that many thought it was. I know I'll get 50 people yelling at me for this, but some slaves actually preferred slavery to being free. It wasn't so much that they hated freedom, it was that life was much more comfortable as a slave. Of course for the far south and the terrible plantations, I bet they were scared but happy beyond expression. To clarify, I think this was a sizable chuck but far from the majority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
I'm thinking you meant they didn't have "good rights" and legal protection in the north for a long time. See above in regards that nearly all white Americans had racist views of black people in that era.
You are correct, but IMO, I think the north was better to a degree. If I made it sound like the north was a paradise, this was not the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
On the press, there were many different types of newspapers in the country back then some dependent on geographic regions. People also published political pamphlets with their views. However, southerners were very aware of the abolitionists position on slavery and their reasons for their views due to the planters, primarily being an educated society and them keeping up with the news of the day. Southern newspapers also printed speeches of abolitionist in their publications so southerners had access to that information. To call abolitionists and their message "propaganda" thought is not correct.
Propaganda - information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
I think this is were we disagree the most. Heavy Propaganda has been used in American media since before..., well since people came here. Comparing historical news sources only proves this. Try and read the same story from the Blaze and Huffington Post. The propaganda will tell very different stories, more than likely, anything from what actually happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
Blacks in the south did not take "low paying jobs" from whites. They were slaves and worked for free.
American Civil War Census Data
Not all blacks in the south were slaves at that time. Getting back to the fear of freeing slaves, many blacks did get paid much lower wages than whites. To a southern employer, you pay much less and get the same work. Many went with the black employee, especially when you could get away with more unlawful things. This further made it harder for a southern white to get a job. From what I gather, they saw what was happening to the free population and feared that times 2000% or what ever the ratio of slaves to free blacks in that particular state.
The part in which calculating slave owning families gets tricky. This says 8%, or about 18% or so for the south. The part that gets tricky is that many families were fairly large back then and included immediate family. So even though few people owned slaves, the large grouping of people increases these ratios. From what I understand, mainly only the head of the household carried the actual deed for the slave. I just got a chill up my spine as I typed that last phrase.
...I agree with the green. However, I'm not sure you could classify the black women being raped as a part of them being slaves. Rap was fairly common for white women in those days as well.
...The rest I believe was more propaganda. Not being completely insane, I do believe what you say did happen. From what I gather, it was used to instill fear into the slaves. Many stories were over dramatized and some were made up. From the records of many plantations and slaves, slavery wasn't the worse case scenario that many thought it was. I know I'll get 50 people yelling at me for this, but some slaves actually preferred slavery to being free. It wasn't so much that they hated freedom, it was that life was much more comfortable as a slave. Of course for the far south and the terrible plantations, I bet they were scared but happy beyond expression. To clarify, I think this was a sizable chuck but far from the majority.
You are correct, but IMO, I think the north was better to a degree. If I made it sound like the north was a paradise, this was not the case.
Propaganda - information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
I think this is were we disagree the most. Heavy Propaganda has been used in American media since before..., well since people came here. Comparing historical news sources only proves this. Try and read the same story from the Blaze and Huffington Post. The propaganda will tell very different stories, more than likely, anything from what actually happened.
American Civil War Census Data
Not all blacks in the south were slaves at that time. Getting back to the fear of freeing slaves, many blacks did get paid much lower wages than whites. To a southern employer, you pay much less and get the same work. Many went with the black employee, especially when you could get away with more unlawful things. This further made it harder for a southern white to get a job. From what I gather, they saw what was happening to the free population and feared that times 2000% or what ever the ratio of slaves to free blacks in that particular state.
The part in which calculating slave owning families gets tricky. This says 8%, or about 18% or so for the south. The part that gets tricky is that many families were fairly large back then and included immediate family. So even though few people owned slaves, the large grouping of people increases these ratios. From what I understand, mainly only the head of the household carried the actual deed for the slave. I just got a chill up my spine as I typed that last phrase.
I think you would benefit from reading The Half has Never Been Told, by Edward E. Baptist. You would learn a tremendous amount about the economy--and the brutality--of slavery in the 19th century.
In the 1820s, 1/3 of all US wealth was its slaves. Married women and children did not own property. A man, who was the head of the household, was the owner of the slaves that his family benefitted from. Especially as the southwest (Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana) opened to slaveholders, even "free" blacks in the south were frequently enslaved and put to work on cotton plantations.
The whip was used to increase the amount of raw cotton picked. It was part of the slave, land, and cotton economy that fueled the rise--and industrialization--of the United States.
There was an important difference between the northerners and southerners in this era: the northerners didn't own slaves.
You might want to look into that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Cotton was produced by the "whipping machine." Torture was the enforcement mechanism for increasing productivity.
This is true, but not of all. All the slave owners weren't slack jawed yokels, some were quiet educated and conducted there business as such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Your southern friends are victims of modern propagandists; the Confederacy was motivated by slavery: its retention and its expansion. By the mid-19th century, about 25% of white families in the South owned slaves. Slaves were the "wallet" of the antebellum South.
As what I said on my last post, how is this equation ran? Yes, money buys propaganda, but not votes. Slave owners did receive partial votes for their slaves, but those pailed in comparison to those of low income whites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Sugar harvesting mechanized before cotton harvesting. And cotton harvesting by slaves was more productive than harvesting by free labor. It is pure fantasy that slavery was "on its way out." Commercial mechanized cotton harvesting began in 1944. That date would likely have been later had slavery continued.
It was thought that the Civil War caused the Lancashire Cotton Famine, a period between 1861–1865 of depression in the British cotton industry, by blocking off American raw cotton. Some, however, suggest that the Cotton Famine was mostly due to overproduction and price inflation caused by an expectation of future shortage.
Brady, Eugene A. (1963). "A Reconsideration of the Lancashire "Cotton Famine"". Agricultural History. 37 (3): 156–157.
Prior to the Civil War, Lancashire companies issued surveys to find new cotton-growing countries if the Civil War were to occur and reduce American exports. India was deemed to be the country capable of growing the necessary amounts. Indeed, it helped fill the gap during the war, making up only 31% of British cotton imports in 1861, but 90% in 1862 and 67% in 1864
Logan, Frenise A. (1958). "India—Britain's Substitute for American Cotton, 1861–1865". The Journal of Southern History. 24 (4): 472–476. doi:10.2307/2954674.
The fluctuations in the cotton market would have taken its toll. Not to mention the development of British territories.
I think you would benefit from reading The Half has Never Been Told, by Edward E. Baptist. You would learn a tremendous amount about the economy--and the brutality--of slavery in the 19th century.
The reviews all look liberal, and I would have to agree seeing were he is from. I wouldn't learning more but he has done a series of these books and the reviews all look to be on the liberal side. The association of all American wealth with slavery is kinda a warning light. This argument has been used very heavily by liberals in the past to get reparations from those who aren't the descendants of slave holders. However, I should take my own advise and leave the politics in the political section.
...From some passages, I can tell that he attacks things without knowing of them first. One instance would be husbandry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
In the 1820s, 1/3 of all US wealth was its slaves. Married women and children did not own property. A man, who was the head of the household, was the owner of the slaves that his family benefitted from. Especially as the southwest (Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana) opened to slaveholders, even "free" blacks in the south were frequently enslaved and put to work on cotton plantations.
I'm well aware of this, it also happen quite a bit in the north in the later years of slavery. Some more tender thrown on the north.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
The whip was used to increase the amount of raw cotton picked. It was part of the slave, land, and cotton economy that fueled the rise--and industrialization--of the United States.
Cotton may have been King in the south, but that money didn't see much of Illinois. We have the steel, coal, and cattle industry to thank for that. Three of many industries that made America and many Americans didn't see but almost any of that money. Just ask regressive southerners if that 19 century cotton industry is still helping them. Commercial cotton dose have to be planted every year, and the fields fertilized.
In many instances, slaves lived much better than English workers and Irish, Italian and Spanish peasants at that time. Slaves were expensive, the life of most of European underclass was worth nothing. That's why the huddled themselves in death ships, any type of floating vessel to America.
In many instances, slaves lived much better than English workers and Irish, Italian and Spanish peasants at that time. Slaves were expensive, the life of most of European underclass was worth nothing. That's why the huddled themselves in death ships, any type of floating vessel to America.
Slaves couldn't do this, which calls into question your claim that many slaves lived better.
They lived better just by the fact that they could eat. In Ireland, let me remind you, people ate grass during the Potato Blight. Dicken's description of the exploitation of workers were in fact benign, very benign.
Who lives longer, a very expensive dog or a stray dog? European underclass were stray dogs.
Why the PC crowd never mentions that during most of the American History most slaves were white? Not talking about indentured, but stray kids from English cities kidnapped and sold in America, etc, etc.
Why the PC crowd never mentions that during most of the American History most slaves were white? Not talking about indentured, but stray kids from English cities kidnapped and sold in America, etc, etc.
Any chance we could focus on Abraham Lincoln in a thread titled "anyone dislike Abraham Lincoln?"
To be fair, discussing Abe Lincoln really brings up two topics almost exclusively; the end of Negro slavery and the conduct of the Civil War. Almost any other discussion reminds of the joke about when someone asked Mary Todd Lincoln "besides what happened how did you like the show?"
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.
