1619 Project,How Accurate? (Spanish, country, confederacy, battle)

[KathrynAragon]

Originally Posted by Ziggy100

One could say the same about certain cities that end up with the highest crime, highest homeless rates, highest taxes, highest cost of living, and worst infrastructure, yet appear to continually vote against their own self interest.

This this this this.

[SunGrins]

Much of the southern economy was dependent upon race-based, generational slavery. That alone is a huge indictment of the system and society that supported it. The south was running out of options for expanding or continuing that peculiar institution. The geography and climate of new territories was against them, Congress was turning against them, population numbers were turning against them, and the abolitionists were gaining ground. The powerful slaveholder interests were in control of the south regardless of how many slaveowners there were. We can debate numbers all day but that is the fact that rules the argument. That is reflected in the secession documents and debates. The poor whites and those that were not slaveowners had eyes to see that the end of slavery would likely bring an end to the world that they knew. Even without owning slaves they could not imagine what the future would be like without holding blacks in perpetual bondage. In that sense, they were fighting for their homeland but it was steeped in the stinking mess that was slavery. Secession was the only alternative for many. That failed miserably. Later the rise of Jim Crow brought about a way to keep blacks in a lesser state of bondage. It was not only former slaveowners who supported Jim Crow and the KKK.

[GearHeadDave]

Originally Posted by webster

The idea that in 1619, Virginia's economy was reformed by newly enslaved people is not correct, but it is correct to say that 1619 was transformative. As more Blacks came, more laws came and more court cases. The ability of "black Englishmen" to own property, to vote, to pay taxes, to participate in civil society started to be restricted. Laws were hodgepodge until the the slave laws of 1705 were passed. Freed Blacks lost their status and rights, even the unborn "issue" could be willed/inherited/sold.

Slavey in America became a unique institution. It was race based, hereditary and the child's status followed the mother not the father. Unlike slavery in South America, in North America slaves could not marry and could not seek legal recourse against harsh and brutal owners.

The system continued to devolve into a system of horror: slave breeding. It was a major export of Richmond with over 10,000 a year being sold to go south - an unforeseen consequence to the end of the slave trade.

Slavery did not end with the Civil War. Through convict leasing an estimated 800,000 men, women and children were sucked into a system under which for minor offenses they could be leased to a business, railroad, farmer and the government would get the money. It was enforced through terror: lynchings, rape, burnings, bombings. Race defined where a person could live, who they could marry, if they had legal recourse, if they could vote, if and where they could own land. It even defined when and if a person could walk:cities, towns and counties passed sundown laws: no Blacks allowed after sundown.

In VA, many counties had "Black Wednesday." White farmers could apply for loans any day of the week, Blacks only on Wednesday. Rather than integrate, for years some Virginia counties and cities simply shut down their public schools. The Commonwealth then gave grants to students to attend white private schools, thus Blacks were denied an education, with no school, they went to work.

When the polio epidemic hit VA in 1950, white patients in the Shenandoah area could go to Roanoke. Black patients had to go to the Black hospital in Richmond which quickly filled up. It wasn't just a matter of loading up the car and driving on to Richmond. There were no interstates of course, but without a Negro Motorist Green Book, a person didn't even know where to buy gas or where to get car service: https://transcription.si.edu/project/7955

This is just a snippet from VA, it was worse further south. Va. was the only former Confederate state which did not engage in convict leasing.

In short, race has defined America and still does through its legacy. To ignore this history is to deprive men, women and children of all races their history.

He is correct in saying that segregation was supported by democrats. Segregationists will go where they find a home. At one time, that was one political party, but that changed and I'll leave it there since that gets into current events.

It is simply common sense to have every detail provided about such a significant part of American history. Same goes for the process of the destruction of Native Americans, as white folks pushed on into the frontier. We don't get the complete picture of that process either.

The puzzling part is why people get so wound up about all of this. History and science are the fundamental building blocks of civilization. The more we learn about them the better off we are.

[YorktownGal]

Originally Posted by blisterpeanuts

Another factor not often mentioned is that the British Empire was supportive of secession. The British ruling class felt more commonality with Southern aristocrats.

Southern states felt more commonality with British in 1939 and were pro-early US entry into World War II. The northern were the isolationists against American entry into World War II. The northerns only came around after Pearl Harbor.

One last point I'd like to add: the poor white families of Appalachia were among the least racist people in the region and were, if not friendly, at least decent toward Blacks at that time. Many of them were descended from the Scotch-Irish immigrants of the early 1800s, groups who had experienced significant oppression themselves under British rule, and had little stomach (or reason) to extend oppression toward other peoples. It's sadly ironic that such people today are generally despised by Northerners and city sophisticates as "rednecks" and "hillbillies" who are considered inherently racist bigots.

SO TRUE!

The thing about the 1619 project is none of my Italian family came before 1900. My Italian husband's family arrived in the 1930's. Slavery had ZERO to do with their US immigration.

In fact, nationality were considered races in 1900. My Italian relatives were not considered "white".

A concomitant fear arose that if the healthy stock of the American people became diluted with socially undesirable traits, the country’s political and economic strength would begin to crumble.

Beginning in 1920, a series of congressional hearings was held to identify problems that immigrants were causing the United States. As the country’s “eugenics expert,” Harry Laughlin provided tabulations showing that certain immigrants, particularly those from Italy, Greece, and Eastern Europe, were significantly overrepresented in American prisons and institutions for the “feebleminded.” Further data were construed to suggest that these groups were contributing too many genetically and socially inferior people.

https://www.britannica.com/science/e...tics#ref919667

During WWII,

Hundreds of Italian “enemy aliens” were sent to internment camps like those Japanese Americans were forced into during the war. More than 10,000 were forced from their homes, and hundreds of thousands suffered curfews, confiscations and mass surveillance during the war. They were targeted despite a lack of evidence that traitorous Italians were conducting spy or sabotage operations in the United States.

https://www.history.com/news/italian...ng%20the%20war.

It could have been worse for Italian-Americans. However, Italian-American Fiorello La Guardia was mayor of New York and FDR needed New York to win his presidential election.

I laugh at the idea of Columbus as a symbol of white supremacy when Italians weren't considered white for most of USA history.

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by Ziggy100

Before there was industry in America, America’s income came from slave grown cash crops, as did most of yet Western Hemisphere. Without that “venture capital”, an independent country wouldn’t have been possible.

America didn't have much of an income. Slavery contributed to a 3rd world country that didn't produce much of value to building the country. It built the wealth of a few plantation owners. The slaves weren't spending since they weren't paid.

What proof do you have of your last sentence?

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

Two separate governments Union and Confederate and yes, that was the ticket. It was a fight between Centralized vs Decentralized government --- may the best one win. Slavery was used as the political tool. (England had a stake in it too with a desire for the u.s. to fail, and revert back to them)


One of the tenets of the 1619 project is --- American Revolution was fought so as to keep slavery alive in America. True or false is in the details.

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

I do not believe that the American Revolution was fought to keep slavery alive. Sorry but that honestly sounds ridiculous to me.

It's not all about slavery - sorry. I am glad to see it abolished and I hope we continue on to become less and less focused on race, not MORE and MORE focused on race.

Oh, it isn't abolished, just made illegal that's all. There are 29.8 million enslaved today, more than at anytime in the modern history of our world. The only thing that changed, was the government could no longer collect taxes on people as property, therefore regulate it --- slavery is a booming world wide billion dollar industry today, with 58,000 living in the u.s.. The stories I've read are horrifying. I almost fell in to a slave trap at age 18. So when people say it's been abolished or it doesn't exist anymore, it's like WTH?

Race? It is a government social construct, it doesn't exist. People's, prejudices though, do exist. And that along with slavery were the political tools used for the civil war. Science explains that Race dose not exist, while Cornell University Library Making of America Collection has most all the information one could ever possibly read in a life time about that era. If a person only reads the parts that confirm their argument, they will miss the culture as a whole of that era. Most had never seen a black person before, much less know what to make of them. And they made assumptions of their character based on their knowledge of the day. We can see now what they could not see then. Same today as us living today and what others 100 years from now will judge about us --- and we don't care about that now, as they didn't care about what others would think 100 - 200 years from their existence about them. It was their life and they lived it. Right or wrong, it was their way.

It is a ridiculous thought for me too, that the American Revolution was fought to keep slavery alive, just as it is ridiculous idea the Civil War was fought for the same --- Both wars were a fight for Independence from a government. As there are documents that substantiate one claim, Civil War was fought to keep slavery alive, there must be documents to substantiate the 1619 Project, that the America Revolution was fought to keep slavery alive --- as well. If a person can believe it about the Civil War --- there is no reason why it would not be believed about the American Revolution. All a person needs is, documentation. It doesn't matter if the statement is true, but that it can be proven.

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

Slavery and the abolitionist movement to end slavery were the main reasons for the war. The Southern states seceded BECAUSE of slavery - my gosh, read the articles of secession from each southern state.

But my overall point is that considering that 1) there were 9,000,000 million southerners and 23,000.000 northerners and 2) the north had far more factories than the south, and 3) most southerners didn't own slaves OR plantations, of course there were other reasons as well, for people doomed to lose to rally so hard for so long.

The two are related but the distinction is important. Slavery was a point of contention, along with taxes. But the war was about secession.

[Ellis Bell]

Originally Posted by Ellis Bell

Maybe because the rise in Tariffs if the South was loosing wealth to the North. (good reason for a Union, to garner all the wealth of all the States into one Central location though taxation) If the Confederate States were not looking to good economically, then a Union would look pretty damn good to them. But it didn't. And one of the most heated arguments before the war was the Tariffs.

Economy of the Confederate States of America

"The Confederate States of America had an agrarian-based economy that relied heavily on slave-worked plantations for the production of cotton for export to Europe and the northern US states. If ranked as an independent nation, it would have been the fourth richest country of the world in 1860."

Was the South Poor Before the War?

"Even counting slaves and estimating their income at subsistence, Easterlin’s estimates place Southern per capita income at 76 percent of the United States average in 1840 and 72 percent in 1860. Per capita income in the South was higher than in the North Central states — the Midwest of today — a good comparison since both of these sections were overwhelmingly agricultural in their economic life."

Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry

Yes was nothing in the Midwest and the Midwest didn't build America either. The technology and production of the North East did. 1760-1830 industrial revolution which hit America late because there wasn't much here. Things went from Great Britain to France to Europe, then to America.

How could it be the 4th richest when cotton was only 5% of GDP and that's where the south got their wealth from? Tobacco too.

" Stanley Engerman found a higher rate of growth of Southern per capita income over Northern between 1840 and 1860, 1.6 percent versus 1.3 per*cent "
That's BS. from 1790 to 1860 the per capita income of the NE states went from 60% to 125% of the Souths but this person wants us to believe from 1840-1860 the south per capital income grew faster?

Engerman also said of slavery in Great Britain "If the value added and strategic linkages of the sugar industry are compared to those of other British industries, it is apparent that sugar cultivation and the slave trade were not particularly large, nor did they have stronger growth-inducing ties with the rest of the British economy."
He knew slavery didn't produce efficiently.

The mission itself, was Centralized vs Decentralized through taxation --- if the Confederates had been poor, they would had jumped at the chance to garner more wealth --- also, if the Confederates had been poor, what would had been in it for Lincoln to garner a poor man's economics?

If Slavery was inefficient --- it would not be a billion dollar industry today. I guess people think it's all about sex today, huh --- it is about producing goods cheap, as well.

How Slavery Became the Economic Engine of the South

[Ziggy100]

Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry

America didn't have much of an income. Slavery contributed to a 3rd world country that didn't produce much of value to building the country. It built the wealth of a few plantation owners. The slaves weren't spending since they weren't paid.

What proof do you have of your last sentence?

So you think whale oil exports were where the money came from?

Southern colonies were founded based on cash crops. Northern colonies were founded as a home for religious outcast.

[victimofGM]

Scholars are redefining history towards the goal of hating our nation and white people in general. Complete opposite of what some countries do when they remove or rewrite their nation’s history to remove those events that they’d rather not remember and hope the world forgets.