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.
This is what I meant about so many blacks hating whites. The way you spoke to me as if there were something wrong with me because I'd like to see effective and positive black leaders made things pretty clear. No problem, and thanks for helping me to make my point
It seems to me that a lot of people do not understand the facts of slavery at the time of the revolution. Before I go on I want to make it clear that I do not support slavery in any form or manner in case I'm misunderstood.
AS everyone knows both Washington and Jefferson were slave owners. Owning these slaves was not at all a money making proposition. Because of the style and methods of farming at that time, slaves consummed more than they produced and most of the tidewater plantations were deep in debt to mostly English creditors. Now, given that situation both Jefferson and Washington felt that slavery would die out just because it really did not make any economic sense to own slaves. Not only did they house and clothe and feed all of their people they also looked after them when they were past their working days. Both of these men felt responsible for their slaves and were concerned that there would be no one to look after them if they gave them their freedom and dismissed them from the only homes they had ever known.
The invention of the cotton gin changed this economic fact completely. All of a sudden it became possible to make large money with slave labour. Even states where slavery had never been legal adopted it for this reason. Georgia was founded by Oglethorpe with NO SLAVERY allowed.
Jefferson and Washington were wrong and slavery did not die out, because of the economic burden placed on slave owners by the conditions of their times changed.
This is what I meant about so many blacks hating whites. The way you spoke to me as if there were something wrong with me because I'd like to see effective and positive black leaders made things pretty clear. No problem, and thanks for helping me to make my point
Oh...i get it. So just because i happened to noticed your feigned concern for us black folks...i hate white people? That's a stretch.
First of all, that's not your issue. Maybe we don't want leaders in the way that you think we should have it. I'll be my own leader....thank you very much. Now if your community needs leaders, then i suggest that you get to work, but it's not my business one way or the other.
But this patronizing nonsense about "i'd like to see effective and positive black leaders" is nauseating.
This is what I meant about so many blacks hating whites. The way you spoke to me as if there were something wrong with me because I'd like to see effective and positive black leaders made things pretty clear. No problem, and thanks for helping me to make my point
I actually don't believe Black people need leaders anymore than any other race. In fact, I would wager that we're the only race where folks seem to think we need a spokesperson to speak out on our behalf. I'm quite capable of paving my own way in the world and don't need any middleman to state my claim. Though we still have some ways to go re: discrimination, we've come a long way; the need for powerful leaders to fight for a particular cause (ie. Civil Rights) are, thankfully, long gone.
It seems to me that a lot of people do not understand the facts of slavery at the time of the revolution. Before I go on I want to make it clear that I do not support slavery in any form or manner in case I'm misunderstood.
AS everyone knows both Washington and Jefferson were slave owners. Owning these slaves was not at all a money making proposition. Because of the style and methods of farming at that time, slaves consummed more than they produced and most of the tidewater plantations were deep in debt to mostly English creditors. Now, given that situation both Jefferson and Washington felt that slavery would die out just because it really did not make any economic sense to own slaves. Not only did they house and clothe and feed all of their people they also looked after them when they were past their working days. Both of these men felt responsible for their slaves and were concerned that there would be no one to look after them if they gave them their freedom and dismissed them from the only homes they had ever known.
The invention of the cotton gin changed this economic fact completely. All of a sudden it became possible to make large money with slave labour. Even states where slavery had never been legal adopted it for this reason. Georgia was founded by Oglethorpe with NO SLAVERY allowed.
Jefferson and Washington were wrong and slavery did not die out, because of the economic burden placed on slave owners by the conditions of their times changed.
If through their slaveholding Washington and Jefferson were able to pay their debtors, wouldn't that attest to the fact that slavery for them was a moneymaking venture? Did they not profit from the work of their slaves? This utopia of concerned slaveholders who only kept their "property" because they were worried about how they would be treated in their old age is definitely a stretch.
RE: slaves consuming more than they produced. I'm sorry, but that's laughable. They ate the entrails & leftovers from their masters food and typically received new clothes/shoes once a year.
It seems to me that a lot of people do not understand the facts of slavery at the time of the revolution. Before I go on I want to make it clear that I do not support slavery in any form or manner in case I'm misunderstood.
AS everyone knows both Washington and Jefferson were slave owners. Owning these slaves was not at all a money making proposition. Because of the style and methods of farming at that time, slaves consummed more than they produced and most of the tidewater plantations were deep in debt to mostly English creditors. Now, given that situation both Jefferson and Washington felt that slavery would die out just because it really did not make any economic sense to own slaves. Not only did they house and clothe and feed all of their people they also looked after them when they were past their working days. Both of these men felt responsible for their slaves and were concerned that there would be no one to look after them if they gave them their freedom and dismissed them from the only homes they had ever known.
The invention of the cotton gin changed this economic fact completely. All of a sudden it became possible to make large money with slave labour. Even states where slavery had never been legal adopted it for this reason. Georgia was founded by Oglethorpe with NO SLAVERY allowed.
Jefferson and Washington were wrong and slavery did not die out, because of the economic burden placed on slave owners by the conditions of their times changed.
Quote:
AS everyone knows both Washington and Jefferson were slave owners. Owning these slaves was not at all a money making proposition. Because of the style and methods of farming at that time, slaves consummed more than they produced and most of the tidewater plantations were deep in debt to mostly English creditors. Now, given that situation both Jefferson and Washington felt that slavery would die out just because it really did not make any economic sense to own slaves.
Can you reference a link or any reference information that supports your assertion that plantation agriculture as it relates to cash crops was not a money making propsistion? An initial impresson is your assertion is absolutely absurd based on the fact the system persisted so long and there were some many parties vested in it's continuance.
That slavery was profitable seems almost obvious. Yet scholars have argued furiously about this matter. On one side stand antebellum writers such as Hinton Rowan Helper and Frederick Law Olmstead, many antebellum abolitionists, and contemporary scholars like Eugene Genovese (at least in his early writings), who speculated that American slavery was unprofitable, inefficient, and incompatible with urban life. On the other side are scholars who have marshaled masses of data to support their contention that Southern slavery was profitable and efficient relative to free labor and that slavery suited cities as well as farms. These researchers stress the similarity between slave markets and markets for other sorts of capital.
Consensus That Slavery Was Profitable
This battle has largely been won by those who claim that New World slavery was profitable. Much like other businessmen, New World slaveowners responded to market signals -- adjusting crop mixes, reallocating slaves to more profitable tasks, hiring out idle slaves, and selling slaves for profit. One well-known instance shows that contemporaneous free labor thought that urban slavery may even have worked too well: employees of the Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond, Virginia, went out on their first strike in 1847 to protest the use of slave labor at the Works.
Viewed in this way, the enrichment of the slaveowners was vast: from $291 million in 1805 to more than $3 billion in 1860, a ten-fold increase. Slave capital represented 44 percent of all wealth in the cotton-growing states in 1859, the largest single component.21
Can you reference a link or any reference information that supports your assertion that plantation agriculture as it relates to cash crops was not a money making propsistion? An initial impresson is your assertion is absolutely absurd based on the fact the system persisted so long and there were some many parties vested in it's continuance.
I will state the fact that Jefferson was bankrupt when he died.
He also Phophesied in his notes that "convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of one or the other race". Indeed Jefferson said that if racial war should come, God was on the side of the blacks. "Indeed I tremble for my country. When I reflect that God is just, that His justice can not sleep forever; that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events; that it may become PROBABLE by supernatural Interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take sides with US, {whites} in such a contest.
I will state the fact that Jefferson was bankrupt when he died.
He also Phophesied in his notes that "convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of one or the other race". Indeed Jefferson said that if racial war should come, God was on the side of the blacks. "Indeed I tremble for my country. When I reflect that God is just, that His justice can not sleep forever; that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events; that it may become PROBABLE by supernatural Interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take sides with US, {whites} in such a contest.
Jefferson experience is singular in terms of his financial condition. You can't take one or two people's financial condition and extrapolate it out to every plantation owner in the country. That is inherently faulty logic.
Also Jefferson's opinion on slavery was a sea of contradictions. This also reflects some of this thinking.
During the secession crisis, no Americans were more trapped between secession and Union, between slavery and emancipation, than middle-of-the-road Virginians. And no Virginia family was more torn than Thomas Jefferson’s clan.
Library of Congress
Thomas Jefferson
The Jeffersons, going back to the patriarch, embodied all the contradictions of Upper South slaveholders. The author of the Declaration of Independence was also a founding father of procrastination on slavery. At times Jefferson seemed a determined proponent of abolition. He termed slavery an “assemblage of horrors.” He called “nothing … more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be freed.” Otherwise, he feared that “his people” would free themselves in a slave revolt. He thus winced that “if something is not done, and done soon, we shall be the murderers of our own children.”
But he found emancipating slaves without removing freedmen from the country even more frightening than risking black insurrectionists. In his climactic proposal to effect safe emancipation, presented in 1824, Jefferson suggested a constitutional amendment authorizing the use of profits from federal land sales to free slaves born in the future — and then deport them. But he never urged this plan of delayed emancipation publicly, and he privately shuddered that “we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him, or safely let him go.
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.
