Republicans built America? Nonsense! -- It was built by the blacks! (suspect, Canada)

[Edmund_Burke]

Little trivia: the average black slave in America lived to be 40 while the Irish catholic in Ireland had 20 years age life expectancy.

[The Homogenizer]

Originally Posted by miu

Without black slaves, America as we know it would have happened, just developing slower.

Perhaps, but time is a resource, and while America would be slowly expanding it's grip on the South without enslaved people, other countries, Spain and France, would have been expanding their hands into the area, which would have shifted the strategic position of all parties, which brings the question of the U.S.'s future into question such that your theory is trivial because it depends on so many conditions to arrive at your conclusion.

Certainly, white, red, yellow, and brown labor could have been used to expand the U.S. But there's no reason to believe that free people would have created an atmosphere conducive to a political climate that was willing to use the necessary force to retain the South in its entirety.

And I feel very strongly that in the long run, American blacks today were very lucky to have their ancestors brought over as slaves, otherwise they would be living in Africa instead in tribes and warring with other tribes, and still without written languages or science.

You're not a fan of Ecclisiastes, no?

[Blue Grass Fever]

Originally Posted by Edmund_Burke

Little trivia: the average black slave in America lived to be 40 while the Irish catholic in Ireland had 20 years age life expectancy.

Sorry, this wasn't meant to be a "urinating" contest....

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by DeafChick

Yes, it was built on the back of Black Slaves. Why is everyone denying this?

Only AFTER Slavery was abolished, that Immigrants were exploited.

If Slavery wasn't abolished, I'm sure most of you wouldnt be here.

Maybe this link can be of some use to you and others here. It seems that over 500,000 blacks escaped one way or another and went to the North during the Civil War and many of them managed to take part in the war. Read about the 54th Regiment that never won any battles but did take part in more than one.

[nononsenseguy]

Originally Posted by seahawkgirl

This is about one of the dumbest things I have read on this MB!

I agree. I think some people post the most ridiculous thing they can think of just to see what happens.

[Blue Grass Fever]

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

I see a lot more truth in that statement than you manage to even think about.

Wow! Let's just disregard historical context and think in binary terms....

(as the kids would say -- "WTF?!")

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Oh for god's sake don't play into the daily racial troll thread.

There were all sorts of Europeans who were exploited as indentured servants and tenant farmers. Many of whom worked side by side in the same fields with their African slave brothers and sisters.

African Americans didn't build America, but we sure as hell put in more than our share.

You were doing fine but just couldn't keep from adding something that just wasn't right. Blacks built much of the South but not many built the North since so few of them lived there before the Civil War. Yes, some of the cowboys on the Great Plains were black but sure as hell not most of them.

[Vinylly]

Originally Posted by Blue Grass Fever

Discuss......true or not?!

False!!!!! It was built by AMERICANS. k:

[nightbird47]

Originally Posted by The Homogenizer

Perhaps, but time is a resource, and while America would be slowly expanding it's grip on the South without enslaved people, other countries, Spain and France, would have been expanding their hands into the area, which would have shifted the strategic position of all parties, which brings the question of the U.S.'s future into question such that your theory is trivial because it depends on so many conditions to arrive at your conclusion.

Certainly, white, red, yellow, and brown labor could have been used to expand the U.S. But there's no reason to believe that free people would have created an atmosphere conducive to a political climate that was willing to use the necessary force to retain the South in its entirety.



You're not a fan of Ecclisiastes, no?

This is true. The reason why few blacks were sold in the America colonies at first was they were full of white Englishman and Irish adult and children who were working out fine. Later the Scots rebelled and were added to the list as a source. There is no reason to assume this practice would have died out if no Africans had been imported as labor. They did fine for most of the 1600's with very very few, and there were still plenty of troublesome 'excess population' as the British gentry refered to them who needed somewhere else to go.

I could see the south having ended up a slave based system with white slaves just as easy if there was no alternative. Economics ran the system and so long as there were bodies it would have surficed. Just as it did fine with them in Northern industries with an even cheaper system. The class system in England was just as strict and limiting and the poor considered a large blight, so no doubt that standard would simply have been adapted.

I also doubt there would have been any great push to end it since it would be so ingrained in the *class structure* that there would seem to be no reason to. It took until WW1 and the utter devistation of the gentry as so many perished before the class system there substantially changed.

Talk about a fascinating alternate history....

[TheHurricaneKid]

The truth is, america was build by people belonging to all sorts of parties.