Robert E. Lee statue to be removed- The Taliban strikes again (Austin, stunning)
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.
Re: bold: evidence to support this extraordinary claim.
If the worst slavery came from the North, said person needs to ask these questions:
1) Why were escaped slaves seeking to go north?
2) Why were southern politicians pushing for the Fugitive Slave Act, requiring people in free states to turn runaways back to the South?
3) Why did the South lose a significant amount of its Black population between 1910 and 1970 while the north and west were gaining Blacks?
If the worst slavery came from the North, said person needs to ask these questions:
1) Why were escaped slaves seeking to go north?
2) Why were southern politicians pushing for the Fugitive Slave Act, requiring people in free states to turn runaways back to the South?
3) Why did the South lose a significant amount of its Black population between 1910 and 1970 while the north and west were gaining Blacks?
Give him some time to answer. After all, this guy has trouble understanding what a person is saying about history because he "should take off a few pounds".
I've never found any supporting evidence of the North chaining the South to cotton. I have found supporting evidence that cotton was a cheaper crop to grow than other crops, hence why it was grown more. Growing sugar cane and rice required more capital.
Give him some time to answer. After all, this guy has trouble understanding what a person is saying about history because he "should take off a few pounds".
I asked one of those questions before. I never got a straight answer. I just got "look at Blacks up north now, doing bad".
If the worst slavery came from the North, said person needs to ask these questions:
1) Why were escaped slaves seeking to go north?
2) Why were southern politicians pushing for the Fugitive Slave Act, requiring people in free states to turn runaways back to the South?
3) Why did the South lose a significant amount of its Black population between 1910 and 1970 while the north and west were gaining Blacks?
These are really good points. But the higher paying jobs were up North. Probably the reason.
To get away from the klan? The klan was the democrats. Blacks supported the democrats starting in the 1930s under FDR.
Why would blacks go out of the south when their unemployment rates were similar to or lower than the white UE rate? Everywhere else the black UE rate was higher than the white UE rate.
They were just as racist but they were more polite about it?
I dont get the posters claim you were responding too. How could slavery be worse when the North got rid of slavery? At first they were the worst???????
I asked one of those questions before. I never got a straight answer. I just got "look at Blacks up north now, doing bad".
Consider his afflictions.
Imagine his difficulties in understanding the brilliance of someone like Stephen Hawkins fr'instance.
I still think one of his biggest obstacles is overcoming the underlying nonsensical libertarian ideology. It's rather stunning in its idiotic impotent irrelevance. Implausible also.
"In the beginning, the American Colonization Society didn’t uniformly believe that slavery should end. The society was made up of white men from the north and south, including slave owners who felt that free black people undermined the institution of slavery, and should be sent away. Others in the society felt that slavery should be gradually dismantled, but that black people could never live freely with white people.
As the abolitionist movement grew in the early 1830s, abolitionists’ criticism of the society began to erode its support. Unlike the white people in the American Colonization Society who believed that slavery should gradually end, abolitionists called for an immediate end to slavery. In addition, many abolitionists considered it cruel to deport black Americans to Liberia, where they struggled to survive in a new environment with new diseases.
In 1854, future president Abraham Lincoln agreed with this sentiment when he gave a speech that mentioned colonization as an appealing solution to the moral evils of slavery—but noted its logistical and ethical challenges:
"If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing insti*tution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,–to their own native land. But a moment’s reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days.""
Wealth might come into play as the reason Lincoln didn't have any slaves of his own, as many in that time were owned through inheritance ---- well this answers that:
Why ignore people? There are facts and they are worth being analyzed.
For example, annual income does not give you the full story, especially when ignoring COL (cost of living).
Antebellum south was more than slavery, and the worse slavery came from the north.
That is why blacks suffer in the north and prosper in the south. All their institutions and heritage are based in the south.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
Re: bold: evidence to support this extraordinary claim.
What I went looking for were the stories I had read, where as, those in the South rescued their Slaves from conditions in the North --- there are millions of records that give the accounts of, things that didn't make the polished history narrative, it is those records that I read go hum --- then I go onto something else --- when things like that get brought up in a discussion, it is hard to navigate back and find that which I read --- So this will have to do for now:
"In the beginning, the American Colonization Society didn’t uniformly believe that slavery should end. The society was made up of white men from the north and south, including slave owners who felt that free black people undermined the institution of slavery, and should be sent away. Others in the society felt that slavery should be gradually dismantled, but that black people could never live freely with white people.
As the abolitionist movement grew in the early 1830s, abolitionists’ criticism of the society began to erode its support. Unlike the white people in the American Colonization Society who believed that slavery should gradually end, abolitionists called for an immediate end to slavery. In addition, many abolitionists considered it cruel to deport black Americans to Liberia, where they struggled to survive in a new environment with new diseases.
In 1854, future president Abraham Lincoln agreed with this sentiment when he gave a speech that mentioned colonization as an appealing solution to the moral evils of slavery—but noted its logistical and ethical challenges:
"If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing insti*tution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,–to their own native land. But a moment’s reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in the world to carry them there in many times ten days.""
Wealth might come into play as the reason Lincoln didn't have any slaves of his own, as many in that time were owned through inheritance ---- well this answers that:
Do you honestly feel that Lincoln should be defined by that? If you look at his entire body of work it would show that he was a champion for abolishing slavery and restoring rights to blacks in America.
That being said, I need to call this out as another red herring attempt to direct focus away from the topic at hand, which you seem exceedingly desperate to avoid discussing directly.
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.
