Blacks came over as indentured servants, were paid and freed after 7 years. Why do Libs never hold their African slave masters who sold them and continue to do so to this day accountable?
Looked it up out of curiosity, but it seems once the county demographics are taken into account it is just the statistic probability of there being more minorities in those places, making minority officers and civilians more common there.
Greater anti-Black and anti-Hispanic disparity among fatal shootings where more Black or Hispanic officers were involved might not be due to bias on the part of Black or Hispanic officers, but instead to simple overlap between officer and county demographics. To test this, we reran the model including county demographics. Model coefficients are reported in Table 2. When county variables were included, the relationship between officer and civilian race was attenuated or eliminated. Black officers were not more likely to fatally shoot Black civilians (OR = 1.06 vs. 1.23), and Hispanic officers were less likely to fatally shoot Black (OR = 1.23 vs. 1.29) and Hispanic (OR = 1.32 vs. 1.84) civilians, although the latter disparity was still significant.
EDIT: but the main point may still stand that more black civillians are killed by black cops than white cops, another troglodyte needs to find the numbers
And the first court case creating legal slavery was by a black plantation owner suing his white plantation neighbor to STEAL his indentured servant from him and make that man HIS permanent slave.
And on the Trail of Tears, an Indian Chief plantation owner forced his slaves to march with him instead of freeing them.
History is FULL of hypocrisy examples that embarrass the CRT marxist assholes today. It's why they want it erased.
Same reason they desperately try to ignore extreme black on black homicide. Democrats are beholden to a spiritual cancer that makes them what they are.
First legal slave owner was a free black indentured servant named Anthony Johnson. He sued for the right to own John Casor for life, because they were the same race.
Don't forget that industrialized mass slavery in the states only started when rich Europeans and those that still had allegiance to old europe started plantations in the south and eventually tried to turn America back into the horrid place we fled from to begin with. AMERICANS mostly rejected slavery.
Once America was fully founded and prosperous there was an influx of European nobles and industrialists and all manner of exploiters and they are the ones who pushed the south into eventual secession.
Early on there was slavery in the northern colonies. There is an old farmhouse in Brooklyn, that has been there since the early-mid 1600's, where ancestors of the Vanderbilts lived that have documents on display that mention the family's slaves. It is call Wyckoff house, and is, I believe, the oldest wooden structure in the country.
Slaves in the early days were indentured servants who were typically freed after 7 to 12 years of service and all races were used. The industrialized african plantation slaves came much later and is where the bulk of slavery existed and was the most brutal. Northern slaves were primarily house workers and cooks and gardeners who were mostly well treated and not like the basic field labor of the south.
My example, Wyckoff house, was a farm so slaves did do farm work. It was not a plantation. At the time of the Civil War, most of the plantations were in the Deep South, not the mid-South. At the time of the Civil War, none of my ancestors owned slaves, nor had they for many years. Those who did own slaves had tobacco plantations back in the 1700's and lived in Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina.
Since the time of Elizabeth I, Africans were traded as slaves in the colonies. They were not indentured servants.
The origins of the English slave trade -- the result of which is often described as America's shame -- can actually be traced back to a woman, England's Queen Elizabeth I.
Technically, Mauritania “banned” slavery in 1981, but there were no penalties for keeping slaves so it just continued. 2007 is when penalties were introduced, but it still has millions of slaves.
Child sex trafficking is illegal. People might get away with it due to corruption or luck, but it’s not the same as legally being permitted to own slaves.
its not outright legal but a whole shit ton more could be done to severely curtail it. epstein got away with it for decades so for some people it is legal.
the industrial revolution was a textile revolution and this was what caused the revival of slavery in the south. cotton was needed for English mills. what was picked by the black slaves in america was spun into yarn by the wage slaves in england.
99% of whites in the american south had nothing to do with any of this, and profited not one cent. only the super rich. the elite. this seems all too familiar at times. a class of wealthy elites on both sides of the ocean profiting off a corrupt institution...and they had the sexual depravity back then, too. 75% of whites in the american south didn't even own slaves, and out of the rest, most owned maybe one or two and worked alongside them. this used to be common knowledge taught in every school.
in a country of 27 million free people and 4 million slaves, the planter class which owned most of those slaves probably numbered no more than 20,000, and that includes everyone who owned at least 20...and the super rich of the elite planter class, that owned a quarter of the slaves in america, numbered only a little more than 2000.
snopes and the like are fond of puffing up the actual 1.4% number of americans who owned slaves, by adding everyone who 'profited from slavery', ignoring the fact that the vast majority of slaveowners only owned one or two and worked the fields, and playing with the geographic scope to give people the impression that 25% of white americans were plantation slavemasters.
it was the wealth of this tiny class of elites that made slavery so entrenched in the south. it was the hubris of this tiny class of elites, thinking that they had absolute control of the economies of america and europe by controlling such a major export, that doomed america to the civil war.
it is strange to think that you could take a cotton crop that was 60% of american exports on the eve of secession, and wipe it out totally without inflicting a complete apocalypse on the american economy...but it is not strange when you realize that this crop almost entirely inflated the fortunes of this class of 20,000 planters and especially these 2000 elites. the south after the war was plunged into poverty of course, but this was the lot of 90% of southern whites before the war already.
this is the real economic history of slavery in america, this is what we used to teach in the schools before a failing newspaper desperate for relevance decided to create their own alternate history and present it as the real thing.
in some ways the world never changes. but at least the civil war put an end to slavery in the US.
but it didn't put an end to europe's dependence on slaves for their cotton. because when the cotton exports were cut off, and did not come back after the war, they went elsewhere.
to west africa. mozambique and angola. and to india, where england went right back to creating the same dependence they tried to thrust on us.
and what were the conditions of those workers in west africa, who farmed europe's cotton?
the new york times will not tell you this. it does not fit their demonization of america to point it out. it does not please them to teach our children that, after america had spilled a crimson ocean of blood in payment for the guilt of enslaving our fellow man, a guilt that 98% or more, of those whose blood was shed, had no part in incurring, that europe and england still needed slavery, and kept it going.
outside their own boundaries, but they kept it going. and going. and going.
out of sight, out of mind.
the hypocrisy of the elites is conserved. it seems it is never destroyed, but only changes form...
Not only were 99.9% white southerners not benefiting from slavery, they were being hurt by it. Are your sharecroppers dying? Yeah that's too bad. It's not like I have any money invested in them though, and there's more coming every day.
and it is truly amazing to me that, if you go to half a dozen different historians in search of information about the status and leanings of non-slaveowning small farmers and landless southern whites in the antebellum years of the cotton kingdom, you will get half a dozen radically different stories. and this even before the current outbreak of radical revisionism.
one historian will say that antebellum southern whites emulated the planter class. another will say that they were bitter rivals. a third will say that even southern slaves looked down their noses on the landless whites, they were an underclass utterly without status.
these accounts are not just different in detail interpretation, they are often completely at odds with each other. and yet the records of plantation life, the planter class and their slaves, are relatively consistent and well known.
The Southern US is a lot bigger than people think. It's possible that all these ideas absolutely were not only real but incredibly prominent, just varying incredibly according to region.
100% agree. Human history is a cornucopia of greed, power struggles,cruelty and carnage. It is not an American, or "white people" problem, it is a human one.
Which is why most democrats left deep blue south and looked elsewhere for employment.
The big switch the dems keep talking about, was due to Republicans moving to the south because the rise of industry and development. Most dems left and the ones who stayed, ended up embracing the change that came with it.
The senators and congressman who represented these people, stayed affiliated with their party until they died with the exception of a handful.
The Republicans who came to the south were mostly the carpetbaggers who came after the Civil War. There was no "big party switch". That was just a lie from the left. The Dems controlled the South through the Jim Crowe era and the Civil Rights Movement. (Speaking from the perspective of a lifelong Southerner whose family has lived here since there were 13 colonies).
70% of blacks in the south flipped for the financial benefits of The New Deal, then the remaining 30% flipped for the financial benefits of The Great Society welfare programs.
The die hard southern white racists in the Dem party stayed in the party for life.
The politicians making a big switch is total bs.
Dinesh D'Souza covers this very well in famous youtube videos.
Slavery was dying out, until the cotton gin was invented. Then slaves picking cotton could feed the gin that cranked out loads of cotton for textile production.
They are not fighting for equality. They are fighting for exploited labor. We are the union. We're all in this together equally and if you disagree (as they do), eventually they may actually rebel again. Democrats are the party of rights infringement and sedition, always have been.
So they say, defining "social justice" and "equality" as whatever politically expedient thing is useful at the moment to aid their quest of unlimited power.
Whenever I hear this bullshit about the original sin of slavery I want to scream in their face that they were already slaves and would have still been slaves if no white trading ships had ever found the coast of africa.
And if Kunte Kinte would have been sold to the East instead of the West, Roots would have to have been called Stumps and would have been a single-chapter pamphlet.
And Linclon didn't give two shits about slaves anyways, wanted to deport them and even offered the South the ability to KEEP slavery if they stayed in the union.
It was for power and control. Something patriots were supposed to be against and a reason we formed the U.S. Yet revisionism has turned a man who suspended habeas corpus, jailed journalists and forced a horrific war and death of family lines as a saint. When Europe ended slavery just fine without mass death of their citizens.
But to the victors go the spoils...and written testimony.
Total hogwash. Lincoln was a moderate who was willing to compromise with the South in order to AVOID war. He wanted to stop the EXPANSION of slavery into the Western territories, but the South couldn't even accept that. They seceded before he even took office. So what if Lincoln wanted to send slaves to Liberia? That's more humane than having them remain here living in servitude, where they would be treated as third-class citizens.
The only ones who wanted "power and control" were the bankers and Southern interests (Slave power) who wanted to form an authoritarian, slave-holding aristocracy and had imperial ambitions on colonizing Latin America and taking over the American Southwest.
US presidents have had to temporarily suspend certain constitutional rights during times of crisis going back to Madison. Would you be outraged if Trump had to jail members of the fake news media who were engaging in subversive and treasonous acts?
If being part of this nation bothers you so much, then what are you even doing here?
The only ones who wanted "power and control" were the bankers and Southern interests (Slave power) who wanted to form an authoritarian, slave-holding aristocracy and had imperial ambitions on colonizing Latin America and taking over the American Southwest.
You're spewing revisionist history, sorry. I don't blame you, but you're wrong. He didn't really care, and we know this form his early days in court, to his deportation and compromise to keep slavery. Nothing about being a "moderate", it was retaining complete federal control, taxes and doing whatever was necessary to keep the South in line. Even at the cost of war, which was instigated by the north.
Your fearmongering on what the would of done after seceding means nothing to me. Slavery was on it's way out, and was never going to last much longer. The northern boot on the south's neck played right into the hands of those very few elite in the south. But as you do know, most in the south didn't own slaves. And many fighting against the North were also not doing it for a small subset of wealthy slave owners.
U.S presidents don't have authority to suspend the constitution, and just because they did it, doesn't make it right. If Trump jailed the fake news media for dealing in the absolute scummy yellow journalism they engage in, I would be outraged. It would be nothing short of authoritarianism. You spinning it as "treasonous act", doesn't make it so.
Your last sentence shows how incapable you are of discussing this topic, and your emotional meltdown from your views being challenged. Where did I suggest being an American citizen bothers me? Your ad hominem attacks make you look insecure and arguing in bad faith.
Since you failed history, and didn't read the declaration of independence, I'll quote a section for you. Read it real slow:
--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
You seem to forget how we became a country. You seem to forget we're states, that agreed voluntarily to be apart of the Union. You understand our country is called: The United States. States, who are united. Not by coercion.
You can start your journey on opening your mind to the other side by starting here:
Compromise is a key component of moderation. Without moderation there is NO compromise. You claim that Lincoln wasn't a moderate, then go on to say that he did everything he could -- including compromise with the South on the issue of slavery -- in order to "keep the South in line" aka stop them from seceding. The South fired the opening volleys of the American Civil War. They wanted a war. They got one.
It's not "fear mongering." It's historical truth. The Knights of the Golden Circle was a secret society that had been pushing for the annexation of parts of Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean as slave states and supported the Confederacy's cause for secession. Southern imperialists used the practice of "filibustering" to create slave states in South America. This was the sentiment expressed by Robert Rhett; leader of a group of pro-slavery extremists dubbed the Fire-Eaters, who had been agitating for secession and war long before Lincoln became president -- just a few days after Lincoln was elected-- and of many among the Confederate leadership:
We will expand, as our growth and civilization shall demand – over Mexico – over the isles of the sea – over the far-off Southern tropics – until we shall establish a great Confederation of Republics – the greatest, freest and most useful the world has ever seen."
In a speech to the Democratic National Convention in 1859, Jefferson Davis railed against amendments to the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves punishing slavers engaging in the illegal slave trade as pirates and expressed his desire to acquire new territory in the tropics and revive the slave trade, hinting at its possible revival in "new acquisitions to be made south of the Rio Grande."
The day, I hope, is not distant, when by the acquisition of tropical territory, we shall complete the circle of products."
Not only did the CSA Constitution explicitly protect slavery, it affirmed its right to expand beyond its borders, and with it the institution of slavery. It also opened the door for the reopening of the African slave trade in newly acquired territories.
From the Confederate Constitution:
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States."
From the same DNC speech by Davis; "The increasing demand for cotton requires an increase of production, which can only be met by an additional supply of laborers..."
The invention of the cotton gin increased the demand for slaves in order to meet the supply of cotton.
If slavery was on its way out (in the South) prior to the American Civil War, why did the South fight so hard to preserve and expand the institution of slavery? Why was slavery codified into law in the Confederate constitution? Brazil, the last country in the Americas to abolish slavery didn't do so until 1888.
The northern boot on the south's neck played right into the hands of those very few elite
That's bullshit. The South had disproportionate representation in congress relative to free states due to the three-fifths compromise. They had little regard for states' rights and routinely used the power of the federal government to violate the states' rights of the Northern States with acts like the Fugitive Slave Act. This is TYRANNY:
The 1850 Act criminalized aiding freed slaves (including feeding them), made state officials criminally liable for failing to arrest runaways, lowered the standard of proof for someone to be adjudged a slave to a master’s affidavit, prohibited using jury trials in northern states to determine the facts of a black person’s condition of servitude, and disqualified the alleged slave from testifying or calling witnesses. It also included the dreaded “posse comitatus,” or federal militia, provision that allowed federal agents to impress into service citizens of the state in which they found themselves. Posse comitatus also allowed soldiers to be impressed into slave-catching gangs, creating the precedent for the use of military personnel in civilian law enforcement—something that, under Reconstruction in the 1860s and 1870s, Southerners found to violate their states’ rights."
But as you do know, most in the south didn't own slaves.
I'm well aware.
And many fighting against the North were also not doing it for a small subset of wealthy slave owners.
And many were perfectly cognizant of the fact that they were fighting to preserve the institution of slavery.
U.S presidents don't have authority to suspend the constitution, and just because they did it, doesn't make it right.
That's not the point. The point is that there's nothing unique about Lincoln exercising executive powers during a time of crisis. I'm just pointing out your selective outrage.
If Trump jailed the fake news media for dealing in the absolute scummy yellow journalism they engage in, I would be outraged. It would be nothing short of authoritarianism. You spinning it as "treasonous act", doesn't make it so.
Bullshit. If Trump jailed members of the fake news media for engaging in sedition you would be cheering it. I'm not "spinning" anything. The media is guilty of treason.
Your last sentence shows how incapable you are of discussing this topic, and your emotional meltdown from your views being challenged.
That's hilarious. I'm the one that responded to you. I'm the one who challenged your views. You're the one that's having an apparent emotional meltdown over it. All of your argumentation is based in emotionality. I didn't respond with any ad hominem attacks. Do you even know what that means? The only one arguing in bad faith is you.
Where did I suggest being an American citizen bothers me?
You obviously seem unhappy with being a part of this Union and feel you're being coerced into being part of this nation.
You seem to forget how we became a country. You seem to forget we're states, that agreed voluntarily to be apart of the Union. You understand our country is called: The United States. States, who are united. Not by coercion.
I understand that. I also understand that Southern secession was illegal and illegitimate. You quoting from the Declaration of Independence is immaterial. It doesn't justify the South's secession. The Declaration of Independence is not law. The US Constitution is the law of the land.
You're the one that's been spewing revisionist history and Lost Cause propaganda fabricated by ex-Confederates after the war in order to justify their actions.
Why don't YOU do a bit of reading and read the secession documents; the Declarations of Causes of Secession, and the speeches made by Confederate leaders? They made it explicitly clear that their major grievance against the Northern States was their opposition to slavery and that slavery was their primary motive for secession.
Georgia Declaration of Secession:
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact."
Texas:
She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery— the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits– a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.
We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that conditiononly could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
Mississippi:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
In this screed, South Carolina rails against the states' rights of the Northern States:
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them.
From the "Cornerstone Speech" given by Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, in which he vociferously defends the institution of slavery, white supremacy, and explicitly states that slavery is the bedrock upon which the Confederacy rests, while disparaging the Founding Fathers:
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time."
Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition."
The Confederacy was an explicitly white supremacist, oppressive, authoritarian state. Is this really the hill you want to die on? The South had disdain for states' rights and used the power of the federal government to impose their will upon the free states. There is no moral defense for the South's insurrection and the Confederacy.
Your rebuttal is to link me to a shitty GeoCities style blog ran by an Australian pro-Confederate, an opinion piece from an obviously biased source, written by somebody who is "president of the Confederate Heritage Fund," and give me the name of a book written by a radical libertarian who was a member of the League of the South, and you have the gall to be a condescending prick to me and tell me how I need to open my mind? Yeah, okay buddy.
Interesting post. I don't know much about this, but I've really noticed that the civil war is seen as a sacrifice and an atonement for the sin of (a very small percentage of people) having slaves.
Lincoln didn't change his mind until the midst of the war about slavery. He also drafted immigrants off the boat into the Union army (mostly irish and german) for their right to stay in America. Curious why the bloodline of the south for whites is predominantly those two.. Everyone knows this, it's well documented, and people still deny it for "optics". This is something that people will cry "fake news" about while trying to assume the mantra they do about being politically correct. They just simply aren't. If people could realize just THIS simple point, it would be the last chain link that would be broken to completely know the truth about our past and the real "identity politics". Downvotes incoming.
In the North, yeah. Slavery was virtually abolished in the North by the 1820s with a few holdouts but certain interests in the South (the Planter class) wanted to preserve the institution of slavery in the South and expand its reach into the Western territories.
No one every talks about the white slave trade that went on almost until the 20th century. The Arabs had a solution to their slave problem. They just killed them. No reparations required.
You know why?
Ancient Middle East has a practise of making Eunuchs out of slaves and surrendered Prisoners of War. That's why their atrocities were seldom mentioned again as they literally has no descendants.
Those that are deemed "[email protected] children" of woman slaves of another race (deemed inferior) that copulated with their slave owners? ........Well, once your offsprings' looks passed off as a proper "Human" [Note : can be as quickly as your direct children, or at most 2 gen] in Ancient Arabia WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU NOT DOWNPLAY YOUR BLOODLINE? Her Grandchildren 100% wanted to be passed off as regular menial labourers! (So highly likely that the fact of "slave bloodline" will be buried within 4 gen if descendants can help it.)
And if another global war rages, who knows if the victors would be against slavery or not.
The world is lucky the US and its allies won WWII. The Nazi and Japs already had slavery up and running in countries that they have conquered during WWII.
There have already been some darkly entertaining videos out of this neo-colonial relationship that China has embarked on with Africa.....I expect the shit-show has just begun.
The reason democrats keep focusing on american slavery is not because it was especially bad - you would have been a lucky slave to go to america instead of anywhere else in the new world.
Democrats are using it as a way to beat down innocent white people into feeling they owe $$$ to black people who didn't work as slaves and aren't descended from slaves
One of the few good things about Marx is the describes the appalling conditions of (white) workers in England. 20 hours work day, children with hands deformed for overworking, etc. Marx says that the condition of "free" men in England was sometimes worse than the slaves in America.
Those fucking leftists seem to forget that life back then was extremely hard for everyone, minus a tiny percentage of wealthy people.
Even the wealthy people back then would look at the lower class today with envy.
Electricity, Refrigeration, Indoor Plumbing, Automobiles, Television, Cell Phones, The Internet, Grocery Stores with Thousands of Kinds of Food, Modern Healthcare, Dentists, Literature, Video Games and Many More.
All of these things are readily available to everyone in America, and the Rich of 100+ years ago had almost none of them. They don't care if peoples lives are improved, they are angry that some people have it better than them. They are filthy filthy Commies.
*edit - you really made me think. There are pictures on that site of 13 year old boys who have lost limbs working in risky mining jobs. This seems absolutely disgusting to our society. And yet we are only looking 100 years into the past. BLM and the democrats feel qualified to judge 300 years of our history....
Thank you for your post. It's an issue I'm sensitive about, because all our ancestors went through hell.
My grandparents were peasants, who were toiling in the fields. Now a fucking Marxists pampered champagne socialist who never worked a day in his life wants to tell me that my family had "white privilege".
It's sad to think that every person in the pictures you linked died prematurely due to their lungs being destroyed by the coal dusts.
Perhaps your pictures are even more terrible because that happened during peacetime, but the point is clear: white privilege is a lie.
Even if I was to admit that white people have better life conditions than other races, this derives from the sacrifices and hard work of our ancestors who provided this to us. "White privilege" is our birthright.
If anything, the only reason they want to implement reparations is so they can implement a new tax. They have no intention to give reparations to anyone. That money will go into "research" and "studies". Nothing will ever come of it.
While I was at the hotel to-day an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]---that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
-Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln was a white supremacist. The "fact" that all races are the same is an artificial fabrication made up 50 years ago
And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness, and that is the case of Judge Douglas’s old friend Col. Richard M. Johnson. I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject), that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it; but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. I will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand that there is any place where an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro and the white man can be made, except in the State Legislature,—not in the Congress of the United States; and as I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, and as Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at home, and placed in the State Legislature to fight the measure. I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on this subject.
He's still a white supremacist. Hes saying that he doesnt want blacks to be slaves but he still wants whites to be superior over blacks. I think if you ask any white supremacist, they would agree with that.
Hes saying that he doesnt want blacks to be slaves but he still wants whites to be superior over blacks. I think if you ask any white supremacist, they would agree with that.
As far as I understand him, he claimed in his comments that if "blacks" and "whites" were to "remain together" in the USA, one or the other would have to be the "superior", and there could be no "equality", and that if one had to be the "superior", he preferred that it would be "whites". Following his claims and logic, (geographical? Or "segregational"? Or both?) "separation" would be meaningful to him as far as I can see.
I find his writings of "superiority" and "inferiority" weird. I suspect that it also may be ambiguous - "superiority" and "inferiority" here might be referring to "positions" or "states" of "power" and control, not descriptions of attributes and properties of the given specified groups.
For any "white supremacist" definition, I don't quite understand that - is it about "power" and control, or is it about attributes and properties? If the latter, "superior"/"inferior" in which regards and ways? If the former, is it about desire or goal, and/or some sort of political argument? Or is the definition about something else?
He is clearly talking about states of power and control, which is the same thing white supremacists and white nationalists (separatists) now talk about.
Whether some may believe there are inferior qualities in people that necessitate those positions (Douglas probably did) is beside the point.
He believed blacks and whites were physically
Incompatible
and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.
He is clearly talking about states of power and control, which is the same hing white supremacists and white nationalists (separatists) now talk about.
Which ones are that? Do you have any examples?
And does that make them the same or similar as the people behind pages such as this: https://www.safeblackspace.org/ ? Or https://archive.li/P1XYm ? Are those then "black supremacists"? If "supremacists" are about "separatism", does that make "white" and "black" "supremacists" similar or the same?
My apologies, but defining "supremacists" as "separatists" seems... weird. Would it not make more sense to define them (whom?) as "separatists" instead?
Any other species with the amount of variations present in humans would be categorized and listed as at least 7 different subvariants or subspecies. But we can't do that for us, cause it's "racist".
And maybe the Japanese (modern) to a much less extent. Look at how Korean and Chinese officials always try to make the repatriate for the 5th? 7th? time for what they did in Manchuria and Colonial Korea.**
Not to say the Japanese didn't do wrong, I mean to say that the poor "Muh Oppression" people always just bilk money from the countries that are "Rich and polite".
**Japan had already straight up sent aid and money regarding comfort woman - multiple times - to South Korea. It's due to their Dictators of the bygone era that the Aid went straight to South Korean Gov and most of the poor women didn't see a Cent in their lifetime (most of them would have still been alive at the 1970s.)
Not to say the Japanese didn't do wrong, I mean to say that the poor "Muh Oppression" people always just bilk money from the countries that are "Rich and polite".
Great evidence as to why you shouldn't apologize. They always ask for more.
And at its max, only 15 states were slave states. Meaning 35 states, were never slave states at all. There’s riots in California for something that didn’t happen within a thousand miles from here.
I read that Lincoln was literally a white supremacist who still believed that black people have the same rights as white people.
America's founding values made a white supremacist free the slaves.
When he met Fredrick Douglass and saw the black soldiers fighting valiantly for their country, he started changing his mind and seeing that black people had more potential than he thought. His views on black people continued to evolve until the day he died.
they are far more comparable than many might appreciate.
the cultural arsonistas like to scream about lincoln's seemingly contradictory statements on slavery, preservation of the union, and the emancipation proclamation. his famously ambivalent letter to horace greeley is almost equivalent to a trump tweet...because he had already drafted the proclamation when he sent that letter.
the cultural arsonistas do not recognize a vastly clever game of 4D chess.
always remember, lincoln was the 19th century equivalent of a corporate lawyer, and a very wise, clever and successful one...but he also seems, somehow, to have had a keener insight into what america meant in a historical context, than nearly anyone of his generation.
if lincoln had not placed this proclamation in the midst of an elaborate 4D chess game, tying it to the future of a preserved union, and emphasizing its usefulness in decreasing the economic power of the planter elites to continue the war, emancipation might have been challenged later. as distasteful as it is to speak of people in this way, to the planter class, the slaves that were freed represented the modern day equivalent of 160 billion dollars in property.
douglass absolutely made a strong impression on lincoln. but i think he also tied into lincoln's insight into america's place in history. the same way that trump seemed to grasp that america could not remain tied to communist china, and remain america, lincoln understood that slavery could have no part in a future america.
it was a shame that this genius was assassinated before he had a chance to guide the reunification process. we might have seen the south quickly rebuilt, without slavery, but with its pride intact, and we might have avoided the klan, segregation, and all the tensions that can be traced directly back to the radical republicans and their antifa-like attempt to tear up and destroy every vestige of southern culture.
of course this is completely against the cultural arsonistas' preferred view of reconstruction, which absurdly casts the radicals as heroes.
nothing every changes, does it.
lincoln, by the way, was a polarizing figure, no less than trump. greatly respected by nearly everyone who met him and spoke with him, it seems, yet violently hated by many, as well. there were not a few authors in those days who castigated him in no uncertain terms.
Got any proof of that? Or are you just changing history to fit your vision? Take a look at my quote above. Lincoln clearly believed blacks were inferior
Why don’t BLM and other leftist shit orgs shake their fists at Europe and demand they bow?
Why don't they get angry at Mauritania, where (according to a 2017 study by the BBC) up to 13% of the population is still enslaved? Why don't they get angry at Islam, which enshrines racial caste slavery as integral to the natural order of the world? Why don't they get angry at China, which permits wages to be so low that it most of their poor are de facto slaves? (No, you can't say your people are 'free' when they only get paid pennies on the hour!)
Yes. The U.S. census showed that MANY blacks owned slaves. So did the American Indians. Slavery was not, and is not unique in anyway to Europeans or Americans. It existed virtually everywhere, in one form or another. It still exists TODAY.
That requires thought. Thought is not required to be a modern day media slave and hate is much easier than love. It's also easy because our skin color is our uniform to these demons.
Remember - the first slave owner was a famous black man who FOUGHT in courts to have the law changed so his indentured servant could be his slave for life.
There's no defense of slavery but thanks to Republicans that was stopped. Republicans passed the first rights for blacks to vote.. Republicans passed the first civil rights acts. People should be learning about how Republican party is so great.
Nobody is getting reparations. We have been civil for quite a long time and nobody living today had anything to do with slavery. Leftists are just watching too many Django: Unchained type movies and thinking slavery just happened. Without watches or calendars, humans have hardly any concept of time. <-- That last statement sounded dumb as hell to me when an older man told it to me for the first time but if you sit and think about it, you'll find it's profound.
the worst is Alex Haley's plagiarized book called "roots".I like Blacks but their introduction to the greater society through civil rights was used by Marxists to infiltrate society and use them as tools against white Americans. The civil rights were planned by Marxists even though it might have turned into a good thing later on.
Yes, it makes a lot more sense to demand reparations from the Portuguese government for slavery than to demand it from American white people. Ever notice that there are a shit ton of black or partially black people in Brazil? Guess why!
Like many other white Americans, my family is descended from people who came to America AFTER slavery was over. My family came here in the early 1900s from a country that was never involved in the slave trade. Go demand that the government of Portugal fix things for you if you think someone owes you something for the Atlantic slave trade. I had nothing to do with it.
Quite a few early families, even in the South, had no slaves and no ties to those who did nor profits thereof.
It is a common misperception that the entire "economy" of a large part of North America was built upon slavery profits, but MOST people in the Colonies lived off the land and their own labor with only simple local goods trade and the rare imported need.
Both sides of my family came to North America in the 1730s. One was an indentured servant. There is still a yearly reunion for that family and a monument in the family plot area of the cemetery. They were Germans. The other side were English.
Considering whites were slaves too, whites were lynched too, blacks owned slaves too, blacks sold their own people into slaves too, why does the white man need to suffer the most for something 3% of the population (including white and black) did centuries ago? Every single country and including the tribes had slavery. Whites in the US didn't invent slavery.
The word slave comes from the Latin word for "Slav" because during the Age of Faith (Middle Ages), white Slavs were continuously enslaved.
"Don’t get me wrong, one day of slavery is too long but don’t get it twisted- The United States of America was created in 1776, and slavery was outlawed in 1865."
I get your point OP but you are missing something. these are Marxists who want to destroy the country.they don't really care about slavery or black lives; most black activists don't really care about slavery also but they care about the power they can get from making white people and America feel guilty and donate to their causes which are mostly for their self-benefit. America has done a lot for Blacks and still, there are a lot of problems.don't you think the problem is not what you think it is?
Slavery is bad but it was a thing of the past that was common and Universal at one point; it was an improvement over killing conquered people on the battlefield. Europe outlawed slavery a long time ago; many Ukrainians and greeks were taken as slaves to North Africa and they don't complain because they have more important things to do for themselves, unlike westerners who have low ethnocentrism and low in-group preference. We can glamorize over slavery and demonize it but things were also complex back then and physical labor was always required much more in the past than today.
I pity people who were sold as slaves but they were sold by their people in Africa who were selling them to Arabs before Europeans came. My point here is that things are always more complicated than the way it is presented. Irish were more enslaved in the hands of the British than the Blacks were, and the Irish prevailed at all costs even though they were once disregarded worse than blacks. Slavery is not great but it is not the worst thing that happened in the past or the worst thing that is happening now. There are more slaves today than they were in the past.there are slaves in Africa and Asia currently.
The problem in the Black community comes from them not adopting the required qualities largely needed to build up a successful group or society. Blacks largely depend on the Federal Government for intervention in everything and forget to pressure their state and local government; this always increases the government bureaucracy and leads to far-left policies becoming more viable in society. If you want the Black community or Black cities to be better, you have to tell them the truth using statistics, Logic, historical examples, truth. Pandering to them and calling the Democrats the real racists or white supremacists won't help us.
Every group has needs; we don't need to cuck ourselves because we want Black votes or are terrified of what is going on. We need a good moral framework to survive what is happening because we stand on the higher moral ground.
Don't feel guilty for what your ancestors did; you don't know your ancestors personally and most of them might not be as bad as the MSM or libtards talk about.
It is a great question but Europe has nothing to do with this even though these Marxists are also there. This is something that we have to solve.on our own.
Nobody talks about the fact that whites didn't just go and round up Africans to enslave. The Atlantic slave trade was predicated upon tribes rounding up and selling neighboring tribespeople in Central and West Africa. Blacks are just as culpable as whites when it comes to slavery.
80 years if you count 1783; the year that we won the Revolutionary War, as the starting point of the new nation. America started the process of abolishing slavery in the midst of the American Revolution with colonies like Vermont, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts taking the lead. They were joined by Connecticut and Rhode Island shortly after winning independence.
The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 outlawed slavery in the Northwest territories and the Slave Trade Act of 1794 banned American vessels from participating in the slave trade and banned the exportation of slaves from foreign ships. Participation in the international slave trade was made into a felony with the passage of the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves in 1807.
That it took only 80 years since winning our independence in 1783 to fully abolish slavery in the US should be viewed as a great achievement.
I'd like to give a shout out to Barack's Outdoor Slave Market and Live Bait Shop 4th Gate West just across the street from Imam Bukhari Mosque east of beautiful downtown Sirte. Auction starts at 8 PM every Wednesday night. Swimming pool and lounge area available for Platinum Club members. Remember our motto "The Slaves That Can Take A Beating" (and death to infidels)
BLM and the riots are no motivated by slavery or oppression groups or any of that shit they claim. Rule #1 - if they are claiming it, its a lie or it's built on a lie or is a irrelevant truth. This is an act of WAR by a international group of nations and rich individuals.
It's WAR by any means available to them. It just so happens that we dominate the massive kinetic kind, so they avoid that theater. WAR nonetheless.
Declaration of Independence in 1776 is the conception.
Adoption of the Constitution in 1787 is the birth.
Ratification of the Constitution in 1791 is the Christening.
So, the United States only permitted slavery from 1787 to 1865 --> 78 years.
Slavery and conquest were the way of the world before we ended those practices across the world.
Also, there was anti-slavery sentiment in the colonies before the revolution! The first essay published against slavery was written by a man from Massachusetts.
Shit, the very first war America entered after its birth was to destroy the slave infrastructure off the coast of Northern Africa, where Muslim Barbary pirates had launched slavery raids and taken over 1.2 million Europeans into the slave markets of the Arab world. The American navy showed up over the horizon and the cannons started thundering.
Jews and Muslims, black African warlords all made the equivalent of hundreds of billions in that time. maybe trillions. Take everything from them, then we'll talk.
Its not about blame. Its about influence and politics. America will never be allowed to get past slavery. Ever. Those who want or need to see America bleed for whatever reason find it too politically expedient of a tool for multiple reasons and ends. No amount of penance can be done for an "original sin" thats too convenient to be forgiven. If this summer has taught me anything, its this. Slavery is happening right now, today in the middle east and Africa and nobody gives a shit.
We did not gain the independence till After we won
the war, which took a long fucking time..
Anyway, we had to win, THEN vote to ratify the constitution.. THEN get our first President, which happened in 1789
Fast forward to when slavery was banned in all of the USA, which is 1862 from the emancipation proclamation.
So 1862-1789 = 73
However.. if you take in account states that outlawed slavery, like Ohio, when it became a state in 1803,
then really, slavery only existed in a FEW states
for a fraction of her life.
The arguement that the founding fathers should have abolished slavery at the founding of the country shows they have no understanding of history or the time period the country was founded in.
If they demanded slavery be abolished, the southern colonies would have said no thank you. We'll form our own country and keep our slaves.
So then when does slavery end? If there is no Union army to force the end of slavery in 1860, who stops it, when, and how?
What did the freed African American slaves do when they settled in Liberia?
A lot of the same things the Brits did to the Scotts and Irish early on, most likely some similarities with what Genghis Khan did to a lot of Asia.
The same thing every non-white country has done since time
Blacks came over as indentured servants, were paid and freed after 7 years. Why do Libs never hold their African slave masters who sold them and continue to do so to this day accountable?
It’s “conventionally” forgotten. Just like the fact that more black officers kill blacks than white police officers
Interesting. Can you point me to the source if possible please. Is this derived from the FBI crime stats?
Looked it up out of curiosity, but it seems once the county demographics are taken into account it is just the statistic probability of there being more minorities in those places, making minority officers and civilians more common there.
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877
EDIT: but the main point may still stand that more black civillians are killed by black cops than white cops, another troglodyte needs to find the numbers
interesting, can you google it, faggot?
And the first court case creating legal slavery was by a black plantation owner suing his white plantation neighbor to STEAL his indentured servant from him and make that man HIS permanent slave.
And on the Trail of Tears, an Indian Chief plantation owner forced his slaves to march with him instead of freeing them.
History is FULL of hypocrisy examples that embarrass the CRT marxist assholes today. It's why they want it erased.
Same reason they desperately try to ignore extreme black on black homicide. Democrats are beholden to a spiritual cancer that makes them what they are.
First legal slave owner was a free black indentured servant named Anthony Johnson. He sued for the right to own John Casor for life, because they were the same race.
And the fact that there were actual black slave owners in America.
Created an upperclass made up of themselves and generally treated natives of the area like garbage.
Don't forget that industrialized mass slavery in the states only started when rich Europeans and those that still had allegiance to old europe started plantations in the south and eventually tried to turn America back into the horrid place we fled from to begin with. AMERICANS mostly rejected slavery.
Once America was fully founded and prosperous there was an influx of European nobles and industrialists and all manner of exploiters and they are the ones who pushed the south into eventual secession.
https://www.therichest.com/rich-list/old-money-families-that-have-been-richest-the-longest/
Early on there was slavery in the northern colonies. There is an old farmhouse in Brooklyn, that has been there since the early-mid 1600's, where ancestors of the Vanderbilts lived that have documents on display that mention the family's slaves. It is call Wyckoff house, and is, I believe, the oldest wooden structure in the country.
Slaves in the early days were indentured servants who were typically freed after 7 to 12 years of service and all races were used. The industrialized african plantation slaves came much later and is where the bulk of slavery existed and was the most brutal. Northern slaves were primarily house workers and cooks and gardeners who were mostly well treated and not like the basic field labor of the south.
My example, Wyckoff house, was a farm so slaves did do farm work. It was not a plantation. At the time of the Civil War, most of the plantations were in the Deep South, not the mid-South. At the time of the Civil War, none of my ancestors owned slaves, nor had they for many years. Those who did own slaves had tobacco plantations back in the 1700's and lived in Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina.
Since the time of Elizabeth I, Africans were traded as slaves in the colonies. They were not indentured servants.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/178375.The_Queen_s_Slave_Trader
Their allegiances were not to Europe.
Technically, Mauritania “banned” slavery in 1981, but there were no penalties for keeping slaves so it just continued. 2007 is when penalties were introduced, but it still has millions of slaves.
Child sex trafficking is modern.slavery. it exists in the usa...
Child sex trafficking is illegal. People might get away with it due to corruption or luck, but it’s not the same as legally being permitted to own slaves.
its not outright legal but a whole shit ton more could be done to severely curtail it. epstein got away with it for decades so for some people it is legal.
Yet, no one on the left seems to care about that.
Best post right here!
The industrial revolution was already well on its way to ending it, due to innovation. It wouldn't have survived, with or without a civil war.
the industrial revolution was a textile revolution and this was what caused the revival of slavery in the south. cotton was needed for English mills. what was picked by the black slaves in america was spun into yarn by the wage slaves in england.
99% of whites in the american south had nothing to do with any of this, and profited not one cent. only the super rich. the elite. this seems all too familiar at times. a class of wealthy elites on both sides of the ocean profiting off a corrupt institution...and they had the sexual depravity back then, too. 75% of whites in the american south didn't even own slaves, and out of the rest, most owned maybe one or two and worked alongside them. this used to be common knowledge taught in every school.
in a country of 27 million free people and 4 million slaves, the planter class which owned most of those slaves probably numbered no more than 20,000, and that includes everyone who owned at least 20...and the super rich of the elite planter class, that owned a quarter of the slaves in america, numbered only a little more than 2000.
snopes and the like are fond of puffing up the actual 1.4% number of americans who owned slaves, by adding everyone who 'profited from slavery', ignoring the fact that the vast majority of slaveowners only owned one or two and worked the fields, and playing with the geographic scope to give people the impression that 25% of white americans were plantation slavemasters.
it was the wealth of this tiny class of elites that made slavery so entrenched in the south. it was the hubris of this tiny class of elites, thinking that they had absolute control of the economies of america and europe by controlling such a major export, that doomed america to the civil war.
it is strange to think that you could take a cotton crop that was 60% of american exports on the eve of secession, and wipe it out totally without inflicting a complete apocalypse on the american economy...but it is not strange when you realize that this crop almost entirely inflated the fortunes of this class of 20,000 planters and especially these 2000 elites. the south after the war was plunged into poverty of course, but this was the lot of 90% of southern whites before the war already.
this is the real economic history of slavery in america, this is what we used to teach in the schools before a failing newspaper desperate for relevance decided to create their own alternate history and present it as the real thing.
in some ways the world never changes. but at least the civil war put an end to slavery in the US.
but it didn't put an end to europe's dependence on slaves for their cotton. because when the cotton exports were cut off, and did not come back after the war, they went elsewhere.
to west africa. mozambique and angola. and to india, where england went right back to creating the same dependence they tried to thrust on us.
and what were the conditions of those workers in west africa, who farmed europe's cotton?
the new york times will not tell you this. it does not fit their demonization of america to point it out. it does not please them to teach our children that, after america had spilled a crimson ocean of blood in payment for the guilt of enslaving our fellow man, a guilt that 98% or more, of those whose blood was shed, had no part in incurring, that europe and england still needed slavery, and kept it going.
outside their own boundaries, but they kept it going. and going. and going.
out of sight, out of mind.
the hypocrisy of the elites is conserved. it seems it is never destroyed, but only changes form...
Not only were 99.9% white southerners not benefiting from slavery, they were being hurt by it. Are your sharecroppers dying? Yeah that's too bad. It's not like I have any money invested in them though, and there's more coming every day.
this, absolutely.
and it is truly amazing to me that, if you go to half a dozen different historians in search of information about the status and leanings of non-slaveowning small farmers and landless southern whites in the antebellum years of the cotton kingdom, you will get half a dozen radically different stories. and this even before the current outbreak of radical revisionism.
one historian will say that antebellum southern whites emulated the planter class. another will say that they were bitter rivals. a third will say that even southern slaves looked down their noses on the landless whites, they were an underclass utterly without status.
these accounts are not just different in detail interpretation, they are often completely at odds with each other. and yet the records of plantation life, the planter class and their slaves, are relatively consistent and well known.
The Southern US is a lot bigger than people think. It's possible that all these ideas absolutely were not only real but incredibly prominent, just varying incredibly according to region.
The best description I ever heard was that white sharecroppers were a rental car and slaves were the car you owned.
100% agree. Human history is a cornucopia of greed, power struggles,cruelty and carnage. It is not an American, or "white people" problem, it is a human one.
This.
Which is why most democrats left deep blue south and looked elsewhere for employment.
The big switch the dems keep talking about, was due to Republicans moving to the south because the rise of industry and development. Most dems left and the ones who stayed, ended up embracing the change that came with it.
The senators and congressman who represented these people, stayed affiliated with their party until they died with the exception of a handful.
So that's the big party switch.
Shhh.....you might make the left's head explode with actual history and facts.
The Republicans who came to the south were mostly the carpetbaggers who came after the Civil War. There was no "big party switch". That was just a lie from the left. The Dems controlled the South through the Jim Crowe era and the Civil Rights Movement. (Speaking from the perspective of a lifelong Southerner whose family has lived here since there were 13 colonies).
70% of blacks in the south flipped for the financial benefits of The New Deal, then the remaining 30% flipped for the financial benefits of The Great Society welfare programs.
The die hard southern white racists in the Dem party stayed in the party for life.
The politicians making a big switch is total bs.
Dinesh D'Souza covers this very well in famous youtube videos.
Slavery was dying out, until the cotton gin was invented. Then slaves picking cotton could feed the gin that cranked out loads of cotton for textile production.
They are not fighting for equality. They are fighting for exploited labor. We are the union. We're all in this together equally and if you disagree (as they do), eventually they may actually rebel again. Democrats are the party of rights infringement and sedition, always have been.
So they say, defining "social justice" and "equality" as whatever politically expedient thing is useful at the moment to aid their quest of unlimited power.
Every black slave hat came into America was sold by another black man.
Whenever I hear this bullshit about the original sin of slavery I want to scream in their face that they were already slaves and would have still been slaves if no white trading ships had ever found the coast of africa.
And if Kunte Kinte would have been sold to the East instead of the West, Roots would have to have been called Stumps and would have been a single-chapter pamphlet.
One of the best comments I have ever read. Slavery in America was a vacation compared to other parts of the world.
Brazil and the Caribbean = massive death rate compared to America
Middle east, to this day. Get your dick chopped off, and if you survive, worked to death. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/05/the_greatest_murder_machine_in_history.html
And a black man set the legal precedent to own another black man for life
Was this a college professor by any chance?
Ah yes, the (((people))) owned a "vast majority of slave ships", but only if you believe the Nation of Islam.
And died off there quickly, requiring a steady influx
And Linclon didn't give two shits about slaves anyways, wanted to deport them and even offered the South the ability to KEEP slavery if they stayed in the union.
It was for power and control. Something patriots were supposed to be against and a reason we formed the U.S. Yet revisionism has turned a man who suspended habeas corpus, jailed journalists and forced a horrific war and death of family lines as a saint. When Europe ended slavery just fine without mass death of their citizens.
But to the victors go the spoils...and written testimony.
Total hogwash. Lincoln was a moderate who was willing to compromise with the South in order to AVOID war. He wanted to stop the EXPANSION of slavery into the Western territories, but the South couldn't even accept that. They seceded before he even took office. So what if Lincoln wanted to send slaves to Liberia? That's more humane than having them remain here living in servitude, where they would be treated as third-class citizens.
The only ones who wanted "power and control" were the bankers and Southern interests (Slave power) who wanted to form an authoritarian, slave-holding aristocracy and had imperial ambitions on colonizing Latin America and taking over the American Southwest.
US presidents have had to temporarily suspend certain constitutional rights during times of crisis going back to Madison. Would you be outraged if Trump had to jail members of the fake news media who were engaging in subversive and treasonous acts?
If being part of this nation bothers you so much, then what are you even doing here?
You're spewing revisionist history, sorry. I don't blame you, but you're wrong. He didn't really care, and we know this form his early days in court, to his deportation and compromise to keep slavery. Nothing about being a "moderate", it was retaining complete federal control, taxes and doing whatever was necessary to keep the South in line. Even at the cost of war, which was instigated by the north.
Your fearmongering on what the would of done after seceding means nothing to me. Slavery was on it's way out, and was never going to last much longer. The northern boot on the south's neck played right into the hands of those very few elite in the south. But as you do know, most in the south didn't own slaves. And many fighting against the North were also not doing it for a small subset of wealthy slave owners.
U.S presidents don't have authority to suspend the constitution, and just because they did it, doesn't make it right. If Trump jailed the fake news media for dealing in the absolute scummy yellow journalism they engage in, I would be outraged. It would be nothing short of authoritarianism. You spinning it as "treasonous act", doesn't make it so.
Your last sentence shows how incapable you are of discussing this topic, and your emotional meltdown from your views being challenged. Where did I suggest being an American citizen bothers me? Your ad hominem attacks make you look insecure and arguing in bad faith.
Since you failed history, and didn't read the declaration of independence, I'll quote a section for you. Read it real slow:
You seem to forget how we became a country. You seem to forget we're states, that agreed voluntarily to be apart of the Union. You understand our country is called: The United States. States, who are united. Not by coercion.
You can start your journey on opening your mind to the other side by starting here:
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/lincfasc.html
https://www.al.com/opinion/2015/06/war-over-slavery_rhetoric_is_i.html
and
The Problem with Lincoln by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
Compromise is a key component of moderation. Without moderation there is NO compromise. You claim that Lincoln wasn't a moderate, then go on to say that he did everything he could -- including compromise with the South on the issue of slavery -- in order to "keep the South in line" aka stop them from seceding. The South fired the opening volleys of the American Civil War. They wanted a war. They got one.
It's not "fear mongering." It's historical truth. The Knights of the Golden Circle was a secret society that had been pushing for the annexation of parts of Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean as slave states and supported the Confederacy's cause for secession. Southern imperialists used the practice of "filibustering" to create slave states in South America. This was the sentiment expressed by Robert Rhett; leader of a group of pro-slavery extremists dubbed the Fire-Eaters, who had been agitating for secession and war long before Lincoln became president -- just a few days after Lincoln was elected-- and of many among the Confederate leadership:
In a speech to the Democratic National Convention in 1859, Jefferson Davis railed against amendments to the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves punishing slavers engaging in the illegal slave trade as pirates and expressed his desire to acquire new territory in the tropics and revive the slave trade, hinting at its possible revival in "new acquisitions to be made south of the Rio Grande."
Not only did the CSA Constitution explicitly protect slavery, it affirmed its right to expand beyond its borders, and with it the institution of slavery. It also opened the door for the reopening of the African slave trade in newly acquired territories.
From the Confederate Constitution:
From the same DNC speech by Davis; "The increasing demand for cotton requires an increase of production, which can only be met by an additional supply of laborers..."
The invention of the cotton gin increased the demand for slaves in order to meet the supply of cotton.
If slavery was on its way out (in the South) prior to the American Civil War, why did the South fight so hard to preserve and expand the institution of slavery? Why was slavery codified into law in the Confederate constitution? Brazil, the last country in the Americas to abolish slavery didn't do so until 1888.
That's bullshit. The South had disproportionate representation in congress relative to free states due to the three-fifths compromise. They had little regard for states' rights and routinely used the power of the federal government to violate the states' rights of the Northern States with acts like the Fugitive Slave Act. This is TYRANNY:
I'm well aware.
And many were perfectly cognizant of the fact that they were fighting to preserve the institution of slavery.
That's not the point. The point is that there's nothing unique about Lincoln exercising executive powers during a time of crisis. I'm just pointing out your selective outrage.
Bullshit. If Trump jailed members of the fake news media for engaging in sedition you would be cheering it. I'm not "spinning" anything. The media is guilty of treason.
That's hilarious. I'm the one that responded to you. I'm the one who challenged your views. You're the one that's having an apparent emotional meltdown over it. All of your argumentation is based in emotionality. I didn't respond with any ad hominem attacks. Do you even know what that means? The only one arguing in bad faith is you.
You obviously seem unhappy with being a part of this Union and feel you're being coerced into being part of this nation.
I understand that. I also understand that Southern secession was illegal and illegitimate. You quoting from the Declaration of Independence is immaterial. It doesn't justify the South's secession. The Declaration of Independence is not law. The US Constitution is the law of the land.
You're the one that's been spewing revisionist history and Lost Cause propaganda fabricated by ex-Confederates after the war in order to justify their actions.
Why don't YOU do a bit of reading and read the secession documents; the Declarations of Causes of Secession, and the speeches made by Confederate leaders? They made it explicitly clear that their major grievance against the Northern States was their opposition to slavery and that slavery was their primary motive for secession.
Georgia Declaration of Secession:
Texas:
Mississippi:
In this screed, South Carolina rails against the states' rights of the Northern States:
1/2
From the "Cornerstone Speech" given by Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, in which he vociferously defends the institution of slavery, white supremacy, and explicitly states that slavery is the bedrock upon which the Confederacy rests, while disparaging the Founding Fathers:
The Confederacy was an explicitly white supremacist, oppressive, authoritarian state. Is this really the hill you want to die on? The South had disdain for states' rights and used the power of the federal government to impose their will upon the free states. There is no moral defense for the South's insurrection and the Confederacy.
Your rebuttal is to link me to a shitty GeoCities style blog ran by an Australian pro-Confederate, an opinion piece from an obviously biased source, written by somebody who is "president of the Confederate Heritage Fund," and give me the name of a book written by a radical libertarian who was a member of the League of the South, and you have the gall to be a condescending prick to me and tell me how I need to open my mind? Yeah, okay buddy.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
https://thefederalist.com/2015/07/20/what-many-americans-get-wrong-about-states-rights/
https://eclecticanecdotes.com/2019/09/the-american-civil-war-and-tariffs
https://usconstitution.net/csa.html
2/2
Yeah gonna stop reading right there. Lincoln instigated the war.
The War of Northern Aggression.
As far as I'm concerned.
Yep. Non-revisionist American history is a massive redpill for those who aren't afraid of the truth.
Interesting post. I don't know much about this, but I've really noticed that the civil war is seen as a sacrifice and an atonement for the sin of (a very small percentage of people) having slaves.
Now this apparently was not enough.
Lincoln didn't change his mind until the midst of the war about slavery. He also drafted immigrants off the boat into the Union army (mostly irish and german) for their right to stay in America. Curious why the bloodline of the south for whites is predominantly those two.. Everyone knows this, it's well documented, and people still deny it for "optics". This is something that people will cry "fake news" about while trying to assume the mantra they do about being politically correct. They just simply aren't. If people could realize just THIS simple point, it would be the last chain link that would be broken to completely know the truth about our past and the real "identity politics". Downvotes incoming.
Finally a comment about the evil Lincoln brought against the constitution. He saved the union but at great cost.
In the North, yeah. Slavery was virtually abolished in the North by the 1820s with a few holdouts but certain interests in the South (the Planter class) wanted to preserve the institution of slavery in the South and expand its reach into the Western territories.
"Virtually"
"With a few holdouts"
Slavery was all over the world. America wasn't even the last to end it. The only reason America is focused on is because we are the world leaders.
Sign. Exactly. Arabs had been slaving for 500 years before us. You don't see BLM in Riyadh or Damascus.
That would be hilarious.
But they'd only last 5 minutes before the execution cars rolled up.
Can you imagine? They would lose all bladder control as that fleet of Mercedes pulled up and out came the execution squad.....
They'll be slaving for 500 years after us too
No one every talks about the white slave trade that went on almost until the 20th century. The Arabs had a solution to their slave problem. They just killed them. No reparations required.
You know why? Ancient Middle East has a practise of making Eunuchs out of slaves and surrendered Prisoners of War. That's why their atrocities were seldom mentioned again as they literally has no descendants.
Those that are deemed "[email protected] children" of woman slaves of another race (deemed inferior) that copulated with their slave owners? ........Well, once your offsprings' looks passed off as a proper "Human" [Note : can be as quickly as your direct children, or at most 2 gen] in Ancient Arabia WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU NOT DOWNPLAY YOUR BLOODLINE? Her Grandchildren 100% wanted to be passed off as regular menial labourers! (So highly likely that the fact of "slave bloodline" will be buried within 4 gen if descendants can help it.)
True. This whole "slavery" BS. is exactly that. Slavery wasn't a white sin, but a human one.
And if another global war rages, who knows if the victors would be against slavery or not.
The world is lucky the US and its allies won WWII. The Nazi and Japs already had slavery up and running in countries that they have conquered during WWII.
Indeed. The Chinese CERTAINLY have no problem with slavery and oppression. Nor much of the middle east and Africa.
There have already been some darkly entertaining videos out of this neo-colonial relationship that China has embarked on with Africa.....I expect the shit-show has just begun.
Oh no the Chinese certainly do have a problem with slavery and oppression, if it's against them, i.e. Sino-Japanese wars.
Slaves have been around since the advent of agriculture and cities.
Even longer than that.
History of slavery in the Muslim world goes back over 1000 years ago and continues to this day:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world
Mohammed literally endorsed slaves and sex slaves
Because they would be killed by the government, not just the citizens.
Maybe they should try though. See how far they get.
If Black lives really matter to them, they would attempt it.
But then again, they dont even give two shits to donate the money they made to help black communities back in the US. So fuck em.
The reason democrats keep focusing on american slavery is not because it was especially bad - you would have been a lucky slave to go to america instead of anywhere else in the new world.
Democrats are using it as a way to beat down innocent white people into feeling they owe $$$ to black people who didn't work as slaves and aren't descended from slaves
One of the few good things about Marx is the describes the appalling conditions of (white) workers in England. 20 hours work day, children with hands deformed for overworking, etc. Marx says that the condition of "free" men in England was sometimes worse than the slaves in America.
Those fucking leftists seem to forget that life back then was extremely hard for everyone, minus a tiny percentage of wealthy people.
Even the wealthy people back then would look at the lower class today with envy.
Electricity, Refrigeration, Indoor Plumbing, Automobiles, Television, Cell Phones, The Internet, Grocery Stores with Thousands of Kinds of Food, Modern Healthcare, Dentists, Literature, Video Games and Many More.
All of these things are readily available to everyone in America, and the Rich of 100+ years ago had almost none of them. They don't care if peoples lives are improved, they are angry that some people have it better than them. They are filthy filthy Commies.
Right.
It's because they think wealth rains down from the sky. If it did, you could argue it should be evenly distributed.
They don't understand that wealth derives from hard work and sacrifice, either of ourselves or of our fathers.
That's so true - they're comparing the life of a person sat in starbucks writing a screenplay to the life of a slave in the US.
What they should be comparing is the life of a 'free' white man.
Here is a page devoted to 'child coal miners' :
https://mashable.com/2015/10/05/child-miners/
*edit - you really made me think. There are pictures on that site of 13 year old boys who have lost limbs working in risky mining jobs. This seems absolutely disgusting to our society. And yet we are only looking 100 years into the past. BLM and the democrats feel qualified to judge 300 years of our history....
Thank you for your post. It's an issue I'm sensitive about, because all our ancestors went through hell.
My grandparents were peasants, who were toiling in the fields. Now a fucking Marxists pampered champagne socialist who never worked a day in his life wants to tell me that my family had "white privilege".
It's sad to think that every person in the pictures you linked died prematurely due to their lungs being destroyed by the coal dusts.
In England thousands of men were conscripted to work in coal mines. Nobody knows that. Our male grandparents / great grandparents were literally enslaved (I'm referring to the draft).
Perhaps your pictures are even more terrible because that happened during peacetime, but the point is clear: white privilege is a lie.
Even if I was to admit that white people have better life conditions than other races, this derives from the sacrifices and hard work of our ancestors who provided this to us. "White privilege" is our birthright.
If anything, the only reason they want to implement reparations is so they can implement a new tax. They have no intention to give reparations to anyone. That money will go into "research" and "studies". Nothing will ever come of it.
All those "kangz" had it for thousands of years... Some still do
The word slave comes from the Latin word for "Slav" because during the Age of Faith (Middle Ages), white Slavs were continuously enslaved.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/slave
This is true, I'm an American with serbian ancestors. But you don't see us streaming for reparations.
The only reason we're focused on is that American blacks have learned that white guilt is easy to exploit. So they do. Constantly.
Lincoln was planning on shipping them all back to Africa. John Wilkes Booth has caused more damage to our nation than any other human in history.
Leave it to a brain dead actor to fuck things up everytime.
Lincoln was a white supremacist. The "fact" that all races are the same is an artificial fabrication made up 50 years ago
TLDR Lincoln was more racist than Trump.
I believe this continues the quote:
He's still a white supremacist. Hes saying that he doesnt want blacks to be slaves but he still wants whites to be superior over blacks. I think if you ask any white supremacist, they would agree with that.
I'm not assigning judgement. I'm objectively saying that he would fit the definition of a white supremacist
As far as I understand him, he claimed in his comments that if "blacks" and "whites" were to "remain together" in the USA, one or the other would have to be the "superior", and there could be no "equality", and that if one had to be the "superior", he preferred that it would be "whites". Following his claims and logic, (geographical? Or "segregational"? Or both?) "separation" would be meaningful to him as far as I can see.
I find his writings of "superiority" and "inferiority" weird. I suspect that it also may be ambiguous - "superiority" and "inferiority" here might be referring to "positions" or "states" of "power" and control, not descriptions of attributes and properties of the given specified groups.
For any "white supremacist" definition, I don't quite understand that - is it about "power" and control, or is it about attributes and properties? If the latter, "superior"/"inferior" in which regards and ways? If the former, is it about desire or goal, and/or some sort of political argument? Or is the definition about something else?
He is clearly talking about states of power and control, which is the same thing white supremacists and white nationalists (separatists) now talk about.
Whether some may believe there are inferior qualities in people that necessitate those positions (Douglas probably did) is beside the point.
He believed blacks and whites were physically Incompatible
Which ones are that? Do you have any examples?
And does that make them the same or similar as the people behind pages such as this: https://www.safeblackspace.org/ ? Or https://archive.li/P1XYm ? Are those then "black supremacists"? If "supremacists" are about "separatism", does that make "white" and "black" "supremacists" similar or the same?
My apologies, but defining "supremacists" as "separatists" seems... weird. Would it not make more sense to define them (whom?) as "separatists" instead?
And what are their arguments for "separation"? If "supremacy" is about "power" and control, what is then their arguments for "separation"?
You guys should really be dropping this shit all over the "Lincoln Project" if you have Twitter accounts
Science agrees. This is just an example, IQ is not the only factor.
Any other species with the amount of variations present in humans would be categorized and listed as at least 7 different subvariants or subspecies. But we can't do that for us, cause it's "racist".
Many dog people disbelieve dog breeds. By this I mean those pitbull people. The are openly delusional in their denial of innate traits.
Nah. By then lincoln wanted to ship them to Panama instead.
I believe you are correct. His letters stated he was wanting to bring them south. Out the USA and not back to Africa.
Slavery is all throughout history. The ONLY people to ever do anything about it were Western white Christian men.
And maybe the Japanese (modern) to a much less extent. Look at how Korean and Chinese officials always try to make the repatriate for the 5th? 7th? time for what they did in Manchuria and Colonial Korea.**
Not to say the Japanese didn't do wrong, I mean to say that the poor "Muh Oppression" people always just bilk money from the countries that are "Rich and polite".
**Japan had already straight up sent aid and money regarding comfort woman - multiple times - to South Korea. It's due to their Dictators of the bygone era that the Aid went straight to South Korean Gov and most of the poor women didn't see a Cent in their lifetime (most of them would have still been alive at the 1970s.)
Great evidence as to why you shouldn't apologize. They always ask for more.
I know what you're saying....correction though...It didn't start in Europe...it started in Africa where it still exists today.
Yup. You know who captured all of those Africans in order to sell them off as slaves? Other Africans.
And at its max, only 15 states were slave states. Meaning 35 states, were never slave states at all. There’s riots in California for something that didn’t happen within a thousand miles from here.
Right. When it comes to drugs, we punish the seller much harsher than the buyer. And yet with slaves, BLM forgets all about the seller.
Exactly. And how many other countries have white people fought a war with other white people to free black people?
And how many other white countries have voted in a black president?
I read that Lincoln was literally a white supremacist who still believed that black people have the same rights as white people.
America's founding values made a white supremacist free the slaves.
When he met Fredrick Douglass and saw the black soldiers fighting valiantly for their country, he started changing his mind and seeing that black people had more potential than he thought. His views on black people continued to evolve until the day he died.
to understand lincoln, look at the donald.
they are far more comparable than many might appreciate.
the cultural arsonistas like to scream about lincoln's seemingly contradictory statements on slavery, preservation of the union, and the emancipation proclamation. his famously ambivalent letter to horace greeley is almost equivalent to a trump tweet...because he had already drafted the proclamation when he sent that letter.
the cultural arsonistas do not recognize a vastly clever game of 4D chess.
always remember, lincoln was the 19th century equivalent of a corporate lawyer, and a very wise, clever and successful one...but he also seems, somehow, to have had a keener insight into what america meant in a historical context, than nearly anyone of his generation.
if lincoln had not placed this proclamation in the midst of an elaborate 4D chess game, tying it to the future of a preserved union, and emphasizing its usefulness in decreasing the economic power of the planter elites to continue the war, emancipation might have been challenged later. as distasteful as it is to speak of people in this way, to the planter class, the slaves that were freed represented the modern day equivalent of 160 billion dollars in property.
douglass absolutely made a strong impression on lincoln. but i think he also tied into lincoln's insight into america's place in history. the same way that trump seemed to grasp that america could not remain tied to communist china, and remain america, lincoln understood that slavery could have no part in a future america.
it was a shame that this genius was assassinated before he had a chance to guide the reunification process. we might have seen the south quickly rebuilt, without slavery, but with its pride intact, and we might have avoided the klan, segregation, and all the tensions that can be traced directly back to the radical republicans and their antifa-like attempt to tear up and destroy every vestige of southern culture.
of course this is completely against the cultural arsonistas' preferred view of reconstruction, which absurdly casts the radicals as heroes.
nothing every changes, does it.
lincoln, by the way, was a polarizing figure, no less than trump. greatly respected by nearly everyone who met him and spoke with him, it seems, yet violently hated by many, as well. there were not a few authors in those days who castigated him in no uncertain terms.
Got any proof of that? Or are you just changing history to fit your vision? Take a look at my quote above. Lincoln clearly believed blacks were inferior
Money. It’s about power and money. Facts and the truth are irrelevant to the leftists.
Why don't they get angry at Mauritania, where (according to a 2017 study by the BBC) up to 13% of the population is still enslaved? Why don't they get angry at Islam, which enshrines racial caste slavery as integral to the natural order of the world? Why don't they get angry at China, which permits wages to be so low that it most of their poor are de facto slaves? (No, you can't say your people are 'free' when they only get paid pennies on the hour!)
Oh don't worry, they are shaking their fists at Europe and demanding that they bow too.
Not because Europe did anything wrong, but because Europe is part of western culture too.
Sure, context matters. But wasn't the first legal slave owner in this country a black man who owned numerous slaves?
This is not to meant to 'justify' slavery, or to say 'fuck it, slavery was meaningless because many blacks owned slaves at that time.'
No, quite the opposite, because if we're ever to learn ANYTHING from history, then context and facts are abundantly important.
Yes. The U.S. census showed that MANY blacks owned slaves. So did the American Indians. Slavery was not, and is not unique in anyway to Europeans or Americans. It existed virtually everywhere, in one form or another. It still exists TODAY.
There where more jewish and African slave owners in US history than actual europeans -BY FAR-
Now, you know that we cannot speak facts aloud about this................:)
Sauce?
That requires thought. Thought is not required to be a modern day media slave and hate is much easier than love. It's also easy because our skin color is our uniform to these demons.
that and even then black on black crime was at a higher rate apparently
And indigenous Chief Seattle owned black slaves. Time to cancel a city.
https://youtu.be/Ab93DYcqrP8
These people dont care , you're white and they hate you.
Unironicaly this
Remember - the first slave owner was a famous black man who FOUGHT in courts to have the law changed so his indentured servant could be his slave for life.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)
Also remember - Africa and the middle east were taking slaves (even white europeans) for thousands of years.
Saudi Arabia had slave markets until the 1980s
Africa still has slaves today.
So why do we focus on the slavery in America? Is it genuine concern or a 'give me some free cash' political strategy?
There's no defense of slavery but thanks to Republicans that was stopped. Republicans passed the first rights for blacks to vote.. Republicans passed the first civil rights acts. People should be learning about how Republican party is so great.
https://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/how-the-south-really-went-gop/
How I come back to this is simple.
Why isn't it the 1611 Project when all of the slave children were sent here?
Did you know about Anthony Johnson and what case he won in 1645?
Nobody is getting reparations. We have been civil for quite a long time and nobody living today had anything to do with slavery. Leftists are just watching too many Django: Unchained type movies and thinking slavery just happened. Without watches or calendars, humans have hardly any concept of time. <-- That last statement sounded dumb as hell to me when an older man told it to me for the first time but if you sit and think about it, you'll find it's profound.
the worst is Alex Haley's plagiarized book called "roots".I like Blacks but their introduction to the greater society through civil rights was used by Marxists to infiltrate society and use them as tools against white Americans. The civil rights were planned by Marxists even though it might have turned into a good thing later on.
Before we started drinking cows milk someone had to look at a cow and think "imma hit that". Humans are weird and think only the now is normal.
And Ironically the whole of africa had it for thousands of years,
We banned the importation of new slaves in 1807.
Yes, it makes a lot more sense to demand reparations from the Portuguese government for slavery than to demand it from American white people. Ever notice that there are a shit ton of black or partially black people in Brazil? Guess why!
Like many other white Americans, my family is descended from people who came to America AFTER slavery was over. My family came here in the early 1900s from a country that was never involved in the slave trade. Go demand that the government of Portugal fix things for you if you think someone owes you something for the Atlantic slave trade. I had nothing to do with it.
Quite a few early families, even in the South, had no slaves and no ties to those who did nor profits thereof.
It is a common misperception that the entire "economy" of a large part of North America was built upon slavery profits, but MOST people in the Colonies lived off the land and their own labor with only simple local goods trade and the rare imported need.
Both sides of my family came to North America in the 1730s. One was an indentured servant. There is still a yearly reunion for that family and a monument in the family plot area of the cemetery. They were Germans. The other side were English.
Considering whites were slaves too, whites were lynched too, blacks owned slaves too, blacks sold their own people into slaves too, why does the white man need to suffer the most for something 3% of the population (including white and black) did centuries ago? Every single country and including the tribes had slavery. Whites in the US didn't invent slavery.
The word slave comes from the Latin word for "Slav" because during the Age of Faith (Middle Ages), white Slavs were continuously enslaved.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/slave
History of slavery in the Muslim world goes back over 1000 years ago and continues to this day:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world
From what I understand, their own people are who sold them in the first place.
"Don’t get me wrong, one day of slavery is too long but don’t get it twisted- The United States of America was created in 1776, and slavery was outlawed in 1865." I get your point OP but you are missing something. these are Marxists who want to destroy the country.they don't really care about slavery or black lives; most black activists don't really care about slavery also but they care about the power they can get from making white people and America feel guilty and donate to their causes which are mostly for their self-benefit. America has done a lot for Blacks and still, there are a lot of problems.don't you think the problem is not what you think it is? Slavery is bad but it was a thing of the past that was common and Universal at one point; it was an improvement over killing conquered people on the battlefield. Europe outlawed slavery a long time ago; many Ukrainians and greeks were taken as slaves to North Africa and they don't complain because they have more important things to do for themselves, unlike westerners who have low ethnocentrism and low in-group preference. We can glamorize over slavery and demonize it but things were also complex back then and physical labor was always required much more in the past than today. I pity people who were sold as slaves but they were sold by their people in Africa who were selling them to Arabs before Europeans came. My point here is that things are always more complicated than the way it is presented. Irish were more enslaved in the hands of the British than the Blacks were, and the Irish prevailed at all costs even though they were once disregarded worse than blacks. Slavery is not great but it is not the worst thing that happened in the past or the worst thing that is happening now. There are more slaves today than they were in the past.there are slaves in Africa and Asia currently. The problem in the Black community comes from them not adopting the required qualities largely needed to build up a successful group or society. Blacks largely depend on the Federal Government for intervention in everything and forget to pressure their state and local government; this always increases the government bureaucracy and leads to far-left policies becoming more viable in society. If you want the Black community or Black cities to be better, you have to tell them the truth using statistics, Logic, historical examples, truth. Pandering to them and calling the Democrats the real racists or white supremacists won't help us. Every group has needs; we don't need to cuck ourselves because we want Black votes or are terrified of what is going on. We need a good moral framework to survive what is happening because we stand on the higher moral ground. Don't feel guilty for what your ancestors did; you don't know your ancestors personally and most of them might not be as bad as the MSM or libtards talk about.
It is a great question but Europe has nothing to do with this even though these Marxists are also there. This is something that we have to solve.on our own.
Nobody talks about the fact that whites didn't just go and round up Africans to enslave. The Atlantic slave trade was predicated upon tribes rounding up and selling neighboring tribespeople in Central and West Africa. Blacks are just as culpable as whites when it comes to slavery.
80 years if you count 1783; the year that we won the Revolutionary War, as the starting point of the new nation. America started the process of abolishing slavery in the midst of the American Revolution with colonies like Vermont, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts taking the lead. They were joined by Connecticut and Rhode Island shortly after winning independence.
The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 outlawed slavery in the Northwest territories and the Slave Trade Act of 1794 banned American vessels from participating in the slave trade and banned the exportation of slaves from foreign ships. Participation in the international slave trade was made into a felony with the passage of the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves in 1807.
That it took only 80 years since winning our independence in 1783 to fully abolish slavery in the US should be viewed as a great achievement.
I'd like to give a shout out to Barack's Outdoor Slave Market and Live Bait Shop 4th Gate West just across the street from Imam Bukhari Mosque east of beautiful downtown Sirte. Auction starts at 8 PM every Wednesday night. Swimming pool and lounge area available for Platinum Club members. Remember our motto "The Slaves That Can Take A Beating" (and death to infidels)
Also of note: There were only 64 years where "men could vote" and "women could not."
1856 men get the right to vote regardless of property rights
1920 women get the right to vote
Because it's not a legitimate grievance.
And the first legal slave owner was a black man. Also some blacks owned slaves. And for some reason no-one is talking about Irish indentured servants.
BLM and the riots are no motivated by slavery or oppression groups or any of that shit they claim. Rule #1 - if they are claiming it, its a lie or it's built on a lie or is a irrelevant truth. This is an act of WAR by a international group of nations and rich individuals.
It's WAR by any means available to them. It just so happens that we dominate the massive kinetic kind, so they avoid that theater. WAR nonetheless.
Declaration of Independence in 1776 is the conception. Adoption of the Constitution in 1787 is the birth. Ratification of the Constitution in 1791 is the Christening.
So, the United States only permitted slavery from 1787 to 1865 --> 78 years.
Good Job Sir! This IS the country the that poured blood to end slavery. And we still are all over the world.
And in some states there was ZERO slavery since the founding of the country.
BLM and leftist shit orgs don't care about slavery or racism. They're only following their orders from Soros.
Slavery and conquest were the way of the world before we ended those practices across the world.
Also, there was anti-slavery sentiment in the colonies before the revolution! The first essay published against slavery was written by a man from Massachusetts.
Shit, the very first war America entered after its birth was to destroy the slave infrastructure off the coast of Northern Africa, where Muslim Barbary pirates had launched slavery raids and taken over 1.2 million Europeans into the slave markets of the Arab world. The American navy showed up over the horizon and the cannons started thundering.
It's a shakedown. White Liberals are behind it all. Blacks are just the proxy.
If BLM asked euro govs for reparations they would get it.
Imagine you give the most self hating whites their own country and tell them to cry about white guilt 24/7, and you have west European countries
Jews and Muslims, black African warlords all made the equivalent of hundreds of billions in that time. maybe trillions. Take everything from them, then we'll talk.
US was so pro-slavery that it ended American involvement in the slave trade in the Slave Trade Act of 1794! Signed By President George Washington
Its not about blame. Its about influence and politics. America will never be allowed to get past slavery. Ever. Those who want or need to see America bleed for whatever reason find it too politically expedient of a tool for multiple reasons and ends. No amount of penance can be done for an "original sin" thats too convenient to be forgiven. If this summer has taught me anything, its this. Slavery is happening right now, today in the middle east and Africa and nobody gives a shit.
The first state in the Union to outlaw slavery did so in 1777.
The most common mistake people make on both sides is that leftism is an intellectual position.
They're not guilt tripping white Westerners because the narrative is correct. They're doing it because it works.
Hmm.. not exactly.
I say 73 years.
1776 was when we declared independence.
We did not gain the independence till After we won the war, which took a long fucking time..
Anyway, we had to win, THEN vote to ratify the constitution.. THEN get our first President, which happened in 1789
Fast forward to when slavery was banned in all of the USA, which is 1862 from the emancipation proclamation.
So 1862-1789 = 73
However.. if you take in account states that outlawed slavery, like Ohio, when it became a state in 1803, then really, slavery only existed in a FEW states for a fraction of her life.
Blacks were the ones selling the slaves in the first place. Europeans traded manufactured goods for slaves because thats what was for sale.
The arguement that the founding fathers should have abolished slavery at the founding of the country shows they have no understanding of history or the time period the country was founded in.
If they demanded slavery be abolished, the southern colonies would have said no thank you. We'll form our own country and keep our slaves.
So then when does slavery end? If there is no Union army to force the end of slavery in 1860, who stops it, when, and how?