PDA

View Full Version : amazing ... 28 percent of American presidents owned slaves.



Pages : [1] 2

Bob
11-13-2014, 12:56 PM
Some of your favorite presidents actually owned human beings.

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/presidents-who-owned-slaves/
A list of presidents who owned slaves (http://www.nas.com/~lopresti/ps.htm), both while in office or at other times during their lives, has been compiled by Robert Lopresti (http://www.nas.com/~lopresti/Rob.htm), a librarian at Western Washington University. Based on his well-documented (http://www.nas.com/~lopresti/bib.htm) research, he says 12 of our presidents owned slaves and eight of them owned slaves while serving as president.
Zachary Taylor was the last sitting president to own slaves. Taylor (http://www.whitehousehistory.org/05/subs/05_a06.html) owned 100 slaves and a Mississippi plantation, but he also opposed the extension of slavery to new territories. In 1850 the former Army general told a group of angry Southerners that if they seceded he would personally lead the Army and hang anyone taken in rebellion against the Union. Taylor died unexpectedly later that year.
The last president who ever owned slaves was, ironically, Ulysses S. Grant, elected in 1868 after he had commanded Union forces to victory over the Confederacy in the war that led to the abolition of slavery. Grant (http://www.nps.gov/ulsg/historyculture/slaveryatwh.htm) owned a slave named William Jones, whom he freed in 1859. Between 1854 and 1859 Grant worked and lived on an 850-acre farm in Missouri, near St. Louis, that was owned by his father-in-law. Grant’s wife, Julia, also owned slaves, and during Grant’s management of the farm he worked along with one of them, a man named Dan. The farm is now the Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site (http://www.nps.gov/ulsg/index.htm), part of the National Park Service.
- Brooks Jackson

Cigar
11-13-2014, 01:05 PM
100% Eat Food

momsapplepie
11-13-2014, 01:07 PM
1859? wow! that long ago?

Safety
11-13-2014, 01:09 PM
And some slavers actually treated their slaves with decency, what's your point?

Bob
11-13-2014, 01:40 PM
100% Eat Food

12% eat food. The rest died and no longer need snacks.

Bob
11-13-2014, 01:41 PM
And some slavers actually treated their slaves with decency, what's your point?

When you depend on workers, the last thing to do is whip them.

A good study in how to treat slaves exists at Mt. Vernon and Monticello in VA.

Bob
11-13-2014, 01:42 PM
How many presidents have we had?

Common Sense
11-13-2014, 01:42 PM
Yeah, slave owners were real nice to their slaves.

It was like being at camp.

Common Sense
11-13-2014, 01:42 PM
How many presidents have we had?

You were there, don't you remember them all?


;)

Safety
11-13-2014, 01:43 PM
When you depend on workers, the last thing to do is whip them.

A good study in how to treat slaves exists at Mt. Vernon and Monticello in VA.

At that time, they were not considered workers, but property.

del
11-13-2014, 01:43 PM
bob wishes he could own a couple to make up for the sting of serial monogamy

shark's gotta eat, after all

Bob
11-13-2014, 01:43 PM
At that time, they were not considered workers, but property.

Both workers and property.

Bob
11-13-2014, 01:45 PM
bob wishes he could own a couple to make up for the sting of serial monogamy

shark's gotta eat, after all

NOTICE TO FORUM

That post is proof positive that in this world, yes, there really are posters like the one just above. If I tell you there are those types, you can bank on it.

Bob
11-13-2014, 01:46 PM
You were there, don't you remember them all?


;)

Actually I have had 13 of them.

Still, do you know the answer to my question?

Common Sense
11-13-2014, 01:49 PM
Actually I have had 13 of them.

Still, do you know the answer to my question?

There is a dispute as to how many, of course...but the standard answer is 44, but there were 14 guys before Washington. So some say 58.

del
11-13-2014, 01:54 PM
NOTICE TO FORUM

That post is proof positive that in this world, yes, there really are posters like the one just above. If I tell you there are those types, you can bank on it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiGFZUnJgqU

look out old bobby's back

Mac-7
11-13-2014, 02:09 PM
No one regrets slavery more than white conservatives.

and no one benefits from slavery more than modern black people in America.

Common Sense
11-13-2014, 02:10 PM
no one regrets slavery more than white conservatives.

And no one benefits from slavery more than modern black people in america.

lol...

Cigar
11-13-2014, 02:11 PM
No one regrets slavery more than white conservatives.

and no one benefits from slavery more than modern black people in America.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/mopWcNP6RsCRx2mhto8M_what_goes_around_comes_around .jpg

Mac-7
11-13-2014, 02:15 PM
Without slavery America would have very few blacks living here.

Practically none in fact, and hence no unpleasant race relations between blacks and whites.

Bob
11-13-2014, 02:43 PM
There is a dispute as to how many, of course...but the standard answer is 44, but there were 14 guys before Washington. So some say 58.

As to actual men, my list says we are now on #43. President Cleveland was before Harrison and then followed him. But looking over my photos, we are now on 43.

I know of those ahead of G. Washington but my number is lower than yours.

Bob
11-13-2014, 02:46 PM
Yeah, slave owners were real nice to their slaves.

It was like being at camp.

Most slaves were quite accustomed to slave life and enjoyed food, shelter and benefits that could also be named.

It is by watching movies, we are conditioned to think all of the slaves were beaten and lived a miserable existence. Visit Mt. Vernon some time to see how some lived. Then charge down to Monticello.

I told the 1st sgt one time while in the army, we were virtually slaves. Course he was wanting his pension so he did not agree.

I have one more question.

Who is your favorite slave owning president and will you tell me why?

Bob
11-13-2014, 02:47 PM
FORUM NOTICE

Look, forum, if you can stomach del posting, I guess I can also.

sachem
11-13-2014, 02:53 PM
Bob.

iustitia
11-13-2014, 05:06 PM
Every president since the income tax has had slaves. Instead of just a plantation they had a nation of them.

Safety
11-13-2014, 06:01 PM
Most slaves were quite accustomed to slave life and enjoyed food, shelter and benefits that could also be named.

It is by watching movies, we are conditioned to think all of the slaves were beaten and lived a miserable existence. Visit Mt. Vernon some time to see how some lived. Then charge down to Monticello.

I told the 1st sgt one time while in the army, we were virtually slaves. Course he was wanting his pension so he did not agree.

I have one more question.

Who is your favorite slave owning president and will you tell me why?

Bob.
Bob.
Bob.
Stop.

you can sit here all day and say slaves lived a life of Reilly, but chattel slavery is and was a despicable blight on U.S. history.

hell, even indentured servitude is bad, but at least you get something out of the deal.

Alyosha
11-13-2014, 06:07 PM
Bob.
Bob.
Bob.
Stop.

you can sit here all day and say slaves lived a life of Reilly, but chattel slavery is and was a despicable blight on U.S. history.

hell, even indentured servitude is bad, but at least you get something out of the deal.

Technically women were also slaves. Couldn't vote, own property, could be beaten, and that lasted until the 20th century in the US.

Alyosha
11-13-2014, 06:07 PM
Fight the Power

PolWatch
11-13-2014, 06:13 PM
ok bob...imagine I just bought you. You're gonna be my husband's houseboy. You can help him dress, shave him & wipe his rear if he's too sick or lazy. You can wear warm clothes & eat our leftovers. I'll let you sleep in the barn where its kinda warm & dry. You don't have to pay rent or buy clothes. You do have to be at my beck & call, 24/7. You have to do everything I tell you (quickly with no sass). You don't decide what to do with your spare time because I need you on duty all the time. You don't have to worry about buying books for entertainment because I don't allow you to learn how to read...I also decide who you can speak to (don't want you to get uppity ideas). I might let you attend church...if I approve of what the preacher says...if not..outta luck. If you get sick, I might call a vet (no doc for the animals) if you are young enough & valuable enough for me to care if you recover...if not, well. Don't get too attached to family because I might not want to keep 'em around...I might need the $$$ from their sale. yeap, you wouldn't mind it at all...would you?

Safety
11-13-2014, 06:17 PM
Technically women were also slaves. Couldn't vote, own property, could be beaten, and that lasted until the 20th century in the US.

Absolutely,
it broke up up families, children sold to one plantation, mother to another, and father to a different one. Let's not talk about when the massa went looking for some strange in the middle of the night and the children born of it were light skinned. Depending on the shade, determined whether or not they were field hands or house help. Never in history can you see the direct effects of something like that happening and how it affects society today.

Let's not get started on women's suffrage, because that is going to require biting of ones tongue so it doesn't end up in the hole.

And to think that one party now contains 99% of those likeminded people who thought those ideas were just peachy.

Safety
11-13-2014, 06:18 PM
ok bob...imagine I just bought you. You're gonna be my husband's houseboy. You can help him dress, shave him & wipe his rear if he's too sick or lazy. You can wear warm clothes & eat our leftovers. I'll let you sleep in the barn where its kinda warm & dry. You don't have to pay rent or buy clothes. You do have to be at my beck & call, 24/7. You have to do everything I tell you (quickly with no sass). You don't decide what to do with your spare time because I need you on duty all the time. You don't have to worry about buying books for entertainment because I don't allow you to learn how to read...I also decide who you can speak to (don't want you to get uppity ideas). I might let you attend church...if I approve of what the preacher says...if not..outta luck. If you get sick, I might call a vet (no doc for the animals) if you are young enough & valuable enough for me to care if you recover...if not, well. Don't get too attached to family because I might not want to keep 'em around...I might need the $$$ from their sale. yeap, you wouldn't mind it at all...would you?

Bob would turn into D'jango unchained.

PolWatch
11-13-2014, 06:20 PM
I'm gonna have to dispute the 99% remark because I just can't believe the majority of any group believe such. There is always a small number of people in any group with goofy ideas but 99%? nope

Safety
11-13-2014, 06:23 PM
I'm gonna have to dispute the 99% remark because I just can't believe the majority of any group believe such. There is always a small number of people in any group with goofy ideas but 99%? nope

No, I wasn't speaking of 99% of the entire group being likeminded, but the people who think that way, 99% of them are in that group.

kinda like, all republican aren't in the KKK, but all the KKK are republicans....

Alyosha
11-13-2014, 06:23 PM
Some slaves were treated well. Some may have known no better. Some were slave class in Africa. But institutionalization is not an excuse for keeping them that way. After 1830 there was no excuse for slavery. Before that, I'll cut them slack on emancipation because laws made emancipation, for all intents and purposes ,impossible. You had to get a board of review to agree, you had to have money to ship them back to Africa, etc. Some couldn't manage it legally. I read one attempt took 40 years until the guy was too old to care.

From the point you have a real opportunity to set them free you have to decide not just what they want, but who you want to be. The wild animal raised indoors doesn't want to leave, but it should and once it does...it's glad for that freedom.

All things want life and freedom, even if they don't know what it is by name.

Alyosha
11-13-2014, 06:26 PM
No, I wasn't speaking of 99% of the entire group being likeminded, but the people who think that way, 99% of them are in that group.

kinda like, all republican aren't in the KKK, but all the KKK are republicans....

There are Democrats in the KKK. The head dude in Indiana is a Dem.

iustitia
11-13-2014, 06:26 PM
And to think that one party now contains 99% of likeminded people who thought those ideas were just peachy.Oh?

PolWatch
11-13-2014, 06:28 PM
I knew some who were KKK...they belonged only to the party of hate. They didn't have enough sense to know how to vote and since they thought that everything should be decided with violence, I doubt they ever voted.

Safety
11-13-2014, 06:29 PM
There are Democrats in the KKK. The head dude in Indiana is a Dem.

Well, nobody's perfect....

Alyosha
11-13-2014, 06:31 PM
I bring it up to bring up that racism in the us at its root is a class thing.

del
11-13-2014, 06:38 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwSRqaZGsPw

Safety
11-13-2014, 06:44 PM
I bring it up to bring up that racism in the us at its root is a class thing.

Spot on.:highfive:

Mac-7
11-13-2014, 08:52 PM
Slavery ended 150 years ago but black people are still bitter.

they will never catch up as long as they can't let go of the past.

Safety
11-13-2014, 08:55 PM
Slavery ended 150 years ago but black people are still bitter.

they will never catch up as long as they can't let go of the past.

You're not still bitter about losing to the North, Mac?

Bob
11-13-2014, 08:55 PM
I knew some who were KKK...they belonged only to the party of hate. They didn't have enough sense to know how to vote and since they thought that everything should be decided with violence, I doubt they ever voted.

I still never met any of the KKK. But their number is small.

There might not be enough of them for a decent picnic.

Bob
11-13-2014, 08:57 PM
You're not still bitter about losing to the North, Mac?

Except the north lost over 300,000 men due to that outlaw Abe's war on decent people.

Mac-7
11-13-2014, 08:58 PM
You're not still bitter about losing to the North, Mac?

No.

But as I have pointed out, no one benefited more from slavery than black Americans alive today.

And no one regrets slavery more than white Americans.

del
11-13-2014, 08:59 PM
bob still grieves for the slaves he never owned.

Safety
11-13-2014, 09:01 PM
bob still grieves for the slaves he never owned.

I can just imagine him and his bff Bob getting together for the holidays and doing some civil war reenactments...oh, the good ol days.

Safety
11-13-2014, 09:06 PM
Except the north lost over 300,000 men due to that outlaw Abe's war on decent people.


Yes Bob, a lot of decent people died fighting home grown terrorists during the civil war. But luckily the confederacy was defeated and now we can reminisce on days past over a glass of Arnold Palmer.

Bob
11-13-2014, 09:06 PM
Bob.
Bob.
Bob.
Stop.

you can sit here all day and say slaves lived a life of Reilly, but chattel slavery is and was a despicable blight on U.S. history.

hell, even indentured servitude is bad, but at least you get something out of the deal.

Compare living on a plantation with their gardens, fresh meat, clothing, home to live in ....

To life in the jungle

I think all in all, given the era, they had it pretty well made.

Again, pole vault to Monticello the home of Jefferson, skulk to Mt. Vernon .... say WOW when you see where the slaves lived.

A lot of people today don't have fresh food as fed to slaves.

And, I do not approve slavery. I also don't approve lies. Movies are for entertainment, not the truth.

Bob
11-13-2014, 09:10 PM
Yes Bob, a lot of decent people died fighting home grown terrorists during the civil war. But luckily the confederacy was defeated and now we can reminisce on days past over a glass of Arnold Palmer.

Surprising to those who think they learned history at the movies, slaves were with the officers of the south and took great care of their boss. Most non officers simply lacked funds to feed slaves or provide homes.

Some of you obviously never saw Mt. Vernon nor Monticello. Those were pretty typical plantations.

Safety
11-13-2014, 09:10 PM
No.

But as I have pointed out, no one benefited more from slavery than black Americans alive today.

And no one regrets slavery more than white Americans.

Oh, I believe those plantation owners benefited nicely from the toils of slavery. Those same owners also did a good job garnishing propaganda to get enough fear into those poor white folks to get them to fight FOR them and not with them.

Safety
11-13-2014, 09:12 PM
Compare living on a plantation with their gardens, fresh meat, clothing, home to live in ....

To life in the jungle

I think all in all, given the era, they had it pretty well made.

Again, pole vault to Monticello the home of Jefferson, skulk to Mt. Vernon .... say WOW when you see where the slaves lived.

A lot of people today don't have fresh food as fed to slaves.

And, I do not approve slavery. I also don't approve lies. Movies are for entertainment, not the truth.


Surprising to those who think they learned history at the movies, slaves were with the officers of the south and took great care of their boss. Most non officers simply lacked funds to feed slaves or provide homes.

Some of you obviously never saw Mt. Vernon nor Monticello. Those were pretty typical plantations.


Bob, where are you from and where were you raised?

Just answer that for me before we continue down this path.

del
11-13-2014, 09:12 PM
oh, bob

Alyosha
11-13-2014, 09:13 PM
Okay...

1. Yes, African countries had and have slave castes, but to be taken across an ocean to be a slave somewhere else where many died leaves me thinking that maybe the jungle would have been preferable.
2. Depending on your values it could have been a good move for their progeny, however
3. That in no way excuses people who claimed to be Christians from owning humans

Alyosha
11-13-2014, 09:13 PM
Bob, where are from and where were you raised?

Just answer that for me before we continue down this path.

California

Bob
11-13-2014, 09:14 PM
I get a kick out of those using terrorists to describe actual voters that gathered to use democracy to choose the path of secession or not. The public, most not owning slaves, said they wanted out.

While G. Washington and the rest of the founders get called heros for a hanging offense, the South is typically cast as punk ass rebels.

Well, truth is stranger than fiction. Those who voted to leave the union at least said it to the union's face then left the union.

You guys were nabbed by the Democrats education system. Stop thinking of Democrats as great. They were your rebels. But I accept the vote so long as the public voted on it.

Alyosha
11-13-2014, 09:15 PM
Oh, I believe those plantation owners benefited nicely from the toils of slavery. Those same owners also did a good job garnishing propaganda to get enough fear into those poor white folks to get them to fight FOR them and not with them.

Agreed but the northern mission was not to free slaves but to reunite the union. There were abolitionists like Spooner who were hardcore, but that was not Lincoln.

Mac-7
11-13-2014, 09:15 PM
Oh, I believe those plantation owners benefited nicely from the toils of slavery. Those same owners also did a good job garnishing propaganda to get enough fear into those poor white folks to get them to fight FOR them and not with them.

You are stuck in the past 150 years ago.

i am talking about the present and still say blacks alive today benefited the most from slavery.

del
11-13-2014, 09:16 PM
You are stuck in the past 150 years ago.

i am talking about the present and still say blacks alive today benefited the most from slavery.

that's because you're a moron.

Safety
11-13-2014, 09:17 PM
Agreed but the northern mission was not to free slaves but to reunite the union. There were abolitionists like Spooner who were hardcore, but that was not Lincoln.

I know, but when I'm dealing with someone like Bob, I have to use broad characterizations and not muddy up the water with particulars.

Bob
11-13-2014, 09:17 PM
California

Glad you are reading this Aly.

Now, I have a question for Aly and she can PM me.

I am studying a super good Soviet era book on Grand Master chess. A well known master was known as Alyosha.

You use the name. Is it your real first name?

The name was associated with a man.

I know I can tell a person's gender in Germany by a first name, but not in the former Soviet Union.

Why Alyosha given you are female? PM me if this is that private to you. If you pm me, I won't repeat any thing.

Safety
11-13-2014, 09:18 PM
California

Oh dear.

I'm wasting my time.

Mac-7
11-13-2014, 09:20 PM
that's because you're a moron.

You are a typical bitter-but-shallow lib who can't form an argument so you have to depend on using personal insults instead.

Alyosha
11-13-2014, 09:20 PM
Glad you are reading this Aly.

Now, I have a question for Aly and she can PM me.

I am studying a super good Soviet era book on Grand Master chess. A well known master was known as Alyosha.

You use the name. Is it your real first name?

The name was associated with a man.

I know I can tell a person's gender in Germany by a first name, but not in the former Soviet Union.

Why Alyosha given you are female? PM me if this is that private to you. If you pm me, I won't repeat any thing.

Alyosha is a character in Dostoyevsky's novel, Brothers Karamazov. My name is a super common Russian females name.

Bob
11-13-2014, 09:21 PM
Bob, where are from and where were you raised?

Just answer that for me before we continue down this path.

As Alyosha says, I was born in CA to a family from the South. My parents were immigrants to CA.

I have traveled also to the South. I have seen plantations.

But that does not matter to me. I used to believe the propaganda taught to me in school.

I put in effort to study even Abe the outlaw. He admitted he did not fight a war over slavery.

iustitia
11-13-2014, 09:22 PM
Many who opposed slavery, like the Free Soil Party (merged into the GOP), didn't do so on moral grounds but because slavery threatened white labor.

History is whitewashed of underlying motives to deify the state. Every war after the revolution was bull, the Civil War included and the Barbary excluded perhaps.

Mister D
11-13-2014, 09:22 PM
Okay...

1. Yes, African countries had and have slave castes, but to be taken across an ocean to be a slave somewhere else where many died leaves me thinking that maybe the jungle would have been preferable.
2. Depending on your values it could have been a good move for their progeny, however
3. That in no way excuses people who claimed to be Christians from owning humans

The reality of slavery in the American south lies somewhere in between the ridiculous documentaries you see on the History Channel and the preposterous claim that slavery was a good thing.

Mister D
11-13-2014, 09:24 PM
Alyosha is a character in Dostoyevsky's novel, Brothers Karamazov. My name is a super common Russian females name.

I want to read House of the Dead soon.

Bob
11-13-2014, 09:25 PM
Alyosha is a character in Dostoyevsky's novel, Brothers Karamazov. My name is a super common Russian females name.

So, it is your given name. Is it common for men to use for a first name?

Let me tell you the name and I believe he came from Ukraine.

Alyosha Kramchaninov

Perhaps it is a she not a he

Alyosha
11-13-2014, 09:30 PM
So, it is your given name. Is it common for men to use for a first name?

Let me tell you the name and I believe he came from Ukraine.

Alyosha Kramchaninov

Perhaps it is a she not a he

It is common enough males name.

Safety
11-13-2014, 09:30 PM
As Alyosha says, I was born in CA to a family from the South. My parents were immigrants to CA.

I have traveled also to the South. I have seen plantations.

But that does not matter to me. I used to believe the propaganda taught to me in school.

I put in effort to study even Abe the outlaw. He admitted he did not fight a war over slavery.

Well, that's a nice bedtime story to tell the grandkids, however, I was born and raised in the south. Everything I am speaking of did not come from my schooling, it came from my interest in history, particularly history in the American south.

I agree there are many sources that try to explain the reason for going to war, however, I find that the most compelling case stems from the letters of secession of the confederate states themselves.

Take for example Texas's letter:


She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. 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. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

That is from the third paragraph. The third paragraph. Before any mention of states right, taxes, or even Obamacare. Slavery.

The rest of the thirteen confederate states are read pretty similar.

So while it may lessen the blow to say the war was not about slavery, history has pretty much proved that to be false, again.

Mac-7
11-13-2014, 09:34 PM
Well, that's a nice bedtime story to tell the grandkids, however, I was born and raised in the south. Everything I am speaking of did not come from my schooling, it came from my interest in history, particularly history in the American south.

I agree there are many sources that try to explain the reason for going to war, however, I find that the most compelling case stems from the letters of secession of the confederate states themselves.

Take for example Texas's letter:



That is from the third paragraph. The third paragraph. Before any mention of states right, taxes, or even Obamacare. Slavery.

The rest of the thirteen confederate states are read pretty similar.

So while it may lessen the blow to say the war was not about slavery, history has pretty much proved that to be false, again.

Its lucky for modern blacks that America had slavery once.

Safety
11-13-2014, 09:35 PM
Its lucky for modern blacks that America had slavery once.

You're beginning to sound like Charly, Mac.

Alyosha
11-13-2014, 09:37 PM
http://media1.giphy.com/media/u36Ow6jBvWCFW/giphy.gif

Mac-7
11-13-2014, 09:40 PM
You're beginning to sound like Charly, Mac.

You are sounding like a black guy who is afraid to face reality.

Bob
11-13-2014, 09:40 PM
The reality of slavery in the American south lies somewhere in between the ridiculous documentaries you see on the History Channel and the preposterous claim that slavery was a good thing.

I once paid for the History Channel but can't recall them claiming slaves lived pathetic lives. But I have not seen History in several years.

The next curious thing you said is some see slavery as a good thing.

I don't make such claims.

I simply wish we cut off the liars and told truth.

For instance,,

Presume you owned a plantation at the time. Would you want some terrible shacks sitting on your well managed land? How would you manage your slaves? Why assume those in the South, reported to have both class and outstanding manners beat up slaves? Some slaves were beat. But as a routine measure for every plantation owner? Look at those plantations. Does that make you see beatings there? I saw no whipping post at Mt. Vernon nor Monticello.

Where do you see signs of abuse?

Safety
11-13-2014, 09:42 PM
You are sounding like a black guy who us afraid to face reality.

Dang, you got me Mac, I didn't know color had a sound. I guess I better go brush up on my typing skills.

Mac-7
11-13-2014, 09:45 PM
Dang, you got me Mac, I didn't know color had a sound. I guess I better go brush up on my typing skills.

It does.

You have proudly proclaimed your black skin color on this board before.

or are you ashamed to admit it now?

Safety
11-13-2014, 09:45 PM
I once paid for the History Channel but can't recall them claiming slaves lived pathetic lives. But I have not seen History in several years.

The next curious thing you said is some see slavery as a good thing.

I don't make such claims.

I simply wish we cut off the liars and told truth.

For instance,,

Presume you owned a plantation at the time. Would you want some terrible shacks sitting on your well managed land? How would you manage your slaves? Why assume those in the South, reported to have both class and outstanding manners beat up slaves? Some slaves were beat. But as a routine measure for every plantation owner? Look at those plantations. Does that make you see beatings there? I saw no whipping post at Mt. Vernon nor Monticello.

Where do you see signs of abuse?


Bob, the plantation was there to make money, not to board slaves. Money was the bottom line. Slaves were property and obviously some owners took care of his stock better than others.

Do you make a habit of going around to cattle farms and remarking on how well kept their holding pens are?

Safety
11-13-2014, 09:47 PM
It does.

You have proudly proclaimed your black skin color on this board before.

or are you ashamed to admit it now?

Now it's "proudly" proclaimed? What's next, I'm angry?

When did you stop beating your wife?

Mac-7
11-13-2014, 09:48 PM
Now it's "proudly" proclaimed? What's next, I'm angry?

When did you stop beating your wife?

Are you not black today?.

ok whatever you say.

Safety
11-13-2014, 09:51 PM
Are you not black today?.

ok whatever you say.

You're not making any sense, where are you trying to take the discussion? Help me help you.

Bob
11-13-2014, 09:52 PM
Well, that's a nice bedtime story to tell the grandkids, however, I was born and raised in the south. Everything I am speaking of did not come from my schooling, it came from my interest in history, particularly history in the American south.

I agree there are many sources that try to explain the reason for going to war, however, I find that the most compelling case stems from the letters of secession of the confederate states themselves.

Take for example Texas's letter:



That is from the third paragraph. The third paragraph. Before any mention of states right, taxes, or even Obamacare. Slavery.

The rest of the thirteen confederate states are read pretty similar.

So while it may lessen the blow to say the war was not about slavery, history has pretty much proved that to be false, again.

One does not have to live in the South to see what happened. While I admit to learning a lot more in my personal visits, your commentary matters little to me as to causes of secession. The reason why is I too read all the states letters to explain they left to preserve a way of life where they owned property and used property. They felt threatened.

Early on, on my own, I studied and kept copies of each states letter of secession. But more than that, I also studied other books. Even some acting as if slavery was wonderful.

You need a lot of sources not a few that back up what you want backed up.

Looking at this from the slaves point of view, with the empathy of today, where I never would consider owning slaves even legal, I can mourn for them. They may have had family in Africa, living and loving them.

Africa was and still is in places, primitive. And we must recall it was Africans doing the hunting and capture of slaves. It seems as if slaves lived in a slave culture in Africa and while today it is very easy to think how bad it was, in those days it might have been far better than what we presume.

I think over those wonderful plantations and figure owners with a oz of pride would want to display decent homes for slaves. G. Washington had decent homes as did Thomas Jefferson. I believe it was in the culture of the South to provide decent shelter. And slaves paid nothing but labor for shelter, food and clothing.

Today we would get angry. But then maybe not.

This by the way is not some endorsement of slavery. I reject such a claim.

Look, here we love to argue points. We like to make a good case. Don't blame me for seeing a rose in every bunch of weeds.

Mac-7
11-13-2014, 09:54 PM
You're not making any sense, where are you trying to take the discussion? Help me help you.

Since you refuse to admit that you are black I'm not going anywhere with you.

i have already made my point that modern blacks benefit the most from slavery and no one has disputed that fact.

Alyosha
11-13-2014, 09:54 PM
War is the rich going for their reasons and the poor going for noble ones.

Bob
11-13-2014, 09:57 PM
Bob, the plantation was there to make money, not to board slaves. Money was the bottom line. Slaves were property and obviously some owners took care of his stock better than others.

Do you make a habit of going around to cattle farms and remarking on how well kept their holding pens are?

Not at all. They also had cattle but they did not keep cattle in the similar homes they had for slaves.

Why does it bother you to find out most slaves were well provided for?

Are you thinking this would happen today and be appropriate?

I don't think for a second today it is appropriate.

As I told you, besides books, I visited plantations in the South. It was enlightening.

Bob
11-13-2014, 09:58 PM
War is the rich going for their reasons and the poor going for noble ones.

I was lucky not to be sent to Vietnam. And believe me, I was not rich. Had the SOB's sent me to Vietnam, I might have fled this country ahead of time. War is not noble.

iustitia
11-13-2014, 09:59 PM
I think you're all short-sighted.

The war was about slavery among other things. That's not even a question. However the Civil War has four aspects.

Why did the South secede?
What was the war over?
Who started the war?
What were the war objectives?

Four different things.

Of the four states to issue declarations of the causes of secession, all stated they were protecting slavery. The other states' governors and legislators stated as much. Slavery was expressly protected in the CSA Constitution. The Vice President Alexander Stephens gave a huge speech bashing the Founding Fathers over the notion that all men are created equal, declaring that theirs would be the first nation in history founded on the belief that the white man was superior. To deny that slavery was the main cause of secession is idiotic.

What was the war over? Many things. Sure we can blame slavery, but really the root cause was federal authority and regional differences/sectionalism. You're more likely to fight someone you know than one you don't. Even to this day there's resentment between regions in this nation. One of the reasons that many revisionist historians blame for the war was tariffs. I don't know if I buy that but it's not untrue that Lincoln threatened bloodshed on states that refused to hand over tariffs from their ports which back then overwhelmingly fell on the South. Honestly though, the war was over special interests. The South's elites were the real pushers of slavery, the aristocrats of a largely agrarian land. The North supported the same neo-mercantilism of the Whigs and Federalists before them which meant subsidies for internal improvements and canals (and then railroads), central banking and fiat paper money, industrialism and stronger central authority (including importing the Prussian education system).

Who started the war is a matter of opinion. The South fired the first shots at Fort Sumter. However, was it a war of Northern aggression? Evidence shows Lincoln provoked the incident by purposely sending a warship to the fort. South Carolina declared its secession and didn't recognize federal authority on its territory, but they still allowed the troops in Sumter to eat and resupply; they fired only when Lincoln violated the agreement. And not for nothing, but say the South was wrong to fire on Fort Sumter. Was it worth invading a sovereign state/nation and getting 700,000 people killed?

Lastly, the objectives of both sides for the war were mostly status quo. The South didn't try to take over the Union, so it wasn't really a civil war in that sense. There were episodes where the South suppressed secession movements within itself and tried to annex Union territories, and evidence shows plans by Confederate leaders for at the least a desire to expand into Latin America/the Caribbean (totally not over slavery). Lincoln's main objectives were always to preserve the nation as a whole entity. He didn't give two shits about slavery, at least not morally or at the start of the war.

Long story short, both sides were assholes were different reasons. The South was right for the wrong reasons and the North was wrong for the wrong reasons. Stop cherrypicking.

Safety
11-13-2014, 10:01 PM
I was lucky not to be sent to Vietnam. And believe me, I was not rich. Had the SOB's sent me to Vietnam, I might have fled this country ahead of time. War is not noble.

Not everyone has that luxury, my father was drafted and served in the Marine Corp. Luckily he made it home safely, but a lot of his buddies didn't.

Bob
11-13-2014, 10:04 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=837402#post837402)
So, it is your given name. Is it common for men to use for a first name?

Let me tell you the name and I believe he came from Ukraine.

Alyosha Kramchaninov

Perhaps it is a she not a he


It is common enough males name.

We have names both genders use. I guess it is not a shock.

Thanks for the trust. I really did not know the name is common over there.

It is pretty as a name. I think my daughters have pretty names but I am very biased where my children are concerned. I would tell you PM but we have some on this forum who need not know.

Jody can be a woman's or man's name here.

Safety
11-13-2014, 10:04 PM
Since you refuse to admit that you are black I'm not going anywhere with you.

i have already made my point that modern blacks benefit the most from slavery and no one has disputed that fact.

Mac, what is the issue with your line of questioning? Why do you need confirmation of the amount of melanin I have?

Mac-7
11-13-2014, 10:06 PM
Mac, what is the issue with your line of questioning? Why do you need confirmation of the amount of melanin I have?

No.

If you are ashamed to say then no one needs to know.

Mister D
11-13-2014, 10:07 PM
I once paid for the History Channel but can't recall them claiming slaves lived pathetic lives. But I have not seen History in several years.

The next curious thing you said is some see slavery as a good thing.

I don't make such claims.

I simply wish we cut off the liars and told truth.

For instance,,

Presume you owned a plantation at the time. Would you want some terrible shacks sitting on your well managed land? How would you manage your slaves? Why assume those in the South, reported to have both class and outstanding manners beat up slaves? Some slaves were beat. But as a routine measure for every plantation owner? Look at those plantations. Does that make you see beatings there? I saw no whipping post at Mt. Vernon nor Monticello.

Where do you see signs of abuse?

bob, outside the American south (e.g. Cuba) slaves were typically worked to death and replaced with fresh meat. Any resistance was severely punished. In the US, the institution was much less vicious but the difference is one of degree not of kind. It's still chattel slavery where the master had the power of life and death over his property. You take a good point about the exaggeration of conditions in the south and insist on turning that into a crazy one. Yes, bob, you do "make such claims" and we can see that by your refusal to unequivocally condemn the institution for what it was.

Safety
11-13-2014, 10:08 PM
No.

If you are ashamed to say then no one needs to know.

Who is ashamed? I'm just curious as to why it's relevant.

Safety
11-13-2014, 10:09 PM
bob, outside the American south (e.g. Cuba) slaves were typically worked to death and replaced with fresh meat. Any resistance was severely punished. In the US, the institution was much less vicious but the difference is one of degree not of kind. It's still chattel slavery where the master had the power of life and death over his property. You take a good point about the exaggeration of conditions in the south and insist on turning that into a crazy one. Yes, bob, you do "make such claims" and we can see that by your refusal to unequivocally condemn the institution for what it was.

Well, I'll be....

Mac-7
11-13-2014, 10:10 PM
Who is ashamed? I'm just curious as to why it's relevant.

I find it curious that sometimes you post as a black person and at other times not.

Bob
11-13-2014, 10:11 PM
Not everyone has that luxury, my father was drafted and served in the Marine Corp. Luckily he made it home safely, but a lot of his buddies didn't.

I heard of Marines being drafted. A lot of Marines will tell you nobody got drafted into the Marines.

This is also a favorite of mine as to controversies.

The vast majority of veterans of Vietnam never got injured. Very few died compared to the number who served there.

iustitia
11-13-2014, 10:11 PM
Who is ashamed? I'm just curious as to why it's relevant.

I notice you just got rid of your Dave Chapel doing crack avatar.

Safety
11-13-2014, 10:12 PM
I find it curious that sometimes you post as a black person and at other times not.

Thank you, that is what I was driving at. How does a black person post vs a non-black?

Mac-7
11-13-2014, 10:13 PM
Thank you, that is what I was driving at. How does a black person post vs a non-black?

By claiming to be black.

but it's ok.

im white all the time and up I would not want to be black either, even for a day.

Safety
11-13-2014, 10:13 PM
I notice you just got rid of your Dave Chapel doing crack avatar.

I did. He may be back, I haven't decided on it yet.

Bob
11-13-2014, 10:14 PM
bob, outside the American south (e.g. Cuba) slaves were typically worked to death and replaced with fresh meat. Any resistance was severely punished. In the US, the institution was much less vicious but the difference is one of degree not of kind. It's still chattel slavery where the master had the power of life and death over his property. You take a good point about the exaggeration of conditions in the south and insist on turning that into a crazy one. Yes, bob, you do "make such claims" and we can see that by your refusal to unequivocally condemn the institution for what it was.

I make no representations about Cuba and slavery.

Have you made it well known that both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were notorious in poor treatment of slaves?

Hell, you don't want a discussion, you want me to get into some name calling war.

Safety
11-13-2014, 10:14 PM
I heard of Marines being drafted. A lot of Marines will tell you nobody got drafted into the Marines.

This is also a favorite of mine as to controversies.

The vast majority of veterans of Vietnam never got injured. Very few died compared to the number who served there.

I really don't know how to respond to that, Bob.

sachem
11-13-2014, 10:15 PM
I heard of Marines being drafted. A lot of Marines will tell you nobody got drafted into the Marines.

This is also a favorite of mine as to controversies.

The vast majority of veterans of Vietnam never got injured. Very few died compared to the number who served there.
I'm sure that is a comfort to the families of the dead.

iustitia
11-13-2014, 10:16 PM
Thank you, that is what I was driving at. How does a black person post vs a non-black?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7G6ciJUMuAk/TGOQMOWsMGI/AAAAAAAABZU/_K91q5OU6hw/s1600/yo+dawg+31.jpg

del
11-13-2014, 10:19 PM
You are a typical bitter-but-shallow lib who can't form an argument so you have to depend on using personal insults instead.

i don't argue with lesser beings; there's no sport to it.

Safety
11-13-2014, 10:19 PM
By claiming to be black.

but it's ok.

im white all the time and up I would not want to be black either, even for a day.

I like the little dig at the end, but rest assure Mac, I am black all day, every day. I appreciate it even more when I get accused of "acting" black. Trust me it was quite the opposite when I was going through school.

Mister D
11-13-2014, 10:21 PM
I make no representations about Cuba and slavery.

Have you made it well known that both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were notorious in poor treatment of slaves?

Hell, you don't want a discussion, you want me to get into some name calling war.

Who cares how George Washington and Thomas Jefferson treated their slaves? They were two men among many. btw, Jefferson had a taste for dark meat.

del
11-13-2014, 10:23 PM
I really don't know how to respond to that, Bob.

bob isn't always fully cognizant of his surroundings

Mac-7
11-13-2014, 10:33 PM
I like the little dig at the end, but rest assure Mac, I am black all day, every day. I appreciate it even more when I get accused of "acting" black. Trust me it was quite the opposite when I was going through school.

Acting black is your term, not mine.

You are being coy, as if you have something to hide.

And since I'm not black, and not obsessed with events 150 years ago it never occurred to me to play games with my identity.

but this is the Internet where you can be anything you want, anytime you want.

Mac-7
11-13-2014, 10:34 PM
i don't argue with lesser beings; there's no sport to it.

You don't argue with superior beings either.

all you know how to do is hurl personal insults.

Safety
11-13-2014, 10:40 PM
Acting black is your term, not mine.

You are being coy, as if you have something to hide.

And since I'm not black, and not obsessed with events 150 years ago it never occurred to me to play games with my identity.

but this is the Internet where you can be anything you want, anytime you want.

You asked, Mac. In fact, you were being pretty darn insistent. I wasn't playing games, or trying to hide anything. I just really wanted to know why or how ones race matters when having a discussion. It should be based off of facts and verifiable sources, not personal anecdotes.

Anyway, does that mean you don't wanna be my friend now that you know that little tidbit?

Mac-7
11-13-2014, 10:45 PM
You asked, Mac.

i didn't ask.

you never bothered to hide your race before but suddenly you want to.

as I said that's ok with me.

just lets us know when you are black again.

Safety
11-13-2014, 10:49 PM
i didn't ask.

you never bothered to hide your race before but suddenly you want to.

as I said that's ok with me.

just lets us know when you are black again.

*sigh*

Bob
11-13-2014, 10:51 PM
I think you're all short-sighted.

The war was about slavery among other things. That's not even a question. However the Civil War has four aspects.

Why did the South secede?
What was the war over?
Who started the war?
What were the war objectives?

Four different things.


Of the four states to issue declarations of the causes of secession, all stated they were protecting slavery. The other states' governors and legislators stated as much. Slavery was expressly protected in the CSA Constitution. The Vice President Alexander Stephens gave a huge speech bashing the Founding Fathers over the notion that all men are created equal, declaring that theirs would be the first nation in history founded on the belief that the white man was superior. To deny that slavery was the main cause of secession is idiotic.

Actually, the threat of taking the property of those that owned said property is a damned good reason to bail out since the threat came from DC. You couch it in color, I couch it in economics. Further you forgot to mention the people in the South put it up for the vote prior to departing the Union. You also sidestepped the claims made by Abe the outlaw Lincoln. That blacks were inferior and he planned to deport them upon payment. But he did not let the South know of that plan.



What was the war over? Many things. Sure we can blame slavery, but really the root cause was federal authority and regional differences/sectionalism. You're more likely to fight someone you know than one you don't. Even to this day there's resentment between regions in this nation. One of the reasons that many revisionist historians blame for the war was tariffs. I don't know if I buy that but it's not untrue that Lincoln threatened bloodshed on states that refused to hand over tariffs from their ports which back then overwhelmingly fell on the South. Honestly though, the war was over special interests. The South's elites were the real pushers of slavery, the aristocrats of a largely agrarian land. The North supported the same neo-mercantilism of the Whigs and Federalists before them which meant subsidies for internal improvements and canals (and then railroads), central banking and fiat paper money, industrialism and stronger central authority (including importing the Prussian education system).

I can live with the above statements.


Who started the war is a matter of opinion. The South fired the first shots at Fort Sumter. However, was it a war of Northern aggression? Evidence shows Lincoln provoked the incident by purposely sending a warship to the fort. South Carolina declared its secession and didn't recognize federal authority on its territory, but they still allowed the troops in Sumter to eat and resupply; they fired only when Lincoln violated the agreement. And not for nothing, but say the South was wrong to fire on Fort Sumter. Was it worth invading a sovereign state/nation and getting 700,000 people killed?

Abe the outlaw tried to supply Ft. Sumter but his ship was repelled. One of the most important arguments one can make is compare it to what happened at the founding? Who established some kind of low power Federal operation? The reply is states did. States believed that which they assembled, could as easily be disassembled. The South did not leave with no notice. They made an open and notorious move and not at the last moment. This was not a bolt of lightning. George Washington could have been captured and hung as could the founders. Merely because they believed they could leave was good enough for George to wage war and attack. I suppose the South was different and could not vote and decide to leave, but they made it clear what was going on and why. Slaves were breadwinners for plantations. Slaves cost a lot of money.

There was no way for the North to demand the South abandon a way to make a living and not piss them off.

Were we told today if we lived in a particular state, the Feds would remove our way to make a living, we too would vote to stay or leave from such a hateful force as the Union then was. At least the South once they voted told the Union their plans and carried them out.


Lastly, the objectives of both sides for the war were mostly status quo. The South didn't try to take over the Union, so it wasn't really a civil war in that sense. There were episodes where the South suppressed secession movements within itself and tried to annex Union territories, and evidence shows plans by Confederate leaders for at the least a desire to expand into Latin America/the Caribbean (totally not over slavery). Lincoln's main objectives were always to preserve the nation as a whole entity. He didn't give two shits about slavery, at least not morally or at the start of the war.

I agree that Abe the outlaw did not give a damn. When the attack commenced at Ft. Sumter the rest of the story is the South dispatched Military to the Ft. to have a chat with Major Anderson had a chance to take his men and bail out. He refused and since S Carolina believe that the land really belonged to that state, they took action. It is similar to the cops today telling the crook to surrender or be shot at. Fortunately for Anderson none of his men were so much as injured by the rather noisy and smoke filled cannon fire. Damage to the fort to the South was still damage to their property.

Long story short, both sides were assholes were different reasons. The South was right for the wrong reasons and the North was wrong for the wrong reasons. Stop cherrypicking.

I feel your lesson will be lost on the haters of the South and not appreciated by those supporting the North. As to me, it is pretty accurate with the bias left out.

sachem
11-13-2014, 10:51 PM
*sigh*I had to put him on ignore.

Mac-7
11-13-2014, 10:53 PM
I had to put him on ignore.

Go ahead.

No one is going to miss you.

Safety
11-13-2014, 10:53 PM
I had to put him on ignore.

I would, but I am thinking on doing a masters in psychology and if I let this little nugget of case study get away, who knows where I would find another one like him.

del
11-13-2014, 10:54 PM
You don't argue with superior beings either.

all you know how to do is hurl personal insults.

how would you know?

sachem
11-13-2014, 10:54 PM
I would, but I am thinking on doing a masters in psychology and if I let this little nugget of case study get away, who knows where I would find another one like him.I understand.

Mac-7
11-13-2014, 10:55 PM
I would, but I am thinking on doing a masters in psychology .

Filling a quota seat?

iustitia
11-13-2014, 10:58 PM
You don't argue with superior beings either.

all you know how to do is hurl personal insults.
http://www.replify.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/pot-and-kettle.png

Safety
11-13-2014, 11:00 PM
Filling a quota seat?

Oooh, ouch.

That's the one reason why I don't let my race be known. Stay classy, Mac.

Mac-7
11-13-2014, 11:01 PM
It would be better if we could leave the personal,insult out, but with so many libs here that is impossible.

Chloe
11-13-2014, 11:04 PM
Everybody please stop with the insults. Both thinly veiled and blatant insults, just please bring it down a notch. Thank you.

Green Arrow
11-13-2014, 11:04 PM
It would be better if we could leave the personal,insult out, but with so many libs here that is impossible.

You are one of the last people on this forum that should be complaining about insults.

iustitia
11-13-2014, 11:05 PM
It would be better if we could leave the personal,insult outhttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Buddy_christ.jpg


but with so many libs here that is impossible.

http://www.replify.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/pot-and-kettle.png

Bob
11-13-2014, 11:11 PM
Who cares how George Washington and Thomas Jefferson treated their slaves? They were two men among many. btw, Jefferson had a taste for dark meat.

You have NO BASIS to assume that southern plantation owners were terrible to slaves.

When the South abandoned the union, can't you see it was pure economics?

They believed they were going to lose very valuable property, eg. slaves. We today can't seem to grasp it from the view of those men living in their era. We try to stamp our beliefs on things today.

Try this out for size.

Suppose the Election of Obama would lead to you losing your factory workers, assume you own one.

And out of sheer fear, you decided with your neighbors to abandon the Fed government.

Your very livelihood was about to be shot to hell.

Think as if you owned a plantation and owned valuable slaves. Stop thinking as they did from Maine.

Nobody in the North figured they would lose a thing. Only those in the south figured the would lose a hell of a lot. Maybe the entire plantation. They got scared. Wrap your mind around that fact. Losing your property to the Feds is no laughing matter.

del
11-13-2014, 11:13 PM
there's very little that bob likes better than being an apologist for chattel slavery

Chloe
11-13-2014, 11:17 PM
You have NO BASIS to assume that southern plantation owners were terrible to slaves.

When the South abandoned the union, can't you see it was pure economics?

They believed they were going to lose very valuable property, eg. slaves. We today can't seem to grasp it from the view of those men living in their era. We try to stamp our beliefs on things today.

Try this out for size.

Suppose the Election of Obama would lead to you losing your factory workers, assume you own one.

And out of sheer fear, you decided with your neighbors to abandon the Fed government.

Your very livelihood was about to be shot to hell.

Think as if you owned a plantation and owned valuable slaves. Stop thinking as they did from Maine.

Nobody in the North figured they would lose a thing. Only those in the south figured the would lose a hell of a lot. Maybe the entire plantation. They got scared. Wrap your mind around that fact. Losing your property to the Feds is no laughing matter.

Bob the fact that there were people that saw the wrong in slavery at the exact same time shows, at least to me, that the slave owners failed to do so or chose not to see the wrong. Whether the slaves were treated with relative kindness or with cruelty by their owners it does not really matter. They were still slaves to another human being. You can be as kind of an owner as you want, but you are still supporting cruelty by denying another human being their freedom for your own personal gain.

Green Arrow
11-13-2014, 11:22 PM
You have NO BASIS to assume that southern plantation owners were terrible to slaves.

When the South abandoned the union, can't you see it was pure economics?

They believed they were going to lose very valuable property, eg. slaves. We today can't seem to grasp it from the view of those men living in their era. We try to stamp our beliefs on things today.

Try this out for size.

Suppose the Election of Obama would lead to you losing your factory workers, assume you own one.

And out of sheer fear, you decided with your neighbors to abandon the Fed government.

Your very livelihood was about to be shot to hell.

Think as if you owned a plantation and owned valuable slaves. Stop thinking as they did from Maine.

Nobody in the North figured they would lose a thing. Only those in the south figured the would lose a hell of a lot. Maybe the entire plantation. They got scared. Wrap your mind around that fact. Losing your property to the Feds is no laughing matter.

Did you see all of this personally, or just read about it?

Bob
11-13-2014, 11:39 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=837453#post837453)
I heard of Marines being drafted. A lot of Marines will tell you nobody got drafted into the Marines.

This is also a favorite of mine as to controversies.

The vast majority of veterans of Vietnam never got injured. Very few died compared to the number who served there.


I'm sure that is a comfort to the families of the dead.

Your cracks tell me a lot about you, how you think, etc.

Let me tell you my little story.

I had a few uncles fight in WW2. One also fought every war including Vietnam where he was sent 3 times I believe. He saw action in WW2 and his loss was a finger in the meat grinder as he served officers his finger.
During Korea in the Air Force, he never got hurt. He did not get hurt in Vietnam either. His son, my cousin did not get hurt. My various uncles that made it out of WW2 and saw quite a lot of action came home with no injuries. Even with the losses of WW2, none came home with any injuries.

Gene loved combat. He fought Japs on the islands and was the spear point to remove obstacles to let the invasion start. He blew stuff up. Gene sent home, the day prior to his death, a letter telling us not to worry about him since he was a seasoned combat vet but worry about the young boys who knew nothing of combat. Gene was shot the next day at Taejon Korea after he blew up a bridge.

So, when you crack wise, it is not that I never lost family. I was lucky to avoid war since the only war going on when I was in was in Asia, a little war in Vietnam but lucky me, the only Army guys sent there were special forces and I was not one of those types.

I operate off facts.

Thanks for your comments just the same.

Bob
11-13-2014, 11:46 PM
Did you see all of this personally, or just read about it?

i saw plantations and saw how the slaves lived. I have also studied this a lot.

sachem
11-13-2014, 11:47 PM
Your cracks tell me a lot about you, how you think, etc.

Let me tell you my little story.

I had a few uncles fight in WW2. One also fought every war including Vietnam where he was sent 3 times I believe. He saw action in WW2 and his loss was a finger in the meat grinder as he served officers his finger.
During Korea in the Air Force, he never got hurt. He did not get hurt in Vietnam either. His son, my cousin did not get hurt. My various uncles that made it out of WW2 and saw quite a lot of action came home with no injuries. Even with the losses of WW2, none came home with any injuries.

Gene loved combat. He fought Japs on the islands and was the spear point to remove obstacles to let the invasion start. He blew stuff up. Gene sent home, the day prior to his death, a letter telling us not to worry about him since he was a seasoned combat vet but worry about the young boys who knew nothing of combat. Gene was shot the next day at Taejon Korea after he blew up a bridge.

So, when you crack wise, it is not that I never lost family. I was lucky to avoid war since the only war going on when I was in was in Asia, a little war in Vietnam but lucky me, the only Army guys sent there were special forces and I was not one of those types.

I operate off facts.

Thanks for your comments just the same.Your "stories" tell me a lot about you.

del
11-13-2014, 11:50 PM
Your cracks tell me a lot about you, how you think, etc.

Let me tell you my little story.

I had a few uncles fight in WW2. One also fought every war including Vietnam where he was sent 3 times I believe. He saw action in WW2 and his loss was a finger in the meat grinder as he served officers his finger.
During Korea in the Air Force, he never got hurt. He did not get hurt in Vietnam either. His son, my cousin did not get hurt. My various uncles that made it out of WW2 and saw quite a lot of action came home with no injuries. Even with the losses of WW2, none came home with any injuries.

Gene loved combat. He fought Japs on the islands and was the spear point to remove obstacles to let the invasion start. He blew stuff up. Gene sent home, the day prior to his death, a letter telling us not to worry about him since he was a seasoned combat vet but worry about the young boys who knew nothing of combat. Gene was shot the next day at Taejon Korea after he blew up a bridge.

So, when you crack wise, it is not that I never lost family. I was lucky to avoid war since the only war going on when I was in was in Asia, a little war in Vietnam but lucky me, the only Army guys sent there were special forces and I was not one of those types.

I operate off facts.

Thanks for your comments just the same.

just so i understand, your uncle deliberately fed his finger into a meat grinder?

that's pretty fucked up

PolWatch
11-13-2014, 11:51 PM
i saw plantations and saw how the slaves lived. I have also studied this a lot.

yer right Bob...it was wonderful. Oh, by the way, I just sold your daughters & grandchildren to a friend in Miss....you'll never see or hear from them again. Not a prob...right?

Bob
11-13-2014, 11:51 PM
Bob the fact that there were people that saw the wrong in slavery at the exact same time shows, at least to me, that the slave owners failed to do so or chose not to see the wrong. Whether the slaves were treated with relative kindness or with cruelty by their owners it does not really matter. They were still slaves to another human being. You can be as kind of an owner as you want, but you are still supporting cruelty by denying another human being their freedom for your own personal gain.

There is a today form of wrong and a 1861 form of right and wrong.

I look at this from all sides. If you look at one side only, that is all you will know, perhaps all you will ever know.

I don't so much argue over the view from the slaves since Abe did not either nor did the South.

Let make a clear point.

Were somebody to tell me today I can have slaves in CA provided i accept secession, I would get pretty upset. I would tell them kindly I do not own humans nor intend to own them.

But in 1861 were you born and raised on a plantation with slaves, you too would argue in favor of your family.

We had war to deprive people of their way to make a living.

Howey
11-13-2014, 11:53 PM
Am I supposed to be shocked by this? 40% of our presidents rode in carriages led by horses too.

Safety
11-13-2014, 11:53 PM
There is a today form of wrong and a 1861 form of right and wrong.

I look at this from all sides. If you look at one side only, that is all you will know, perhaps all you will ever know.

I don't so much argue over the view from the slaves since Abe did not either nor did the South.

Let make a clear point.

Were somebody to tell me today I can have slaves in CA provided i accept secession, I would get pretty upset. I would tell them kindly I do not own humans nor intend to own them.

But in 1861 were you born and raised on a plantation with slaves, you too would argue in favor of your family.

We had war to deprive people of their way to make a living.

Bob, no matter how much you polish a turd, it will still be a turd.

This is a turd, Bob.

del
11-13-2014, 11:54 PM
There is a today form of wrong and a 1861 form of right and wrong.

I look at this from all sides. If you look at one side only, that is all you will know, perhaps all you will ever know.

I don't so much argue over the view from the slaves since Abe did not either nor did the South.

Let make a clear point.

Were somebody to tell me today I can have slaves in CA provided i accept secession, I would get pretty upset. I would tell them kindly I do not own humans nor intend to own them.

But in 1861 were you born and raised on a plantation with slaves, you too would argue in favor of your family.

We had war to deprive people of their way to make a living.

we had war because the traitors in south carolina fired on american soldiers

Bob
11-13-2014, 11:54 PM
yer right Bob...it was wonderful. Oh, by the way, I just sold your daughters & grandchildren to a friend in Miss....you'll never see or hear from them again. Not a prob...right?

i think i know you well enough to realize you mean me no harm and are just wiseing off.


What if today, you were learning that now that the republicans are in charge, they plan to deprive you of your way of life and take property away from you.

Would you be kind and say, sure, fine with you?

To those owners of slaves, they were threatened and told to suffer the loss of a way of life.

iustitia
11-13-2014, 11:56 PM
we had war because the traitors in south carolina fired on american soldiers

What is treason?

Bob
11-13-2014, 11:58 PM
we had war because the traitors in south carolina fired on american soldiers

i heard that story only told about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the merry band of traitors from England's point of view.

I simply hope to expose you all to the view of the plantations and citizens of the then South.

del
11-14-2014, 12:00 AM
What is treason?

taking up arms against the lawfully constituted government and losing.

del
11-14-2014, 12:01 AM
i heard that story only told about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the merry band of traitors from England's point of view.

I simply hope to expose you all to the view of the plantations and citizens of the then South.

fuck them

sachem
11-14-2014, 12:02 AM
What is treason?Trying to undermine me!

PolWatch
11-14-2014, 12:02 AM
Bob, sometimes you really shock me. I can't believe you continue to support the owning of humans and defend those who did. I'm trying to make you think about what it really meant...in your gut....not as an interesting side note in history. You are LDS, how do you feel about the communities that burned the Mormons out of their homes, ran them out of Missouri? Persecuted them because of their faith? Do you view those actions with no real feelings...or do you wonder what it would have been if your home had been burned and your Temple destroyed? Can you calmly say, well, they were different so it was right & fair that those who worshiped differently be killed?

Bob
11-14-2014, 12:03 AM
Bob, no matter how much you polish a turd, it will still be a turd.

This is a turd, Bob.

And your explanation is the same thing.

My goal is to show you the other side of the equation.

To explain the south is no turd. They believed in their way of life.

Even George Washington and Jefferson and the presidents of the day saw it as economics. Abe was no pal to the blacks. Study McDonald and learn what he thought of blacks and his plans for them.

The proclamation was a ruse. To try to avoid France being involved.

Safety
11-14-2014, 12:04 AM
Bob, sometimes you really shock me. I can't believe you continue to support the owning of humans and defend those who did. I'm trying to make you think about what it really meant...in your gut....not as an interesting side note in history. You are LDS, how do you feel about the communities that burned the Mormons out of their homes, ran them out of Missouri? Persecuted them because of their faith? Do you view those actions with no real feelings...or do you wonder what it would have been if your home had been burned and your Temple destroyed? Can you calmly say, well, they were different so it was right & fair that those who worshiped differently be killed?

:applause:

Bob
11-14-2014, 12:05 AM
Bob, sometimes you really shock me. I can't believe you continue to support the owning of humans and defend those who did. I'm trying to make you think about what it really meant...in your gut....not as an interesting side note in history. You are LDS, how do you feel about the communities that burned the Mormons out of their homes, ran them out of Missouri? Persecuted them because of their faith? Do you view those actions with no real feelings...or do you wonder what it would have been if your home had been burned and your Temple destroyed? Can you calmly say, well, they were different so it was right & fair that those who worshiped differently be killed?

You have me all wrong. i don't support slavery. I explain the how and why and try to explain that the north won, but it did not tell all of the story.

If you back off and learn, you will find out my actual aim. As to my LDS, sure they suffered a lot. But I can explain that and not get angry.

Perish any idea I defend slavery. I don't defend owning humans.

del
11-14-2014, 12:08 AM
You have me all wrong. i don't support slavery. I explain the how and why and try to explain that the north won, but it did not tell all of the story.

If you back off and learn, you will find out my actual aim. As to my LDS, sure they suffered a lot. But I can explain that and not get angry.

Perish any idea I defend slavery.I don't defend owning humans.

well, yeah, you do.

Safety
11-14-2014, 12:10 AM
And your explanation is the same thing.

My goal is to show you the other side of the equation.

To explain the south is no turd. They believed in their way of life.

Even George Washington and Jefferson and the presidents of the day saw it as economics. Abe was no pal to the blacks. Study McDonald and learn what he thought of blacks and his plans for them.

The proclamation was a ruse. To try to avoid France being involved.

There's nothing that needs explaining, Bob. I don't need to see the other side of the equation. What happened then, happened, and now we're able to sit back and reflect on what transpired. I am very aware of how Lincoln viewed blacks, just like I'm aware of how Johnson viewed blacks also. But the point you seem to be missing is, it doesn't matter how those men viewed blacks, what mattered is that they did what was right FOR blacks.

Being a slavery apologist is no different than being a KKK apologist or a NBPP apologist.

Bob
11-14-2014, 12:13 AM
just so i understand, your uncle deliberately fed his finger into a meat grinder?

that's pretty fucked up

You make a living assuming.

It was an accident. He knew the finger was lost so he kept working

Later in the Air Force he became a Command Sgt. Major.

PolWatch
11-14-2014, 12:13 AM
I don't think anyone here is saying slavery portrayed in all movies is correct. However, to think that just because you have visited restored plantations means you have any special insight into the reality of their lives is kinda odd. Your posts sound like you are defending slavery when, perhaps, you are only saying the view that every slave was beaten & starved everyday is not true. I honestly don't know. When you say it wasn't so bad kinda leaves people wondering.

Bob
11-14-2014, 12:16 AM
There's nothing that needs explaining, Bob. I don't need to see the other side of the equation. What happened then, happened, and now we're able to sit back and reflect on what transpired. I am very aware of how Lincoln viewed blacks, just like I'm aware of how Johnson viewed blacks also. But the point you seem to be missing is, it doesn't matter how those men viewed blacks, what mattered is that they did what was right FOR blacks.

Being a slavery apologist is no different than being a KKK apologist or a NBPP apologist.

That is not even a sane argument. I tend to avoid this but on this forum I believed some were actually intelligent enough to want to learn all of the history and not merely what was allowed for them to know.

It was a property rights issue mainly. The blacks had food, shelter and seemed to be fairly content. They knew what it was like in Africa. Want to discuss how slaves were treated in Africa? Maybe that is up your alley.

Green Arrow
11-14-2014, 12:18 AM
i saw plantations and saw how the slaves lived. I have also studied this a lot.

Yeah, what I meant was, were you there when slavery was going on? Did you see how the slaves were treated PERSONALLY? Not visiting the plantations fifty or so years later, actually there during the 1700-1800s.

sachem
11-14-2014, 12:21 AM
That is not even a sane argument. I tend to avoid this but on this forum I believed some were actually intelligent enough to want to learn all of the history and not merely what was allowed for them to know.

It was a property rights issue mainly. The blacks had food, shelter and seemed to be fairly content. They knew what it was like in Africa. Want to discuss how slaves were treated in Africa? Maybe that is up your alley.Bob, you have no idea what the slaves were thinking or feeling. At best you can make an educated guess. At best.

Bob
11-14-2014, 12:23 AM
I don't think anyone here is saying slavery portrayed in all movies is correct. However, to think that just because you have visited restored plantations means you have any special insight into the reality of their lives is kinda odd. Your posts sound like you are defending slavery when, perhaps, you are only saying the view that every slave was beaten & starved everyday is not true. I honestly don't know. When you say it wasn't so bad kinda leaves people wondering.

Most see this entirely only from the view of the North.

History of the American tribes is also misunderstood. But that error is not as difficult as this is.

Some have leaped to the false conclusion I defend slavery or endorse it.

Nope, I don't. If you offered me a plantation today and free slaves, I would reject your offer.

The whole story was never told you in school It is damned hard to know the entire story from easy to obtain books.

I saw what George Washington did and you will not find a person on this forum blasting the man. They adore Jefferson and won't blast him for his slaves. I saw how Jefferson handled his slaves. Why blast me when you could beat up on the founders who waged war on England and did not so much put it up for a vote.

Why not learn the south put it up to a vote. Don't forget they have pros at those plantations who explain things.

Bob
11-14-2014, 12:24 AM
Bob, you have no idea what the slaves were thinking or feeling. At best you can make an educated guess. At best.

I can do as good a job as those who claim the slaves were whipped all the time.

Safety
11-14-2014, 12:25 AM
That is not even a sane argument. I tend to avoid this but on this forum I believed some were actually intelligent enough to want to learn all of the history and not merely what was allowed for them to know.

It was a property rights issue mainly. The blacks had food, shelter and seemed to be fairly content. They knew what it was like in Africa. Want to discuss how slaves were treated in Africa? Maybe that is up your alley.

Sure lets talk about slavery in Africa. First it wasn't chatttel slavery, where you are bought and sold as property. Second, most of it was indentured servitude, whereas eventually you will have your freedom after you've paid off a debt. Third, there was criminal slavery, whereas that would be self explanatory.

Now, so much for that, we can continue with chattel slavery I'm the U.S. and how wonderful it was for the guests.

Bob
11-14-2014, 12:26 AM
Yeah, what I meant was, were you there when slavery was going on? Did you see how the slaves were treated PERSONALLY? Not visiting the plantations fifty or so years later, actually there during the 1700-1800s.

I will give you the silly reply that matches the silly question.

Sure i was there. Saw it all.

PolWatch
11-14-2014, 12:26 AM
You saw how Jefferson handled his slaves? really....you saw what the tour guide wanted you to see....I give up...I'm outta this thread

Safety
11-14-2014, 12:26 AM
I can do as good a job as those who claim the slaves were whipped all the time.

That statement rates up on the same level as "the KKK didn't lynch all the black people"

sachem
11-14-2014, 12:27 AM
Most see this entirely only from the view of the North.

History of the American tribes is also misunderstood. But that error is not as difficult as this is.

Some have leaped to the false conclusion I defend slavery or endorse it.

Nope, I don't. If you offered me a plantation today and free slaves, I would reject your offer.

The whole story was never told you in school It is damned hard to know the entire story from easy to obtain books.

I saw what George Washington did and you will not find a person on this forum blasting the man. They adore Jefferson and won't blast him for his slaves. I saw how Jefferson handled his slaves. Why blast me when you could beat up on the founders who waged war on England and did not so much put it up for a vote.

Why not learn the south put it up to a vote. Don't forget they have pros at those plantations who explain things.Pros who work on a plantation explaining things. Would there tend to be a bias there?

Bob
11-14-2014, 12:28 AM
Sure lets talk about slavery in Africa. First it wasn't chatttel slavery, where you are bought and sold as property. Second, most of it was indentured servitude, whereas eventually you will have your freedom after you've paid off a debt. Third, there was criminal slavery, whereas that would be self explanatory.

Now, so much for that, we can continue with chattel slavery I'm the U.S. and how wonderful it was for the guests.

Actually in Africa it was and still is chattel slavery. Africans made a lot of money selling slaves to european slave ships captains/owners.

We can whine all day long as to how it was for the slaves but the slaves did not start a war. I comment as if we were on a plantation and probably owners.

Slaves as in those from Africa do not today exist in the USA but it never stops blacks from bringing this up.

Bob
11-14-2014, 12:29 AM
Pros who work on a plantation explaining things. Would there tend to be a bias there?

Let's not make ME the issue.

What do you believe the plantation owners wanted to get them into a war?

Bob
11-14-2014, 12:30 AM
That statement rates up on the same level as "the KKK didn't lynch all the black people"

i am sorry you get emotional. I don't.

sachem
11-14-2014, 12:31 AM
Let's not make ME the issue.

What do you believe the plantation owners wanted to get them into a war?Don't know, don't care.

Bob
11-14-2014, 12:32 AM
You saw how Jefferson handled his slaves? really....you saw what the tour guide wanted you to see....I give up...I'm outta this thread

just stick to the story and try to not make your claims about me. I am not the issue. Justina and I already hashed this out and I agreed with almost every single finding of his. Not every finding, but most of them.

Safety
11-14-2014, 12:32 AM
Actually in Africa it was and still is chattel slavery. Africans made a lot of money selling slaves to european slave ships captains/owners.

We can whine all day long as to how it was for the slaves but the slaves did not start a war. I comment as if we were on a plantation and probably owners.

Slaves as in those from Africa do not today exist in the USA but it never stops blacks from bringing this up.

No, Bob, it isn't.

Chattel slavery

Chattel slavery is a specific servitude relationship where the slave is treated as the property of the owner. As such, the owner is free to sell, trade, or treat the slave as he would other pieces of property and the children of the slave often are retained as the property of the master.[13] There is evidence of long histories of chattel slavery in the Nile river valley and Northern Africa, but evidence is incomplete about the extent and practices of chattel slavery throughout much of the rest of the continent prior to written records by Muslim or European traders.[13]

Bob
11-14-2014, 12:32 AM
Don't know, don't care.

This prevents most who discuss this from learning. Sorry you checked out.

Bob
11-14-2014, 12:34 AM
No, Bob, it isn't.

Chattel slavery

Are you claiming the slaves that were loaded on ships simply walked there on their own and no money exchanged hands? That really modifies history.

sachem
11-14-2014, 12:37 AM
This prevents most who discuss this from learning. Sorry you checked out.I'm not interested in fighting the Civil War again. We won. I'm satisfied.

Safety
11-14-2014, 12:38 AM
Are you claiming the slaves that were loaded on ships simply walked there on their own and no money exchanged hands? That really modifies history.

no Bob, what I am saying is that the slaves that were brought here were indentured servants. That is until Anthony Johnson petitioned Casor to be his slave for life. The slaves that left Africa were either tribes that were conquered or indentured servants.

Bob
11-14-2014, 12:38 AM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=837596#post837596)
You have me all wrong. i don't support slavery. I explain the how and why and try to explain that the north won, but it did not tell all of the story.

If you back off and learn, you will find out my actual aim. As to my LDS, sure they suffered a lot. But I can explain that and not get angry.

Perish any idea I defend slavery.I don't defend owning humans.



well, yeah, you do.

Well, supposedly you don't beat your wife, but yeah, you do.

Howey
11-14-2014, 12:39 AM
I'm not interested in fighting the Civil War again. We won. I'm satisfied.

Oh God. Don't tell that to Philly Rabbit! He's still fighting the war!

Bob
11-14-2014, 12:41 AM
no Bob, what I am saying is that the slaves that were brought here were indentured servants. That is until Anthony Johnson petitioned Casor to be his slave for life. The slaves that left Africa were either tribes that were conquered or indentured servants.

For many years, part of my education to hold my licenses includes law.

I very well understand Chattel.

Slaves were captured, marched to a port in West Africa and sold to ships owners or agents for them.

That is chattel.

I am surprised you defend slavery in Africa by making light of it.

That is how I feel when you resort to petty insults.

PolWatch
11-14-2014, 12:42 AM
I'm not interested in fighting the Civil War again. We won. I'm satisfied.

omg! YOU won? does that mean I need to cash in my Confederate money? (why didn't anyone tell my grandfather?)

Bob
11-14-2014, 12:42 AM
I'm not interested in fighting the Civil War again. We won. I'm satisfied.

I suppose those in MA feel that way. Just don't move to the South.

Safety
11-14-2014, 12:43 AM
For many years, part of my education to hold my licenses includes law.

I very well understand Chattel.

Slaves were captured, marched to a port in West Africa and sold to ships owners or agents for them.

That is chattel.

I am surprised you defend slavery in Africa by making light of it.

That is how I feel when you resort to petty insults.

There is only one person on record here trying to defend slavery. I'll let you figure out who it is.

PolWatch
11-14-2014, 12:44 AM
sachem (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/974-sachem)


you can come south anytime you want...I'll even fix you some grits...:wink:

Safety
11-14-2014, 12:46 AM
sachem (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/974-sachem)


you can come south anytime you want...I'll even fix you some grits...:wink:

instant? :sofa:

sachem
11-14-2014, 12:47 AM
Oh God. Don't tell that to @Philly Rabbit (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=405)! He's still fighting the war!I try to avoid Philly.

PolWatch
11-14-2014, 12:48 AM
if you are asking me if I use instant grits...you are in a heap of trouble! A true southern cook would never allow instant grits in their kitchen! and yes, the couch is open!

sachem
11-14-2014, 12:48 AM
sachem (http://thepoliticalforums.com/members/974-sachem)


you can come south anytime you want...I'll even fix you some grits...:wink:Watch out, I might just do that. :D

Safety
11-14-2014, 12:48 AM
For many years, part of my education to hold my licenses includes law.

I very well understand Chattel.

Slaves were captured, marched to a port in West Africa and sold to ships owners or agents for them.

That is chattel.

I am surprised you defend slavery in Africa by making light of it.

That is how I feel when you resort to petty insults.

How they were captured makes a difference, Bob. But please, continue on your tour guide...

Safety
11-14-2014, 12:50 AM
if you are asking me if I use instant grits...you are in a heap of trouble! A true southern cook would never allow instant grits in their kitchen! and yes, the couch is open!

Every time I ask that I get flashbacks to the movie "my cousin vinny"

Howey
11-14-2014, 12:50 AM
I try to avoid Philly.

Lol. So do I.

PolWatch
11-14-2014, 12:50 AM
I think I saw that movie, years ago...but don't remember much about it.

Professor Peabody
11-14-2014, 12:55 AM
How they were captured makes a difference, Bob. But please, continue on your tour guide...

So did WHO captured them. African tribes were generally in a perpetual war with each other over territory, hunting grounds and other resources. When the warriors did battle one tribe (the one winning the battle) usually captured warriors from the opposing tribe. They would make slave labor out of the other tribes captives, the ones that weren't needed were typically put to death. When the slave traders showed up, the tribes stopped killing the excess captives and started trading them for things like blankets, wax candles, oil lamps and the oil to run them, fire water, pre made bows and arrows and food.

Most slave ships carried a crew of 50 or less. African tribes of the time typically numbered from several hundred to several thousand, there was safety in numbers. The slave ship crews were armed with one shot flintlock pistols, one or two per man. A good man with one of these pistols could fire three rounds a MINUTE , the procedure to reload them is slow. I'm sure there were cannons and rifles aboard the ship. Assuming they would leave 10 crew to protect the ship from pirates. 40 guys with single shot pistols would be quickly overwhelmed by several hundred battle experienced warriors with spears, clubs and such. So I highly doubt they were able to steal the tribe members for long before the warriors would be waiting to let 'em have it.

Safety
11-14-2014, 12:59 AM
I think I saw that movie, years ago...but don't remember much about it.


http://youtu.be/ZZkbtP-t_D8

Bob
11-14-2014, 01:04 AM
How they were captured makes a difference, Bob. But please, continue on your tour guide...

i see how you think.


Walmart store sold slaves and ship's agent simply rolled watermelons their way and off they went.

Safety
11-14-2014, 01:05 AM
i see how you think.


Walmart store sold slaves and ship's agent simply rolled watermelons their way and off they went.


Aaannnd, we're done.

Bob
11-14-2014, 01:06 AM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Safety http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=837659#post837659)
How they were captured makes a difference, Bob. But please, continue on your tour guide...


So did WHO captured them. African tribes were generally in a perpetual war with each other over territory, hunting grounds and other resources. When the warriors did battle one tribe (the one winning the battle) usually captured warriors from the opposing tribe. They would make slave labor out of the other tribes captives, the ones that weren't needed were typically put to death. When the slave traders showed up, the tribes stopped killing the excess captives and started trading them for things like blankets, wax candles, oil lamps and the oil to run them, fire water, pre made bows and arrows and food.

Most slave ships carried a crew of 50 or less. African tribes of the time typically numbered from several hundred to several thousand, there was safety in numbers. The slave ship crews were armed with one shot flintlock pistols, one or two per man. A good man with one of these pistols could fire three rounds a MINUTE , the procedure to reload them is slow. I'm sure there were cannons and rifles aboard the ship. Assuming they would leave 10 crew to protect the ship from pirates. 40 guys with single shot pistols would be quickly overwhelmed by several hundred battle experienced warriors with spears, clubs and such. So I highly doubt they were able to steal the tribe members for long before the warriors would be waiting to let 'em have it.

Thanks Professor. Watch him argue over this too. LOL

Bob
11-14-2014, 01:25 AM
PolWatch, sachem et al.


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Chattel+slavery

Most of the first African slaves were captured in Africa by the Dutch or by fellow Africans. They werethen manacled and delivered in crowded, brutal conditions across the Atlantic Ocean by the DutchWest India Company, an organization formed in Holland for the sole purpose of trafficking in slaves.English companies such as the East India Company and the Royal African Company also contributedto the seventeenth-century American slave trade. Although untold numbers of Africans died en route,the profitable slave trade so increased the African slave population in America that by the late 1600s,European colonists were already beginning to anticipate insurrections and slave revolts. By 1750,populations of displaced Africans would range from an estimated 550 in New Hampshire to over101,000 in Virginia.
From the beginning, African slaves resisted their servitude by running away, fighting back, poisoningfood, and plotting revolts. The first Europeans to openly denounce slavery and work for its Abolition (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Abolition)were Quakers, or members of the Society of Friends, who were concentrated in Pennsylvania. Asearly as 1688, the Quakers publicly declared that slavery was at odds with Christianity. Along withother European abolitionists, they actively worked to help African slaves escape their owners.
The legal treatment of African slaves varied slightly from colony to colony according to the area'seconomic structure. Northern colonies such as Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island reliedon the export of various local commodities such as fish, liquor, and dairy products, so theirinvolvement with African slavery was in large part limited to slave trading. Nonetheless, the NewEngland colonies sanctioned the use of slave labor, and they enacted codes that prevented Africanslaves from exercising such basic rights as freedom of association and movement. Though generallyregarded as less harsh than those of such southern colonies as Virginia and the Carolinas, the NewEngland slave codes nevertheless legalized the enslavement of Africans.
The middle colonies—New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey—also had codes thatpromoted the slave industry and deprived African slaves of most basic rights. Laws were often tailoredespecially for African slaves. In New York, for example, any slave found 40 miles north of Albany waspresumed to be escaping to Canada and could be executed upon the oath of two witnesses. In NewYork City, slaves could not appear on the street after dark without a lighted lantern. From 1700 to1740, growth of the African slave population in New York outdistanced growth of the Europeanpopulation and gave the city the largest slave population in the region. Many of these slaves provideddomestic service to wealthy families. Except in New York, slavery in the middle colonies was notwidespread, because the commercial economies and small-scale agriculture practiced by theGermans, Swedes, and Danes in this region did not require it. Further, many settlers in the rural areasof the middle colonies were morally opposed to slavery. Neither of these conditions prevailed in thesouthern colonies.
Georgia was originally established as a slavery-free English colony in 1733, but the prohibition againstslavery was repealed in 1750 after repeated entreaties from European settlers. The economies ofcolonial Virginia, Maryland, and North and South Carolina centered on large-scale agriculturalproduction. The vast majority of the South's colonial agrarians profited at first from the sale of tobacco,rice, and indigo. These products were planted, cultivated, and harvested exclusively by African slaveson vast farms known as plantations. Plantation production relied on manual labor and in order to besuccessful required huge numbers of workers, and thus the southern colonies found their needs metby the widespread enslavement of Africans.
Because of the importance of slavery to the plantation-based economies, slave codes in the southerncolonies were made quite elaborate. For example, South Carolina prevented slave owners fromworking their slaves for more than 15 hours a day in spring and summer and more than 14 hours a dayin fall and winter. Slave owners were also warned against undue cruelty to slaves. At the same time,Europeans were not allowed to teach African slaves to read or write; freedom of movement wasseverely restricted for slaves; liquor could not be sold to slaves; and whippings, mutilations, and otherforms of punishment for slaves were explicitly authorized by law.

silvereyes
11-14-2014, 01:50 AM
I find it curious that sometimes you post as a black person and at other times not.

Wow. Youre fucking stupid, you know that? One doesnt post as either or. You are consistently an ass though.

iustitia
11-14-2014, 01:51 AM
Not that it matters since I think both sides in the war were wrong, but just to ease the guilt trip being laid Bob, here's some perspective for everyone-

"A MORAL ACCOUNTING OF THE UNION AND THE CONFEDERACY"
https://mises.org/journals/jls/16_2/16_2_4.pdf

Slavery is awful, but if even if you aren't sympathetic to the neo-confederate, secessionist or libertarian pov it's a good read. Blacks were royally screwed everywhere and everyone should learn about it.

silvereyes
11-14-2014, 01:54 AM
*sigh*

Dont sigh. Hell, id cheer. :*)

silvereyes
11-14-2014, 01:56 AM
Filling a quota seat?

Ok. Thats about enough. Why dont you shut the fuck up now before you push your dubass luck any further?

silvereyes
11-14-2014, 02:10 AM
PolWatch, sachem et al.


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Chattel+slavery

Most of the first African slaves were captured in Africa by the Dutch or by fellow Africans. They werethen manacled and delivered in crowded, brutal conditions across the Atlantic Ocean by the DutchWest India Company, an organization formed in Holland for the sole purpose of trafficking in slaves.English companies such as the East India Company and the Royal African Company also contributedto the seventeenth-century American slave trade. Although untold numbers of Africans died en route,the profitable slave trade so increased the African slave population in America that by the late 1600s,European colonists were already beginning to anticipate insurrections and slave revolts. By 1750,populations of displaced Africans would range from an estimated 550 in New Hampshire to over101,000 in Virginia.
From the beginning, African slaves resisted their servitude by running away, fighting back, poisoningfood, and plotting revolts. The first Europeans to openly denounce slavery and work for its Abolition (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Abolition)were Quakers, or members of the Society of Friends, who were concentrated in Pennsylvania. Asearly as 1688, the Quakers publicly declared that slavery was at odds with Christianity. Along withother European abolitionists, they actively worked to help African slaves escape their owners.
The legal treatment of African slaves varied slightly from colony to colony according to the area'seconomic structure. Northern colonies such as Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island reliedon the export of various local commodities such as fish, liquor, and dairy products, so theirinvolvement with African slavery was in large part limited to slave trading. Nonetheless, the NewEngland colonies sanctioned the use of slave labor, and they enacted codes that prevented Africanslaves from exercising such basic rights as freedom of association and movement. Though generallyregarded as less harsh than those of such southern colonies as Virginia and the Carolinas, the NewEngland slave codes nevertheless legalized the enslavement of Africans.
The middle colonies—New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey—also had codes thatpromoted the slave industry and deprived African slaves of most basic rights. Laws were often tailoredespecially for African slaves. In New York, for example, any slave found 40 miles north of Albany waspresumed to be escaping to Canada and could be executed upon the oath of two witnesses. In NewYork City, slaves could not appear on the street after dark without a lighted lantern. From 1700 to1740, growth of the African slave population in New York outdistanced growth of the Europeanpopulation and gave the city the largest slave population in the region. Many of these slaves provideddomestic service to wealthy families. Except in New York, slavery in the middle colonies was notwidespread, because the commercial economies and small-scale agriculture practiced by theGermans, Swedes, and Danes in this region did not require it. Further, many settlers in the rural areasof the middle colonies were morally opposed to slavery. Neither of these conditions prevailed in thesouthern colonies.
Georgia was originally established as a slavery-free English colony in 1733, but the prohibition againstslavery was repealed in 1750 after repeated entreaties from European settlers. The economies ofcolonial Virginia, Maryland, and North and South Carolina centered on large-scale agriculturalproduction. The vast majority of the South's colonial agrarians profited at first from the sale of tobacco,rice, and indigo. These products were planted, cultivated, and harvested exclusively by African slaveson vast farms known as plantations. Plantation production relied on manual labor and in order to besuccessful required huge numbers of workers, and thus the southern colonies found their needs metby the widespread enslavement of Africans.
Because of the importance of slavery to the plantation-based economies, slave codes in the southerncolonies were made quite elaborate. For example, South Carolina prevented slave owners fromworking their slaves for more than 15 hours a day in spring and summer and more than 14 hours a dayin fall and winter. Slave owners were also warned against undue cruelty to slaves. At the same time,Europeans were not allowed to teach African slaves to read or write; freedom of movement wasseverely restricted for slaves; liquor could not be sold to slaves; and whippings, mutilations, and otherforms of punishment for slaves were explicitly authorized by law.
Oh my gosh! They frowned upon working them more than 15 hours a day! Well give those saints a fucking trophy.

Green Arrow
11-14-2014, 04:25 AM
Ok. Thats about enough. Why dont you shut the fuck up now before you push your dubass luck any further?


Wow. Youre fucking stupid, you know that? One doesnt post as either or. You are consistently an ass though.

Stop the personal attacks. No matter how true they might or might not be, they are against the rules. Next one gets you a TB.

Green Arrow
11-14-2014, 04:27 AM
I will give you the silly reply that matches the silly question.

Sure i was there. Saw it all.

It's a serious question, actually. You weren't there, so you don't know any more than the rest of us what it was like for slaves back then. You only know what you were told, and how do you know what you were told wasn't written by slave owners as a way to make history look back on them more positively? You don't. Neither do any of us know that the stories we've heard were exaggerated.

Mac-7
11-14-2014, 05:24 AM
Bob, sometimes you really shock me. I can't believe you continue to support the owning of humans and defend those who did. I'm trying to make you think about what it really meant...in your gut....not as an interesting side note in history. You are LDS, how do you feel about the communities that burned the Mormons out of their homes, ran them out of Missouri? Persecuted them because of their faith? Do you view those actions with no real feelings...or do you wonder what it would have been if your home had been burned and your Temple destroyed? Can you calmly say, well, they were different so it was right & fair that those who worshiped differently be killed?

Bob does not condone slavery.

What happened to black people 150 years ago was wrong.

But now in the year 2014 the fact is that blacks alive today in America are the luckiest black people on the planet.

And whites - even the guilt ridden white libs posting here - are the big losers of the post slavery era.

Peter1469
11-14-2014, 05:26 AM
Ok. Thats about enough. Why dont you shut the fuck up now before you push your dubass luck any further?

Warning: Please don't call members names.

Mac-7
11-14-2014, 05:41 AM
You are one of the last people on this forum that should be complaining about insults.

Have I ever personally insulted you?

silvereyes
11-14-2014, 09:19 AM
Bob does not condone slavery.

What happened to black people 150 years ago was wrong.

But now in the year 2014 the fact is that blacks alive today in America are the luckiest black people on the planet.

And whites - even the guilt ridden white libs posting here - are the big losers of the post slavery era.
How, exactly, are they lucky? This ought to be good but i doubt it.

Mac-7
11-14-2014, 09:22 AM
How, exactly, are they lucky? This ought to be good but i doubt it.

Without slavery 150 years ago almost every black African-American living here today would be a black African-African living there.

silvereyes
11-14-2014, 09:25 AM
Without slavery 150 years ago almost every black African-American living here today would be a black African-African living there.
Do you really think that that erases the atrocities they were subjected to?

Mac-7
11-14-2014, 09:27 AM
Do you really think that that erases the atrocities they were subjected to?

It does not erase any atrocity suffered by the black slaves.

silvereyes
11-14-2014, 09:32 AM
It does not erase any atrocity for the black slaves that suffered the mistreatment.

Then why do you keep harping on and on? Guess what? We should ALL be thankful for living here. That does not mean blacks should be any more or less grateful.

Mac-7
11-14-2014, 09:36 AM
Then why do you keep harping on and on? Guess what? We should ALL be thankful for living here. That does not mean blacks should be any more or less grateful.

Black people often bring up slavery and Jim Crow.

and like obumer and his wife Michelle do not seem to appreciate what a great country we live in.

silvereyes
11-14-2014, 09:39 AM
And there is the absolute real reason youre such a ........ XXXXXXX about it. Your complete and utter hatred of our elected President and his beautiful family.

That disgusts and saddens me.

Mac-7
11-14-2014, 09:43 AM
And there is the absolute real reason youre such a ........ XXXXXXX about it. Your complete and utter hatred of our elected President and his beautiful family.



obama hated America before Americans hated him.

Common Sense
11-14-2014, 09:44 AM
obama hated America before Americans hated him.

The president doesn't hate America. He just hates you.

silvereyes
11-14-2014, 09:47 AM
obama hated America before Americans hated him.

Bullfuckingshit and you only wish that is true.

silvereyes
11-14-2014, 09:48 AM
Noted: no denial of his hatred of the obama family. I wonder how many times hes called the family the "n" word?

Common Sense
11-14-2014, 09:49 AM
Bullfucking$#@! and you only wish that is true.

This always baffles me. There are some on the right who actually believe Obama hates America. As if the president of the USA hates America. It's tinfoil hat zone.

It just goes to show how crazy and demented a segment of the electorate truly is.

silvereyes
11-14-2014, 09:54 AM
This always baffles me. There are some on the right who actually believe Obama hates America. As if the president of the USA hates America. It's tinfoil hat zone.

It just goes to show how crazy and demented a segment of the electorate truly is.

I know. Lets not forget that obama caused the plague, chicken pox, measles, cancer, lou gherigs, etc.....

Mac-7
11-14-2014, 09:56 AM
Bullfucking$#@! and you only wish that is true.


Of course he hated America.

refusing to salute the flag during the National Anthem is clear evidence of that.

Common Sense
11-14-2014, 09:57 AM
Of course he hated America.

refusing to salute the flag during the National Anthem is clear evidence of that.

...and chewing gum proves he hates China.

undine
11-14-2014, 09:58 AM
If mac is a Republican I can safely predict that Republicans will screw the pooch for the next two years. All the pent up hatred will be rabidly on display.

Mac-7
11-14-2014, 09:59 AM
...and chewing gum proves he hates China.

I don't care if he hates China or not.

But chewing gum at official ceremonies makes him a clown at the very least.

Chloe
11-14-2014, 10:01 AM
I don't care if he hates China or not.

But chewing gum at official ceremonies makes him a clown at the very least.

Having a grand ceremony like that when millions of people are starving in and around china is far far far far far more clownish than someone chewing gum. Wouldn't you agree to that at least?

Safety
11-14-2014, 10:02 AM
This always baffles me. There are some on the right who actually believe Obama hates America. As if the president of the USA hates America. It's tinfoil hat zone.

It just goes to show how crazy and demented a segment of the electorate truly is.

It has to be the extreme. There is no little bit or some, it has to be all or nothing with extremists.

It's never some blacks, some Latinos, or some Jews, it's always all.

If you don't agree with me on every single issue, you're a liberal.

With Obama, he's a democrat, he's black, and he's educated, so that's like the trifecta of hate. Anything he does it's because he hates America. If he takes xo action, he hates America....if he doesn't take xo action, he hates America.

Reminds me of the character Denzel Washington played in "Remember the Titans", let's stack the deck against him and when he fails, it'll be because he was incompetent.

Safety
11-14-2014, 10:04 AM
Without slavery 150 years ago almost every black African-American living here today would be a black African-African living there.

Then who would you blame all your short comings on?

Mac-7
11-14-2014, 10:06 AM
It just goes to show how crazy and demented a segment of the electorate truly is.

Or, how throughly brainwashed the lib Obama zombies are.

Common Sense
11-14-2014, 10:08 AM
Or, how throughly brainwashed the lib Obama zombies are.

All you do is spout shit like "Libs", "Obama Zombies", Der Fuhrer"...you sound like a cartoon character. Do you wonder why both the left and the right here openly mock you?

Safety
11-14-2014, 10:08 AM
Having a grand ceremony like that when millions of people are starving in and around china is far far far far far more clownish than someone chewing gum. Wouldn't you agree to that at least?

Hold on a second, Chloe, we are still discussing and arguing events that have a documented history 150 years ago. We have a long way to go before we start getting technical on items that require critical thinking.... :biglaugh:

Dr. Who
11-14-2014, 10:11 AM
That is not even a sane argument. I tend to avoid this but on this forum I believed some were actually intelligent enough to want to learn all of the history and not merely what was allowed for them to know.

It was a property rights issue mainly. The blacks had food, shelter and seemed to be fairly content. They knew what it was like in Africa. Want to discuss how slaves were treated in Africa? Maybe that is up your alley.
Good grief Bob. Being a slave is the same as being a prisoner. Would you argue that being in a WWII labor camp with a benign Commandant and having food and shelter is remotely equal to being free, even if freedom means food shortages and danger? I'm sure that the lions in the zoo love their three squares a day and don't yearn to be free.

Mac-7
11-14-2014, 10:18 AM
Then who would you blame all your short comings on?

Myself.

Mac-7
11-14-2014, 10:19 AM
All you do is spout $#@! like "Libs", "Obama Zombies", Der Fuhrer"...you sound like a cartoon character. Do you wonder why both the left and the right here openly mock you?


You used "crazy" and "demented."

Just another example of how libs can dish it out but you can't take it.

Common Sense
11-14-2014, 10:22 AM
You used "crazy" and "demented."

Just another example of how libs can dish it out but you can't take it.

I wasn't labeling all conservatives the way you paint with a broad brush. There are many, in fact the vast majority of conservatives aren't crazy or demented. I mostly meant the angry, ignorant and scared ones like you.

silvereyes
11-14-2014, 10:36 AM
Of course he hated America.

refusing to salute the flag during the National Anthem is clear evidence of that.

Yah suuuure. Im sure that gives you the warm fuzzies. I pity you and your black-hearted kind.

silvereyes
11-14-2014, 10:38 AM
If mac is a Republican I can safely predict that Republicans will screw the pooch for the next two years. All the pent up hatred will be rabidly on display.
The absolute truest words ive seen this morning.

silvereyes
11-14-2014, 10:39 AM
Having a grand ceremony like that when millions of people are starving in and around china is far far far far far more clownish than someone chewing gum. Wouldn't you agree to that at least?
Oh snap! Bra----vo!

Mac-7
11-14-2014, 10:41 AM
I wasn't labeling all conservatives the way you paint with a broad brush. .

Just all conservatives that disagree with you about whether Obama hates America or not.

Mac-7
11-14-2014, 10:42 AM
Yah suuuure. Im sure that gives you the warm fuzzies. I pity you and your black-hearted kind.

Again, Obama hated America before Americans hated him.

silvereyes
11-14-2014, 10:43 AM
You used "crazy" and "demented."

Just another example of how libs can dish it out but you can't take it.
If it spits, sputters and spews....it might be a demento.
(Say it like jeff foxworthy.)

silvereyes
11-14-2014, 10:44 AM
Again, Obama hated America before Americans hated him.
Again: youre F.O.S. But keep on keepin on. Cheap entertainment is hard to find.

decedent
11-14-2014, 10:45 AM
American Hero, Cliven Bundy, said that the blacks had it better when they were slaves. There is no denying that Bundy is a smart, honest man.

Mac-7
11-14-2014, 10:47 AM
American Hero, Cliven Bundy, said that the blacks had it better when they were slaves. There is no denying that Bundy is a smart, honest man.


I would not agree with that.

but no black person today was ever a slave.

Safety
11-14-2014, 10:47 AM
American Hero, Cliven Bundy, said that the blacks had it better when they were slaves. There is no denying that Bundy is a smart, honest man.

LoL, you and Mac bring entertainment to the internet.

silvereyes
11-14-2014, 10:55 AM
American Hero, Cliven Bundy, said that the blacks had it better when they were slaves. There is no denying that Bundy is a smart, honest man.
You just dumb to a whole new level.

Mac-7
11-14-2014, 11:18 AM
You just dumb to a whole new level.

All you ever do is hurl personal insults.

silvereyes
11-14-2014, 11:22 AM
All you ever do is hurl personal insults.

Was i wrong? Nope. It was dumb. Even YOU knew it.

Mac-7
11-14-2014, 11:40 AM
Was i wrong? Nope. It was dumb. Even YOU knew it.

i know that you have nothing to say except personal insults.

silvereyes
11-14-2014, 12:21 PM
i know that you have nothing to say except personal insults.
Lol. So, you wanna backtrack and agree with his DUMB comment?

Mac-7
11-14-2014, 05:15 PM
Lol. So, you wanna backtrack and agree with his DUMB comment?

He misquoted Bundy.

Bundy did not say that slavery was good for the slaves.

What he said was that modern black culture and living conditions under libs in the ghetto is so bad that it rivals slavery.

Green Arrow
11-14-2014, 05:18 PM
You know what I love about prison?

Freedom.

I mean, sure, I can never leave, and if I try, I'll probably be shot. But, nobody said freedom was free!