Agree........I wonder if they celebrate the 4th of July in England.
These states are observing Confederate Memorial Day today
- Thread starter moe
- Start date
Depends. If they take up arms and declare war on the US yes. If they do it through legal channels in an orderly fashion, probably not.
thanks for clarifying. I can't even fathom how it still exists
I remember most of this from 8th grade history. Was it called Industrial Revolution? Equipment was being developed to make farming more profitable. Maintaining slaves was not cost effective. Slaves were being encouraged to leave the plantation because of cost. Some slaves did not want to leave the plantation. It was the only life they knew, and they were getting too old to move. They were less productive in field and more costly to maintain as they aged.
Then you get into labor economics - a period when labor was allowed to organize. Long days and low pay had to come to an end, and they were willing to picket with bats and pick handles. These people mostly who were from the old country and not averse to taking what was wanted.
Now make a quick switch to slavery. It was obvious the labor movement was effective and not about to play with with hands tied. They were willing to kill to get shorter work day and better pay. Opie wants to suggest the slaves would remain slaves and go into the factories as slaves. I say it is unreasonable that the blacks would accept that when they see whites killing for a shorter day and more pay. Slaves will exert muscle to work as free man for money. Also , the labor will not let slave labor replace them. IMO labor would fight slavery to remove the temptation of free labor to replace them in factories they have busted heads to get.
Slavery was definitely on the way out.
Today....there are an estimated 45.8 million people subject to some form of modern slavery worldwide.
Cause it existed before we were colonies. You don't think we started it, do you?
"I say it is unreasonable that the blacks would accept that when they see whites killing for a shorter day and more pay. Slaves will exert muscle to work as free man for money."
The problem with this is that it assumes blacks were free to move their labor from here to there if they liked or to change jobs or agitate for better conditions. There weren't in a position to do any of that and the reason is because THEY WERE SLAVES.
If you were starting a factory and you got to choose between labor that could move to a different job if it wanted to or else labor that were forced to work under conditions that you dictated then which would you pick (assuming purely economic considerations, which of course was the situation back then)?
I said MLK deserves a Holliday
So, slavery was ok because other blacks people were selling black people to white people. Good solid racist logic there
Civilization should advance to a place where individual liberty is cherished....American
You're changing the meaning. When I said I didn't care about I clearly meant "it doesn't matter." Lee and the South fought to carve a new country out of an existing USA and well as fought to preserve slavery. Considering that, whether it was 100% of the South doing that or instead 99% or eve 90% is irrelevant and thus I don't care what the exact percentage was. They're the bad guys regardless of what the exact percentage was considering the percentage was clearly very high.
You have got to assume the blacks would not band together to overthrow someone holding you in bondage. i do not subscribe to that. They would not want to fight for their own freedom? Hell of a lot more slaves than land owners. Fighting with a pocket full of stones, the slaves could overturn the plantation owner and drivers.
If the slaves could have banded together to overthrow slavery they'd have done it long before 1865. Part of the point of having slaves is to not allow them to overthrow their slavery status and the slaveowners maintained status quo very well. Do some reading on how it was done and what happened to slaves that tried to run away or organize uprisings. Keep in mind that slaves didn't have cell phones back then so they weren't able to organize one giant mass uprising.
I thought I was taking you at your word when you said about Lee "don't care if he released his slaves"(or not). When I heard it, I assumed he was ridding himself of the slaves and giving them their freedom. Apologize if I didn't read more into your comments that meant the opposite of how I took it. this is confusing enough to have a misunderstanding.
I have no way of knowing or gaining knowledge of the percentage that were fighting to keep slaves verses any other reason to fight.
We fought a civil war to change it. We strive to do better. That's not happening in many places in the world. The Russia wants to start the soviet Union all over and enslave all those people under it's thumb. Not the same as forced slavery but similar enough. Africa and the Middle east have a billion problems.
You son of a bitch show me what your justification for "your stupid racist justification". What was intended to be racist? And you will not call me stupid without a response. Unless i overlooked it, I cannot see your justification. And I thought we had already discussed the use of a cotton gin. So, get off the name calling or do not address me again.You ever hear of the cotton gin? And these numbers disagree with your stupid, racist justification..............
![[winking]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/wink.r191677.gif "Winking [winking]")
Could you imagine how much better our country would have been without slavery? It is 160 years later and we are still fighting over it. On here, people are calling each other racists if they have a different view of something that happened 160 years ago.
I was kidding. I was trying to illustrate the difficulty of slaves overthrowing slavery. You were saying how if the slaves didn't like slavery they'd have just overthrown it and I was trying to show that they couldn't just overthrow it, otherwise they would have done so. The point of someone being a slave is that they don't get to determine their own status.
Doesn’t bother me in the least. I wouldn’t presume to pass 21st century morality and values off on 18th century mindsets. I’m not ashamed of our history, quite the opposite actually.
Anyone else see that @MountaineerWV gets emotional whenever this subject comes up. I think he's probably from "traitor" stock and is ashamed of his ancestry.
You dope, stop ignoring me and you would have figured it out. Slavery BLOSSOMED because of this Industrial Revolution you speak of.......called the "Cotton Gin".......
Can you read a chart? Slavery was NOT on the decline, as you tried to indicate......
It has existed since man started conquering other people.....well before Biblical times.
I was really thinking how far we had strayed from the thread topic. You were right that I haven't had much history in this era. The history has changed a bit since I had a textbook. The subject was not bad as long as we cah have an exchange of ideas without getting too deep into the woods and start personal attacks. have actually been working on that myself, but do get too involved at times. You are still one of the good guys to have a discussion. Out for the evening.
Obviously none of us were around at when the founding fathers crafted the Constitution but it blows me away that the founders of a country starving for freedom from England (politically, religiously, and economically) ever allowed slavery.
It was a different time and a different mindset. “Savages” were not seen as people the likes of the civilized society. Slavery had existed for several millennia prior, it’s not like it was a new thing they decided to try out. To pass judgement or project morality on culture of 250 years ago is asinine.
Different time and place and it's still in place for 45 million people world wide. Let that sink in before passing judgement on people who lived 300 years ago
I never said you were a slave owner. I just observed that you don't like black people and this thread is just more evidence of it.
