If you compare the life of slave under a cruel slave owner with a life under a kind slave owner...it's a lot like a test where you got a 5% vs a test where you got a 40%...one is technically better...but really, they are both failures.lowing wrote:
Your comment painted the worse possible existence for these people, that they all suffered. I am just pointing out that that was not the case. (oxymoron ignored if you can keep my comments in perspective as well.) I know slavery was bad, but they were not treated as harshly as you painted.Jay wrote:
Lowing, where did I state that they were whipped on a daily basis? The very idea of being in bondage should be abhorrent to any human being. Would you accept slavery if you were treated nicely? (ignore the oxymoron)
P.S. - I'll give you a hint lowing. Millions of blacks tried to escape slavery. I know of not a single one that tried to sell himself back into it because he missed it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
slavery in Maryland or Virginia over working for credits to be spent at the company story for over priced goods? Doesn't sound like much of a choice to me. both are slaves.Jay wrote:
If given the choice would you have taken the lot of the slave or the factory worker?lowing wrote:
Your comment painted the worse possible existence for these people, that they all suffered. I am just pointing out that that was not the case. (oxymoron ignored if you can keep my comments in perspective as well.) I know slavery was bad, but they were not treated as harshly as you painted.Jay wrote:
Lowing, where did I state that they were whipped on a daily basis? The very idea of being in bondage should be abhorrent to any human being. Would you accept slavery if you were treated nicely? (ignore the oxymoron)
and in many cases, as I said, the factory workers lives were just as harsh if not worse.
didn't say it was good, I said factory workers in the north had it just as bad and often worse. Not all slave owners beat the fuck out of their slaves.SenorToenails wrote:
If you compare the life of slave under a cruel slave owner with a life under a kind slave owner...it's a lot like a test where you got a 5% vs a test where you got a 40%...one is technically better...but really, they are both failures.lowing wrote:
Your comment painted the worse possible existence for these people, that they all suffered. I am just pointing out that that was not the case. (oxymoron ignored if you can keep my comments in perspective as well.) I know slavery was bad, but they were not treated as harshly as you painted.Jay wrote:
Lowing, where did I state that they were whipped on a daily basis? The very idea of being in bondage should be abhorrent to any human being. Would you accept slavery if you were treated nicely? (ignore the oxymoron)
Ok bud, any credibility you had on this subject is gone. You've been living in the south for far too long.lowing wrote:
slavery in Maryland or Virginia over working for credits to be spent at the company story for over priced goods? Doesn't sound like much of a choice to me. both are slaves.Jay wrote:
If given the choice would you have taken the lot of the slave or the factory worker?lowing wrote:
Your comment painted the worse possible existence for these people, that they all suffered. I am just pointing out that that was not the case. (oxymoron ignored if you can keep my comments in perspective as well.) I know slavery was bad, but they were not treated as harshly as you painted.
and in many cases, as I said, the factory workers lives were just as harsh if not worse.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I asked you to keep my comments in perspective to the point. Northern factory workers had often had it just as bad. I didn't say slavery was a bed a roses.Jay wrote:
P.S. - I'll give you a hint lowing. Millions of blacks tried to escape slavery. I know of not a single one that tried to sell himself back into it because he missed it.
it always amazes me how people could still hold treason so highly
Tu Stultus Es
It doesn't really matter now. The slave owning lifestyle is ...lowing wrote:
didn't say it was good, I said factory workers in the north had it just as bad and often worse. Not all slave owners beat the fuck out of their slaves.SenorToenails wrote:
If you compare the life of slave under a cruel slave owner with a life under a kind slave owner...it's a lot like a test where you got a 5% vs a test where you got a 40%...one is technically better...but really, they are both failures.lowing wrote:
Your comment painted the worse possible existence for these people, that they all suffered. I am just pointing out that that was not the case. (oxymoron ignored if you can keep my comments in perspective as well.) I know slavery was bad, but they were not treated as harshly as you painted.
No, they did not have it just as bad. Were northern factory workers running south to sell themselves into bondage? No. Were black slaves running north to escape slavery even though it meant menial work? Yes.lowing wrote:
I asked you to keep my comments in perspective to the point. Northern factory workers had often had it just as bad. I didn't say slavery was a bed a roses.Jay wrote:
P.S. - I'll give you a hint lowing. Millions of blacks tried to escape slavery. I know of not a single one that tried to sell himself back into it because he missed it.
Are you a Marxist now that it supports your argument? Are you going to make the wage slave argument? Wage slavery is a myth. It does not exist. Why? For precisely the same reason that the lot of the slave is incomparable to that of the factory worker: freedom. That worker can walk away from his job any time he wants to. He's not bound to his job. He's bound to whatever responsibilities he might have outside of that job. His boss isn't keeping him in bondage, his wife and kids are. You're all about personal freedom and personal responsibility and yet you're going off on a tangent about some idiot getting ripped off in a factory town and becoming indebted to a factory store. Whose fault is it? That factory worker. No one is keeping him down but himself.
By contrast that slave is kept in perpetual bondage against his will without the hope of ever changing his lot (except via escape). Comparing the two is asinine and generally the realm of the white supremacists. Have you been making annual pilgrimages to Stone Mountain?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Slavery is SLAVERY. As a slave, you are another persons PROPERTY.lowing wrote:
I asked you to keep my comments in perspective to the point. Northern factory workers had often had it just as bad. I didn't say slavery was a bed a roses.Jay wrote:
P.S. - I'll give you a hint lowing. Millions of blacks tried to escape slavery. I know of not a single one that tried to sell himself back into it because he missed it.
Factory workers had it bad, sure, how do you think unions were formed? Are you now pro-union, lowing?
The "South" and their "culture" relied on slaves. 40 percent of the population in the CSA were slaves. I don't see why revisionists feel the need to make excuses. Just admit you were wrong and grow up, with the rest of the world. Germany seemed to get the message.
owned
Tu Stultus Es
I don't have an argument, and I am not saying I approve of slavery. I am saying that factory workers of the day faced the same harsh conditions as slaves did, and sometimes worse. Just look it up, there are comparisons out there.
whats new?lowing wrote:
I don't have an argument
Tu Stultus Es
if the slaves weren't so lazy and unmotivated they would have taken some initiative and improved their own lives instead of relying on the federal government for feeedom handouts.
The south certainly did fight to keep slavery.lowing wrote:
an issue yes, the cause no. Those states, in their eyes viewed the inability for states to choose for themselves their own course of action regarding slavery as well as other issues, as a direct threat. The north was not interested in abolishing slavery all together, the issue was the expansion of it to new territories. Disallowing the right for those states to choose.Kmar wrote:
That is true.. but you have to look at the causes of war. Obviously if the states would not have left the union then there would be no need to "preserve the union". So, looking back at why they left the union we see that the slavery issue was a major cause.. as spelled out by them.lowing wrote:
Kmar, although Lincoln thought slavery was morally wrong, he was not an abolitionist, nor did he go to war to end slavery. He went to warto preserve the union, be it with or without slavery.
Again, the north did not fight to end slavery, and the south did not fight to keep it. THey fought over the individual states rights to govern themselves and decide for themselves.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Actually THEY called it the declaration of CAUSES of seceding states.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Both grandparents?lowing wrote:
I am an Army brat with my family's roots in Michigan, both of my grandparents were Canadian. I grew up all over the States, Korea and Okinawa.ghettoperson wrote:
Lowing, what state are you from?
So no, to address your conclusion before you even post it, I am not a southern redneck. I do now live in Georgia, but that is because that is where the work was.
As in, you only have two?
That might explain a few things.
Last edited by Doctor Strangelove (2011-04-12 19:32:10)
wasnt it in the confederate constitution to keep slavery?Kmar wrote:
The south certainly did fight to keep slavery.lowing wrote:
an issue yes, the cause no. Those states, in their eyes viewed the inability for states to choose for themselves their own course of action regarding slavery as well as other issues, as a direct threat. The north was not interested in abolishing slavery all together, the issue was the expansion of it to new territories. Disallowing the right for those states to choose.Kmar wrote:
That is true.. but you have to look at the causes of war. Obviously if the states would not have left the union then there would be no need to "preserve the union". So, looking back at why they left the union we see that the slavery issue was a major cause.. as spelled out by them.
Again, the north did not fight to end slavery, and the south did not fight to keep it. THey fought over the individual states rights to govern themselves and decide for themselves.
No Kmar, slavery in existing states was never threatened. It was only future territories that was the issue. The south did not fight to keep slavery.Kmar wrote:
The south certainly did fight to keep slavery.lowing wrote:
an issue yes, the cause no. Those states, in their eyes viewed the inability for states to choose for themselves their own course of action regarding slavery as well as other issues, as a direct threat. The north was not interested in abolishing slavery all together, the issue was the expansion of it to new territories. Disallowing the right for those states to choose.Kmar wrote:
That is true.. but you have to look at the causes of war. Obviously if the states would not have left the union then there would be no need to "preserve the union". So, looking back at why they left the union we see that the slavery issue was a major cause.. as spelled out by them.
Again, the north did not fight to end slavery, and the south did not fight to keep it. THey fought over the individual states rights to govern themselves and decide for themselves.
since when is there only one reason to fight a war?
jeezus
jeezus
http://socyberty.com/issues/slavery-vs-wage-slaves/
on the topic of southern slavery and northern factory workers
on the topic of southern slavery and northern factory workers
really, like what?Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Both grandparents?lowing wrote:
I am an Army brat with my family's roots in Michigan, both of my grandparents were Canadian. I grew up all over the States, Korea and Okinawa.ghettoperson wrote:
Lowing, what state are you from?
So no, to address your conclusion before you even post it, I am not a southern redneck. I do now live in Georgia, but that is because that is where the work was.
As in, you only have two?
That might explain a few things.
The South did feel threatened of the loss of slavery lowing. It's in clear view when their stated causes of seceding states. That is their words.. there is no disputing it.lowing wrote:
No Kmar, slavery in existing states was never threatened. It was only future territories that was the issue. The south did not fight to keep slavery.Kmar wrote:
The south certainly did fight to keep slavery.lowing wrote:
an issue yes, the cause no. Those states, in their eyes viewed the inability for states to choose for themselves their own course of action regarding slavery as well as other issues, as a direct threat. The north was not interested in abolishing slavery all together, the issue was the expansion of it to new territories. Disallowing the right for those states to choose.
Again, the north did not fight to end slavery, and the south did not fight to keep it. THey fought over the individual states rights to govern themselves and decide for themselves.
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_texas.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratio … eral_Union
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
http://www.civilwarcauses.org/florida-dec.htm
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The Missouri compromise, and the Dred Scott case made it clear (since they southern states did feel threatened). However, the average southerner did not fully understand what those rulings meant. The pro-war southerners used language like this to drum up support for the war.Cybargs wrote:
wasnt it in the confederate constitution to keep slavery?Kmar wrote:
The south certainly did fight to keep slavery.lowing wrote:
an issue yes, the cause no. Those states, in their eyes viewed the inability for states to choose for themselves their own course of action regarding slavery as well as other issues, as a direct threat. The north was not interested in abolishing slavery all together, the issue was the expansion of it to new territories. Disallowing the right for those states to choose.
Again, the north did not fight to end slavery, and the south did not fight to keep it. THey fought over the individual states rights to govern themselves and decide for themselves.
The members of the Republican party has denied that the party will oppose the admission of any new state where slavery shall be tolerated. But on the contrary they declare that on this point they will make no concession or compromise.
They (the North) have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection. .
But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution
Xbone Stormsurgezz
south carolinaKmar wrote:
The South did feel threatened of the loss of slavery lowing. It's in clear view when their stated causes of seceding states. That is their words.. there is no disputing it.lowing wrote:
No Kmar, slavery in existing states was never threatened. It was only future territories that was the issue. The south did not fight to keep slavery.Kmar wrote:
The south certainly did fight to keep slavery.
http://americancivilwar.com/documents/causes_texas.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratio … eral_Union
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
http://www.civilwarcauses.org/florida-dec.htm
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.
florida
Laws clearly constitutional and as decided to be by the Federal Judiciary as well as by the Courts of all the non slaveholding States where the question has been presented for adjudication have been by counter legislation rendered inoperative, laws without the power to pass which none will deny that the Constitution would not have been adopted.
The nullification of these laws by the Legislatures of two thirds of the non slaveholding States important as it is in itself is additionally as is furnishing evidence of an open disregard of constitutional obligation, and of the rights and interests of the slaveholding States and of a deep and inveterate hostility to the people of these States.
texas
The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.
all of these declarations are pretty long winded and detailed. Bottom line is, it was about states rights being trampled on by a majority of northern states. THe south no longer felt its interests were represented within the federal govt. so they seceded.