Wow, that must've been some picnic
What didn't they talk about?
"denied me in the past"
There's your problem. That's in the past. The only way that could be repaired is to get a time machine.
"equal justice for all"
There's another problem. That phrase isn't in the constitution.
"equal opportunity for jobs that "I" qualify for"
Yet another problem. This phrase also is not in the constitution.
Neither is "equal access".
Your Eh.net link does not work.
I cannot find the information you reference in the first link. Perhaps you could link directly to the article.
Neverthelss, your reference to the Cotton Gin in right on. Without that invention, I don't see how cotton farming, slaves or no, could have been made profitable in the long run. The number of people required to separate the seed from the fiber would have been untenable.
That is one of the greatest "what ifs" of the Civil War: What if Eli Whitney had fallen and broken his neck in 1790? Would the institution of slavery have survived in the cotton states? Not much doubt it could have survived elsewhere in the South, but the cotton states were the heartland. Pure speculation on my part, but I think a Civil War would have still been necessary. Slavery was too profitable a business for the other slaveholders outside the cotton states to just give it up. We also don't know to what other uses those slaves could have been put. Still, an interesting idea.
CEBorst and Broadhead
I want no apology from you, for, you have done nothing wrong; Have you not! I want no reparations from you either, I just want the opportunity to have equal access to the things that were denied me in the past, an equal opportunity for jobs that I qualify for, promotions. I want equal justice for all, not one sentence for a black offender and a lighter one for the white one. I want equal access to capital, based upon my credit worthiness and ideas just as the whites have gotten it for years.
I especially want my vote, if in the majority, to give me and others that form that majority, the same right to governance that whites have enjoyed from day one.
Thyat, my people, is all that I want; nothing special.
Just what is it you want OTP? An apology for slavery ... consider it done. An admission that there are still prejudice people around ... there are. Reparations? Just what do you want to lay it to rest? Or is it you and others benefit too much to lay it to rest?
Nice try. But you are trying to compare apples to oranges, it won't work. Criminals are specific to the individual, regardless of color, while slavery and supporting the institution of slavery, whether actively or silently is a horse of another color.
As a matter of fact, most criminals are captured by the police in black communities because they are turned in by their own kind.
Yes, Yes, Yes, ... oh YES!
How and why the south's economy was so strong prior to the civil war:
Civil War History: How the Cotton Gin Contributed to the Civil War., www.civilwar.org
Was slavery profitiable:
Slavery in the United States
Maybe you are right about
"I do not lie! Not only did the south have slavery, but, it also had a form of caste system. The only difference in America was that ones station in life,at birth, was not a lifetime sentence. That was for whites only though. The plight of slaves was ensnared and codified by law in the constitution. A black man could never rise above his inferior position in America, especially the south, regardless."
But I wonder how what you said goes for Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver, and a lot of others. Here is only one paragraph from a BLACK website called
Oh I am terribly sorry I posted the facts. I am really sorry.
The article is called The History of Black Wealth.
"The pathway to Black wealth"
Education and professional skills helped create the first generation of wealthy families in the mid-19th century, prior to, and immediately after the Civil War. The earliest Black colleges were established in 1860 and by the 1870s, a Black upper-middle class emerged consisting primarily of graduates and attendees of Howard University, Moorehouse College and later Spelman College, founded in the 1880s, as well as graduates of White universities in the east like Harvard and Amherst, and prep schools such as Philips Exeter.
I know the site also has how certain slaves were treated. And you will say I pick and choose. I didn't write the article. Black people did. But the main thing is you don't even know anything about black history unless you read it from the black panthers web site.
What would you call a white family that sent their kids to college at a predominately white college and didn't even think about a black college? They wanted them to go there because they wanted their children to be with people that 'looked like them'.
Would you call the parents of kids that are going to a black college like Northwestern so they can be with people that 'looked like them'. Oh and by the way there are racist people there also. As in the student council that didn't want a white guy that was elected to be the chairperson of the Diversity Council. They would not allow that. Didn't your daughter the astronaut go there?
Again nothing that is written here will ever change your mind. You have most likely raised your children to be racist and their children will follow suit. Keep the hate alive. You are just like a brick. A brick is a brick and will never change no matter how nice you treat it. It is still a brick. Exchange racist for brick.
You know one thing that has me confused about you and all of your statements? Is why do you have a picture of a white man as your avatar? You clearly don't like white people so why have the white man represent you? I really don't think any Jewish people would have Adolph Hitler as their avatar. I am pretty sure you are not white by your statements such as "Here's a serious challenge to you white folks". 'You' white folks and 'the' white folks have a connotation that you are not white but black.
You asked why white people don't move to "Klondike, Orange Mound, Binghampton, Castalia or Riverside". I guess a couple of reasons are we want to keep what we have and make sure we are alive to see our grand children. Those two reasons alone are enough. Do you live in one of those neighborhoods? Their is nothing wrong with those neighborhoods according to OTP. And all the crimes are only going to be perpetrated by people that we know so we really shouldn't worry. But I don't think OTP lives their. See he and probably you also do not practice what you preach. OTP is PROUD to say he lives two streets from Germantown. Ask him why.
Oldtimer, I see your point if no one else does.
The same applies to the criminal black man, home invader, hijacker, rapist, thief, thug, drug dealer, muderer and gang member. If 8.5% are criminal, they ALL must be criminal
If only 1.,5% of whites owned slaves, then, WHY DIDN'T THE OTHER 98.5% STOP IT!
By going along with it, it seems as though the whole barrel of apples was rotten.
Hell, that is just like the jewish leaders, the Sanhedrin court had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Christ, it was all Pontius Pilot!
People, get a grip!
B_B, seems you are correct, less than 1.5% of whites owned slaves. It's a shame that someone would call the whole barrel bad because of a few rotten apples.
I never cease to be amazed at your inability to understand any point than your own. I said, many times, that the purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was war-related. It was a war measure rather than some sort of moral punishment for the South.
Do you read the word punishment anywhere in the letter? How about some moral outrage?
If you want to make the point, as you said earlier, that the real purpose of the EP was to punish the South, show me something that says that.
Otherwise, why do you contimue to waste everyone's time?
Political statements are NEVER proof of anything. LOL
Here is your proof:
Excerpts from a letter from Lincoln to James C. Conkling, August 26, 1863
There was more than a year and a half of trial to suppress the rebellion before the proclamation issued, the last one hundred days of which passed under an explicit notice that it was coming, unless averted by those in revolt, returning to their allegiance. The war has certainly progressed as favorably for us, since the issue of proclamation as before. I know, as fully as one can know the opinions of others, that some of the commanders of our armies in the field who have given us our most important successes believe the emancipation policy and the use of the colored troops constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt to the Rebellion, and that at least one of these important successes could not have been achieved when it was but the aid of black soldiers. Among the commanders holding these views are some who have never had any affinity with what is called abolition or with the Republican party policies but who held them purely military opinions. I submit these opinions as being entitled to some weight against the objections often urged that emancipation and arming the blacks are unwise as military measures and were not adopted as such in good faith.
You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but, no matter. Fight you, then exclusively to save the Union. I issued the proclamation on purpose to aid you in saving the Union. Whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time, then, for you to declare you will not fight to free negroes.
I thought that in your struggle for the Union, to whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistance to you. Do you think differently? I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do, in saving the Union. Does it appear otherwise to you? But negroes, like other people, act upon motives. Why should they do any thing for us, if we will do nothing for them? If they take their lives for us, they, must be prompted by the strongest motive-even the promise of freedom. And the promise being made, must be kept.
As you can see, AP, freeing the slaves through emancipation in the captured rebel states was mostly a military consideration, for, not only could they serve as soldiers, but would not be there to help the confederacy.
Not only does this substantiate my argument, but, also further explains why Martin Luther Jr. used the tact that he did. Even northern whites would not have supported the civil rights movement if King had said it in a way that blacks would have power over southern whites.
"The only thing a slave ever knew was what the white man told him"
BTW, since you are always asking for proof for your positions, while offering little for your own, here is some reading material for you. I have this work in my library, but this 'Cut and Paste" I found on-line by Googling the authors. You might find Number 9 instructive.
A major text on the economics of slavery is: Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman, Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1974. These scholars argued that:
1. Slavery was not a system irrationally kept in existence by owners who failed to perceive or were indifferent to their best economic interests. The purchase of a slave was generally a highly profitable investment which yielded rates of return that compared favorably with the most outstanding investment opportunities in manufacturing.
2. The slave system was not economically moribund on the eve of the Civil War. There is no evidence that economic forces alone would have soon brought slavery to an end without the necessity of a war or other form of political intervention. Quite the contrary; as the Civil War approached, slavery as an economic system was never stronger and the trend was toward even further entrenchment.
3. Slave owners were not becoming pessimistic about the future of their system during the decade that preceded the Civil War. The rise of the secessionist movement coincided with a wave of optimism. On the eve of the Civil War, slaveholders anticipated an era of unprecedented prosperity.
4. Slave agriculture was not inefficient compared with free agriculture. Economies of large-scale operation, effective management, and intensive utilization of labor and capital made southern slave agriculture 35 percent more efficient than the northern system of family farming.
5. The typical slave field hand was not lazy, inept, and unproductive. On average he was harder-working and more efficient than his white counterpart.
6. The course of slavery in the cities does not prove that slavery was incompatible with an industrial system or that slaves were unable to cope with an industrial regimen. Slaves employed in industry compared favorably with free workers in diligence and efficiency. Far from declining, the demand for slaves was actually increasing more rapidly in urban areas than in the countryside.
7. The belief that slave-breeding, sexual exploitation, and promiscuity destroyed the black family is a myth. The family was the basic unit of social organization under slavery. It was to the economic interest of planters to encourage the stability of slave families and most of them did so. Most slave sales were either of whole families or of individuals who were at an age when it would have been normal for them to have left the family.
8. The material (not psychological) conditions of the lives of slaves compared favorably with those of free industrial workers. This is not to say that they were good by modern standards. It merely emphasizes the hard lot of all workers, free or slave, during the first half of the nineteenth century.
9. Slaves were exploited in the sense that part of the income which they produced was expropriated by their owners. However, the rate of expropriation was much lower than has generally been presumed. Over the course of his lifetime, the typical slave field hand received about 90 percent of the income he produced. (NOTE TO OTP: these scholars say 90%, others say a bit less)
10. Far from stagnating, the economy of the antebellum South grew quite rapidly. Between 1840 and 1860, per capita income increased more rapidly in the south than in the rest of the nation. By 1860 the south attained a level of per capita income which was high by the standards of the time. Indeed, a country as advanced as Italy did not achieve the same level of per capita income until the eve of World War II.
Enjoy the education!
It matters not how many southerners owned slaves, it was a matter of, by law, any white could own slaves if he could afford the purchase price. Take Virginia as an example. At the time of the continental convention, approximately 50% of the people living there were slaves.
Why wouldn't freed slaves own slaves? Hell, if you are raised to it, that is all you know. The slaves could not read and most had never traveled more than 10 miles from where they were either sold or born and died. The only thing a slave ever knew was what the white man told him.
Sorry, that is just wrong. Your lack of education is betraying you. Lincolns' motivation is very well documented, after all there was much discussion among his cabinet members before the proclamation was released.
I can always tell that you are very unsure of your position, that is when you start hurling insults. Or maybe those insults are just squeals of pain from of me continually pounding you.
It was not 85% of the profits that were returned to the slaves, it was 85% of the revenue. The slaveowner kept the profit. Interesting enough, a lot of the revenue was obtained by a slaveowner contracting out the slave's labor rather than just by pure agricultural work on the owner's plantation. That 85% number should not be a suprise.
Hardly remarkable that the slave's basic needs ate up 85% of the revenue. Slaves still had to be clothed, fed, sheltred, given the most basic of medical care, and so on. Seven days a week, 24 hours day. As I said, that extra 15% that was kept made all the difference. If you want an example, what if every poor person in the US suddenly got an extra 15% boost in their disposable income? You can consider what a difference that would make in the poor communities. Now, some slaveholders i am sure had ahighe profit margin thtn others, but the 85% number is fairly well accepted.
To answer your question about costs and what kind they were, you may Google: Fixed Costs, Variable Costs and Opportunity Costs. Slaveholders were businessmen, think like a businessman.
BTW, Broadhead is right about the percentages of Southern whites who owned slaves.
By Frank Murtaugh
download this issue
click here to see more »