You say you can identify specific ancestors who signed the South Carolina Secession Declaration in 1860 but aren't sure whether they were slave owners or not?
Posted on 08/08/2010 4:20:05 PM PDT by BigReb555
"When you eliminate the Black Confederate soldier, you've eliminated the history of the South."---The late Dr. Leonard Haynes, Professor, Southern University
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
On the other hand the Northern factory worker could hope for better things. The history of business in this country is full of examples were people started in humble circumstances and built a fortune for themselves. The Southern slave was...a slave. His parents were slaves. His grandparents were slaves. His children were slaves. Not a whole lot of upward mobility in that.
Your might want to finish scanning the posts before you make comments like that. Check out reply 853 and feel free to answer some of the questions I posed. If you can. I already know that southernsunshine refuses to respond to queries.
But that wasn't the premise of your argument. You seemed to suggest that anyone employing others to do their work for them were lazy and not willing to earn their own living by their own sweat.
A slave is nothing more than an involuntary worker. The factory owner gave his workers the option to work there or not. But, the planter and the factory owner operated on the exact same premise: have others labor for you.
Q: Were the captains of your northern slave ships unwilling to earn their own living by their own sweat because they hired some sailors (voluntary worker) and shanghied others (involuntary worker)?
with the right to break up families if it pleased them.
Like mstar suggested, I believe that you need to walk away from your copy of Uncle Tom's Cabin.
That probably was the greatest sin in slavery, the destruction of the family.
I disagree. The greatest sin in slavery is the denial of ones freedom.
You say you can identify specific ancestors who signed the South Carolina Secession Declaration in 1860 but aren't sure whether they were slave owners or not?
A slave is property. A creature without rights, without protections of any kind. Subject to the whims of its owner. A slave in the U.S., to put it bluntly, had no more legal status than a horse or a barn did. To put a slave on the same level as a free factory worker is ridiculous.
Like mstar suggested, I believe that you need to walk away from your copy of Uncle Tom's Cabin.
Perhaps you can show the good Colonel exactly what prevented that from happening? Slave families had no legal standing. Slave marriages were not legal unions. Nothing prevented families from being split and sold, and I have no doubt it happened frequently.
The greatest sin in slavery is the denial of ones freedom.
Would that be the same sin with the Penal System as well?
So....let me see....sources that fly in the face of your opinions are *wrong* because you are always, ALWAYS *right*? LOLOL!
Your source:
“Selected Statistics...<<
HAHAHA!
Statistics don’t lie (usually, I might add), but liars use statistics... :)
And when those sources make absolutely no sense at all then they're accepted by the Lost Causers as if they came from a burning bush. In fact it appears that the more ridiculous the claim, the more you believe it to be true. The more idiotic the statement, the harder you cling to it. The Big Lie is still the Big Lie, even if you can't explain it or offer anything to support it.
And Lost Causers use statistice in the same way that a drunken man uses a lamp post - for support rather than illumination. That is, when Lost Causers bother with statistics at all. Usually your lies are unsupported by anything.
My grandmother came from just south of the Waxhaw area. The slaves belonging to her mother's parents hid the family's silver from Sherman's men.
The area was showcased in the film, "The Patriot", which documented the area battles of Camden and Cowpens.
Some have called the final battle of the film "The Battle of Guilford-Cowpens" because it merged aspects of the Guilford Courthouse and Cowpens battles. I had ancestors on the American side in the battles of Guilford Courthouse and King's Mountain and a cousin on the American side at Cowpens. Their descendants fought for the South in the War Between The States.
But the purpose of that property was for labor. I know of no instances where anyone owned a slave for the pure novelty of owning another human being.
without protections of any kind
Not true. Each state had a set of slave codes. In SC a slave could file a complaint against his owner.
A slave in the U.S., to put it bluntly, had no more legal status than a horse or a barn did.
Once again, not true.
Why are all you liberals such drama queens?
To put a slave on the same level as a free factory worker is ridiculous.
Once again, ns jumps in the fray and attempts to change the focus of the argument.
The focus of the argument was the planter vs the factory owner, neither of which 'labored' for his living.
Would that be the same sin with the Penal System as well?
Are you serious? Are you that stupid? What's next, dufus? Parent/child relationships?
It's a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of a libtards/ns's heart.
Slaves were also an investment, giving the owner the opportunity to profit from the slave's labor, from his body by selling him, and from his offspring by selling them, too. Things a free worker did not bring to the picture.
Not true. Each state had a set of slave codes. In SC a slave could file a complaint against his owner.
Examples?
Once again, not true.
According to a Southern Chief Justice of a Supreme Court it was entirely true. Slaves had no rights whatsoever. Neither did free blacks.
Why are all you liberals such drama queens?
Why are you liberals so blind?
Are you serious? Are you that stupid? What's next, dufus? Parent/child relationships?
In your attempt to minimize slavery you said that the true sin if slavery was the denial of freedom. If that is true, then what do prisons do if not deny freedom? The real sin of slavery is that it takes a human being and reduces him to property, strips him of any and all freedoms, and subjects him to the arbitrary whims of an owner. It takes a man and lowers him to the legal level of an animal. Deny it all you want. Minimize it all you care to. The facts are there.
Socialism, being foisted upon us from above the Mason-Dixon, is like slavery without the pretty horses and cool green grass.
The South, according to you, was a consumption based, low industry society. You seem to deride that when at the same time our modern society seems to be adopting those same principals with illegals filling in for the slaves of the past. Can you see the irony here?
Once again, the argument with kangaroo was about the planter vs the factory owner and each relying on the labor of others for their living. Either argue those merits or STFU.
Examples?
Do your own Googling. I'm not your slave.
In your attempt to minimize slavery you said that the true sin if slavery was the denial of freedom.
Only in the warped confines of your lilliputian mind could believing that the true sin of slavery is the denial of freedom be seen as minimizing the institution.
If that is true, then what do prisons do if not deny freedom?
Society is based on rules. One of the punishments for breaking the rules is involuntary confinement. Anyone that breaks a the rules knowing the punishment could be confinement does it of his own FREE WILL.
It's not the same as slavery and you know it. And if you actually believe that it's a valid analogy then you're dumber than an anvil.
Was FDR a socialist? If so, he had a lot of help from below Mason/Dixon. TVA anyone?
Compared to today's radical socialists, mostly from above the Mason-Dixon, FDR seems oddly conservative in many ways. The South of the 1930's was conservative but do to extreme conditions bought into the whole TVA thing. BTW the TVA didn't seem to help/save Tennessee from devastation incurred in the last flood this year, a story spiked by the media.....
Dang, out for to take care of business and all hell breaks loose with the “coven” because I don’t give the usual PC answer concerning slavery. I’ll do my best to answer your concerns.
Oh barf. Your ancestors didn't seem to think so when it was Jefferson Davis doing the foisting.
As for Davis, post-bellum, we have no track record to go on. Speculation is that the Confederacy would have gone on without the tight constraints that the Davis administration imparted in the crises of invasion. Why?, because states rights was the whole point of the war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.