The Confederacy was About Slavery

You believe the most eggregious bullshit.

Where my daddy's from in NC the names are Blount, Spruill, Davenport and some others. There are a lot of white and black families by the same last names in that area - it doesn't take a genealogist to figure why.

Many of the white slaves, just like black slaves, were indentured and so were their kids, it was generational. Go on now, look it up.

Just for the record, the current U.S. president is Black, and his AVP is an Irish-American. I would say our Black President is higher on the marquee.

It was about economics driven by two different economic engines, slavery being one in the South, and factories being the other in the North. So, if the South did not secede, the fear amongst white Southerners was that eventually new non-slave states could vote against the economic preferences of the South.

Also, getting back to the main theme of this thread. Here is an interesting thought experiment. If electricity, for example, was discovered 500 years earlier, and then all inventions continued on the same track, and by the time of the Civil War there were functioning inanimate robots to do the labor on plantations, would there have still been a Civil War? I believe, yes, since the war was fought for economic reasons, and slavery was just a symptom of the willingness to utilize human labor in such a dreadful, inhumane manner. Let us not forget that today there is "white slavery," so the willingness to utilize humans for one's profit did not end after African-American slavery ended. Some humans still have the ability to enslave others without a conscience (aka, Nazi slave labor).

Yes, but some of the indentured contracts were for much longer than the span of one lifetime, many of their children were held to the same contracts. Many died during their contracts and their working conditions were often as bad as the African slaves. And many were, without a doubt, slaves, especially if they had been convicted of some meaningless crime.

This:

Quote:

It was about economics driven by two different economic engines, slavery being one in the South, and factories being the other in the North. So, if the South did not secede, the fear amongst white Southerners was that eventually new non-slave states could vote against the economic preferences of the South.

. . . is bullshit. You apparently either don't know the contents of the constitution, or you d0n't engage your brain before you post. There were fifteen slave states in 1861. It would require, even today, 38 states to ratify an amendment to abolish slavery. Had there been no war, the southern states could have blocked any such amendment right up to the present day. You just make **** up precisely because you believe all the bullshit you swallowed in school 40 years ago.

Long before a sufficient number of states had been added to the Union to force a tariff, European boycotts of slave-produced cotton would very likely have driven the south into the industrial arms of the north. European textile workers were serious about their opposition to economic exploitation. When Ghandi organized Indians to spin and weave their own cloth, and then visited England, he was treated as a hero by the textile workers who had been thrown out of work by the boycott, because they believed in his cause.

Your view of history, and your constant drum-beat of race-centered and ethnically-centered bigotry makes history into a comic book. You never know what the **** you're talking about.

Indentured servants are one thing, convicts were another.

Indentured servitude could be lengthened, as you've said for many things, often invented.

%40 percent of these people survived the trip over and their contracts. Some had great contracts that eventually gave them a piece of land, but most weren't so lucky after all the good land was gone. The concept of "slaves for life" wasn't a new invention once African's were brought to the US.

Indenture servants was a misnomer, since most weren't polishing silverware. Those fields didn't get picked by paid employees and they were planted long before African slaves worked and died in them. Though the laws did change at their introduction...

The slave trade in England was barbaric and that trend didn't end when it shipped it's practices across the seas. The new frontiers were not kind to these people and it's pretty much a fairy tale to believe otherwise.

So, um... If a slave died without producing more little slaves, he wasn't a slave in the first place?

Many of the white slaves, just like black slaves, were indentured and so were their kids, it was generational.

The slave trade in England was practically non-existent, and it ceased entirely after the decision in Somersett's Case in 1772. Race slavery in the new world was largely an innovation of the Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch. English merchants enthusiastically participated in the international slave trade, but they didn't originate it.

you been dringking?

Foofie wrote:

Just for the record, the current U.S. president is Black, and his AVP is an Irish-American. I would say our Black President is higher on the marquee.

Ummm, exactly what point are you making? I'm well aware Obama's black. And VP's don't normally take higher billing... What does this have to do with the discussion at hand??

I made the distinction between convicts and indentured slaves before anyone accused me of thinking they meant the same thing, although they were all forced to work together, were shipped together, treated in similar fashions and so on...

I didn't say the English invented it, didn't say that slaves existed in England but that slave trading and traders did.

It was an awesome way to get rid of undesirables, but you might want to explain to the Irish and the Ozzies that it was a myth. Oh and thank-you for showing me a law written well after the indentured slaves were worked to death on several continents. It really brought home your point...