Importing a Slave Class

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

the very simple point that i started with and stick by is that coulter is absolutely wrong in stating that the republicans saved slaves from democrats.

You couldn't be more wrong. The Republican Party was founded by former Whigs and Northern Democrats to oppose the expansion of Slavery. The second Republican nominee and First Republican President was Abraham Lincoln for crying out sideways. How can you possibly suggest otherwise?

Coulter has a point about the parallels of today's use of illegal migrant workers with slavery back in the day. Both are examples of the free market without regard for humanity. Where she's wrong is in blaming the Democrats for wanting a so called "permanent slave class". Permanence, meaning allowing migrants to stay, allows the next generation to do better. The Republicans want a permanent slave class. And they want the added benefit of not having to pay for the care of the slaves -- they want them to go back to Mexico (or wherever) and raise the next generation of slave laborers, ensuring a continued flow of people willing to work for nothing so they can keep their profit margins fat.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

the very simple point that i started with and stick by is that coulter is absolutely wrong in stating that the republicans saved slaves from democrats.

You couldn't be more wrong. The Republican Party was founded by former Whigs and Northern Democrats to oppose the expansion of Slavery. The second Republican nominee and First Republican President was Abraham Lincoln for crying out sideways. How can you possibly suggest otherwise?

you have no proof that there were no republicans in the south and no proof that there were no democrats in the north.

you also provided no proof that there was not a single slave in the north in 1860.

movin' on dude....

The Republican Party was established in 1854 by a coalition of former Whigs, Northern Democrats, and Free-Soilers who opposed the expansion of slavery and held a vision for modernizing the United States.[19]

(and how might you be, btw ? )

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

(and how might you be, btw ? )

Doing very well, DTOM. How've you been? It's good to see you back on the boards.

State Mass. N.H. N.Y. Conn. R.I. Pa. N.J. Vt.

Official end of slavery 1783 1783 1799 1784 1784 1780 1804 1777

Actual end of slavery 1783 c.1845? 1827 1848 1842 c.1845? 1865 1777?

i never said anything close to "slavery was as huge in the north as in the south". only that it existed into the mid 1800s.

it was practiced in all states in 1860.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

it was practiced in all states in 1860.

You're wrong.

owwww! ya got me!!

any problems with the rest of it ?

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

it was practiced in all states in 1860.

Clearly, from your own evidence, that is simply not true.

Isolated instances of slaves being held in northern states in the 1860s is rather inconsequential

Knoxville or thereabouts?

see, here's where i'm coming from; coulter is saying that basically "the republican north had no slaves". that they were morally superior, because of course she doesn't recognize that anyone, anywhere could possibly have morals if they are not a republican.

look at missouri, which in 1860 had 114,931 slaves.

new jersey ended slavery in 1865

delaware only ended slavery in 1865 with the implementation of amendment 13

northern states, no ?

i didn't get too into it, but there was also a form of slavery called "term slavery", which was more like indentured servitude. sometimes as long as 40 years. considering that the life span was shorter then, i don't see much of a difference.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

see, here's where i'm coming from; coulter is saying that basically "the republican north had no slaves". that they were morally superior, because of course she doesn't recognize that anyone, anywhere could possibly have morals if they are not a republican.

None of that really matters anyway because the parties today bear almost no resemblance to the parties of then and have all but inverted themselves. She wasn't calling the north morally superior an election or two ago, was she? Those Morally Superior Republicans of yesteryear are now her Godless Liberals. But no matter, intellectual honesty is not something Coulter is known for nor does it appeal to her readers.

kind of a contradiction, eh ?

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

i didn't get too into it, but there was also a form of slavery called "term slavery", which was more like indentured servitude. sometimes as long as 40 years. considering that the life span was shorter then, i don't see much of a difference.

In the north? At the time of the civil war? You'll have to show me some evidence for that.

It simply sounds like indentured servitude, which was not illegal, but was certainly uncommon by 1860. By the way, St. Louis is in Missouri, and as Joe has already pointed out, that was considered a border state. Most of the Missouri State Guard followed Sterling Price into Arkansas, and fought for the Confederacy. Franz Sigel made a name and a military career for himself when he lead German immigrants into St. Louis in 1861 to protect the Federal arsenal from the pro-Confederacy St. Louis mob.

I seriously doubt that anyone ever signed and indenture for 40 years of service. In fact, i don't believe it at all. If you could provide evidence, it would help. Otherwise, you're just talking through your hat.