They died to Free blacks from slavery

[IM2]

There is nothing racist in what I said.

In 1863, the President of the United States signed the Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves but really freeing them only on stats held by the confederacy. On January 31, 1865, the 13th Amendment was proposed which ended slavery officially in the United States, yet it took until March 16, 1995 for the last state to ratify this amendment. On June 13, 1866, the 14th Amendment was proposed whereby American citizenship was supposed to be granted to every citizen regardless of race or former condition of servitude. Yet it took until March 18, 1976, for the last state to ratify this amendment. On February 26, 1869, the first right to vote was granted to black men only but the last state to ratify this took until 1997. I present these 3 amendments because of what they were supposed to end. That would be the end of white racism by practice , law and policy. But that did not happen. Instead whites created a new way to practice racism and it started with the decisions made in cases during the late 1800’s.

A 1883 Supreme Court opinion states that “when a man has emerged from slavery … there must be some stage in the progress of his elevation when he takes the rank of a mere citizen and ceases to be the special favorite of the laws.” That was two decades after emancipation. I think the supreme court was a little ahead of itself. Even still that shows us a purposeful blindness to reality by whites which carries over into today. To ignore the special favorite of the law status whites had enjoyed to that point is really an example of mental madness.

When it is said we talk about a history of racist laws and policy many do not understand the full extent of what is meant. According to the 13th Amendment, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, nor any place subject to their jurisdiction."I think people really need to understand the impact of the underlined words. Blacks were arrested, tried, found guilty and sent to prison for crimes such as vagrancy, cussing in front of whites, jaywalking and other minor or non offenses for whites. Because of this, they could be returned to slavery and were. There has been no amendment to change this part of the 13th Amendment meaning that in reality slavery could still exist in America today. After slavery ended:

Employment was required of all freedmen; violators faced vagrancy charges

•Freedmen could not assemble without the presence of a white person

•Freedmen were assumed to be agricultural workers and their duties and hours were tightly regulated

•Freedmen were not to be taught to read or write

•Public facilities were segregated

•Violators of these laws were subject to being whipped or branded.

And sent back into slavery. Just think about it, a black person could be convicted of not being employed and sent back into slavery along with many other things. Far too many people want to argue about things said without an understanding of the depth and length of things that have and continue to occur.

The decisions made by the supreme court in these cases began what we call today states rights. The decision was that the federal government could not interfere in how the states did things. If an act of racism happened in a state that was a state concern, not a federal one. So while slavery was illegal by written law, while rights were not to be denied by race, whites found a way around those amendments to continue practicing racism. In 1896 the whites of this nation insured that racial segregation would be the law. This was done by Plessy V. Ferguson. So while slavery was no longer legal by constitutional amendment meaning blacks or anyone of color were not supposed be denied rights, because of Plessy v Ferguson they could be separated and reduced to second class citizenship. So laws were written, but whites found another way to practice the same racism.

So we fast forward to the1960s. We got the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights act. Affirmative Action was an executive order. But the thing about Affirmative Action was it only applied to government jobs and government construction contracts. Despite these things being passed in the mid 1960’s it took until the late 1980’s for most of the nation to comply. These laws were not immediately followed. Yet today there are whites who still find ways to circumvent the law.

Racism today is practiced in a new way and it's not overt in practice but covert in policy. This racism is called entitlement reform. Immigration. Welfare reform. Voter fraud. And many other things that are actually policies designed to take away things from non whites. This is how racism is played today. I’m colorblind and if you talk about racism, you are the racist. This is part of the history of race in America. It’s not the nice part so no one wants to hear it. For any progress made, the racists adapt and create a new way to limit that progress. Or end it. Ask those who are taking Affirmative Action to court. The Fisher case was a case heard an unprecedented 2 times by the supreme court which is something a non white case never would get. It was rejected the first time but white rights organizers again funded the attempt and it got heard for a second time. So a person can talk about how laws are written and pretend that words on a piece of paper are being followed, but that’s not the case and it never has been.

We always have to be told about what racism is by whites. And of course there are whites who tell us that racism doesn't exist because they don't see the KKK outfits, burning crosses or the whites only signs. Or how Oprah exists so that means all blacks are economically on equal footing as whites. Therefore racism is over according to them. But it's not. And what we have seen as non whites is how racism changes in practice each and every time laws are passed to try stopping it.

You are ignorant to these matters son, and whites have not been harmed by AA. Whites have benefitted the most and incomes of white households have increased because of the policy. You run your mouth, but you know nothing.

What you said is racist, because you said >> "Slavery was made legal in the UNITED STATES by whites." SInce you didn't stipulate WHICH whites, and that it was a very small number (as I explained in Post # 81), that leaves your sentence as saying that ALL whites made slavery legal. Demonizing a whole race like that, for the actions of a small group, is about as racist as you can get.

As for Affirmaive Action, its discrimination against whites, is, the largest racist discrimination in America, against, by far, the largest number of people (whites), and continues (in 42 states) after 50+ years. Your support of AA is just more evidence of your blatant RACISM and your criminality, since AA is illegal (violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act)

This post is about as stupid as it gets.

 

[irosie91]

How about we all agree that most of the people who fought in the civil war DID NOT JOIN UP BECAUSE OF SOME SORT OF NOBLE MOTIVATION TO FREE BLACK SLAVES. --------I am willing. Long ago----some idiot
southern Baptist told me that americans joined the military
during world war II----for the PURPOSE OF SAVING DA JOOOS. NOPE----same stupidity

 

[IM2]

And since we want to talk about 1860, lets do hat.

Viral post gets it wrong about extent of slavery in 1860

One viral post sent to us by a reader said, "At the PEAK of slavery in 1860, only 1.4% of Americans owned slaves. What your history books doesn’t tell you is that 3,000 blacks owned a total of 20,000 slaves the same year." The post is signed, "Proud Southern Deplorable - Southern Rebel" and goes on to say, "If you're sick of the race baiting, please LIKE and SHARE."

When we took a closer look, we found that the percentage of slaveholding families was dramatically higher than what the meme said, and that the number of slaves owned by blacks was presented in a misleading way.

'At the PEAK of Slavery in 1860, Only 1.4% of Americans owned slaves.'
The primary source of data about slaves and slaveholding in 1860 is that year’s census.

Census data from 1860 isn’t perfect, said University of North Carolina historian Joseph T. Glatthaar, author of Soldiering in the Army of Northern Virginia: A Statistical Portrait of the Troops Who Served under Robert E. Lee. But it remains "the best evidence we have."

In the big picture, the 1860 Census counted a total of 31,443,321 people, of which 3,953,760 were slaves. So slaves accounted for 12.6 percent of the national population.

However, to address the assertion in the post requires more detailed data. Many states had outlawed slavery by 1860, so the national population figure dilutes the measurement by including many Americans whose states did not allow them to own slaves. The national population figure also includes slaves and children, and it doesn’t account either for family groupings or how many slaves a given family owned.

So experts say that a more accurate measure of slaveholding in 1860 America would focus on states that allowed slavery, and would zero in on family or household units, as a way of limiting the statistical noise caused by counting slaves and children.

"The number that really matters is how many American households in the South had slaves," said Adam Goodheart, a Washington College historian and author of 1861: The Civil War Awakening.

Using Census data to research his book, Glatthaar calculated that 4.9 percent of people in the slaveholding states owned slaves, that 19.9 percent of family units in those states owned slaves, and that 24.9 percent of households owned slaves. (Households are a broader category than families.)

Each of these figures is significantly higher than the 1.4 percent cited in the social media post.

State-by-state figures show some variation. In Mississippi, 49 percent of families owned slaves, and in South Carolina, 46 percent did. In border states, the percentage was lower -- 3 percent in Delaware and 12 percent in Maryland. The median for slaveholding states was about 27 percent.

Using the same data, it's possible to calculate the statistic of dubious value cited in the viral image -- the percentage of all American families that owned slaves. The answer: 7.4 percent, which about five times greater than what the meme says.

It's also possible that the Census data is misleadingly low, Goodheart said.

"Many non-slaveholding whites in the South rented slaves from wealthier slaveholders," he said. "So it was very common for a white Southerner to be a 'slave master' but not technically a 'slave owner."


'3,000 blacks owned a total of 20,000 slaves the same year.'
We were unable to find hard data to debunk -- or support -- this figure.

The most solid data we found was published in an article in the Root by Henry Louis Gates Jr., a Harvard University historian. Gates cited research by Carter G. Woodson, an African-American historian who died in 1950. He found that in 1830, a total of "3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves."

With three more decades of population growth, it’s plausible that the number of black-owned slaves could have grown to 20,000 by 1860, historians told us.

"I'd imagine that the (20,000 figure) quoted in the meme is probably not that far off from being true," said Junius Rodriguez, a Eureka College historian and author of Slavery in the United States: A Social, Political, and Historical Encyclopedia.

But the 20,000 number is not necessarily as eye-popping as the meme makes it out to be.

For starters, even if the number is accurate, it would still account for just a tiny percentage of all slaves held in the United States in 1860 -- specifically, one half of 1 percent. That runs contrary to the post’s framing.

"That’s a very small number compared to Latin American or Caribbean societies," said Stephanie McCurry, a Columbia University historian and author of Confederate Reckoning: Power and Politics in the Civil War South.

In addition, the figure is almost certainly inflated by a legal quirk in most antebellum southern states.

It includes "many ‘owned’ family members whom they had purchased to become free," said Eric Foner, a Columbia University historian and the author of such books as The Fiery Trial: Abraham Lincoln and American Slavery. "You could not free a slave in most southern states without sending them out of the state."

Gates, writing in the Root, noted that the late historian Thomas J. Pressly used Woodson's statistics for 1830 to determine that about 42 percent of these black slaveholders owned just one slave. To Gates, this suggests that many -- though hardly all -- black "slaveholders" legally needed to "own" a family member such as a wife or child.

As Woodson wrote in his 1924 book Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830, "In many instances the husband purchased the wife or vice versa. … Slaves of Negroes were in some cases the children of a free father who had purchased his wife. If he did not thereafter emancipate the mother, as so many such husbands failed to do, his own children were born his slaves and were thus reported to the numerators."

In other cases, Woodson wrote, "Benevolent Negroes often purchased slaves to make their lot easier by granting them their freedom for a nominal sum, or by permitting them to work it out on liberal terms."

Our ruling
The viral post said that "at the PEAK of slavery in 1860, only 1.4% of Americans owned slaves. What your history books doesn’t tell you is that 3,000 blacks owned a total of 20,000 slaves the same year."

In reality, far more than 1.4 percent of families in slaveholding states -- the most reasonable way to measure it -- owned slaves. The number was between 20 and 25 percent, and in some states, the rate was twice as high. As for black-owned slaves, they certainly existed, but they represented a tiny fraction of all slaves in the United States, and many were likely "owned" by their spouses or parents due to the prevailing laws in many slaveholding states.

We rate the statement False.

Viral post gets it wrong about extent of slavery in 1860

 

[deanrd]

when did anyone shrug this off? I'm of european backgound on both sides. My great-greats lived in NYC at the time. Please explain.

IM2 is shrugging it off continuously in this thread. He keeps saying that white Union soldiers didn't fight and die to free black slaves, They did, and he shrugging it off.

They didn't and no matter how many times you repeat it, doesn't change that.

So what were they fighting for?

We know the Emancipation Proclamation was signed not long after the Civil War began. However racist Republican white wingers want to deny it, freeing the slaves was part of it. It was an outcome so it was part.

They fought for maintenance of the union. Maybe you guys watch the video?.

The Confederate Constitution enshrined slavery.

Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861

The north was against slavery. If they had accepted it, that would have preserved the union. but they didn't. Period.

 

[IM2]

When whites like you guys start talking stupid about how whites died for our freedom and how we should be grateful, there is the small matter of blacks not being allowed to fight. It had to get bad before blacks were allowed to fight. Some of you seem unable to remember this.

 

[IM2]

when did anyone shrug this off? I'm of european backgound on both sides. My great-greats lived in NYC at the time. Please explain.

IM2 is shrugging it off continuously in this thread. He keeps saying that white Union soldiers didn't fight and die to free black slaves, They did, and he shrugging it off.

They didn't and no matter how many times you repeat it, doesn't change that.

So what were they fighting for?

We know the Emancipation Proclamation was signed not long after the Civil War began. However racist Republican white wingers want to deny it, freeing the slaves was part of it. It was an outcome so it was part.

They fought for maintenance of the union. Maybe you guys watch the video?.

The Confederate Constitution enshrined slavery.

Constitution of the Confederate States; March 11, 1861

The north was against slavery. If they had accepted it, that would have preserved the union. but they didn't. Period.

You are wrong. It's just that simple.

 

[KissMy]

When whites like you guys start talking stupid about how whites died for our freedom and how we should be grateful, there is the small matter of blacks not being allowed to fight. It had to get bad before blacks were allowed to fight. Some of you seem unable to remember this.

You are a hateful racist asshole who deserves everything bad that happens to you! Those poor whites who suffered & died fighting for your freedom, do not & did not deserve your hate.

 

[IM2]

When whites like you guys start talking stupid about how whites died for our freedom and how we should be grateful, there is the small matter of blacks not being allowed to fight. It had to get bad before blacks were allowed to fight. Some of you seem unable to remember this.

You are a hateful racist asshole who deserves everything bad that happens to you! Those poor whites who suffered & died fighting for your freedom, do not & did not deserve your hate.

Whites like you need to get your shit straight. On one hand you can't tell us how slavery was in he past and no one today was affected by it, then you say that we as blacks today are free because of what people did who in all other discussions have nothing to do with today. So which one is it?

I'm repeating what Historians have produced. White historians. So if you and anyon else have a problem contact the history channel and the show in Search of History and tell them how the north fought the civil war to free the slaves.

 

[flacaltenn]

when did anyone shrug this off? I'm of european backgound on both sides. My great-greats lived in NYC at the time. Please explain.

IM2 is shrugging it off continuously in this thread. He keeps saying that white Union soldiers didn't fight and die to free black slaves, They did, and he shrugging it off.

They didn't and no matter how many times you repeat it, doesn't change that.

So what were they fighting for?

We know the Emancipation Proclamation was signed not long after the Civil War began. However racist Republican white wingers want to deny it, freeing the slaves was part of it. It was an outcome so it was part.

They fought for maintenance of the union. Maybe you guys watch the video?.

You can't have it both ways. When wars are fought -- usually BOTH SIDES agree on what the fight was about. It's EITHER about resisting a Federal Govt that wasn't operating in the interests of ALL the States OR it was about slavery.

If you say the North fought for preservation of the Union, the South fought to DISSOLVE the Union and slavery wasn't the ONLY issue involved. In fact, it was as much about spending money on NORTHERN infrastructure, tariffs and taxes as it was about slavery.

 

[protectionist]

Whites like you need to get your shit straight.

I have never seen anybody in USMB who uses the word "Whites" like this dude does. Sure uses it a lot.

 

[protectionist]

They fought for maintenance of the union. Maybe you guys watch the video?.

And that's supposed to somehow conclude to us that they didn't also fight to stop slavery ?

 

[protectionist]

I blame whites for slavery in the United States. Because they are responsible or slavery in the United States.

The video is based on fact what you say isn't.

Let's get this straight. You are blaming people who were born 130 years after slavery ended, for that slavery of 155 years ago ? LOL. Are you feeling OK ? I mean really.

 

[protectionist]

This post is about as stupid as it gets.

So you have no answer/retort for it. That is equivalent to accepting it.

 

[protectionist]

Whites like you need to get your shit straight. On one hand you can't tell us how slavery was in he past and no one today was affected by it, then you say that we as blacks today are free because of what people did who in all other discussions have nothing to do with today. So which one is it?

I'm repeating what Historians have produced. White historians. So if you and anyon else have a problem contact the history channel and the show in Search of History and tell them how the north fought the civil war to free the slaves.

I'll tell anybody that the north fought to free the slaves (in addition to union preservation), including the history channel, and whoever is producing their content.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

We keep getting told how whites died fighting to end slavery therefore we as blacks, who apparently did nothing need to be grateful for the great sacrifices made by whites. First off this is a silly claim. We are to be grateful that whites decided to fix a problem they created and did not have to be. However, reality is that such a claim is untrue.

New York City draft riots

The New York City draft riots (July 13–16, 1863), known at the time as Draft Week,[3] were violent disturbances in Lower Manhattan, widely regarded as the culmination of working-class discontent with new laws passed by Congress that year to draft men to fight in the ongoing American Civil War. The riots remain the largest civil and racially charged insurrection in American history, aside from the Civil War itself.[4]

U.S. President Abraham Lincoln diverted several regiments of militia and volunteer troops after the Battle of Gettysburg to control the city. The rioters were overwhelmingly working-class men, mostly Irish or of Irish descent, who feared free black people competing for work and resented that wealthier men, who could afford to pay a $300 (equivalent to $9,157 in 2017[5]) commutation fee to hire a substitute, were spared from the draft.[6][7]

Initially intended to express anger at the draft, the protests turned into a race riot, with white rioters, predominantly Irish immigrants,[4] attacking black people throughout the city. The official death toll was listed at either 119 or 120 individuals. Conditions in the city were such that Major General John E. Wool, commander of the Department of the East, said on July 16 that "Martial law ought to be proclaimed, but I have not a sufficient force to enforce it."[8]

The military did not reach the city until the second day of rioting, by which time the mobs had ransacked or destroyed numerous public buildings, two Protestant churches, the homes of various abolitionists or sympathizers, many black homes, and the Colored Orphan Asylum at 44th Street and Fifth Avenue, which was burned to the ground.[9]

The area's demographics changed as a result of the riot. Many black residents left Manhattan permanently with many moving to Brooklyn. By 1865, the black population fell below 11,000 for the first time since 1820.

New York City draft riots - Wikipedia

The New York draft riots was a relatively small part of US Civil war era history. It has very little to compare with 300,000 Union soldier lives lost. Whether these northern soldiers fought for the principle of stopping slavery or not, they did fight and die in that war, and for blacks to shrug that off, merely shows a degree of mental incapacity.

Wrong.

Please hear the commenter out. This is very interesting.

Why? He missed the entire point. I'm the OP here and this thread is about the lie of whites claiming how whites died to free us from slavery. As the video shows ad states, northern whites didn't fight to free the slaves and damn sure southern whites didn't. So then the claim that whites died to free us is a lie.

No it's not. Whites DID die to free blacks and you know this. You're using the Civil War to argue your point but the problem is, regardless of the reason whites fought the Civil War for, whites did fight and die to free slaves and secure civil rights for blacks.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

you have made NO POINT. As far as going back a MILLION YEARS.-----I need not. I have no family legacy in the US all the way BACK before the Emancipation and certainly not a family legacy of
SOUTHERN PLANTATION OWNERSHIP I am no more responsible than are you. Are you responsible for slavery in sub-Saharan Africa?

That dude has mental issues of something he has never experienced and lost reading skewed history books. Tell that dude to lay his head back in an easy chair and think positive thoughts which will put him in a hypotonic state where he is easily hypnotized, id est, Brainwashed.

That must be you. For I have experienced white racism and discrimination against me.

It is impossible for blacks to be racist, Jessie Jackson. I wanted to bid on a APS (Atlanta Public Schools) contract and the black woman contract manager told me straight up, you are the wrong color. I got a little bit angry and said nothing walking out the door.

Why didn't you file a racial discrimination suit then? You're lying, that's why.

You have chosen to ignore what a history of white racism has done to try making a false equivalence about racism. For some reason whites such as you, not all whites, seem to believe that blacks after over 400 continuous years of white racism should not be angry or that no black has a right to not trust or like whites. But 2 planes flying into a building one time gives you license to dislike, mistrust and hate Muslims as much as you want. And don't dare call you racists for that.

I’ll end this by saying what racism is not. It is not complaining about racism directed at blacks by whites. It is not the angry response to the built in disrespect of a persons humanity by the race that thinks they are superior either. It is not the animosity built up in those who have been the ones disrespected by the race that thinks they are superior. A lot of whites do not seem to understand what white racism has done and then want to quickly call racism the angry reaction, responses and animosity created by white racism.

I never lie and am doomed to speak the truth but only about my personal experiences. Let me tell you more of my personal experiences and don't tell me to write a book.

Don't take it personally, he accuses every white person who says they experienced black racism of being a liar. I know because he accused me of concocting my story of black racism. In his mind, it is inconceivable that there are black racists because apparently by some quirk of biology, blacks can't be racist. Therefore, any and all whites who claim to have experienced black racism must be liars.

The irony is that he can't see that his generalized dim view of whites is one of the hallmarks of racism that he quotes to whites all the time. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

 

[IM2]

Until the 1830s, free blacks were barred from most abolitionist societies. But that has not stopped Davis from emphasizing their centrality to the abolition movement, beginning when it got off the ground in the 1780s. Free blacks combated claims of their inferiority when they became eloquent spokespeople for themselves, as in the case of Phillis Wheatley’s poetry from the revolutionary era. Davis goes against a recent emphasis on the humanity of slaves, however, when he stresses the dehumanization inherent in chattel slavery. Slaveholders took the same whips, chains, buying, selling and breeding techniques they developed for animals, and applied them to slaves. Slavery was as much a psychological form of torture as it was a physical one, with masters trying to make their slaves actually think they were beasts. Robert Burns, a slave freed after the Civil War, remembered his master telling him that “*******…couldn’t go to heaven any more than could a dog.”


Davis does not shy away from the negative consequences this animalization has had on black self-esteem, even to this day. We hear from Barack Obama, in a quote take from Dreams of Our Father, where he expresses surprise at the self-loathing that still persists within the black community: “What are you so surprised about,” a black man says to a young and confused Obama, “that black people still hate themselves?” Davis’s main point, however, is not that slavery destroyed blacks’ self-esteem; it’s that blacks managed to overcome it. To explain how they did so, he goes back to Haiti.

In 1804, enslaved Haitians succeeded in beating back the French, British, and Spanish empires to establish the world’s first black republic. Haiti’s existence represents “the turning point” for the antislavery movement, Davis writes, raising the previously unthinkable prospect of immediate emancipation into a full-fledged reality. Until Haiti, abolitionists focused on either gradual emancipation, or simply ending the slave trade, not slavery itself. Haiti changed that. In the short term, however, the Haitian Revolution actually slowed the official antislavery campaign. And slavery’s defenders quickly turned Haiti into an axe to bludgeon the abolitionist movement: give slaves even the slightest bit of hope, and they’ll insist on immediate freedom.

So white Americans came up with an alternative: colonization. Davis argues that the “bloodstained ghost” of Haiti—combined with a virulent racism comparatively absent in Britain—led America’s white abolitionists to favor returning slaves to Africa rather than setting them free and having them live as equals among whites. To make that idea a reality, the American Colonization Society, founded in 1816 by a coalition of white abolitionists and Southern slave-owners, created Liberia in 1822. Northern abolitionists and Southern slave-owners may have disagreed over the morality of slavery, but what united them, Davis argues, is racism.

The problem was that blacks did not want to go. The “militant reaction against colonization, initiated by blacks themselves,” Davis writes, “gave a distinctive stamp to American abolitionism.” Initially, however, some free blacks were open to the idea, in part because they thought another black republic might bring dignity to their race, and in part because they knew racism in America was only getting worse. But the scene Davis paints from a free black Philadelphia church in 1817 says it all. When James Forten, one of the city’s most prominent free blacks, put up a vote of “ayes” for those in favor of colonization, he was stunned when “there was not a soul in favor of going to Africa,” as Forten wrote.

By the 1830s, it became clear that colonization was not a viable solution. If slavery was going to end, free blacks insisted that whites accept them as equal citizens—and end slavery immediately. The white abolitionist editor William Lloyd Garrison is often remembered as the most vocal proponent of immediate emancipation, but Davis reorients readers to his black backers. It was Forten’s financial support that kept Garrison’s radical abolitionist paper, The Liberator, afloat, for instance. More significantly, slave rebellions both within and beyond America’s borders, coupled with slaves’ persistent attempts to runaway, hastened the calls for immediate emancipation.

But free black Americans like Frederick Douglass ultimately forced immediate emancipation to become the only real option. Britain set the precedent when, in 1838, they emancipated all its 800,000 Caribbean slaves. But Davis argues that Britain did so only when it realized it served its “national honor.” Free black Americans, he insists, played the crucial role of bringing British abolitionist pressure to bear on America. Throughout the 1840s, Douglass traveled to Britain giving lectures denouncing American slavery, winning over a comparatively less racist British public. Popular pressure then forced British leaders to take the lead in the international antislavery crusade.

Readers may not always feel that Davis’s account warrants his description of emancipation as the “greatest landmark of willed moral progress in human history.” He judiciously Davis explains all the amoral reasons for the abolitionist campaign’s success. In Britain, for instance, officials in part took up the cause as a way to deflect attention from miserable working conditions at home. And he perhaps too enthusiastically endorses the argument that promoting antislavery went against Britain’s economic self-interest. While it is true abolition destroyed Britain’s sugar and slave-trade industries, the illicit trade continued to flourish. Meanwhile, Britain’s manufacturing industry prospered from importing slave-grown American cotton. That explains why, as Davis notes, British leaders actually supported the Confederacy until it was all but certain they would lose.

How Blacks Freed Themselves from Slavery

 

[irosie91]

yeah? so?

 

[IM2]

We keep getting told how whites died fighting to end slavery therefore we as blacks, who apparently did nothing need to be grateful for the great sacrifices made by whites. First off this is a silly claim. We are to be grateful that whites decided to fix a problem they created and did not have to be. However, reality is that such a claim is untrue.

New York City draft riots

The New York City draft riots (July 13–16, 1863), known at the time as Draft Week,[3] were violent disturbances in Lower Manhattan, widely regarded as the culmination of working-class discontent with new laws passed by Congress that year to draft men to fight in the ongoing American Civil War. The riots remain the largest civil and racially charged insurrection in American history, aside from the Civil War itself.[4]

U.S. President Abraham Lincoln diverted several regiments of militia and volunteer troops after the Battle of Gettysburg to control the city. The rioters were overwhelmingly working-class men, mostly Irish or of Irish descent, who feared free black people competing for work and resented that wealthier men, who could afford to pay a $300 (equivalent to $9,157 in 2017[5]) commutation fee to hire a substitute, were spared from the draft.[6][7]

Initially intended to express anger at the draft, the protests turned into a race riot, with white rioters, predominantly Irish immigrants,[4] attacking black people throughout the city. The official death toll was listed at either 119 or 120 individuals. Conditions in the city were such that Major General John E. Wool, commander of the Department of the East, said on July 16 that "Martial law ought to be proclaimed, but I have not a sufficient force to enforce it."[8]

The military did not reach the city until the second day of rioting, by which time the mobs had ransacked or destroyed numerous public buildings, two Protestant churches, the homes of various abolitionists or sympathizers, many black homes, and the Colored Orphan Asylum at 44th Street and Fifth Avenue, which was burned to the ground.[9]

The area's demographics changed as a result of the riot. Many black residents left Manhattan permanently with many moving to Brooklyn. By 1865, the black population fell below 11,000 for the first time since 1820.

New York City draft riots - Wikipedia

The New York draft riots was a relatively small part of US Civil war era history. It has very little to compare with 300,000 Union soldier lives lost. Whether these northern soldiers fought for the principle of stopping slavery or not, they did fight and die in that war, and for blacks to shrug that off, merely shows a degree of mental incapacity.

Wrong.

Please hear the commenter out. This is very interesting.

Why? He missed the entire point. I'm the OP here and this thread is about the lie of whites claiming how whites died to free us from slavery. As the video shows ad states, northern whites didn't fight to free the slaves and damn sure southern whites didn't. So then the claim that whites died to free us is a lie.

No it's not. Whites DID die to free blacks and you know this. You're using the Civil War to argue your point but the problem is, regardless of the reason whites fought the Civil War for, whites did fight and die to free slaves and secure civil rights for blacks.

Nope, that did not happen. And as we see by the legal decisions made after the civil war whites did not fight to secure the civil rights of blacks. THAT, is what I know. And it is what YOU need to learn.

 

[IM2]

yeah? so?

Yeah, so, whites didn't die to free us.