Zone1 "They Were Products of Their Time"

[IM2]

That would be a strange way to look at it. It would be like asking how many people in the 80s owned cars or tvs. Those weren't things every individual had, they were things families had and when we go back to the Census before the Civil War we see that in some States 40% of families owned at least one slave and I think the Confederate state with the fewest slave ownership still had around 20% of families who owned at least one slave. This is all besides the fact that whether we're talking agricultural in the South or textile manufacturing in the North, most of these industries relied on products produced by slaves.

They continue trying to find excuses.

 

[MizMolly]

That would be a strange way to look at it. It would be like asking how many people in the 80s owned cars or tvs. Those weren't things every individual had, they were things families had and when we go back to the Census before the Civil War we see that in some States 40% of families owned at least one slave and I think the Confederate state with the fewest slave ownership still had around 20% of families who owned at least one slave. This is all besides the fact that whether we're talking agricultural in the South or textile manufacturing in the North, most of these industries relied on products produced by slaves.

You aren’t even making similar comparisons. Statistics show very few people owned slaves.

Statistics: Slaves and Slaveholdings | Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

Statistics: Slaves and Slaveholdings | Slaveholding, 1860 Non-slaveholders 76.1 percent 1-9 slaves 17.2 percent 10-99 6.6 percent over 100 0.1 percent | Slaveholding, 1860 Non-slaveholders 76.1 percent 1-9 slaves 17.2 percent 10-99 6.6 percent over 100 0.1 percent Distribution of Slaves Number...

www.gilderlehrman.org

 

[MizMolly]

They continue trying to find excuses.

You continue to make false accusations.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Are Gilder and Lehrman Tilting American History to the Right? A Case in Point | History News Network

historynewsnetwork.org

 

[Curried Goats]

You aren’t even making similar comparisons. Statistics show very few people owned slaves.

Statistics: Slaves and Slaveholdings | Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

Statistics: Slaves and Slaveholdings | Slaveholding, 1860 Non-slaveholders 76.1 percent 1-9 slaves 17.2 percent 10-99 6.6 percent over 100 0.1 percent | Slaveholding, 1860 Non-slaveholders 76.1 percent 1-9 slaves 17.2 percent 10-99 6.6 percent over 100 0.1 percent Distribution of Slaves Number...

www.gilderlehrman.org

You keep referencing people when the better way to look at is how many families owned slaves. Also I don't know where your website gets its numbers. According to my source who gets its numbers from the 1860 Census, 32% of families in the seceding South owned slaves but when we break that average down even further we see that nearly 49% of Mississippi households owned slaves while only 20% of families in Arkansas owned slaves which is how you get an average of 32%. But even your own link says nearly a quarter of Southern families owned slaves. Your attempts to minimize slavery is just bullshit. Whether they owned slaves or not nearly the entire Southern economy relied on slavery.

5 Myths About Slavery | HISTORY

 

[IM2]

You keep referencing people when the better way to look at is how many families owned slaves. Also I don't know where your website gets its numbers. According to my source who gets its numbers from the 1860 Census, 32% of families in the seceding South owned slaves but when we break that average down even further we see that nearly 49% of Mississippi households owned slaves while only 20% of families in Arkansas owned slaves which is how you get an average of 32%. But even your own link says nearly a quarter of Southern families owned slaves. Your attempts to minimize slavery is just bullshit. Whether they owned slaves or not nearly the entire Southern economy relied on slavery.

5 Myths About Slavery | HISTORY

Let's help Molly understand how much slavery impacted all kinds of people who she wants to absolve by trying to say they did not own slaves.

ALL RISE!

This mornings lesson:

It Doesn't Matter Who Didn't Physically Own Slaves!

“By a conservative estimate, in 1860 the total value of slaves was atleast ten times more than the gold and silver then circulating nationally ($228.3 million, “most of it in the North,” the authors add), total currency($435.4 million), and even the value of the South’s total farmland ($1.92billion). Slaves were, to slavers, worth more than everything else they could imagine combined.”

That is a conservative estimate, meaning the amount could be farmore. In 1860, Slaves were worth more than the gold, silver, total U.S.currency, plus all the farmland in the South combined in 1860.

During slavery, wealthy slave owners securitized slavery. That’s right. I said they securitized slavery. Slave owners created and sold slave-backed securities. Let me repeat, slaveowners securitized slavery, and the securities were sold internationally.Wall Street should be called Slavery Street; this is the cold reality on which American capitalism has been built.

In the 1830s, powerful Southern slaveowners wanted toimport capital into their states so they could buy moreslaves. They came up with a new, two-part idea:mortgaging slaves; and then turning the mortgages into bonds that could be marketed all over the world.

First, American planters organized new banks, usually innew states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Drawing up listsof slaves for collateral, the planters then mortgaged them tothe banks they had created, enabling themselves to buy additional slaves to expand cotton production. To provide capital for those loans, the banks sold bonds to investors from around the globe — London, New York, Amsterdam,Paris. The bond buyers, many of whom lived in countries where slavery was illegal, didn’t own individual slaves —just bonds backed by their value. Planters’ mortgage payments paid the interest and the principle on these bond payments. Enslaved human beings had been, in modern financial lingo, “securitized.”

As slave-backed mortgages became paper bonds, everybody profited — except, obviously, enslaved African Americans whose forced labor repaid owners’ mortgages. But investors owed a piece of slave-earned income. Older slave states such as Maryland and Virginia sold slaves to the new cotton states, at securitization-inflated prices, resulting in slave asset bubble. Cotton factor firms like the now-defunct Lehman Brothers — founded in Alabama — became wildly successful. Lehman moved to Wall Street, and for all these firms, every transaction in slave-earned money flowing in and out of the U.S. earned Wall Street firms a fee.

The infant American financial industry nourished itself on profits taken from financing slave traders, cotton brokers and underwriting slave-backed bonds. But though slavery ended in 1865, in the years after the Civil War, black entrepreneurs would find themselves excluded from a financial system originally built on their bodies.

-Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves

American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves

American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves By Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman Chicago Sun-Times.com March 7, 2014 Last weekend we watched the Oscars and, like most people, were pleased that “T…

norbertobarreto.blog

So what this shows is that you didn't have to own a human to own slaves and millions of people worldwide owned slaves and profited from slavery through the purchase and ownership of slave backed securities. Simply put, there is no excuse right wing whites can make to deny their control of the slave industry in America.

10 times more blacks were bred in America than "sold by africans" to whites. Millions of whites owned slaves even though they did not physically own a human being. So it's simply time that right wing whites faced the truth and become a real part of the reconciliation process we need in America to make things right.

Here endeth the lesson.

 

[MizMolly]

You keep referencing people when the better way to look at is how many families owned slaves. Also I don't know where your website gets its numbers. According to my source who gets its numbers from the 1860 Census, 32% of families in the seceding South owned slaves but when we break that average down even further we see that nearly 49% of Mississippi households owned slaves while only 20% of families in Arkansas owned slaves which is how you get an average of 32%. But even your own link says nearly a quarter of Southern families owned slaves. Your attempts to minimize slavery is just bullshit. Whether they owned slaves or not nearly the entire Southern economy relied on slavery.

5 Myths About Slavery | HISTORY

I have not attempted to minimalize anything. You try to make it appear that the vast majority had slaves.

 

[MizMolly]

Let's help Molly understand how much slavery impacted all kinds of people who she wants to absolve by trying to say they did not own slaves.

ALL RISE!

This mornings lesson:

It Doesn't Matter Who Didn't Physically Own Slaves!

“By a conservative estimate, in 1860 the total value of slaves was atleast ten times more than the gold and silver then circulating nationally ($228.3 million, “most of it in the North,” the authors add), total currency($435.4 million), and even the value of the South’s total farmland ($1.92billion). Slaves were, to slavers, worth more than everything else they could imagine combined.”

That is a conservative estimate, meaning the amount could be farmore. In 1860, Slaves were worth more than the gold, silver, total U.S.currency, plus all the farmland in the South combined in 1860.

During slavery, wealthy slave owners securitized slavery. That’s right. I said they securitized slavery. Slave owners created and sold slave-backed securities. Let me repeat, slaveowners securitized slavery, and the securities were sold internationally.Wall Street should be called Slavery Street; this is the cold reality on which American capitalism has been built.

In the 1830s, powerful Southern slaveowners wanted toimport capital into their states so they could buy moreslaves. They came up with a new, two-part idea:mortgaging slaves; and then turning the mortgages into bonds that could be marketed all over the world.

First, American planters organized new banks, usually innew states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Drawing up listsof slaves for collateral, the planters then mortgaged them tothe banks they had created, enabling themselves to buy additional slaves to expand cotton production. To provide capital for those loans, the banks sold bonds to investors from around the globe — London, New York, Amsterdam,Paris. The bond buyers, many of whom lived in countries where slavery was illegal, didn’t own individual slaves —just bonds backed by their value. Planters’ mortgage payments paid the interest and the principle on these bond payments. Enslaved human beings had been, in modern financial lingo, “securitized.”

As slave-backed mortgages became paper bonds, everybody profited — except, obviously, enslaved African Americans whose forced labor repaid owners’ mortgages. But investors owed a piece of slave-earned income. Older slave states such as Maryland and Virginia sold slaves to the new cotton states, at securitization-inflated prices, resulting in slave asset bubble. Cotton factor firms like the now-defunct Lehman Brothers — founded in Alabama — became wildly successful. Lehman moved to Wall Street, and for all these firms, every transaction in slave-earned money flowing in and out of the U.S. earned Wall Street firms a fee.

The infant American financial industry nourished itself on profits taken from financing slave traders, cotton brokers and underwriting slave-backed bonds. But though slavery ended in 1865, in the years after the Civil War, black entrepreneurs would find themselves excluded from a financial system originally built on their bodies.

-Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves

American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves

American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves By Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman Chicago Sun-Times.com March 7, 2014 Last weekend we watched the Oscars and, like most people, were pleased that “T…

norbertobarreto.blog

So what this shows is that you didn't have to own a human to own slaves and millions of people worldwide owned slaves and profited from slavery through the purchase and ownership of slave backed securities. Simply put, there is no excuse right wing whites can make to deny their control of the slave industry in America.

10 times more blacks were bred in America than "sold by africans" to whites. Millions of whites owned slaves even though they did not physically own a human being. So it's simply time that right wing whites faced the truth and become a real part of the reconciliation process we need in America to make things right.

Here endeth the lesson.

I wasn’t trying to absolve anything. It is IN THE PAST. Luckily slavery no longer exists in this country. You are one of the posters who bring it up as if any of us are accountable for it or approved of it, which is false. Yes, whites bought slaves from Africans, yes it was WRONG. Wheras you minimalize African involvement in the slave trade. All were guilty.

 

[Curried Goats]

I have not attempted to minimalize anything. You try to make it appear that the vast majority had slaves.

I have not. I don't think the vast majority of people had to own slaves for this to be a deplorable nation of mutants who supported slavery and who venerates slavers.

 

[MizMolly]

I have not. I don't think the vast majority of people had to own slaves for this to be a deplorable nation of mutants who supported slavery and who venerates slavers.

We will never know how many people approved of slavery. It is in the past.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I have not. I don't think the vast majority of people had to own slaves for this to be a deplorable nation of mutants who supported slavery and who venerates slavers.

So in the late eighteenth century, England, Spain, France, Russia, China, India, Portugal, all were “deplorable nations of mutants“ who supported slavery. Go back another hundred years and slavery was the norm, not the exception, literally every one accepted slavery as a normal part of life.

 

[Curried Goats]

So in the late eighteenth century, England, Spain, France, Russia, China, India, Portugal, all were “deplorable nations of mutants“ who supported slavery. Go back another hundred years and slavery was the norm, not the exception, literally every one accepted slavery as a normal part of life.

Who cares if they accepted it as normal? Do you? I sure as fuck don't. That's what makes them deplorable nations of mutants.

 

[Grumblenuts]

literally every one accepted slavery as a normal part of life.

Sure, sure -- "literally every one"

America's First Anti-Slavery Statute Was Passed in 1652. Here's Why It Was Ignored

Rhode Island's early history with slavery was complicated

time.com

How Christian Slaveholders Used the Bible to Justify Slavery

Read an excerpt from 'The Great Stain: Witnessing American Slavery' by Noel Rae

time.com

 

[MarathonMike]

We continue to see excuses from the right defending racism with the excuse of they were a product of their time. The record shows how the people of that time assessed “today’s” standards on themselves. Almost every one of them spoke out against slavery. Ben Franklin and Ben Rush formed an abolition organization. John Quincy Adams was called the “hell hound forAbolition.”1 Don’t believe me, here are their words.

“Why keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil.” -Charles Carroll, Signer of the Declaration

“I am glad to hear that the disposition against keeping negroes grows more general in North America. Several pieces have been lately printed here against the practice, and I hope in time it will be taken into consideration and suppressed by the legislature.”-Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration, Signer of the Constitution, President of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society

“That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent, as well as unjust and perhaps impious.” -John Jay, President of Continental Congress, Original Chief Justice U. S. Supreme Court

I hope we shall at last, and if it so please God I hope it maybe during my lifetime, see this cursed thing [slavery] takenout. . . . For my part, whether in a public station or a private capacity, I shall always be prompt to contribute my assistance towards effecting so desirable an event.” -William Livingston, Signer of the Constitution; Governor of New Jersey

“The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. . . . And with what execration [curse]should the statesman be loaded, who permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other. . . . And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.” -Thomas Jefferson

The Founding Fathers and Slavery - Patriot Academy

David Barton Even though the issue of slavery is often raised as a discrediting charge against the Founding Fathers, the historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by, the Founding Fathers; slavery had been introduced to America nearly two centuries...

www.patriotacademy.com

They knew what they were doing was wrong, yet they still did it. That is a product of their time.

Keep hate alive! The perpetual victim hood of Black people is working so well for the Democrats, it must be passed on!

 

[AZrailwhale]

Who cares if they accepted it as normal? Do you? I sure as fuck don't. That's what makes them deplorable nations of mutants.

If you had lived then you would have. Even slaves accepted that slavery was a normal thing in those days. They didn't like being slaves of course, but slavery was a universal institution.

 

[Curried Goats]

If you had lived then you would have. Even slaves accepted that slavery was a normal thing in those days. They didn't like being slaves of course, but slavery was a universal institution.

That's not an argument for it being moral, that's just a acceptance of your inability to do anything about it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Grumblenuts grammar lesson for today:

"victim hood" is a single word. Victimhood. Neighborhood.
"every one" normally is too. Everyone. Anyone. Someone.
For Example,

Everyone knows that white supremacists remain blissfully oblivious to grammar while somehow managing to project privileged victimhood. Childishly.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Go back another hundred years and slavery was the norm, not the exception, literally every one accepted slavery as a normal part of life.

Moses might take issue with that statement.

 

[IM2]

The excuses for slavery only comes from the racists.

 

[AZrailwhale]

That's not an argument for it being moral, that's just an acceptance of your inability to do anything about it.

Morality is relative. It’s a reflection of culture. In Rome it was moral to spend an enjoyable afternoon watching people kill each other. In Minos, it was moral to burn babies alive to worship Baal. In Sparta it was moral to kill Helots one day a year to cull the slave population. In the USA it’s moral to abort babies. Shall I go on?