MLK at The Top of The Class

[Pheonixops]

Your reading of history is very selective. For one example the Abolition movement had a lot to do with the British outlawing the slave trade in the early 19th century. And the American Abolitionist movement eventually led to the Emancipation Proclamation. See the Lincoln Douglas debates, it was a hot issue in 19th century America.

By even the most biased account, abolitionists never had a large movement or a large impact. The heart of anti slavery was the free labor movement, whereas poor whites and slave free farms could not compete against slave labor. Britain was in the same boat. They eradicated slavery across the world not as a moral issue but as a competitively economic one in the age of mercantilism. Of course, as the industrial revolution matured, slavery was down right dangerous. After all, who would have slaves working where they could destroy a business that operates on steam, electricity, and such? So much capital could be lost in a few minutes. Slavery also undermined Britons colonial holdings. As capitalism matured, farmers became more efficient and slavery less profitable.

The Lincoln Douglass debates confirmed Lincoln as a colonialist, which was a larger movement than the latter free labor movement. Lincoln won the election by combining these elements and naturally the abolitionists joined. Nevertheless, colonization was an idea where we would export freedmen back to Africa under the assumption that blacks were not compatible with white culture; a belief that most whites across the United States shared.

The squeaky clean history of doing "the right thing" for no other purpose than the fact that it was "morally right" rarely exists for any race, culture, or country.

Read this from page 41 to 46 and see how silly and ignorant that statement is. In fact 41 thru 46 says a lot about certain people.

Black Charlestonians: A Social History, 1822-1885 - Bernard Edward Powers - Google Books

 

[Publius1787]

Your reading of history is very selective. For one example the Abolition movement had a lot to do with the British outlawing the slave trade in the early 19th century. And the American Abolitionist movement eventually led to the Emancipation Proclamation. See the Lincoln Douglas debates, it was a hot issue in 19th century America.

By even the most biased account, abolitionists never had a large movement or a large impact. The heart of anti slavery was the free labor movement, whereas poor whites and slave free farms could not compete against slave labor. Britain was in the same boat. They eradicated slavery across the world not as a moral issue but as a competitively economic one in the age of mercantilism. Of course, as the industrial revolution matured, slavery was down right dangerous. After all, who would have slaves working where they could destroy a business that operates on steam, electricity, and such? So much capital could be lost in a few minutes. Slavery also undermined Britons colonial holdings. As capitalism matured, farmers became more efficient and slavery less profitable.

The Lincoln Douglass debates confirmed Lincoln as a colonialist, which was a larger movement than the latter free labor movement. Lincoln won the election by combining these elements and naturally the abolitionists joined. Nevertheless, colonization was an idea where we would export freedmen back to Africa under the assumption that blacks were not compatible with white culture; a belief that most whites across the United States shared.

The squeaky clean history of doing "the right thing" for no other purpose than the fact that it was "morally right" rarely exists for any race, culture, or country.

Read this from page 41 to 46 and see how silly and ignorant that statement is. In fact 41 thru 46 says a lot about certain people.

Black Charlestonians: A Social History, 1822-1885 - Bernard Edward Powers - Google Books

Stand by, reading now.

 

[Publius1787]

Your reading of history is very selective. For one example the Abolition movement had a lot to do with the British outlawing the slave trade in the early 19th century. And the American Abolitionist movement eventually led to the Emancipation Proclamation. See the Lincoln Douglas debates, it was a hot issue in 19th century America.

By even the most biased account, abolitionists never had a large movement or a large impact. The heart of anti slavery was the free labor movement, whereas poor whites and slave free farms could not compete against slave labor. Britain was in the same boat. They eradicated slavery across the world not as a moral issue but as a competitively economic one in the age of mercantilism. Of course, as the industrial revolution matured, slavery was down right dangerous. After all, who would have slaves working where they could destroy a business that operates on steam, electricity, and such? So much capital could be lost in a few minutes. Slavery also undermined Britons colonial holdings. As capitalism matured, farmers became more efficient and slavery less profitable.

The Lincoln Douglass debates confirmed Lincoln as a colonialist, which was a larger movement than the latter free labor movement. Lincoln won the election by combining these elements and naturally the abolitionists joined. Nevertheless, colonization was an idea where we would export freedmen back to Africa under the assumption that blacks were not compatible with white culture; a belief that most whites across the United States shared.

The squeaky clean history of doing "the right thing" for no other purpose than the fact that it was "morally right" rarely exists for any race, culture, or country.

Read this from page 41 to 46 and see how silly and ignorant that statement is. In fact 41 thru 46 says a lot about certain people.

Black Charlestonians: A Social History, 1822-1885 - Bernard Edward Powers - Google Books

I read it. What did I miss? I see plenty to support my argument but nothing that makes my statement look silly. You do understand I was talking about slave labor right? Perhaps you should read these two books.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Free-Soil-Labor-Men-Republican/dp/0195094972]Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War: Eric Foner: 9780195094978: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Slavery-Eric-Williams/dp/0807844888/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1390363568&sr=1-1&keywords=slavery+capitalism]Capitalism and Slavery: Eric Williams: 9780807844885: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

 

[Pheonixops]

By even the most biased account, abolitionists never had a large movement or a large impact. The heart of anti slavery was the free labor movement, whereas poor whites and slave free farms could not compete against slave labor. Britain was in the same boat. They eradicated slavery across the world not as a moral issue but as a competitively economic one in the age of mercantilism. Of course, as the industrial revolution matured, slavery was down right dangerous. After all, who would have slaves working where they could destroy a business that operates on steam, electricity, and such? So much capital could be lost in a few minutes. Slavery also undermined Britons colonial holdings. As capitalism matured, farmers became more efficient and slavery less profitable.

The Lincoln Douglass debates confirmed Lincoln as a colonialist, which was a larger movement than the latter free labor movement. Lincoln won the election by combining these elements and naturally the abolitionists joined. Nevertheless, colonization was an idea where we would export freedmen back to Africa under the assumption that blacks were not compatible with white culture; a belief that most whites across the United States shared.

The squeaky clean history of doing "the right thing" for no other purpose than the fact that it was "morally right" rarely exists for any race, culture, or country.

Read this from page 41 to 46 and see how silly and ignorant that statement is. In fact 41 thru 46 says a lot about certain people.

Black Charlestonians: A Social History, 1822-1885 - Bernard Edward Powers - Google Books

I read it. What did I miss? I see plenty to support my argument but nothing that makes my statement look silly. You do understand I was talking about slave labor right? Perhaps you should read these two books.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Free-Soil-Labor-Men-Republican/dp/0195094972]Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War: Eric Foner: 9780195094978: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Slavery-Eric-Williams/dp/0807844888/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1390363568&sr=1-1&keywords=slavery+capitalism]Capitalism and Slavery: Eric Williams: 9780807844885: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

What supported your argument? Did you get to the part where free Blacks were more gainfully employed than the Irish and the German, as well as other white people? Did you see how those people petitioned their local government leader to discriminate and drive those "free Blacks" from the labor force? Did you see how many of those trades were referred to as "****** work"?

What I thought was silly was your quote that seemed to illustrate that you thought that the Black slaves would mess up the machinery. I'm not sure if you are aware that besides picking cotton, there were other slaves who were tradesmen and very skilled labor. I have provided links to free books (written from that era) that illustrate my points. I'll see if I can read those books that you posted on google books.

 

[Zagg]

By even the most biased account, abolitionists never had a large movement or a large impact. The heart of anti slavery was the free labor movement, whereas poor whites and slave free farms could not compete against slave labor. Britain was in the same boat. They eradicated slavery across the world not as a moral issue but as a competitively economic one in the age of mercantilism. Of course, as the industrial revolution matured, slavery was down right dangerous. After all, who would have slaves working where they could destroy a business that operates on steam, electricity, and such? So much capital could be lost in a few minutes. Slavery also undermined Britons colonial holdings. As capitalism matured, farmers became more efficient and slavery less profitable.

The Lincoln Douglass debates confirmed Lincoln as a colonialist, which was a larger movement than the latter free labor movement. Lincoln won the election by combining these elements and naturally the abolitionists joined. Nevertheless, colonization was an idea where we would export freedmen back to Africa under the assumption that blacks were not compatible with white culture; a belief that most whites across the United States shared.

The squeaky clean history of doing "the right thing" for no other purpose than the fact that it was "morally right" rarely exists for any race, culture, or country.

Not large, perhaps, but not without effect. The gag rule debates in the 1830s and 1840s were quite important. The Liberty Party was a direct precursor to the Free Soil Party, which was a precursor to the Republicans. It was only thirty years from the founding of Garrison's The Liberator (for which Garrison was almost lynched) until the election of a president of a party that was defined by it's commitment to opposing the expansion of slavery, and hence, ultimately to opposing slavery itself. There were certainly other factors than abolitionism in the rise of Republicanism, but the abolitionists were a significant part of the story (I'd say a necessary but not sufficient one).

Isn't "necessary" kanda the antonym of "not sufficient?"

Some conditions are necessary, others are sufficient.

You've got to be a woman to get pregnant. Being a woman is a necessary condition for getting pregnant. But it's not sufficient. There's got to be a man, too.

The boss can tell people what to do. Being the boss is a sufficient condition for telling people what to do.

The abolitionist movement was a necessary condition for bringing about the abolition of slavery. But it wasn't sufficient. Many other factors were involved in bringing about that result.

 

[Publius1787]

Read this from page 41 to 46 and see how silly and ignorant that statement is. In fact 41 thru 46 says a lot about certain people.

Black Charlestonians: A Social History, 1822-1885 - Bernard Edward Powers - Google Books

I read it. What did I miss? I see plenty to support my argument but nothing that makes my statement look silly. You do understand I was talking about slave labor right? Perhaps you should read these two books.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Free-Soil-Labor-Men-Republican/dp/0195094972]Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War: Eric Foner: 9780195094978: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Slavery-Eric-Williams/dp/0807844888/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1390363568&sr=1-1&keywords=slavery+capitalism]Capitalism and Slavery: Eric Williams: 9780807844885: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

What supported your argument? Did you get to the part where free Blacks were more gainfully employed than the Irish and the German, as well as other white people? Did you see how those people petitioned their local government leader to discriminate and drive those "free Blacks" from the labor force? Did you see how many of those trades were referred to as "****** work"?

What I thought was silly was your quote that seemed to illustrate that you thought that the Black slaves would mess up the machinery. I'm not sure if you are aware that besides picking cotton, there were other slaves who were tradesmen and very skilled labor. I have provided links to free books (written from that era) that illustrate my points. I'll see if I can read those books that you posted on google books.

Yes, but on the whole most people were farmers who got much of their subsistence through the land and the trades paled by comparison. What do I have on my side? The most famed Civil War academic of current times, Eric Foner. I don't even agree with much of what Eric Foner says in other publications but Free Soil, Free Labor, and Free Men is perhaps the best book ever written of why the Republican Party was anti-slavery and it wasn't out of the kindness of their hearts.

 

[Pheonixops]

I read it. What did I miss? I see plenty to support my argument but nothing that makes my statement look silly. You do understand I was talking about slave labor right? Perhaps you should read these two books.

Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War: Eric Foner: 9780195094978: Amazon.com: Books

Capitalism and Slavery: Eric Williams: 9780807844885: Amazon.com: Books

What supported your argument? Did you get to the part where free Blacks were more gainfully employed than the Irish and the German, as well as other white people? Did you see how those people petitioned their local government leader to discriminate and drive those "free Blacks" from the labor force? Did you see how many of those trades were referred to as "****** work"?

What I thought was silly was your quote that seemed to illustrate that you thought that the Black slaves would mess up the machinery. I'm not sure if you are aware that besides picking cotton, there were other slaves who were tradesmen and very skilled labor. I have provided links to free books (written from that era) that illustrate my points. I'll see if I can read those books that you posted on google books.

Yes, but on the whole most people were farmers who got much of their subsistence through the land and the trades paled by comparison. What do I have on my side? The most famed Civil War academic of current times, Eric Foner. I don't even agree with much of what Eric Foner says in other publications but Free Soil, Free Labor, and Free Men is perhaps the best book ever written of why the Republican Party was anti-slavery and it wasn't out of the kindness of their hearts.

Have you ever read about masters hiring out their slaves? Some of it was for farming, some of it was for skilled trades. The fact is that there were plenty of slaves who could have worked in factories with machines and not destroy them (or whatever you stated to that effect). You have an author (I'm reading the preview right now), I have numerous accounts that I have that shows that while a large part of slaves were farm laborers, there was another part that were skilled laborers.

 

[Pheonixops]

I read it. What did I miss? I see plenty to support my argument but nothing that makes my statement look silly. You do understand I was talking about slave labor right? Perhaps you should read these two books.

Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War: Eric Foner: 9780195094978: Amazon.com: Books

Capitalism and Slavery: Eric Williams: 9780807844885: Amazon.com: Books

What supported your argument? Did you get to the part where free Blacks were more gainfully employed than the Irish and the German, as well as other white people? Did you see how those people petitioned their local government leader to discriminate and drive those "free Blacks" from the labor force? Did you see how many of those trades were referred to as "****** work"?

What I thought was silly was your quote that seemed to illustrate that you thought that the Black slaves would mess up the machinery. I'm not sure if you are aware that besides picking cotton, there were other slaves who were tradesmen and very skilled labor. I have provided links to free books (written from that era) that illustrate my points. I'll see if I can read those books that you posted on google books.

Yes, but on the whole most people were farmers who got much of their subsistence through the land and the trades paled by comparison. What do I have on my side? The most famed Civil War academic of current times, Eric Foner. I don't even agree with much of what Eric Foner says in other publications but Free Soil, Free Labor, and Free Men is perhaps the best book ever written of why the Republican Party was anti-slavery and it wasn't out of the kindness of their hearts.

I found this excerpt to be pretty interesting:
"It cannot rightly be said that the traditional antipathy to manufactures was "opposed to the obvious interests of a region where idle white labor, abundant raw materials, and ever-present water-power seemed to unite conditions so favorable to textile industries," if it is meant that these interests, clear enough to us now, were obvious to Southern consciousness and purpose then. This applies particularly to the labor factor. It will be seen later that in the period before the War the mills often employed slaves as the exclusive operatives; in some cases negroes were employed with whites, and finally and more importantly, through Reconstruction years and at the very outset of the cotton mill era the inclination of establishers of factories was frequently to engage negro hands and to induce operatives to come from the North and even from England and the Continent--overlooking the native white population as a useful supply of workers as though it had not been there."


I wonder why they overlooked the native white population in favor of those other people? The mill work was skilled or semi-skilled labor, why did the White aristocracy (Planters, etc.) not give those jobs to the native whites?

 

[Pheonixops]

Another interesting excerpt:

" 49 Clark, in South in Building of Nation, vol. v, pp. 213-214. Southern whites were indisposed to welcome those who could not or refused to grow into the slavery system. A newspaper in the fifties betrayed this: "A large proportion of the mechanical force that migrate to the South, are a curse instead of a blessing; they are generally a worthless, unprincipled class--enemies to our peculiar institutions . . . pests to society, dangerous among the slave population, and ever ready to form combinations against the interest of the slaveholder, against the laws of the country, and against the peace of the Commonwealth." But slave-acquiring merchants were cordially received (quoted in Olmsted, p. 511). For interesting facts as to immigration to North Carolina, cf. Tompkins, History of Mecklenburg, vol. ii, p. 204; vol. i, p. 153."


" 162 Observer, Raleigh, Aug. 24, 1880. "Aside from purely mercenary considerations," said an appeal to Charlestonians to take stock in mills at Columbia, ". . . is the incalculable benefit to be derived from the employment of thousands of unwilling idlers . . . in the State, the women and girls for whom it is so hard to find healthful and profitable work" (News and Courier, Charleston, April 13, 1881). It must be remembered that whites, particularly women, could not compete with negroes in certain occupations, and in "servile" ones would not."

"As late as 1902 a representative manufacturer declared that although negro labor was feasible, abundant, and would be cheapest, the managements "have recognized the
Page 137

fact that the mill life is the only avenue open today to our poor whites, and we have with earnestness and practically without exception kept that avenue open to the white man alone" to provide an escape from competition with the blacks."
(sounds like affirmative action for the whites and purposeful discrimination against "the Blacks", ha?)


" 5 Thompson, p. 99 ff. Early title deeds show the settlers in the Piedmont of North Carolina to have been weavers, joiners, coopers, wheelwrights, wagon makers, tailors, teachers, blacksmiths, hatters, merchants, wine makers, surveyors, fullers and "gentlemen" (Tompkins, History of Mecklenburg, vol. i, pp. 24-25). Slavery and cotton had worked their change by 1856, when Olmsted wrote that "the slaveholders have . . . secured the best circumstances for the employment of that slave-labor which is the most valuable part of their capital. They need no assistance from the poor white man; his presence near them is disagreeable and unprofitable. Condemned to the poorest land, and restricted to the labor of merely providing for themselves the simple necessities of life, they are equally indifferent and incompetent to materially improve their minds or their wealth" (p. 515). Cf. ibid., p. 296; Tompkins, ibid., p. 88."

" 6 Speaking of cotton culture before the War, "the majority of the white laborers were of the class of 'poor whites,' many of them descendants of the 'redemptioners.' . . . these people . . . had become the parasites of Southern society. Some of them were forced into the mountain region of eastern Tennessee and Kentucky and western North Carolina, and others were left on the abandoned cotton and tobacco lands of the sand hill region of South Carolina and Georgia" (Hammond, p. 97)."

" 7 Andrews, pp. 335-336. "The Georgia 'Cracker' . . . seems to me to lack not only all that the negro does, but also even the desire for a better condition and the vague longing for the enlargement of his liberties and his rights."

 

[Pheonixops]

More interesting excerpts:

" Governor Hammond, of South Carolina, was moderate when he said: "According to the best calculations which, in the absence of statistic facts, can be made, it is believed that, of the 300,000 white inhabitants of South Carolina, there are not less than 50,000, whose industry, such as it is, and compensated as it is, is not, in the present condition of things, and does not promise, hereafter, to be, adequate to procure them, honestly, such a support as every white person in this country is and feels himself entitled to."9

9 Quoted in Olmsted, p. 514. Here again is the thought that they were crowded out of occupations: "Some cannot be said to work at all. They obtain a precarious subsistence by occasional jobs, by hunting, by fishing, sometimes by plundering fields or folds, and, too often, by . . . trading with slaves, or seducing them to plunder for their benefit.""

" It has been seen that while many of the Southern mill ventures were undertaken partly with the express purpose
Page 168

of giving work to the poor whites, in a good many cases the opportunity for profitable employment of these people was entirely overlooked, this giving color to the belief that in proportion as the poor whites dropped out of participation in the economic order, they tended to drop out of the mind of the dominant class. The abolition of slavery did not bring the neglected men and women immediately back into the thought and sympathy of the South any more than into the employment of the South."

" 14 A Virginia correspondent of the American Agriculturist before the War asserted that whites could be got to work for less price than blacks, but the slaves were preferred. Newcomers were advised, if they wished to use whites, to bring them with them, since the native white population was inferior to the black (quoted in Olmsted, pp. 211-212). A farmer in the same State who employed only free labor found Irishmen at $120 a year the best workers; native whites were declared worse than free blacks (ibid., p. 99)."

" It has been seen that William Gregg, the builder of the Graniteville Factory in South Carolina, was the father, in the sense that he was the anticipator, of a new economic life for the South. His keen consciousness of the poor whites stands out in striking contrast to the state of mind indicated in the preceding paragraphs. It is interesting to notice a statement of Gregg's which shows clearly the condition of the lower strata of the white population fifteen years before the war; it is to be remarked that he was combating a tendency not simply to omit the poor whites from consideration, but to place the negroes ahead of these even, as possible industrial workers. "Should we stop," he asked, "at the effort to prove the capacity of blacks for manufacturing? Shall we pass unnoticed the thousands of poor, ignorant, degraded white people among us, who, in this land of plenty, live in comparative nakedness and starvation?" And he continued:

Many a one is reared in proud South-Carolina, from birth to manhood, who has never passed a month in which he has not some part of the time, been stinted for meat. Many a mother is there, who will tell you that her children are but scantily supplied with bread. . . . These are startling statements, but they are nevertheless true, and if not believed in Charleston, the members of our Legislature, who have traversed the State, in electioneering campaigns, can attest their truth.

Page 169

It is only necessary to build a manufacturing village of shanties, in a healthy location in any part of the State, to have crowds of these poor people around you, seeking employment at half the compensation given to operatives at the North. It is indeed pitiful to be brought in contact with such ignorance and degradation; but on the other hand, it is pleasant to witness the change, which soon takes place in the condition of those who obtain employment. The emaciated, pale-faced children, soon assume the appearance of robust health. . . . It is, perhaps, not generally known, but there are twentynine thousand white persons in this State, above the age of twelve years, who can neither read nor write--this is about one in every five of the whole population."

"A recent president of the chamber of commerce of a capital city said that while in office he refused to give his especial support to projects to establish cotton mills in the place because of all the people who came to a factory, only five or six families would be composed of desirable citizens, the rest lowering the average of population. "You have to take care of these people when they are sick," he explained, "and you must give them schools and churches. Thousands of dollars, of course, were spent in eradicating the hook worm."

Sometimes the people brought with them little besides bad habits and a Page 171

total dependence upon the management for moral care and physical upbuilding."

"The disposition to seek operatives outside of the South, so far as it showed itself, was fostered by three circumstances: first, the feeling that experienced workers must be found to start the industry; second, the desire to weaken the negro by increasing the white population; third, new and prospective cotton manufacturers fell in easily with the prevalent plans of agricultural interests to secure immigration to the section."

" 'The only way in which we can control the labor of the free negro is to bring him in competition with the white laborer,' is the language of scores of men." By "the white laborer" the native white was not meant (Andrews, pp. 207-208)."

"It seems likely that immigrants, especially where foreigners, were not often sought by the South for industrial workers. Agricultural interests were uppermost in the minds of the people, and schemes to supplant the free negro were, for the time being, as natural as they were impracticable"

 

[Publius1787]

What supported your argument? Did you get to the part where free Blacks were more gainfully employed than the Irish and the German, as well as other white people? Did you see how those people petitioned their local government leader to discriminate and drive those "free Blacks" from the labor force? Did you see how many of those trades were referred to as "****** work"?

What I thought was silly was your quote that seemed to illustrate that you thought that the Black slaves would mess up the machinery. I'm not sure if you are aware that besides picking cotton, there were other slaves who were tradesmen and very skilled labor. I have provided links to free books (written from that era) that illustrate my points. I'll see if I can read those books that you posted on google books.

Yes, but on the whole most people were farmers who got much of their subsistence through the land and the trades paled by comparison. What do I have on my side? The most famed Civil War academic of current times, Eric Foner. I don't even agree with much of what Eric Foner says in other publications but Free Soil, Free Labor, and Free Men is perhaps the best book ever written of why the Republican Party was anti-slavery and it wasn't out of the kindness of their hearts.

I found this excerpt to be pretty interesting:
"It cannot rightly be said that the traditional antipathy to manufactures was "opposed to the obvious interests of a region where idle white labor, abundant raw materials, and ever-present water-power seemed to unite conditions so favorable to textile industries," if it is meant that these interests, clear enough to us now, were obvious to Southern consciousness and purpose then. This applies particularly to the labor factor. It will be seen later that in the period before the War the mills often employed slaves as the exclusive operatives; in some cases negroes were employed with whites, and finally and more importantly, through Reconstruction years and at the very outset of the cotton mill era the inclination of establishers of factories was frequently to engage negro hands and to induce operatives to come from the North and even from England and the Continent--overlooking the native white population as a useful supply of workers as though it had not been there."


I wonder why they overlooked the native white population in favor of those other people? The mill work was skilled or semi-skilled labor, why did the White aristocracy (Planters, etc.) not give those jobs to the native whites?

Once again, the people who were farmers (particularly those who were settling in the new territories), were farmers who did not want to compete against slave labor plantations. This along with the maturity of the industrial revolution ended slavery. It was not out of the kindness of their hearts.

 

[Pheonixops]

"Columbia Register, quoted in News and Courier, Charleston, Feb. 3, 1881. One long acquainted with the State's politics believed the motive of supplying cotton mill operatives was not important, that "back of the efforts of South Carolina, through Commissioner Boykin's office, to secure immigration, was the desire to get rid of the negro and to bring in whites to take his place." When Boykin left office, another commissioner was appointed. "Then there were some years when there was no commissioner of agriculture or immigration. It was largely a matter of politics" (M. L. Bonham, int., Anderson). As to the purpose to oust the negro, the comment of a German-language newspaper is indicative, especially since Germans were particularly sought: "Col. Boykin, the immigration commissioner, has returned from New York, and reports that he is able to get in Castle Garden as many immigrants for South Carolina as are wanted. He seems to be intent chiefly upon getting laborers who are able to take the place of the negroes" (Deutsche Zeitung, Charleston, April 25, 1881). Cf. Daily Constitution, Atlanta, Jan. 31, 1880. With the negro question in mind, Henry W. Grady said: "Companies of immigrants sent down from the sturdy settlers at the North will solve the Southern problem . . . " (Dyer, in New South, p. 139). Cf. State of S. C., Fourth Annual Report of Commissioner of Agriculture, Commerce and Immigration, p. 4, and preceding reports; DeBow, vol. ii, p. 127. Frequently immigration to the South from other parts of this country was in mind; cf. DeBow, ibid., and quotation from United States Economist, in Baltimore Journal of Commerce and Manufacturers' Record, Sept. 30, 1882"

 

[Publius1787]

"columbia register, quoted in news and courier, charleston, feb. 3, 1881. One long acquainted with the state's politics believed the motive of supplying cotton mill operatives was not important, that "back of the efforts of south carolina, through commissioner boykin's office, to secure immigration, was the desire to get rid of the negro and to bring in whites to take his place." when boykin left office, another commissioner was appointed. "then there were some years when there was no commissioner of agriculture or immigration. It was largely a matter of politics" (m. L. Bonham, int., anderson). As to the purpose to oust the negro, the comment of a german-language newspaper is indicative, especially since germans were particularly sought: "col. Boykin, the immigration commissioner, has returned from new york, and reports that he is able to get in castle garden as many immigrants for south carolina as are wanted. he seems to be intent chiefly upon getting laborers who are able to take the place of the negroes" (deutsche zeitung, charleston, april 25, 1881). Cf. Daily constitution, atlanta, jan. 31, 1880. with the negro question in mind, henry w. Grady said: "companies of immigrants sent down from the sturdy settlers at the north will solve the southern problem . . . " (dyer, in new south, p. 139). Cf. State of s. C., fourth annual report of commissioner of agriculture, commerce and immigration, p. 4, and preceding reports; debow, vol. Ii, p. 127. Frequently immigration to the south from other parts of this country was in mind; cf. Debow, ibid., and quotation from united states economist, in baltimore journal of commerce and manufacturers' record, sept. 30, 1882"

1881????????????????

 

[Publius1787]

another interesting excerpt:

" 49 clark, in south in building of nation, vol. V, pp. 213-214. Southern whites were indisposed to welcome those who could not or refused to grow into the slavery system. A newspaper in the fifties betrayed this: "a large proportion of the mechanical force that migrate to the south, are a curse instead of a blessing; they are generally a worthless, unprincipled class--enemies to our peculiar institutions . . . Pests to society, dangerous among the slave population, and ever ready to form combinations against the interest of the slaveholder, against the laws of the country, and against the peace of the commonwealth." but slave-acquiring merchants were cordially received (quoted in olmsted, p. 511). For interesting facts as to immigration to north carolina, cf. Tompkins, history of mecklenburg, vol. Ii, p. 204; vol. I, p. 153."


" 162 observer, raleigh, aug. 24, 1880. "aside from purely mercenary considerations," said an appeal to charlestonians to take stock in mills at columbia, ". . . Is the incalculable benefit to be derived from the employment of thousands of unwilling idlers . . . In the state, the women and girls for whom it is so hard to find healthful and profitable work" (news and courier, charleston, april 13, 1881). it must be remembered that whites, particularly women, could not compete with negroes in certain occupations, and in "servile" ones would not."

"as late as 1902 a representative manufacturer declared that although negro labor was feasible, abundant, and would be cheapest, the managements "have recognized the
page 137

fact that the mill life is the only avenue open today to our poor whites, and we have with earnestness and practically without exception kept that avenue open to the white man alone" to provide an escape from competition with the blacks."
(sounds like affirmative action for the whites and purposeful discrimination against "the blacks", ha?)


" 5 thompson, p. 99 ff. early title deeds show the settlers in the piedmont of north carolina to have been weavers, joiners, coopers, wheelwrights, wagon makers, tailors, teachers, blacksmiths, hatters, merchants, wine makers, surveyors, fullers and "gentlemen" (tompkins, history of mecklenburg, vol. I, pp. 24-25). Slavery and cotton had worked their change by 1856, when olmsted wrote that "the slaveholders have . . . Secured the best circumstances for the employment of that slave-labor which is the most valuable part of their capital. they need no assistance from the poor white man; his presence near them is disagreeable and unprofitable. condemned to the poorest land, and restricted to the labor of merely providing for themselves the simple necessities of life, they are equally indifferent and incompetent to materially improve their minds or their wealth" (p. 515). Cf. Ibid., p. 296; tompkins, ibid., p. 88."

" 6 speaking of cotton culture before the war, "the majority of the white laborers were of the class of 'poor whites,' many of them descendants of the 'redemptioners.' . . . These people . . . had become the parasites of southern society. some of them were forced into the mountain region of eastern tennessee and kentucky and western north carolina, and others were left on the abandoned cotton and tobacco lands of the sand hill region of south carolina and georgia" (hammond, p. 97)."

" 7 andrews, pp. 335-336. "the georgia 'cracker' . . . Seems to me to lack not only all that the negro does, but also even the desire for a better condition and the vague longing for the enlargement of his liberties and his rights."

1880, 1881, 1882 ????????

 

[Publius1787]

I don't think your slavery argument applies in post Reconstruction America. Particularly the 1880's, 15 years after the end of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery.

 

[Pheonixops]

Yes, but on the whole most people were farmers who got much of their subsistence through the land and the trades paled by comparison. What do I have on my side? The most famed Civil War academic of current times, Eric Foner. I don't even agree with much of what Eric Foner says in other publications but Free Soil, Free Labor, and Free Men is perhaps the best book ever written of why the Republican Party was anti-slavery and it wasn't out of the kindness of their hearts.

I found this excerpt to be pretty interesting:
"It cannot rightly be said that the traditional antipathy to manufactures was "opposed to the obvious interests of a region where idle white labor, abundant raw materials, and ever-present water-power seemed to unite conditions so favorable to textile industries," if it is meant that these interests, clear enough to us now, were obvious to Southern consciousness and purpose then. This applies particularly to the labor factor. It will be seen later that in the period before the War the mills often employed slaves as the exclusive operatives; in some cases negroes were employed with whites, and finally and more importantly, through Reconstruction years and at the very outset of the cotton mill era the inclination of establishers of factories was frequently to engage negro hands and to induce operatives to come from the North and even from England and the Continent--overlooking the native white population as a useful supply of workers as though it had not been there."


I wonder why they overlooked the native white population in favor of those other people? The mill work was skilled or semi-skilled labor, why did the White aristocracy (Planters, etc.) not give those jobs to the native whites?

Once again, the people who were farmers (particularly those who were settling in the new territories), were farmers who did not want to compete against slave labor plantations. This along with the maturity of the industrial revolution ended slavery. It was not out of the kindness of their hearts.

We are talking about skilled labor. You seem to gloss over the "idle white labor" part and "the mills often employed slaves as the exclusive operatives and "the inclination of establishers of factories was frequently to engage negro hands and to induce operatives to come from the North and even from England and the Continent--overlooking the native white population as a useful supply of workers as though it had not been there.".

My point is that there were skilled Black laborers (slaves) and they preceded Reconstruction.

 

[Publius1787]

I found this excerpt to be pretty interesting:
"It cannot rightly be said that the traditional antipathy to manufactures was "opposed to the obvious interests of a region where idle white labor, abundant raw materials, and ever-present water-power seemed to unite conditions so favorable to textile industries," if it is meant that these interests, clear enough to us now, were obvious to Southern consciousness and purpose then. This applies particularly to the labor factor. It will be seen later that in the period before the War the mills often employed slaves as the exclusive operatives; in some cases negroes were employed with whites, and finally and more importantly, through Reconstruction years and at the very outset of the cotton mill era the inclination of establishers of factories was frequently to engage negro hands and to induce operatives to come from the North and even from England and the Continent--overlooking the native white population as a useful supply of workers as though it had not been there."


I wonder why they overlooked the native white population in favor of those other people? The mill work was skilled or semi-skilled labor, why did the White aristocracy (Planters, etc.) not give those jobs to the native whites?

Once again, the people who were farmers (particularly those who were settling in the new territories), were farmers who did not want to compete against slave labor plantations. This along with the maturity of the industrial revolution ended slavery. It was not out of the kindness of their hearts.

We are talking about skilled labor. You seem to gloss over the "idle white labor" part and "the mills often employed slaves as the exclusive operatives and "the inclination of establishers of factories was frequently to engage negro hands and to induce operatives to come from the North and even from England and the Continent--overlooking the native white population as a useful supply of workers as though it had not been there.".

My point is that there were skilled Black laborers (slaves) and they preceded Reconstruction.

No doubt, but how does this refute my assessment of the ideology that lead to the abolishment of slavery?

 

[Pheonixops]

If you read carefully Publius, you will see that I am giving you a timeline of "Black labor" in this country and what they faced when they were doing the right things. Maybe you can reflect a little about that.


"With the manpower mobilization of World War I and immigration from Europe cut off, the industrial cities of the North and Midwest experienced severe labor shortages. Northern manufacturers recruited throughout the South and an exodus ensued.[4] By 1919, an estimated 500,000 African Americans had emigrated from the South to the industrial cities of the North and Midwest in the first wave of the Great Migration, which continued until 1940.[1] They were also migrating to escape the lynchings, Jim Crow laws, lack of protected franchise and poor economy of the rural South, where the boll weevil was devastating cotton crops. African-American workers filled new positions in expanding industries, such as the railroads, as well as many jobs formerly held by whites. "

"Following the violence-filled summer, in the autumn of 1919, Haynes reported on the events. His report was to be the brief for an investigation of the issues by the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. He identified 38 separate riots in widely scattered cities, in which whites attacked blacks .[1] In addition, Haynes reported that between January 1 and September 14, 1919, white mobs lynched at least forty-three African Americans, with sixteen hanged and others shot; while another eight men were burned at the stake. The states appeared powerless or unwilling to interfere or prosecute such mob murders.[1] Unlike earlier race riots in U.S. history, the 1919 events were among the first in which blacks in number resisted white attacks. A. Philip Randolph, a civil rights activist and leader of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, defended the right of blacks to self-defense.[2]"


Red Summer (1919) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



" It insults us.

It has organized a nation-wide and latterly a world-wide propaganda of deliberate and continuous insult and defamation of black blood wherever found. It decrees that it shall not be possible in travel nor residence, work nor play, education nor instruction for a black man to exist without tacit or open acknowledgment of his inferiority to the dirtiest white dog. And it looks upon any attempt to question or even discuss this dogma as arrogance, unwarranted assumption and treason.

This is the country to which we Soldiers of Democracy return. This is the fatherland for which we fought! But it is our fatherland. It was right for us to fight. The faults of our country are our faults. Under similar circumstances, we would fight again. But by the God of Heaven, we are cowards and jackasses if now that that war is over, we do not marshal every ounce of our brain and brawn to fight a sterner, longer, more unbending battle against the forces of hell in our own land."


Exodus to Kansas

"Atlanta was considered to be a prime example of how whites and blacks could live together in harmony; however, with the end of the Civil War an increased tension between black wage-workers and the white elite began. These tensions were further exacerbated by increasing rights for blacks, which included the right to vote. With these increased rights, African-Americans began entering the realm of politics, establishing businesses and gaining notoriety as a social class in the eyes of the white population. These newly acquired African-American rights and status brought increased competition between blacks and whites for jobs and heightened class distinctions."

Atlanta Race Riot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Bellingham riots occurred on September 4, 1907, in Bellingham, Washington, USA.[1] A mob of 400-500 white men, predominantly members of the Asiatic Exclusion League, with intentions to exclude East Indian immigrants from the work force of the local lumber mills, attacked the homes of the South Asian Indians.[2] The Indians were mostly Sikhs but were labelled as Hindus by much of the media of the day.[3]

The mob threw the East Indian workers into the streets, beat them, and pocketed their valuables. The authorities co-operated with the mob by corralling the beaten Indian immigrants into the City Hall, ostensibly for their safety.[4] "By the next day 125 South Asians had been driven out of town and were on their way to British Columbia".[5] Six Indians were hospitalized [6] and about 400 were held in the Bellingham Jail, reportedly under "protective custody".[7] No participants in the mob violence were prosecuted."
Bellingham riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This is how some or many whites reacted to competition in the labor field. It's funny to hear their offspring talk about the "lazy_____".

 

[Pheonixops]

Once again, the people who were farmers (particularly those who were settling in the new territories), were farmers who did not want to compete against slave labor plantations. This along with the maturity of the industrial revolution ended slavery. It was not out of the kindness of their hearts.

We are talking about skilled labor. You seem to gloss over the "idle white labor" part and "the mills often employed slaves as the exclusive operatives and "the inclination of establishers of factories was frequently to engage negro hands and to induce operatives to come from the North and even from England and the Continent--overlooking the native white population as a useful supply of workers as though it had not been there.".

My point is that there were skilled Black laborers (slaves) and they preceded Reconstruction.

No doubt, but how does this refute my assessment of the ideology that lead to the abolishment of slavery?

I was responding to your post about how "the Blacks" weren't skilled enough to work in factories" , I am paraphrasing it and if you don't know what I am referring to (think steam), I will find it and post it after I provide a chronology to the "white response" to "Black labor" in this country.

What "ideology" are you referring to?

 

[Pheonixops]

"The Cincinnati Riots of 1829 were triggered by competition between Irish immigrants and the African American community for employment opportunities in Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.[1] As a result, many African Americans left Cincinnati to found the Wilberforce Colony in Ontario, Canada.[2]

Between 1820 and 1829, migrants and fugitive slaves caused the black population in Cincinnati to grow from 433 to 2,258. On 30 June 1829 the township trustees issued a notice that told blacks they had to post bonds or they would be expelled from the town and from Ohio. During the month of July, whites started to attack blacks and destroy their property. Some moved, but others organized to defend themselves. Violence continued until late August, by which time almost 1,000 blacks had left the city. The town officials did little to defend the blacks until 24 August. On that day the Mayor, Jacob Burnet, dismissed charges against ten blacks who had been arrested and imposed fines on eight whites.[3]

After the riots, in order to escape persecution more than 1,000 blacks moved to Canada, namely the Wilberforce Colony."

Cincinnati riots of 1829 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"The Cincinnati Riots of 1836 were caused by racial tensions at a time when African Americans, some of whom had escaped from slavery in the southern states of the USA, were competing with whites for jobs. The riots occurred in Cincinnati, Ohio, USA in April and July 1836.[1] These were part of a pattern of violence at that time. A severe riot had occurred in 1829 and further rioting broke out in 1841. After the Cincinnati riots of 1829, in which many African Americans lost their homes and property, a growing number of whites, such as the "Lane rebels" expelled from Lane Theological Seminary in 1834, became sympathetic to the rights of Negroes, as they were called then. The anti-abolitionist rioters of 1836 attacked both Negroes and the whites who supported them."

"In recent years, 50,000 blacks and 300,000 whites had arrived, mostly from rural Appalachia and the American South.[3] Ethnic groups were pressured to resent African Americans especially. A historian of Detroit's Poles found that they were scared into seeing African Americans as "threatening their jobs, homes, communities, and churches""
Detroit Race Riot (1943) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The East St. Louis Riot (May and July 1917) was an outbreak of labor- and race-related violence that caused between 40 and 200 deaths and extensive property damage. The incident took place in East St. Louis, Illinois, an industrial city on the east bank of the Mississippi River across from St. Louis, Missouri. It was the worst incidence of labor-related violence in 20th-century American history,[1] and one of the worst race riots in U.S. history. "
East St. Louis Riot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia