Zone1 the framers dealing with slavery

[AZrailwhale]

Lincoln freed the slaves as a military/political move. He personally thought Whites were better than Blacks, and wanted to send them away after they were freed from slavery.

Everyone in those days didn’t just think whites were superior to any of the other races, they knew it deep down in their bones. The most ardent abolitionist was a horrible racist by modern standards.

 

[Unkotare]

I've taught history. Have you?

Yes, including now.

 

[AZrailwhale]

White southern slaveowners started a war to keep slavery. There. Fixed it for you.

The Confederacy didn’t want a war with the Union, they thought Lincoln would let them go to establish their own country. Any sane Southerner could see the Confederacy was no industrial match for the Union. Like Japan eighty years later, the Confederacy thought it could defeat the Union in one or two battles, and the merchants in the Union would write off forcing the Confederacy back into the Union as too expensive to be worthwhile.

 

[FDR_Reagan]

The Framers vs. Slavery

The Framers structured the Constitution to lead the new Republic to the ultimate end of slavery but were unable to set a time frame for its abolition. The story comes to us from James Madison’s classic Notes of the Debates in the Federal Conven...

www.americanthinker.com

back in 1787-88. Read the link of James Madison in this article. Most of the framers felt slavery needed to be abolished (why we had slavery in the first place is another story) and tried to set a time frame for its abolition.

Interesting.

 

[Kruska]

"The historians John Thornton and Linda Heywood of Boston University estimate that 90 percent of those shipped to the New World were enslaved by Africans and then sold to European traders. The sad truth is that without complex business partnerships between African elites and European traders and commercial agents, the slave trade to the New World would have been impossible, at least on the scale it occurred."

Fact is that the entire world at one time or another practiced slavery.

That Negros and their tribal communities and their chieftains were no exception in that issue is also a Fact.
However the lucrative slavery business and the ever expanding demand in the foremost European Colonies between 1600 - 1800 caused slavery to exceed the previous dimensions - known to exist in e.g. Africa or South-East-Asia.

Due to this rising demand, loads of people were simply pressed into slavery aka enslaved by European/Arab slave hunters and by chieftains that wanted to get more rich.

Therefore if the Europeans would not have discovered and colonized e.g. the Americas and Africa - the ratio of slave holding and trading within the respective African cultures would have remained the same - thus far more Negros would have been slaves in Africa to their own cultures then outside of Africa to Europeans.

As such IM2 would now be living in Ghana - rolling a spoke-wheel with a stick and hoping for Europeans to come and distribute cash.

Okay - he might also be President, calling himself "Grand Emperor IM2 Dada" - using his military, security organs and his private enforcers to rob and extort his population silly, driving out all foreign teachers, whilst keeping the wealth accumulated via licensing the exploitation of mineral resources to himself. And naturally cursing and cussing about White racists that control the mineral wealth of his PEOPLE.

 

[BackAgain]

Recognize the typo and STHU.

Suck another sack of rancid diseased cocks.

You’re a douche.

But, I am happy to have helped educate you.

Now, back on topic:

The Founders and Framers did have to grapple with the institution of slavery. Hit as I’ve told you before, morons like you simply don’t like to grasp why that was the case.

So, hide under your covers and be afraid of the monster under your bed. But that won’t change the historical reality. The 3/5ths compromise was reached to help complete the creation of our Constitution while still seeking to limit the power of the slave states. And that, in turn, was done to set the stage for an eventual elimination of slavery.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, including now.

Then you should know better

 

[Unkotare]

Then you should know better

Apparently I do know better than you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Apparently I do know better than you.

It's possible. But I think I'm on pretty solid footing on this one. But I don't teach 'woke' history but what actually happened.

 

[Unkotare]

It's possible. But I think I'm on pretty solid footing on this one. But I don't teach 'woke' history but what actually happened.

I don't think you teach anything.

 

[Leo123]

This discussion could bring America's endemic racism problem out into the light of day. Slavery is being accepted as the cause and so it can progress on now to placing the blame.

Who can make the best case for blaming the other political side and make it convincing that it's not just Americans in general?

Start now!

GO!

Slavery was a huge part of the economy especially when cotton was king. Thousands and thousands of hands were needed to pick it, bale it, de seed it, farm it. Seeding was the hardest to do and limited what could be produced but slave labor made it mildly profitable. Once the Gin was invented all those 'seeders' were diverted to the growing and picking of it, which really expanded Cotton's economic prosperity. In the old days much of the baling, picking, caring for, etc. was done by hand.

 

[Foxfyre]

Slavery was a huge part of the economy especially when cotton was king. Thousands and thousands of hands were needed to pick it, bale it, de seed it, farm it. Seeding was the hardest to do and limited what could be produced but slave labor made it mildly profitable. Once the Gin was invented all those 'seeders' were diverted to the growing and picking of it, which really expanded Cotton's economic prosperity. In the old days much of the baling, picking, caring for, etc. was done by hand.

There is no question that many slave owners were richer than the general population. And slavery contributed to their wealth but they were also the land owners and that generally translates to more wealth. But per capita, the people of the south were poorer than those in the north and in the years leading up to the Civil War, that income gap was widening.

I am in no way condoning slavery and would never say that was not a component of both the secession itself and the Civil War. But it was not the only component or necessarily the most important one. The North had been treating the south as unloved step children for quite some time and people who feel mistreated and unloved generally choose to disassociate from those who make them feel that way.

The Civil War basically began with the issue of whether the north or south would have control of the military installations in the seceding state with the first shots fired at Ft. Sumter. But Lincoln had no intention of allowing the southern states to leave the union and fully intended to use the military might of the Union to force them to return.

Slavery Did Not Make America Richer | The Daily Economy

A close and careful look at the empirical record reveals that one cannot infer that America was made richer from slavery. It is even clear that America was ...

www.aier.org

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think you teach anything.

Well I guess it's a good thing that what you think isn't terribly important to me. Have a good night.

 

[AZrailwhale]

There is no question that many slave owners were richer than the general population. And slavery contributed to their wealth but they were also the land owners and that generally translates to more wealth. But per capita, the people of the south were poorer than those in the north and in the years leading up to the Civil War, that income gap was widening.

I am in no way condoning slavery and would never say that was not a component of both the secession itself and the Civil War. But it was not the only component or necessarily the most important one. The North had been treating the south as unloved step children for quite some time and people who feel mistreated and unloved generally choose to disassociate from those who make them feel that way.

The Civil War basically began with the issue of whether the north or south would have control of the military installations in the seceding state with the first shots fired at Ft. Sumter. But Lincoln had no intention of allowing the southern states to leave the union and fully intended to use the military might of the Union to force them to return.

Slavery Did Not Make America Richer | The Daily Economy

A close and careful look at the empirical record reveals that one cannot infer that America was made richer from slavery. It is even clear that America was ...

www.aier.org

Poor treatment by the North was a common, but not true perception. Up until the eighteen fifties the Southern states controlled the federal government based upon the way their slaves were counted by the census. Most of the presidents were from slave holding states and were slave owners themselves. When immigration changed the status quo the Southerners resented it and felt they were treated badly since they weren't making the rules anymore. The biggest issue was the free states prevented slavery from spreading into the new states and territories. That was the death knell of slavery in the USA.

 

[Foxfyre]

Poor treatment by the North was a common, but not true perception. Up until the eighteen fifties the Southern states controlled the federal government based upon the way their slaves were counted by the census. Most of the presidents were from slave holding states and were slave owners themselves. When immigration changed the status quo the Southerners resented it and felt they were treated badly since they weren't making the rules anymore. The biggest issue was the free states prevented slavery from spreading into the new states and territories. That was the death knell of slavery in the USA.

The population of the Union states was 18+ million. The population of the seceding states was 5.5 million. It is highly unlikely the southern states were calling the shots. Lincoln did not get ANY of the popular vote from the seceding states.

It is unfortunate that the documents the seceding states prepared to justify the secession put slavery at the forefront. The issue was economics and the economic disadvantage of the southern states that they believed would be greatly exacerbated if the abolitionists prevailed.

Again I believe the Framers intended for slavery to end and did what they could to help that happen. I know the concept of chattel slavery was gradually ending all over the world throughout the 19th Century.

Had the north allowed the south to secede peacefully and left the southern states alone, I am quite confident that slavery would have ended via the social pressures to end it in the five union slave states and in the seceding southern states. I am pretty sure at some point the southern states would have negotiated a return to the Union.

It is my opinion that the nation's most tragic and bloodiest war was unnecessary for that to happen.

 

[Leo123]

The population of the Union states was 18+ million. The population of the seceding states was 5.5 million. It is highly unlikely the southern states were calling the shots. Lincoln did not get ANY of the popular vote from the seceding states.

It is unfortunate that the documents the seceding states prepared to justify the secession put slavery at the forefront. The issue was economics and the economic disadvantage of the southern states that they believed would be greatly exacerbated if the abolitionists prevailed.

Again I believe the Framers intended for slavery to end and did what they could to help that happen. I know the concept of chattel slavery was gradually ending all over the world throughout the 19th Century.

Had the north allowed the south to secede peacefully and left the southern states alone, I am quite confident that slavery would have ended via the social pressures to end it in the five union slave states and in the seceding southern states. I am pretty sure at some point the southern states would have negotiated a return to the Union.

It is my opinion that the nation's most tragic and bloodiest war was unnecessary for that to happen.

I think slavery was an economic issue for both the North and South. Slave labor was used to do things like pick, seed and cultivate cotton which was used by both North and South. The Cotton gin and later advances in machine cultivating made slave labor obsolete.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think slavery was an economic issue for both the North and South. Slave labor was used to do things like pick, seed and cultivate cotton which was used by both North and South. The Cotton gin and later advances in machine cultivating made slave labor obsolete.

Yes, there were many in the north who were not abolitionists purely for economic reasons. They needed the products slave labor produced. All the cotton gin did was free up some labor for other things. Technology was still pretty primitive at the time the Southern states seceded. But yes slave labor would become less and less economically necessary as time progressed even had there not been a Civil War.

Even before then, human attitudes and conscience was shifting, I think mostly because of the influence and spread of Christian faith as opposed to state religions that occurred during and after the Reformation. The attitudes and choices made by the Founders certainly came from that.

As world cultures evolved the world wide cultural acceptance of slavery as a norm was eroding and there was less and less moral justification.

Social pressures eventually resulted in abolition of chattel slavery pretty much everywhere even in those countries where there was little or no moral resistance to slavery. The Qu-ran does allow slavery with some rules applied but most Islamic countries no longer practice it in any legal form.

 

[yidnar]

White southern slaveowners started a war to keep slavery. There. Fixed it for you.

white democrat slave owners started the war to keep slavery .. there .fixed it for you .

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

whites fought to end slavery ...Lincoln was a republican .

The First Republican President Sent Americans Off to Kill Their Fellow Americans on Behalf of Africans

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

You mean THE DEMOCRATS came up with ways.

White People Built America. America Is for Whites Only.

Those Democrats, who are totally unrelated to today's race-traitor Preppy Democrats, wanted to keep our cities safe.