Will Blacks Abandon the Democrat Party?

[Lonestar_logic]

Well yea, I did make that claim and every confederate state fought for the south. duh!!

Well, that every "confederate" state fought for the south is redundant since confederate refers to them joining the south. I hope you meant that tongue in cheek.

There were 3 1/2 slave states though that did not fight with the south. Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland were the three. Virginia split in two with the northern counties calling themselves West Virginia and fighting with the north. They may not have been the smartest counties. Just guessing.

You failed to mention Delaware and Rhode Island who also permitted slavery and remained in the Union.

Granted there were a few slaves in Delaware, but Rhode Island? Can you show me that one?

Why do you say "they may not have been the smartest counties'?

Read my post more carefully

That last census I could find where RI had slaves was in 1840, so I may have missed it by about twenty years or so.

You miss a lot of things a lot of the time. Because of that you are frequently wrong.......yet again.

You're still whining I see.

I know it hurt you to have to concede you were wrong. But deal with it like a man and stop your crying.

 

[kaz]

if you read the statements of the people who fought in the war that was overwhelmingly brought up as the first issue in people joining the war on the North

But for the 90 percent who didn't own slaves that wouldn't make much sense.

What's illogical about your reply to what I said?

 

[kaz]

It was relevant because you claimed 100% of the south fought in the civil war. Are you back pedaling yet again?

Well yea, I did make that claim and every confederate state fought for the south. duh!!

Well, that every "confederate" state fought for the south is redundant since confederate refers to them joining the south. I hope you meant that tongue in cheek.

There were 3 1/2 slave states though that did not fight with the south. Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland were the three. Virginia split in two [with the northern counties calling themselves West Virginia and fighting with the north. They may not have been the smartest counties. Just guessing.

You failed to mention Delaware and Rhode Island who also permitted slavery and remained in the Union.

Granted there were a few slaves in Delaware, but Rhode Island? Can you show me that one?

Why do you say "they may not have been the smartest counties'?

Read my post more carefully

That last census I could find where RI had slaves was in 1840, so I may have missed it by about twenty years or so.

I have read your post carefully. My questions still stands. I'd like to know why you think "they may not have been the smartest counties".

Seriously? It's not that deep.

 

[paperview]

Fact is the Civil war was about states right's. Slavery didn't really become an issue until after the Battle of Antietam in September 1962 when Lincoln decided to free the slaves in the Confederate States in order to punish those states for continuing the war effort.

I agree that the war was about far more than slavery, but slavery was far more a cause of the war that you seem to realize. If you read the statements of the people who fought in the war that was overwhelmingly brought up as the first issue in people joining the war on the North. And "State Rights" first and foremost translated to slavery.

Clearly to say the war was over slavery, period, isn't correct. But it was far more an issue than you are saying

It depends on who's history you believe. Revisionist history or the actual history. You can go back through the speeches and documents of that time and find where they discussed slavery, cut and paste and highlight those portions forsaking the other issues of the day and make it appear that slavery was for more important than taxation, tariffs and states rights. But for the 90 percent who didn't own slaves that wouldn't make much sense.

You can also go back and review those southern documents and see slavery is the first thing mentioned when it comes to reasons for leaving the Union. Most dont make it past the first paragraph without mentioning slavery. The losers in the south that fought for the confederates followed the slave owners much like the republican white trash follow the GOP. Lemmings and sheep mentality prevail in both cases..

Never underestimate the power of the wealthy and powerful to get the poor and the powerless to do their bidding.

It's a story as old as time in the history of war and wealth.

And the LL's Lost Causer bullshit about "But for the 90 percent who didn't own slaves that wouldn't make much sense" - fails to note that nearly one third of Southern families owned slaves.

Everything, their whole world was wrapped up in their three billion dollars (three billion in 1860 dollars) worth of HUMAN property.

Everything.

Selected Statistics on Slavery in the United States

No source?

I wonder why?

Simply providing stats on what percentage of person's owned slaves in the south in 1860 is irrelevant. 10 year old Anna Richards did not own slaves. 5 year old Jeb Thompson did not own slaves. Yet these people are counted in the census as potential slave owners if you interpret the data that way. Their father, however, likely did own slaves. This is why slave owning families and not individuals is the key to understanding 1860's census data.

Not to mention, there were over 5 million free people living in the South in 1860. There were just under 4 million slaves in the South. Some states like South Carolina actually had more slaves than free citizens. Those most have been some Mega plantations the south was running!

Hey, doof, I explained this to you Lost Causers earlier. They lived alongside the slaves, brushed elbows, these families INHERITED the slaves --as property. The one third of families that owned slaves -- and in some cases one in two that took up arms - had slaves as property. They knew full well what the cause was. It was about keeping that three billion dollars in human property. They were not about to give it up.

Lets look at the population numbers:

"Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).

Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).

Total number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population).

Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half.

The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five. (A complete table on slave-owning percentages is given at the bottom of this page.)

For comparison's sake, let it be noted that in the 1950's, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950's America.

On a typical plantation (more than 20 slaves) the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital value of the land and implements.

Slavery was profitable, although a large part of the profit was in the increased value of the slaves themselves. With only 30% of the nation's (free) population, the South had 60% of the "wealthiest men."

The 1860 per capita wealth in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040.

Census data can be appealed to in order to determine the extent of slave ownership in each of the states that allowed it in 1860. The figures given here are the percentage of slave-owning families as a fraction of total free households in the state. The data was taken from a census archive site at the University of Virginia.

Mississippi: 49% South Carolina: 46% Georgia: 37% Alabama: 35% Florida: 34% [TBODY] [/TBODY]

Louisiana: 29% Texas: 28% North Carolina: 28% Virginia: 26% Tennessee: 25% [TBODY] [/TBODY]

Kentucky: 23% Arkansas: 20% Missouri: 13% Maryland: 12% Delaware: 3% [TBODY] [/TBODY]

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Selected Statistics

 

[Asclepias]

Well, that every "confederate" state fought for the south is redundant since confederate refers to them joining the south. I hope you meant that tongue in cheek.

There were 3 1/2 slave states though that did not fight with the south. Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland were the three. Virginia split in two with the northern counties calling themselves West Virginia and fighting with the north. They may not have been the smartest counties. Just guessing.

You failed to mention Delaware and Rhode Island who also permitted slavery and remained in the Union.

Granted there were a few slaves in Delaware, but Rhode Island? Can you show me that one?

Why do you say "they may not have been the smartest counties'?

Read my post more carefully

That last census I could find where RI had slaves was in 1840, so I may have missed it by about twenty years or so.

You miss a lot of things a lot of the time. Because of that you are frequently wrong.......yet again.

You're still whining I see.

I know it hurt you to have to concede you were wrong. But deal with it like a man and stop your crying.

Yes I'm still winning. I stay winning. Most specifically when it comes to making you look like the moron you are.

 

[Ibentoken]

Will Blacks abandon the Democrats and go where? To the Republican Party? The Teaparty? Don't think so...

I agree that the war was about far more than slavery, but slavery was far more a cause of the war that you seem to realize. If you read the statements of the people who fought in the war that was overwhelmingly brought up as the first issue in people joining the war on the North. And "State Rights" first and foremost translated to slavery.

Clearly to say the war was over slavery, period, isn't correct. But it was far more an issue than you are saying

It depends on who's history you believe. Revisionist history or the actual history. You can go back through the speeches and documents of that time and find where they discussed slavery, cut and paste and highlight those portions forsaking the other issues of the day and make it appear that slavery was for more important than taxation, tariffs and states rights. But for the 90 percent who didn't own slaves that wouldn't make much sense.

You can also go back and review those southern documents and see slavery is the first thing mentioned when it comes to reasons for leaving the Union. Most dont make it past the first paragraph without mentioning slavery. The losers in the south that fought for the confederates followed the slave owners much like the republican white trash follow the GOP. Lemmings and sheep mentality prevail in both cases..

Never underestimate the power of the wealthy and powerful to get the poor and the powerless to do their bidding.

It's a story as old as time in the history of war and wealth.

And the LL's Lost Causer bullshit about "But for the 90 percent who didn't own slaves that wouldn't make much sense" - fails to note that nearly one third of Southern families owned slaves.

Everything, their whole world was wrapped up in their three billion dollars (three billion in 1860 dollars) worth of HUMAN property.

Everything.

Selected Statistics on Slavery in the United States

No source?

I wonder why?

Simply providing stats on what percentage of person's owned slaves in the south in 1860 is irrelevant. 10 year old Anna Richards did not own slaves. 5 year old Jeb Thompson did not own slaves. Yet these people are counted in the census as potential slave owners if you interpret the data that way. Their father, however, likely did own slaves. This is why slave owning families and not individuals is the key to understanding 1860's census data.

Not to mention, there were over 5 million free people living in the South in 1860. There were just under 4 million slaves in the South. Some states like South Carolina actually had more slaves than free citizens. Those most have been some Mega plantations the south was running!

Hey, doof, I explained this to you Lost Causers earlier. They lived alongside the slaves, brushed elbows, these families INHERITED the slaves --as property. The one third of families that owned slaves -- and in some cases one in two that took up arms - had slaves as property. They knew full well what the cause was. It was about keeping that three billion dollars in human property. They were not about to give it up.

Lets look at the population numbers:

"Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).

Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).

Total number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population).

Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half.

The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five. (A complete table on slave-owning percentages is given at the bottom of this page.)

For comparison's sake, let it be noted that in the 1950's, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950's America.

On a typical plantation (more than 20 slaves) the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital value of the land and implements.

Slavery was profitable, although a large part of the profit was in the increased value of the slaves themselves. With only 30% of the nation's (free) population, the South had 60% of the "wealthiest men."

The 1860 per capita wealth in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040.

Census data can be appealed to in order to determine the extent of slave ownership in each of the states that allowed it in 1860. The figures given here are the percentage of slave-owning families as a fraction of total free households in the state. The data was taken from a census archive site at the University of Virginia.

Mississippi: 49% South Carolina: 46% Georgia: 37% Alabama: 35% Florida: 34% [TBODY] [/TBODY]

Louisiana: 29% Texas: 28% North Carolina: 28% Virginia: 26% Tennessee: 25% [TBODY] [/TBODY]

Kentucky: 23% Arkansas: 20% Missouri: 13% Maryland: 12% Delaware: 3% [TBODY] [/TBODY]

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Selected Statistics

Slavery isn't an issue in this campaign. Hasn't been for 150 years.

 

[paperview]

It should be noted Lincoln tried to buy the Slaves for $400 apiece in 'Gradual Emancipation'

FoxNews even slavesplains it:

Letters Suggest Lincoln Wanted to Buy Slaves for 400 Apiece in Gradual Emancipation Fox News

He tried to do that with the Border states. The border states -- these guys were not even as enmeshed in slavery as the lower South, and they told him to stuff it.

No deal. That tells you how dedicated slaveowners were to preserving, protecting and expanding slavery.

 

[Ibentoken]

Black History Racist Democrats Refuse to Teach To…:

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I haven't tried changing anything. I kicked you in the teeth and you're unhappy about it. Pretty simple really.

You admitted you tried to change the narrative. Why did you clarify anything if you were right in the first place then claim you confused your self by doing so?

Dude, get a grip. You're not making any sense.

You have admittedly confused yourself so I wouldn't ever expect you to be able to grasp what I am saying.

No dumbass I didn't confuse myself. You two morons attempting to nitpick every word in attempt to cover up your concessions is what I said was confusing. Now that you have succeeded in pettifogging the discussion. What is your gripe?

Do you want to engage in a debate or would you rather continue your pissing and moaning fest?

Yes you did confuse yourself moron. You brought up the states when no one said anything about it as a diversion. You culminated in asking what it had to do with anything forgetting you were the one to bring it up in the first place. Did you think I would forget?

Actually you're doing exactly what I figured you would do. Beat a dead horse.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

if you read the statements of the people who fought in the war that was overwhelmingly brought up as the first issue in people joining the war on the North

But for the 90 percent who didn't own slaves that wouldn't make much sense.

What's illogical about your reply to what I said?

Rephrase the question.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Well yea, I did make that claim and every confederate state fought for the south. duh!!

Well, that every "confederate" state fought for the south is redundant since confederate refers to them joining the south. I hope you meant that tongue in cheek.

There were 3 1/2 slave states though that did not fight with the south. Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland were the three. Virginia split in two [with the northern counties calling themselves West Virginia and fighting with the north. They may not have been the smartest counties. Just guessing.

You failed to mention Delaware and Rhode Island who also permitted slavery and remained in the Union.

Granted there were a few slaves in Delaware, but Rhode Island? Can you show me that one?

Why do you say "they may not have been the smartest counties'?

Read my post more carefully

That last census I could find where RI had slaves was in 1840, so I may have missed it by about twenty years or so.

I have read your post carefully. My questions still stands. I'd like to know why you think "they may not have been the smartest counties".

Seriously? It's not that deep.

Then is should be easy for you to explain.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I agree that the war was about far more than slavery, but slavery was far more a cause of the war that you seem to realize. If you read the statements of the people who fought in the war that was overwhelmingly brought up as the first issue in people joining the war on the North. And "State Rights" first and foremost translated to slavery.

Clearly to say the war was over slavery, period, isn't correct. But it was far more an issue than you are saying

It depends on who's history you believe. Revisionist history or the actual history. You can go back through the speeches and documents of that time and find where they discussed slavery, cut and paste and highlight those portions forsaking the other issues of the day and make it appear that slavery was for more important than taxation, tariffs and states rights. But for the 90 percent who didn't own slaves that wouldn't make much sense.

You can also go back and review those southern documents and see slavery is the first thing mentioned when it comes to reasons for leaving the Union. Most dont make it past the first paragraph without mentioning slavery. The losers in the south that fought for the confederates followed the slave owners much like the republican white trash follow the GOP. Lemmings and sheep mentality prevail in both cases..

Never underestimate the power of the wealthy and powerful to get the poor and the powerless to do their bidding.

It's a story as old as time in the history of war and wealth.

And the LL's Lost Causer bullshit about "But for the 90 percent who didn't own slaves that wouldn't make much sense" - fails to note that nearly one third of Southern families owned slaves.

Everything, their whole world was wrapped up in their three billion dollars (three billion in 1860 dollars) worth of HUMAN property.

Everything.

Selected Statistics on Slavery in the United States

No source?

I wonder why?

Simply providing stats on what percentage of person's owned slaves in the south in 1860 is irrelevant. 10 year old Anna Richards did not own slaves. 5 year old Jeb Thompson did not own slaves. Yet these people are counted in the census as potential slave owners if you interpret the data that way. Their father, however, likely did own slaves. This is why slave owning families and not individuals is the key to understanding 1860's census data.

Not to mention, there were over 5 million free people living in the South in 1860. There were just under 4 million slaves in the South. Some states like South Carolina actually had more slaves than free citizens. Those most have been some Mega plantations the south was running!

Hey, doof, I explained this to you Lost Causers earlier. They lived alongside the slaves, brushed elbows, these families INHERITED the slaves --as property. The one third of families that owned slaves -- and in some cases one in two that took up arms - had slaves as property. They knew full well what the cause was. It was about keeping that three billion dollars in human property. They were not about to give it up.

Lets look at the population numbers:

"Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).

Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).

Total number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population).

Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half.

The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five. (A complete table on slave-owning percentages is given at the bottom of this page.)

For comparison's sake, let it be noted that in the 1950's, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950's America.

On a typical plantation (more than 20 slaves) the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital value of the land and implements.

Slavery was profitable, although a large part of the profit was in the increased value of the slaves themselves. With only 30% of the nation's (free) population, the South had 60% of the "wealthiest men."

The 1860 per capita wealth in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040.

Census data can be appealed to in order to determine the extent of slave ownership in each of the states that allowed it in 1860. The figures given here are the percentage of slave-owning families as a fraction of total free households in the state. The data was taken from a census archive site at the University of Virginia.

Mississippi: 49% South Carolina: 46% Georgia: 37% Alabama: 35% Florida: 34% [TBODY] [/TBODY]

Louisiana: 29% Texas: 28% North Carolina: 28% Virginia: 26% Tennessee: 25% [TBODY] [/TBODY]

Kentucky: 23% Arkansas: 20% Missouri: 13% Maryland: 12% Delaware: 3% [TBODY] [/TBODY]

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Selected Statistics

What is their definition of family?

It's a rhetorical question.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You failed to mention Delaware and Rhode Island who also permitted slavery and remained in the Union.

Granted there were a few slaves in Delaware, but Rhode Island? Can you show me that one?

Why do you say "they may not have been the smartest counties'?

Read my post more carefully

That last census I could find where RI had slaves was in 1840, so I may have missed it by about twenty years or so.

You miss a lot of things a lot of the time. Because of that you are frequently wrong.......yet again.

You're still whining I see.

I know it hurt you to have to concede you were wrong. But deal with it like a man and stop your crying.

Yes I'm still winning. I stay winning. Most specifically when it comes to making you look like the moron you are.

Glad you admit your whining, even though you misspelled it twice.

 

[paperview]

Black History Racist Democrats Refuse to Teach To…:

David Barton, the admitted liar and revisionist even some conservatives laugh off.

 

[Asclepias]

You admitted you tried to change the narrative. Why did you clarify anything if you were right in the first place then claim you confused your self by doing so?

Dude, get a grip. You're not making any sense.

You have admittedly confused yourself so I wouldn't ever expect you to be able to grasp what I am saying.

No dumbass I didn't confuse myself. You two morons attempting to nitpick every word in attempt to cover up your concessions is what I said was confusing. Now that you have succeeded in pettifogging the discussion. What is your gripe?

Do you want to engage in a debate or would you rather continue your pissing and moaning fest?

Yes you did confuse yourself moron. You brought up the states when no one said anything about it as a diversion. You culminated in asking what it had to do with anything forgetting you were the one to bring it up in the first place. Did you think I would forget?

Actually you're doing exactly what I figured you would do. Beat a dead horse.

I wouldn't exactly describe you as a dead horse. More like a dumb convict.

 

[Asclepias]

Granted there were a few slaves in Delaware, but Rhode Island? Can you show me that one?

Read my post more carefully

That last census I could find where RI had slaves was in 1840, so I may have missed it by about twenty years or so.

You miss a lot of things a lot of the time. Because of that you are frequently wrong.......yet again.

You're still whining I see.

I know it hurt you to have to concede you were wrong. But deal with it like a man and stop your crying.

Yes I'm still winning. I stay winning. Most specifically when it comes to making you look like the moron you are.

Glad you admit your whining, even though you misspelled it twice.

You meant winning. Dont try to back pedal again.

 

[kaz]

if you read the statements of the people who fought in the war that was overwhelmingly brought up as the first issue in people joining the war on the North

But for the 90 percent who didn't own slaves that wouldn't make much sense.

What's illogical about your reply to what I said?

Rephrase the question.

Um...and the next one...

 

[kaz]

Well, that every "confederate" state fought for the south is redundant since confederate refers to them joining the south. I hope you meant that tongue in cheek.

There were 3 1/2 slave states though that did not fight with the south. Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland were the three. Virginia split in two [with the northern counties calling themselves West Virginia and fighting with the north. They may not have been the smartest counties. Just guessing.

You failed to mention Delaware and Rhode Island who also permitted slavery and remained in the Union.

Granted there were a few slaves in Delaware, but Rhode Island? Can you show me that one?

Why do you say "they may not have been the smartest counties'?

Read my post more carefully

That last census I could find where RI had slaves was in 1840, so I may have missed it by about twenty years or so.

I have read your post carefully. My questions still stands. I'd like to know why you think "they may not have been the smartest counties".

Seriously? It's not that deep.

Then is should be easy for you to explain.

...exactly how dumbed down do you want the conversation for you? You want me to color it in with crayons?

 

[EriktheRed]

Proudly flying the flag, I see.

Yup..Good eye!
Can't sneak anything by you.

The same one AveGuyIA proudly owned as his avatar as one time.

Oh?
So what?

The old flag...of democrats.

The flag of patriots who opposed federal gvmt oppression and were brave enough to back up their convictions.

^ That's what this thread needs. The full bore racists not afraid to say they fly the flag of the old racist Conservative democrats who were willing to fight to the death to preserve, protect and expand slavery -- to fight -- oppression!

"Brave enough to back up their convictions" (!) in a "country" they formed where nearly half the population was in chains, and bought and sold as farm animals, the remaining half of that was property of their men. But, damn! Those conservatives were ready to die -- to fight oppression!


Yeeehaaaaw!

the confederate flag is a piece of history, it is not a symbol of racism.

It is the symbol of a group of states who tried to leave the United States in order to protect the institution of enslaving black humans.

That's not why.
The leaders of the south knew slavery was fading as the industrial revolution was beginning...but cling to what you were taught in public school. It's so trendy!

Utter horseshit.

If you read these declarations of secession from just a few of the Confederate states, it's clear that keeping the "institution" of slavery intact was the primary motivator.

Here's what Texas had to say, for example:

[Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

It also says this further down:

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

Isn't that just peachy?

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

 

[Asclepias]

You failed to mention Delaware and Rhode Island who also permitted slavery and remained in the Union.

Granted there were a few slaves in Delaware, but Rhode Island? Can you show me that one?

Why do you say "they may not have been the smartest counties'?

Read my post more carefully

That last census I could find where RI had slaves was in 1840, so I may have missed it by about twenty years or so.

I have read your post carefully. My questions still stands. I'd like to know why you think "they may not have been the smartest counties".

Seriously? It's not that deep.

Then is should be easy for you to explain.

...exactly how dumbed down do you want the conversation for you? You want me to color it in with crayons?

You need Dora the Explorer cartoons for this one. If you let him talk he will ultimately end up confusing himself.