The History of Slavery

[mickeycrimm]

The basic problem with mickey's argument that the South was no worse than central Africa or Greece or Mesopotamia or anywhere/when that had slaves is that without an international historical context, you can take that argument to its logical conclusion to justify anything. There were undoubtedly times when this tribe ate that tribe and various genetic strains of humans ate each other, so you can say, "See, the Donner Party was just carrying on a tradition that once existed in central Africa and Mesopotamia and...." Perfectly normal, natural behavior, traditional human behavior. And since humans may have eaten each for longer than they haven't, everything gets justified.

Singer is right. You are one weird dude.

[mickeycrimm]

What I find to be absent from the discussion, and not surprisingly given both mickey and Mission's America-centric perspectives, is the international context in which the North and South found themselves. In most countries, slavery was eliminated in steps -- first the auctions went, but people could own and trade slaves. It was step by step, and the British Empire had different transitions in different places, for example.

The U.S. was behind much of the westernized world in phasing out slavery, as evidenced by those Star Spangled banner lyrics from years previous. Slaves going over to the Brit side could become free men.

By the time the Civil War began, the South was becoming (or had already become) an international anachronism still dependent on slave labor.

Cuba and Brazil didn't outlaw slavery until the 1880's.

[mickeycrimm]

The basic problem with mickey's argument that the South was no worse than central Africa or Greece or Mesopotamia or anywhere/when that had slaves is that without an international historical context, you can take that argument to its logical conclusion to justify anything. There were undoubtedly times when this tribe ate that tribe and various genetic strains of humans ate each other, so you can say, "See, the Donner Party was just carrying on a tradition that once existed in central Africa and Mesopotamia and...." Perfectly normal, natural behavior, traditional human behavior. And since humans may have eaten each for longer than they haven't, everything gets justified.

Comrade, will you give me the post number in this or any other thread where I made an argument that slavery in the south was no worse than Africa, Greece or Mesopotamia? I must have amnesia. I don't remember writing it. And I sure don't remember thinking it. So thanks in advance for pointing it out for me.

[redietz]

What I find to be absent from the discussion, and not surprisingly given both mickey and Mission's America-centric perspectives, is the international context in which the North and South found themselves. In most countries, slavery was eliminated in steps -- first the auctions went, but people could own and trade slaves. It was step by step, and the British Empire had different transitions in different places, for example.

The U.S. was behind much of the westernized world in phasing out slavery, as evidenced by those Star Spangled banner lyrics from years previous. Slaves going over to the Brit side could become free men.

By the time the Civil War began, the South was becoming (or had already become) an international anachronism still dependent on slave labor.

Cuba and Brazil didn't outlaw slavery until the 1880's.

See, this is true, of course. But mickey, rather than giving a survey of where or when it was not legal or to what degree, simply lists two countries that support his argument. What's the point of that? Give people a sense of the entire context. Don't cherry pick data that supports you. C'mon, man, why do that?

Mickey undoubtedly checked a list of who outlawed slavery to what degree when. Rather than list much of that, he chose two countries that were (barely) late to the anti-slavery party after the U.S.

That's bad reporting.

[mickeycrimm]

Dude, I tried, but I'm done. It is becoming increasingly evident that, despite having quoted them on several occasions, you are not actually reading any of my posts. I have to look at it in the light most favorable to you and suggest you are not reading them, otherwise, the only possible conclusion is that you are reading them, but are failing to comprehend them.

I have already stipulated that is precisely why they seceded from the Union. Specifically, I said that it was because slavery was looking like it would not be expanded to any of the new territories, which would eventually themselves become states, which could theoretically lead to enough Congressional support that slavery would be eliminated even from the Southern states---perhaps even by Constitutional Amendment.



Further proof that this conversation is pointless. Of course the South wanted out of the Union. Do you think that I believe that the Southern states seceded because they did not want out of the Union? I would say that the goal of leaving the Union was to, you know, leave the Union.

The direct event that started the actual war was the attack on Fort Sumter. The matter of the legality of secession, as I have already pointed out, was still on the table in the Senate. In fact, the Southern Senators could have been in the Senate to represent their own positions vis-a-vis this matter, but they chose not to be and instead returned to their home states. As I have also already pointed out, it wasn't until three months AFTER the attack on Fort Sumter that the remaining Senators officially declared that the Southern Senate seats had been vacated.

You can assume that the North would not have permitted the secession...and I can agree that it's likely they wouldn't have...but neither of us can know because the South did not exhaust all of the options that they had available to them prior to the attack on Fort Sumter.

Anyway, once again, why did the South want out of the Union? You said it in your first paragraph? Fundamentally, I'm not certain we actually have a disagreement, at this point.

Chicken and waffles? You need to do your research, sonny boy. Hey, I'm not making this shit up. Chicken and waffles came from Pennsylvania. Now....let's see....do we know anyone that lives in Pennsylvania....Oh!....That's right!....YOU LIVE IN PENNSYLVANIA!!!! What's for dinner, mish? Chicken and waffles? LOLOL!!!

Dinner? I thought it was a breakfast item. The origin of chicken and waffles is in dispute:

https://www.myrecipes.com/extracrisp...hern-invention

But, there's little question that it has been most embraced in the South.

For my part, I've never had it. It was just part of the cheap shot I was taking against the region.

What you need to do is quit pretending you're not racist. Everyone, including blacks, are on to you.

Huh? I just do what I do and say what I say. If someone wants to take from anything that I do or say that I'm a racist, then that's for them to decide. Short of the notion of, "Implicit bias," (which is quite a Far Left concept, by the way) I would find it very difficult for anyone to come to the conclusion that I'm racist...but if that's the conclusion they reach, that's fine.

You cling to delusions that have nothing to do with the real story. And you are arrogant enough to think you are right. But that's the way of the ignorant.

[Mission146]

I’m arrogant and right.

I should assume the, “Real story,” is similar to the real story of Trump winning the 2020 Election in that there will be no facts whatsoever that support the, “Real story,” and what facts are available will support its opposite.

Besides, you just quoted me agreeing with you on all points and then said I’m arrogant and wrong.

[pepe]

Whipping is an efficiency question.
Slavery was great in Civ IV until it gets abolished.
They abolished Slavery for good after Civ IV Beyond the Sword.
Hopefully, they bring it back in Civ VII.

slavery was OP in that game. I can't really see a reason to run any of the alternative civics.

[monet]

slavery was OP in that game. I can't really see a reason to run any of the alternative civics.

Finally... someone who understands!

[mickeycrimm]

What I find to be absent from the discussion, and not surprisingly given both mickey and Mission's America-centric perspectives, is the international context in which the North and South found themselves. In most countries, slavery was eliminated in steps -- first the auctions went, but people could own and trade slaves. It was step by step, and the British Empire had different transitions in different places, for example.

The U.S. was behind much of the westernized world in phasing out slavery, as evidenced by those Star Spangled banner lyrics from years previous. Slaves going over to the Brit side could become free men.

By the time the Civil War began, the South was becoming (or had already become) an international anachronism still dependent on slave labor.

Cuba and Brazil didn't outlaw slavery until the 1880's.

See, this is true, of course. But mickey, rather than giving a survey of where or when it was not legal or to what degree, simply lists two countries that support his argument. What's the point of that? Give people a sense of the entire context. Don't cherry pick data that supports you. C'mon, man, why do that?

Mickey undoubtedly checked a list of who outlawed slavery to what degree when. Rather than list much of that, he chose two countries that were (barely) late to the anti-slavery party after the U.S.

That's bad reporting.

I knew about Cuba and Brazil decades ago so very bad reporting on your part. When you assume you make an ass of yourself. Or I should say a weirdo out of yourself. What I didn't know was slavery lasting until well into the 20th century in some parts of Africa and the middle east.

[tableplay]

Speaking of the middle east, the great pyramid at Giza, admired by enough people around the globe to be considered one of the seven wonders of the world, was built on the backs of slaves (it sure as hell wasn't built by aliens). Man, we're a hypocritical bunch.

[Mission146]

Who are hypocrites? I've certainly never visited the Great Pyramid of Giza and will almost certainly never do so given that I have no plans to ever leave the country.

[monet]

Who are hypocrites? I've certainly never visited the Great Pyramid of Giza and will almost certainly never do so given that I have no plans to ever leave the country.

tableplay is speaking in a general sense.
It's not all about Mission146.

[tableplay]

Who are hypocrites? I've certainly never visited the Great Pyramid of Giza and will almost certainly never do so given that I have no plans to ever leave the country.

tableplay is speaking in a general sense.
It's not all about Mission146.

Thanks Monet. I'm sure if you ask the Egyptians they will say they are against slavery, yet they are monetizing it.

[Mission146]

Who are hypocrites? I've certainly never visited the Great Pyramid of Giza and will almost certainly never do so given that I have no plans to ever leave the country.

tableplay is speaking in a general sense.
It's not all about Mission146.

See, I thought that the question, "Who are hypocrites?", that I opened with would lead one to believe that I am wondering who Tableplay is accusing of hypocrisy, but I guess not.

Since it referred to some kind of tour, or whatever, I assumed he was referring to people from the U.S. who claim to be against the institution of U.S. slavery but would take a tour of some slave built pyramid in Egypt---because those two things are obviously directly related to one another---I just didn't know if he meant anyone from this board specifically.

[mickeycrimm]

Mission, why are all those people moving down to live with racist christians?

Net Domestic Migration by Region July 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021

Northeast -389,638
West -144, 941
Midwest -123103
South +657,682

[Mission146]

Mission, why are all those people moving down to live with racist christians?

Net Domestic Migration by Region July 1, 2020 to July 1, 2021

Northeast -389,638
West -144, 941
Midwest -123103
South +657,682

That people would be fleeing California and New York States just as fast as they can get the hell out of there? I'm shocked.

Anyway, it would seem that the biggest single gainer is Texas, followed by Florida, in terms of raw population gain. Those two states, however, are 7th and 8th when it comes to percentage gain, by virtue of having such high populations to begin with, of course.

Many Californians, in particular, are choosing instead to live in Texas---which is becoming a substantial tech hub. We also see that Liberals are fleeing California for Texas and Nevada, which is just the continuation of a trend that had already been happening. That's going to be largely based on less personal income tax and lower real estate costs.

Texas, of course, should HOPE that the Liberals don't get into the state levels of Government and do to Texas what they have already done to California at state and lower levels which resulted in the very conditions that Californians are fleeing from in the first place.

As far as Florida is concerned, the Northeast moves to Florida since time immemorial.

Anyway, I don't think any of this has much to do with where the Christians are or are not. Nevada, for instance, also gained 1% and I don't consider that an ideal state if your religious values are extremely important to you.

Idaho, Utah, Montana, Arizona and South Carolina (in that order) are the top five population gainers by percentage, with the Top 4 of those probably seeing a lot of people coming in from California as well as Washington and Oregon.

Delaware was 6th in growth...I can't even offer a guess as to why.

Looking at the Top 10 states in percentage decline, it would seem that people are most likely to flee the most Liberal states, followed by to flee the most Conservative states that are also states with little in the way of opportunity, examples of which being West Virginia and Mississippi.

[Mission146]

Oh, to the last bit, Mississippi and West Virginia are also two of the MOST religious states, ranking T-1st and T-4th, respectively, for belief in God.

The point being, I don't think people really make these domestic migration decisions based on religion whatsoever.

[mickeycrimm]

Oh, to the last bit, Mississippi and West Virginia are also two of the MOST religious states, ranking T-1st and T-4th, respectively, for belief in God.

The point being, I don't think people really make these domestic migration decisions based on religion whatsoever.

Mission, I know a good state for you to visit that meets some of your ideological requirements. It has, for the past 50 years, the most integrated school system in the nation. And it has the most black elected politicians of any state in the Union. Can you guess which state it is?

[Mission146]

Oh, to the last bit, Mississippi and West Virginia are also two of the MOST religious states, ranking T-1st and T-4th, respectively, for belief in God.

The point being, I don't think people really make these domestic migration decisions based on religion whatsoever.

Mission, I know a good state for you to visit that meets some of your ideological requirements. It has, for the past 50 years, the most integrated school system in the nation. And it has the most black elected politicians of any state in the Union. Can you guess which state it is?

I have no idea, based on the topic of discussion, I'm assuming somewhere in the South.

[mickeycrimm]

Oh, to the last bit, Mississippi and West Virginia are also two of the MOST religious states, ranking T-1st and T-4th, respectively, for belief in God.

The point being, I don't think people really make these domestic migration decisions based on religion whatsoever.

Mission, I know a good state for you to visit that meets some of your ideological requirements. It has, for the past 50 years, the most integrated school system in the nation. And it has the most black elected politicians of any state in the Union. Can you guess which state it is?

I have no idea, based on the topic of discussion, I'm assuming somewhere in the South.

Just some trivia. My home state Mississippi integrated the schools in the early 70's. The population is about 60% white, 40% black. It's been the most integrated school system in the nation for 50 years. Mississippi also has the most black elected politicians of any state in the country. A state with a population of just 3 million has more black elected politicians than liberal California with 40 million people.