Look Away Politically Incorrect Information on Slavery in the CSA, America, and World

[Strike For The South]

Some of Your points are valid and are discussed in entry level overviews of the antebellum. I say they are "valid" in the sense that you are splicing in facts and real quotes in order to create a false narrative. I would go so far as to say most of your points are primers that white nationalists use to obfuscate American history.

Your assumptions about "blacks today" show a frighteningly shallow understanding of Africa An entire continent with hundreds if not thousands of societies. Why cherry pick stats from Zimbabwe? It is in a region of Africa 0000s of miles away from the European slave trade.

Simply because slavery exists today does not absolve any state that participated in it.

Your sources are either unreliable or cherry picked. Fogel is an economist concerned with the utility of the slave state. The rest of your sources, once again, are primers for white nationalists.

[Strike For The South]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your a kid who is just really interested in the civil war. This happens a lot. American history in schools is very skimpy and conservative. So when kids first strike out on their own, they find a whole bunch of nuance which makes " the lost cause" seem more attractive.

James McPhersons "Battle Cry of Freedom" is the official Oxford history and still the best one volume work. Buy it and read it. Go from there.

[total relism]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your a kid who is just really interested in the civil war. This happens a lot. American history in schools is very skimpy and conservative. So when kids first strike out on their own, they find a whole bunch of nuance which makes " the lost cause" seem more attractive.

I want no benifits so give none.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your a kid who is just really interested in the civil war. This happens a lot. American history in schools is very liberal and selective. So when kids first strike out on their own, they find a whole bunch of first hand historical information which makes "the standard story" seem less attractive.

James McPhersons "Battle Cry of Freedom" is the official Oxford history and still the best one volume work. Buy it and read it. Go from there.

I have read it, it is behind me on my book shelf. It had very little on what slavery was like. But good book. I would suggest to you reading some first hand accounts of slavery from the time period. That way we can avoid the 1950's-to modern revisionism that claims slavery was as evil...as well it is usually presented.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I want no benifits so give none.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your a kid who is just really interested in the civil war. This happens a lot. American history in schools is very liberal and selective. So when kids first strike out on their own, they find a whole bunch of first hand historical information which makes "the standard story" seem less attractive.

I have read it, it is behind me on my book shelf. It had very little on what slavery was like. But good book. I would suggest to you reading some first hand accounts of slavery from the time period. That way we can avoid the 1950's-to modern revisionism that claims slavery was as evil...as well it is usually presented.

If the fact that slavery, throughout history, has often been a bit hum-drum as to conditions and the like is true, and I will stipulate it, it does not detract from the basic fact that slavery is AN evil. In slavery, the choice to chart one's own course is not simply constrained by circumstance (happens to us all) or by the vagaries of chance (opening your buggy whip manufactory 3 years before the auto is invented), that choice is siezed and taken by another. All who keep slaves, however benign the conditions, are effectively treating them -- and often viewing them -- as less than human. This is every bit as true of this century's Moldavan girl sold by her family into whoredom to cut down on costs as it was of the field hand working the indigo fields of Louisiana in 1837.

For a majority of the time blacks have lived in the American South (though thankfully NOT a majority of the time they have lived in the USA) the largest segment of the black population was held in bondage and far too much of the care that was, indeed, shown for many of them was done so for many of the same reasons that a good plow horse receives care. Fitting I suppose, as far more of the births were recorded in the farm's "stock" records than were recorded in any family Bible.

[Montmorency]

Just checked in Fogel's book on slavery, p. 78:

So the paradox of the longer northern work year is resolved by the fact that dairying and livestock accounted for 38 percent of the output of northern farms, while the corresponding figure for the large
slave plantations was hardly 5 percent. The discovery that the slave work year was shorter than the free work year does not contradict the proposition that slave labor was more intensely exploited than free labor,
but only the proposition that such exploitation took the form of more hours per year.

Another point, slaves were fed more than typical laborers because the slaves could not physically perform their abnormal labors without the additional caloric load. Not supportive of a 'good treatment' narrative. Suggests unreliable selection, interpretation, and presentation of sources by the poster.

[Strike For The South]

Yea not worth it.

[El Barto]

Suggests unreliable selection, interpretation, and presentation of sources by the poster.

Given that in his first few lines he says that slavery is wrong and then spends thousands of words defending it, I think he can't even interpret nor present his own ideas reliably.

[total relism]

Given that in his first few lines he says that slavery is wrong and then spends thousands of words defending it, I think he can't even interpret nor present his own ideas reliably.

I see it another way. Admit that to my worldview slavery is wrong, than go on and tell historical information about the institution that is generally ignored. However if that is what you concluded from reading my op. Than i think you can't even interpret nor present my own ideas reliably, and i wish you would not attempt it given the above you have written.

[total relism]

Just checked in Fogel's book on slavery, p. 78:



Another point, slaves were fed more than typical laborers because the slaves could not physically perform their abnormal labors without the additional caloric load. Not supportive of a 'good treatment' narrative. Suggests unreliable selection, interpretation, and presentation of sources by the poster.

Or facts. They were fed well. It is often claimed they were underfed.

“There is no question that the slave diet was sufficient to maintain the slave body wight and general health”
-Robert William Fogel The Rise and Fall of American Slavery

I never said because they were fed well, therefore they were well treated. I was simply pointing out the fact, they were well fed so to claim they were half starved, would be false.

Not all had a heavy work load either. See under Condition of the slave in the South / Work all day, no play?

[total relism]

If the fact that slavery, throughout history, has often been a bit hum-drum as to conditions and the like is true, and I will stipulate it, it does not detract from the basic fact that slavery is AN evil.

From my op

"As a Christian I do not think slavery is a good or wanted practice. I also see the South as moving away from our founder’s view of slavery. For example, on March, 21 1861 Confederate Vice President Alexander Stevens said:

“The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away.”

I see slavery as inconsistent with the beliefs and values of many of the freedom and liberty loving founders of the republic of this nation. These founders overwhelmingly wanted to outlaw slavery. "

In slavery, the choice to chart one's own course is not simply constrained by circumstance (happens to us all) or by the vagaries of chance (opening your buggy whip manufactory 3 years before the auto is invented), that choice is siezed and taken by another.

In some cases. As my op pointed out slaves could improve their condition and if wanted, usually, earn there freedom.

All who keep slaves, however benign the conditions, are effectively treating them -- and often viewing them -- as less than human.

This was not in anyway the view of the vast majority of southern christian slave owners. The right to own slaves had been universal around the world and was not an evolutionary lower human view. That comes more post darwin.

For a majority of the time blacks have lived in the American South (though thankfully NOT a majority of the time they have lived in the USA) the largest segment of the black population was held in bondage and far too much of the care that was, indeed, shown for many of them was done so for many of the same reasons that a good plow horse receives care. Fitting I suppose, as far more of the births were recorded in the farm's "stock" records than were recorded in any family Bible.

While i dont disagree wholly, you cant deny the opposite also occurred of family love relationships and friendships. Despite a burden, care was given both ways. The fact that slaves were legal property and kept in a category legally as other property, says nothing to how they were viewed by their owners. Simply the legality of human property.



Good post.

[total relism]

Some of Your points are valid and are discussed in entry level overviews of the antebellum. I say they are "valid" in the sense that you are splicing in facts and real quotes in order to create a false narrative. I would go so far as to say most of your points are primers that white nationalists use to obfuscate American history.

I would say my op was never meant to tell the whole story, just the part of the story that is never told. Instead all we seem to get the very worst and that is presented as the entirety of slavery in the south. I would suggest it comes from Marxist historians who hate america.

Your assumptions about "blacks today" show a frighteningly shallow understanding of Africa An entire continent with hundreds if not thousands of societies. Why cherry pick stats from Zimbabwe? It is in a region of Africa 0000s of miles away from the European slave trade.

Very true. i chose some of the worst to show just how bad it is in Africa as a whole. But as i suggested, show me where in all of Africa blacks are better off than in Mississippi, where blacks are worst off in America.

Simply because slavery exists today does not absolve any state that participated in it.

agreed, never disagreed.

Your sources are either unreliable or cherry picked. Fogel is an economist concerned with the utility of the slave state. The rest of your sources, once again, are primers for white nationalists.

Please do tell. I think if you go throw my op you will find it is based almost exclusivity on first hand observation the majority from slaves, or northern abolitionist. . Your simply trying to divert the op from its historical foundation, and resort to a logical fallacies attacking a source you make a baseless claim about. If you believe it is historically off base, than please do show why.

[El Barto]

I would suggest it comes from Marxist historians who hate america.

Oh, really.

I think if you go throw my op you will find it is based almost exclusivity on first hand observation the majority from slaves, or northern abolitionist.

Either you were born 180 years ago, give or take, or you simply have a somewhat tenuous grasp of the basic rules of sentence construction in the English language in its contemporary written form.

[Crandar]

I would suggest it comes from Marxist historians who hate america.

And yet, your copy-pasted OP begins with a quote from Marx. As a side note, Marxist historians have a particular interpetation of history, which happens to reject imaginary notions, such as nationalism or religion, as somehow being meaningfully positive to society.

This is why, tribalists hate it, not because Marxism is anti-American or anti-CSA. In fact, Marxism rejects a common misconception that slavery was abolished in the industrialized North, because the factory owners were more compassionate.

[Pannonian]

And yet, your copy-pasted OP begins with a quote from Marx. As a side note, Marxist historians have a particular interpetation of history, which happens to reject imaginary notions, such as nationalism or religion, as somehow being meaningfully positive to society.

This is why, tribalists hate it, not because Marxism is anti-American or anti-CSA. In fact, Marxism rejects a common misconception that slavery was abolished in the industrialized North, because the factory owners were more compassionate.

The Marxist reading of the decline of slavery is that free labour was cheaper as they had no owners who had to take responsibility for their welfare, but were free to swim or sink according to their own means. In contrast, the south had a significant proportion of their capital tied up in slaves, which would disappear if emancipation occurred en masse. The Whig reading of history probably emphasises the philosophical aspects more. The Marxist reading of history concentrates on the adage: follow the money.

[Crandar]

Yes, I agree. Also, the other factor is the difference between the work in the plantations and the factory. Skilled workers are needed for factories, who need to be motivated by a regular salary, something not necessary for a slave tasked to collect cotton or tobacco.

[total relism]

Yes, I agree. Also, the other factor is the difference between the work in the plantations and the factory. Skilled workers are needed for factories, who need to be motivated by a regular salary, something not necessary for a slave tasked to collect cotton or tobacco.

I would say the opposite, slave wager gave no incentive or proper motivator while slavery did provide that opportunity up to earning your freedom. But I think both were a mix.

[El Barto]

your copy-pasted OP

Why did I not think to run it through the FWSE?

[total relism]

The Marxist reading of the decline of slavery is that free labour was cheaper as they had no owners who had to take responsibility for their welfare, but were free to swim or sink according to their own means. I.

I would agree.


Industrial Slave Wager Work

“wage labor was a from of dependency that seemed to contradict the republican principles on which the country was founded” the core of republicanism, was liberty...Thomas Jefferson had defined the essence of liberty as Independence, which required the ownership of productive property. A man dependent on others for a living could never be truly free, nor could a dependent class constitute the basis of a republican government...wage laboururs were also dependent, that was why Jefferson feared the devilment of industrial capitalism with its need for wage labors”
-James McPherson Battle cry of freedom

“One half of them prefers hiring their servants for life, and the other by the hour.”
-Englishmen Thomas Carlisle noted on differences between northern Industrial worker and southern slave

“That in some countries the laboring poor were called freedmen, in others they were called slaves, but that the difference as to the state was imaginary only”
-John Adams

The south and the founders condemned the “slave wager work” of industrialization and factories. conformity and industrial work would produce a compliant people who would become servants of their boss and in turn, the government. The south was “unwilling to be dehumanized, to be reduced to cogs in a labor process that seemed as inhuman as the machines.” The founders were “concerned as rural conservatives about the dangers to the republic from hordes of propetyless urban workers.” C.S Lewis said of the industrial revolution, it was bad for culture and caused “country farmers who were masters of their own land to become a servant of another in a city with no land.” J.R.R Toliken saw industrial workers as “modern slavery for totalitarianism governments using people as tools for own finical gain” he as southerns felt “men should work with their hands not with machines.”

The north “Transitioned from independent, home based production, to wage based factory labor viewed by many as a form of slavery incompatible with republican democracy itself”
-Kevin Morrow The Civil war

The progressives and northern industrialist wanted collectivism and complete control of the individual. Industrial work needs, and progressive politicians wanted, a populous that is complacent, complaint, non thinking, conformist, dependent, and collectivist who were willing to give up self and individual liberty for collective needs. Men that work not as self sufficient individuals on a farm, but an equal part in a collective factory work “all in it together” working to the same end product, often same pay socialism/communism for each job. Further they needed men that are not free, but work as a dependent “slave wager work” Fit for urban and industrial work. Supporting a stronger central government and increasing dependent block of enslaved voters. “Their dependence on their employees for a living made clerks, and tradesmen slaves to their masters politics.”

“We live in an industrial economy. Some say we are actually now in a service economy. If so, it is still a part of the industrial paradigm. In such an economy, the typical family is not a producer of goods. It is a collection of individual consumers. This is the way the industrial providers like it to be. They want everyone to be dependent on them. But that is contrary to the historical pattern.
-The southern Agrarian

“The game plan of northern industrialist, who were fighting not for black freedom, but for the freedom to exploit and devolve the American market...The only people who could say “free at last” after the civil war were northern industrialist and their allies”
-Lerone Vennett JR Forced into Glory Abraham Lincolns White Dream

The northern industrialist were not against slavery, they were against the southern version of slavery. They wanted not a southern white man to be master, but they wanted the government/industrialist to be the proper master. In this form of slavery the new master would be the factory manager. Dependence on wages robbed a man of his independence. With industrial “wage slavery” There was no difference than slave labor. The boss was like the slave owner, he determined hours of toil, pace of work, division of labor, levels of wages, and could hire and fire at will. The workers were in lockstep and turned into machines. This new form of slavery was in fact more profitable for the master since he was no longer responsible for providing food, shelter, and medical support for his slaves. Comparing slavery with industrial factory workers John Haley of Maine stated

“Our plan is more profitable [non slave factory workers] we take care of no children or sick people, except as paupers, while owners of slaves have to provide for them from birth till death”
-John Haley, 17th Maine

Instead of leisure in our work, we know work 9-5 And became Slaves to the clock. We are than to turn off our “worker side” and turn on our “Leisure side.” However man is not a machine and cannot do such a thing. It leaves us unsatisfied with either. The Industrial revolution produced its super rich and multiple the poor while it shrank the middle class. The super rich were seen as a threat by the founders to liberty because they might influence the poor with their wealth [see George Soros]. Dependent poor also attacked liberty as they would seek government to redistribute from the working class to them as dependents. “Equal rights to all- special privileges to none” was a cry from the agrarians. In the agrarian society no-one who worked, would be poor.

“The difference between us is, that our slaves are hired for life and well compensated; there is no starvation, no begging, no want of employment among our people, and not too much employment either. Yours are hired by the day, not cared for, and scantily compensated, which may be proved in the most painful manner, at any hour in any street of your large towns. Why, you meet more beggars in one day, in any single street of the city of New York, than you would meet in a lifetime in the whole South.”
-“Cotton is King” speech, James Henry Hammond
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ustrialization