Is Obama Really Preparing For Civil War?

I haven't confused anything. I responded to a statement that is completely untrue.

.There is no way to defend this statment. It makes it sound as if slaves had it good while factory workers in the north had it much worse. It is pure nonsense. We know how slaves were treated. We know that such treatment was protected by state law.

They weren't slaves. Say what you want, but they could leave and seek another job if they wanted to. They could exercise their own God-given abilities to make their lives better. Slaves were prohibited by state law from doing that.

You have got to be kidding me! Do you really believe that? Man, you are swimming is a sea of delusion.

peace to youraying:

 

Canadyjd,

While I'm not here to defend antebellum slavery (since it was race-based and perpetual it was inherently wrong and anti-biblical, I believe), but you need to read more first hand history of how most slaves were treated in the south. Your posts above make it sound like slaves were routinely raped and treated under the harshest of conditions. Not true. While those things did occur, it was by no means the norm.

Seriously, do some more research in this area before you start parroting the secular-liberal-PC line on slavery.

 

OK. If you did not innocently confuse the two, then the only other conclusion I can draw is that you've purposely misrepresented them.

No, it isn't always worse.

As Andy pointed out, not all slaves were mistreated. Many slaves, such as those at Arlington actually received wages for their labor and were clandestinely taught to read and write.

No one here is arguing that slavery was a good thing. I'm just saying that slavery isn't always as it appears to have been. When you study history, one of the very first things you learn is that what is portrayed, in the words of Porgy and Bess, 't'ain't necessarily so'.

We do. We also know how coal workers were treated and how garment workers were treated. I would strongly encourage you to look into the formation of unions and such events as the Molly Maguires and the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire. Look at the people who were involved, their circumstances, and the power and abuses that the companies carried out against them.

Again, not in the sense of Antebellum slavery, but there are other kinds of slavery.

Really? Where would they go? What would happen if they just walked out on their debts to their companies?

Abilities or not, they did not have the resources or the opportunity to make their lives better.

I guess, but the last time I checked, Rutgers and Auburn (where I earned my degrees) had pretty good history programs.

 

Andy, have you ever looked into the conditions of the slaves at Robert E. Lee's Arlington? Like I said, I believe many coal workers might have been glad to trade places with them.

 

Yes, I have - and I agree, the North was no bastion of virtue. Stonewall Jackson also treated his slaves well. The horror stories of rape and such were really in the minority.

 

I wonder how canady would react if he knew that some Northern states had slaves, or that the main three ports for receiving slaves to be delivered to the South were Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Rhode Island.

I'd bring up the issue of the "Black Confederates", but that would probably make his head explode.

 

Kidnapping you from your home. Putting you on a ship and sending you to another continent. Forcing you to work for another man against your will....

...Is being mistreated!!!!

peace to youraying:

 

You rightly point out another reason the American system of slavery was wrong - it was based on manstealing. No one here is defending [antebellum] slavery. Just trying to open your eyes a bit to the fact that not all (or even most) slaveowners were the monsters that you initially seemed to portray them to be. Do some reading of primary sources on the matter, and not just the PC textbooks from publik skool.

 

Which has zilch to do with the topic at hand!!!

BUT, to continue this thread drift, just who do you think captured those on the OTHER continent, to send them over here???????????

HINT: The plantation owners DID NOT sail over to Africa and get them.

I now return you to the regularly scheduled thread topic!

(There are none so blind as those who WILL not (to) see)!!!:sleep:

 

This is a great quote:

 

Slavery is evil, Americanized or not. Why don't you point me to primary sources that demonstrate how well the slaves were treated in the south.

And to suggest we take the word of the slaver owners concerning how well their slaves were treated, or how often their wives and dauthers were raped, or how often they maimed or killed their slaves for running away, is quite repulsive.

Please don't be offended, but it is impossible for me to understand how any person can say a slave was "treated well", or wasn't "mistreated". The very fact of their slavery is mistreatment.

BTW, there are people here who are defending antebellum slavery. They are defending it by saying factory workers in the north had far worse conditions than slaves ever did, and that every single one of those factory workers, most likely, would rather have been a slave for some plantation owners.

It is polluted logic at best.

Point me to the primary sources and I'll look. Will you do the same?

peace to youraying:

Edit to add this quick google:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2956.html

Of course, PBS is the source, so they must have made it all up to make the white slave owners look bad, right?

 

Then I guess you understand more than God, since you are essentially saying it is impossible for any slaveowner to heed or obey Eph. 6:9 or Col. 4:1.

I don't think they are defeding it - only pointing out that the North was not lilly white.

I don't know of any primary sources on the internet. My research was done in an actual library reading actual books with primary sources when I was in college - I wrote an extensive research paper that touched on these issues. But that was nearly 20 years ago. If I come across something, I will share, but I will leave it up to you if you want to inform yourself and widen your understanding beyond what PBS will feed you. PBS, by the way, is not a primary source. Do you know what a primary source is?

 

Let's see. Primary sources that document the treatment of slaves in the south?

I suppose the slave owners and the overseers could have kept diaries and faithfully recorded for their children to read every time they raped a slave woman? I doubt it though.

Perhaps diaries from slaves stating what happened to them. Oh, they weren't allowed to learn to read and write. Rats....

....Perhaps newspaper accounts from runaway slaves concerning their treatment... but then, that would just be northern propaganda trying to make those southern slave owners look bad when most didn't mistreat their slaves at all and in fact, treated their slaves better than factory workers in the north, right?

Perhaps, after the war, the accounts given in interviews by former slaves concerning their treatment, but, then again... same problem as runaway slaves.

Perhaps a Christian, like John Newton, who told how female slaves were repeatedly raped on the ships, babies thrown overboard because the crying irritated the captain....as many as 1/2 the "cargo" expected to die on the trip... but that was the slave traders... they were much worse the slave owners.

Yes, I know what a primary source is. That is why I told you it is repulsive to take the word of slave owners concerning the treatment of their slaves.

As someone else has stated, this thread has drifted. I am happy to abandon it.

peace to youraying:

 

There are primary sources that orginate from people who were not slaveowners.

Besides, you have yet to show any evidence that rape and beatings were the norm in the South.

That was the slave trade which was a horrific evil, I agree. But that is not an account from antebellum slavery that shows such was the norm.

Interesting. So you automatically dismiss any testimony from a slave owner, just because he is a slave owner? Wow, you are more righteous than Paul who did not condemn slave owners as a class. In fact, he gave them instruction in Ephesians and Colossians, which you completely ignored in my previous post. What were those instructions? If they are not to be trusted whatsoever, why did Paul even bother giving them instruction?

 

Interesting. How were the slaves treated?

What were slaves? Property with a potential to earn it's owner a profit.

An expensive business investment in the owner's future.

Does it make sense to mistreat such an investment?

I'm not saying there was no mistreatment going on but I think any reasonable person holding property they hope to gain a profit by would tend to take care of it rather than mistreat it.

It just makes sense business wise.

Did unreasonable people own slaves and mistreat them? I'm sure.

So, did we ever figure out what the south's real reasons for withdrawing from the union was all about?

 

Emphasis mine!

Common sense dictates that the stories of the abuse of slaves be taken with a grain of salt, if for no other reason than the highlighted portions of the above quote.

To deny ANY abuse would be stupid, but equally stupid is to believe the wholesale abuse as depicted by the writers of the history - the victors of the "Lincoln Aggression".

One must lay aside prejudice to face the truth that it would be very financially idiotic to constantly abuse the tool of ones trade.
Makes as much sense as a wood-chopper who, after sharpening his axe for the days cutting. used this same axe to try to chop a piece off a rock to make it smaller to move away from the tree he's starting to cut.

To believe in the mass abuse of the slaves is to display an extreme prejudicial willful ignorance and/or disregard for truth/common sense; of which I suspect the former is the greatest!