Slavery By Another Name

Generally an unmoderated forum for discussion of pretty much any topic. The focus however, is usually politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
Ulysses
Vice admiral
Posts: 10764
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:57 pm
Location: Warriors For The Win

Re: Slavery By Another Name

Unread post by Ulysses »

GoCubsGo wrote:
Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:51 pm
I think the point is that you're full of shit.
QED

User avatar
GoCubsGo
Admiral
Posts: 17130
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:22 am

Re: Slavery By Another Name

Unread post by GoCubsGo »

Ulysses wrote:
Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:14 pm
GoCubsGo wrote:
Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:51 pm
I think the point is that you're full of shit.
QED
Hey, you finally got something right!

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Eamus Catuli~AC 000000 000101 010202 020303 010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.

User avatar
Ulysses
Vice admiral
Posts: 10764
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:57 pm
Location: Warriors For The Win

Re: Slavery By Another Name

Unread post by Ulysses »

In this case, QED means Sluggo is projecting... again...

User avatar
GoCubsGo
Admiral
Posts: 17130
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:22 am

Re: Slavery By Another Name

Unread post by GoCubsGo »

Ulysses wrote:
Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:44 pm
In this case, QED means Sluggo is projecting... again...
GoCubsGo wrote:
Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:17 pm
Ulysses wrote:
Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:14 pm
GoCubsGo wrote:
Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:51 pm
I think the point is that you're full of shit.
QED
Hey, you finally got something right!

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


Whoops, the blind squirrel got his acorn for the month. :lol:
Eamus Catuli~AC 000000 000101 010202 020303 010304 020405....Ahhhh, forget it, it's gonna be a while.

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 21330
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Slavery By Another Name

Unread post by O Really »

Ulysses wrote:
Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:12 pm
Nobody mentioned Connecticut until Ulysses' first reference, above.

Nobody else mentioned Connecticut at all except for billy.p questioning Ulysses' "1%" figure and noting that Connecticut had more slaves than any other New England state.

Nobody but Ulysses had any interest in discussing Connecticut or its slavers, if any.
[/quote]

And your point, if any, is what?

Suppress the truth about the history slavery in America?
[/quote]

The point is that several posts above, you said, clearly, "I did not bring up the issue of Connecticut and slave holding; someone else here did, in obvious retribution. Someone here has been trying to paint Connecticut, where I was born, as some sort of leader in slaveholding during its existence."

In fact you did bring it up first, for no apparent reason. Nobody is saying Connecticut or any New England state was a leader in the number of slaves nor the percentage of citizens owning slaves. The only point relating to Connecticut or any New England state is that they were at one time among the many areas in the world and in young America that legally sanctioned the ownership and trade of humans. New England did not have the agrarian economy with huge crop fields that would make slavery practical on a large scale.

I would not defend slavery nor slavers, and I think the hothead idiots in South Carolina were total irresponsible fools for starting secession, but don't forget there were significant economic reasons why they would fight to the death to preserve slavery. In their view, distorted though it may have been, without slavery their entire economy would collapse. Connecticut and New England didn't have that issue. They were too busy running major textile industries using the cotton grown and picked by southern slaves.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 50668
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonville, NC

Re: Slavery By Another Name

Unread post by Vrede too »

Vrede too wrote:
Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:23 pm
billy.pilgrim wrote:
Mon Jan 17, 2022 6:06 pm
Oh no, I get to see more useless from useless.

Imagine feeling so useless that you have to go back 150+ years to find a time when you think your ancestors did something a few years before someone else's ancestors.

What a moron.
:thumbup: He's yet to explain what historic Connecticut has to do with his current racism, unless his people were among:
Ulysses wrote:
Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:18 am
Percent of families that owned slaves in Connecticut: Probably well under 1%....
Hmmm.
Still.
Ulysses wrote:
Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:44 pm
( :crybaby: )
Cower, Useless, cower.
Always be yourself! Unless you can be a goat, then always be a goat.
-- the interweb, paraphrased
1312. ETTD.

User avatar
billy.pilgrim
Admiral
Posts: 15618
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:44 pm

Re: Slavery By Another Name

Unread post by billy.pilgrim »

O Really wrote:
Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:54 pm
Ulysses wrote:
Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:12 pm
Nobody mentioned Connecticut until Ulysses' first reference, above.

Nobody else mentioned Connecticut at all except for billy.p questioning Ulysses' "1%" figure and noting that Connecticut had more slaves than any other New England state.

Nobody but Ulysses had any interest in discussing Connecticut or its slavers, if any.
And your point, if any, is what?

Suppress the truth about the history slavery in America?
[/quote]

O Really starts here

The point is that several posts above, you said, clearly, "I did not bring up the issue of Connecticut and slave holding; someone else here did, in obvious retribution. Someone here has been trying to paint Connecticut, where I was born, as some sort of leader in slaveholding during its existence."

In fact you did bring it up first, for no apparent reason. Nobody is saying Connecticut or any New England state was a leader in the number of slaves nor the percentage of citizens owning slaves. The only point relating to Connecticut or any New England state is that they were at one time among the many areas in the world and in young America that legally sanctioned the ownership and trade of humans. New England did not have the agrarian economy with huge crop fields that would make slavery practical on a large scale.

I would not defend slavery nor slavers, and I think the hothead idiots in South Carolina were total irresponsible fools for starting secession, but don't forget there were significant economic reasons why they would fight to the death to preserve slavery. In their view, distorted though it may have been, without slavery their entire economy would collapse. Connecticut and New England didn't have that issue. They were too busy running major textile industries using the cotton grown and picked by southern slaves.
[/quote]

O Really ends here

Billy starts here

And too busy passing export taxes so that pretty much all cotton went to the north - and brown lung.

I haven't looked it up, but didn't most slaves find their way here on a New England slave ship.

Slaves have been owned the world over. Most of it ended in the early to late 1800s. Were there any other instances where the owners weren't reimbursed?
That was never considered - north or south - when discussing slavery in the US to my knowledge.
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”

User avatar
Ulysses
Vice admiral
Posts: 10764
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:57 pm
Location: Warriors For The Win

Re: Slavery By Another Name

Unread post by Ulysses »

O Really wrote:
Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:54 pm
Nobody mentioned Connecticut until Ulysses' first reference, above.

Nobody else mentioned Connecticut at all except for billy.p questioning Ulysses' "1%" figure and noting that Connecticut had more slaves than any other New England state.

Nobody but Ulysses had any interest in discussing Connecticut or its slavers, if any.
Now that I recall, it was Billy who brought Connecticut up in this thread, not I. He put a reference to what he termed "Connecticutians" owning more slaves than any other state in New England, or something to that effect, in his signature. He has since changed that signature but I clearly remember it, especially the weird term "Connecticutians", which I have NEVER heard before. Must be something his addled brain thought up. He might even be more brain addled than Neo, except in Neo's case it's an act. Not so sure about Billy.

And thus it made 100% sense for me to point out that only 1% of Connecticut families ever owned slaves, whereas the southern states from which many here hail had an average of 30% of families owning slaves. That is about 30 times the highest Connecticut figure.

I have enough respect for O Really to expect that he will admit his error in this.

Billy and company, not so much.

Ta for now.

User avatar
neoplacebo
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 11886
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:42 pm
Location: Kingsport TN

Re: Slavery By Another Name

Unread post by neoplacebo »

Ulysses wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 1:23 am
I do not believe that over 30% of the population of the confederate states were slave owners. The initial link you posted plainly states that in the confederate states there were 316,632 slave owners out of a free citizen population of 5,582,222 which comes to 5.67% and this sounds more reasonable to me. The link goes on to say that many other southern free citizens benefited from slavery or had a vested interest in it. Well, sure, but in many cases, that "vested interest" was merely how the elite and aristocratic class used chattel slavery to artificially elevate the status of poor whites. That, I guess, was a "benefit" for the poor whites but it certainly doesn't make them slave owners. A vested interest is not a statistic.
30% of 5,582,222 is 1,674,666
So, either there were 316,632 slave owners as the link states, which comes to 5.67% of the total free population or if you accept the 30% figure that would have to mean that there were actually 1,674,666 slave owners in the confederate states. It can't be both.

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 21330
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Slavery By Another Name

Unread post by O Really »

Ulysses wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 1:23 am

Now that I recall, it was Billy who brought Connecticut up in this thread, not I. He put a reference to what he termed "Connecticutians" owning more slaves than any other state in New England, or something to that effect, in his signature.
I have my board preferences not to show signatures or avatars.

User avatar
Ulysses
Vice admiral
Posts: 10764
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:57 pm
Location: Warriors For The Win

Re: Slavery By Another Name

Unread post by Ulysses »

O Really wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:41 am
Ulysses wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 1:23 am

Now that I recall, it was Billy who brought Connecticut up in this thread, not I. He put a reference to what he termed "Connecticutians" owning more slaves than any other state in New England, or something to that effect, in his signature.
I have my board preferences not to show signatures or avatars.
I see.

Well that would explain why you thought I was the one to introduce the word Connecticut into the thread. Please rest assured it was Billyp who introduced it, not me.

Next?

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 21330
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Slavery By Another Name

Unread post by O Really »

neoplacebo wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:35 am
Ulysses wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 1:23 am
I do not believe that over 30% of the population of the confederate states were slave owners. The initial link you posted plainly states that in the confederate states there were 316,632 slave owners out of a free citizen population of 5,582,222 which comes to 5.67% and this sounds more reasonable to me. The link goes on to say that many other southern free citizens benefited from slavery or had a vested interest in it. Well, sure, but in many cases, that "vested interest" was merely how the elite and aristocratic class used chattel slavery to artificially elevate the status of poor whites. That, I guess, was a "benefit" for the poor whites but it certainly doesn't make them slave owners. A vested interest is not a statistic.
30% of 5,582,222 is 1,674,666
So, either there were 316,632 slave owners as the link states, which comes to 5.67% of the total free population or if you accept the 30% figure that would have to mean that there were actually 1,674,666 slave owners in the confederate states. It can't be both.
I don't know a lot about slave ownership, but it seems to me that not everybody had the need for or the financial ability to own slaves. A working family didn't buy a slave as a housekeeper. Slaves served a working purpose, not unlike horses. If you weren't running a big farm or were otherwise wealthy, you'd not likely have any slaves. All the statistics about how many slaveowners there were seem to have different contexts and definitions. But you can't have "30%" of people owning slaves if slaves were about 30% of the population. Some of the differences were whether to count the legal "registered owner" of the slaves, or to consider that a household owned them. That would make a significant difference in percentage count. Others, as neoplacebo references, considered "owners" to be anyone who directly benefited from slaves. That would make another big difference. My own question, however, is WTF cares about counting technicalities. Slavery was a fundamental economic and cultural component in the states with the most big farms and they weren't going to give it up without a fight. In states with less dependency and investment, it was easier to take a higher "moral" position.

User avatar
neoplacebo
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 11886
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:42 pm
Location: Kingsport TN

Re: Slavery By Another Name

Unread post by neoplacebo »

O Really wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:06 pm
neoplacebo wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:35 am
Ulysses wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 1:23 am
I do not believe that over 30% of the population of the confederate states were slave owners. The initial link you posted plainly states that in the confederate states there were 316,632 slave owners out of a free citizen population of 5,582,222 which comes to 5.67% and this sounds more reasonable to me. The link goes on to say that many other southern free citizens benefited from slavery or had a vested interest in it. Well, sure, but in many cases, that "vested interest" was merely how the elite and aristocratic class used chattel slavery to artificially elevate the status of poor whites. That, I guess, was a "benefit" for the poor whites but it certainly doesn't make them slave owners. A vested interest is not a statistic.
30% of 5,582,222 is 1,674,666
So, either there were 316,632 slave owners as the link states, which comes to 5.67% of the total free population or if you accept the 30% figure that would have to mean that there were actually 1,674,666 slave owners in the confederate states. It can't be both.
I don't know a lot about slave ownership, but it seems to me that not everybody had the need for or the financial ability to own slaves. A working family didn't buy a slave as a housekeeper. Slaves served a working purpose, not unlike horses. If you weren't running a big farm or were otherwise wealthy, you'd not likely have any slaves. All the statistics about how many slaveowners there were seem to have different contexts and definitions. But you can't have "30%" of people owning slaves if slaves were about 30% of the population. Some of the differences were whether to count the legal "registered owner" of the slaves, or to consider that a household owned them. That would make a significant difference in percentage count. Others, as neoplacebo references, considered "owners" to be anyone who directly benefited from slaves. That would make another big difference. My own question, however, is WTF cares about counting technicalities. Slavery was a fundamental economic and cultural component in the states with the most big farms and they weren't going to give it up without a fight. In states with less dependency and investment, it was easier to take a higher "moral" position.
The per capita income of the antebellum south was nearly double what it was in the north. Less population and vast land holdings by a few hundred or thousand families made it so. But I just find it beyond reason or logic to assume "over 30%" of white southern citizens owned a slave. The 5.67% seems much more likely to me. By the logic of the "vested interest" and "benefited from" slavery angles, one could say that virtually ALL whites owned slaves on the assumption they would have liked to or benefited from doing so.

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 21330
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Slavery By Another Name

Unread post by O Really »

I don't know what the accurate number is, if there is one. but obviously when including those who "benefited", you're going to get a large percentage. I still don't care, personally.

User avatar
billy.pilgrim
Admiral
Posts: 15618
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:44 pm

Re: Slavery By Another Name

Unread post by billy.pilgrim »

neoplacebo wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:25 pm
O Really wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:06 pm
neoplacebo wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:35 am
Ulysses wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 1:23 am
I do not believe that over 30% of the population of the confederate states were slave owners. The initial link you posted plainly states that in the confederate states there were 316,632 slave owners out of a free citizen population of 5,582,222 which comes to 5.67% and this sounds more reasonable to me. The link goes on to say that many other southern free citizens benefited from slavery or had a vested interest in it. Well, sure, but in many cases, that "vested interest" was merely how the elite and aristocratic class used chattel slavery to artificially elevate the status of poor whites. That, I guess, was a "benefit" for the poor whites but it certainly doesn't make them slave owners. A vested interest is not a statistic.
30% of 5,582,222 is 1,674,666
So, either there were 316,632 slave owners as the link states, which comes to 5.67% of the total free population or if you accept the 30% figure that would have to mean that there were actually 1,674,666 slave owners in the confederate states. It can't be both.
I don't know a lot about slave ownership, but it seems to me that not everybody had the need for or the financial ability to own slaves. A working family didn't buy a slave as a housekeeper. Slaves served a working purpose, not unlike horses. If you weren't running a big farm or were otherwise wealthy, you'd not likely have any slaves. All the statistics about how many slaveowners there were seem to have different contexts and definitions. But you can't have "30%" of people owning slaves if slaves were about 30% of the population. Some of the differences were whether to count the legal "registered owner" of the slaves, or to consider that a household owned them. That would make a significant difference in percentage count. Others, as neoplacebo references, considered "owners" to be anyone who directly benefited from slaves. That would make another big difference. My own question, however, is WTF cares about counting technicalities. Slavery was a fundamental economic and cultural component in the states with the most big farms and they weren't going to give it up without a fight. In states with less dependency and investment, it was easier to take a higher "moral" position.
The per capita income of the antebellum south was nearly double what it was in the north. Less population and vast land holdings by a few hundred or thousand families made it so. But I just find it beyond reason or logic to assume "over 30%" of white southern citizens owned a slave. The 5.67% seems much more likely to me. By the logic of the "vested interest" and "benefited from" slavery angles, one could say that virtually ALL whites owned slaves on the assumption they would have liked to or benefited from doing so.
What difference does it make anyway? I would guess that some of my farming ancestors did, but I have no way of knowing. My grandmother said no, but she wasn't born until 1898.

I have a great and detailed family history book starting in the early 1700s. No mention of slavery. I also have a Civil War diary kept by a direct relative. Again, nothing on slavery.
But why should I care? That was 170 years ago.

But some internet asshole from the old folks home calling me a racist today without knowing anything about me is too far.

I wonder how easy it was to stand against racism when you don't know any black kids.
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”

User avatar
billy.pilgrim
Admiral
Posts: 15618
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:44 pm

Re: Slavery By Another Name

Unread post by billy.pilgrim »

O Really wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:35 pm
I don't know what the accurate number is, if there is one. but obviously when including those who "benefited", you're going to get a large percentage. I still don't care, personally.
But then you would have to include new england for the export taxes that guaranteed them the products of slave labor.

I think useless may be the only liberal who cares
Trump: “We had the safest border in the history of our country - or at least recorded history. I guess maybe a thousand years ago it was even better.”

User avatar
neoplacebo
Admiral of the Fleet
Posts: 11886
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:42 pm
Location: Kingsport TN

Re: Slavery By Another Name

Unread post by neoplacebo »

billy.pilgrim wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:41 pm
neoplacebo wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:25 pm
O Really wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:06 pm
neoplacebo wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:35 am
Ulysses wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 1:23 am
I do not believe that over 30% of the population of the confederate states were slave owners. The initial link you posted plainly states that in the confederate states there were 316,632 slave owners out of a free citizen population of 5,582,222 which comes to 5.67% and this sounds more reasonable to me. The link goes on to say that many other southern free citizens benefited from slavery or had a vested interest in it. Well, sure, but in many cases, that "vested interest" was merely how the elite and aristocratic class used chattel slavery to artificially elevate the status of poor whites. That, I guess, was a "benefit" for the poor whites but it certainly doesn't make them slave owners. A vested interest is not a statistic.
30% of 5,582,222 is 1,674,666
So, either there were 316,632 slave owners as the link states, which comes to 5.67% of the total free population or if you accept the 30% figure that would have to mean that there were actually 1,674,666 slave owners in the confederate states. It can't be both.
I don't know a lot about slave ownership, but it seems to me that not everybody had the need for or the financial ability to own slaves. A working family didn't buy a slave as a housekeeper. Slaves served a working purpose, not unlike horses. If you weren't running a big farm or were otherwise wealthy, you'd not likely have any slaves. All the statistics about how many slaveowners there were seem to have different contexts and definitions. But you can't have "30%" of people owning slaves if slaves were about 30% of the population. Some of the differences were whether to count the legal "registered owner" of the slaves, or to consider that a household owned them. That would make a significant difference in percentage count. Others, as neoplacebo references, considered "owners" to be anyone who directly benefited from slaves. That would make another big difference. My own question, however, is WTF cares about counting technicalities. Slavery was a fundamental economic and cultural component in the states with the most big farms and they weren't going to give it up without a fight. In states with less dependency and investment, it was easier to take a higher "moral" position.
The per capita income of the antebellum south was nearly double what it was in the north. Less population and vast land holdings by a few hundred or thousand families made it so. But I just find it beyond reason or logic to assume "over 30%" of white southern citizens owned a slave. The 5.67% seems much more likely to me. By the logic of the "vested interest" and "benefited from" slavery angles, one could say that virtually ALL whites owned slaves on the assumption they would have liked to or benefited from doing so.
What difference does it make anyway? I would guess that some of my farming ancestors did, but I have no way of knowing. My grandmother said no, but she wasn't born until 1898.

I have a great and detailed family history book starting in the early 1700s. No mention of slavery. I also have a Civil War diary kept by a direct relative. Again, nothing on slavery.
But why should I care? That was 170 years ago.

But some internet asshole from the old folks home calling me a racist today without knowing anything about me is too far.

I wonder how easy it was to stand against racism when you don't know any black kids.
I'm not in the "did your ancestors own slaves?" show. I'm questioning the assertion that "more than 1 in 3" white southerners owned a slave. I don't believe that.

User avatar
Vrede too
Superstar Cultmaster
Posts: 50668
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 11:46 am
Location: Hendersonville, NC

Re: Slavery By Another Name

Unread post by Vrede too »

Ulysses wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:35 am
O Really wrote:
Tue Jan 18, 2022 10:41 am
I have my board preferences not to show signatures or avatars.
I see.

Well that would explain why you thought I was the one to introduce the word Connecticut into the thread. Please rest assured it was Billyp who introduced it, not me.

Next?
"into the thread" - typical weasel words, pussy. The only reason billy.pilgrim put Connecticut into his signature was to mock your chauvinistic and wholly irrelevant pretensions about it, wherever you first posted them. Busted again, racist.
Always be yourself! Unless you can be a goat, then always be a goat.
-- the interweb, paraphrased
1312. ETTD.

User avatar
Ulysses
Vice admiral
Posts: 10764
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:57 pm
Location: Warriors For The Win

Re: Slavery By Another Name

Unread post by Ulysses »

So Billy finally admits that "some" of his ancestors might have been slave owners.

We're making progress, even though he continues to attack those seeking truth.

User avatar
O Really
Admiral
Posts: 21330
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:37 pm

Re: Slavery By Another Name

Unread post by O Really »

I'm starting to lose my patience with ostentatious, obstreperous, obfuscating obnoxious self aggrandizement.

Post Reply