The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewFred Reed Archive
Fun with Slavery
Dark Spots in a Shining Sea of Twaddle
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Much is written about slavery and its aftermaths. A large part of this is frenetically modified history issuing from people both excited and poorly read, a comic-book version apparently intended to support agendas of the impenetrably adolescent Left. A few points:

First, slavery was always bad, frequently hideous, much worse in the Deep South than in Tidewater or New York, and consequent to the same desire for cheap labor that now results in importing Mexicans and exporting jobs to China. Any notion that abuses were rare or exaggerated is twaddle. A vast amount of contemporary writing documents this. The best-known account of slavery in the South is is Journal of a Residence on a Georgia Plantation by Fanny Kemble, a British actress who married a planter in, as the title suggests, Georgia. Also contemporary, and little known, Slavery as it is in America: Testimony of a Thousand Witnesses. An account of the horrific Northern variety is

ORDER IT NOW

Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery

Second, the slave trade being phenomenally profitable, much like the drug trade today, many were involved who today choose to forget this: Yankees, Arabs, Jews, Quakers, and Southerners. It was strongly defended by many Christians in the South, and attacked by Christians in the North, who had no financial stake in it. Yankees owned slaves and, in the draft riots in New York in 1863, lynched and burned them alive. In this world angels are few on the ground. The North now simply lies about it.

Not well known, by design: Wikipedia: “In 1741 Manhattan had the second-largest slave population of any city in the Thirteen Colonies after Charleston, South Carolina.” In the revolt of that year, blacks were hanged and burned alive. In New York. Many similar things happened, now artfully forgotten.

Third, among the historically illiterate a notion exists that the South consisted of rich aristocrats living in mansions. A few, yes. Most, not even close. Poverty among whites in the South and the associated Appalachia was often extreme.

Fourth, freeing the slaves was an easy solution if you didn’t have the problem. If you were a planter with a wife and three little girls, would you give up your house and subject your family to poverty, rape, robbery, and revenge from blacks? I am not asking whether you think they should have done it, but whether in the circumstances you would do it. Another way of putting it: For what moral cause would you, today, give up your job, house, and investments, and step on the sidewalk with your family?

You might have done what many slaveowners did, what George Washington did: free your slaves in your will. (This reminds me of Saint Augustine’s cry, “Oh Lord, grant me chastity, but not just yet.”) You could thus express your opposition to slavery while enjoying its benefits.

Fifth, many today would say that Southerners deserved their problems, having brought them on themselves by enslaving blacks. But of course they did not. By 1861 most were born into a slaveholding society. Most were not enthusiastic about it, but had little idea what to do.

Anyone interested in just how divided whites were about slavery might the debates in 1831-2 in the Virginia House of Delegates. There was heated argument favoring no emancipation, gradual emancipation, immediate and total emancipation, and Lincoln’s solution of sending blacks back to Africa.

They ended by doing nothing. Part of the sentiment favoring keeping slavery came from Tidewater, where large landholders depended on slavery, and partly from the sense of having the tiger by the tail: “Dear God, what now?”

Sixth–and important–was the Haitian slave revolt of 1791-1804, of which few Americans have heard. Black Haitians butchered and tortured the whites in an unspeakable bloodbath. Southerners, well aware of this, decided that freeing the slaves would be mass suicide. As it happened when the slaves were emancipated after the Civil War, no bloodbath came. Events in Haiti provided ample reason for not taking the chance.

The sentiment was reinforced in 1831 by Nat Turner’s revolt in which slaves in Virginia revolted and butchered some sixty whites, families included. I cannot see why this was regarded as a crime. Certainly slaves have a moral right to kill their owners. If someone tried to enslave you and your family, would you kill him? I would. The slaughter did not reassure surrounding Virginians. Again, slavery was an easy problem to solve if you didn’t have it.

Seventh, Southerners believed that they knew the Negroes and that they could not function as equals of whites and thus would destroy society. Except for ardent abolitionists–perhaps for ardent abolitionists–so did Northerners, but by then these latter didn’t have many Negroes and never expected to. Today, a century and a half after the Civil War, the Southerners seem to have been right.

Eighth, controversy, usually witless, persists over whether the South fought to preserve slavery. The usual approach is to quote Southern planters, politicians, and newspapers as to the sacred quality of the peculiar institution and how God liked it. QED.

But of course these were the slave-owners, the rich, and their hangers on. They favored slavery for the same reason American businesses favor remote wars in Afghanistan: they make money at it. People do not fight bloody wars over years for the benefit of people that, after the war, they will have no desire to associate with. If you had asked a thousand Confederate infantrymen why they were fighting, do you think they would have said, “I’m fighting and dying and seeing my friends screaming gutshot so that rich bastards can own slaves while I live in a shack?”

ORDER IT NOW

You, the reader, probably do not favor mistreatment of women and girls. Would you favor fighting a war in Afghanistan in which America would lose over six and a half million dead–proportionately to population, what the country lost in the Civil War–to impose civil rights for women in Afghanistan?

Ninth, hypocrisy. You, the reader, probably live (as I long did) in a society in which millions of blacks live pointless lives, shooting each other in decaying cities with horrible schools. If you are a Yankee of the usual intolerable virtue, as so many are, note that blacks suffer these awful conditions chiefly in Southern cities such as Trenton, Newark, Camden, Philadelphia, New York, Detroit, Chicago, Flint, Gary, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Baltimore, and Washington DC. What have you done about it–other than, perhaps, talk? And you are in no danger of the consequences of whatever you might propose. Southerners were.

Tenth, it is worth noting that the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, now also sold as a moral measure by the sainted Lincoln, in fact freed not a single slave. It applied only in the Southern states, where it was intended to ignite a revolt. Slaves in the North remained in slavery. Lincoln himself said, in letter after letter after document after speech and before Congress, over and over and over, that he would not oppose slavery in the South if only it would come back to the Union, and–yes, boys and girls–he wanted to send blacks back to Africa.

Contemporary drawing of the 1863 draft riots in New York. Hangings and burnings alive occurred in this racially righteous city.

Contemporary drawing of the 1863 draft riots in New York. Hangings and burnings alive occurred in this racially righteous city.

But the textbooks come from New York.

IN fact, the North wanted no blacks of any kind, having discovered that sweating European immigrants was more profitable. If you own slaves, you have to feed them and care for them no matter the business climate. This was suited to an agricultural economy. But the North was industrial. It made more sense to pay helpless immigrants almost nothing while they lived in tubercular filth with their children working twelve hours a day and dying of preventable diseases. After all, the next ship in would bring more. In short, it was the moral equivalent of slavery but more cost-effective and without the stigma.

More from New York. Kum Ba Ya.

More from New York. Kum Ba Ya.

Eleventh, edited out of history for an American public with a bumper-sticker mind is that slavery was a product of the North. Slave ships in hundreds left from New York, Rhode Island, and Connecticut for Africa. When the slave trade was outlawed in 1808, Northern slavers sold contraband slaves to the South or to the godawful sugar-raising West Indies or to South America. The North grew rich from the cotton of the South, financed its plantations, and provided the slaves. Further huge profits came from trading in the products of the sugar plantations, which it turned into rum.

The North had tens of thousands of slaves itself. It not infrequently burned blacks alive, connived at the kidnapping of free blacks to sell to the South, returned runaway slaves. When abolition-minded whites set up schools for blacks, Northern mobs attacked them and Northern courts refused to do anything about it. Again, Complicity is a good account.

We drift in a sea of historical fraud.

(Republished from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 210 CommentsLeave a Comment
210 Comments to "Fun with Slavery"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. the 18-volume Roosevelt era oral history of slavery doesn’t register a single complaint, I believe

    Read More
    • Agree: Negrolphin Pool
    • Replies: @Negrolphin Pool
    I've only read a small sample of the slave memoirs. But the accounts I've seen don't describe anything like an institution "always bad and frequently hideous", although I thank Mr. Reed for the links in the second paragraph and intend to read them.
    , @Selvar
    Even if some ex-slaves gave positive accounts of slavery, so what? Many older Russians still admire Stalin despite what he did to them. Same with Mao and the Chinese. That is hardly evidence that life in Stalinist Russia or Maoist China was great. Also, keep in mind that the blacks who lived through slavery into the New Deal era would have also lived through the Civil War--which lead to the complete collapse of the southern economy/society--as well as Jim Crow. Since the South did not fully recover from the economic effects of the Civil War until the 1950s, and since the ex-slaves who gave the testimony would have been living through the Great Depression on top of all this, maybe they really did remember a more prosperous and peaceful time. At the very least, they remembered their youth which always seems to quickly gone in retrospect. Again, I don't think it proves anything given the context.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /freed/fun-with-slavery/#comment-1933264
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. ANON says: • Disclaimer

    Fugedahabout it. 750,000 White men and at least 50,000 black and White southerners and border state residents killed to unleash the plague.

    PS the confederate battle flag is the most beautiful flag in the world. Its beauty has nothing to di with the cause or the confederacy. The beauty of it consists of the colors and design.

    For confederate heritage people, there is a youtube video of the authentic Rebel Yell recorded in the 1920′s by a confederate veteran. “he was just 18, young and brave, till a yankee bullet put him in his grave” “Hurrah, hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag” The music of the Bonnie Blue sounds an awful like and Irish jig to me, strange for such a bastion of anglo saxon pride as the south. Too much Ivanhoe and Robin Hood.

    PS to all the wikepedia researchers, its 750,000 White soldiers killed,

    Read More
    • Replies: @Father Coughlin
    South is more Celtic than Anglo-Saxon I believe.

    And "Old Zip Coon" sounds very Irish to my ears:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMK45nYx4oc
    , @Seamus Padraig

    The music of the Bonnie Blue sounds an awful like and Irish jig to me, strange for such a bastion of anglo saxon pride as the south.
     
    There were large numbers of Scots-Irish that had emigrated to the American South, so in the rural areas, there was a huge Celtic influence on the culture: bootleg whisky, cattle rustlin', fiddle music, and clan fueds.

    BTW, the Confederate Battle Standard incorporates within itself the cross of St. Andrew, and was inspired by the Scottish flag.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. tsotha says:

    I cannot see why this was regarded as a crime. Certainly slaves have a moral right to kill their owners. If someone tried to enslave you and your family, would you kill him? I would.

    I might. But I wouldn’t kill his family. That’s the difference between a person striking out at his oppressors and an animal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jimbojones
    Agreed. And it's not clear that even killing solely the master is morally acceptable.

    Great article other than that, thought.

    , @Eustace Tilley (not)
    You're right. That is the difference between a person striking out to kill his oppressors and an animal.

    The animal would run off as soon as it could and not waste energy or time even killing the owner, much less his family.
    , @WmG
    Regardless of the fact that the institution of slavery was immoral, it was a legal institution and no society can tolerate the killing of its citizens simply because someone believes he has been unjustly treated, even if he is correct. The rule of law must have some meaning. At what point in the thought process does a reasonable person conclude that one who has been unjustly treated may kill with impunity and that society will simply shrug its collective shoulders and say "they deserved it"? May a man who has been "railroaded", wrongly convicted and imprisoned kill his prison guards in an escape attempt, with no consequence? May an opponent of abortion kill abortion doctors and expect that he will not be apprehended and prosecuted? I believe Mr. Reed was simply expressing the obvious point that anyone who was enslaved would, quite rightly, feel that a grave injustice had been inflicted on him. That is a moral issue. However, even a rebellious slave would have understood that the law, also quite rightly, would have considered his actions to be criminal and that, if caught, he would pay the price for his actions. How would a society survive otherwise? We can all admire, and even cheer for, a Spartacus; but we can also respect the Romans for enforcing their law. Justice may sometimes be cruel, but it must be served.
    , @Neil Templeton
    Genocide is restricted to non-human animals? I never heard tell. Why would the slave, shamed as a subordinate and draft animal, be expected to act with noble generosity toward the family that enjoyed his forced labor? Should he expect to benefit from his nobility? If you enslave a man, you should not expect noble behavior in kind. A slave is not an animal, he is a man. He may be a man who wishes to destroy you and everything associated with you. Or he may act nobly under the circumstance, and be rewarded by God for behaving so. Genocide may be crazy, but it is very, very human.
    , @LauraMR
    Slaves were property and, consequently, part of a estate and legally owned by the family. Yes, shock to many of you, women owned human beings too.

    Of course, the myopia of article can be forgiven since, in any case, Brazil and the USA were the two largest slaver nations ever on the planet. Indeed, the USA was the penultimate country on Earth to give up the practice and Brazil the very last. Having said this, slavery itself goes back to the onset of humanity and was long practiced by the natives in the "New World" before the Europeans arrived.

    And all throughout, women owned slaves. Family assets they were, just as furniture or livestock.
    , @animalogic
    "That’s the difference between a person striking out at his oppressors and an animal."
    Re: the slave I think I agree. Regardless of legalities I think a slave is morally AND pragmaticly obliged to minimise violence consistent with successful escape. (Although....for any slave violence against any white would have been an invitation to horrendous retribution, so....?)
    However, as a general rule, destroying an enemy requires careful calculation as to the potential danger of future revenge by your enemy's friends/family. Pre-modern history is, in particular, full of such "calculations".
    , @Delinquent Snail
    Being a slave for a decade, watching your friends and family be raped and murdered, you would want to kill every single person that lived in that house. They would all be guilty, in your eyes, having witnessed atrocities commited weekly against you and yours and never once protesting. You would hate them and blame them. Its not even a stretch of the imagination.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. dearieme says:

    “what George Washington did: free your slaves in your will”: not exactly. He left his slaves to his widow, with them to be freed only after her death. But she grasped the nettle and freed them while she was still alive.

    Either way, of course, Washington was infinitely nobler than Jefferson on this matter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobRich
    "Either way, of course, Washington was infinitely nobler than Jefferson on this matter."

    None of that snippy far-left propaganda. Jefferson's 150 slaves were generally mortgaged and not his to free. Plus he had no where to free them too. After consulting with them a system was devised where they lived independently on his land so they were no worse and much better off than in Africa but were paid fair wages or goods for anything they did for him. It's in his writings.

    Do some research.


    BTW, unless you're a libertarian complaining about prisons and punishing people via slavery as in the Constitution, you're a slave-owner. The hypocrisy of the far-left is they never mention that.
    , @The Grate Deign
    Freeing slaves piecemeal wasn't a simple thing. Slaves were property, and sometimes ownership became too complex to settle with a simple statement in a will. Some of Washington's slaves were not 100 percent his own. Some belonged to his wife's estate. Some were the children of slaves in which the mother was owned in a complicated condition of ownership and the father was also in a complicated legal mess, and so the children were a legal mystery. Washington freed the ones he was allowed to free in his will, but the rest were beyond his authority, and in some cases, nobody could figure out whose they really were.

    The Grate Deign
    , @anonymous
    Not to mention the other two Virginia Cavaliers: Madison and Monroe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. MJJB says:

    “First, slavery was always bad, frequently hideous,”

    Relative to what?

    The death toll from the Muslim slave trade from Africa is estimated at 112 million.

    There are presently about 40 million African descendants in North American and about zero in the Middle East. Middle East slaves were castrated.

    The US Congress outlawed the slave trade in 1808 and the slave population tripled over the next 50 years through natural increase.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    blacks did own slaves in the US south
    fact:
    Africans also had slavery, it was black Africans who sold black African slaves to the slave traders
    fact:
    slavery of black Africans would have never happened without black Africans selling black African slaves

    Black researcher, Dr. Tony Martin, let's us know who the prime sellers & owners of slaves really were, Jews.
    Dr. Tony Martin - The Jewish Role in the African Slave Trade
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut7I75Q_-zA

    JEWS AND THE SLAVE TRADE
    http://wethoughttheywerewhite.weebly.com/jews--the-slave-trade.html

    http://wethoughttheywerewhite.weebly.com/uploads/5/3/4/9/53499197/6585841.jpg?296
    http://wethoughttheywerewhite.weebly.com/uploads/5/3/4/9/53499197/8785931.jpg?277
    http://wethoughttheywerewhite.weebly.com/uploads/5/3/4/9/53499197/3328022_orig.jpg
    http://wethoughttheywerewhite.weebly.com/uploads/5/3/4/9/53499197/892816_orig.jpg
    http://wethoughttheywerewhite.weebly.com/uploads/5/3/4/9/53499197/1507471.jpg?717

    , @feral_nerd
    More like a tenfold increase. Slave population was about 500,000 in 1809, the year further importation of slaves was banned, but about 4.5 million at the conclusion of the Civil War. All from natural reproduction.

    For this kind of rapid increase to be possible, you would have to assume that at least slaves' basic needs were well met.

    This contrasts with the heavy losses in the Caribbean and in South America, where the slave population had to be maintained with fresh captives.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Good article Fred. I would only like to add that the western, mountainous areas of North Carolina, northern, mountainous Georgia and eastern Tennessee were pro Union right up to the moment Lincoln sent Federal troops into the South to occupy arsenals and Federal coastal installations.

    They had this firebrand politician whose name I forget who spoke out eloquently in the Southern Congress on the machinations of the rich plantation owners whose political interests ran directly counter to that of the majority of poor, southern-white tradesman and small farmers.

    So, ignorant northerners who condemn all southerners by painting them with the same “slaveowners” brush are, well, mule-headed and ignorant, I suppose.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    So, ignorant northerners who condemn all southerners by painting them with the same “slaveowners” brush are, well, mule-headed and ignorant, I suppose.
     
    Outside of comedy (there's a hilarious bit in "Dr. Detroit"), who are these people? I've lived in the North all my life and never heard anyone claim all southerners were slaveowners.

    Of course the mountains (WV being the most obvious example) were often pro-Union, and this too is about as common knowledge up here as other details of the Civil War.
    , @Captain Willard
    Yes. This was detailed quite well in "The Fall of the House of Dixie", a very good book (albeit suffering from some of the hypocrisy Fred complains of in his essay) on slavery before and during the Civil War.
    , @Logan
    "the western, mountainous areas of North Carolina, northern, mountainous Georgia and eastern Tennessee were pro Union right up to the moment Lincoln sent Federal troops into the South to occupy arsenals and Federal coastal installations."

    Untrue. These areas were majority Unionist throughout the war, and would have perhaps seceded as WV did were it not for the problem posed by location. Interestingly, those who complain loudly about violation of civil rights by the Union in suppressing Maryland oppositionists carefully avoid discussing similar suppression by the CSA in eastern Tennessee and other mountain areas, which was much harsher.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. @tsotha

    I cannot see why this was regarded as a crime. Certainly slaves have a moral right to kill their owners. If someone tried to enslave you and your family, would you kill him? I would.
     
    I might. But I wouldn't kill his family. That's the difference between a person striking out at his oppressors and an animal.

    Agreed. And it’s not clear that even killing solely the master is morally acceptable.

    Great article other than that, thought.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. @Father Coughlin
    the 18-volume Roosevelt era oral history of slavery doesn't register a single complaint, I believe

    I’ve only read a small sample of the slave memoirs. But the accounts I’ve seen don’t describe anything like an institution “always bad and frequently hideous”, although I thank Mr. Reed for the links in the second paragraph and intend to read them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Indeed, Fred believes everything he reads.

    No doubt true accounts of witchcraft and sorcery will be his next column.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @ANON
    Fugedahabout it. 750,000 White men and at least 50,000 black and White southerners and border state residents killed to unleash the plague.

    PS the confederate battle flag is the most beautiful flag in the world. Its beauty has nothing to di with the cause or the confederacy. The beauty of it consists of the colors and design.

    For confederate heritage people, there is a youtube video of the authentic Rebel Yell recorded in the 1920's by a confederate veteran. "he was just 18, young and brave, till a yankee bullet put him in his grave" "Hurrah, hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag" The music of the Bonnie Blue sounds an awful like and Irish jig to me, strange for such a bastion of anglo saxon pride as the south. Too much Ivanhoe and Robin Hood.

    PS to all the wikepedia researchers, its 750,000 White soldiers killed,

    South is more Celtic than Anglo-Saxon I believe.

    And “Old Zip Coon” sounds very Irish to my ears:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    The late, great Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia (once upon a time and repentant member of the KKK) was such a fantastic populist that he was also a fiddler. I saw him on a C and W show years ago fiddlin' up a storm on "Turkey in the Straw". "Turkey in the Straw" is the same tune as "Zip Coon" but the lyrics to "Turkey" were made up to fit the tune and were even copy-righted.

    Wouldn't it be wonderful if we still had any populists like Byrd (also a great constitutionalist) in the Democratic Party today? Or in the GOP, for that matter? Well, okay, Slick Willie gave it the college try on the sax ... but it's obvious that he never read the Constitution or if he did read it, he disregarded it, like most of our politicians. By the way, I have heard that Slick Willie never read the text of NAFTA - or of any of the trade treaties he promoted.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Lincoln’s solution of sending blacks back to Africa.

    Abe was a wise man.

    Lincoln himself said, in letter after letter after document after speech and before Congress, over and over and over, that he would not oppose slavery in the South if only it would come back to the Union, and–yes, boys and girls–he wanted to send blacks back to Africa.

    Abe was a very wise man.

    IN fact, the North wanted no blacks of any kind, having discovered that sweating European immigrants was more profitable.

    And kill Indians. Emma Lazarus called on more Europeans to arrive, take up guns, kill Indians, and grab the land.

    Turn the Indians into wretched huddled savages.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    Why Prissy, I do believe you got a soft spot for the injuns and hard on for the black man because of the big schlong!
    , @Che Guava
    Emma Lazarus, what a false person.

    Not being a USA person, I would not say too much, just a few historical and pop culture references, also one personal anecdote.

    I had an older US friend, clearly a Southern gent, he was half American Indian, he explained to me that they overwhelmingly supported the Confederacy, none for the Federals. History shows they were correct in that.

    He lent me a very good Civil War history book, but I don't remember the title.

    Since, it always seems terrible to me that none of the people so concerned about Africans and later 'huddled masses' never gave a damn about the plight of American Indians.

    Let us not forget that, after the Rumble in the Jungle, the Louisville Lip said (not direct quote, but accurate paraphrase)
    'Man, I'm sure glad my grandpappy got on that boat.'

    I bought a copy of Cold Mountain last week or the week before, about a third of the way through, so far, it is very good. Sure, I am knowing it is only a novel.

    The movie was terrible, captured nothing of what I've read so far.

    The movie of Gangs of New York, I have read and re-read the non-fiction book, aside from the stopping short of the rise of the Jewish mob, it presents the NY draft riots in a way that is cartoonish and incomprehensible.

    At least, having read the book, I am having a little idea of the history.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. RobRich says: • Website
    @dearieme
    "what George Washington did: free your slaves in your will": not exactly. He left his slaves to his widow, with them to be freed only after her death. But she grasped the nettle and freed them while she was still alive.

    Either way, of course, Washington was infinitely nobler than Jefferson on this matter.

    “Either way, of course, Washington was infinitely nobler than Jefferson on this matter.”

    None of that snippy far-left propaganda. Jefferson’s 150 slaves were generally mortgaged and not his to free. Plus he had no where to free them too. After consulting with them a system was devised where they lived independently on his land so they were no worse and much better off than in Africa but were paid fair wages or goods for anything they did for him. It’s in his writings.

    Do some research.

    BTW, unless you’re a libertarian complaining about prisons and punishing people via slavery as in the Constitution, you’re a slave-owner. The hypocrisy of the far-left is they never mention that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    The notion that one has to be "far left" to think Jefferson a hypocritical scoundrel is laughable.
    , @Logan
    And why were Jefferson's slaves mortgaged? Could it have had something to do with his living far beyond his means for his entire life and going deep into debt as a result?

    Washington, OTOH, spent the last years of his life intentionally arranging his affairs so it would be possible for him to free his slaves and provide a start on independent life after his death.

    George didn't spend a lot of time bloviating about the injustice of slavery, as Tom did (in his earlier years.), but he walked the walk.

    Infinitely nobler is an understatement.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. As it happened when the slaves were emancipated after the Civil War, no bloodbath came.

    With 600k-800k dead, I think the blood atonement was sufficient for even the thirstiest freed slave.

    Southerners should have known that Haiti was a much different place than America. But who’s going to take the chance on “just a little bloodbath”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    Southerners were indeed crazy to get bamboozled by the situation in Haiti because the French were notorious for their savage treatment of slaves and probably deserved the ghastly result. Vietnam was another place where the Americans were misled by French to help them continue their brutal rule costing more blood and treasure.
    , @Neil Templeton
    Not everyone is rational. Sometimes men fight just because they don't want to take shit from an asshole.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @ThreeCranes
    Good article Fred. I would only like to add that the western, mountainous areas of North Carolina, northern, mountainous Georgia and eastern Tennessee were pro Union right up to the moment Lincoln sent Federal troops into the South to occupy arsenals and Federal coastal installations.

    They had this firebrand politician whose name I forget who spoke out eloquently in the Southern Congress on the machinations of the rich plantation owners whose political interests ran directly counter to that of the majority of poor, southern-white tradesman and small farmers.

    So, ignorant northerners who condemn all southerners by painting them with the same "slaveowners" brush are, well, mule-headed and ignorant, I suppose.

    So, ignorant northerners who condemn all southerners by painting them with the same “slaveowners” brush are, well, mule-headed and ignorant, I suppose.

    Outside of comedy (there’s a hilarious bit in “Dr. Detroit”), who are these people? I’ve lived in the North all my life and never heard anyone claim all southerners were slaveowners.

    Of course the mountains (WV being the most obvious example) were often pro-Union, and this too is about as common knowledge up here as other details of the Civil War.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Another curious fact is that there was a thriving abolition movement in the South until the mid 1840s when slavery became a more starkly sectional (N v S) issue. Once it became sectional the normal human impulse to band together against outsiders took over. People from other states were outsiders in many ways.

    People do not understand that it was the Civil War that cemented the USA as single nation (and reduced “federalism” to a fig leaf). Several northern states threatened to secede on occasions before 1861.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eagle Eye

    People do not understand that it was the Civil War that cemented the USA as single nation (and reduced “federalism” to a fig leaf).
     
    To Lincoln and many other protagonists, federal supremacy was always the REAL AIM of the Civil War, and intelligent contemporary observers e.g. in Britain were under no illusions on this score.

    Lincoln himself famously stated:

    If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, ...
     
    The chance to suspend Constitutional rights, jail journalists etc. was an added bonus to the proto-Bolshevik Lincoln.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. I wasn’t aware that Quakers profited from slavery, and would be surprised if it were more than a few isolated cases. Here is more on Lincoln myths from my blog:

    Sep 5, 2011 – Congress Freed the Slaves

    For some reason, I was taught that President Lincoln freed the slaves with his 1863 Emancipation Proclamation. I just learned that in July 1862, Congress passed and Lincoln signed the “Second Confiscation Act” to liberate slaves, but Lincoln took the position that Congress lacked power to free slaves unless Lincoln as commander-in-chief deemed it a proper military measure. Lincoln was concerned that it would cause more states to secede. A few months later, he bowed to pressure and announced that law would be enforced while taking credit for freeing slaves.

    Another aspect of the Civil war that I had never read about was that most slaves slowed or stopped work during the war, and a half million ran off. Local state militias in the South had gone to war, so slave owners had no muscle to intimidate their slaves, and they feared traditional harsh discipline like whippings would incite revolts. As a result, most of the southern agricultural economy died by 1863.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Northern troops figured out pretty quickly that cotton was one of the few exports the Confederate government--and planter class--could make money off of. Therefore, every time you invaded the south it made sense to strip every plantation of its slaves. No slaves, no cotton raised, and the southern economy would collapse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. I don’t see the moral problem with slavery.

    Most people freely enslave themselves as Fred Reed hinted at in his segue about immigrants. The average worker in America today (and many other countries) spends up to the limit of his income (and then some), gorges himself on food to become obese, fulfills his carnal lust with the basest pornography (his wife, if he has one, having long since refused him in favor of romance novels), and allows his desires to be constructed for him by Madison Avenue. As the alt right kiddies say, he is a bugman.

    Southern intellectuals in the 1850s drew a similar conclusion. They claimed slavery elevated the negro race above its natural condition, and it’s hard to argue they were wrong. George Fitzhugh went so far as to suggest that the poor whites should be enslaved as well.

    That said for slavery to be fair there must be some way out of it. I believe this did exist in Classical Antiquity though I am uncertain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Most people freely enslave themselves as Fred Reed hinted at in his segue about immigrants. The average worker in America today (and many other countries) spends up to the limit of his income (and then some), gorges himself on food to become obese, fulfills his carnal lust with the basest pornography (his wife, if he has one, having long since refused him in favor of romance novels), and allows his desires to be constructed for him by Madison Avenue.

     

    True, but there is moral chasm between choosing to enslave oneself and being forcibly enslaved.

    The deeper issue is trying to keep two different peoples with vastly different genetic makeups and abilities in one society. It only works when one group dominates the other. The South worked when whites maintained control via slavery or Jim Crow. Once those fell, the South started to have problems, which continue to this day.

    Forcing blacks and whites to share a common territory leads to either domination or chaos. So, naturally, the best way to deal with that is introduce a few more races to mix as we're doing now. Genius all around.
    , @Corvinus
    "I don’t see the moral problem with slavery."

    Then why don't you become a slave yourself, or send your children into slavery, and report back to us.

    "Most people freely enslave themselves as Fred Reed hinted at in his segue about immigrants."

    Those are called choices. People today make their own decisions regarding how they live their own life. Slaves for the most part were not afforded that luxury.

    " fulfills his carnal lust with the basest pornography (his wife, if he has one, having long since refused him in favor of romance novels)"

    Project much?

    "They claimed slavery elevated the negro race above its natural condition, and it’s hard to argue they were wrong."

    What do you mean by "natural condition"?

    "Modern day capitalism enslaves people through advertising and status competition. It’s subtler than capturing people and putting them in irons, but it’s hard to call it freedom."

    Modern day capitalism offers people the choice whether or not to buy things and live a particular lifestyle.

    , @animalogic
    Trying to draw a parallel between legal slavery & "wage slavery" is useful as an exercise in what it "means" to be a wage worker in a capitalist society. As a literal/concrete parallel is is far less useful.

    "They claimed slavery elevated the negro race above its natural condition". Always worth remembering that the "negro race" incorporated many thousands of different tribes, existing with considerable cultural difference & autonomy. Generalisation may not be productive. In so far as some black Africans were independent, great hunters & warriors, such "elevation" is open to question.

    "That said for slavery to be fair there must be some way out of it. I believe this did exist in Classical Antiquity though I am uncertain." In ancient Rome ä way out" was often open to some slaves. As a general rule, the higher the slaves' skills & value, the greater the chance that the slave could buy their freedom, be given their freedom or "willed" their freedom on their master's death ("manumission"). "Freed-men" made up a significant, identifiable category in Roman society. Social rules encouraged masters to do this because the slave & his family were, after manumission, completely, legally obligated to their masters interests. (Indeed, the slave was required to take their master's family name.
    Please note two issues with Roman slavery:
    (1). Slavery was not based on concepts of race. Slaves were despised on the basis of "status", not because they were German or African etc. The children of slaves could in theory & practice rise quite high in Roman society.
    (2). It was quite common to find intelligent & educated Greeks & such freely & deliberately selling themselves into slavery. It was seen as a great opportunity to make money, to find a strong patron & to establish a future free family.
    , @Carroll Price
    The vast majority of black slaves in the South were well aware of the fact that they enjoyed a higher standard of living (accompanied by elevated moral standards) than the average poor white residing in the North or South, whom they disdainfully referred to as, "po white trash".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Gene Su says:

    I would like to point out that slavery by the Muslim Arabs was often far crueler than anything in Christian Europe. They captured and exported far more African slaves to the Middle East (along with Persian, Russian, South Asian , and white European slaves). They also castrated a lot of men whom they wanted to use as harem attendants.
    However, There are two main reasons why slavery did not come back to haunt the Muslim Middle East as has happened with (post) Christian America.
    First, the Muslim Arabs never developed the plantation system. I think it was in the ninth or tenth century when there was a massive African slave revolt near Mecca? After that, there was an unofficial rule that there would not be so many slave men grouped together in one place.
    The second is that the Muslim Middle Easterner seems to know one rule of human nature that the European, whether in Europe or elsewhere, has long since forgotten: Dead men really tell no tales. Mostly due to castration. slaves in the Muslim world were not able to procreate. They say that dark-skinned Africans are a rare breed in the modern Middle East. When the Christian provinces revolted against the Ottoman Empire in the 18th and 19th century, the Sublime Porte didn’t hesitate to subject many of their Christian subject to genocide. Machivelli said the people had to be pampered or destroyed. White southerners, for all their racist screed, don’t seem to remember that. It seems to me that black Americans have endured a great deal of humiliations over the decades which they now can get easy revenge for.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Certainly a form of modern white slavery was underway in Britain in the 15th century.

    https://off-guardian.org/2017/07/12/a-brief-history-of-mass-theft/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. David Goldman (aka Spengler) has talked about this very issue. What he said was significantly different than what Fred has said here.

    https://pjmedia.com/spengler/2014/8/19/the-beam-in-our-eye/

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn

    David Goldman (aka Spengler) has talked about this very issue. What he said was significantly different than what Fred has said here.
     
    Goldman was Chief Economic Adviser to Lyndon LaRouche for more than a few years. I once saw Goldman and LaRouche walking rapidly through a hotel lobby in NYC with Goldman chattering away with his mouth essentially attached to LaRouche's ear. The mentality of the fanatical extremist seldom changes much, it only tends to mellow a bit with age.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Three statements about slavery: are they true or false? (I don’t know; I think they’re true but seek enlightenment.)
    1.) Everybody, no matter the race, that is EVERYBODY, is descended from both slaves and slave owners.
    2.) Slavery may be an evil, but it’s more accurately characterized as a phase. EVERY civilization has practiced it (some still do) on the way to understanding, after several centuries, that it is evil and unjust as well as uneconomical, at which point it was banned. But there is no holier-than-thou position to be taken by anyone; nobody is untainted by Original Sin.
    3.) It has been practiced for over 12,000 years. Thus the 250 years during which it was practiced to benefit white Americans is a pinprick in its history. Moreover, in the notorious Middle-Atlantic Trade, only 5 per cent of the human chattel went to North America; the rest went to the Carribbean or, more likely, to South America. So on the topic of American slavery, it was but a pinprick on a pinprick in the history of slavery.
    If those three conclusions are true, it seems intellectually frivolous to hold contemporary white Americans hostage to any notion of responsibility. No, of course it doesn’t matter and it won’t change a thing, but I’d still like to know if my read holds water. Tks in advance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    "If those three conclusions are true, it seems intellectually frivolous to hold contemporary white Americans hostage to any notion of responsibility. No, of course it doesn’t matter and it won’t change a thing, but I’d still like to know if my read holds water. Tks in advance.""
    I think you do have a point.
    However, re white American slave owners. I would only ask this question. Such white people were the proud, conscious inheritors of a couple thousand years of Humanistic & Christian belief. They needed no encouragement to assert how advanced their culture/civilisation was. OK.
    So the question is: how consistent were such beliefs in their own civilisational virtues with the practice of slave trading/owning ? Clearly, many DID believe it WAS consistent. Also, clearly, many believed it was inconsistent & grotesquely hypocritical.
    All I can add, is one needs to see the world as people did back THEN to to be able to answer these questions. It is not sufficient to merely judge these people through our own 21 st C values.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Another, related theory of the Blackness I’d like to put before the gathered intellects:

    For half a million years negro men lived in a Garden of Eden in Sub-Sahara Africa. They lived on low-hanging fruit, crude hoe agriculture (the soil was easily broken) and abundant game. Mostly they did nothing but sleep, drink primitive liquor, hunt (occasionally), f— and hang out.
    In short: they lived off the labor of their slaves, who did all of the above except hunt, as well as bore and raised the children and prepared the food and, of course, offered up their loins as directed.
    Evolutionarily, then, they never developed beyond the hunter-gatherer stage which they are still in, to this day, and all the village behaviors can be seen in any city in America to this day. Having never to plan and work together and invent, to name three, the plow, the wheel and the shovel, they remain essentially primitives in a world far too complex for them. They will, in large numbers, never be competitive.
    Biblically, they are being punished for committing the Original Sin, which was slavery. It wasn’t practiced, however, against other men but essentially by men against women. In short African women were slaves for half-a-million years. Thus is blackness cursed, and thus will its problems never abate, at least for another 597,000 years or God goes off duty. You sew what you reap.
    Comments?

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    It's probably pointless to refer to man half a million years ago as "negro". Black or blackish, presumably, but there was as yet no white, brown, or yellow to compare him with. What there probably were were different sorts of man. Just as Europe and Asia had Neanderthals and Denisovans (and God know who else) Africa probably had antique varieties of man.

    "a Garden of Eden in Sub-Sahara Africa": or just a disease-ridden hell hole.

    As for your doubt that the negro male is suited to modern mechanical/commercial civilisation, you are sharing the view of Lincoln, apparently.
    , @mmmm
    no it's 'you sew what you rip'
    , @Carroll Price
    In the 1790s, Scottish explorer Mungo Park, credited with being the first white man to visit sub-Sahara Africa, reported finding 3/4th of all black natives living as slaves to the remaining 1/4th. It is entirely safe to assume that with rare exceptions, virtually all slaves sold to white slave buyers on the west coast of Africa were living as slaves to black slave owners, with most being born into slavery over several generations.
    http://publicdomainreview.org/collections/mungo-parks-travels-in-the-interior-of-africa-1858/ (open-source document free on-line)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. whoever says: • Website

    I would like to know why you believe Quakers profited from slavery. I read the Amazon page for the book you link, Complicity, and saw no mention of Quakers. What you write contradicts what I know about Quakers and slavery. I may be wrong in this, so if you have a source for your assertion, do please post it.
    I’m Brethren, and I know that we forbade slave-holding in 1782.
    It was ordained that, “No brother or sister should have negroes as slaves; and in case a brother or sister has such, he or she must set them free.”
    Further it was ordained that any who owned slaves, “Make speedy preparation to liberate them, that this evil may be banished from among us, as we look upon slavery as dangerous to be tolerated in the church, and is a great injury to the cause of Christ and the progress of the church.
    “So, unitedly, we exhort our brethren humbly, yet earnestly and lovingly, to clear themselves of slavery, that they may not fail and come short of the glory of God at the great and notable day of the Lord. Furthermore, concerning Brethren who hire a slave or slaves, and paying wages to their owners, we do not approve of it. The same is attended with the evil which is combined with slavery. It is taking hold of the same evil which we cannot encourage, and should be banished and put from among us, and cannot be tolerated in the church.”

    It was additionally agreed that blacks would be accepted as Brethren: “It is considered, that inasmuch as the gospel is to be preached to all nations and races, and if they come as repentant sinners, believing in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and apply for baptism, we could not confidently refuse them.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dana Thompson
    Quakers and Mennonites took a stand against slavery long before 1782. The declamation against slavery drafted in Thones Kunders' house in Germantown in 1688 is sometimes referred to as one of this nation's foundational documents. Robert Pyle was another influential Quaker abolitionist, who published his views in 1698. Kunders and Pyle were both grandparents of mine, FWIW, and believe me, I'm proud of my dissenting oddball antecedents. I have to concede truth to the statement that many Quaker owned slaves, however.
    , @Carroll Price
    It's interesting to note that religious zealots who lose their religion inevitably resort to political extremism as did the Puritans who adopted Absolutism as a substitute.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. dearieme says:
    @RobRich
    "Either way, of course, Washington was infinitely nobler than Jefferson on this matter."

    None of that snippy far-left propaganda. Jefferson's 150 slaves were generally mortgaged and not his to free. Plus he had no where to free them too. After consulting with them a system was devised where they lived independently on his land so they were no worse and much better off than in Africa but were paid fair wages or goods for anything they did for him. It's in his writings.

    Do some research.


    BTW, unless you're a libertarian complaining about prisons and punishing people via slavery as in the Constitution, you're a slave-owner. The hypocrisy of the far-left is they never mention that.

    The notion that one has to be “far left” to think Jefferson a hypocritical scoundrel is laughable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. American blacks have progressed from the slave plantation system of the South to the slave political system of the North.

    They suddenly find themselves on equal–even less than equal–political footing with Mexican peasants, based on numbers.

    The Mexican peasants being, of course, slaves with visas.

    The eventual black/Mexican pseudo-slave revolt will, of course, be the fault of white people.

    The question is how can we convince the black/Mexican slave revolt to target the 1% who benefit from their slave wages?

    Turns out, the Second Amendment accommodates this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    The term 'slave wages' is a kind of pseudo-Marxist oxymoron. Agricultural chattel slaves on plantations don't earn wages. There of course are many other kind of slaves and some of them did earn wages but presumably you meant the common image of the black men and women who picked cotton or hoed the fields.

    Before Trump ran all the Mexicans out of Oakland, I certainly payed prevailing rates to the guys I hired to clean my yard. I picked them up, and drove them home. How were they slaves?

    If you earn money you are not a slave, and if you are a slave you don't earn money.
    , @Uslabor
    We Mexicans will demonstrate the Second Amendment to you, as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @tsotha

    I cannot see why this was regarded as a crime. Certainly slaves have a moral right to kill their owners. If someone tried to enslave you and your family, would you kill him? I would.
     
    I might. But I wouldn't kill his family. That's the difference between a person striking out at his oppressors and an animal.

    You’re right. That is the difference between a person striking out to kill his oppressors and an animal.

    The animal would run off as soon as it could and not waste energy or time even killing the owner, much less his family.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Negrolphin Pool
    Interspecific competition among pack hunters leads to young being killed all the time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. As for the American South being so cruel to black slaves, why then did they prosper here like nowhere else? Some 5% of Africans who were taken to the New World came to North America. How many of those ended up in the South vs. the North we don’t know, but let’s assume most went to the Southern states. Out of 10MM taken to the New World, some 500K came to the US. They were purchased from African chieftains on the West coast of Africa. Some of the slave compounds there still exist.
    The salient point is that when slavery was ended in the Western hemisphere, 38% of the Africans lived in the US. Get that? 5% came here, and in the end they were 38%. They prospered here. I’m not saying slavery was any sort of a good thing for the slaves, only that it wasn’t as bad for them as people today like to make out, and the evidence is there for anyone wishing to find it.

    I’ve read all The Slave Narratives written by slaves from NC and SC. The most memorable line of all, for me anyway, was the old black man who said, “Slavery and freedom was two head on the same snake, and they both bit the black man.” That’s due to how it was done. After Reconstruction, when the North had stolen everything worth stealing, they just packed up and left. Their attitude toward blacks was that they were free, and that was all they cared about. How they would live, sleep, work, and eat, weren’t their problems; they had freed them. How the white Southerners would deal with millions of suddenly freed, mostly uneducated and ignorant blacks was, again, not their problem.

    Anyone interested in reading about slavery North of the Mason-Dixon line can visit slavenorth.com. It’s well worth the time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. @dearieme
    "what George Washington did: free your slaves in your will": not exactly. He left his slaves to his widow, with them to be freed only after her death. But she grasped the nettle and freed them while she was still alive.

    Either way, of course, Washington was infinitely nobler than Jefferson on this matter.

    Freeing slaves piecemeal wasn’t a simple thing. Slaves were property, and sometimes ownership became too complex to settle with a simple statement in a will. Some of Washington’s slaves were not 100 percent his own. Some belonged to his wife’s estate. Some were the children of slaves in which the mother was owned in a complicated condition of ownership and the father was also in a complicated legal mess, and so the children were a legal mystery. Washington freed the ones he was allowed to free in his will, but the rest were beyond his authority, and in some cases, nobody could figure out whose they really were.

    The Grate Deign

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave337
    Although it would be human for slave owners of relatively small numbers of slaves to think of slaves like family, they apparently still thought of them as children incapable of being a free thinking person, and might sell them out of economic interest or even "for their own good". I'd guess that when slaves are cooking your dinner, raising your children, working the crops and living out back, promising to eventually free them is an attempted insurance that you won't be attacked or poisoned, though some altruism shouldn't be dismissed.
    , @Carroll Price
    Children of slaves were the legal property of the individual owning the child's mother. From a legal standpoint, the father had nothing to do with it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Slavery, by definition, is the government acknowledged ownership of one person by another. It’s this private ownership relationship that was anathema to those opposed to slavery.

    Since the civil war was fought using conscript soldiers, i.e. government slaves, the conflict was one of public ownership versus private ownership. Public ownership of your body can be enacted, whenever necessary, by the Congress.

    Good Day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. WmG says:
    @tsotha

    I cannot see why this was regarded as a crime. Certainly slaves have a moral right to kill their owners. If someone tried to enslave you and your family, would you kill him? I would.
     
    I might. But I wouldn't kill his family. That's the difference between a person striking out at his oppressors and an animal.

    Regardless of the fact that the institution of slavery was immoral, it was a legal institution and no society can tolerate the killing of its citizens simply because someone believes he has been unjustly treated, even if he is correct. The rule of law must have some meaning. At what point in the thought process does a reasonable person conclude that one who has been unjustly treated may kill with impunity and that society will simply shrug its collective shoulders and say “they deserved it”? May a man who has been “railroaded”, wrongly convicted and imprisoned kill his prison guards in an escape attempt, with no consequence? May an opponent of abortion kill abortion doctors and expect that he will not be apprehended and prosecuted? I believe Mr. Reed was simply expressing the obvious point that anyone who was enslaved would, quite rightly, feel that a grave injustice had been inflicted on him. That is a moral issue. However, even a rebellious slave would have understood that the law, also quite rightly, would have considered his actions to be criminal and that, if caught, he would pay the price for his actions. How would a society survive otherwise? We can all admire, and even cheer for, a Spartacus; but we can also respect the Romans for enforcing their law. Justice may sometimes be cruel, but it must be served.

    Read More
    • Replies: @lavoisier
    If it is cruel it is not justice.

    Human cruelty is the prime driver of the world's misery.
    , @The Plutonium Kid
    Spartacus was more of a bandit than a liberator. He and his followers weren't the least bit bashful at taking the slaves from the lush country estates they looted and burned, and selling them to the pirates. Other than grabbing as much loot as they could and getting the hell out of Italy, Spartacus and his bandit buddies had no program at all, let alone a program of liberating all the slaves. Never mind what Dalton Trumbo and Kirk ?Douglas told you in the only one of his films that Stanley Kubrick disowned. It was no more historical than all those biblical epics from the forties and fifties.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Dave337 says:

    As a descendant of south, that being English from the coasts of Carolina, no familiar history or opinion was ever taught or expressed to me about the Civil War or slavery, until the higher grades of educational institutions seemingly resurrected the whole thing. Though the modern distancing of white southerners from any connection to slavery, seems to mean they are against the very idea of thinking about an ancient human institution now regarded as horrendous, I suspect modern AI and robots will fill that human need for chore doers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Enjoyable read, Fred. Thanks.

    Why do we think importing cheaper, browner people to do work we can’t pay our countrymen enough to do will work out in the end? We never learn.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Why do we think importing cheaper, browner people to do work we can’t pay our countrymen enough to do will work out in the end? We never learn."

    Captains of Industry in the late 1800's clamored for "affordable labor" by way of Eastern and Southern Europeans, who were considered by nativists to be ill-equipped to immerse themselves into American society. Perhaps they were your ancestors. If that be the case, you have to go back.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Dave337 says:
    @The Grate Deign
    Freeing slaves piecemeal wasn't a simple thing. Slaves were property, and sometimes ownership became too complex to settle with a simple statement in a will. Some of Washington's slaves were not 100 percent his own. Some belonged to his wife's estate. Some were the children of slaves in which the mother was owned in a complicated condition of ownership and the father was also in a complicated legal mess, and so the children were a legal mystery. Washington freed the ones he was allowed to free in his will, but the rest were beyond his authority, and in some cases, nobody could figure out whose they really were.

    The Grate Deign

    Although it would be human for slave owners of relatively small numbers of slaves to think of slaves like family, they apparently still thought of them as children incapable of being a free thinking person, and might sell them out of economic interest or even “for their own good”. I’d guess that when slaves are cooking your dinner, raising your children, working the crops and living out back, promising to eventually free them is an attempted insurance that you won’t be attacked or poisoned, though some altruism shouldn’t be dismissed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Thorfinnsson
    I don't see the moral problem with slavery.

    Most people freely enslave themselves as Fred Reed hinted at in his segue about immigrants. The average worker in America today (and many other countries) spends up to the limit of his income (and then some), gorges himself on food to become obese, fulfills his carnal lust with the basest pornography (his wife, if he has one, having long since refused him in favor of romance novels), and allows his desires to be constructed for him by Madison Avenue. As the alt right kiddies say, he is a bugman.

    Southern intellectuals in the 1850s drew a similar conclusion. They claimed slavery elevated the negro race above its natural condition, and it's hard to argue they were wrong. George Fitzhugh went so far as to suggest that the poor whites should be enslaved as well.

    That said for slavery to be fair there must be some way out of it. I believe this did exist in Classical Antiquity though I am uncertain.

    Most people freely enslave themselves as Fred Reed hinted at in his segue about immigrants. The average worker in America today (and many other countries) spends up to the limit of his income (and then some), gorges himself on food to become obese, fulfills his carnal lust with the basest pornography (his wife, if he has one, having long since refused him in favor of romance novels), and allows his desires to be constructed for him by Madison Avenue.

    True, but there is moral chasm between choosing to enslave oneself and being forcibly enslaved.

    The deeper issue is trying to keep two different peoples with vastly different genetic makeups and abilities in one society. It only works when one group dominates the other. The South worked when whites maintained control via slavery or Jim Crow. Once those fell, the South started to have problems, which continue to this day.

    Forcing blacks and whites to share a common territory leads to either domination or chaos. So, naturally, the best way to deal with that is introduce a few more races to mix as we’re doing now. Genius all around.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson

    True, but there is moral chasm between choosing to enslave oneself and being forcibly enslaved.
     
    Modern day capitalism enslaves people through advertising and status competition. It's subtler than capturing people and putting them in irons, but it's hard to call it freedom.

    And that's fine. We're the RIGHT. We accept hierarchy and inequality. And since we accept it as inevitable and normal, it's only proper that we in turn practice noblesse oblige and act as good role models.

    No sense beating around the bush.

    The deeper issue is trying to keep two different peoples with vastly different genetic makeups and abilities in one society. It only works when one group dominates the other. The South worked when whites maintained control via slavery or Jim Crow. Once those fell, the South started to have problems, which continue to this day.

    Forcing blacks and whites to share a common territory leads to either domination or chaos. So, naturally, the best way to deal with that is introduce a few more races to mix as we’re doing now. Genius all around.
     
    Domination worked just fine--at least everywhere other than Haiti. The New World plantation slave societies where all economically and socially successful, and the ones with the good sense to import wives from Europe instead of drilling for oil preserved their racial integrity as well.

    Doubtless it was undesirable to introduce negro slaves above a certain degree of latitude, as that meant a relatively lower white population. But in the tropics only colored men could do the work (after the failed emancipation experiment Indian coolies were brought in).

    The real mystery is why people in Britain and the Northern United States decided en masse, for the first time in all of human history, that slavery was evil and had to be stamped out. The 19th century abolitionist movement was the first modern SJW campaign. This is the central mystery of the decline of the white race.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. @ThreeCranes
    Good article Fred. I would only like to add that the western, mountainous areas of North Carolina, northern, mountainous Georgia and eastern Tennessee were pro Union right up to the moment Lincoln sent Federal troops into the South to occupy arsenals and Federal coastal installations.

    They had this firebrand politician whose name I forget who spoke out eloquently in the Southern Congress on the machinations of the rich plantation owners whose political interests ran directly counter to that of the majority of poor, southern-white tradesman and small farmers.

    So, ignorant northerners who condemn all southerners by painting them with the same "slaveowners" brush are, well, mule-headed and ignorant, I suppose.

    Yes. This was detailed quite well in “The Fall of the House of Dixie”, a very good book (albeit suffering from some of the hypocrisy Fred complains of in his essay) on slavery before and during the Civil War.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Golly, Fred. Don’t you get depressed, reading the ignorant BS spouted by commenters? El Commenteros?

    I swear, there are days I’m convinced that finding a cave in the Wyoming Badlands might be a good idea after all. Dig a deep, very deep, well, pile high the freeze-dried, and brick-up the entrance. (Yes, from the inside. ;-)

    I peruse Politico, the various “news” sites, HuffPo and Salon (neither of which really insist on being called “journalism”, true), MSN, Google News, Fox News — the lot — totally and irreversibly FUBAR, no excuses.

    So, there’s these, er, “intellectual” sites like Unz and, to a less-washed degree, Takimag, but what do we find? Ignorant fucking stupidity like it’s Summa Theologica.

    But, I still love your show, babe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    JJS! You're back!
    , @Pat Boyle
    That's funny I was going to chide Fred for writing that no one remembers the Haiti Revolt. On the contrary I doubt if there is anyone who reads Unz or Sailer who hasn't some acquaintance with the history of Haiti. The readership here is generally quite knowledgeable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    Golly, Fred. Don't you get depressed, reading the ignorant BS spouted by commenters? El Commenteros?

    I swear, there are days I'm convinced that finding a cave in the Wyoming Badlands might be a good idea after all. Dig a deep, very deep, well, pile high the freeze-dried, and brick-up the entrance. (Yes, from the inside. ;-)

    I peruse Politico, the various "news" sites, HuffPo and Salon (neither of which really insist on being called "journalism", true), MSN, Google News, Fox News -- the lot -- totally and irreversibly FUBAR, no excuses.

    So, there's these, er, "intellectual" sites like Unz and, to a less-washed degree, Takimag, but what do we find? Ignorant fucking stupidity like it's Summa Theologica.

    But, I still love your show, babe.

    JJS! You’re back!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    JJS! You’re back!
     
    JJS? Sorry, I'm not Jewish. Cryptic Biblical references merely confuse me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. dearieme says:
    @Anonymous
    Another, related theory of the Blackness I'd like to put before the gathered intellects:

    For half a million years negro men lived in a Garden of Eden in Sub-Sahara Africa. They lived on low-hanging fruit, crude hoe agriculture (the soil was easily broken) and abundant game. Mostly they did nothing but sleep, drink primitive liquor, hunt (occasionally), f--- and hang out.
    In short: they lived off the labor of their slaves, who did all of the above except hunt, as well as bore and raised the children and prepared the food and, of course, offered up their loins as directed.
    Evolutionarily, then, they never developed beyond the hunter-gatherer stage which they are still in, to this day, and all the village behaviors can be seen in any city in America to this day. Having never to plan and work together and invent, to name three, the plow, the wheel and the shovel, they remain essentially primitives in a world far too complex for them. They will, in large numbers, never be competitive.
    Biblically, they are being punished for committing the Original Sin, which was slavery. It wasn't practiced, however, against other men but essentially by men against women. In short African women were slaves for half-a-million years. Thus is blackness cursed, and thus will its problems never abate, at least for another 597,000 years or God goes off duty. You sew what you reap.
    Comments?

    It’s probably pointless to refer to man half a million years ago as “negro”. Black or blackish, presumably, but there was as yet no white, brown, or yellow to compare him with. What there probably were were different sorts of man. Just as Europe and Asia had Neanderthals and Denisovans (and God know who else) Africa probably had antique varieties of man.

    “a Garden of Eden in Sub-Sahara Africa”: or just a disease-ridden hell hole.

    As for your doubt that the negro male is suited to modern mechanical/commercial civilisation, you are sharing the view of Lincoln, apparently.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. In this world angels are few on the ground.

    Reminds me of the novel, Flashman and the Angel of the Lord, by George MacDonald Fraser. Available in audiobook. There is a button you can press to hear part of the audiobook.

    Summer reading, the easy way:

    https://www.amazon.com/Flashman-Angel-Lord/dp/B0032Z3L1A

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. Pat Boyle says:
    @Demeter Last
    American blacks have progressed from the slave plantation system of the South to the slave political system of the North.

    They suddenly find themselves on equal--even less than equal--political footing with Mexican peasants, based on numbers.

    The Mexican peasants being, of course, slaves with visas.

    The eventual black/Mexican pseudo-slave revolt will, of course, be the fault of white people.

    The question is how can we convince the black/Mexican slave revolt to target the 1% who benefit from their slave wages?

    Turns out, the Second Amendment accommodates this.

    The term ‘slave wages’ is a kind of pseudo-Marxist oxymoron. Agricultural chattel slaves on plantations don’t earn wages. There of course are many other kind of slaves and some of them did earn wages but presumably you meant the common image of the black men and women who picked cotton or hoed the fields.

    Before Trump ran all the Mexicans out of Oakland, I certainly payed prevailing rates to the guys I hired to clean my yard. I picked them up, and drove them home. How were they slaves?

    If you earn money you are not a slave, and if you are a slave you don’t earn money.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    The phrase "If you earn money you are not a slave, and if you are a slave you don't earn money", is not factual.
    Plantations were run like mini-states with a large degree of specialization going on. There were carpenters, cabinet makers, cooks and bakers, farriers and drivers, as well as many other occupations that were staffed by slaves. Many slaves DID earn money. Most were able to run "side businesses", and some even were able to purchase their freedom. Those who were successful in purchasing their freedom quite often, became slave owners themselves.
    The commonly held vision of the slave owner sipping mint juleps while his slaves toiled in the field is a figment of imagination. More often than not, the slave owner was out in the fields with his charges getting the crops planted or harvested.
    There is still one slave plantation still in existence to this day--the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, Louisiana...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Pat Boyle says:
    @Anonymous
    Golly, Fred. Don't you get depressed, reading the ignorant BS spouted by commenters? El Commenteros?

    I swear, there are days I'm convinced that finding a cave in the Wyoming Badlands might be a good idea after all. Dig a deep, very deep, well, pile high the freeze-dried, and brick-up the entrance. (Yes, from the inside. ;-)

    I peruse Politico, the various "news" sites, HuffPo and Salon (neither of which really insist on being called "journalism", true), MSN, Google News, Fox News -- the lot -- totally and irreversibly FUBAR, no excuses.

    So, there's these, er, "intellectual" sites like Unz and, to a less-washed degree, Takimag, but what do we find? Ignorant fucking stupidity like it's Summa Theologica.

    But, I still love your show, babe.

    That’s funny I was going to chide Fred for writing that no one remembers the Haiti Revolt. On the contrary I doubt if there is anyone who reads Unz or Sailer who hasn’t some acquaintance with the history of Haiti. The readership here is generally quite knowledgeable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    That’s funny I was going to chide Fred for writing that no one remembers the Haiti Revolt. On the contrary I doubt if there is anyone who reads Unz or Sailer who hasn’t some acquaintance with the history of Haiti. The readership here is generally quite knowledgeable.
     
    Well, they do act like they're knowledgeable.

    Some of that above was tongue-in-cheek. I need the practice; I've been playing nice guy for several weeks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Jeff77450 says:

    I can’t agree that Nat Turner was justified in killing the women & children, to include a baby in its crib, but otherwise good article.

    We’ll be paying for this for the rest of our existence. My mother, may she rest in peace, my son and I have been on the receiving end of eleven black-on-white crimes; seven thefts, two assaults, one attempted break-in by kicking in her front door, one broken car window, presumably looking for something to steal. I got married seven years ago. I was discussing it with my wife and I asked her how much black crime she had experienced. “Oh, too many times to be able to count,” was her reply. God love them. This all occurred in Houston over the past thirty-five years, in case you were wondering. (Crimes that we have committed against blacks: zero).

    Every time I hear about the latest heinous black-on-white/Asian crime in a “Union” state I have the same uncharitable thought: “Hey North, that victory in the Civil War, how’s that working out for you?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    (Crimes that we have committed against blacks: zero).
     
    Well, tell the truth, Bro.; you did play that twangy guitar and fiddle shit too loud in your car, and at way too many family get-togethers.

    I'm gonna let you in on a little secret here Dog, there's something in our DNA that makes it sound like fingernails on a blackboard...you're familiar with Pavolv's dog, right?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    JJS! You're back!

    JJS! You’re back!

    JJS? Sorry, I’m not Jewish. Cryptic Biblical references merely confuse me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I think your coming is supposed to herald the apocalypse or something.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Pat Boyle
    That's funny I was going to chide Fred for writing that no one remembers the Haiti Revolt. On the contrary I doubt if there is anyone who reads Unz or Sailer who hasn't some acquaintance with the history of Haiti. The readership here is generally quite knowledgeable.

    That’s funny I was going to chide Fred for writing that no one remembers the Haiti Revolt. On the contrary I doubt if there is anyone who reads Unz or Sailer who hasn’t some acquaintance with the history of Haiti. The readership here is generally quite knowledgeable.

    Well, they do act like they’re knowledgeable.

    Some of that above was tongue-in-cheek. I need the practice; I’ve been playing nice guy for several weeks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    Some of that above was tongue-in-cheek. I need the practice; I’ve been playing nice guy for several weeks.
     
    Just go back to being a complete prick, Dawg, it's liberating.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Most people freely enslave themselves as Fred Reed hinted at in his segue about immigrants. The average worker in America today (and many other countries) spends up to the limit of his income (and then some), gorges himself on food to become obese, fulfills his carnal lust with the basest pornography (his wife, if he has one, having long since refused him in favor of romance novels), and allows his desires to be constructed for him by Madison Avenue.

     

    True, but there is moral chasm between choosing to enslave oneself and being forcibly enslaved.

    The deeper issue is trying to keep two different peoples with vastly different genetic makeups and abilities in one society. It only works when one group dominates the other. The South worked when whites maintained control via slavery or Jim Crow. Once those fell, the South started to have problems, which continue to this day.

    Forcing blacks and whites to share a common territory leads to either domination or chaos. So, naturally, the best way to deal with that is introduce a few more races to mix as we're doing now. Genius all around.

    True, but there is moral chasm between choosing to enslave oneself and being forcibly enslaved.

    Modern day capitalism enslaves people through advertising and status competition. It’s subtler than capturing people and putting them in irons, but it’s hard to call it freedom.

    And that’s fine. We’re the RIGHT. We accept hierarchy and inequality. And since we accept it as inevitable and normal, it’s only proper that we in turn practice noblesse oblige and act as good role models.

    No sense beating around the bush.

    The deeper issue is trying to keep two different peoples with vastly different genetic makeups and abilities in one society. It only works when one group dominates the other. The South worked when whites maintained control via slavery or Jim Crow. Once those fell, the South started to have problems, which continue to this day.

    Forcing blacks and whites to share a common territory leads to either domination or chaos. So, naturally, the best way to deal with that is introduce a few more races to mix as we’re doing now. Genius all around.

    Domination worked just fine–at least everywhere other than Haiti. The New World plantation slave societies where all economically and socially successful, and the ones with the good sense to import wives from Europe instead of drilling for oil preserved their racial integrity as well.

    Doubtless it was undesirable to introduce negro slaves above a certain degree of latitude, as that meant a relatively lower white population. But in the tropics only colored men could do the work (after the failed emancipation experiment Indian coolies were brought in).

    The real mystery is why people in Britain and the Northern United States decided en masse, for the first time in all of human history, that slavery was evil and had to be stamped out. The 19th century abolitionist movement was the first modern SJW campaign. This is the central mystery of the decline of the white race.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    The real mystery is why people in Britain and the Northern United States decided en masse, for the first time in all of human history, that slavery was evil and had to be stamped out.
     
    LOL; They didn't decide shit was evil, as you touched upon in your first paragraph, they wanted to enslave YOU as well, and needed a distraction. They simply came upon the ultimate truth that slavery is much more profitable, if you allow the individual slave to choose his own form.
    , @dearieme
    "The real mystery is why people in Britain and the Northern United States decided en masse, for the first time in all of human history, that slavery was evil and had to be stamped out."

    That is indeed the mystery. But there was also a practical point. Unfortunately, people who devote themselves to a noble cause often don't think about what happens next. Yes, yes, free the slaves. But then what are you going to do with them? In the British colonies in the West Indies schools were built for the slaves' children. That worked well in some of the colonies, which developed as reasonably peaceful places. Jamaica, by contrast, remained or became violent and lawless. Did the northern abolitionists in the US have plans for what to do after abolition?
    , @union army great-nth-grandson

    The real mystery is why people in Britain and the Northern United States decided en masse, for the first time in all of human history, that slavery was evil and had to be stamped out. The 19th century abolitionist movement was the first modern SJW campaign. This is the central mystery of the decline of the white race.
     
    I'm quite certain that my devout Christian anti-slavery forefathers, would be horrified to learn that they are being compared to the vile SJWs of today. The two groups have nothing in common.
    , @Seamus Padraig

    Modern day capitalism enslaves people through advertising and status competition.
     
    You left out debt.
    , @Palerider1861

    The real mystery is why people in Britain and the Northern United States decided en masse, for the first time in all of human history, that slavery was evil and had to be stamped out.
     
    I must say, this statement strikes at the very heart of the issue. I have never heard anyone before raise this point, and it is hugely insightful, to say the least!

    The only way two such unequal races could exist in a system that is to be ultimately beneficial to both --- was that of the old South chattel slavery: the White man gets human labor (not cheap, however), and the Black man gets civilized. A win for both!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Truth says:
    @Jeff77450
    I can't agree that Nat Turner was justified in killing the women & children, to include a baby in its crib, but otherwise good article.

    We'll be paying for this for the rest of our existence. My mother, may she rest in peace, my son and I have been on the receiving end of eleven black-on-white crimes; seven thefts, two assaults, one attempted break-in by kicking in her front door, one broken car window, presumably looking for something to steal. I got married seven years ago. I was discussing it with my wife and I asked her how much black crime she had experienced. "Oh, too many times to be able to count," was her reply. God love them. This all occurred in Houston over the past thirty-five years, in case you were wondering. (Crimes that we have committed against blacks: zero).

    Every time I hear about the latest heinous black-on-white/Asian crime in a "Union" state I have the same uncharitable thought: "Hey North, that victory in the Civil War, how's that working out for you?"

    (Crimes that we have committed against blacks: zero).

    Well, tell the truth, Bro.; you did play that twangy guitar and fiddle shit too loud in your car, and at way too many family get-togethers.

    I’m gonna let you in on a little secret here Dog, there’s something in our DNA that makes it sound like fingernails on a blackboard…you’re familiar with Pavolv’s dog, right?

    Read More
    • LOL: Talha
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Truth says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    True, but there is moral chasm between choosing to enslave oneself and being forcibly enslaved.
     
    Modern day capitalism enslaves people through advertising and status competition. It's subtler than capturing people and putting them in irons, but it's hard to call it freedom.

    And that's fine. We're the RIGHT. We accept hierarchy and inequality. And since we accept it as inevitable and normal, it's only proper that we in turn practice noblesse oblige and act as good role models.

    No sense beating around the bush.

    The deeper issue is trying to keep two different peoples with vastly different genetic makeups and abilities in one society. It only works when one group dominates the other. The South worked when whites maintained control via slavery or Jim Crow. Once those fell, the South started to have problems, which continue to this day.

    Forcing blacks and whites to share a common territory leads to either domination or chaos. So, naturally, the best way to deal with that is introduce a few more races to mix as we’re doing now. Genius all around.
     
    Domination worked just fine--at least everywhere other than Haiti. The New World plantation slave societies where all economically and socially successful, and the ones with the good sense to import wives from Europe instead of drilling for oil preserved their racial integrity as well.

    Doubtless it was undesirable to introduce negro slaves above a certain degree of latitude, as that meant a relatively lower white population. But in the tropics only colored men could do the work (after the failed emancipation experiment Indian coolies were brought in).

    The real mystery is why people in Britain and the Northern United States decided en masse, for the first time in all of human history, that slavery was evil and had to be stamped out. The 19th century abolitionist movement was the first modern SJW campaign. This is the central mystery of the decline of the white race.

    The real mystery is why people in Britain and the Northern United States decided en masse, for the first time in all of human history, that slavery was evil and had to be stamped out.

    LOL; They didn’t decide shit was evil, as you touched upon in your first paragraph, they wanted to enslave YOU as well, and needed a distraction. They simply came upon the ultimate truth that slavery is much more profitable, if you allow the individual slave to choose his own form.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Bro - you are frickin' battin' it out the park! Keep it rolling!!! LOL!

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Truth says:
    @Anonymous

    That’s funny I was going to chide Fred for writing that no one remembers the Haiti Revolt. On the contrary I doubt if there is anyone who reads Unz or Sailer who hasn’t some acquaintance with the history of Haiti. The readership here is generally quite knowledgeable.
     
    Well, they do act like they're knowledgeable.

    Some of that above was tongue-in-cheek. I need the practice; I've been playing nice guy for several weeks.

    Some of that above was tongue-in-cheek. I need the practice; I’ve been playing nice guy for several weeks.

    Just go back to being a complete prick, Dawg, it’s liberating.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. dearieme says:
    @Thorfinnsson

    True, but there is moral chasm between choosing to enslave oneself and being forcibly enslaved.
     
    Modern day capitalism enslaves people through advertising and status competition. It's subtler than capturing people and putting them in irons, but it's hard to call it freedom.

    And that's fine. We're the RIGHT. We accept hierarchy and inequality. And since we accept it as inevitable and normal, it's only proper that we in turn practice noblesse oblige and act as good role models.

    No sense beating around the bush.

    The deeper issue is trying to keep two different peoples with vastly different genetic makeups and abilities in one society. It only works when one group dominates the other. The South worked when whites maintained control via slavery or Jim Crow. Once those fell, the South started to have problems, which continue to this day.

    Forcing blacks and whites to share a common territory leads to either domination or chaos. So, naturally, the best way to deal with that is introduce a few more races to mix as we’re doing now. Genius all around.
     
    Domination worked just fine--at least everywhere other than Haiti. The New World plantation slave societies where all economically and socially successful, and the ones with the good sense to import wives from Europe instead of drilling for oil preserved their racial integrity as well.

    Doubtless it was undesirable to introduce negro slaves above a certain degree of latitude, as that meant a relatively lower white population. But in the tropics only colored men could do the work (after the failed emancipation experiment Indian coolies were brought in).

    The real mystery is why people in Britain and the Northern United States decided en masse, for the first time in all of human history, that slavery was evil and had to be stamped out. The 19th century abolitionist movement was the first modern SJW campaign. This is the central mystery of the decline of the white race.

    “The real mystery is why people in Britain and the Northern United States decided en masse, for the first time in all of human history, that slavery was evil and had to be stamped out.”

    That is indeed the mystery. But there was also a practical point. Unfortunately, people who devote themselves to a noble cause often don’t think about what happens next. Yes, yes, free the slaves. But then what are you going to do with them? In the British colonies in the West Indies schools were built for the slaves’ children. That worked well in some of the colonies, which developed as reasonably peaceful places. Jamaica, by contrast, remained or became violent and lawless. Did the northern abolitionists in the US have plans for what to do after abolition?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thorfinnsson
    Abolitionists were SJWs--fanatical religious zealots.

    Not being practical men, they did not have plans. Here for instance is Lysander Spooner's 1858 "plan" for abolition: http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/spooner-a-plan-for-the-abolition-of-slavery-and-to-the-non-slaveholders-of-the-south-1858

    Essentially he calls for war on the South (delusionally imagining that white non-slaveholders will join the war). The only references as to what is to be done after abolition is that perhaps the slaves should be permitted to loot their masters and share some of the loot with poor whites.

    Moderate antislavery people did have plans, primarily "colonization" (the deportation of slaves to Africa).

    No place in the Caribbean can be called peaceful looking at crime data, but the West Indian countries are by far the most successful black countries in the world owing to living longer under the white man's rule than blacks anywhere else.
    , @WmG
    As Spengler deftly noted, slavery ended due to "coal". No need to assign high motives as to why this institution died out. The Industrial Revolution killed it. Once people (e.g. Northerners) realized they no longer had any economic interest in the institution of slavery, they suddenly got that Old Time Religion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @dearieme
    "The real mystery is why people in Britain and the Northern United States decided en masse, for the first time in all of human history, that slavery was evil and had to be stamped out."

    That is indeed the mystery. But there was also a practical point. Unfortunately, people who devote themselves to a noble cause often don't think about what happens next. Yes, yes, free the slaves. But then what are you going to do with them? In the British colonies in the West Indies schools were built for the slaves' children. That worked well in some of the colonies, which developed as reasonably peaceful places. Jamaica, by contrast, remained or became violent and lawless. Did the northern abolitionists in the US have plans for what to do after abolition?

    Abolitionists were SJWs–fanatical religious zealots.

    Not being practical men, they did not have plans. Here for instance is Lysander Spooner’s 1858 “plan” for abolition: http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/spooner-a-plan-for-the-abolition-of-slavery-and-to-the-non-slaveholders-of-the-south-1858

    Essentially he calls for war on the South (delusionally imagining that white non-slaveholders will join the war). The only references as to what is to be done after abolition is that perhaps the slaves should be permitted to loot their masters and share some of the loot with poor whites.

    Moderate antislavery people did have plans, primarily “colonization” (the deportation of slaves to Africa).

    No place in the Caribbean can be called peaceful looking at crime data, but the West Indian countries are by far the most successful black countries in the world owing to living longer under the white man’s rule than blacks anywhere else.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Talha says:
    @Truth

    The real mystery is why people in Britain and the Northern United States decided en masse, for the first time in all of human history, that slavery was evil and had to be stamped out.
     
    LOL; They didn't decide shit was evil, as you touched upon in your first paragraph, they wanted to enslave YOU as well, and needed a distraction. They simply came upon the ultimate truth that slavery is much more profitable, if you allow the individual slave to choose his own form.

    Bro – you are frickin’ battin’ it out the park! Keep it rolling!!! LOL!

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. WmG says:
    @dearieme
    "The real mystery is why people in Britain and the Northern United States decided en masse, for the first time in all of human history, that slavery was evil and had to be stamped out."

    That is indeed the mystery. But there was also a practical point. Unfortunately, people who devote themselves to a noble cause often don't think about what happens next. Yes, yes, free the slaves. But then what are you going to do with them? In the British colonies in the West Indies schools were built for the slaves' children. That worked well in some of the colonies, which developed as reasonably peaceful places. Jamaica, by contrast, remained or became violent and lawless. Did the northern abolitionists in the US have plans for what to do after abolition?

    As Spengler deftly noted, slavery ended due to “coal”. No need to assign high motives as to why this institution died out. The Industrial Revolution killed it. Once people (e.g. Northerners) realized they no longer had any economic interest in the institution of slavery, they suddenly got that Old Time Religion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    You need to explain how it was that coal was the enemy of plantation slavery.

    Anyway the theory sounds phoney to me. In England at least, abolitionism was led by evangelical Anglicans who were rather underrepresented amongst factory owners.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. There is slavery that really was and there is ‘slavery’ as part of narrative.

    Slavery is inexhaustible as subject of story and calls for revision with new evidence, new perspectives, and etc.
    But ‘slavery’ as narrative is a simple storytelling to serve as shared sacred myth for the elites(as new clergy) and masses.
    Also, ‘slavery’ is useful to blacks to guilt-bait whites and make demands. And it is useful for Jewish elites to paralyze white pride. Also, it is addictive to whites who are into self-righteous vanity. They invoke guilt to profess their delusional virtue.

    There is slavery as important subject.
    There is ‘totally evil slavery’ as white guilt narrative.
    There is also ‘necessary evil slavery’ as justification for Confederacy. This third kind used to be dominant in the Southern narrative but is no more. Even monuments are being removed and bodies exhumed.

    It’s a good idea to condemn slavery in our age, but it is complicated by racial factors. Whites enslaved blacks, a most problematic and troublesome race. So, we can never be sure if black problems are result of slavery or biology or maybe combination of both.

    If blacks weren’t a troublesome race, I think ‘white guilt’ wouldn’t be so bad. Why not make amends and seek reconciliation? But because blacks are a troublesome race, apologizing to blacks just makes them more troublesome as blacks tend to be self-centered, nasty, hostile, and psychopathic.

    If whites had enslaved a bunch of Hindus or Chinese, reconciliation would have been easier.

    Another thing. This ‘white guilt’ stuff is used by White Elites with privilege to piss on whites without privilege.

    This is how White Prog elite thinking goes: In the past, ALL whites were privileged. And white elites favored white masses(like during the New Deal). So, we must end white privilege by stop privileging all whites.
    And white elites must be fair to ALL.

    Well, here’s the problem with the logic. Most whites in the US were never privileged. Sure, they had legal advantages over non-whites, but that mostly meant that they were favored for jobs where they had to toil on the farm under hot sun or work in coal mines or slave in factories for long hours. That aint no privilege. Even if a white guy was favored over black guy for such job, how was it privilege? Working 12 hrs in a coal mine and inhaling coal dust is privilege? Gimme a break.
    So, even when whites were favored over other races in the past, most whites never enjoyed anything that could be called privilege. They toiled and labored from sunrise to sunset.

    So, when today’s white elites say they shall no longer lead, guide, or help white masses because whites have been privileged in the past, it’s totally bogus. The only white people with white privilege are the white elites. And if anything, their own privilege is expanded with the current PC logic because they no longer need feel any nobless oblige to white masses. They can claim to care about ‘diversity’ and hog all the wealth and privilege for themselves. But as diversity is so vague and divided, white elites don’t need to do anything important for anyone. Just make a lot of nice-sounding noises.

    So, white elites keep their own privilege while denouncing the imagined ‘privilege’ of white masses who never had any privilege. White elites justify their own privilege by condemning ‘white privilege’ of white masses who not only lack privilege but keep sinking lower and lower economically. It is a dirty trick.
    Imagine if the monarch and aristocrats of a kingdom denounced the privilege of their subjects(who actually have no privilege) to justify their own privilege. By making a big show of attacking the fictional privilege of the masses, those with real privilege justify their own.

    What’s really comical about fighting ‘white privilege’ is how it is tied to immigration.
    Now, one could make a compelling argument that blacks, American Indians, and some other non-whites did get less than whites in general. Therefore, it was only right that white elites made some concerted effort to help the blacks and aid the Indians. Fair enough.

    But what does ‘white privilege’ have to do with masses of new immigrants who have NO HISTORY in America when it was discriminatory against non-whites?
    While it’s true that Chinese Americans in the past were not treated equally, so many Chinese in America today are newcomers and they have NO HISTORY of having been discriminated against. Same goes for African immigrants. Why should these newcomers claim collective victimhood on the basis that their racial or ethnic kind in America had been mistreated? And if there were indeed some Chinese who built railroads, many newcomers don’t have ANY ethnic stake in the American Past. Did Arabs build raildroads? Did Malaysians pick cotton?

    But for some reason, white elites must favor these newcomers even over white masses(whose ancestors toiled in farms, factories, and mines to build America from scratch). White elites favor these immivaders over white masses in the name of fighting ‘white privilege’. But again, it is a case of whites with privilege waging war on whites without privilege to morally justify their own elite privilege in the name of protecting non-white minorities from white privilege when, if anything, it is white privilege that brings in scab immivaders to further undermine and destroy whites without privilege. Also, many of theses immivaders come with great privilege — like that turd Fareed Zakaria — and are toady servitors of the Empire. Zakaria praised Trump ONLY when missiles were lobbed on Syria. Imagine that. A non-white ‘w*g’ siding with neo-imperialism against a non-white nation.

    Read More
    • Agree: anarchyst
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    How did affirmative action expand beyond the only people who had a legitimate right to it - descendants of American Indians and American black slaves? It was a combination of laziness and stupidity, mostly by the people who should have been looking out for their constituency the GOP.

    The GOP was looking for a way to counterbalance the Democrats black vote and thought that "the natural Republican" Mexicans were the way to do it. That is why Nixon gave "Hispanics" AA status and Reagan amnestied them. The Reagan administration also thought that the amnesty was a two-fer. Not only would the beaners be the GOP's niggers but the damage it would do to the unions would weaken the Democrats since the major source for their political power was white working class unions. It is too bad we don't have transcripts of those meetings discussing the amnesty to know what the Reagan people really thought about average Americans. I bet it wasn't very complimentary.

    Even when the GOP realized they were wrong they continued to double down thinking one more amnesty, one more handout was all it was going to take to get the Mexican vote. They also started flailing away by granting more AA favors on other newcomers like the Pakistanis and Indians who the Reagan administration gave "disadvantaged" status to for government contracts always hoping to find their own group that would eat out of their hands for the next 100 years.

    The laziness comes in because when AA status was coming into being, the immigration rates of African and Caribbean blacks was so low that nobody bothered to put the necessary restrictions on it. As with all bad law created by a stupid Congress and administration, nothing ever gets fixed since a vocal minority quickly develops and wants to protect its undeserved benefit.
    , @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    Zakaria gets a fat, juicy bone from his masters... why would not he favor the bombing of Syria if so they demand? A good post without the usual dong stuff.
    , @Authenticjazzman
    " In the past all whites were privileged"

    Excellent post, and you have hit upon one of the central and totally ignored aspects of the slavery question, and that being : Americans and specifically the edumacated leftist class, have no clue as to the historical backgrounds of the whites who made it to the US shores.
    Fact is unless they, european whites, were titled : "Von" : nobility, or the english eqivalent thereof, they were all slaves in their homelands and subjected to the terrible conditions of "Leibeigenschaft" in Europe of which most Americans are totally unaware.
    The only reason for their peaceful departure from european shores being that their owners, the nobility, had visions of 1789 Paris and rolling heads, and they considered it safer for themselves to simply let them the peasants/slaves go : good riddance.
    This element of political history is purposely ignored in the US so as to uphold the notion that only blacks were victims of slavery and therefore the sole legitimate recipients of upcoming reparations, along with the complete psychotic spectrum of leftist notions regarding white guilt.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Eustace Tilley (not)
    You're right. That is the difference between a person striking out to kill his oppressors and an animal.

    The animal would run off as soon as it could and not waste energy or time even killing the owner, much less his family.

    Interspecific competition among pack hunters leads to young being killed all the time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
    Yes...but we have changed the subject, haven't we?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. dearieme says:
    @WmG
    As Spengler deftly noted, slavery ended due to "coal". No need to assign high motives as to why this institution died out. The Industrial Revolution killed it. Once people (e.g. Northerners) realized they no longer had any economic interest in the institution of slavery, they suddenly got that Old Time Religion.

    You need to explain how it was that coal was the enemy of plantation slavery.

    Anyway the theory sounds phoney to me. In England at least, abolitionism was led by evangelical Anglicans who were rather underrepresented amongst factory owners.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. MarkinLA says:
    @Priss Factor
    There is slavery that really was and there is 'slavery' as part of narrative.

    Slavery is inexhaustible as subject of story and calls for revision with new evidence, new perspectives, and etc.
    But 'slavery' as narrative is a simple storytelling to serve as shared sacred myth for the elites(as new clergy) and masses.
    Also, 'slavery' is useful to blacks to guilt-bait whites and make demands. And it is useful for Jewish elites to paralyze white pride. Also, it is addictive to whites who are into self-righteous vanity. They invoke guilt to profess their delusional virtue.

    There is slavery as important subject.
    There is 'totally evil slavery' as white guilt narrative.
    There is also 'necessary evil slavery' as justification for Confederacy. This third kind used to be dominant in the Southern narrative but is no more. Even monuments are being removed and bodies exhumed.

    It's a good idea to condemn slavery in our age, but it is complicated by racial factors. Whites enslaved blacks, a most problematic and troublesome race. So, we can never be sure if black problems are result of slavery or biology or maybe combination of both.

    If blacks weren't a troublesome race, I think 'white guilt' wouldn't be so bad. Why not make amends and seek reconciliation? But because blacks are a troublesome race, apologizing to blacks just makes them more troublesome as blacks tend to be self-centered, nasty, hostile, and psychopathic.

    If whites had enslaved a bunch of Hindus or Chinese, reconciliation would have been easier.

    Another thing. This 'white guilt' stuff is used by White Elites with privilege to piss on whites without privilege.

    This is how White Prog elite thinking goes: In the past, ALL whites were privileged. And white elites favored white masses(like during the New Deal). So, we must end white privilege by stop privileging all whites.
    And white elites must be fair to ALL.

    Well, here's the problem with the logic. Most whites in the US were never privileged. Sure, they had legal advantages over non-whites, but that mostly meant that they were favored for jobs where they had to toil on the farm under hot sun or work in coal mines or slave in factories for long hours. That aint no privilege. Even if a white guy was favored over black guy for such job, how was it privilege? Working 12 hrs in a coal mine and inhaling coal dust is privilege? Gimme a break.
    So, even when whites were favored over other races in the past, most whites never enjoyed anything that could be called privilege. They toiled and labored from sunrise to sunset.

    So, when today's white elites say they shall no longer lead, guide, or help white masses because whites have been privileged in the past, it's totally bogus. The only white people with white privilege are the white elites. And if anything, their own privilege is expanded with the current PC logic because they no longer need feel any nobless oblige to white masses. They can claim to care about 'diversity' and hog all the wealth and privilege for themselves. But as diversity is so vague and divided, white elites don't need to do anything important for anyone. Just make a lot of nice-sounding noises.

    So, white elites keep their own privilege while denouncing the imagined 'privilege' of white masses who never had any privilege. White elites justify their own privilege by condemning 'white privilege' of white masses who not only lack privilege but keep sinking lower and lower economically. It is a dirty trick.
    Imagine if the monarch and aristocrats of a kingdom denounced the privilege of their subjects(who actually have no privilege) to justify their own privilege. By making a big show of attacking the fictional privilege of the masses, those with real privilege justify their own.

    What's really comical about fighting 'white privilege' is how it is tied to immigration.
    Now, one could make a compelling argument that blacks, American Indians, and some other non-whites did get less than whites in general. Therefore, it was only right that white elites made some concerted effort to help the blacks and aid the Indians. Fair enough.

    But what does 'white privilege' have to do with masses of new immigrants who have NO HISTORY in America when it was discriminatory against non-whites?
    While it's true that Chinese Americans in the past were not treated equally, so many Chinese in America today are newcomers and they have NO HISTORY of having been discriminated against. Same goes for African immigrants. Why should these newcomers claim collective victimhood on the basis that their racial or ethnic kind in America had been mistreated? And if there were indeed some Chinese who built railroads, many newcomers don't have ANY ethnic stake in the American Past. Did Arabs build raildroads? Did Malaysians pick cotton?

    But for some reason, white elites must favor these newcomers even over white masses(whose ancestors toiled in farms, factories, and mines to build America from scratch). White elites favor these immivaders over white masses in the name of fighting 'white privilege'. But again, it is a case of whites with privilege waging war on whites without privilege to morally justify their own elite privilege in the name of protecting non-white minorities from white privilege when, if anything, it is white privilege that brings in scab immivaders to further undermine and destroy whites without privilege. Also, many of theses immivaders come with great privilege -- like that turd Fareed Zakaria -- and are toady servitors of the Empire. Zakaria praised Trump ONLY when missiles were lobbed on Syria. Imagine that. A non-white 'w*g' siding with neo-imperialism against a non-white nation.

    How did affirmative action expand beyond the only people who had a legitimate right to it – descendants of American Indians and American black slaves? It was a combination of laziness and stupidity, mostly by the people who should have been looking out for their constituency the GOP.

    The GOP was looking for a way to counterbalance the Democrats black vote and thought that “the natural Republican” Mexicans were the way to do it. That is why Nixon gave “Hispanics” AA status and Reagan amnestied them. The Reagan administration also thought that the amnesty was a two-fer. Not only would the beaners be the GOP’s niggers but the damage it would do to the unions would weaken the Democrats since the major source for their political power was white working class unions. It is too bad we don’t have transcripts of those meetings discussing the amnesty to know what the Reagan people really thought about average Americans. I bet it wasn’t very complimentary.

    Even when the GOP realized they were wrong they continued to double down thinking one more amnesty, one more handout was all it was going to take to get the Mexican vote. They also started flailing away by granting more AA favors on other newcomers like the Pakistanis and Indians who the Reagan administration gave “disadvantaged” status to for government contracts always hoping to find their own group that would eat out of their hands for the next 100 years.

    The laziness comes in because when AA status was coming into being, the immigration rates of African and Caribbean blacks was so low that nobody bothered to put the necessary restrictions on it. As with all bad law created by a stupid Congress and administration, nothing ever gets fixed since a vocal minority quickly develops and wants to protect its undeserved benefit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    "Affirmative action" was expanded with the misguided Supreme Court rulings on "disparate impact"-- the flawed doctrine that blacks could not make it on their own --"proof" being that there were not enough blacks in certain occupations and professions. THIS was "putting the cart before the horse" and worked exceeding well to cement the "affirmative action" scam in American jurisprudence.
    Although early promoters of the various "civil-rights" laws declared that these "civil-rights" laws would never establish "quotas", THAT is exactly what occurred.
    Aptitude tests, once widely used to determine suitability for employment were effectively outlawed because of "disparate impact". Hence, the "college degree" has become the "gatekeeper" for entrance into many occupations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Corvinus says:
    @Thorfinnsson
    I don't see the moral problem with slavery.

    Most people freely enslave themselves as Fred Reed hinted at in his segue about immigrants. The average worker in America today (and many other countries) spends up to the limit of his income (and then some), gorges himself on food to become obese, fulfills his carnal lust with the basest pornography (his wife, if he has one, having long since refused him in favor of romance novels), and allows his desires to be constructed for him by Madison Avenue. As the alt right kiddies say, he is a bugman.

    Southern intellectuals in the 1850s drew a similar conclusion. They claimed slavery elevated the negro race above its natural condition, and it's hard to argue they were wrong. George Fitzhugh went so far as to suggest that the poor whites should be enslaved as well.

    That said for slavery to be fair there must be some way out of it. I believe this did exist in Classical Antiquity though I am uncertain.

    “I don’t see the moral problem with slavery.”

    Then why don’t you become a slave yourself, or send your children into slavery, and report back to us.

    “Most people freely enslave themselves as Fred Reed hinted at in his segue about immigrants.”

    Those are called choices. People today make their own decisions regarding how they live their own life. Slaves for the most part were not afforded that luxury.

    ” fulfills his carnal lust with the basest pornography (his wife, if he has one, having long since refused him in favor of romance novels)”

    Project much?

    “They claimed slavery elevated the negro race above its natural condition, and it’s hard to argue they were wrong.”

    What do you mean by “natural condition”?

    “Modern day capitalism enslaves people through advertising and status competition. It’s subtler than capturing people and putting them in irons, but it’s hard to call it freedom.”

    Modern day capitalism offers people the choice whether or not to buy things and live a particular lifestyle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    I'm sure you must have overlooked the common practice in the Roman Republic and Empire of selling yourself into slavery so as to become available to hold financial posts. Only slaves could be tortured and no would trust someone with their funds if they couldn't question them hard. This is the way that Claudius' freedmen (and many others) became rich.

    In the Persian Empire it was even tougher. To get into fiscal and governmental positions you had to be castrated. Still the joys of public service were such that it was done.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Corvinus says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    Enjoyable read, Fred. Thanks.

    Why do we think importing cheaper, browner people to do work we can't pay our countrymen enough to do will work out in the end? We never learn.

    “Why do we think importing cheaper, browner people to do work we can’t pay our countrymen enough to do will work out in the end? We never learn.”

    Captains of Industry in the late 1800′s clamored for “affordable labor” by way of Eastern and Southern Europeans, who were considered by nativists to be ill-equipped to immerse themselves into American society. Perhaps they were your ancestors. If that be the case, you have to go back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    She's back! Marshmallow fluff!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Ben Gunn says:

    Fred moralism is referring to abolitionist sources/propaganda. Fanny Kemble has rebuttals and is controversial according to Wikipedia. There are many historical resources on slavery, newspapers, magazines, diaries and visitors accounts of the Old South.
    Try Thaddeus Russell’s history for a different view.

    https://www.amazon.com/Renegade-History-United-States/dp/1416576134/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1500129205&sr=8-1&keywords=thaddeus+russell

    FDR’s 1930′s capturing of the remaining ex-slaves account is fascinating.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. @Corvinus
    "Why do we think importing cheaper, browner people to do work we can’t pay our countrymen enough to do will work out in the end? We never learn."

    Captains of Industry in the late 1800's clamored for "affordable labor" by way of Eastern and Southern Europeans, who were considered by nativists to be ill-equipped to immerse themselves into American society. Perhaps they were your ancestors. If that be the case, you have to go back.

    She’s back! Marshmallow fluff!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    It's actually French caramel nougat, dear. I understand, you were raised in an Orthodox household where your parents would punish you for your sweet tooth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous

    JJS! You’re back!
     
    JJS? Sorry, I'm not Jewish. Cryptic Biblical references merely confuse me.

    I think your coming is supposed to herald the apocalypse or something.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    I think your coming is supposed to herald the apocalypse or something.
     
    There are days that I come close to deciding that alt-right morons will just have to be exterminated, if only to save the world from Terminal Stupidity. I mean, Jesus H. Christ, sure and begorra the ancien regime must be extinguished, but at such a price? Meu Deus, what a pack of maroons!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Priss Factor
    Lincoln’s solution of sending blacks back to Africa.

    Abe was a wise man.

    Lincoln himself said, in letter after letter after document after speech and before Congress, over and over and over, that he would not oppose slavery in the South if only it would come back to the Union, and–yes, boys and girls–he wanted to send blacks back to Africa.

    Abe was a very wise man.

    IN fact, the North wanted no blacks of any kind, having discovered that sweating European immigrants was more profitable.

    And kill Indians. Emma Lazarus called on more Europeans to arrive, take up guns, kill Indians, and grab the land.

    Turn the Indians into wretched huddled savages.

    Why Prissy, I do believe you got a soft spot for the injuns and hard on for the black man because of the big schlong!

    Read More
    • LOL: Delinquent Snail
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @Father Coughlin

    As it happened when the slaves were emancipated after the Civil War, no bloodbath came.
     
    With 600k-800k dead, I think the blood atonement was sufficient for even the thirstiest freed slave.

    Southerners should have known that Haiti was a much different place than America. But who's going to take the chance on "just a little bloodbath"?

    Southerners were indeed crazy to get bamboozled by the situation in Haiti because the French were notorious for their savage treatment of slaves and probably deserved the ghastly result. Vietnam was another place where the Americans were misled by French to help them continue their brutal rule costing more blood and treasure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Priss Factor
    There is slavery that really was and there is 'slavery' as part of narrative.

    Slavery is inexhaustible as subject of story and calls for revision with new evidence, new perspectives, and etc.
    But 'slavery' as narrative is a simple storytelling to serve as shared sacred myth for the elites(as new clergy) and masses.
    Also, 'slavery' is useful to blacks to guilt-bait whites and make demands. And it is useful for Jewish elites to paralyze white pride. Also, it is addictive to whites who are into self-righteous vanity. They invoke guilt to profess their delusional virtue.

    There is slavery as important subject.
    There is 'totally evil slavery' as white guilt narrative.
    There is also 'necessary evil slavery' as justification for Confederacy. This third kind used to be dominant in the Southern narrative but is no more. Even monuments are being removed and bodies exhumed.

    It's a good idea to condemn slavery in our age, but it is complicated by racial factors. Whites enslaved blacks, a most problematic and troublesome race. So, we can never be sure if black problems are result of slavery or biology or maybe combination of both.

    If blacks weren't a troublesome race, I think 'white guilt' wouldn't be so bad. Why not make amends and seek reconciliation? But because blacks are a troublesome race, apologizing to blacks just makes them more troublesome as blacks tend to be self-centered, nasty, hostile, and psychopathic.

    If whites had enslaved a bunch of Hindus or Chinese, reconciliation would have been easier.

    Another thing. This 'white guilt' stuff is used by White Elites with privilege to piss on whites without privilege.

    This is how White Prog elite thinking goes: In the past, ALL whites were privileged. And white elites favored white masses(like during the New Deal). So, we must end white privilege by stop privileging all whites.
    And white elites must be fair to ALL.

    Well, here's the problem with the logic. Most whites in the US were never privileged. Sure, they had legal advantages over non-whites, but that mostly meant that they were favored for jobs where they had to toil on the farm under hot sun or work in coal mines or slave in factories for long hours. That aint no privilege. Even if a white guy was favored over black guy for such job, how was it privilege? Working 12 hrs in a coal mine and inhaling coal dust is privilege? Gimme a break.
    So, even when whites were favored over other races in the past, most whites never enjoyed anything that could be called privilege. They toiled and labored from sunrise to sunset.

    So, when today's white elites say they shall no longer lead, guide, or help white masses because whites have been privileged in the past, it's totally bogus. The only white people with white privilege are the white elites. And if anything, their own privilege is expanded with the current PC logic because they no longer need feel any nobless oblige to white masses. They can claim to care about 'diversity' and hog all the wealth and privilege for themselves. But as diversity is so vague and divided, white elites don't need to do anything important for anyone. Just make a lot of nice-sounding noises.

    So, white elites keep their own privilege while denouncing the imagined 'privilege' of white masses who never had any privilege. White elites justify their own privilege by condemning 'white privilege' of white masses who not only lack privilege but keep sinking lower and lower economically. It is a dirty trick.
    Imagine if the monarch and aristocrats of a kingdom denounced the privilege of their subjects(who actually have no privilege) to justify their own privilege. By making a big show of attacking the fictional privilege of the masses, those with real privilege justify their own.

    What's really comical about fighting 'white privilege' is how it is tied to immigration.
    Now, one could make a compelling argument that blacks, American Indians, and some other non-whites did get less than whites in general. Therefore, it was only right that white elites made some concerted effort to help the blacks and aid the Indians. Fair enough.

    But what does 'white privilege' have to do with masses of new immigrants who have NO HISTORY in America when it was discriminatory against non-whites?
    While it's true that Chinese Americans in the past were not treated equally, so many Chinese in America today are newcomers and they have NO HISTORY of having been discriminated against. Same goes for African immigrants. Why should these newcomers claim collective victimhood on the basis that their racial or ethnic kind in America had been mistreated? And if there were indeed some Chinese who built railroads, many newcomers don't have ANY ethnic stake in the American Past. Did Arabs build raildroads? Did Malaysians pick cotton?

    But for some reason, white elites must favor these newcomers even over white masses(whose ancestors toiled in farms, factories, and mines to build America from scratch). White elites favor these immivaders over white masses in the name of fighting 'white privilege'. But again, it is a case of whites with privilege waging war on whites without privilege to morally justify their own elite privilege in the name of protecting non-white minorities from white privilege when, if anything, it is white privilege that brings in scab immivaders to further undermine and destroy whites without privilege. Also, many of theses immivaders come with great privilege -- like that turd Fareed Zakaria -- and are toady servitors of the Empire. Zakaria praised Trump ONLY when missiles were lobbed on Syria. Imagine that. A non-white 'w*g' siding with neo-imperialism against a non-white nation.

    Zakaria gets a fat, juicy bone from his masters… why would not he favor the bombing of Syria if so they demand? A good post without the usual dong stuff.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. lavoisier says: • Website
    @WmG
    Regardless of the fact that the institution of slavery was immoral, it was a legal institution and no society can tolerate the killing of its citizens simply because someone believes he has been unjustly treated, even if he is correct. The rule of law must have some meaning. At what point in the thought process does a reasonable person conclude that one who has been unjustly treated may kill with impunity and that society will simply shrug its collective shoulders and say "they deserved it"? May a man who has been "railroaded", wrongly convicted and imprisoned kill his prison guards in an escape attempt, with no consequence? May an opponent of abortion kill abortion doctors and expect that he will not be apprehended and prosecuted? I believe Mr. Reed was simply expressing the obvious point that anyone who was enslaved would, quite rightly, feel that a grave injustice had been inflicted on him. That is a moral issue. However, even a rebellious slave would have understood that the law, also quite rightly, would have considered his actions to be criminal and that, if caught, he would pay the price for his actions. How would a society survive otherwise? We can all admire, and even cheer for, a Spartacus; but we can also respect the Romans for enforcing their law. Justice may sometimes be cruel, but it must be served.

    If it is cruel it is not justice.

    Human cruelty is the prime driver of the world’s misery.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WmG
    You are confusing justice with mercy. The Biblical "eye for an eye" may have been cruel, but it was certainly a form of justice.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. WmG says:
    @lavoisier
    If it is cruel it is not justice.

    Human cruelty is the prime driver of the world's misery.

    You are confusing justice with mercy. The Biblical “eye for an eye” may have been cruel, but it was certainly a form of justice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    I think your coming is supposed to herald the apocalypse or something.

    I think your coming is supposed to herald the apocalypse or something.

    There are days that I come close to deciding that alt-right morons will just have to be exterminated, if only to save the world from Terminal Stupidity. I mean, Jesus H. Christ, sure and begorra the ancien regime must be extinguished, but at such a price? Meu Deus, what a pack of maroons!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @WmG
    Regardless of the fact that the institution of slavery was immoral, it was a legal institution and no society can tolerate the killing of its citizens simply because someone believes he has been unjustly treated, even if he is correct. The rule of law must have some meaning. At what point in the thought process does a reasonable person conclude that one who has been unjustly treated may kill with impunity and that society will simply shrug its collective shoulders and say "they deserved it"? May a man who has been "railroaded", wrongly convicted and imprisoned kill his prison guards in an escape attempt, with no consequence? May an opponent of abortion kill abortion doctors and expect that he will not be apprehended and prosecuted? I believe Mr. Reed was simply expressing the obvious point that anyone who was enslaved would, quite rightly, feel that a grave injustice had been inflicted on him. That is a moral issue. However, even a rebellious slave would have understood that the law, also quite rightly, would have considered his actions to be criminal and that, if caught, he would pay the price for his actions. How would a society survive otherwise? We can all admire, and even cheer for, a Spartacus; but we can also respect the Romans for enforcing their law. Justice may sometimes be cruel, but it must be served.

    Spartacus was more of a bandit than a liberator. He and his followers weren’t the least bit bashful at taking the slaves from the lush country estates they looted and burned, and selling them to the pirates. Other than grabbing as much loot as they could and getting the hell out of Italy, Spartacus and his bandit buddies had no program at all, let alone a program of liberating all the slaves. Never mind what Dalton Trumbo and Kirk ?Douglas told you in the only one of his films that Stanley Kubrick disowned. It was no more historical than all those biblical epics from the forties and fifties.

    Read More
    • Replies: @fnn
    No doubt Commie Trumbo envisioned Spartacus as a heroic proto-Bolshevik.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Corvinus says:
    @The Anti-Gnostic
    She's back! Marshmallow fluff!

    It’s actually French caramel nougat, dear. I understand, you were raised in an Orthodox household where your parents would punish you for your sweet tooth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. anarchyst says:
    @MarkinLA
    How did affirmative action expand beyond the only people who had a legitimate right to it - descendants of American Indians and American black slaves? It was a combination of laziness and stupidity, mostly by the people who should have been looking out for their constituency the GOP.

    The GOP was looking for a way to counterbalance the Democrats black vote and thought that "the natural Republican" Mexicans were the way to do it. That is why Nixon gave "Hispanics" AA status and Reagan amnestied them. The Reagan administration also thought that the amnesty was a two-fer. Not only would the beaners be the GOP's niggers but the damage it would do to the unions would weaken the Democrats since the major source for their political power was white working class unions. It is too bad we don't have transcripts of those meetings discussing the amnesty to know what the Reagan people really thought about average Americans. I bet it wasn't very complimentary.

    Even when the GOP realized they were wrong they continued to double down thinking one more amnesty, one more handout was all it was going to take to get the Mexican vote. They also started flailing away by granting more AA favors on other newcomers like the Pakistanis and Indians who the Reagan administration gave "disadvantaged" status to for government contracts always hoping to find their own group that would eat out of their hands for the next 100 years.

    The laziness comes in because when AA status was coming into being, the immigration rates of African and Caribbean blacks was so low that nobody bothered to put the necessary restrictions on it. As with all bad law created by a stupid Congress and administration, nothing ever gets fixed since a vocal minority quickly develops and wants to protect its undeserved benefit.

    “Affirmative action” was expanded with the misguided Supreme Court rulings on “disparate impact”– the flawed doctrine that blacks could not make it on their own –”proof” being that there were not enough blacks in certain occupations and professions. THIS was “putting the cart before the horse” and worked exceeding well to cement the “affirmative action” scam in American jurisprudence.
    Although early promoters of the various “civil-rights” laws declared that these “civil-rights” laws would never establish “quotas”, THAT is exactly what occurred.
    Aptitude tests, once widely used to determine suitability for employment were effectively outlawed because of “disparate impact”. Hence, the “college degree” has become the “gatekeeper” for entrance into many occupations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    My point was about how it got expanded to "Hispanics" which has nothing to do with disparate impact. Hispanics and fresh off the boat blacks could have easily been cut out of the affirmative action gravy train if only Congress had mandated that any privileges be limited to people who could document their ancestry to American black slaves or recognized members of an Indian tribe. Appalachian whites can not claim disparate impact because they are white.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. anarchyst says:

    To the entire Black race living in America, we, the Adamic, pink complexioned race (better known to you as the White race) that came to these shores from Europe, England, Scotland, Ireland, and Iceland, apologize for freeing you from slavery by fighting a horrible war among ourselves that cost the lives of almost two million of our own race. We apologize for continuing to fight among ourselves over that very issue, even though you’ve never told us you appreciate our freeing you.

    We apologize for splitting to pieces our entire race the world over to take sides with you to help you survive and become a freer race. We apologize for forcing the rest of the world to outlaw the slavery which your ancestors had practiced for thousands of years, even though many nations on your home continent still practice it today.

    We apologize for thinking we could civilize you when you have proven that it is indeed an impossible feat, a feat beyond anything we could have ever imagined.

    We apologize for introducing Christianity to you and dragging you away from the Voodoo you previously followed, although you have managed to sneak that religion back into cultic Christianity and our people have accepted it, which is witnessed by their animalistic whooping and hollering and stomping and screaming instead of respectfully worshiping our God as they ought to.

    [MORE]

    We apologize for teaching you to add and subtract (what little you can), thereby enabling you to run a household and pay your bills (what few you will) and count your children other than on your fingers and sometimes toes when you have so many you run out of fingers.

    We apologize for providing you with medical care instead of leaving you under the witch doctors you used before we arrived, as a result of which you have been able to survive all sorts of diseases to multiply in massive numbers beyond what you could have without these aides.

    We apologize for building schools for you which we have had to repair over and over after you vandalized them beyond use. We apologize for inventing computers and the Internet, neither of which you use very much, but when you do use them it’s mostly to bash our race.

    We apologize for building factories and businesses that employ you, if you so desire to work. We apologize for creating millions of bureaucratic jobs within our government system simply to give you employment, instead of leaving you to find work on your own.

    We apologize for promoting and buying your music, although you refuse to buy ours. We apologize for talking and acting as you do, although you refuse to talk and act as we do.

    We apologize for placing you in our movies and TV shows and elevating you to a fictional, heroic level that you have never reached in real life. We apologize for creating this false image of yourselves in your minds, for we realize after 400 years of trying to help you that you cannot solve problems and provide leadership and create original thoughts; and the image we’ve placed in your minds causes you to live in a delusional world. For that we truly apologize.

    We apologize for creating quota systems and forced employment programs to make sure you have the best jobs, if you so desire to work. We apologize for thinking we could educate you so that you could learn to build and help others, when you obviously have only the ability to tear down and take from others.

    We apologize for giving you welfare and food stamps, with the result that for four generations over half of your race has not had to work, except in makeshift type of jobs in our governments and bureaucracies.

    We apologize for promoting your children in school as if they could understand basic arithmetic and grammar, such as multiplication and past participles, when we should have made sure they were accustomed to manual labor so that we would not have had to make up jobs for them in our governments dusting seats with their butts.

    We apologize for developing farms in our own lands which you have never been able to do, and that to this day feed most of your race still living in Africa. We apologize for coming to Africa and building farms, from which you have now run us off of and have devastated beyond use, forcing us to continue feeding you.

    We apologize for creating the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) and U.S. Government Foreign Aid Programs and hundreds of charities that funnel billions of our tax dollars and charitable donations to nations around the world run by your race, all because your race cannot take care of itself by itself anywhere you live.

    We apologize for giving you the right to vote so you could take over all our major cities and turn them into high-taxed, crime-ridden cesspools that no civilized human being can live in.

    We apologize for creating the term “reverend,” which your leaders use to give themselves credentials and which their actions have denigrated beyond repair, with the result that no decent person would call himself “reverend,” much less a Christian

    We apologize for trying to come up with an AIDS vaccine to stop the epidemic spread of AIDS in Africa, AIDS being a disease that you created and passed on to us after having sexual intercourse with monkeys and then with one of our idiotic race-mixers who then passed it on to the rest of the world.

    We apologize for providing you with warm, custom-made garments instead of the animal skins and leaves that you wore before we arrived. We apologize for providing you with shoes instead of leaving you barefooted as you were before we arrived in Africa.

    We apologize for teaching you how to clean yourselves and your homes, and how to sanitize the water you drink to keep you from getting even more dreadful diseases than the rest of your race gets that still lives in Africa. We apologize for teaching you to cook your foods, which keeps you from getting the hundreds of parasitic diseases that your race gets that still lives on your home continent of Africa.

    We apologize for providing you with solidly built, heated, and cooled homes with grass yards instead of the straw huts and dirt yards you were living in before we arrived, and in which most of your race is still living in in Africa.

    We apologize for inventing sports so that you can make millions of dollars and live like kings, then kill and rape people with impunity, as O.J. Heisman-Trophy-Winner Simpson and Mike Heavy-Weight-Champion-of-the-World Tyson have done, as well as many others among your race.

    We apologize for producing such beautiful people for you to race-mix with, and if they won’t voluntarily mix, you often casually rape them as if you were eating a piece of fried chicken.

    We apologize for building thousands of prisons around the nation to house dangerous criminals, of which your race makes up over sixty percent even though you’re only thirteen percent of the U.S. population, and this at an expense of billions of dollars and manpower every year.

    We apologize for taking precious metals from the earth on your home continent of Africa, metals which you neither knew were there nor how to use them if you had known they were there, but which you love to puncture and cover your bodies with in the most tawdry way imaginable.

    We apologize for those among us who have established charitable organizations, donated billions of dollars and hours of time, and have devoted their entire lives to make life easier and better for your race, although most often to no positive result.

    We apologize for all the stupid White ministers whom your race has martyred in Africa where they were trying to evangelize you to a faith that you can’t understand nor do you want to; yet when you claim to join it soon pervert it with the voodooistic concepts you have inherited from your forefathers.

    We apologize for building highways and railroads and for inventing flying machines that you could never have invented but which you use everyday to move about, yet without thinking or appreciating their origins in the least.

    We apologize for paying the majority of both federal and state taxes, to maintain the governments which protect and promote you but fight against our own people at every turn.

    We apologize for defeating the major part of the communist threat which cost us several trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives, but whose doctrines you still wish to have implemented on the backs of our race to further torture us and tear us down.

    We apologize for spending trillions of dollars on welfare and food stamps in the last sixty years, funds which your race received the majority of, although you are a small minority among us.

    We apologize for introducing you to the rule of law under a republican form of government, a government that has gone abroad to keep your own warring nations from slaughtering other members of your race by the hundreds of thousands as they did year in and year out before we arrived, and still do every time we leave them alone and do not intervene.

    We apologize for teaching you to read a language that contains more than a few words and a couple of hand signs, which has allowed you to take part in our philosophies, our culture, our art, our industry, our collegial nature, and our freedom, even though as soon as you get around them you pervert them.

    For surely, if you could not read, how could you have learned the teachings of Karl Marx, Mao Tse Sung, Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Nikolai Lenin, Howard Zinn, the Democrat Party, the Neo-cons in the Republican Party, and others who hate our race, and have brainwashed you into believing our race is evil and that you are severely oppressed?

    We apologize for placing you under the form of government that our own forefathers died to create, and for which you are helping to destroy, instead of leaving you under the anarchy you lived under before we arrived.

    For all these wrongs we’ve carried out against you, we apologize deeply and unreservedly, and if you will please accept our apology, we shall happily and immediately take back all of the above mentioned evils we have cast upon you and return you to your home continent, if you so desire.

    We would with the greatest of glee and cheer even provide you with a nice, little stipend for traveling money, if you’d go and take your race-traitor wives and husbands and Mulatto children with you.

    We have enjoyed having you here, but because you claim we’ve been, and are still being, so mean to you, we’d like to atone by helping you get back to where you came from.

    You could live in peace without our persecuting you anymore, and we could save ourselves trillions of dollars over the next few years by shrinking our governments and emptying our prisons. We could take hundreds of thousands of security guards and police officers around the country off their jobs and put them to more productive use, and we could celebrate our own culture without offending you anymore.

    The white race traitors who hate their own culture and heritage could go with you, and we won’t offend them anymore either. For after a few generations of mixing with your race they would disappear into the dark tar-mix which your dominant design-genes make up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rev. Pete
    ...and we apologize for this lengthy vacuous diatribe by a member of who knows what race and who really cares about his un-human license to carry half a brain. In your hat, nothing real exists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. fnn says:
    @Abelard Lindsey
    David Goldman (aka Spengler) has talked about this very issue. What he said was significantly different than what Fred has said here.

    https://pjmedia.com/spengler/2014/8/19/the-beam-in-our-eye/

    David Goldman (aka Spengler) has talked about this very issue. What he said was significantly different than what Fred has said here.

    Goldman was Chief Economic Adviser to Lyndon LaRouche for more than a few years. I once saw Goldman and LaRouche walking rapidly through a hotel lobby in NYC with Goldman chattering away with his mouth essentially attached to LaRouche’s ear. The mentality of the fanatical extremist seldom changes much, it only tends to mellow a bit with age.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. fnn says:
    @The Plutonium Kid
    Spartacus was more of a bandit than a liberator. He and his followers weren't the least bit bashful at taking the slaves from the lush country estates they looted and burned, and selling them to the pirates. Other than grabbing as much loot as they could and getting the hell out of Italy, Spartacus and his bandit buddies had no program at all, let alone a program of liberating all the slaves. Never mind what Dalton Trumbo and Kirk ?Douglas told you in the only one of his films that Stanley Kubrick disowned. It was no more historical than all those biblical epics from the forties and fifties.

    No doubt Commie Trumbo envisioned Spartacus as a heroic proto-Bolshevik.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. KenH says:

    This seems like one of Fred’s tequila soaked screeds. Or maybe he’s seeking an honorary membership in BLM.

    It’s said that Fanny Kemble’s motive in writing Journal of a Residence on a Georgia Plantation was to influence British public opinion and keep Britain neutral instead of militarily aiding the confederacy. So it makes me wonder if the account was embellished accordingly to provoke the requisite moral outrage to achieve that objective since it appears she was successful.

    I’m not arguing that slavery in the South was always benign, but this could also be the earliest account of “slavery porn” which later morphed into atrocity porn (since the West ended slavery) used to manipulate the U.S. into fighting wars and armed conflicts of the 20th century and even to this day (i.e., Iraqi soldiers are ripping babies from incubators, Saddam gassed the Kurds, Putin murders journalists, Assad is killing is own people, ad nauseum).

    Fred’s missive leaves out the fact that there were something like over 3000 black African slave masters in America, many of whom treated their black slaves brutally. And newly freed slaves sometimes became slave owners themselves. It was not an exclusive white on black practice.

    https://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

    By now everyone should know blacks were slaves in Africa and willingly sold to Europeans by African tribal chieftains.

    It wasn’t always a picnic to be white in colonial America either. Many whites arrived in chains as indentured servants and there were children who were kidnapped in English ports and forcible brought to the new world against their will. It wasn’t uncommon for adults and children to be mistreated, worked to death or die due to poor working condition. Descendants of these unfortunate whites aren’t burning cities to the ground, raping, pillaging and plundering.

    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01KU6LFK2/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

    Then we have the holier than thou, religion of peace people who raided European coasts to the tune of over one million white, Christian slaves over a 300 year period. Few whites survived to tell their stories.

    https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Slaves-Muslim-Masters-Mediterranean/dp/1403945519/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1500227920&sr=1-1&keywords=christian+slaves+muslim+masters

    So cry me a river with your teary and gut wrenching anecdotes of negro slaves in America. Whites don’t owe blacks or any other group a damn thing except maybe a plane ticket back to their country of origin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish

    Or maybe he’s seeking an honorary membership in BLM.
     
    You didn't read the entire article, did you?

    You are correct about Fred leaving out the black slave owners, but he did mention the fact that black slaves were sold into slavery by other blacks. Trust me; no nappy headed BLM moron would like this article and neither would any damned yankee.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Negrolphin Pool
    Interspecific competition among pack hunters leads to young being killed all the time.

    Yes…but we have changed the subject, haven’t we?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. anarchyst says:
    @Pat Boyle
    The term 'slave wages' is a kind of pseudo-Marxist oxymoron. Agricultural chattel slaves on plantations don't earn wages. There of course are many other kind of slaves and some of them did earn wages but presumably you meant the common image of the black men and women who picked cotton or hoed the fields.

    Before Trump ran all the Mexicans out of Oakland, I certainly payed prevailing rates to the guys I hired to clean my yard. I picked them up, and drove them home. How were they slaves?

    If you earn money you are not a slave, and if you are a slave you don't earn money.

    The phrase “If you earn money you are not a slave, and if you are a slave you don’t earn money”, is not factual.
    Plantations were run like mini-states with a large degree of specialization going on. There were carpenters, cabinet makers, cooks and bakers, farriers and drivers, as well as many other occupations that were staffed by slaves. Many slaves DID earn money. Most were able to run “side businesses”, and some even were able to purchase their freedom. Those who were successful in purchasing their freedom quite often, became slave owners themselves.
    The commonly held vision of the slave owner sipping mint juleps while his slaves toiled in the field is a figment of imagination. More often than not, the slave owner was out in the fields with his charges getting the crops planted or harvested.
    There is still one slave plantation still in existence to this day–the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, Louisiana…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    Plantations were run like mini-states with a large degree of specialization going on. There were carpenters, cabinet makers, cooks and bakers, farriers and drivers, as well as many other occupations that were staffed by slaves. Many slaves DID earn money. Most were able to run “side businesses”, and some even were able to purchase their freedom. Those who were successful in purchasing their freedom quite often, became slave owners themselves.
     
    Sounds like a great life. Are you volunteering?
    , @Pat Boyle
    Thank you for your information but you might want to be a little more careful when you preach. Your remarks are condescending. I have read most of the relevant studies on slavery and don't hold the "commonly held visions' you impute to me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Truth says:
    @anarchyst
    The phrase "If you earn money you are not a slave, and if you are a slave you don't earn money", is not factual.
    Plantations were run like mini-states with a large degree of specialization going on. There were carpenters, cabinet makers, cooks and bakers, farriers and drivers, as well as many other occupations that were staffed by slaves. Many slaves DID earn money. Most were able to run "side businesses", and some even were able to purchase their freedom. Those who were successful in purchasing their freedom quite often, became slave owners themselves.
    The commonly held vision of the slave owner sipping mint juleps while his slaves toiled in the field is a figment of imagination. More often than not, the slave owner was out in the fields with his charges getting the crops planted or harvested.
    There is still one slave plantation still in existence to this day--the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, Louisiana...

    Plantations were run like mini-states with a large degree of specialization going on. There were carpenters, cabinet makers, cooks and bakers, farriers and drivers, as well as many other occupations that were staffed by slaves. Many slaves DID earn money. Most were able to run “side businesses”, and some even were able to purchase their freedom. Those who were successful in purchasing their freedom quite often, became slave owners themselves.

    Sounds like a great life. Are you volunteering?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    I abhor slavery as much as anyone else. However, it is (still) part of the "human condition" in many parts of the world.
    A "smart" slave would have done anything to get away from "working the fields"...hence, getting good at a trade was "one way up", and could lead to possible freedom and a better living standard during tenure..
    Making the best of one's circumstances does not make on an advocate of "that peculiar institution"...
    Your snide remark exposes you as a small-minded individual...GROW UP, already!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Pat Boyle says:
    @anarchyst
    The phrase "If you earn money you are not a slave, and if you are a slave you don't earn money", is not factual.
    Plantations were run like mini-states with a large degree of specialization going on. There were carpenters, cabinet makers, cooks and bakers, farriers and drivers, as well as many other occupations that were staffed by slaves. Many slaves DID earn money. Most were able to run "side businesses", and some even were able to purchase their freedom. Those who were successful in purchasing their freedom quite often, became slave owners themselves.
    The commonly held vision of the slave owner sipping mint juleps while his slaves toiled in the field is a figment of imagination. More often than not, the slave owner was out in the fields with his charges getting the crops planted or harvested.
    There is still one slave plantation still in existence to this day--the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, Louisiana...

    Thank you for your information but you might want to be a little more careful when you preach. Your remarks are condescending. I have read most of the relevant studies on slavery and don’t hold the “commonly held visions’ you impute to me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Pat Boyle says:
    @Corvinus
    "I don’t see the moral problem with slavery."

    Then why don't you become a slave yourself, or send your children into slavery, and report back to us.

    "Most people freely enslave themselves as Fred Reed hinted at in his segue about immigrants."

    Those are called choices. People today make their own decisions regarding how they live their own life. Slaves for the most part were not afforded that luxury.

    " fulfills his carnal lust with the basest pornography (his wife, if he has one, having long since refused him in favor of romance novels)"

    Project much?

    "They claimed slavery elevated the negro race above its natural condition, and it’s hard to argue they were wrong."

    What do you mean by "natural condition"?

    "Modern day capitalism enslaves people through advertising and status competition. It’s subtler than capturing people and putting them in irons, but it’s hard to call it freedom."

    Modern day capitalism offers people the choice whether or not to buy things and live a particular lifestyle.

    I’m sure you must have overlooked the common practice in the Roman Republic and Empire of selling yourself into slavery so as to become available to hold financial posts. Only slaves could be tortured and no would trust someone with their funds if they couldn’t question them hard. This is the way that Claudius’ freedmen (and many others) became rich.

    In the Persian Empire it was even tougher. To get into fiscal and governmental positions you had to be castrated. Still the joys of public service were such that it was done.

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish

    To get into fiscal and governmental positions you had to be castrated.
     
    Looking at the republican congress that may still be true.
    , @Corvinus
    "I’m sure you must have overlooked the common practice in the Roman Republic and Empire of selling yourself into slavery so as to become available to hold financial posts."

    I am familiar with Romans selling themselves as slaves to pay debts, but not to gain a financial post. Do you have a source?

    "In the Persian Empire it was even tougher. To get into fiscal and governmental positions you had to be castrated. Still the joys of public service were such that it was done."

    OK.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. anarchyst says:
    @Truth

    Plantations were run like mini-states with a large degree of specialization going on. There were carpenters, cabinet makers, cooks and bakers, farriers and drivers, as well as many other occupations that were staffed by slaves. Many slaves DID earn money. Most were able to run “side businesses”, and some even were able to purchase their freedom. Those who were successful in purchasing their freedom quite often, became slave owners themselves.
     
    Sounds like a great life. Are you volunteering?

    I abhor slavery as much as anyone else. However, it is (still) part of the “human condition” in many parts of the world.
    A “smart” slave would have done anything to get away from “working the fields”…hence, getting good at a trade was “one way up”, and could lead to possible freedom and a better living standard during tenure..
    Making the best of one’s circumstances does not make on an advocate of “that peculiar institution”…
    Your snide remark exposes you as a small-minded individual…GROW UP, already!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    any slaves DID earn money. Most were able to run “side businesses”, and some even were able to purchase their freedom.
     
    Oh no, my friend, I think you misunderstand, I have read many, and I mean MANY tomes on this site in my 10 year tenure, beginning with isteve.com onto unz.com, that parrot the "slavery wasn't really that bad, it was great for the negros, and they had it better than the Irish" claptrap. My question is this, if many slaves earned money, how many is many? %1, %5, %28, give me a number so that I can understand this, glorified technical high school that was slavery. I mean, it seems great, learn a trade in exchange for a little effort; I'm just curious as to why you would not like to sign up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. @Thorfinnsson

    True, but there is moral chasm between choosing to enslave oneself and being forcibly enslaved.
     
    Modern day capitalism enslaves people through advertising and status competition. It's subtler than capturing people and putting them in irons, but it's hard to call it freedom.

    And that's fine. We're the RIGHT. We accept hierarchy and inequality. And since we accept it as inevitable and normal, it's only proper that we in turn practice noblesse oblige and act as good role models.

    No sense beating around the bush.

    The deeper issue is trying to keep two different peoples with vastly different genetic makeups and abilities in one society. It only works when one group dominates the other. The South worked when whites maintained control via slavery or Jim Crow. Once those fell, the South started to have problems, which continue to this day.

    Forcing blacks and whites to share a common territory leads to either domination or chaos. So, naturally, the best way to deal with that is introduce a few more races to mix as we’re doing now. Genius all around.
     
    Domination worked just fine--at least everywhere other than Haiti. The New World plantation slave societies where all economically and socially successful, and the ones with the good sense to import wives from Europe instead of drilling for oil preserved their racial integrity as well.

    Doubtless it was undesirable to introduce negro slaves above a certain degree of latitude, as that meant a relatively lower white population. But in the tropics only colored men could do the work (after the failed emancipation experiment Indian coolies were brought in).

    The real mystery is why people in Britain and the Northern United States decided en masse, for the first time in all of human history, that slavery was evil and had to be stamped out. The 19th century abolitionist movement was the first modern SJW campaign. This is the central mystery of the decline of the white race.

    The real mystery is why people in Britain and the Northern United States decided en masse, for the first time in all of human history, that slavery was evil and had to be stamped out. The 19th century abolitionist movement was the first modern SJW campaign. This is the central mystery of the decline of the white race.

    I’m quite certain that my devout Christian anti-slavery forefathers, would be horrified to learn that they are being compared to the vile SJWs of today. The two groups have nothing in common.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. H Parnell says:

    I don’t usually read, to say nothing of commenting upon, anything by El Gringo de Mexico (Fred Reed), but all this moral caterwauling about slavery is amusing. Slavery is simply the natural consequence of the agricultural revolution upon inter-tribal conflict as practiced by humans since their emergence from the apes: kill the men (and male children), and take the women (and young girls). Now this is simply how it IS, or rather WAS, without your “God” or your “soul” and the rest of that made-up stuff. Suddenly, defeated populations, hitherto slaughtered as a matter of course, could be kept to do menial but necessary work, freeing the victors of drudgery AND giving them the satisfaction of seeing their hated enemies subjugated and humiliated.

    One could even argue that slavery, in its beginnings, was an act of charity and compassion, if one values human life above all other considerations. But whether it is better to be a live dog than a dead lion depends on whether one is a dog or a lion, as the two are hardly equivalent, except in that realm in which slavery is, as Commie Atheist Carl Sagan used to say, “Man’s original sin,” that most unreal of worlds, the one(s) that exist ONLY inside of human heads.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  83. Truth says:
    @anarchyst
    I abhor slavery as much as anyone else. However, it is (still) part of the "human condition" in many parts of the world.
    A "smart" slave would have done anything to get away from "working the fields"...hence, getting good at a trade was "one way up", and could lead to possible freedom and a better living standard during tenure..
    Making the best of one's circumstances does not make on an advocate of "that peculiar institution"...
    Your snide remark exposes you as a small-minded individual...GROW UP, already!

    any slaves DID earn money. Most were able to run “side businesses”, and some even were able to purchase their freedom.

    Oh no, my friend, I think you misunderstand, I have read many, and I mean MANY tomes on this site in my 10 year tenure, beginning with isteve.com onto unz.com, that parrot the “slavery wasn’t really that bad, it was great for the negros, and they had it better than the Irish” claptrap. My question is this, if many slaves earned money, how many is many? %1, %5, %28, give me a number so that I can understand this, glorified technical high school that was slavery. I mean, it seems great, learn a trade in exchange for a little effort; I’m just curious as to why you would not like to sign up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    Truth, of course [almost] no man wants to be a slave, and all men know this. My question to you is, why are some men, and perhaps almost all men under certain conditions, willing to enslave others?
    , @vinteuil
    Troof, you're not even really trying, anymore.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @tsotha

    I cannot see why this was regarded as a crime. Certainly slaves have a moral right to kill their owners. If someone tried to enslave you and your family, would you kill him? I would.
     
    I might. But I wouldn't kill his family. That's the difference between a person striking out at his oppressors and an animal.

    Genocide is restricted to non-human animals? I never heard tell. Why would the slave, shamed as a subordinate and draft animal, be expected to act with noble generosity toward the family that enjoyed his forced labor? Should he expect to benefit from his nobility? If you enslave a man, you should not expect noble behavior in kind. A slave is not an animal, he is a man. He may be a man who wishes to destroy you and everything associated with you. Or he may act nobly under the circumstance, and be rewarded by God for behaving so. Genocide may be crazy, but it is very, very human.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    "Or he may act nobly under the circumstance, and be rewarded by God for behaving so."

    Blindly hoping for divine judgment will only make things worse. If you are enslaved, its your right as an individual to kill your slave master. Whether you have the strength to do it or not is another topic entirely. But it stands. Praying for something as foolish as a fairytale ending is just perpetuating the cycle. Without action, there will be no change.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Truth

    any slaves DID earn money. Most were able to run “side businesses”, and some even were able to purchase their freedom.
     
    Oh no, my friend, I think you misunderstand, I have read many, and I mean MANY tomes on this site in my 10 year tenure, beginning with isteve.com onto unz.com, that parrot the "slavery wasn't really that bad, it was great for the negros, and they had it better than the Irish" claptrap. My question is this, if many slaves earned money, how many is many? %1, %5, %28, give me a number so that I can understand this, glorified technical high school that was slavery. I mean, it seems great, learn a trade in exchange for a little effort; I'm just curious as to why you would not like to sign up.

    Truth, of course [almost] no man wants to be a slave, and all men know this. My question to you is, why are some men, and perhaps almost all men under certain conditions, willing to enslave others?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    People are willing to enslave others for financial and sexual gain. Now Neil, I have been studying things tangenital to this for the last three years, and I could really go deep upon it, but slavery, in the "new world" depended upon one of the three major lies of the last 500 years (the generational tranny agenda and the Baal earth are the others).

    Basically, white folks had a very easy time enslaving black folks because they were able to convince themselves that they were:

    1. Beneath human

    2. Turning them into Christians

    Now here's the strange part, skipping 2,000 steps of logic and knowledge, point #2 actually has truth to it!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @whoever
    I would like to know why you believe Quakers profited from slavery. I read the Amazon page for the book you link, Complicity, and saw no mention of Quakers. What you write contradicts what I know about Quakers and slavery. I may be wrong in this, so if you have a source for your assertion, do please post it.
    I'm Brethren, and I know that we forbade slave-holding in 1782.
    It was ordained that, "No brother or sister should have negroes as slaves; and in case a brother or sister has such, he or she must set them free."
    Further it was ordained that any who owned slaves, "Make speedy preparation to liberate them, that this evil may be banished from among us, as we look upon slavery as dangerous to be tolerated in the church, and is a great injury to the cause of Christ and the progress of the church.
    "So, unitedly, we exhort our brethren humbly, yet earnestly and lovingly, to clear themselves of slavery, that they may not fail and come short of the glory of God at the great and notable day of the Lord. Furthermore, concerning Brethren who hire a slave or slaves, and paying wages to their owners, we do not approve of it. The same is attended with the evil which is combined with slavery. It is taking hold of the same evil which we cannot encourage, and should be banished and put from among us, and cannot be tolerated in the church.”

    It was additionally agreed that blacks would be accepted as Brethren: “It is considered, that inasmuch as the gospel is to be preached to all nations and races, and if they come as repentant sinners, believing in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and apply for baptism, we could not confidently refuse them.”

    Quakers and Mennonites took a stand against slavery long before 1782. The declamation against slavery drafted in Thones Kunders’ house in Germantown in 1688 is sometimes referred to as one of this nation’s foundational documents. Robert Pyle was another influential Quaker abolitionist, who published his views in 1698. Kunders and Pyle were both grandparents of mine, FWIW, and believe me, I’m proud of my dissenting oddball antecedents. I have to concede truth to the statement that many Quaker owned slaves, however.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. LauraMR says:
    @tsotha

    I cannot see why this was regarded as a crime. Certainly slaves have a moral right to kill their owners. If someone tried to enslave you and your family, would you kill him? I would.
     
    I might. But I wouldn't kill his family. That's the difference between a person striking out at his oppressors and an animal.

    Slaves were property and, consequently, part of a estate and legally owned by the family. Yes, shock to many of you, women owned human beings too.

    Of course, the myopia of article can be forgiven since, in any case, Brazil and the USA were the two largest slaver nations ever on the planet. Indeed, the USA was the penultimate country on Earth to give up the practice and Brazil the very last. Having said this, slavery itself goes back to the onset of humanity and was long practiced by the natives in the “New World” before the Europeans arrived.

    And all throughout, women owned slaves. Family assets they were, just as furniture or livestock.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Anyone who has the idea that slavery at the time was the exception should read Roy & Lesley Adkins, ‘Jack Tar, The extraordinary lives of ordinary seamen in Nelson’s navy’, 2009 London These seamen were kidnapped as were slaves in Africa, and were forced to serve on board of the British navy until death, or, if they were lucky, until the war ended.

    Marcus Clarke, ‘For the Term of his Natural Life’, 1874, 1970, London It is a novel about British petty criminals deported to Australia, but it is close to the truth. The way they were transported to Australia was not better than the slave transport across the Atlantic, but it took three months. How anyone did not get crazy during the voyage is beyond my comprehension. Those running the camps in Australia were far worse than how WWII SS are depicted.

    Robert Harms, Das Sklavenschiff, Eine Reise in die Welt des Sklavenhandels’, München 2007 (The Diligent, New York, 2001) It is a very well researched and documented book about slavery, based mainly on French trial records. However, Harms in the introduction writes that ‘the French aristocracy treated the peasants not much better than slaves’.

    Anyone who can read German can read how the German aristocracy and priesthood treated peasants Wilhelm Zimmermann, ‘Der grosse deutsche Bauernkrieg’, 1856, 1982, Berlin The peasant rebellion was 1524, date from memory.

    Then there is Engels’ description of the lives of British workers around 1850.

    Also interesting John Prebble, ‘The Highland Clearances’, London 1969 How British landlords sent their Scottish tenants into hunger.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  89. Yancey says:

    Blacks should have been sent back to Africa after the war of Northern aggression. They could also have been sold off to Brazil which was still a slave owning nation.

    They should never have been allowed to be citizens. Their presence here in the United States is a disaster.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    The American Colonisation Society, with some of the most prominent people in the country, tried for forty years to send the Africans back to Africa. All they had to show for it was a few thousand Liberians. The toothpaste just wasnt going back in the tube.
    , @Logan
    Morality aside, logistics were the rub.

    4,000,000 people are no cinch to ship across the world, even today. Much, much more difficult and expensive at the time, especially if it was forced, so you'd have to catch them first.

    All the many attempts to "repatriate" blacks foundered on the problem of simple math: number of people x cost per person.

    What would it have cost, per capita, to "repatriate" them? $500??

    That would add up to $2B, at a time when the entire federal budget in 1860 had been $60M.

    Does anyone seriously think American taxpayers would have been up for footing such an enormous bill, especially when they just incurred enormous debts fighting a long war?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Carlton Meyer
    I wasn't aware that Quakers profited from slavery, and would be surprised if it were more than a few isolated cases. Here is more on Lincoln myths from my blog:

    Sep 5, 2011 - Congress Freed the Slaves

    For some reason, I was taught that President Lincoln freed the slaves with his 1863 Emancipation Proclamation. I just learned that in July 1862, Congress passed and Lincoln signed the "Second Confiscation Act" to liberate slaves, but Lincoln took the position that Congress lacked power to free slaves unless Lincoln as commander-in-chief deemed it a proper military measure. Lincoln was concerned that it would cause more states to secede. A few months later, he bowed to pressure and announced that law would be enforced while taking credit for freeing slaves.

    Another aspect of the Civil war that I had never read about was that most slaves slowed or stopped work during the war, and a half million ran off. Local state militias in the South had gone to war, so slave owners had no muscle to intimidate their slaves, and they feared traditional harsh discipline like whippings would incite revolts. As a result, most of the southern agricultural economy died by 1863.

    Northern troops figured out pretty quickly that cotton was one of the few exports the Confederate government–and planter class–could make money off of. Therefore, every time you invaded the south it made sense to strip every plantation of its slaves. No slaves, no cotton raised, and the southern economy would collapse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    I imagine that every Canadian thanks God every day that the country was too cold to raise cotton in.

    My favorite lefty, Chris Floyd wrote a piece a few years back about why Haiti has been kept in appalling poverty for centuries: It's deliberate vengence for their insolence in rising up against the French slave-masters.
    Gotta love the idiot left.

    http://www.chris-floyd.com/home/articles/eternal-punishment-obama-leads-third-century-of-imperial-revenge-on-haiti-02042011.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @tsotha

    I cannot see why this was regarded as a crime. Certainly slaves have a moral right to kill their owners. If someone tried to enslave you and your family, would you kill him? I would.
     
    I might. But I wouldn't kill his family. That's the difference between a person striking out at his oppressors and an animal.

    “That’s the difference between a person striking out at his oppressors and an animal.”
    Re: the slave I think I agree. Regardless of legalities I think a slave is morally AND pragmaticly obliged to minimise violence consistent with successful escape. (Although….for any slave violence against any white would have been an invitation to horrendous retribution, so….?)
    However, as a general rule, destroying an enemy requires careful calculation as to the potential danger of future revenge by your enemy’s friends/family. Pre-modern history is, in particular, full of such “calculations”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Thorfinnsson
    I don't see the moral problem with slavery.

    Most people freely enslave themselves as Fred Reed hinted at in his segue about immigrants. The average worker in America today (and many other countries) spends up to the limit of his income (and then some), gorges himself on food to become obese, fulfills his carnal lust with the basest pornography (his wife, if he has one, having long since refused him in favor of romance novels), and allows his desires to be constructed for him by Madison Avenue. As the alt right kiddies say, he is a bugman.

    Southern intellectuals in the 1850s drew a similar conclusion. They claimed slavery elevated the negro race above its natural condition, and it's hard to argue they were wrong. George Fitzhugh went so far as to suggest that the poor whites should be enslaved as well.

    That said for slavery to be fair there must be some way out of it. I believe this did exist in Classical Antiquity though I am uncertain.

    Trying to draw a parallel between legal slavery & “wage slavery” is useful as an exercise in what it “means” to be a wage worker in a capitalist society. As a literal/concrete parallel is is far less useful.

    “They claimed slavery elevated the negro race above its natural condition”. Always worth remembering that the “negro race” incorporated many thousands of different tribes, existing with considerable cultural difference & autonomy. Generalisation may not be productive. In so far as some black Africans were independent, great hunters & warriors, such “elevation” is open to question.

    “That said for slavery to be fair there must be some way out of it. I believe this did exist in Classical Antiquity though I am uncertain.” In ancient Rome ä way out” was often open to some slaves. As a general rule, the higher the slaves’ skills & value, the greater the chance that the slave could buy their freedom, be given their freedom or “willed” their freedom on their master’s death (“manumission”). “Freed-men” made up a significant, identifiable category in Roman society. Social rules encouraged masters to do this because the slave & his family were, after manumission, completely, legally obligated to their masters interests. (Indeed, the slave was required to take their master’s family name.
    Please note two issues with Roman slavery:
    (1). Slavery was not based on concepts of race. Slaves were despised on the basis of “status”, not because they were German or African etc. The children of slaves could in theory & practice rise quite high in Roman society.
    (2). It was quite common to find intelligent & educated Greeks & such freely & deliberately selling themselves into slavery. It was seen as a great opportunity to make money, to find a strong patron & to establish a future free family.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Wikipedia is not a valid source of information.

    It’s a deeply screwed website that suffers from historical revisions on a daily basis with a heavy push towards liberal points of view, and as such, it can’t be trusted to provide accurate or even true information.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  94. @Anonymous
    Three statements about slavery: are they true or false? (I don't know; I think they're true but seek enlightenment.)
    1.) Everybody, no matter the race, that is EVERYBODY, is descended from both slaves and slave owners.
    2.) Slavery may be an evil, but it's more accurately characterized as a phase. EVERY civilization has practiced it (some still do) on the way to understanding, after several centuries, that it is evil and unjust as well as uneconomical, at which point it was banned. But there is no holier-than-thou position to be taken by anyone; nobody is untainted by Original Sin.
    3.) It has been practiced for over 12,000 years. Thus the 250 years during which it was practiced to benefit white Americans is a pinprick in its history. Moreover, in the notorious Middle-Atlantic Trade, only 5 per cent of the human chattel went to North America; the rest went to the Carribbean or, more likely, to South America. So on the topic of American slavery, it was but a pinprick on a pinprick in the history of slavery.
    If those three conclusions are true, it seems intellectually frivolous to hold contemporary white Americans hostage to any notion of responsibility. No, of course it doesn't matter and it won't change a thing, but I'd still like to know if my read holds water. Tks in advance.

    “If those three conclusions are true, it seems intellectually frivolous to hold contemporary white Americans hostage to any notion of responsibility. No, of course it doesn’t matter and it won’t change a thing, but I’d still like to know if my read holds water. Tks in advance.””
    I think you do have a point.
    However, re white American slave owners. I would only ask this question. Such white people were the proud, conscious inheritors of a couple thousand years of Humanistic & Christian belief. They needed no encouragement to assert how advanced their culture/civilisation was. OK.
    So the question is: how consistent were such beliefs in their own civilisational virtues with the practice of slave trading/owning ? Clearly, many DID believe it WAS consistent. Also, clearly, many believed it was inconsistent & grotesquely hypocritical.
    All I can add, is one needs to see the world as people did back THEN to to be able to answer these questions. It is not sufficient to merely judge these people through our own 21 st C values.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    One cannot judge slavery with present day values.
    As I explained above, common people in European countrie were not treated much better than real slaves.
    Russian serfs were just liberated in 1860, with disastrous results, also for themselves, they had never been taught how to care for themselves.
    The worst decription of 19th century slavery I found in Brazil
    Giorgio Marotti, 'Black Characters in the Brazilian Novel, Afro-American culture & society monograph series CAAS', 1987 Los Angelos
    But of course it was highly hypocritical, one line of reasoning was 'after having been made slaves they were converted to christianity, so they had the benefit of going to heaven, instead of going to hell'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. vinteuil says:
    @Truth

    any slaves DID earn money. Most were able to run “side businesses”, and some even were able to purchase their freedom.
     
    Oh no, my friend, I think you misunderstand, I have read many, and I mean MANY tomes on this site in my 10 year tenure, beginning with isteve.com onto unz.com, that parrot the "slavery wasn't really that bad, it was great for the negros, and they had it better than the Irish" claptrap. My question is this, if many slaves earned money, how many is many? %1, %5, %28, give me a number so that I can understand this, glorified technical high school that was slavery. I mean, it seems great, learn a trade in exchange for a little effort; I'm just curious as to why you would not like to sign up.

    Troof, you’re not even really trying, anymore.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Vinteuil; do I really need to?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. TheJester says:

    SJWs who maintain that the South fought to preserve slavery are only broadcasting their ignorance of history. Consider: How many of General Robert E. Lees’ thousands of barefoot and emaciated soldiers, the ones who fought and died for their cause, owned slaves? The number is so small that it is statistically irrelevant. They fought the North because the Yankees from New England and the relatively new states that had comprised the Northwest Territories (representing primarily steel and railroad interests and concern over navigation rights on the Mississippi River) were attacking them. Later, as in the Revolutionary War, there were also active initiatives in the South to free slaves willing to fight for southern independence.

    Indeed, in a little-known historical aside, General Lee, in the midst of the Civil War, freed slaves in his role as executor of the estate of George Washington Curtis. Hence, in an ironical turn of history, Lee freed more slaves than Lincoln in his Emancipation Proclamation, which only freed slaves not under Federal control and therefore did not affect their status. Slaves under Federal control remained slaves until the 13th Amendment (ratified 1865).

    “In December 1862, shortly after the battle of Fredericksburg, General Lee, as executor of the Custis estate, fulfilled the duty he owed the Custis family slaves by executing a deed of manumission which listed most of the slaves recorded on the estate inventory lists. Under his legal authority as executor of the Custis Estate, vested in him by the common law of Virginia, General Lee pronounced the Custis slaves “forever set free from slavery.” The deed was recorded on January 2, 1863, in the Henrico County courthouse, located in Richmond, one day after the operative date of President Lincoln’s extralegal Emancipation Proclamation.”

    http://joeryancivilwar.com/Civil-War-Subjects/General-Lee-Slaves/General-Lee-Family-Slaves.html

    We have Lincoln’s own testament that the Civil War was not about slavery as voiced in an 1862 letter to Horace Greeley. Lincoln’s campaign theme for president had been “free land and free labor” in the lands to the west seized in the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848 … lands to be networked with railroads build by the companies that Lincoln represented as a corporate lawyer.

    “I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”

    http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

    The South considered that it was fighting a second American Revolution to protect the principles of state sovereignty embedded in the Constitution. The South was right. These principles are still in the Constitution. However, they are as systematically ignored today as they were by the North in the 1860s.

    Amendment 10 to the U.S. Constitution (ratified 1789)

    “The (specific) powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  97. Ralphael says:

    Very nice to see an scholastic article about slavery in the US. Especially as some are making statements trying to cover it up. We descend from witch burners and slavers and we need to face our history. Especially interesting in this regard are the excavations in the first permanent colony here in Jamestown. There were prosperous land owners who came here as African slaves and who industriously bought their way out of slavery and became prosperous land (and slave) owners by the early 1700s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  98. @animalogic
    "If those three conclusions are true, it seems intellectually frivolous to hold contemporary white Americans hostage to any notion of responsibility. No, of course it doesn’t matter and it won’t change a thing, but I’d still like to know if my read holds water. Tks in advance.""
    I think you do have a point.
    However, re white American slave owners. I would only ask this question. Such white people were the proud, conscious inheritors of a couple thousand years of Humanistic & Christian belief. They needed no encouragement to assert how advanced their culture/civilisation was. OK.
    So the question is: how consistent were such beliefs in their own civilisational virtues with the practice of slave trading/owning ? Clearly, many DID believe it WAS consistent. Also, clearly, many believed it was inconsistent & grotesquely hypocritical.
    All I can add, is one needs to see the world as people did back THEN to to be able to answer these questions. It is not sufficient to merely judge these people through our own 21 st C values.

    One cannot judge slavery with present day values.
    As I explained above, common people in European countrie were not treated much better than real slaves.
    Russian serfs were just liberated in 1860, with disastrous results, also for themselves, they had never been taught how to care for themselves.
    The worst decription of 19th century slavery I found in Brazil
    Giorgio Marotti, ‘Black Characters in the Brazilian Novel, Afro-American culture & society monograph series CAAS’, 1987 Los Angelos
    But of course it was highly hypocritical, one line of reasoning was ‘after having been made slaves they were converted to christianity, so they had the benefit of going to heaven, instead of going to hell’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Truth says:
    @Neil Templeton
    Truth, of course [almost] no man wants to be a slave, and all men know this. My question to you is, why are some men, and perhaps almost all men under certain conditions, willing to enslave others?

    People are willing to enslave others for financial and sexual gain. Now Neil, I have been studying things tangenital to this for the last three years, and I could really go deep upon it, but slavery, in the “new world” depended upon one of the three major lies of the last 500 years (the generational tranny agenda and the Baal earth are the others).

    Basically, white folks had a very easy time enslaving black folks because they were able to convince themselves that they were:

    1. Beneath human

    2. Turning them into Christians

    Now here’s the strange part, skipping 2,000 steps of logic and knowledge, point #2 actually has truth to it!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    They seem to be confident enough to publish this kind of info in reputable outlets:
    "The occult mania that crested in the decades before the First World War had been intensifying throughout the nineteenth century. Its manifestations included Theosophy, Spiritism, Swedenborgianism, Mesmerism, Martinism, and Kabbalism—elaborations of arcane rituals that had been cast aside in a secular, materialist age. Reinventions or fabrications of medieval sects proliferated: the Knights Templar, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (the habitat of Yeats), and various Rosicrucian orders. Péladan belonged to the Rosicrucians, who, following sixteenth-century tracts of dubious authenticity, believed in alchemy, necromancy, and other dark arts. The more élite these groups became, the more they were prone to furious doctrinal disputes. In 1887, a feud broke out in Paris between Stanislas de Guaïta, of the Kabbalistic Order of the Rose + Croix, and Joseph Boullan, a defrocked priest who was rumored to have sacrificed his own child during a Black Mass."
    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/06/26/the-occult-roots-of-modernism

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Truth says:
    @vinteuil
    Troof, you're not even really trying, anymore.

    Vinteuil; do I really need to?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Well done, Fred. I would add/emphasize just a few points (with apologies if these have already been made — I’ve only skimmed the comments so far):

    1. Freeing one’s slaves was (intentionally, I believe) quite difficult. By the second quarter of the 19th century, most Southern states required that any slave who was freed had to leave the state within a short period thereafter (such as a few days), and a freed slave usually did not have anything close to the life skills needed to resettle in a Northern state and earn a living. Some Northern states even prohibited the entry of free blacks; almost all Northern communities viewed free blacks with suspicion, if not hostility. At least one slave owner in the antebellum period freed his slaves and then moved with them to a Northern state, where he tried to work a farm with them as hired hands. As I recall, that experiment was not a rousing success. Another workaround was to de facto “free” one’s slaves by letting them live in a nearby city, hire themselves out (with the master as the titular lessor), and keep whatever rent was paid for them. (This info is mainly from the first couple volumes of James Ford Rhodes’s History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850 to the McKinley-Bryan Campaign of 1896.)

    2. A separate issue with freeing slaves was that, as long as slavery was legal, slaves represented a valuable asset. They could not only be sold but also leased out and used as security for loans (i.e., “slave mortgages”). For some people, their slaves were their most valuable asset. Freeing them could mean having little or nothing to leave to your wife and kids when you die. Jefferson’s problem, for example, was that he never succeeded in getting his finances in such a shape that he (or his estate) could afford to free his slaves. He was constantly going into debt to buy books and remodel his house, all the while firmly believing that better times were just around the corner, when he would make enough from his lands to get himself into the black (so to speak).

    3. The blacks in the South vastly outnumbered those in the North, and the disproportion grew during the slavery era. It was very easy for Northerners to talk about freeing slaves when they lived in areas with just a handful of blacks. Things looked entirely different in places where the slaves were everywhere, in some communities even outnumbering the whites. I know everyone here is aware of this, but the typical person today tends to overlook it.

    4. The relative lack of violence during Reconstruction was largely (IMO) a result of military occupation.

    5. In addition to the North’s complicity, we shouldn’t forget Great Britain’s complicity. During the colonial era, some colonies sought to stop the importation of blacks, but the Mother Country wouldn’t allow it to be stopped.

    6. Finally, one way of viewing the matter in the U.S. that I’ve found instructive is as a result of the gradual impact of the Enlightenment. (I first came across this idea in the work of the constitutional scholar David P. Currie.) Like freedom of the press and the separation of secular and religious authorities, considering slavery per se immoral was one of those conceptions that came with the Enlightenment and now mark the disconnect between Enlightenment and Medieval worldviews. The anti-slavery aspect of the Enlightenment took hold in various parts of the Western world at different times, but all within the 18th-19th century. It developed in the American North earlier than in the South. (And economic self-interest had a lot to do with that on both sides.) Go back to the 17th century and virtually no one in England or America had a problem with slavery (whether of Africans or American Indians). For purposes of context, they also didn’t have a problem with criminalizing witchcraft (the last execution of a lawfully convicted witch in England was in 1716, almost 25 years after the Salem witch trials in Massachusetts).

    Read More
    • Agree: Logan
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  102. Miller says:

    Nearly all of what needs to be said about slavery and the civil war can be found in period writings, very little interpretation is needed.

    Interesting read from DeBow’s Review, published in 1858 New Orleans:

    [MORE]

    “The population of the free States is over thirteen millions; of the slave States, over six millions. There have been eighteen presidential elections; twelve Presidents were slave holders, six were not, but Northern men with Southern sentiments. The slaveholders have held the Presidency for forty eight years – more than two-thirds of the entire period. No Northern man has ever been reelected; five of the slave owners have been. As far as the Presidency is concerned, the slave-owners have had more than their equal rights! There are over twenty millions of free people in the Union; the slave-owners numbered, in 1850, three hundred and forty six thousand and forty-seven. According to numbers, they should have had the Presidency but a single year; they have had it over forty-eight!

    “Since 1809, the President pro tempore of the Senate has been a slaveholder, except Mr. Southard, of New Jersey, and Air. Bright, of Indiana, for five or six years in all! And they were zealous adherents of the slave power! A single year was all they could claim upon the principle of equal rights!

    “Since 1820, for thirty-eight years closing with the present Congress, slave-owners have been Speakers of the House for thirty years; and free-State men for only eight years! The Speaker, by the appointment of committees, controls the legislation of the country more than any other officer of the Government, and the committees never were appointed in so unfair and partisan a manner as in the present Congress! “In the thirty-five Congresses, we have had twenty-two Speakers who were slave-owners, and twelve who were free State men. What class of men have had more than their equal rights?

    “Since 1841, slave-owners have held the office of Secretary of the Navy, except two years, up to the organization of the present Cabinet; and since 1849, a slave-owner has always been Secretary of War. The free States furnish most of the shipping and seamen for the navy, and most of the soldiers for the army; but slave-owners command them. Who have had more, in this, than their equal rights?

    “Since 1789, up to the present Administration, the Secretary of State has been appointed fourteen times from slave owners, and only eight times from free-State men. This is the first officer of the Cabinet, who has charge of the foreign relations of the country. What men have had more than their equal rights?

    “In the Supreme Court, five of the nine judges, including the Chief Justice, have always been slave-owners, and only four from the free States, and these must be sturdy adherents of the slave power. So that one department of the Government has been forever exclusively in the hands of slave-owners. Is this giving the other citizens their equal rights? Nearly one hundred to one of the people of this country are not slave owners, and more than three-fourths of the business of this court arises in the free States!

    “There is a class of the people having more political power, than any other class of citizens – namely, the slave-owners. There are three hundred and forty-six thousand and forty seven of them, including men, women, and children. They admit and boast that they have controlled the Government for sixty years, and do now. They own three million two hundred and four thousand two hundred and eighty-seven slaves. Three-fifths of them are counted; so that three hundred and forty-six thousand and forty-seven persons are counted as if they numbered in fact two million two hundred and sixty-eight thousand six hundred and nineteen in the scale of representation. These three hundred and forty-six thousand are counted nearly two million more than they are, because they own slaves. Instead of three Representatives in Congress, they have thirty, because they own slaves. But this is not all the political power they have. They control those States. The free whites in the slave States, not owning slaves, numbering five million eight hundred and thirty-eight thousand three hundred and fifty-seven, the great body of the people, do not seem practically to have any political power. Who ever heard of any of them being President, a Cabinet officer, a Senator, or a member of Congress, or a judge of the Supreme Court, or filling any other important office under this Government? The slave-owners, by their property and political privileges, are made the ruling class in those States. They control the press, and force submission to their will by a system of terrorism and constrained public sentiment. must add to their power the nearly six million non-slave-holders in the slave States. These three hundred and forty-six thousand slave-owners, bound together by a single interest, have therefore in their hands practically the political power of about eight million people bond and free. Do they claim more than that for their equal rights?

    “We find that three hundred arid forty-six thousand slaveholders have had one department of the Government in their hands absolutely-the judiciary; the executive practically, and also the legislative-all; and yet they are going out of the Union if they cannot have their equal rights.

    “This is no over statement. More than twenty million free people are governed by some three hundred and forty-six thousand, and have been for sixty years; and they claim more, or will go out of the Union after equal rights. All I can say is, if they were fairly out of the Union we might, after their departure, have equal rights!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  103. Talha says:
    @Truth
    People are willing to enslave others for financial and sexual gain. Now Neil, I have been studying things tangenital to this for the last three years, and I could really go deep upon it, but slavery, in the "new world" depended upon one of the three major lies of the last 500 years (the generational tranny agenda and the Baal earth are the others).

    Basically, white folks had a very easy time enslaving black folks because they were able to convince themselves that they were:

    1. Beneath human

    2. Turning them into Christians

    Now here's the strange part, skipping 2,000 steps of logic and knowledge, point #2 actually has truth to it!

    They seem to be confident enough to publish this kind of info in reputable outlets:
    “The occult mania that crested in the decades before the First World War had been intensifying throughout the nineteenth century. Its manifestations included Theosophy, Spiritism, Swedenborgianism, Mesmerism, Martinism, and Kabbalism—elaborations of arcane rituals that had been cast aside in a secular, materialist age. Reinventions or fabrications of medieval sects proliferated: the Knights Templar, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (the habitat of Yeats), and various Rosicrucian orders. Péladan belonged to the Rosicrucians, who, following sixteenth-century tracts of dubious authenticity, believed in alchemy, necromancy, and other dark arts. The more élite these groups became, the more they were prone to furious doctrinal disputes. In 1887, a feud broke out in Paris between Stanislas de Guaïta, of the Kabbalistic Order of the Rose + Croix, and Joseph Boullan, a defrocked priest who was rumored to have sacrificed his own child during a Black Mass.”

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/06/26/the-occult-roots-of-modernism

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Well said Sir.!

    All of these secret societies are becoming less secret by the year. From what I can discern, the reason for this is that they feel that the yoke upon us is so strong that they do not care that we know, anymore.

    These people have been ruling the world, through proxies, since the turn of the 20th century, and they now want to be worshiped overtly rather than covertly.
    , @Anon
    This is quite interesting, thanks, but what exactly is its relation to the previous comment?

    Also, who are "they" who are confident?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. mmmm says:
    @Anonymous
    Another, related theory of the Blackness I'd like to put before the gathered intellects:

    For half a million years negro men lived in a Garden of Eden in Sub-Sahara Africa. They lived on low-hanging fruit, crude hoe agriculture (the soil was easily broken) and abundant game. Mostly they did nothing but sleep, drink primitive liquor, hunt (occasionally), f--- and hang out.
    In short: they lived off the labor of their slaves, who did all of the above except hunt, as well as bore and raised the children and prepared the food and, of course, offered up their loins as directed.
    Evolutionarily, then, they never developed beyond the hunter-gatherer stage which they are still in, to this day, and all the village behaviors can be seen in any city in America to this day. Having never to plan and work together and invent, to name three, the plow, the wheel and the shovel, they remain essentially primitives in a world far too complex for them. They will, in large numbers, never be competitive.
    Biblically, they are being punished for committing the Original Sin, which was slavery. It wasn't practiced, however, against other men but essentially by men against women. In short African women were slaves for half-a-million years. Thus is blackness cursed, and thus will its problems never abate, at least for another 597,000 years or God goes off duty. You sew what you reap.
    Comments?

    no it’s ‘you sew what you rip’

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Euripides?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Truth says:
    @Talha
    They seem to be confident enough to publish this kind of info in reputable outlets:
    "The occult mania that crested in the decades before the First World War had been intensifying throughout the nineteenth century. Its manifestations included Theosophy, Spiritism, Swedenborgianism, Mesmerism, Martinism, and Kabbalism—elaborations of arcane rituals that had been cast aside in a secular, materialist age. Reinventions or fabrications of medieval sects proliferated: the Knights Templar, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (the habitat of Yeats), and various Rosicrucian orders. Péladan belonged to the Rosicrucians, who, following sixteenth-century tracts of dubious authenticity, believed in alchemy, necromancy, and other dark arts. The more élite these groups became, the more they were prone to furious doctrinal disputes. In 1887, a feud broke out in Paris between Stanislas de Guaïta, of the Kabbalistic Order of the Rose + Croix, and Joseph Boullan, a defrocked priest who was rumored to have sacrificed his own child during a Black Mass."
    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/06/26/the-occult-roots-of-modernism

    Peace.

    Well said Sir.!

    All of these secret societies are becoming less secret by the year. From what I can discern, the reason for this is that they feel that the yoke upon us is so strong that they do not care that we know, anymore.

    These people have been ruling the world, through proxies, since the turn of the 20th century, and they now want to be worshiped overtly rather than covertly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Wally says:
    @MJJB
    "First, slavery was always bad, frequently hideous,"

    Relative to what?

    The death toll from the Muslim slave trade from Africa is estimated at 112 million.

    There are presently about 40 million African descendants in North American and about zero in the Middle East. Middle East slaves were castrated.

    The US Congress outlawed the slave trade in 1808 and the slave population tripled over the next 50 years through natural increase.

    blacks did own slaves in the US south
    fact:
    Africans also had slavery, it was black Africans who sold black African slaves to the slave traders
    fact:
    slavery of black Africans would have never happened without black Africans selling black African slaves

    Black researcher, Dr. Tony Martin, let’s us know who the prime sellers & owners of slaves really were, Jews.
    Dr. Tony Martin – The Jewish Role in the African Slave Trade

    JEWS AND THE SLAVE TRADE

    http://wethoughttheywerewhite.weebly.com/jews–the-slave-trade.html

    http://wethoughttheywerewhite.weebly.com/uploads/5/3/4/9/53499197/6585841.jpg?296

    http://wethoughttheywerewhite.weebly.com/uploads/5/3/4/9/53499197/8785931.jpg?277http://wethoughttheywerewhite.weebly.com/uploads/5/3/4/9/53499197/892816_orig.jpg

    http://wethoughttheywerewhite.weebly.com/uploads/5/3/4/9/53499197/1507471.jpg?717

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Wally says:
    @Negrolphin Pool
    I've only read a small sample of the slave memoirs. But the accounts I've seen don't describe anything like an institution "always bad and frequently hideous", although I thank Mr. Reed for the links in the second paragraph and intend to read them.

    Indeed, Fred believes everything he reads.

    No doubt true accounts of witchcraft and sorcery will be his next column.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    We can only hope!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @dearieme
    "what George Washington did: free your slaves in your will": not exactly. He left his slaves to his widow, with them to be freed only after her death. But she grasped the nettle and freed them while she was still alive.

    Either way, of course, Washington was infinitely nobler than Jefferson on this matter.

    Not to mention the other two Virginia Cavaliers: Madison and Monroe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. Rev. Pete says:
    @anarchyst
    To the entire Black race living in America, we, the Adamic, pink complexioned race (better known to you as the White race) that came to these shores from Europe, England, Scotland, Ireland, and Iceland, apologize for freeing you from slavery by fighting a horrible war among ourselves that cost the lives of almost two million of our own race. We apologize for continuing to fight among ourselves over that very issue, even though you've never told us you appreciate our freeing you.

    We apologize for splitting to pieces our entire race the world over to take sides with you to help you survive and become a freer race. We apologize for forcing the rest of the world to outlaw the slavery which your ancestors had practiced for thousands of years, even though many nations on your home continent still practice it today.

    We apologize for thinking we could civilize you when you have proven that it is indeed an impossible feat, a feat beyond anything we could have ever imagined.

    We apologize for introducing Christianity to you and dragging you away from the Voodoo you previously followed, although you have managed to sneak that religion back into cultic Christianity and our people have accepted it, which is witnessed by their animalistic whooping and hollering and stomping and screaming instead of respectfully worshiping our God as they ought to.

    We apologize for teaching you to add and subtract (what little you can), thereby enabling you to run a household and pay your bills (what few you will) and count your children other than on your fingers and sometimes toes when you have so many you run out of fingers.

    We apologize for providing you with medical care instead of leaving you under the witch doctors you used before we arrived, as a result of which you have been able to survive all sorts of diseases to multiply in massive numbers beyond what you could have without these aides.

    We apologize for building schools for you which we have had to repair over and over after you vandalized them beyond use. We apologize for inventing computers and the Internet, neither of which you use very much, but when you do use them it's mostly to bash our race.

    We apologize for building factories and businesses that employ you, if you so desire to work. We apologize for creating millions of bureaucratic jobs within our government system simply to give you employment, instead of leaving you to find work on your own.

    We apologize for promoting and buying your music, although you refuse to buy ours. We apologize for talking and acting as you do, although you refuse to talk and act as we do.

    We apologize for placing you in our movies and TV shows and elevating you to a fictional, heroic level that you have never reached in real life. We apologize for creating this false image of yourselves in your minds, for we realize after 400 years of trying to help you that you cannot solve problems and provide leadership and create original thoughts; and the image we've placed in your minds causes you to live in a delusional world. For that we truly apologize.

    We apologize for creating quota systems and forced employment programs to make sure you have the best jobs, if you so desire to work. We apologize for thinking we could educate you so that you could learn to build and help others, when you obviously have only the ability to tear down and take from others.

    We apologize for giving you welfare and food stamps, with the result that for four generations over half of your race has not had to work, except in makeshift type of jobs in our governments and bureaucracies.

    We apologize for promoting your children in school as if they could understand basic arithmetic and grammar, such as multiplication and past participles, when we should have made sure they were accustomed to manual labor so that we would not have had to make up jobs for them in our governments dusting seats with their butts.

    We apologize for developing farms in our own lands which you have never been able to do, and that to this day feed most of your race still living in Africa. We apologize for coming to Africa and building farms, from which you have now run us off of and have devastated beyond use, forcing us to continue feeding you.

    We apologize for creating the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) and U.S. Government Foreign Aid Programs and hundreds of charities that funnel billions of our tax dollars and charitable donations to nations around the world run by your race, all because your race cannot take care of itself by itself anywhere you live.

    We apologize for giving you the right to vote so you could take over all our major cities and turn them into high-taxed, crime-ridden cesspools that no civilized human being can live in.

    We apologize for creating the term "reverend," which your leaders use to give themselves credentials and which their actions have denigrated beyond repair, with the result that no decent person would call himself "reverend," much less a Christian

    We apologize for trying to come up with an AIDS vaccine to stop the epidemic spread of AIDS in Africa, AIDS being a disease that you created and passed on to us after having sexual intercourse with monkeys and then with one of our idiotic race-mixers who then passed it on to the rest of the world.

    We apologize for providing you with warm, custom-made garments instead of the animal skins and leaves that you wore before we arrived. We apologize for providing you with shoes instead of leaving you barefooted as you were before we arrived in Africa.

    We apologize for teaching you how to clean yourselves and your homes, and how to sanitize the water you drink to keep you from getting even more dreadful diseases than the rest of your race gets that still lives in Africa. We apologize for teaching you to cook your foods, which keeps you from getting the hundreds of parasitic diseases that your race gets that still lives on your home continent of Africa.

    We apologize for providing you with solidly built, heated, and cooled homes with grass yards instead of the straw huts and dirt yards you were living in before we arrived, and in which most of your race is still living in in Africa.

    We apologize for inventing sports so that you can make millions of dollars and live like kings, then kill and rape people with impunity, as O.J. Heisman-Trophy-Winner Simpson and Mike Heavy-Weight-Champion-of-the-World Tyson have done, as well as many others among your race.

    We apologize for producing such beautiful people for you to race-mix with, and if they won't voluntarily mix, you often casually rape them as if you were eating a piece of fried chicken.

    We apologize for building thousands of prisons around the nation to house dangerous criminals, of which your race makes up over sixty percent even though you're only thirteen percent of the U.S. population, and this at an expense of billions of dollars and manpower every year.

    We apologize for taking precious metals from the earth on your home continent of Africa, metals which you neither knew were there nor how to use them if you had known they were there, but which you love to puncture and cover your bodies with in the most tawdry way imaginable.

    We apologize for those among us who have established charitable organizations, donated billions of dollars and hours of time, and have devoted their entire lives to make life easier and better for your race, although most often to no positive result.

    We apologize for all the stupid White ministers whom your race has martyred in Africa where they were trying to evangelize you to a faith that you can't understand nor do you want to; yet when you claim to join it soon pervert it with the voodooistic concepts you have inherited from your forefathers.

    We apologize for building highways and railroads and for inventing flying machines that you could never have invented but which you use everyday to move about, yet without thinking or appreciating their origins in the least.

    We apologize for paying the majority of both federal and state taxes, to maintain the governments which protect and promote you but fight against our own people at every turn.

    We apologize for defeating the major part of the communist threat which cost us several trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives, but whose doctrines you still wish to have implemented on the backs of our race to further torture us and tear us down.

    We apologize for spending trillions of dollars on welfare and food stamps in the last sixty years, funds which your race received the majority of, although you are a small minority among us.

    We apologize for introducing you to the rule of law under a republican form of government, a government that has gone abroad to keep your own warring nations from slaughtering other members of your race by the hundreds of thousands as they did year in and year out before we arrived, and still do every time we leave them alone and do not intervene.

    We apologize for teaching you to read a language that contains more than a few words and a couple of hand signs, which has allowed you to take part in our philosophies, our culture, our art, our industry, our collegial nature, and our freedom, even though as soon as you get around them you pervert them.

    For surely, if you could not read, how could you have learned the teachings of Karl Marx, Mao Tse Sung, Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Nikolai Lenin, Howard Zinn, the Democrat Party, the Neo-cons in the Republican Party, and others who hate our race, and have brainwashed you into believing our race is evil and that you are severely oppressed?

    We apologize for placing you under the form of government that our own forefathers died to create, and for which you are helping to destroy, instead of leaving you under the anarchy you lived under before we arrived.

    For all these wrongs we've carried out against you, we apologize deeply and unreservedly, and if you will please accept our apology, we shall happily and immediately take back all of the above mentioned evils we have cast upon you and return you to your home continent, if you so desire.

    We would with the greatest of glee and cheer even provide you with a nice, little stipend for traveling money, if you'd go and take your race-traitor wives and husbands and Mulatto children with you.

    We have enjoyed having you here, but because you claim we've been, and are still being, so mean to you, we'd like to atone by helping you get back to where you came from.

    You could live in peace without our persecuting you anymore, and we could save ourselves trillions of dollars over the next few years by shrinking our governments and emptying our prisons. We could take hundreds of thousands of security guards and police officers around the country off their jobs and put them to more productive use, and we could celebrate our own culture without offending you anymore.

    The white race traitors who hate their own culture and heritage could go with you, and we won't offend them anymore either. For after a few generations of mixing with your race they would disappear into the dark tar-mix which your dominant design-genes make up.

    …and we apologize for this lengthy vacuous diatribe by a member of who knows what race and who really cares about his un-human license to carry half a brain. In your hat, nothing real exists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    ...looks like I struck a nerve...GOOD!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Funny we can’t stop the slave labor from coming here. Even sillier we can’t set our slave labor free and ask them all to go live in their own countries. Another dumb article.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  111. anarchyst says:
    @Rev. Pete
    ...and we apologize for this lengthy vacuous diatribe by a member of who knows what race and who really cares about his un-human license to carry half a brain. In your hat, nothing real exists.

    …looks like I struck a nerve…GOOD!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Wally
    Indeed, Fred believes everything he reads.

    No doubt true accounts of witchcraft and sorcery will be his next column.

    We can only hope!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Neil Templeton
    Genocide is restricted to non-human animals? I never heard tell. Why would the slave, shamed as a subordinate and draft animal, be expected to act with noble generosity toward the family that enjoyed his forced labor? Should he expect to benefit from his nobility? If you enslave a man, you should not expect noble behavior in kind. A slave is not an animal, he is a man. He may be a man who wishes to destroy you and everything associated with you. Or he may act nobly under the circumstance, and be rewarded by God for behaving so. Genocide may be crazy, but it is very, very human.

    “Or he may act nobly under the circumstance, and be rewarded by God for behaving so.”

    Blindly hoping for divine judgment will only make things worse. If you are enslaved, its your right as an individual to kill your slave master. Whether you have the strength to do it or not is another topic entirely. But it stands. Praying for something as foolish as a fairytale ending is just perpetuating the cycle. Without action, there will be no change.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @tsotha

    I cannot see why this was regarded as a crime. Certainly slaves have a moral right to kill their owners. If someone tried to enslave you and your family, would you kill him? I would.
     
    I might. But I wouldn't kill his family. That's the difference between a person striking out at his oppressors and an animal.

    Being a slave for a decade, watching your friends and family be raped and murdered, you would want to kill every single person that lived in that house. They would all be guilty, in your eyes, having witnessed atrocities commited weekly against you and yours and never once protesting. You would hate them and blame them. Its not even a stretch of the imagination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    You've been watching too much TV...Of course, nefarious behavior occurred in slavery times, but in general, slaves were too valuable to mistreat. I'm not saying that it never happened, (I'm sure it did), but it would be extremely foolish to abuse and mistreat your valuable property, especially if you expected to get any "work" out of them.
    As a slave, you are brought to a strange country, marginalized beyond belief, barely tolerated by strangers...what do you do? If you gain your freedom, where do you go? Sometimes, the best thing to do is to make the best of the situation that you are in...that doesn't make it right, but...
    There are absolutely NO EXCUSES for that abhorrent institution, abuses did occur, but were less common than claimed by today's slavery stories...
    , @Wally
    You're really talking about the Palestinians.
    , @Miller
    In some cases you might even be striking out at your privileged half siblings. Mulatto births were 1 in 8 in 1850, by 1860 they were 1 in 5.

    Any slave getting the upper hand needn't be too concerned about legalities or minimal harm ethics toward folks who beat, raped, sold your siblings, parents, children. No mercy shown, none given. IDK if I could kill the lot, but certainly every adult from adolescent to elderly unless they had specifically shown some profound kindness.

    IIRC Fredric Douglas recounts how the threat of being sent to the deep South was the ultimate boogyman for an uppity slave, life expectancy for a male slave in the deep South was a fraction of what you might achieve in Baltimore. Contemporary accounts trump modern musings - being enslaved for many was an experience most born free individuals might trade for a quick suicide.

    Even with all the rape/interbreeding and natural and deliberate "breeding", birth rates weren't keeping up with death rates and were projected to go negative by 1880. The South seceding came about because if slavery were not allowed to expand to the new territories it would eventually become untenable (back to FD, he observed if no fresh stocks were brought in, slavery would be bred out of existence before too long). Virtually every secession declaration states this in plain language as one of the primary reasons, second to legislative attacks and limits on slavery at the State level and anticipated soon at the Federal level as well.

    Lincoln didn't start out intending to free the slaves but simply to keep the Union together while limiting slavery to the South. To do more would amount to a "John Brown raid on a massive scale". As it dragged on Lincoln could not justify to the citizens of the North all the carnage and loss for political reasons, and so "freeing the slaves" did indeed become the rationale to finish it.

    Then as now - it is much easier to break things with violence and much harder to fix them. In hindsight, most of the slaves probably should have been repatriated at the time or transported to some other holdings (Liberia anybody?), and the South should not have been forced back into the Union.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. anarchyst says:
    @Delinquent Snail
    Being a slave for a decade, watching your friends and family be raped and murdered, you would want to kill every single person that lived in that house. They would all be guilty, in your eyes, having witnessed atrocities commited weekly against you and yours and never once protesting. You would hate them and blame them. Its not even a stretch of the imagination.

    You’ve been watching too much TV…Of course, nefarious behavior occurred in slavery times, but in general, slaves were too valuable to mistreat. I’m not saying that it never happened, (I’m sure it did), but it would be extremely foolish to abuse and mistreat your valuable property, especially if you expected to get any “work” out of them.
    As a slave, you are brought to a strange country, marginalized beyond belief, barely tolerated by strangers…what do you do? If you gain your freedom, where do you go? Sometimes, the best thing to do is to make the best of the situation that you are in…that doesn’t make it right, but…
    There are absolutely NO EXCUSES for that abhorrent institution, abuses did occur, but were less common than claimed by today’s slavery stories…

    Read More
    • Replies: @iLLivaniLLi
    I find the circumstances around the Lowry War in North Carolina in 1864 illuminating on this issue:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowry_War

    Free people of color were ordered (forced) to do dangerous work to defend a fort because the slaves were more valuable. The "free people of color" were more disposable than the slaves.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. MBlanc46 says:

    This account is largely congruent with the condiderable number of books and essays on the subject that I read about five years ago. It is, however, incomplete. It deals only with the western story of modern slavery. It entirely ignores the eastern, African, story of modern slavery. If we’re ever going to confront this deplorable aspect of our history, and the lingering social conflicts associated with it, the entire story needs to be told.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  117. woodNfish says:

    “We drift in a sea of historical fraud.” Fred Reed

    Yes, as I have stated many times. However, you also contribute to the fraud by calling the war of secession the “civil war”. It was not a civil war, Fred. The South never tried to overthrow the US government. The southern states had a constitutional right to secede. The lying hypocrite Lincoln also started the war, not the South.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Grandpa Charlie
    "a constitutional right to secede" .. I hear talk of such alleged "right to secede" in the Constitution .. and yet:

    'No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ... in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State ... ' Art. I, Sect. 10

    There was a right to secede in the old articles of confederation, perhaps, but certainly not in the Constitution of the U.S.A.

    The very formation of the C.S.A. was in flagrant violation of Art. I, Sect. 10. Of course, you could make various lawyerly arguments such as that the states had seceded individually before they ever joined together against the United States. But where do you find in the Constitution anything about any "right of the states to secede"? It doesn't exist. It's a strange fiction promoted by people who wish that such a clause actually did appear somewhere in the Constitution.

    Anyway, we do have Amend. X, but it doesn't seem to count for much. It's like Amend. XIV, which clearly makes conscription unlawful ... but the problem always has been and still is the SCOTUS and its usurpation of the powers of the legislative branch.
    , @Logan
    "A civil war, also known as an intrastate war in polemology,[1] is a war between organized groups within the same state or country. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region or to change government policies.[2] The term is a calque of the Latin bellum civile which was used to refer to the various civil wars of the Roman Republic in the 1st century BC."

    A civil war need not be for control of the entire polity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. woodNfish says:
    @Pat Boyle
    I'm sure you must have overlooked the common practice in the Roman Republic and Empire of selling yourself into slavery so as to become available to hold financial posts. Only slaves could be tortured and no would trust someone with their funds if they couldn't question them hard. This is the way that Claudius' freedmen (and many others) became rich.

    In the Persian Empire it was even tougher. To get into fiscal and governmental positions you had to be castrated. Still the joys of public service were such that it was done.

    To get into fiscal and governmental positions you had to be castrated.

    Looking at the republican congress that may still be true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    Good one!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. woodNfish says:
    @KenH
    This seems like one of Fred's tequila soaked screeds. Or maybe he's seeking an honorary membership in BLM.

    It's said that Fanny Kemble's motive in writing Journal of a Residence on a Georgia Plantation was to influence British public opinion and keep Britain neutral instead of militarily aiding the confederacy. So it makes me wonder if the account was embellished accordingly to provoke the requisite moral outrage to achieve that objective since it appears she was successful.

    I'm not arguing that slavery in the South was always benign, but this could also be the earliest account of "slavery porn" which later morphed into atrocity porn (since the West ended slavery) used to manipulate the U.S. into fighting wars and armed conflicts of the 20th century and even to this day (i.e., Iraqi soldiers are ripping babies from incubators, Saddam gassed the Kurds, Putin murders journalists, Assad is killing is own people, ad nauseum).

    Fred's missive leaves out the fact that there were something like over 3000 black African slave masters in America, many of whom treated their black slaves brutally. And newly freed slaves sometimes became slave owners themselves. It was not an exclusive white on black practice.
    https://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

    By now everyone should know blacks were slaves in Africa and willingly sold to Europeans by African tribal chieftains.

    It wasn't always a picnic to be white in colonial America either. Many whites arrived in chains as indentured servants and there were children who were kidnapped in English ports and forcible brought to the new world against their will. It wasn't uncommon for adults and children to be mistreated, worked to death or die due to poor working condition. Descendants of these unfortunate whites aren't burning cities to the ground, raping, pillaging and plundering.
    https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01KU6LFK2/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

    Then we have the holier than thou, religion of peace people who raided European coasts to the tune of over one million white, Christian slaves over a 300 year period. Few whites survived to tell their stories.
    https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Slaves-Muslim-Masters-Mediterranean/dp/1403945519/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1500227920&sr=1-1&keywords=christian+slaves+muslim+masters

    So cry me a river with your teary and gut wrenching anecdotes of negro slaves in America. Whites don't owe blacks or any other group a damn thing except maybe a plane ticket back to their country of origin.

    Or maybe he’s seeking an honorary membership in BLM.

    You didn’t read the entire article, did you?

    You are correct about Fred leaving out the black slave owners, but he did mention the fact that black slaves were sold into slavery by other blacks. Trust me; no nappy headed BLM moron would like this article and neither would any damned yankee.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    You didn’t read the entire article, did you?
     
    Yes, and this is the closest I can find to Fred admitting groups besides Europeans took part in the practice of slavery.

    Second, the slave trade being phenomenally profitable, much like the drug trade today, many were involved who today choose to forget this: Yankees, Arabs, Jews, Quakers, and Southerners.
     
    He doesn't mention black African blacks enslaving and selling their own to Europeans. Some of his commentary bolsters the progressive narrative about black slavery and he excuses the mass murder of whites by Nat Turner. Nat Turner was born into slavery and educated by whites. He wasn't a free negro who was defending himself against wicked whites trying to enslave him as Fred insinuates.

    And for a little context he could have mentioned that every race and civilization, including his beloved meso-Americans, were practitioners of slavery who subjected their slaves to conditions far worse than that experienced by black Africans at the hand of whites in America. Or, expanded on the plight of poor whites that he fleetingly mentions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Corvinus says:
    @Pat Boyle
    I'm sure you must have overlooked the common practice in the Roman Republic and Empire of selling yourself into slavery so as to become available to hold financial posts. Only slaves could be tortured and no would trust someone with their funds if they couldn't question them hard. This is the way that Claudius' freedmen (and many others) became rich.

    In the Persian Empire it was even tougher. To get into fiscal and governmental positions you had to be castrated. Still the joys of public service were such that it was done.

    “I’m sure you must have overlooked the common practice in the Roman Republic and Empire of selling yourself into slavery so as to become available to hold financial posts.”

    I am familiar with Romans selling themselves as slaves to pay debts, but not to gain a financial post. Do you have a source?

    “In the Persian Empire it was even tougher. To get into fiscal and governmental positions you had to be castrated. Still the joys of public service were such that it was done.”

    OK.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    I try not to make obscure references just so I don't have to look anything up. That way I don't have to prove the validity of my assertions when challenged. I'm lazy.

    But this reference isn't obscure. You're going to make me go back to Suetonius or Tacitus? Let's make a deal. You look it up. If after a while you have failed I will find it for you. Trust me it's a well known feature of Roman governance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @Father Coughlin
    South is more Celtic than Anglo-Saxon I believe.

    And "Old Zip Coon" sounds very Irish to my ears:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMK45nYx4oc

    The late, great Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia (once upon a time and repentant member of the KKK) was such a fantastic populist that he was also a fiddler. I saw him on a C and W show years ago fiddlin’ up a storm on “Turkey in the Straw”. “Turkey in the Straw” is the same tune as “Zip Coon” but the lyrics to “Turkey” were made up to fit the tune and were even copy-righted.

    Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we still had any populists like Byrd (also a great constitutionalist) in the Democratic Party today? Or in the GOP, for that matter? Well, okay, Slick Willie gave it the college try on the sax … but it’s obvious that he never read the Constitution or if he did read it, he disregarded it, like most of our politicians. By the way, I have heard that Slick Willie never read the text of NAFTA – or of any of the trade treaties he promoted.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @mmmm
    no it's 'you sew what you rip'

    Euripides?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. truthman says:

    In many slave states it was very difficult to free your slaves even if you wanted to.
    One fascinating model ( a sort of anti-Haiti if you will) was Maryland in the last ante-bellum decades. There, about half of blacks were free, the other half slaves, and yet this hybrid system, or transitional system from slavery to freedom seems to have worked pretty well, with not a lot of drama, slave uprisings, free blacks causing too many problems etc. Delaware was an even more extreme case, still a slave state legally, but with about 80% of blacks free by 1860. Those states should have been front and center in any national discussion about a way forward out of slavery without bloodshed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey truthman,

    Those states should have been front and center in any national discussion about a way forward out of slavery without bloodshed.
     
    This is right - plenty of places in the world ended slavery without the massive bloodshed that happened in the US. Of course, slavery was only one factor in the civil war, so one could say this was inevitable since the issue of slavery really got rolled up into the larger discussion of federal vs states rights .

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Mit says:

    “We drift in a sea of historical fraud.” Fred Reed

    The war of secession or the civil war…whatever you wish to name it was again, another contrived war. The European power elites could see the new colony growing too strong . The war was designed to break the country in half. (The old divide and conquer tech.)I’d be surprised if Lincoln wasn’t in on it..that’s why they bumped him off a bit later.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  125. Pat Boyle says:
    @woodNfish

    To get into fiscal and governmental positions you had to be castrated.
     
    Looking at the republican congress that may still be true.

    Good one!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. MBlanc46 says:
    @Yancey
    Blacks should have been sent back to Africa after the war of Northern aggression. They could also have been sold off to Brazil which was still a slave owning nation.

    They should never have been allowed to be citizens. Their presence here in the United States is a disaster.

    The American Colonisation Society, with some of the most prominent people in the country, tried for forty years to send the Africans back to Africa. All they had to show for it was a few thousand Liberians. The toothpaste just wasnt going back in the tube.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Pat Boyle says:
    @Corvinus
    "I’m sure you must have overlooked the common practice in the Roman Republic and Empire of selling yourself into slavery so as to become available to hold financial posts."

    I am familiar with Romans selling themselves as slaves to pay debts, but not to gain a financial post. Do you have a source?

    "In the Persian Empire it was even tougher. To get into fiscal and governmental positions you had to be castrated. Still the joys of public service were such that it was done."

    OK.

    I try not to make obscure references just so I don’t have to look anything up. That way I don’t have to prove the validity of my assertions when challenged. I’m lazy.

    But this reference isn’t obscure. You’re going to make me go back to Suetonius or Tacitus? Let’s make a deal. You look it up. If after a while you have failed I will find it for you. Trust me it’s a well known feature of Roman governance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @woodNfish
    "We drift in a sea of historical fraud." Fred Reed

    Yes, as I have stated many times. However, you also contribute to the fraud by calling the war of secession the "civil war". It was not a civil war, Fred. The South never tried to overthrow the US government. The southern states had a constitutional right to secede. The lying hypocrite Lincoln also started the war, not the South.

    “a constitutional right to secede” .. I hear talk of such alleged “right to secede” in the Constitution .. and yet:

    ‘No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, … in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State … ‘ Art. I, Sect. 10

    There was a right to secede in the old articles of confederation, perhaps, but certainly not in the Constitution of the U.S.A.

    The very formation of the C.S.A. was in flagrant violation of Art. I, Sect. 10. Of course, you could make various lawyerly arguments such as that the states had seceded individually before they ever joined together against the United States. But where do you find in the Constitution anything about any “right of the states to secede”? It doesn’t exist. It’s a strange fiction promoted by people who wish that such a clause actually did appear somewhere in the Constitution.

    Anyway, we do have Amend. X, but it doesn’t seem to count for much. It’s like Amend. XIV, which clearly makes conscription unlawful … but the problem always has been and still is the SCOTUS and its usurpation of the powers of the legislative branch.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Selvar says:
    @Father Coughlin
    the 18-volume Roosevelt era oral history of slavery doesn't register a single complaint, I believe

    Even if some ex-slaves gave positive accounts of slavery, so what? Many older Russians still admire Stalin despite what he did to them. Same with Mao and the Chinese. That is hardly evidence that life in Stalinist Russia or Maoist China was great. Also, keep in mind that the blacks who lived through slavery into the New Deal era would have also lived through the Civil War–which lead to the complete collapse of the southern economy/society–as well as Jim Crow. Since the South did not fully recover from the economic effects of the Civil War until the 1950s, and since the ex-slaves who gave the testimony would have been living through the Great Depression on top of all this, maybe they really did remember a more prosperous and peaceful time. At the very least, they remembered their youth which always seems to quickly gone in retrospect. Again, I don’t think it proves anything given the context.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Uslabor says:
    @Demeter Last
    American blacks have progressed from the slave plantation system of the South to the slave political system of the North.

    They suddenly find themselves on equal--even less than equal--political footing with Mexican peasants, based on numbers.

    The Mexican peasants being, of course, slaves with visas.

    The eventual black/Mexican pseudo-slave revolt will, of course, be the fault of white people.

    The question is how can we convince the black/Mexican slave revolt to target the 1% who benefit from their slave wages?

    Turns out, the Second Amendment accommodates this.

    We Mexicans will demonstrate the Second Amendment to you, as well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Talha says:
    @truthman
    In many slave states it was very difficult to free your slaves even if you wanted to.
    One fascinating model ( a sort of anti-Haiti if you will) was Maryland in the last ante-bellum decades. There, about half of blacks were free, the other half slaves, and yet this hybrid system, or transitional system from slavery to freedom seems to have worked pretty well, with not a lot of drama, slave uprisings, free blacks causing too many problems etc. Delaware was an even more extreme case, still a slave state legally, but with about 80% of blacks free by 1860. Those states should have been front and center in any national discussion about a way forward out of slavery without bloodshed.

    Hey truthman,

    Those states should have been front and center in any national discussion about a way forward out of slavery without bloodshed.

    This is right – plenty of places in the world ended slavery without the massive bloodshed that happened in the US. Of course, slavery was only one factor in the civil war, so one could say this was inevitable since the issue of slavery really got rolled up into the larger discussion of federal vs states rights .

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. like another comment from another article noted. it was just the north, or free white men, not wanting to compete against a slave force. only when the north stopped benefiting from slavery and stand to lose over it when the civil war happened.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  133. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    They seem to be confident enough to publish this kind of info in reputable outlets:
    "The occult mania that crested in the decades before the First World War had been intensifying throughout the nineteenth century. Its manifestations included Theosophy, Spiritism, Swedenborgianism, Mesmerism, Martinism, and Kabbalism—elaborations of arcane rituals that had been cast aside in a secular, materialist age. Reinventions or fabrications of medieval sects proliferated: the Knights Templar, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (the habitat of Yeats), and various Rosicrucian orders. Péladan belonged to the Rosicrucians, who, following sixteenth-century tracts of dubious authenticity, believed in alchemy, necromancy, and other dark arts. The more élite these groups became, the more they were prone to furious doctrinal disputes. In 1887, a feud broke out in Paris between Stanislas de Guaïta, of the Kabbalistic Order of the Rose + Croix, and Joseph Boullan, a defrocked priest who was rumored to have sacrificed his own child during a Black Mass."
    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/06/26/the-occult-roots-of-modernism

    Peace.

    This is quite interesting, thanks, but what exactly is its relation to the previous comment?

    Also, who are “they” who are confident?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Truth understood the relevance. Secret societies are still in play and active among the elite. The number of people in power that have belonged to one or another of them cannot be denied:
    https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Tomb-Skull-League-Hidden/dp/0316735612

    If you don't have time to read the book - look for interviews with the author.

    Also, who are “they” who are confident?
     
    Those who would be masters of the world and want nothing but to reduce us to decadent materialist consumers who are constantly in fear and despair.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. KenH says:
    @woodNfish

    Or maybe he’s seeking an honorary membership in BLM.
     
    You didn't read the entire article, did you?

    You are correct about Fred leaving out the black slave owners, but he did mention the fact that black slaves were sold into slavery by other blacks. Trust me; no nappy headed BLM moron would like this article and neither would any damned yankee.

    You didn’t read the entire article, did you?

    Yes, and this is the closest I can find to Fred admitting groups besides Europeans took part in the practice of slavery.

    Second, the slave trade being phenomenally profitable, much like the drug trade today, many were involved who today choose to forget this: Yankees, Arabs, Jews, Quakers, and Southerners.

    He doesn’t mention black African blacks enslaving and selling their own to Europeans. Some of his commentary bolsters the progressive narrative about black slavery and he excuses the mass murder of whites by Nat Turner. Nat Turner was born into slavery and educated by whites. He wasn’t a free negro who was defending himself against wicked whites trying to enslave him as Fred insinuates.

    And for a little context he could have mentioned that every race and civilization, including his beloved meso-Americans, were practitioners of slavery who subjected their slaves to conditions far worse than that experienced by black Africans at the hand of whites in America. Or, expanded on the plight of poor whites that he fleetingly mentions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    How does Fred's commentary bolster the progressive narrative about black slavery?

    That Nat Turner was not a free negro is hardly a rational basis upon which to criticize his actions. His masters were slave-holders and all slave-holders must accept the prospect that their captives may revolt and justifiably kill them.

    It is not murder for a slave to kill his master and all those who would deny the slave his liberty. It is of no consequence that his master may have treated him a little better than other slaveholders. The interposition of such a point is pointless pettifogging.

    If you owned slaves, you deserved to die a wretched, horrible death. Slave-owners are anti-civilizational and the worst of the slave-owners are the ones who justify their slave-owning upon the basis that their slave-owning was more humane than other slave-owners.

    The sin of slave-owning cannot be absolved by the invocation of rhetorical relativistic rubbish. It is so puerile and putrid.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @MJJB
    "First, slavery was always bad, frequently hideous,"

    Relative to what?

    The death toll from the Muslim slave trade from Africa is estimated at 112 million.

    There are presently about 40 million African descendants in North American and about zero in the Middle East. Middle East slaves were castrated.

    The US Congress outlawed the slave trade in 1808 and the slave population tripled over the next 50 years through natural increase.

    More like a tenfold increase. Slave population was about 500,000 in 1809, the year further importation of slaves was banned, but about 4.5 million at the conclusion of the Civil War. All from natural reproduction.

    For this kind of rapid increase to be possible, you would have to assume that at least slaves’ basic needs were well met.

    This contrasts with the heavy losses in the Caribbean and in South America, where the slave population had to be maintained with fresh captives.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Eagle Eye says:
    @another fred
    Another curious fact is that there was a thriving abolition movement in the South until the mid 1840s when slavery became a more starkly sectional (N v S) issue. Once it became sectional the normal human impulse to band together against outsiders took over. People from other states were outsiders in many ways.

    People do not understand that it was the Civil War that cemented the USA as single nation (and reduced "federalism" to a fig leaf). Several northern states threatened to secede on occasions before 1861.

    People do not understand that it was the Civil War that cemented the USA as single nation (and reduced “federalism” to a fig leaf).

    To Lincoln and many other protagonists, federal supremacy was always the REAL AIM of the Civil War, and intelligent contemporary observers e.g. in Britain were under no illusions on this score.

    Lincoln himself famously stated:

    If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, …

    The chance to suspend Constitutional rights, jail journalists etc. was an added bonus to the proto-Bolshevik Lincoln.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. No mention of the Northern support for John Brown? What about Lincoln’s call for troops to invade Virginia?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  138. https://www.adl.org/education/resources/backgrounders/from-alt-right-to-alt-lite-naming-the-hate

    I’m the only true race-ist and fascist, but I get no mention.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  139. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  140. So then if Fred is consistent in his argumentation, he should be all on board with reparations for all black Americans. Come on, Fred. Come out publicly for reparations for all black American descendants of slaves in America. Must be consistent, and consistent is to be for reparations.

    The descendants of all US black slaves should receive their just and fair share. That would be the just thing to do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    They have already received "reparations".

    Billions, trillions in welfare cash, food stamps, housing, paid medical, 'affirmative action', set asides, more freebies via public schools, government do nothing over paid jobs, money for college, lowered standards for blacks vs. whites.

    The list is endless.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Father Coughlin

    As it happened when the slaves were emancipated after the Civil War, no bloodbath came.
     
    With 600k-800k dead, I think the blood atonement was sufficient for even the thirstiest freed slave.

    Southerners should have known that Haiti was a much different place than America. But who's going to take the chance on "just a little bloodbath"?

    Not everyone is rational. Sometimes men fight just because they don’t want to take shit from an asshole.

    Read More
    • Agree: Bill Jones
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Wally says:
    @Delinquent Snail
    Being a slave for a decade, watching your friends and family be raped and murdered, you would want to kill every single person that lived in that house. They would all be guilty, in your eyes, having witnessed atrocities commited weekly against you and yours and never once protesting. You would hate them and blame them. Its not even a stretch of the imagination.

    You’re really talking about the Palestinians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Like you care. I've seen what you've said about Arabs here. Palestinians are Arabs. The only reason you would consider having even the least bit of sympathy for them is that their most visible opponents are Jewish.

    You're so transparent it's amusing.
    , @Delinquent Snail
    No, but it fits rather well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Wally says:
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    So then if Fred is consistent in his argumentation, he should be all on board with reparations for all black Americans. Come on, Fred. Come out publicly for reparations for all black American descendants of slaves in America. Must be consistent, and consistent is to be for reparations.

    The descendants of all US black slaves should receive their just and fair share. That would be the just thing to do.

    They have already received “reparations”.

    Billions, trillions in welfare cash, food stamps, housing, paid medical, ‘affirmative action’, set asides, more freebies via public schools, government do nothing over paid jobs, money for college, lowered standards for blacks vs. whites.

    The list is endless.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clark Westwood
    Not to mention the unparalleled destruction of lives and property in the Civil War (or the Late Unpleasantness).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @Wally
    They have already received "reparations".

    Billions, trillions in welfare cash, food stamps, housing, paid medical, 'affirmative action', set asides, more freebies via public schools, government do nothing over paid jobs, money for college, lowered standards for blacks vs. whites.

    The list is endless.

    Not to mention the unparalleled destruction of lives and property in the Civil War (or the Late Unpleasantness).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Che Guava says:
    @Priss Factor
    Lincoln’s solution of sending blacks back to Africa.

    Abe was a wise man.

    Lincoln himself said, in letter after letter after document after speech and before Congress, over and over and over, that he would not oppose slavery in the South if only it would come back to the Union, and–yes, boys and girls–he wanted to send blacks back to Africa.

    Abe was a very wise man.

    IN fact, the North wanted no blacks of any kind, having discovered that sweating European immigrants was more profitable.

    And kill Indians. Emma Lazarus called on more Europeans to arrive, take up guns, kill Indians, and grab the land.

    Turn the Indians into wretched huddled savages.

    Emma Lazarus, what a false person.

    Not being a USA person, I would not say too much, just a few historical and pop culture references, also one personal anecdote.

    I had an older US friend, clearly a Southern gent, he was half American Indian, he explained to me that they overwhelmingly supported the Confederacy, none for the Federals. History shows they were correct in that.

    He lent me a very good Civil War history book, but I don’t remember the title.

    Since, it always seems terrible to me that none of the people so concerned about Africans and later ‘huddled masses’ never gave a damn about the plight of American Indians.

    Let us not forget that, after the Rumble in the Jungle, the Louisville Lip said (not direct quote, but accurate paraphrase)
    ‘Man, I’m sure glad my grandpappy got on that boat.’

    I bought a copy of Cold Mountain last week or the week before, about a third of the way through, so far, it is very good. Sure, I am knowing it is only a novel.

    The movie was terrible, captured nothing of what I’ve read so far.

    The movie of Gangs of New York, I have read and re-read the non-fiction book, aside from the stopping short of the rise of the Jewish mob, it presents the NY draft riots in a way that is cartoonish and incomprehensible.

    At least, having read the book, I am having a little idea of the history.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. Talha says:
    @Anon
    This is quite interesting, thanks, but what exactly is its relation to the previous comment?

    Also, who are "they" who are confident?

    Truth understood the relevance. Secret societies are still in play and active among the elite. The number of people in power that have belonged to one or another of them cannot be denied:

    https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Tomb-Skull-League-Hidden/dp/0316735612

    If you don’t have time to read the book – look for interviews with the author.

    Also, who are “they” who are confident?

    Those who would be masters of the world and want nothing but to reduce us to decadent materialist consumers who are constantly in fear and despair.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Well, okay, yes, as I said, that's very interesting, but what I was asking was more along the lines of whether you were saying that these groups had some relation to the foundation or racialization of slavery in the Americas...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    You're really talking about the Palestinians.

    Like you care. I’ve seen what you’ve said about Arabs here. Palestinians are Arabs. The only reason you would consider having even the least bit of sympathy for them is that their most visible opponents are Jewish.

    You’re so transparent it’s amusing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Talha
    Truth understood the relevance. Secret societies are still in play and active among the elite. The number of people in power that have belonged to one or another of them cannot be denied:
    https://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Tomb-Skull-League-Hidden/dp/0316735612

    If you don't have time to read the book - look for interviews with the author.

    Also, who are “they” who are confident?
     
    Those who would be masters of the world and want nothing but to reduce us to decadent materialist consumers who are constantly in fear and despair.

    Peace.

    Well, okay, yes, as I said, that’s very interesting, but what I was asking was more along the lines of whether you were saying that these groups had some relation to the foundation or racialization of slavery in the Americas…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    No, I don't think so necessarily - slavery is as old as...I don't know, probably human conflict.

    These groups may have possibly been involved in its (slavery) eradication.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Talha says:
    @Anon
    Well, okay, yes, as I said, that's very interesting, but what I was asking was more along the lines of whether you were saying that these groups had some relation to the foundation or racialization of slavery in the Americas...

    No, I don’t think so necessarily – slavery is as old as…I don’t know, probably human conflict.

    These groups may have possibly been involved in its (slavery) eradication.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Miller says:
    @Delinquent Snail
    Being a slave for a decade, watching your friends and family be raped and murdered, you would want to kill every single person that lived in that house. They would all be guilty, in your eyes, having witnessed atrocities commited weekly against you and yours and never once protesting. You would hate them and blame them. Its not even a stretch of the imagination.

    In some cases you might even be striking out at your privileged half siblings. Mulatto births were 1 in 8 in 1850, by 1860 they were 1 in 5.

    Any slave getting the upper hand needn’t be too concerned about legalities or minimal harm ethics toward folks who beat, raped, sold your siblings, parents, children. No mercy shown, none given. IDK if I could kill the lot, but certainly every adult from adolescent to elderly unless they had specifically shown some profound kindness.

    IIRC Fredric Douglas recounts how the threat of being sent to the deep South was the ultimate boogyman for an uppity slave, life expectancy for a male slave in the deep South was a fraction of what you might achieve in Baltimore. Contemporary accounts trump modern musings – being enslaved for many was an experience most born free individuals might trade for a quick suicide.

    Even with all the rape/interbreeding and natural and deliberate “breeding”, birth rates weren’t keeping up with death rates and were projected to go negative by 1880. The South seceding came about because if slavery were not allowed to expand to the new territories it would eventually become untenable (back to FD, he observed if no fresh stocks were brought in, slavery would be bred out of existence before too long). Virtually every secession declaration states this in plain language as one of the primary reasons, second to legislative attacks and limits on slavery at the State level and anticipated soon at the Federal level as well.

    Lincoln didn’t start out intending to free the slaves but simply to keep the Union together while limiting slavery to the South. To do more would amount to a “John Brown raid on a massive scale”. As it dragged on Lincoln could not justify to the citizens of the North all the carnage and loss for political reasons, and so “freeing the slaves” did indeed become the rationale to finish it.

    Then as now – it is much easier to break things with violence and much harder to fix them. In hindsight, most of the slaves probably should have been repatriated at the time or transported to some other holdings (Liberia anybody?), and the South should not have been forced back into the Union.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    " life expectancy for a male slave in the deep South was a fraction of what you might achieve in Baltimore"

    Not today.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @ANON
    Fugedahabout it. 750,000 White men and at least 50,000 black and White southerners and border state residents killed to unleash the plague.

    PS the confederate battle flag is the most beautiful flag in the world. Its beauty has nothing to di with the cause or the confederacy. The beauty of it consists of the colors and design.

    For confederate heritage people, there is a youtube video of the authentic Rebel Yell recorded in the 1920's by a confederate veteran. "he was just 18, young and brave, till a yankee bullet put him in his grave" "Hurrah, hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag" The music of the Bonnie Blue sounds an awful like and Irish jig to me, strange for such a bastion of anglo saxon pride as the south. Too much Ivanhoe and Robin Hood.

    PS to all the wikepedia researchers, its 750,000 White soldiers killed,

    The music of the Bonnie Blue sounds an awful like and Irish jig to me, strange for such a bastion of anglo saxon pride as the south.

    There were large numbers of Scots-Irish that had emigrated to the American South, so in the rural areas, there was a huge Celtic influence on the culture: bootleg whisky, cattle rustlin’, fiddle music, and clan fueds.

    BTW, the Confederate Battle Standard incorporates within itself the cross of St. Andrew, and was inspired by the Scottish flag.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. MarkinLA says:
    @anarchyst
    "Affirmative action" was expanded with the misguided Supreme Court rulings on "disparate impact"-- the flawed doctrine that blacks could not make it on their own --"proof" being that there were not enough blacks in certain occupations and professions. THIS was "putting the cart before the horse" and worked exceeding well to cement the "affirmative action" scam in American jurisprudence.
    Although early promoters of the various "civil-rights" laws declared that these "civil-rights" laws would never establish "quotas", THAT is exactly what occurred.
    Aptitude tests, once widely used to determine suitability for employment were effectively outlawed because of "disparate impact". Hence, the "college degree" has become the "gatekeeper" for entrance into many occupations.

    My point was about how it got expanded to “Hispanics” which has nothing to do with disparate impact. Hispanics and fresh off the boat blacks could have easily been cut out of the affirmative action gravy train if only Congress had mandated that any privileges be limited to people who could document their ancestry to American black slaves or recognized members of an Indian tribe. Appalachian whites can not claim disparate impact because they are white.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Thorfinnsson

    True, but there is moral chasm between choosing to enslave oneself and being forcibly enslaved.
     
    Modern day capitalism enslaves people through advertising and status competition. It's subtler than capturing people and putting them in irons, but it's hard to call it freedom.

    And that's fine. We're the RIGHT. We accept hierarchy and inequality. And since we accept it as inevitable and normal, it's only proper that we in turn practice noblesse oblige and act as good role models.

    No sense beating around the bush.

    The deeper issue is trying to keep two different peoples with vastly different genetic makeups and abilities in one society. It only works when one group dominates the other. The South worked when whites maintained control via slavery or Jim Crow. Once those fell, the South started to have problems, which continue to this day.

    Forcing blacks and whites to share a common territory leads to either domination or chaos. So, naturally, the best way to deal with that is introduce a few more races to mix as we’re doing now. Genius all around.
     
    Domination worked just fine--at least everywhere other than Haiti. The New World plantation slave societies where all economically and socially successful, and the ones with the good sense to import wives from Europe instead of drilling for oil preserved their racial integrity as well.

    Doubtless it was undesirable to introduce negro slaves above a certain degree of latitude, as that meant a relatively lower white population. But in the tropics only colored men could do the work (after the failed emancipation experiment Indian coolies were brought in).

    The real mystery is why people in Britain and the Northern United States decided en masse, for the first time in all of human history, that slavery was evil and had to be stamped out. The 19th century abolitionist movement was the first modern SJW campaign. This is the central mystery of the decline of the white race.

    Modern day capitalism enslaves people through advertising and status competition.

    You left out debt.

    Read More
    • Agree: Talha
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. Yankees owned slaves and, in the draft riots in New York in 1863, lynched and burned them alive.

    The blacks lynched during the Civil War draft riots were freedmen, not slaves. The last remaining slaves in NY were freed in 1827: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_New_York

    Fifth, many today would say that Southerners deserved their problems, having brought them on themselves by enslaving blacks. But of course they did not. By 1861 most were born into a slaveholding society. Most were not enthusiastic about it, but had little idea what to do.

    There’s truth to that, although there were indeed plenty of enthusiastic slavers in the South. They were the ones that were so eager to perpetually expand slavery westward.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  155. @KenH

    You didn’t read the entire article, did you?
     
    Yes, and this is the closest I can find to Fred admitting groups besides Europeans took part in the practice of slavery.

    Second, the slave trade being phenomenally profitable, much like the drug trade today, many were involved who today choose to forget this: Yankees, Arabs, Jews, Quakers, and Southerners.
     
    He doesn't mention black African blacks enslaving and selling their own to Europeans. Some of his commentary bolsters the progressive narrative about black slavery and he excuses the mass murder of whites by Nat Turner. Nat Turner was born into slavery and educated by whites. He wasn't a free negro who was defending himself against wicked whites trying to enslave him as Fred insinuates.

    And for a little context he could have mentioned that every race and civilization, including his beloved meso-Americans, were practitioners of slavery who subjected their slaves to conditions far worse than that experienced by black Africans at the hand of whites in America. Or, expanded on the plight of poor whites that he fleetingly mentions.

    How does Fred’s commentary bolster the progressive narrative about black slavery?

    That Nat Turner was not a free negro is hardly a rational basis upon which to criticize his actions. His masters were slave-holders and all slave-holders must accept the prospect that their captives may revolt and justifiably kill them.

    It is not murder for a slave to kill his master and all those who would deny the slave his liberty. It is of no consequence that his master may have treated him a little better than other slaveholders. The interposition of such a point is pointless pettifogging.

    If you owned slaves, you deserved to die a wretched, horrible death. Slave-owners are anti-civilizational and the worst of the slave-owners are the ones who justify their slave-owning upon the basis that their slave-owning was more humane than other slave-owners.

    The sin of slave-owning cannot be absolved by the invocation of rhetorical relativistic rubbish. It is so puerile and putrid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Quite right!

    Americans who launched a horrific war on the (inaccurate) theory that the British government was attempting to enslave them certainly have little right to object if their own slaves revolt.

    Well, actually, they can logically object. But only by denying that blacks are fully human. A remarkably popular opinion in these parts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @anarchyst
    You've been watching too much TV...Of course, nefarious behavior occurred in slavery times, but in general, slaves were too valuable to mistreat. I'm not saying that it never happened, (I'm sure it did), but it would be extremely foolish to abuse and mistreat your valuable property, especially if you expected to get any "work" out of them.
    As a slave, you are brought to a strange country, marginalized beyond belief, barely tolerated by strangers...what do you do? If you gain your freedom, where do you go? Sometimes, the best thing to do is to make the best of the situation that you are in...that doesn't make it right, but...
    There are absolutely NO EXCUSES for that abhorrent institution, abuses did occur, but were less common than claimed by today's slavery stories...

    I find the circumstances around the Lowry War in North Carolina in 1864 illuminating on this issue:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowry_War

    Free people of color were ordered (forced) to do dangerous work to defend a fort because the slaves were more valuable. The “free people of color” were more disposable than the slaves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @OutWest
    So were the Irish.
    , @Astuteobservor II
    hell, if I were forced into war, I would shoot my commanding officer the first chance I get.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. OutWest says:
    @iLLivaniLLi
    I find the circumstances around the Lowry War in North Carolina in 1864 illuminating on this issue:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowry_War

    Free people of color were ordered (forced) to do dangerous work to defend a fort because the slaves were more valuable. The "free people of color" were more disposable than the slaves.

    So were the Irish.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @iLLivaniLLi
    I find the circumstances around the Lowry War in North Carolina in 1864 illuminating on this issue:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowry_War

    Free people of color were ordered (forced) to do dangerous work to defend a fort because the slaves were more valuable. The "free people of color" were more disposable than the slaves.

    hell, if I were forced into war, I would shoot my commanding officer the first chance I get.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    Doubtfull. You would commit suicide so easily?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @Thorfinnsson
    I don't see the moral problem with slavery.

    Most people freely enslave themselves as Fred Reed hinted at in his segue about immigrants. The average worker in America today (and many other countries) spends up to the limit of his income (and then some), gorges himself on food to become obese, fulfills his carnal lust with the basest pornography (his wife, if he has one, having long since refused him in favor of romance novels), and allows his desires to be constructed for him by Madison Avenue. As the alt right kiddies say, he is a bugman.

    Southern intellectuals in the 1850s drew a similar conclusion. They claimed slavery elevated the negro race above its natural condition, and it's hard to argue they were wrong. George Fitzhugh went so far as to suggest that the poor whites should be enslaved as well.

    That said for slavery to be fair there must be some way out of it. I believe this did exist in Classical Antiquity though I am uncertain.

    The vast majority of black slaves in the South were well aware of the fact that they enjoyed a higher standard of living (accompanied by elevated moral standards) than the average poor white residing in the North or South, whom they disdainfully referred to as, “po white trash”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. @Anonymous
    Another, related theory of the Blackness I'd like to put before the gathered intellects:

    For half a million years negro men lived in a Garden of Eden in Sub-Sahara Africa. They lived on low-hanging fruit, crude hoe agriculture (the soil was easily broken) and abundant game. Mostly they did nothing but sleep, drink primitive liquor, hunt (occasionally), f--- and hang out.
    In short: they lived off the labor of their slaves, who did all of the above except hunt, as well as bore and raised the children and prepared the food and, of course, offered up their loins as directed.
    Evolutionarily, then, they never developed beyond the hunter-gatherer stage which they are still in, to this day, and all the village behaviors can be seen in any city in America to this day. Having never to plan and work together and invent, to name three, the plow, the wheel and the shovel, they remain essentially primitives in a world far too complex for them. They will, in large numbers, never be competitive.
    Biblically, they are being punished for committing the Original Sin, which was slavery. It wasn't practiced, however, against other men but essentially by men against women. In short African women were slaves for half-a-million years. Thus is blackness cursed, and thus will its problems never abate, at least for another 597,000 years or God goes off duty. You sew what you reap.
    Comments?

    In the 1790s, Scottish explorer Mungo Park, credited with being the first white man to visit sub-Sahara Africa, reported finding 3/4th of all black natives living as slaves to the remaining 1/4th. It is entirely safe to assume that with rare exceptions, virtually all slaves sold to white slave buyers on the west coast of Africa were living as slaves to black slave owners, with most being born into slavery over several generations.
    http://publicdomainreview.org/collections/mungo-parks-travels-in-the-interior-of-africa-1858/ (open-source document free on-line)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth
    Now, in a barely-capitalistic, hunter/gatherer and subsistence farmer society, WHY would a quarter of the population need so many slaves? Why would they want so many people that they had to feed when there wasn't much work to do?

    Please, a simpleton believes anything he reads that agrees with his highly un-researched point of view.

    Don't be a simpleton.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @whoever
    I would like to know why you believe Quakers profited from slavery. I read the Amazon page for the book you link, Complicity, and saw no mention of Quakers. What you write contradicts what I know about Quakers and slavery. I may be wrong in this, so if you have a source for your assertion, do please post it.
    I'm Brethren, and I know that we forbade slave-holding in 1782.
    It was ordained that, "No brother or sister should have negroes as slaves; and in case a brother or sister has such, he or she must set them free."
    Further it was ordained that any who owned slaves, "Make speedy preparation to liberate them, that this evil may be banished from among us, as we look upon slavery as dangerous to be tolerated in the church, and is a great injury to the cause of Christ and the progress of the church.
    "So, unitedly, we exhort our brethren humbly, yet earnestly and lovingly, to clear themselves of slavery, that they may not fail and come short of the glory of God at the great and notable day of the Lord. Furthermore, concerning Brethren who hire a slave or slaves, and paying wages to their owners, we do not approve of it. The same is attended with the evil which is combined with slavery. It is taking hold of the same evil which we cannot encourage, and should be banished and put from among us, and cannot be tolerated in the church.”

    It was additionally agreed that blacks would be accepted as Brethren: “It is considered, that inasmuch as the gospel is to be preached to all nations and races, and if they come as repentant sinners, believing in the gospel of Jesus Christ, and apply for baptism, we could not confidently refuse them.”

    It’s interesting to note that religious zealots who lose their religion inevitably resort to political extremism as did the Puritans who adopted Absolutism as a substitute.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @The Grate Deign
    Freeing slaves piecemeal wasn't a simple thing. Slaves were property, and sometimes ownership became too complex to settle with a simple statement in a will. Some of Washington's slaves were not 100 percent his own. Some belonged to his wife's estate. Some were the children of slaves in which the mother was owned in a complicated condition of ownership and the father was also in a complicated legal mess, and so the children were a legal mystery. Washington freed the ones he was allowed to free in his will, but the rest were beyond his authority, and in some cases, nobody could figure out whose they really were.

    The Grate Deign

    Children of slaves were the legal property of the individual owning the child’s mother. From a legal standpoint, the father had nothing to do with it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Truth says:
    @Carroll Price
    In the 1790s, Scottish explorer Mungo Park, credited with being the first white man to visit sub-Sahara Africa, reported finding 3/4th of all black natives living as slaves to the remaining 1/4th. It is entirely safe to assume that with rare exceptions, virtually all slaves sold to white slave buyers on the west coast of Africa were living as slaves to black slave owners, with most being born into slavery over several generations.
    http://publicdomainreview.org/collections/mungo-parks-travels-in-the-interior-of-africa-1858/ (open-source document free on-line)

    Now, in a barely-capitalistic, hunter/gatherer and subsistence farmer society, WHY would a quarter of the population need so many slaves? Why would they want so many people that they had to feed when there wasn’t much work to do?

    Please, a simpleton believes anything he reads that agrees with his highly un-researched point of view.

    Don’t be a simpleton.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price

    Now, in a barely-capitalistic, hunter/gatherer and subsistence farmer society, WHY would a quarter of the population need so many slaves? Why would they want so many people that they had to feed when there wasn’t much work to do?
     
    I'm sure it was for the same reason Africans own slaves to this day. In addition to being major status symbols, slaves performed all menial task, like gathering and cooking food, plus female slaves served as concubines for the village chiefs who frequently fathered several dozen children. As far as providing for their slaves, unlike American slave owners slaves of African chiefs provided for themselves.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Thorfinnsson

    True, but there is moral chasm between choosing to enslave oneself and being forcibly enslaved.
     
    Modern day capitalism enslaves people through advertising and status competition. It's subtler than capturing people and putting them in irons, but it's hard to call it freedom.

    And that's fine. We're the RIGHT. We accept hierarchy and inequality. And since we accept it as inevitable and normal, it's only proper that we in turn practice noblesse oblige and act as good role models.

    No sense beating around the bush.

    The deeper issue is trying to keep two different peoples with vastly different genetic makeups and abilities in one society. It only works when one group dominates the other. The South worked when whites maintained control via slavery or Jim Crow. Once those fell, the South started to have problems, which continue to this day.

    Forcing blacks and whites to share a common territory leads to either domination or chaos. So, naturally, the best way to deal with that is introduce a few more races to mix as we’re doing now. Genius all around.
     
    Domination worked just fine--at least everywhere other than Haiti. The New World plantation slave societies where all economically and socially successful, and the ones with the good sense to import wives from Europe instead of drilling for oil preserved their racial integrity as well.

    Doubtless it was undesirable to introduce negro slaves above a certain degree of latitude, as that meant a relatively lower white population. But in the tropics only colored men could do the work (after the failed emancipation experiment Indian coolies were brought in).

    The real mystery is why people in Britain and the Northern United States decided en masse, for the first time in all of human history, that slavery was evil and had to be stamped out. The 19th century abolitionist movement was the first modern SJW campaign. This is the central mystery of the decline of the white race.

    The real mystery is why people in Britain and the Northern United States decided en masse, for the first time in all of human history, that slavery was evil and had to be stamped out.

    I must say, this statement strikes at the very heart of the issue. I have never heard anyone before raise this point, and it is hugely insightful, to say the least!

    The only way two such unequal races could exist in a system that is to be ultimately beneficial to both — was that of the old South chattel slavery: the White man gets human labor (not cheap, however), and the Black man gets civilized. A win for both!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Vidalus says:

    FROM FRED:   (…)= my insertions as comments to Freddyboy- JS
    Seventh, Southerners believed that they knew (had interbred and snuck the ones who could “pass” under their wing) the Negroes and that they could (could indeed, and were in ways superior) not function as equals of whites and thus would destroy (THE ARYAN MYTH) society. Except for ardent (crazy people of principles) abolitionists–perhaps for ardent abolitionists–so did Northerners, but by then these latter didn’t have many Negroes (whom thy could fuk over, body and soul) and never (due to a tasty new import of fresh meat) expected to. Today, a century and a half after the Civil War, the Southerners seem to have been (seem, seem, seem, seems you are a fukin psycho) right.
                   Ninth, hypocrisy. You, the reader, probably live (as I long did) in a society in which millions of blacks (and even more non-blacks) live pointless lives, shooting each other in decaying cities (and wealthy gated compounds) with horrible (and super elite psycho prep )schools. If you are a Yankee of the usual intolerable (Nazi Aryan) virtue, as so many are, note that blacks suffer these awful conditions chiefly in (cities where the once were gainfully employed) Southern (an attempt at irony fails)cities such as Trenton, Newark, Camden, Philadelphia, New York, Detroit, Chicago, Flint, Gary, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Baltimore, and Washington DC. (and all other places too numerous to list). What have you (putative WASP Nazi )done about it–other than, perhaps, talk? And you are in no danger (other than that of living in a police state) of the consequences of whatever you might (disarm everyone) propose. Southerners (we are armed “to the teeth” Fred) were.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  166. @Truth
    Now, in a barely-capitalistic, hunter/gatherer and subsistence farmer society, WHY would a quarter of the population need so many slaves? Why would they want so many people that they had to feed when there wasn't much work to do?

    Please, a simpleton believes anything he reads that agrees with his highly un-researched point of view.

    Don't be a simpleton.

    Now, in a barely-capitalistic, hunter/gatherer and subsistence farmer society, WHY would a quarter of the population need so many slaves? Why would they want so many people that they had to feed when there wasn’t much work to do?

    I’m sure it was for the same reason Africans own slaves to this day. In addition to being major status symbols, slaves performed all menial task, like gathering and cooking food, plus female slaves served as concubines for the village chiefs who frequently fathered several dozen children. As far as providing for their slaves, unlike American slave owners slaves of African chiefs provided for themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    As far as providing for their slaves, unlike American slave owners slaves of African chiefs provided for themselves.
     
    Oh, then I guess they weren't slaves, now where they? When you provide for yourself, you labor is called, "a job."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. hambone says:

    “If someone tried to enslave you and your family, would you kill him?” – This is misleading as the slaves were already enslaved before they got to the United States. They were slaves in Africa, sold by black African slave traders to whites who then brought them to the United states. The slave owners in the United States did not enslave them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Truth

    The slave owners in the United States did not enslave them.
     
    Oh, so if I kidnap your daughter, play with her a bit, and then sell her to someone else who plays with hear a little more, you are only going to be angry at me?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Truth says:
    @Carroll Price

    Now, in a barely-capitalistic, hunter/gatherer and subsistence farmer society, WHY would a quarter of the population need so many slaves? Why would they want so many people that they had to feed when there wasn’t much work to do?
     
    I'm sure it was for the same reason Africans own slaves to this day. In addition to being major status symbols, slaves performed all menial task, like gathering and cooking food, plus female slaves served as concubines for the village chiefs who frequently fathered several dozen children. As far as providing for their slaves, unlike American slave owners slaves of African chiefs provided for themselves.

    As far as providing for their slaves, unlike American slave owners slaves of African chiefs provided for themselves.

    Oh, then I guess they weren’t slaves, now where they? When you provide for yourself, you labor is called, “a job.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Truth says:
    @hambone
    "If someone tried to enslave you and your family, would you kill him?" - This is misleading as the slaves were already enslaved before they got to the United States. They were slaves in Africa, sold by black African slave traders to whites who then brought them to the United states. The slave owners in the United States did not enslave them.

    The slave owners in the United States did not enslave them.

    Oh, so if I kidnap your daughter, play with her a bit, and then sell her to someone else who plays with hear a little more, you are only going to be angry at me?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Actually, that would be:

    "If I buy your daughter from her kidnapper and played with her a bit, how angry do you have a right to be at me? After all, I'm not the one who kidnapped her."

    Not that your basic point isn't entirely valid.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. There is no statute of limitations on racial revenge. What makes people think we are necessarily “out of the woods” when it comes to another Haiti happening here? Give it another 20-30 years, years in which the following factors continue apace:
    1) Whites become a minority in the US
    2) SJW’s/Hollywood continue teaching in the schools/films that the white man is the root of all evil.
    3) Religious denominations like UUW, even when their own members are besieged by blacks and beat into comas while attending their conventions, preach racial injustice as the “cause” of the beating:

    https://www.uuworld.org/articles/two-uua-employees-robbed-new-orleans

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  171. @Priss Factor
    There is slavery that really was and there is 'slavery' as part of narrative.

    Slavery is inexhaustible as subject of story and calls for revision with new evidence, new perspectives, and etc.
    But 'slavery' as narrative is a simple storytelling to serve as shared sacred myth for the elites(as new clergy) and masses.
    Also, 'slavery' is useful to blacks to guilt-bait whites and make demands. And it is useful for Jewish elites to paralyze white pride. Also, it is addictive to whites who are into self-righteous vanity. They invoke guilt to profess their delusional virtue.

    There is slavery as important subject.
    There is 'totally evil slavery' as white guilt narrative.
    There is also 'necessary evil slavery' as justification for Confederacy. This third kind used to be dominant in the Southern narrative but is no more. Even monuments are being removed and bodies exhumed.

    It's a good idea to condemn slavery in our age, but it is complicated by racial factors. Whites enslaved blacks, a most problematic and troublesome race. So, we can never be sure if black problems are result of slavery or biology or maybe combination of both.

    If blacks weren't a troublesome race, I think 'white guilt' wouldn't be so bad. Why not make amends and seek reconciliation? But because blacks are a troublesome race, apologizing to blacks just makes them more troublesome as blacks tend to be self-centered, nasty, hostile, and psychopathic.

    If whites had enslaved a bunch of Hindus or Chinese, reconciliation would have been easier.

    Another thing. This 'white guilt' stuff is used by White Elites with privilege to piss on whites without privilege.

    This is how White Prog elite thinking goes: In the past, ALL whites were privileged. And white elites favored white masses(like during the New Deal). So, we must end white privilege by stop privileging all whites.
    And white elites must be fair to ALL.

    Well, here's the problem with the logic. Most whites in the US were never privileged. Sure, they had legal advantages over non-whites, but that mostly meant that they were favored for jobs where they had to toil on the farm under hot sun or work in coal mines or slave in factories for long hours. That aint no privilege. Even if a white guy was favored over black guy for such job, how was it privilege? Working 12 hrs in a coal mine and inhaling coal dust is privilege? Gimme a break.
    So, even when whites were favored over other races in the past, most whites never enjoyed anything that could be called privilege. They toiled and labored from sunrise to sunset.

    So, when today's white elites say they shall no longer lead, guide, or help white masses because whites have been privileged in the past, it's totally bogus. The only white people with white privilege are the white elites. And if anything, their own privilege is expanded with the current PC logic because they no longer need feel any nobless oblige to white masses. They can claim to care about 'diversity' and hog all the wealth and privilege for themselves. But as diversity is so vague and divided, white elites don't need to do anything important for anyone. Just make a lot of nice-sounding noises.

    So, white elites keep their own privilege while denouncing the imagined 'privilege' of white masses who never had any privilege. White elites justify their own privilege by condemning 'white privilege' of white masses who not only lack privilege but keep sinking lower and lower economically. It is a dirty trick.
    Imagine if the monarch and aristocrats of a kingdom denounced the privilege of their subjects(who actually have no privilege) to justify their own privilege. By making a big show of attacking the fictional privilege of the masses, those with real privilege justify their own.

    What's really comical about fighting 'white privilege' is how it is tied to immigration.
    Now, one could make a compelling argument that blacks, American Indians, and some other non-whites did get less than whites in general. Therefore, it was only right that white elites made some concerted effort to help the blacks and aid the Indians. Fair enough.

    But what does 'white privilege' have to do with masses of new immigrants who have NO HISTORY in America when it was discriminatory against non-whites?
    While it's true that Chinese Americans in the past were not treated equally, so many Chinese in America today are newcomers and they have NO HISTORY of having been discriminated against. Same goes for African immigrants. Why should these newcomers claim collective victimhood on the basis that their racial or ethnic kind in America had been mistreated? And if there were indeed some Chinese who built railroads, many newcomers don't have ANY ethnic stake in the American Past. Did Arabs build raildroads? Did Malaysians pick cotton?

    But for some reason, white elites must favor these newcomers even over white masses(whose ancestors toiled in farms, factories, and mines to build America from scratch). White elites favor these immivaders over white masses in the name of fighting 'white privilege'. But again, it is a case of whites with privilege waging war on whites without privilege to morally justify their own elite privilege in the name of protecting non-white minorities from white privilege when, if anything, it is white privilege that brings in scab immivaders to further undermine and destroy whites without privilege. Also, many of theses immivaders come with great privilege -- like that turd Fareed Zakaria -- and are toady servitors of the Empire. Zakaria praised Trump ONLY when missiles were lobbed on Syria. Imagine that. A non-white 'w*g' siding with neo-imperialism against a non-white nation.

    ” In the past all whites were privileged”

    Excellent post, and you have hit upon one of the central and totally ignored aspects of the slavery question, and that being : Americans and specifically the edumacated leftist class, have no clue as to the historical backgrounds of the whites who made it to the US shores.
    Fact is unless they, european whites, were titled : “Von” : nobility, or the english eqivalent thereof, they were all slaves in their homelands and subjected to the terrible conditions of “Leibeigenschaft” in Europe of which most Americans are totally unaware.
    The only reason for their peaceful departure from european shores being that their owners, the nobility, had visions of 1789 Paris and rolling heads, and they considered it safer for themselves to simply let them the peasants/slaves go : good riddance.
    This element of political history is purposely ignored in the US so as to uphold the notion that only blacks were victims of slavery and therefore the sole legitimate recipients of upcoming reparations, along with the complete psychotic spectrum of leftist notions regarding white guilt.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Serfdom had disappeared in western Europe centuries before English settlement started. Though to be sure Irish conditions were pretty bad, and rural and urban poor had it rough everywhere. But they simply weren't serfs or slaves.

    Russian serfs were freed very late, as were those in some other areas of eastern Europe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Logan says:

    Generally good article, but this part is inaccurate.

    “Yankees owned slaves and, in the draft riots in New York in 1863, lynched and burned them alive.”

    1. These were free blacks viewed by NYC workers as competitors. They were not slaves.

    2. Many if not most of those in the mobs attacking blacks were recent Irish immigrants. Calling them “Yankees,” except perhaps from the perspective of a southerner, seems to stretch the point.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  173. Logan says:

    Another inaccuracy.

    “Tenth, it is worth noting that the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, now also sold as a moral measure by the sainted Lincoln, in fact freed not a single slave. ”

    There were significant areas of the south, mostly along the east coast in the Mississippi Valley, where the Union Army was in control but which were not specifically excluded from the EP. In these areas, slaves were freed instantly on the release of the Proclamation. Somewhere in the vicinity of 50,000 of them.

    As Union armies advanced, slaves were freed in the territories they conquered. By the end of the war, the vast majority of slaves had been freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. All others had been previously freed by state action except for 50,000 or so in KY and DE, the only ones actually freed by the 13th Am,e

    “It applied only in the Southern states, where it was intended to ignite a revolt.”

    Possibly. If you can read the President’s heart as to his intentions. However, the Proclamation itself instructed the former slaves to refrain from any violence other than in necessary self-defense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  174. Logan says:

    “The North had tens of thousands of slaves itself. ”

    A highly debatable point. At the time, all slave states, with the possible exception of DE, which had only 1800 slaves in 1860.

    To be sure, some slave states stayed in the Union, but this didn’t exactly make them part of the North.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  175. Logan says:
    @RobRich
    "Either way, of course, Washington was infinitely nobler than Jefferson on this matter."

    None of that snippy far-left propaganda. Jefferson's 150 slaves were generally mortgaged and not his to free. Plus he had no where to free them too. After consulting with them a system was devised where they lived independently on his land so they were no worse and much better off than in Africa but were paid fair wages or goods for anything they did for him. It's in his writings.

    Do some research.


    BTW, unless you're a libertarian complaining about prisons and punishing people via slavery as in the Constitution, you're a slave-owner. The hypocrisy of the far-left is they never mention that.

    And why were Jefferson’s slaves mortgaged? Could it have had something to do with his living far beyond his means for his entire life and going deep into debt as a result?

    Washington, OTOH, spent the last years of his life intentionally arranging his affairs so it would be possible for him to free his slaves and provide a start on independent life after his death.

    George didn’t spend a lot of time bloviating about the injustice of slavery, as Tom did (in his earlier years.), but he walked the walk.

    Infinitely nobler is an understatement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Logan says:
    @Truth

    The slave owners in the United States did not enslave them.
     
    Oh, so if I kidnap your daughter, play with her a bit, and then sell her to someone else who plays with hear a little more, you are only going to be angry at me?

    Actually, that would be:

    “If I buy your daughter from her kidnapper and played with her a bit, how angry do you have a right to be at me? After all, I’m not the one who kidnapped her.”

    Not that your basic point isn’t entirely valid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Logan says:
    @Liberty Mike
    How does Fred's commentary bolster the progressive narrative about black slavery?

    That Nat Turner was not a free negro is hardly a rational basis upon which to criticize his actions. His masters were slave-holders and all slave-holders must accept the prospect that their captives may revolt and justifiably kill them.

    It is not murder for a slave to kill his master and all those who would deny the slave his liberty. It is of no consequence that his master may have treated him a little better than other slaveholders. The interposition of such a point is pointless pettifogging.

    If you owned slaves, you deserved to die a wretched, horrible death. Slave-owners are anti-civilizational and the worst of the slave-owners are the ones who justify their slave-owning upon the basis that their slave-owning was more humane than other slave-owners.

    The sin of slave-owning cannot be absolved by the invocation of rhetorical relativistic rubbish. It is so puerile and putrid.

    Quite right!

    Americans who launched a horrific war on the (inaccurate) theory that the British government was attempting to enslave them certainly have little right to object if their own slaves revolt.

    Well, actually, they can logically object. But only by denying that blacks are fully human. A remarkably popular opinion in these parts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Logan says:
    @Authenticjazzman
    " In the past all whites were privileged"

    Excellent post, and you have hit upon one of the central and totally ignored aspects of the slavery question, and that being : Americans and specifically the edumacated leftist class, have no clue as to the historical backgrounds of the whites who made it to the US shores.
    Fact is unless they, european whites, were titled : "Von" : nobility, or the english eqivalent thereof, they were all slaves in their homelands and subjected to the terrible conditions of "Leibeigenschaft" in Europe of which most Americans are totally unaware.
    The only reason for their peaceful departure from european shores being that their owners, the nobility, had visions of 1789 Paris and rolling heads, and they considered it safer for themselves to simply let them the peasants/slaves go : good riddance.
    This element of political history is purposely ignored in the US so as to uphold the notion that only blacks were victims of slavery and therefore the sole legitimate recipients of upcoming reparations, along with the complete psychotic spectrum of leftist notions regarding white guilt.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    Serfdom had disappeared in western Europe centuries before English settlement started. Though to be sure Irish conditions were pretty bad, and rural and urban poor had it rough everywhere. But they simply weren’t serfs or slaves.

    Russian serfs were freed very late, as were those in some other areas of eastern Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    " Serfdom had disappeared in western Europe centuries before English settlement started"

    Nonsense : "Leibeigenschaft" : Ownership of serfs, continued in Germany, which is most certainly a part of "Western europe", until the early eighteen hundreds, and the conditions of existance for German, French, Italian, Polish, etc, Peasants was nothing short of "Slavery", which continued well into the mid-nineteenth century, as they were subjected to total control of their daily lives and forced to work seven days a week and up to sixteen hours daily.

    The horrid practice of "Prima Notte", which many appologist historians claim to have never existed was continued well into the eighteenth century.

    You are ill-informed and unread my friend, and by the way I spent four decades in Europe, Germany, France Italy, England, and attended university in Germany.

    Was married twice in Europe, first wife having been a German "von", second a Surgeon, which means nothing other than I have been exposed to European society at levels which usually are unattainable for Americans.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro Jazz musician

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Logan says:
    @woodNfish
    "We drift in a sea of historical fraud." Fred Reed

    Yes, as I have stated many times. However, you also contribute to the fraud by calling the war of secession the "civil war". It was not a civil war, Fred. The South never tried to overthrow the US government. The southern states had a constitutional right to secede. The lying hypocrite Lincoln also started the war, not the South.

    “A civil war, also known as an intrastate war in polemology,[1] is a war between organized groups within the same state or country. The aim of one side may be to take control of the country or a region, to achieve independence for a region or to change government policies.[2] The term is a calque of the Latin bellum civile which was used to refer to the various civil wars of the Roman Republic in the 1st century BC.”

    A civil war need not be for control of the entire polity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Logan says:
    @Yancey
    Blacks should have been sent back to Africa after the war of Northern aggression. They could also have been sold off to Brazil which was still a slave owning nation.

    They should never have been allowed to be citizens. Their presence here in the United States is a disaster.

    Morality aside, logistics were the rub.

    4,000,000 people are no cinch to ship across the world, even today. Much, much more difficult and expensive at the time, especially if it was forced, so you’d have to catch them first.

    All the many attempts to “repatriate” blacks foundered on the problem of simple math: number of people x cost per person.

    What would it have cost, per capita, to “repatriate” them? $500??

    That would add up to $2B, at a time when the entire federal budget in 1860 had been $60M.

    Does anyone seriously think American taxpayers would have been up for footing such an enormous bill, especially when they just incurred enormous debts fighting a long war?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Logan,

    Been enjoying your informative comments - please keep it up.

    Peace.
    , @Logan
    Poked around a little. Found that the promoters of the Haiti off-shore island settlement project for freedmen were paid $50 per head to ship blacks off to the settlement. A lot less than my $500 per capita assumption.

    However, that scheme was an utter failure, and it seem probable that any massive settlement of freed slaves to Africa would have cost a LOT more than $50 each. It would also, by definition, have entangled Americans in Africa, as we'd have been obliged to defend the settlements.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Talha says:
    @Logan
    Morality aside, logistics were the rub.

    4,000,000 people are no cinch to ship across the world, even today. Much, much more difficult and expensive at the time, especially if it was forced, so you'd have to catch them first.

    All the many attempts to "repatriate" blacks foundered on the problem of simple math: number of people x cost per person.

    What would it have cost, per capita, to "repatriate" them? $500??

    That would add up to $2B, at a time when the entire federal budget in 1860 had been $60M.

    Does anyone seriously think American taxpayers would have been up for footing such an enormous bill, especially when they just incurred enormous debts fighting a long war?

    Hey Logan,

    Been enjoying your informative comments – please keep it up.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Why thank you, kind sir!

    A period about which I've read a great deal and find very interesting. Also one about which an enormous amount of inaccurate information is peddled by both sides. Often, to be fair, by people who are sincerely misinformed.

    On one thread I was accused of being an apologist for American slavery and a leftist white-hater. By different people, of course!

    I try, as best I can, to stick to the facts, not trying to impose my own opinions on them. Sometimes this is difficult. As a Christian, for instance, I find the Old Testament support for slavery and genocide difficult to reconcile with my own belief system. Even the New Testament simply accepts slavery as a fact of life, making no attempt to express the slightest disapproval of the system.

    But the past is what it is, and we can't (or shouldn't try to) change it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Logan says:
    @Talha
    Hey Logan,

    Been enjoying your informative comments - please keep it up.

    Peace.

    Why thank you, kind sir!

    A period about which I’ve read a great deal and find very interesting. Also one about which an enormous amount of inaccurate information is peddled by both sides. Often, to be fair, by people who are sincerely misinformed.

    On one thread I was accused of being an apologist for American slavery and a leftist white-hater. By different people, of course!

    I try, as best I can, to stick to the facts, not trying to impose my own opinions on them. Sometimes this is difficult. As a Christian, for instance, I find the Old Testament support for slavery and genocide difficult to reconcile with my own belief system. Even the New Testament simply accepts slavery as a fact of life, making no attempt to express the slightest disapproval of the system.

    But the past is what it is, and we can’t (or shouldn’t try to) change it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Logan,

    This is a breath of fresh air for me - this is a very balanced approach which will likely get you the following:

    On one thread I was accused of being an apologist for American slavery and a leftist white-hater.
     
    People will want to pigeon-hole you for virtue-signalling points and due to their lack of knowledge on the subject.

    I try, as best I can, to stick to the facts, not trying to impose my own opinions on them. Sometimes this is difficult.
     
    This seems to be the best way to approach things - try to stick to the facts. When one does a deep-dive into the subject one comes out realizing how huge this subject really is and how absolutely complex. Slavery spans everything from peasants selling themselves into slavery to pay off a debt, concubines, slave soldiers that became kings (while still slaves), castrated galley slaves that lived horrible lives barely seeing sunlight, etc.

    David Brion Davis (who is an exceptionally gifted and knowledgeable expert on the subject) stated:
    "The more we learn about slavery, the more difficulty we have defining it."

    If you have the time, this is a brilliant essay on the subject, entitled "Slavery and the Idea of Progress":
    http://jsreligion.org/issues/vol14/davis.pdf

    But the past is what it is, and we can’t (or shouldn’t try to) change it.
     
    Absolutely - we can either be mired in the past or look to learn from the lessons of past generations and chart a way forward. I often see people act as if they are so morally superior to the people of the past because, well, they were just a bunch of slave owners, right? But the fact is, it takes zero moral fortitude to condemn slavery in this day and age - it's a reflexive reaction. It would have been something to condemn or reform it when it was alive and well - one would be going against the grain and challenging powerful interests. Otherwise one's disgust with the institution is a bit like one's disgust with eating cats - maybe if you were raised among a people who eat cats regularly, you'd think nothing of going to the market and picking a cat out of the cage for dinner, just as one wouldn't mind picking out a slave from the market.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Talha says:
    @Logan
    Why thank you, kind sir!

    A period about which I've read a great deal and find very interesting. Also one about which an enormous amount of inaccurate information is peddled by both sides. Often, to be fair, by people who are sincerely misinformed.

    On one thread I was accused of being an apologist for American slavery and a leftist white-hater. By different people, of course!

    I try, as best I can, to stick to the facts, not trying to impose my own opinions on them. Sometimes this is difficult. As a Christian, for instance, I find the Old Testament support for slavery and genocide difficult to reconcile with my own belief system. Even the New Testament simply accepts slavery as a fact of life, making no attempt to express the slightest disapproval of the system.

    But the past is what it is, and we can't (or shouldn't try to) change it.

    Hey Logan,

    This is a breath of fresh air for me – this is a very balanced approach which will likely get you the following:

    On one thread I was accused of being an apologist for American slavery and a leftist white-hater.

    People will want to pigeon-hole you for virtue-signalling points and due to their lack of knowledge on the subject.

    I try, as best I can, to stick to the facts, not trying to impose my own opinions on them. Sometimes this is difficult.

    This seems to be the best way to approach things – try to stick to the facts. When one does a deep-dive into the subject one comes out realizing how huge this subject really is and how absolutely complex. Slavery spans everything from peasants selling themselves into slavery to pay off a debt, concubines, slave soldiers that became kings (while still slaves), castrated galley slaves that lived horrible lives barely seeing sunlight, etc.

    David Brion Davis (who is an exceptionally gifted and knowledgeable expert on the subject) stated:
    “The more we learn about slavery, the more difficulty we have defining it.”

    If you have the time, this is a brilliant essay on the subject, entitled “Slavery and the Idea of Progress”:

    http://jsreligion.org/issues/vol14/davis.pdf

    But the past is what it is, and we can’t (or shouldn’t try to) change it.

    Absolutely – we can either be mired in the past or look to learn from the lessons of past generations and chart a way forward. I often see people act as if they are so morally superior to the people of the past because, well, they were just a bunch of slave owners, right? But the fact is, it takes zero moral fortitude to condemn slavery in this day and age – it’s a reflexive reaction. It would have been something to condemn or reform it when it was alive and well – one would be going against the grain and challenging powerful interests. Otherwise one’s disgust with the institution is a bit like one’s disgust with eating cats – maybe if you were raised among a people who eat cats regularly, you’d think nothing of going to the market and picking a cat out of the cage for dinner, just as one wouldn’t mind picking out a slave from the market.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Thanks for the link to the Davis article. As you say, a brilliant summation of an incredibly complicated topic. One of the biggest problems in discussing slavery is that it has been "culturally appropriated" by black Americans, as if they are the only people in history who were ever enslaved. Turning the entire history into one of evil whie Americans and guiltless, heroic black victims.

    The true history is of course not only much more real, it's much more interesting.

    This is somewhat similar to the way that (many) Jews have appropriated the idea of genocide, as if Jews are the only people ever subjected to it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @Logan
    Serfdom had disappeared in western Europe centuries before English settlement started. Though to be sure Irish conditions were pretty bad, and rural and urban poor had it rough everywhere. But they simply weren't serfs or slaves.

    Russian serfs were freed very late, as were those in some other areas of eastern Europe.

    ” Serfdom had disappeared in western Europe centuries before English settlement started”

    Nonsense : “Leibeigenschaft” : Ownership of serfs, continued in Germany, which is most certainly a part of “Western europe”, until the early eighteen hundreds, and the conditions of existance for German, French, Italian, Polish, etc, Peasants was nothing short of “Slavery”, which continued well into the mid-nineteenth century, as they were subjected to total control of their daily lives and forced to work seven days a week and up to sixteen hours daily.

    The horrid practice of “Prima Notte”, which many appologist historians claim to have never existed was continued well into the eighteenth century.

    You are ill-informed and unread my friend, and by the way I spent four decades in Europe, Germany, France Italy, England, and attended university in Germany.

    Was married twice in Europe, first wife having been a German “von”, second a Surgeon, which means nothing other than I have been exposed to European society at levels which usually are unattainable for Americans.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro Jazz musician

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Thanks for your response.

    Before replying I took the time to do some research.

    The notion that "Germany" is part of western Europe seems to be quite a recent one, probably based on the Iron Curtain. From what I can read, normally the Rhine was considered the boundary between Western and Central Europe, so Germany was squarely in the latter. Central Europe was generally defined as extending from the Rhine to the eastern edge of Latin and Catholic, as opposed to Byzantine and Greek cultural influence.

    Also, till the later 19th century there was no "Germany." It was a geographical, cultural and linguistic expression only. Condition were very different in the Rhineland and East Prussia.

    The institution we have been referring to as serfdom never really existed, as it is used to somewhat inaccurately lump together various conditions of unfree status that existed over all of Europe at various times over more than 1000 years. They varied greatly, both de facto and de jure, over both time and space.

    In particular, it appears that there was a major distinction in many if not most areas between serfdom of the person and servile tenure of the land, with the former being far more oppressive and in most areas disappearing much sooner.

    Here's an article from the famous 1902 Britannica, so it can hardly be accused of PC;

    http://www.1902encyclopedia.com/S/SLA/slavery-12.html

    According to it, serfdom in France had almost entirely disappeared by 1318, though some residue hung on in some areas till the Revolution.

    In England it was said that in the early 14th century the serfs were only in form unfree. As in France, it appears it hung on till the 1500s and even later 1700s in some very rare cases.

    Serfdom never existed in Scandinavia.

    By the early 15th serfdom was described as extinct in Italy.

    In Germany the situation is much more complex, it not being at the time "a country" in the same sense as were England and France. The condition of Leibeigenschaft you describe was by no means a universal institution, with entire provinces being free of it. Apparently it in many areas became a dead letter considerably before it was formally abolished. However, I will cheerfully agree that I overstated the case with regard to Germany, though I suggest Germany isn't really part of Western Europe.

    As far as the prima notte, I could find no credible historian that believes it ever existed in law. It appears to be a conflation of fines paid by the groom for permission to marry with later spectacular elaboration by anti-aristo writers during the Enlightenment. It thus has something in common with claims made by these writers that nobles had used their droit de prélassement (right of lounging), a right of a lord to use one of his subject’s entrails, freshly ripped from the body, to warm the noble’s feet.

    We have voluminous, though obviously not complete, records of legal proceedings from all over the medieval world. In all those records there is apparently not one single case involving the supposed legal right of prima notte. We have not one single documented case or name of a victim. If the practice ever existed, it has left no trace in the historical record.

    Obviously, lords probably often raped serfs and peasants, and they probably got away with it most or all of the time. But it does not appear they ever had a legal right to do so.

    This ties in with something I've been reading about recently, which is the history of the long struggle of the Church to impose Christian marital norms, at least in theory, on the Germanic kings and nobles who erected succcessor states on the ruins of the western empire. The Franks, Burgundians, Visigoths, Lombards, etc.

    These kings and nobles had been in the habit of marrying several wives at the same time, divorcing and remarrying at will, including with close kin, etc. The Church rejected these German tribal customs and fought a long battle to get them to at least pretend to obey Church teaching. There is extensive documentation involving church councils, court cases, etc. dealing with this issue.

    Seems highly unlikely to me that if the legal right of prima notte existed the Church would have ignored it. They were, after all, willing to tangle with the most powerful men of their time in the interests of Christian marriage.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. Logan says:
    @Logan
    Morality aside, logistics were the rub.

    4,000,000 people are no cinch to ship across the world, even today. Much, much more difficult and expensive at the time, especially if it was forced, so you'd have to catch them first.

    All the many attempts to "repatriate" blacks foundered on the problem of simple math: number of people x cost per person.

    What would it have cost, per capita, to "repatriate" them? $500??

    That would add up to $2B, at a time when the entire federal budget in 1860 had been $60M.

    Does anyone seriously think American taxpayers would have been up for footing such an enormous bill, especially when they just incurred enormous debts fighting a long war?

    Poked around a little. Found that the promoters of the Haiti off-shore island settlement project for freedmen were paid $50 per head to ship blacks off to the settlement. A lot less than my $500 per capita assumption.

    However, that scheme was an utter failure, and it seem probable that any massive settlement of freed slaves to Africa would have cost a LOT more than $50 each. It would also, by definition, have entangled Americans in Africa, as we’d have been obliged to defend the settlements.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Logan says:
    @Talha
    Hey Logan,

    This is a breath of fresh air for me - this is a very balanced approach which will likely get you the following:

    On one thread I was accused of being an apologist for American slavery and a leftist white-hater.
     
    People will want to pigeon-hole you for virtue-signalling points and due to their lack of knowledge on the subject.

    I try, as best I can, to stick to the facts, not trying to impose my own opinions on them. Sometimes this is difficult.
     
    This seems to be the best way to approach things - try to stick to the facts. When one does a deep-dive into the subject one comes out realizing how huge this subject really is and how absolutely complex. Slavery spans everything from peasants selling themselves into slavery to pay off a debt, concubines, slave soldiers that became kings (while still slaves), castrated galley slaves that lived horrible lives barely seeing sunlight, etc.

    David Brion Davis (who is an exceptionally gifted and knowledgeable expert on the subject) stated:
    "The more we learn about slavery, the more difficulty we have defining it."

    If you have the time, this is a brilliant essay on the subject, entitled "Slavery and the Idea of Progress":
    http://jsreligion.org/issues/vol14/davis.pdf

    But the past is what it is, and we can’t (or shouldn’t try to) change it.
     
    Absolutely - we can either be mired in the past or look to learn from the lessons of past generations and chart a way forward. I often see people act as if they are so morally superior to the people of the past because, well, they were just a bunch of slave owners, right? But the fact is, it takes zero moral fortitude to condemn slavery in this day and age - it's a reflexive reaction. It would have been something to condemn or reform it when it was alive and well - one would be going against the grain and challenging powerful interests. Otherwise one's disgust with the institution is a bit like one's disgust with eating cats - maybe if you were raised among a people who eat cats regularly, you'd think nothing of going to the market and picking a cat out of the cage for dinner, just as one wouldn't mind picking out a slave from the market.

    Peace.

    Thanks for the link to the Davis article. As you say, a brilliant summation of an incredibly complicated topic. One of the biggest problems in discussing slavery is that it has been “culturally appropriated” by black Americans, as if they are the only people in history who were ever enslaved. Turning the entire history into one of evil whie Americans and guiltless, heroic black victims.

    The true history is of course not only much more real, it’s much more interesting.

    This is somewhat similar to the way that (many) Jews have appropriated the idea of genocide, as if Jews are the only people ever subjected to it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Logan,

    Turning the entire history into one of evil whie Americans and guiltless, heroic black victims.
     
    Yes, I find this utterly inane and it completely glosses over the fact that slavery was alive and well among the natives in America and the South American empires well before it was brought over as an institution by Europeans.

    The true history is of course not only much more real, it’s much more interesting.
     
    Indeed - the famous West African emperors used to even employ Turkish slaves as imperial guards. Timbuktu was a very famous center of learning for centuries...and a major slave market. And there was plenty White-on-White slavery historically. The Vikings/Varangians used to be slave-raiders par excellence and would sell their "wares" in the darker-skinned Abbasid and Byzantine Empires.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Talha says:
    @Logan
    Thanks for the link to the Davis article. As you say, a brilliant summation of an incredibly complicated topic. One of the biggest problems in discussing slavery is that it has been "culturally appropriated" by black Americans, as if they are the only people in history who were ever enslaved. Turning the entire history into one of evil whie Americans and guiltless, heroic black victims.

    The true history is of course not only much more real, it's much more interesting.

    This is somewhat similar to the way that (many) Jews have appropriated the idea of genocide, as if Jews are the only people ever subjected to it.

    Hey Logan,

    Turning the entire history into one of evil whie Americans and guiltless, heroic black victims.

    Yes, I find this utterly inane and it completely glosses over the fact that slavery was alive and well among the natives in America and the South American empires well before it was brought over as an institution by Europeans.

    The true history is of course not only much more real, it’s much more interesting.

    Indeed – the famous West African emperors used to even employ Turkish slaves as imperial guards. Timbuktu was a very famous center of learning for centuries…and a major slave market. And there was plenty White-on-White slavery historically. The Vikings/Varangians used to be slave-raiders par excellence and would sell their “wares” in the darker-skinned Abbasid and Byzantine Empires.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Correct. As you are probably aware, the word for "slave" in almost all European languages is derived from Slav. The Slavs of eastern Europe were regularly raided for slaves for almost a millenium by the surrounding more powerful peoples: Germans, Magyars, Norse and Varangians, Byzantines, Khazars, Turks, Tatars, etc.

    The Tatars turned it into almost a formal process, with massive sweeps across the plains they called "harvesting the steppe."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @Anon
    Northern troops figured out pretty quickly that cotton was one of the few exports the Confederate government--and planter class--could make money off of. Therefore, every time you invaded the south it made sense to strip every plantation of its slaves. No slaves, no cotton raised, and the southern economy would collapse.

    I imagine that every Canadian thanks God every day that the country was too cold to raise cotton in.

    My favorite lefty, Chris Floyd wrote a piece a few years back about why Haiti has been kept in appalling poverty for centuries: It’s deliberate vengence for their insolence in rising up against the French slave-masters.
    Gotta love the idiot left.

    http://www.chris-floyd.com/home/articles/eternal-punishment-obama-leads-third-century-of-imperial-revenge-on-haiti-02042011.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @Miller
    In some cases you might even be striking out at your privileged half siblings. Mulatto births were 1 in 8 in 1850, by 1860 they were 1 in 5.

    Any slave getting the upper hand needn't be too concerned about legalities or minimal harm ethics toward folks who beat, raped, sold your siblings, parents, children. No mercy shown, none given. IDK if I could kill the lot, but certainly every adult from adolescent to elderly unless they had specifically shown some profound kindness.

    IIRC Fredric Douglas recounts how the threat of being sent to the deep South was the ultimate boogyman for an uppity slave, life expectancy for a male slave in the deep South was a fraction of what you might achieve in Baltimore. Contemporary accounts trump modern musings - being enslaved for many was an experience most born free individuals might trade for a quick suicide.

    Even with all the rape/interbreeding and natural and deliberate "breeding", birth rates weren't keeping up with death rates and were projected to go negative by 1880. The South seceding came about because if slavery were not allowed to expand to the new territories it would eventually become untenable (back to FD, he observed if no fresh stocks were brought in, slavery would be bred out of existence before too long). Virtually every secession declaration states this in plain language as one of the primary reasons, second to legislative attacks and limits on slavery at the State level and anticipated soon at the Federal level as well.

    Lincoln didn't start out intending to free the slaves but simply to keep the Union together while limiting slavery to the South. To do more would amount to a "John Brown raid on a massive scale". As it dragged on Lincoln could not justify to the citizens of the North all the carnage and loss for political reasons, and so "freeing the slaves" did indeed become the rationale to finish it.

    Then as now - it is much easier to break things with violence and much harder to fix them. In hindsight, most of the slaves probably should have been repatriated at the time or transported to some other holdings (Liberia anybody?), and the South should not have been forced back into the Union.

    ” life expectancy for a male slave in the deep South was a fraction of what you might achieve in Baltimore”

    Not today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miller
    @Bill Jones

    Ain't that the truth, and that's not even counting folks who didn't survive the nickel ride.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Miller says:
    @Bill Jones
    " life expectancy for a male slave in the deep South was a fraction of what you might achieve in Baltimore"

    Not today.

    Ain’t that the truth, and that’s not even counting folks who didn’t survive the nickel ride.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @Astuteobservor II
    hell, if I were forced into war, I would shoot my commanding officer the first chance I get.

    Doubtfull. You would commit suicide so easily?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @Wally
    You're really talking about the Palestinians.

    No, but it fits rather well.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Logan says:
    @Authenticjazzman
    " Serfdom had disappeared in western Europe centuries before English settlement started"

    Nonsense : "Leibeigenschaft" : Ownership of serfs, continued in Germany, which is most certainly a part of "Western europe", until the early eighteen hundreds, and the conditions of existance for German, French, Italian, Polish, etc, Peasants was nothing short of "Slavery", which continued well into the mid-nineteenth century, as they were subjected to total control of their daily lives and forced to work seven days a week and up to sixteen hours daily.

    The horrid practice of "Prima Notte", which many appologist historians claim to have never existed was continued well into the eighteenth century.

    You are ill-informed and unread my friend, and by the way I spent four decades in Europe, Germany, France Italy, England, and attended university in Germany.

    Was married twice in Europe, first wife having been a German "von", second a Surgeon, which means nothing other than I have been exposed to European society at levels which usually are unattainable for Americans.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro Jazz musician

    Thanks for your response.

    Before replying I took the time to do some research.

    The notion that “Germany” is part of western Europe seems to be quite a recent one, probably based on the Iron Curtain. From what I can read, normally the Rhine was considered the boundary between Western and Central Europe, so Germany was squarely in the latter. Central Europe was generally defined as extending from the Rhine to the eastern edge of Latin and Catholic, as opposed to Byzantine and Greek cultural influence.

    Also, till the later 19th century there was no “Germany.” It was a geographical, cultural and linguistic expression only. Condition were very different in the Rhineland and East Prussia.

    The institution we have been referring to as serfdom never really existed, as it is used to somewhat inaccurately lump together various conditions of unfree status that existed over all of Europe at various times over more than 1000 years. They varied greatly, both de facto and de jure, over both time and space.

    In particular, it appears that there was a major distinction in many if not most areas between serfdom of the person and servile tenure of the land, with the former being far more oppressive and in most areas disappearing much sooner.

    Here’s an article from the famous 1902 Britannica, so it can hardly be accused of PC;

    http://www.1902encyclopedia.com/S/SLA/slavery-12.html

    According to it, serfdom in France had almost entirely disappeared by 1318, though some residue hung on in some areas till the Revolution.

    In England it was said that in the early 14th century the serfs were only in form unfree. As in France, it appears it hung on till the 1500s and even later 1700s in some very rare cases.

    Serfdom never existed in Scandinavia.

    By the early 15th serfdom was described as extinct in Italy.

    In Germany the situation is much more complex, it not being at the time “a country” in the same sense as were England and France. The condition of Leibeigenschaft you describe was by no means a universal institution, with entire provinces being free of it. Apparently it in many areas became a dead letter considerably before it was formally abolished. However, I will cheerfully agree that I overstated the case with regard to Germany, though I suggest Germany isn’t really part of Western Europe.

    As far as the prima notte, I could find no credible historian that believes it ever existed in law. It appears to be a conflation of fines paid by the groom for permission to marry with later spectacular elaboration by anti-aristo writers during the Enlightenment. It thus has something in common with claims made by these writers that nobles had used their droit de prélassement (right of lounging), a right of a lord to use one of his subject’s entrails, freshly ripped from the body, to warm the noble’s feet.

    We have voluminous, though obviously not complete, records of legal proceedings from all over the medieval world. In all those records there is apparently not one single case involving the supposed legal right of prima notte. We have not one single documented case or name of a victim. If the practice ever existed, it has left no trace in the historical record.

    Obviously, lords probably often raped serfs and peasants, and they probably got away with it most or all of the time. But it does not appear they ever had a legal right to do so.

    This ties in with something I’ve been reading about recently, which is the history of the long struggle of the Church to impose Christian marital norms, at least in theory, on the Germanic kings and nobles who erected succcessor states on the ruins of the western empire. The Franks, Burgundians, Visigoths, Lombards, etc.

    These kings and nobles had been in the habit of marrying several wives at the same time, divorcing and remarrying at will, including with close kin, etc. The Church rejected these German tribal customs and fought a long battle to get them to at least pretend to obey Church teaching. There is extensive documentation involving church councils, court cases, etc. dealing with this issue.

    Seems highly unlikely to me that if the legal right of prima notte existed the Church would have ignored it. They were, after all, willing to tangle with the most powerful men of their time in the interests of Christian marriage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    Look friend I am and have been fully aware of the fact that Germany was not a "United" nation at the time of "Leibeigenschaft", and the rest of your "details" have no bearing upon the fact that the Germans existed within a situation of dire oppression prior to their fleeing to other shores.

    You are trying to employ all of these "Details" to distract away from the TRUTH that Germans, and every other ethnic grouping in Europe were subjected to slave-like, if not actual slavery conditions, as the aristocrats held life and death powers over them despite the introduction of ineffective liberalization "Laws" which were applied in a arbitrary fashion designed to afford the PTB the upper hand regardless of circumstances.

    To this day Germany is a bastion of unfair legal practice reflected for example within the legal situation for fathers of children born out of wedlock : In spite of the fact that almost half of children in Germany are born out of wedlock, their fathers have no legal rights whatsoever, not even visitation rights, and their courts are jammed with cases of fathers fighting to obtain even two hours of visitation of their own children monthly, even though they are obligated to pay support for children which they may never see.

    I do not need or cherish your tutoring as everything you have presented, I have been aware of probably before you were born, okay?

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army Vet, and pro Jazz musician.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @Logan
    Thanks for your response.

    Before replying I took the time to do some research.

    The notion that "Germany" is part of western Europe seems to be quite a recent one, probably based on the Iron Curtain. From what I can read, normally the Rhine was considered the boundary between Western and Central Europe, so Germany was squarely in the latter. Central Europe was generally defined as extending from the Rhine to the eastern edge of Latin and Catholic, as opposed to Byzantine and Greek cultural influence.

    Also, till the later 19th century there was no "Germany." It was a geographical, cultural and linguistic expression only. Condition were very different in the Rhineland and East Prussia.

    The institution we have been referring to as serfdom never really existed, as it is used to somewhat inaccurately lump together various conditions of unfree status that existed over all of Europe at various times over more than 1000 years. They varied greatly, both de facto and de jure, over both time and space.

    In particular, it appears that there was a major distinction in many if not most areas between serfdom of the person and servile tenure of the land, with the former being far more oppressive and in most areas disappearing much sooner.

    Here's an article from the famous 1902 Britannica, so it can hardly be accused of PC;

    http://www.1902encyclopedia.com/S/SLA/slavery-12.html

    According to it, serfdom in France had almost entirely disappeared by 1318, though some residue hung on in some areas till the Revolution.

    In England it was said that in the early 14th century the serfs were only in form unfree. As in France, it appears it hung on till the 1500s and even later 1700s in some very rare cases.

    Serfdom never existed in Scandinavia.

    By the early 15th serfdom was described as extinct in Italy.

    In Germany the situation is much more complex, it not being at the time "a country" in the same sense as were England and France. The condition of Leibeigenschaft you describe was by no means a universal institution, with entire provinces being free of it. Apparently it in many areas became a dead letter considerably before it was formally abolished. However, I will cheerfully agree that I overstated the case with regard to Germany, though I suggest Germany isn't really part of Western Europe.

    As far as the prima notte, I could find no credible historian that believes it ever existed in law. It appears to be a conflation of fines paid by the groom for permission to marry with later spectacular elaboration by anti-aristo writers during the Enlightenment. It thus has something in common with claims made by these writers that nobles had used their droit de prélassement (right of lounging), a right of a lord to use one of his subject’s entrails, freshly ripped from the body, to warm the noble’s feet.

    We have voluminous, though obviously not complete, records of legal proceedings from all over the medieval world. In all those records there is apparently not one single case involving the supposed legal right of prima notte. We have not one single documented case or name of a victim. If the practice ever existed, it has left no trace in the historical record.

    Obviously, lords probably often raped serfs and peasants, and they probably got away with it most or all of the time. But it does not appear they ever had a legal right to do so.

    This ties in with something I've been reading about recently, which is the history of the long struggle of the Church to impose Christian marital norms, at least in theory, on the Germanic kings and nobles who erected succcessor states on the ruins of the western empire. The Franks, Burgundians, Visigoths, Lombards, etc.

    These kings and nobles had been in the habit of marrying several wives at the same time, divorcing and remarrying at will, including with close kin, etc. The Church rejected these German tribal customs and fought a long battle to get them to at least pretend to obey Church teaching. There is extensive documentation involving church councils, court cases, etc. dealing with this issue.

    Seems highly unlikely to me that if the legal right of prima notte existed the Church would have ignored it. They were, after all, willing to tangle with the most powerful men of their time in the interests of Christian marriage.

    Look friend I am and have been fully aware of the fact that Germany was not a “United” nation at the time of “Leibeigenschaft”, and the rest of your “details” have no bearing upon the fact that the Germans existed within a situation of dire oppression prior to their fleeing to other shores.

    You are trying to employ all of these “Details” to distract away from the TRUTH that Germans, and every other ethnic grouping in Europe were subjected to slave-like, if not actual slavery conditions, as the aristocrats held life and death powers over them despite the introduction of ineffective liberalization “Laws” which were applied in a arbitrary fashion designed to afford the PTB the upper hand regardless of circumstances.

    To this day Germany is a bastion of unfair legal practice reflected for example within the legal situation for fathers of children born out of wedlock : In spite of the fact that almost half of children in Germany are born out of wedlock, their fathers have no legal rights whatsoever, not even visitation rights, and their courts are jammed with cases of fathers fighting to obtain even two hours of visitation of their own children monthly, even though they are obligated to pay support for children which they may never see.

    I do not need or cherish your tutoring as everything you have presented, I have been aware of probably before you were born, okay?

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army Vet, and pro Jazz musician.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    IOW, the accuracy of your original claims is not relevant, since they were made to illustrate the "real truth," which is apparently that the upper classes in all areas of Europe held power of life and death over the lower classes well up into the 19th century.

    I made the mistake of assuming you were interested in discussing actual facts, not in tossing out random assertions to support a predetermined position. Won't happen again.

    I did get interested in the subject, though, and would be glad to read a book or other material on what the actual condition of German peasants was from, say, 1700 to 1848. I found lots on England and quite a bit on Ireland, France and even Poland. Not much on Germany.

    I did find that German peasants did not rebel much between the Revolt of Luther's time and the 19th century. This could be because they were reasonably content, or because the oppression was so ferocious they were unable to revolt.

    BTW, if you knew all this stuff before I was born, you must be pretty darn old!
    , @Logan
    In case you're interested, I ran across an old book on the subject of German life during the early modern period, degree of oppression of the peasants, etc. Written in 1863, so presumably not influence by PC.

    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/33818/33818-h/33818-h.htm
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Logan says:
    @ThreeCranes
    Good article Fred. I would only like to add that the western, mountainous areas of North Carolina, northern, mountainous Georgia and eastern Tennessee were pro Union right up to the moment Lincoln sent Federal troops into the South to occupy arsenals and Federal coastal installations.

    They had this firebrand politician whose name I forget who spoke out eloquently in the Southern Congress on the machinations of the rich plantation owners whose political interests ran directly counter to that of the majority of poor, southern-white tradesman and small farmers.

    So, ignorant northerners who condemn all southerners by painting them with the same "slaveowners" brush are, well, mule-headed and ignorant, I suppose.

    “the western, mountainous areas of North Carolina, northern, mountainous Georgia and eastern Tennessee were pro Union right up to the moment Lincoln sent Federal troops into the South to occupy arsenals and Federal coastal installations.”

    Untrue. These areas were majority Unionist throughout the war, and would have perhaps seceded as WV did were it not for the problem posed by location. Interestingly, those who complain loudly about violation of civil rights by the Union in suppressing Maryland oppositionists carefully avoid discussing similar suppression by the CSA in eastern Tennessee and other mountain areas, which was much harsher.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Logan says:
    @Authenticjazzman
    Look friend I am and have been fully aware of the fact that Germany was not a "United" nation at the time of "Leibeigenschaft", and the rest of your "details" have no bearing upon the fact that the Germans existed within a situation of dire oppression prior to their fleeing to other shores.

    You are trying to employ all of these "Details" to distract away from the TRUTH that Germans, and every other ethnic grouping in Europe were subjected to slave-like, if not actual slavery conditions, as the aristocrats held life and death powers over them despite the introduction of ineffective liberalization "Laws" which were applied in a arbitrary fashion designed to afford the PTB the upper hand regardless of circumstances.

    To this day Germany is a bastion of unfair legal practice reflected for example within the legal situation for fathers of children born out of wedlock : In spite of the fact that almost half of children in Germany are born out of wedlock, their fathers have no legal rights whatsoever, not even visitation rights, and their courts are jammed with cases of fathers fighting to obtain even two hours of visitation of their own children monthly, even though they are obligated to pay support for children which they may never see.

    I do not need or cherish your tutoring as everything you have presented, I have been aware of probably before you were born, okay?

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army Vet, and pro Jazz musician.

    IOW, the accuracy of your original claims is not relevant, since they were made to illustrate the “real truth,” which is apparently that the upper classes in all areas of Europe held power of life and death over the lower classes well up into the 19th century.

    I made the mistake of assuming you were interested in discussing actual facts, not in tossing out random assertions to support a predetermined position. Won’t happen again.

    I did get interested in the subject, though, and would be glad to read a book or other material on what the actual condition of German peasants was from, say, 1700 to 1848. I found lots on England and quite a bit on Ireland, France and even Poland. Not much on Germany.

    I did find that German peasants did not rebel much between the Revolt of Luther’s time and the 19th century. This could be because they were reasonably content, or because the oppression was so ferocious they were unable to revolt.

    BTW, if you knew all this stuff before I was born, you must be pretty darn old!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Logan says:
    @Talha
    Hey Logan,

    Turning the entire history into one of evil whie Americans and guiltless, heroic black victims.
     
    Yes, I find this utterly inane and it completely glosses over the fact that slavery was alive and well among the natives in America and the South American empires well before it was brought over as an institution by Europeans.

    The true history is of course not only much more real, it’s much more interesting.
     
    Indeed - the famous West African emperors used to even employ Turkish slaves as imperial guards. Timbuktu was a very famous center of learning for centuries...and a major slave market. And there was plenty White-on-White slavery historically. The Vikings/Varangians used to be slave-raiders par excellence and would sell their "wares" in the darker-skinned Abbasid and Byzantine Empires.

    Peace.

    Correct. As you are probably aware, the word for “slave” in almost all European languages is derived from Slav. The Slavs of eastern Europe were regularly raided for slaves for almost a millenium by the surrounding more powerful peoples: Germans, Magyars, Norse and Varangians, Byzantines, Khazars, Turks, Tatars, etc.

    The Tatars turned it into almost a formal process, with massive sweeps across the plains they called “harvesting the steppe.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Logan says:

    One possible issue about emancipation in the North that I’ve never seen discussed is that in almost all northern states the law did not free individual slaves, it merely ended the legal status of the institution, usually at a date a number of years in the future.

    This would of course give owners a strong incentive to sell their property South before it was in effect confiscated. It seems likely many did, and also likely that the laws were intentionally written as they were to allow them to do so.

    But I’ve never seen a scholarly investigation of the subject, possibly because it would make northern emancipation look a good deal less noble.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  199. Logan says:
    @Authenticjazzman
    Look friend I am and have been fully aware of the fact that Germany was not a "United" nation at the time of "Leibeigenschaft", and the rest of your "details" have no bearing upon the fact that the Germans existed within a situation of dire oppression prior to their fleeing to other shores.

    You are trying to employ all of these "Details" to distract away from the TRUTH that Germans, and every other ethnic grouping in Europe were subjected to slave-like, if not actual slavery conditions, as the aristocrats held life and death powers over them despite the introduction of ineffective liberalization "Laws" which were applied in a arbitrary fashion designed to afford the PTB the upper hand regardless of circumstances.

    To this day Germany is a bastion of unfair legal practice reflected for example within the legal situation for fathers of children born out of wedlock : In spite of the fact that almost half of children in Germany are born out of wedlock, their fathers have no legal rights whatsoever, not even visitation rights, and their courts are jammed with cases of fathers fighting to obtain even two hours of visitation of their own children monthly, even though they are obligated to pay support for children which they may never see.

    I do not need or cherish your tutoring as everything you have presented, I have been aware of probably before you were born, okay?

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army Vet, and pro Jazz musician.

    In case you’re interested, I ran across an old book on the subject of German life during the early modern period, degree of oppression of the peasants, etc. Written in 1863, so presumably not influence by PC.

    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/33818/33818-h/33818-h.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    Jeez I just don't know how to get the point across that I know German society and history, okay sounds arrogant, but anyway, better than you or anyone else here could possibly imagine.
    I lived in Germany for over forty years, was married to various upper-class women, one "Von", one medical doctor, and my current wife a retired Gymnasium teacher, and no "Gymnasium" in Germany is not the venue where people chase balls around in a sweat-filled hall.
    I attended university in Germany, and resided in a university town, while hob-nobbing with the vain self congratulatory upper-crust thereof.
    I read tomes upon tomes of history writings, and I am exausted from studying to the point at which I will never crack another book again period.
    Look what I am trying to say is : I know WTF I am talking about, otherwise I would not be talking about it, period.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" Society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician.

    PS : I'll be seventy-seven in Oct.
    , @Anon
    Not infected by 21st-century PC, but dominated by 19th-century English liberal dogma.

    Example: The new time began in Germany, after the invention of printing, by a struggle in which Germans broke the fetters of the Papal Church of the Middle Ages, and passed from submissive belief in authority, to an energetic, independent search after truth.

    Probably still a good source for a lot of things though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @Logan
    In case you're interested, I ran across an old book on the subject of German life during the early modern period, degree of oppression of the peasants, etc. Written in 1863, so presumably not influence by PC.

    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/33818/33818-h/33818-h.htm

    Jeez I just don’t know how to get the point across that I know German society and history, okay sounds arrogant, but anyway, better than you or anyone else here could possibly imagine.
    I lived in Germany for over forty years, was married to various upper-class women, one “Von”, one medical doctor, and my current wife a retired Gymnasium teacher, and no “Gymnasium” in Germany is not the venue where people chase balls around in a sweat-filled hall.
    I attended university in Germany, and resided in a university town, while hob-nobbing with the vain self congratulatory upper-crust thereof.
    I read tomes upon tomes of history writings, and I am exausted from studying to the point at which I will never crack another book again period.
    Look what I am trying to say is : I know WTF I am talking about, otherwise I would not be talking about it, period.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” Society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz musician.

    PS : I’ll be seventy-seven in Oct.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Logan
    In case you're interested, I ran across an old book on the subject of German life during the early modern period, degree of oppression of the peasants, etc. Written in 1863, so presumably not influence by PC.

    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/33818/33818-h/33818-h.htm

    Not infected by 21st-century PC, but dominated by 19th-century English liberal dogma.

    Example: The new time began in Germany, after the invention of printing, by a struggle in which Germans broke the fetters of the Papal Church of the Middle Ages, and passed from submissive belief in authority, to an energetic, independent search after truth.

    Probably still a good source for a lot of things though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Addendum: I know Freytag was Prussian (or Silesian, but same thing really).
    , @Logan
    Would seem like that would be 19th-century German liberal dogma, not the English variety.

    I presume you're Catholic and resent anything that you see as anti-Catholic.

    But I am curious if you think the Papal Church of the Middle Ages was indeed compatible with "an energetic, independent search after this ." Doesn't seem so to me. That a particular Church is the Truth does not change the fact that if that Church enforces its belief system by force it is by definition preventing such an independent search. Which of course makes perfect sense, assuming you accept the Church's assumptions, as going beyond what the Church teaches cannot be other than Error.

    The way he words it is of course largely self-congratulation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. let me get this straight now: whites are 73% of the population and blacks are 17% of the population, but it’s the blacks who are screwing up the country?
    almost all of congress is and has been white. only one mixed race president, the rest white.
    yup, the author definitely has his finger on the pulse of america

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Well, then you would have had to know all this stuff when you were 16!
    , @Logan
    Depending on how you figure it, blacks are 12% to 14% of the population. They were about 20% at the Founding. Where they probably would have remained if not for the massive (white) immigration of the 19th and early 20th centuries, which brought them down to about 10% by 1940. They've since rebounded a bit, probably due mainly to low white fertility.

    https://www.infoplease.com/us/race-population/african-american-population

    Found an interesting graph on historical fertility rates by race.

    https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/total-fertility-rates-by-race-in-the-usa-1980-2013/

    "Native Americans" are just about as low as South Koreans!
    , @Logan
    Sorry, one of my responses was obviously intended for someone else.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    Not infected by 21st-century PC, but dominated by 19th-century English liberal dogma.

    Example: The new time began in Germany, after the invention of printing, by a struggle in which Germans broke the fetters of the Papal Church of the Middle Ages, and passed from submissive belief in authority, to an energetic, independent search after truth.

    Probably still a good source for a lot of things though.

    Addendum: I know Freytag was Prussian (or Silesian, but same thing really).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. Logan says:
    @Lawrence Fitton
    let me get this straight now: whites are 73% of the population and blacks are 17% of the population, but it's the blacks who are screwing up the country?
    almost all of congress is and has been white. only one mixed race president, the rest white.
    yup, the author definitely has his finger on the pulse of america

    Well, then you would have had to know all this stuff when you were 16!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. Logan says:
    @Lawrence Fitton
    let me get this straight now: whites are 73% of the population and blacks are 17% of the population, but it's the blacks who are screwing up the country?
    almost all of congress is and has been white. only one mixed race president, the rest white.
    yup, the author definitely has his finger on the pulse of america

    Depending on how you figure it, blacks are 12% to 14% of the population. They were about 20% at the Founding. Where they probably would have remained if not for the massive (white) immigration of the 19th and early 20th centuries, which brought them down to about 10% by 1940. They’ve since rebounded a bit, probably due mainly to low white fertility.

    https://www.infoplease.com/us/race-population/african-american-population

    Found an interesting graph on historical fertility rates by race.

    https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/total-fertility-rates-by-race-in-the-usa-1980-2013/

    “Native Americans” are just about as low as South Koreans!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lawrence Fitton
    thanx for the correction, logan
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. Logan says:
    @Lawrence Fitton
    let me get this straight now: whites are 73% of the population and blacks are 17% of the population, but it's the blacks who are screwing up the country?
    almost all of congress is and has been white. only one mixed race president, the rest white.
    yup, the author definitely has his finger on the pulse of america

    Sorry, one of my responses was obviously intended for someone else.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Logan says:
    @Anon
    Not infected by 21st-century PC, but dominated by 19th-century English liberal dogma.

    Example: The new time began in Germany, after the invention of printing, by a struggle in which Germans broke the fetters of the Papal Church of the Middle Ages, and passed from submissive belief in authority, to an energetic, independent search after truth.

    Probably still a good source for a lot of things though.

    Would seem like that would be 19th-century German liberal dogma, not the English variety.

    I presume you’re Catholic and resent anything that you see as anti-Catholic.

    But I am curious if you think the Papal Church of the Middle Ages was indeed compatible with “an energetic, independent search after this .” Doesn’t seem so to me. That a particular Church is the Truth does not change the fact that if that Church enforces its belief system by force it is by definition preventing such an independent search. Which of course makes perfect sense, assuming you accept the Church’s assumptions, as going beyond what the Church teaches cannot be other than Error.

    The way he words it is of course largely self-congratulation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. Okay cutting away all of the non-sequitur BS and getting down to the basis issue which is:

    In persuit of “Reparations” for blacks the leftist crazies are pushing the gigantic lie maintaining that only blacks have a monopoly on the historical experience of slavery.

    They are deliberately withholding , within the edumacation system, and political discussion, the fact that Europeans were subjected to horrid, cruel slave-like circumstances before their departure to distant shores, so as to portray the blacks as the only victims of this manifestation.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army Vet, and pro Jazz musician.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  209. @Logan
    Depending on how you figure it, blacks are 12% to 14% of the population. They were about 20% at the Founding. Where they probably would have remained if not for the massive (white) immigration of the 19th and early 20th centuries, which brought them down to about 10% by 1940. They've since rebounded a bit, probably due mainly to low white fertility.

    https://www.infoplease.com/us/race-population/african-american-population

    Found an interesting graph on historical fertility rates by race.

    https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/total-fertility-rates-by-race-in-the-usa-1980-2013/

    "Native Americans" are just about as low as South Koreans!

    thanx for the correction, logan

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. His family? Are you under the delusional impression that “his family” would not beat, torture, and otherwise maltreat the family slaves? You sound like a fool.

    The difference between a human “person” and “an animal” is that the human would not own slaves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Fred Reed Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
Sounds Like A Low-Ranked American University To Me
Very Long, Will Bore Hell Out Of Most People, But I Felt Like Doing It
It's Not A Job. It's An Adventure.
Cloudy, With Possible Tidal Wave