Michele Bachmann signed marriage pact suggesting black families were better off during slavery

[exnihilo]

Because based on my research, most Irish slaves would have given a leg to be a black slave, for the majority of them were considered literally expendable. Women were sold as sex slaves and men worked in the most dangerous jobs in the field, where if they died or were severely injured, noone would care.

I dont know about slaves, but I know that Irish workers were of much less value than slaves. As you say the Irish were given the most dangerous jobs. I recall a story of a man questioning why Irish workers rather than slaves were being used to unload ships in New Orleans. He was told because the work was too dangerous and people would not risk their slaves. Now, this should make complete sense to anyone with any experience in the world. People value their property, even human property, more highly.

 

[Raskolnikov]

exnihilo:

Slavery was certainly a part of it. Many prominent southerners wanted slavery to end but the question was how. One thing both sides agreed with, before the war, was that simply freeing the slaves would be terrible for them. That seems to be the case and after liberation many former slaves even agreed.

This is an ironic argument against freeing the slaves. The slave-owners say: “freeing the slaves will hurth them!” Why? “because we hate them, and we won’t hire them, let them vote, let them enjoy their constitutional rights, and we’ll also torch their farms and houses and hang them from trees, because we think they should be salves agains.”

And the fact is, during reconstruction many former slaves did find prosperity and many were elected to public office (because most southern politicians weren’t allowed to run and many people boycotted elections) including the first black senator, Hiram Revels. It was the subsequent reentrenchment of the old former-slave owners in souther politics that led things to regress so badly for former slaves after reconstruction.

Scott_Lafrance:

Ya, they killed a horse. Woopee. Fort Sumpter was a symbol of oppressive Northern taxation policies.

Yeah, i bet. The Union was splintered over taxes. Sure. But I ask you, in sincerity, what new taxes did Lincoln levy between his assumption of office and the beginning of the secession that prompted this violent reaction to “taxes?”

 

[Raskolnikov]

Maybe the forgot to say please?

Hmm, I thought you believed in the right to own property, as the United States owned Fort Sumter? I imagine if a communist rebel group ousted its government and seized control of a state, then began expropriating all the rich people’s land, you’d be ok with that? Because change of management nullifies all previous arrangements, all previous, contracts; now everything belongs to the government?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I dont know about slaves, but I know that Irish workers were of much less value than slaves. As you say the Irish were given the most dangerous jobs. I recall a story of a man questioning why Irish workers rather than slaves were being used to unload ships in New Orleans. He was told because the work was too dangerous and people would not risk their slaves. Now, this should make complete sense to anyone with any experience in the world. People value their property, even human property, more highly.

The problem with this whole scenario is that we keep referring to them as “Irish wage workers”.

They were slaves. Permanent endentured servants. Worth less than the animals that they were kept penned up with. Some Irish slave women were given to the black or mulato overseers as concubines. Noone wants to talk about white slavery, because it completely nullifies the “reparations” discussion. It nullifies “Equal Opportunity” laws. The Irish were enslaved and treated far worse than black slaves.

And in reference to your story, this is how it went.

In 1855, Frederic Law Olmsted, the landscape architect who designed New York’s Central Park, was in Alabama on a pleasure trip and saw bales of cotton being thrown from a considerable height into a cargo ship’s hold. The men tossing the bales somewhat recklessly into the hold were Negroes, the men in the hold were Irish.
Olmsted inquired about this to a shipworker. “Oh,” said the worker, “the (negros) are worth too much to be risked here; if the Paddies are knocked overboard or get their backs broke, nobody loses anything.”

African slaves were very expensive during the late 1600s (50 Sterling). Irish slaves came cheap (no more than 5 Sterling). If a planter whipped or branded or beat an Irish slave to death, it was never a crime. A death was a monetary setback, but far cheaper than killing a more expensive African.

The English masters quickly began breeding the Irish women for both their own personal pleasure and for greater profit. Children of slaves were themselves slaves, which increased the size of the master’s free workforce. Even if an Irish woman somehow obtained her freedom, her kids would remain slaves of her master. Thus, Irish moms, even with this new found emancipation, would seldom abandon their kids and would remain in servitude.

In time, the English thought of a better way to use these women (in many cases, girls as young as 12) to increase their market share: The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new “mulatto” slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves.

This practice of interbreeding Irish females with African men went on for several decades and was so widespread that, in 1681, legislation was passed “forbidding the practice of mating Irish slave women to African slave men for the purpose of producing slaves for sale.” In short, it was stopped only because it interfered with the profits of a large slave transport company.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Hmm, I thought you believed in the right to own property, as the United States owned Fort Sumter? I imagine if a communist rebel group ousted its government and seized control of a state, then began expropriating all the rich people’s land, you’d be ok with that? Because change of management nullifies all previous arrangements, all previous, contracts; now everything belongs to the government?

When we declare independence from Britain, their forts on American soil was considered American property, which Britain was required to vacate. Obvious, Britain disagreed, hence the Revolutionary War (or War of Colonial Insurrection, depending on your perspective). Do you really think Washington was going to just leave British forts at peace? They were then considered an occupying enemy force that had to be driven out.

 

[estesbob]

Ya, they killed a horse. Woopee. Fort Sumpter was a symbol of oppressive Northern taxation policies.

Regardless of what you think about the firing on Fort Sumter it is proof positive that the South did not succeed peacefully

 

[Raskolnikov]

What a convincing defense of the confederate racial state: “hey, somebody else did it too!.” Tell me, how many Irish slaves were there in captivity? How long did the practice last? How many died well in slavery? How late did the Irish get their voting rights? How many were lynched by their former owners in the aftermath of their liberation? The answers to these questions compared with the answers to such about slavery should give you an idea about how comparable they are in the grand scheme of things.

It would require almost every Irish immigrant who ever came to this country to be a slave in order to match just the number of black slaves in the South at the time of 1860 alone.

 

[estesbob]

I think I opened the wrong can of worms on this. I am not talking about “wage slaves”. I am talking about the proliferation of white slaves in America. Do they not count? Or is it only black slavery that matters? Because based on my research, most Irish slaves would have given a leg to be a black slave, for the majority of them were considered literally expendable. Women were sold as sex slaves and men worked in the most dangerous jobs in the field, where if they died or were severely injured, noone would care.

You have not opened up any kind of can of worms. What you’ve done is made an unsubstantiated assertion that even if true, would not in any way justify the forced enslavement of 4.5 million African-Americans by the southern states.

 

[estesbob]

What a convincing defense of the confederate racial state: “hey, somebody else did it too!.” Tell me, how many Irish slaves were there in captivity? How long did the practice last? How many died well in slavery? How late did the Irish get their voting rights? How many were lynched by their former owners in the aftermath of their liberation? The answers to these questions compared with the answers to such about slavery should give you an idea about how comparable they are in the grand scheme of things.

It would require almost every Irish immigrant who ever came to this country to be a slave in order to match just the number of black slaves in the South at the time of 1860 alone.

Agreed. And you won’ thear that from me very often!

 

[Raskolnikov]

When we declare independence from Britain, their forts on American soil was considered American property, which Britain was required to vacate. Obvious, Britain disagreed, hence the Revolutionary War (or War of Colonial Insurrection, depending on your perspective). Do you really think Washington was going to just leave British forts at peace? They were then considered an occupying enemy force that had to be driven out.

The American revolutionaries weren’t seceding to defend their right to enslave millions of people. Nor had the British any intention to free them, as they had yet to free their own slaves and still depended on American slavery for many of the empire’s cash crop, especially cotton. The confederacy is hardly morally comparable to the early revolutionaries.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Agreed. And you won’ thear that from me very often!

We can agree once or twice a year. Kinda like marriage.

 

[Personanongrata]

They look so happy! They are also working! And look at that nice home their owners have! Just think! They may actually live near it in some barn or shack!

---

Anyway, I think this whole thing just shows some true feelings and thoughts some of these people have. Sadly, most people here will not realize that because it is critical of the republican party. Glad I don’t follow that church.

Oh yes!!! Look how HAPPY the family is!!! A mother and father working hard together!! That child is going to be a productive member of society based on this great beginnning in life!!



Puh-leeze…

 

[exnihilo]

This is an ironic argument against freeing the slaves. The slave-owners say: “freeing the slaves will hurth them!” Why? “because we hate them, and we won’t hire them, let them vote, let them enjoy their constitutional rights, and we’ll also torch their farms and houses and hang them from trees, because we think they should be salves agains.”

I dont know where you get your understanding of slavery in the South but it is very inaccurate. In fact slavery was quite complex. There were surely abuses of people, but there were also slaves who were very well cared for and part of the family. Torching farms and hanging was what Sherman did when he marched through the South.

You might want to read about a former slave I’m sure you’ve heard of, George Washington Carver. He was raised and educated by his former master:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Carver

And the fact is, during reconstruction many former slaves did find prosperity and many were elected to public office (because most southern politicians weren’t allowed to run and many people boycotted elections) including the first black senator, Hiram Revels. It was the subsequent reentrenchment of the old former-slave owners in souther politics that led things to regress so badly for former slaves after reconstruction.

Yes, this is true. But you ought to learn why. The North occupied the South and wanted to further destroy the spirit of the rebels. They put uneducated slaves in charge to humiliate and control the South. The North did not believe in equality. That should be obvious enough from the fact it took a court order in 1980 to finally desegregate Boston schools. But if you need period documents read some of Lincoln’s writings about how he did not think Blacks were equal to Whites. I’d quote them but his words would surely offend people.

 

[exnihilo]

Regardless of what you think about the firing on Fort Sumter it is proof positive that the South did not succeed peacefully

So you are denying both property ownership and defense? What should South Carolina have done to gain control of a military fort in their territory occupied by a foreign army? Should they have blockaded it and let the men starve? Somehow I imagine letting them starve would have been an act of war justifying the death of 300,000 as well.

The principle you assert is invalidated every day by police forces throughout the US who make violent raids upon people who wont come out of their own personal property not even property they dont own.

 

[Stylites]

Ah yes-the myth of the “wage slave” rears its ugly head.

The Preacher and the Slave
by Joe Hill, 1911
(A parody sung to the hymm 'In the Sweet Bye and Bye")

Long-haired preachers come out every night,
Try to tell you what’s wrong and what’s right;
But when asked how 'bout something to eat
They will answer in voices so sweet

Chorus:
You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You’ll get pie in the sky when you die

And the Starvation Army, they play,
And they sing and they clap and they pray,
Till they get all your coin on the drum,
Then they tell you when you’re on the bum

(Chorus)

Holy Rollers and Jumpers come out
And they holler, they jump and they shout
Give your money to Jesus, they say,
He will cure all diseases today

(Chorus)

If you fight hard for children and wife-
Try to get something good in this life-
You’re a sinner and bad man, they tell,
When you die you will sure go to hell.

(Chorus)

Workingmen of all countries, unite
Side by side we for freedom will fight
When the world and its wealth we have gained
To the grafters we’ll sing this refrain

Chorus (modified)

You will eat, bye and bye,
When you’ve learned how to cook and how to fry;
Chop some wood, 'twill do you good
Then you’ll eat in the sweet bye and bye

The chorus is sung in a call and response pattern.

You will eat [You will eat] bye and bye [bye and bye]
In that glorious land above the sky [Way up high]
Work and pray [Work and pray] live on hay [live on hay]
You’ll get pie in the sky when you die [That’s a lie!]

Thus the final verse becomes

You will eat [You will eat] bye and bye [bye and bye]
When you’ve learned how to cook and how to fry [How to fry]
Chop some wood [Chop some wood], 'twill do you good [do you good]
Then you’ll eat in the sweet bye and bye [That’s no lie]

 

[exnihilo]

The American revolutionaries weren’t seceding to defend their right to enslave millions of people. Nor had the British any intention to free them, as they had yet to free their own slaves and still depended on American slavery for many of the empire’s cash crop, especially cotton. The confederacy is hardly morally comparable to the early revolutionaries.

The British did in fact free the slaves. The British declared all American slaves free who would fight for the British.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Lord_Dunmore.27s_proclamation

The fact that slavery was not outlawed in the US until after the war ended, which means slavery continued in the North throughout the entire war, makes the emancipation argument unsupportable.

 

[estesbob]

So you are denying both property ownership and defense? What should South Carolina have done to gain control of a military fort in their territory occupied by a foreign army? Should they have blockaded it and let the men starve? Somehow I imagine letting them starve would have been an act of war justifying the death of 300,000 as well.

The principle you assert is invalidated every day by police forces throughout the US who make violent raids upon people who wont come out of their own personal property not even property they dont own.

Regardless of what you think about the Souths right to Fort Sumter the fact they fired on. It belies the claim that the South seceded peacefully.

 

[estesbob]

The British did in fact free the slaves. The British declared all American slaves free who would fight for the British.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Lord_Dunmore.27s_proclamation

The fact that slavery was not outlawed in the US until after the war ended, which means slavery continued in the North throughout the entire war, makes the emancipation argument unsupportable.

The slaves didn’t believe that which is why they deserted the plantations in droves any time the union army got there.

Lincoln did not free the slaves in the non-rebelling states as he had no power to do so. . He freed the slaves in the South as contrabands of war, , which was the best rational he could use until the 13th and 14th amendments were passed.

 

[exnihilo]

Regardless of what you think about the Souths right to Fort Sumter the fact they fired on. It belies the claim that the South seceded peacefully.

On December 20, 1860, shortly after Abraham Lincoln’s victory in the presidential election of 1860, South Carolina adopted an ordinance declaring its secession from the United States of America and by February 1861

The Battle of Fort Sumter (April 12–13, 1861) was the bombardment and surrender of Fort Sumter, near Charleston, South Carolina, that started the American Civil War. Following declarations of secession by seven Southern states, South Carolina demanded that the U.S. Army abandon its facilities in Charleston Harbor. On December 26, 1860, U.S. Major Robert Anderson surreptitiously moved his small command from the indefensible Fort Moultrie on Sullivan’s Island to Fort Sumter

So South Carolina secedes on December 20th and when the foreign army has not left a fort that controls access to a major port city four months later SC is the aggressor? Was SC required to wait forever before gaining access to a fort that controls vital access to a harbor? That seems very unreasonable.

 

[estesbob]

So South Carolina secedes on December 20th and when the foreign army has not left a fort that controls access to a major port city four months later SC is the aggressor? Was SC required to wait forever before gaining access to a fort that controls vital access to a harbor? That seems very unreasonable.

So firing on Ft Sumpter consitues peacefully seceding?