Liberal Forum

First, this is way too long for most, if not all, lefties to read. It's above your garde level, so don't even bother. Just skip down to the last sentence. 

7% of the South's population, in 1860, owned 3 million of the 4 million slaves. There were 5 million whites, in the South, that were dirt poor. They are rarely mentioned, but their conditions were just as deplorable as the slaves. In fact, many of these poor whites worked for the 7% to police the slaves. It was work, so...

Before the civil war, from the beginning, this has mostly been the case. Planters and industrialists were the few, slave labor pitted against white labor was the mass. The few ruled the mass. This has always been the case since before America broke free of Britain. 

 The real question is, can we draw a straight line, from the accumulation of wealth we enjoy today, to the exploitations of slavery back then? We say that slavery was centuries ago, it has no effect on the wealth we have today. I say, that is incorrect. A straight line can be drawn: 

Exploitation of slavery lead to enormous profit of the few.
The few hired millions of dirt-poor whites to police the slaves.
Poor whites emerged to middle class due to this new work. 
Middle class whites now accumulated their own land, homes, modest luxuries, and even some slaves.
The middle class rolled on to the present day rooted in the exploitation of slavery, and exploitation of black labors after the civil war. 

In short, we inherited the wealth from the back of slaves. 
 

Vegas » 14 Feb 2023, 2:02 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 2:02 pm

In short, the middle-class (lower and upper), only emerged because of the 7% of the slave owners and from the "few" before.
 

I was sorta kinda following you up to this last sentence.  You lost me here.  I have no idea what you are trying to say.
 

Vegas » 14 Feb 2023, 2:02 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 2:02 pm

First, this is way too long for most, if not all, lefties to read. It's above your garde level, so don't even bother. Just skip down to the last sentence. 

7% of the South's population, in 1860, owned 3 million of the 4 million slaves. There were 5 million whites, in the South, that were dirt poor. They are rarely mentioned, but their conditions were just as deplorable as the slaves. In fact, many of these poor whites worked for the 7% to police the slaves. It was work, so...

Before the civil war, from the beginning, this has mostly been the case. Planters and industrialists were the few, slave labor pitted against white labor was the mass. The few ruled the mass. This has always been the case since before America broke free of Britain. 

Is today different? Well, obviously slavery has been abolished. However, the wealth is still condensed to the few. But here is the thing. Though the wealth is condensed to the few, the interpretation of wealth has broadened. Back then, a slaveowner, planter, industrialists were wealthy, everyone else was dirt poor. The middle-class whites emerged by being employed by the rich to police the slaves. If you look at things now, wealth is far more subjective than back then:

• A man with 20 million dollars is pretty well off. However, according to Gates, Musk, Besos, etc...20 million dollars is nothing. 
• A man who makes 500k is doing well. However, to the guy with 20 million, 500k is nothing. 
• A college graduate making 100k is doing well. However, the guy with 500K may look at that is less wealthy. 

In short, the middle-class (lower and upper), only emerged because of the 7% of the slave owners and from the "few" before.

You attempt to reach a conclusion there that does not follow any of the things you said whatsoever.
Your logical faculty is apparently non existent

“another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”

-Thomas Jefferson, 1786

Skans » 14 Feb 2023, 2:05 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 2:05 pm

I was sorta kinda following you up to this last sentence.  You lost me here.  I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Yeah, actually, I need to revise it. I'll edit it. 

@slideman  I'll revise. But **** you, anyway. 

@Skans  try now. 

@slideman  You don't have the intellectual capacity, so get bent. 

Vegas » 14 Feb 2023, 2:02 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 2:02 pm

First, this is way too long for most, if not all, lefties to read. It's above your garde level, so don't even bother. Just skip down to the last sentence. 

7% of the South's population, in 1860, owned 3 million of the 4 million slaves. There were 5 million whites, in the South, that were dirt poor. They are rarely mentioned, but their conditions were just as deplorable as the slaves. In fact, many of these poor whites worked for the 7% to police the slaves. It was work, so...

Before the civil war, from the beginning, this has mostly been the case. Planters and industrialists were the few, slave labor pitted against white labor was the mass. The few ruled the mass. This has always been the case since before America broke free of Britain. 

 The real question is, can we draw a straight line, from the accumulation of wealth we enjoy today, to the exploitations of slavery back then? We say that slavery was centuries ago, it has no effect on the wealth we have today. I say, that is incorrect. A straight line can be drawn: 

Exploitation of slavery lead to enormous profit of the few.
The few hired millions of dirt-poor whites to police the slaves.
Poor whites emerged to middle class due to this new work. 
Middle class whites now accumulated their own land, homes, modest luxuries, and even some slaves.
The middle class rolled on to the present day rooted in the exploitation of slavery, and exploitation of black labors after the civil war. 

In short, we inherited the wealth from the back of slaves.

Whether you realize it or not you have given a very good summary of critical race Theory. Thank you

slideman » 14 Feb 2023, 2:33 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 2:33 pm

Whether you realize it or not you have given a very good summary of critical race Theory. Thank you

This isn't was CRT is about. CRT focuses on systematic racism. That is not what this is. 

BlueDevil » 14 Feb 2023, 2:39 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 2:39 pm

I don't care who has what. 

I don't either. That's not the point of the OP. Go back and reread it...or don't. Whatever. 

Vegas » 14 Feb 2023, 2:02 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 2:02 pm

First, this is way too long for most, if not all, lefties to read. It's above your garde level, so don't even bother. Just skip down to the last sentence. 

7% of the South's population, in 1860, owned 3 million of the 4 million slaves. There were 5 million whites, in the South, that were dirt poor. They are rarely mentioned, but their conditions were just as deplorable as the slaves. In fact, many of these poor whites worked for the 7% to police the slaves. It was work, so...

Before the civil war, from the beginning, this has mostly been the case. Planters and industrialists were the few, slave labor pitted against white labor was the mass. The few ruled the mass. This has always been the case since before America broke free of Britain. 

 The real question is, can we draw a straight line, from the accumulation of wealth we enjoy today, to the exploitations of slavery back then? We say that slavery was centuries ago, it has no effect on the wealth we have today. I say, that is incorrect. A straight line can be drawn: 

Exploitation of slavery lead to enormous profit of the few.
The few hired millions of dirt-poor whites to police the slaves.
Poor whites emerged to middle class due to this new work. 
Middle class whites now accumulated their own land, homes, modest luxuries, and even some slaves.
The middle class rolled on to the present day rooted in the exploitation of slavery, and exploitation of black labors after the civil war. 

In short, we inherited the wealth from the back of slaves.

While slavery did lead to profits of plantation owners pre-Civil War, all of that wealth was completely lost, destroyed and/or confiscated through:

• The cost of engaging in a war paid to the southern states to fight the North
• Loss of slaves after emancipation - the slave owners were never compensated for the loss of their property 
• Loss of plantation owners' business and crop production
• Destruction of property during the invasion from Northern aggressors
• Loss of many white southern men during the war, leaving families completely destitute.
• Raping of what little wealth and property remained by carpetbaggers
• Northern military taking "spoils of victory" from the South

Whatever the South did build, whatever wealth southern land owners did accumulate disappeared.  Southern banks went bankrupt and out of business. Entire cities were destroyed and buried, like Atlanta.  And, confederate currency was worthless.  The South went bust after the war.  So, it's a complete fallacy to say that America was built on the backs of slaves.  It wasn't.,  America was re-built after the demise of slavery from the ground up.  And, while blacks over time may have been a part of that process, they were not slaves.  The South that was built pre-Civil War simply ceased to exist in any shape or form whatsoever. 
 
 

Skans » 14 Feb 2023, 2:42 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 2:42 pm

While slavery did lead to profits of plantation owners pre-Civil War, all of that wealth was completely lost, destroyed and/or confiscated through:

• The cost of engaging in a war paid to the southern states to fight the North
• Loss of slaves after emancipation - the slave owners were never compensated for the loss of their property 
• Loss of plantation owners' business and crop production
• Destruction of property during the invasion from Northern aggressors
• Loss of many white southern men during the war, leaving families completely destitute.
• Raping of what little wealth and property remained by carpetbaggers
• Northern military taking "spoils of victory" from the South

Whatever the South did build, whatever wealth southern land owners did accumulate disappeared.  Southern banks went bankrupt and out of business.  And, confederate currency was worthless.  The South went bust after the war.  So, it's a complete fallacy to say that America was built on the backs of slaves.  It wasn't.,  America was re-built after the demise of slavery from the ground up.  And, in the South, that process took a very long time.

It set the stage. Slavery was still in the conscious of the South...and in the North to some degree. Even though the wealth was lost, the mental paradigm wasn't. The idea of using blacks as cheap labor continued because of how well it worked before. They could only build back up because they were able to hire blacks far below what whites were paid. The factories were filed with black laborers because of it. The South built an empire on slaves. That empire collapsed. But the idea of exploitation of blacks remained. This led to them being able to rebuild. 

Vegas » 14 Feb 2023, 2:47 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 2:47 pm

It set the stage.
 

No, slavery did not set the stage for future growth.  Slaverey set the stage for the complete destruction of not only the South, but much of the North as well.  The North lost many men to the war, and much of the nation's wealth was devoted toward the North winning that war and destroying the South.

Slavery was still in the conscious of the South...and in the North to some degree.

Whether it was or wasn't, has nothing to do with the real, tangible losses of wealth, property, land and skilled men that the South, and to a lesser extent the North suffered. 

The idea of using blacks as cheap labor continued because of how well it worked before.

Blacks lacked any skill or education whatsoever.  So, all they were capable of doing were the lowest forms of unskilled jobs.  Still, they were paid for their work.  They were free.  They could live where they wanted to live and they were not tied to a master or owner in any way.  As such, whatever work they did they were paid for - this is not attributable to slavery. 

They could only build back up because they were able to hire blacks far below what whites were paid.

Plantations that used slaver labor never "built back up" - that's another fallacy.  What happened was mechanization and industrialization.  Machines replaced slave labor to a large degree, and whatever manual labor that needed to be used was paid.  They were not paid "below whites" for doing the same jobs, because most ****** couldn't do the same jobs as whites.  They simply lacked the skills.

The factories were filed with black laborers because of it. The South built an empire on slaves. That empire collapsed. But the idea of exploitation of blacks remained. This led to them being able to rebuild.

The factories were all in the north.  There were no factories in the South.  The South remained dirt poor and destitute for many decades after the war.  In fact, it wasn't until after WWII that the South started to make any gains economically. 

Many blacks left the south and moved north to work in the factories.  How do you think the North got so many Africans living there?  Whether the blacks who worked back then should have been paid more for their work - that's a different issue.  But, then we're talking about something other than slavery.  And, we certainly are no longer talking about how America got "rich" on the backs of slaves.

 

Skans » 14 Feb 2023, 2:59 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 2:59 pm

No, slavery did not set the stage for future growth.  Slaverey set the stage for the complete destruction of not only the South, but much of the North as well.  The North lost many men to the war, and much of the nation's wealth was devoted toward the North winning that war and destroying the South.

 

You are looking at this in a tangible perspective. Yes, there was complete destruction. But that doesn't mean there was a destruction in the mindset of the South of how they want to use blacks. They were more pissed off. They exploited themin a different way. First slavery, then through cheap pay. 

Whether it was or wasn't, has nothing to do with the real, tangible losses of wealth, property, land and skilled men that the South, and to a lesser extent the North suffered. 

Again, the mindset continued. The South didn't just forget overnight. They still viewed blacks as less human. The exploitation resumed, only differently. 

Blacks lacked any skill or education whatsoever.  So, all they were capable of doing were the lowest forms of unskilled jobs.  Still, they were paid for their work.  They were free.  They could live where they wanted to live and they were not tied to a master or owner in any way.  As such, whatever work they did they were paid for - this is not attributable to slavery. 

This is the same for the whites back then. Only 25% of whites were literate, barely. They were dirt poor. They were just as unskilled. 

They were not paid "below whites" for doing the same jobs, because most ****** couldn't do the same jobs as whites.  They simply lacked the skills.

Yes, they were paid less. That's why there were so many riots. The blacks were a threat to the whites because they were paid less. They were fighting for work, but the whites had a hard time competing with slave wages. 

The factories were all in the north.  There were no factories in the South.  The South remained dirt poor and destitute for many decades after the war.  In fact, it wasn't until after WWII that the South started to make any gains economically. 

This just isn't true. The South wasn't a complete wasteland with nothing. If so, nobody would have survived, even the whites. 

Many blacks left the south and moved north to work in the factories.  How do you think the North got so many Africans living there?  Whether the blacks who worked back then should have been paid more for their work - that's a different issue.  But, then we're talking about something other than slavery.  And, we certainly are no longer talking about how America got "rich" on the backs of slaves.

There was work in the North...for slave wages, which led to numerous riots. Again, the exploitation was just manifested in a different way. 

Vegas » 14 Feb 2023, 3:09 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 3:09 pm

You are looking at this in a tangible perspective. Yes, there was complete destruction. But that doesn't mean there was a destruction in the mindset of the South of how they want to use blacks. They were more pissed off. They exploited themin a different way. First slavery, then through cheap pay. 

Again, the mindset continued. The South didn't just forget overnight. They still viewed blacks as less human. The exploitation resumed, only differently. 

This is the same for the whites back then. Only 25% of whites were literate, barely. They were dirt poor. They were just as unskilled. 

Yes, they were paid less. That's why there were so many riots. The blacks were a threat to the whites because they were paid less. They were fighting for work, but the whites had a hard time competing with slave wages. 

This just isn't true. The South wasn't a complete wasteland with nothing. If so, nobody would have survived, even the whites. 

There was work in the North...for slave wages, which led to numerous riots. Again, the exploitation was just manifested in a different way.

People have been complaining from the beginning of time that they were exploited for cheap pay.  If they don't like it, then don't work there - they had the option to move wherever they wanted to.  The fact is, they were completely unskilled.  Many tried to work their own land.  Most weren't very good at it.  Back then, it was survival of the fittest.  They were FREE.  Blacks were FREE only through the huge amount of human capital and monetary capital expended and wasted through war to free them.  They could choose to live and work elsewhere, if others would pay them more.  Minimum wage wasn't a thing back then.  Whites did not owe Blacks anything after they sacrificed so many lives and so much money to free them.

There was all kinds of exploitation back then. Children were exploited.  Women were exploited.  Immigrants were exploited.  White trash was exploited.  The fact remains, this nation, the USofA was not built on the backs of slaves.  And, no one living today benefited from slave labor.  Not at all.
 
 

Life is not easy. You are not entitled to anything. You get what you earn. Yes there are obstacles to work around. And yes there are assholes in this world, just don't be one.

After the Civil War, the South was again ruled by an elite class that profited from the labor of sharecroppers, who were the former slaves.
Before the Whites settled on the land, that land was cleared,and those who did the clearing were the slaves.
The land remained cleared,and every generation that has planted on that land benefited from the clearing of that land, by slaves. The roads and railroads that were necessary to get crops to market were also built by slaves,and maintained by chain gang labor after the Civil War.

Jim Crow exploited the labor of the ex-slaves in very much the same way as slavery had done. And Jim Crow was in effect until the 1960's.

Democrats are responsible for Jim Crow laws.

FJB » 14 Feb 2023, 4:08 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 4:08 pm

Democrats are responsible for Jim Crow laws.

The Democrats between 1865 and 1965 are pretty much deceased. The  children of White Democrats became today's Republicans.
The Democratic Party in the South is largely composed of Blacks,the descendants of poor Whites who often did not vote because they couldnot afford the poll tax,and  more recent immigrants.

The Southern Republicans are knocking themselves out trying to make it harder for Democrats  to vote.

Xavier_Onassis

 

The Democrats between 1865 and 1965 are pretty much deceased. The children of White Democrats became today's Republicans.

The Democratic Party in the South is largely composed of Blacks,the descendants of poor Whites who often did not vote because they couldnot afford the poll tax,and more recent immigrants.

 

The Southern Republicans are knocking themselves out trying to make it harder for Democrats to vote.

 

 

​​Liberal ****... is that what they taught you in cuba?​​​​​

Skans » 14 Feb 2023, 3:52 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Feb 2023, 3:52 pm

Like what? Where are they going to go? This view is not applicable for those times. It's barely applicable today. I mean, it sounds great on paper, but in reality, it isn't realistic. 

The fact is, they were completely unskilled.  Many tried to work their own land.  Most weren't very good at it.  Back then, it was survival of the fittest.  They were FREE.  Blacks were FREE only through the huge amount of human capital and monetary capital expended and wasted through war to free them. 

Sol were th3e whites. They white laborers were dumb as hell also. They had no skills. No education. No real talent. If there was another place for them to work, they would have gone there, instead of getting killed in riots because the black cheap labor force was a threat. 

They could choose to live and work elsewhere, if others would pay them more. 

No. They couldn't. There was either get for **** or get paid for **** across the street...or go across to some other state and get paid ****. 

Minimum wage wasn't a thing back then.  Whites did not owe Blacks anything after they sacrificed so many lives and so much money to free them.
There was all kinds of exploitation back then. Children were exploited.  Women were exploited.  Immigrants were exploited.  White trash was exploited.  The fact remains, this nation, the USofA was not built on the backs of slaves.  And, no one living today benefited from slave labor.  Not at all.

Yes, but the blacks usually got the work because they weren't allowed to unionize or receive equal pay.