Just to add to what friend Curtus said, they want money, and whats more, they dont want to work for it, and would you believe our SOB WHITE "bleeding liberals" in society will try to make you and I feel guilty as well, and they will tax you and I for the "ransome money" to pay ... stand up now and fight this crap system before you too becomes another statistic

Regards, Peter

I wager that 99% of them would want the cash AND the right to stay here. WE want to go to Africa more than they do!

George

------------------
Shoot straight, shoot often, but by all means, use enough gun!

They do not help themselves either - I remember seeing one tribesman wearing a 81mm mortar bomb nose fuse assemble as a necklace.

I heard some rumblings as well that the "Mau Mau" were also preparing a multi million pound lawsuit against the brits for murder etc during your successful campaign in the Kenya uprising ...

Hell, what a bloody good idea !!! maybe I should jump on the gravy train and get some support for a lawsuit as well for selling us "honkeys" your colonial "kith and kin" down the river of independance when my favourite son Ian Smith was forced to hand over to the "commies" a nice class action lawsuit for compensation, and emotional damage, and loss of dignity

take care, keep smiling

Peter

I am a bit confused here.

I did hear about some black members of your government asking for some money for being slaves in teh past.

Last night CNN was showing Sharpton sa preparing to run for president in the USA in 2004.

------------------
saeed@ emirates.net.ae

www.accuratereloading.com

There are Black idiots.
There are White idiots.
There are Christian idiots.
There are Moslem idiots.
There are opportunistic idiots.
There are "knee-jerk" idiots.
There are "conservative" idiots.
And it goes on and on.

Being an idiot is an equal opportunity occupation.

I'm sure that some brave Blacks in Zimbabwe dearly wish that Mugabe would drop dead and are planning just such an "accident".

I'm sure that many Blacks in America think that Jesse Jackson is an embarrassment.

I surely think that Bill Clinton is a fool and the United Nations is primarily made up of castrated, self-serving functionaries who oppose anything "western" and that which is not politically correct.

So, what does all this have to do with reparations. Well, negative grousing on this forum will not stop the "movement" for them. Working to elect brave politicians will. Becoming a mentor in a city core school will, too. We are all aware of the problems in Africa. Do you think the average TV watching American even knows where Zimbabwe is, much less understands what's going on there. I can assure you that young folks in ghetto schools have no clue about "war vets" and mutilations in Sierra Leone.

Most African-Americans, if you want to use the bifurcated term, don't have a clue what West Africa is like (from which most of their ancestors came). I've been there. Not a lot of Nikes and microwaves. Hip-Hop is what you do when you see a cobra in the trail and toilet paper is not sold at Wal-Mart. Public housing is mud and straw.

I go to local schools and talk about Africa during "Black Heritage" month. Slavery sucks. The vestiges of it suck. But that doesn't mean that America or Ian Smith's homeland was all bad. If Black America has nothing with which to compare their status, whose fault is that. Al Sharpton's message will not stand up to scrutiny. Idiots don't like the light.

And it doesn't mean I owe any Black person a dollar. I've found that a little time with Black youth goes much further toward ridding the "something for nothing" mentality than all the fussing I used to do.

Instead of damning all Blacks (or whomever you wish to bash), let's figure a way to encourage those with moral integrity, guts and a will to change. It may be a failing battle, but the simple fact that we recognize that not ALL Blacks (or Moslems or Baptists or democrats) are "ruining" something, the sooner the non-idiot minority will be empowered to think and act positively.

Willing to put my time and/or money where my mouth is... Is there a legal way that this imperialistic, fat, white, protestant Euro-American can help the anti-Mugabe folks? Or is it none of my business?

Peter, what do you recommend? Alf? Others?
Some of you folks fought a brave war... maybe Don Quixote was wrong to dream?

[This message has been edited by judgeg (edited 08-27-2001).]

Judgeg,
Well stated. However, political support of the MDC and its objectives are far more valuable than financial support.
Letting elected representatives know that they need to condemn Mugabe for his undemocratic acts will go a long way towards getting rid of him.
Sure, your name may end up on a list of personae non grata in Zimbabwe, but you're unlikely to visit while Comrade Bob is in power anyway.

George

------------------
Shoot straight, shoot often, but by all means, use enough gun!

What these people ought to be doing is thanking their lucky stars that history played out the way it did.......

I can think of a great many very talented and successful African-Americans - a few of whom are now clamoring for an apology (and yes, FREE MONEY!) - whose big-time success and very existence would not have been possible without the institutions of the past being what they were.

I'd also like to remind these good people that the biggest slave traders of all, those who were the bedrock foundation of that whole sorry industry, also happened to be people of color......

Now, this gives me an idea! .......My Irish ancestors were disriminated against when they arrived on these shores some 170 years ago, and my wife's Native American ancestors were deprived, debauched, and brutalized in countless ways in the past......... So let's all make hay while the sun shines!

Heck, we'd better get busy before this industry busts wide open and leaves us in the dust!

AD

[This message has been edited by Buffalobwana (edited 08-27-2001).]

What I had suggested was (1)to trade 10,000 african-american blacks who want reparations to Zimbabwe for 1 white white farmer, and (2) to pay the reparations to the good folks who may need to leave Zimbabwe rather than the Mugabe crowd.

I recently cleaned up the old family cemetary where my great grandmother is buried. The graves of children and young adults outnumbered the graves of mature adults. Few today understand what those settlers went through, or the tasks at hand that HAD to be met, simply to SURVIVE here! It was a HARD life, and they became TOUGH people - or else they died. Sometimes, they died anyway.

Now how many people do you know who have had the occasion, or even the thought, of HOW one gets such large areas of unusable land into production, so that they - AND others - could simply survive???? Forget about prospering, which was a HOPE, but definitely NOT a PROMISE! Prosperity HAD to be envisioned for subsequent generations. The taste of "Freedom" and of "Opportunity" for the future was sweet enough to motivate these brave and heardy souls to commit themselves to the effort - come what may. The English were GREAT suppressors and dominators, but some just didn't "cotton" to being suppressed or dominated, and the "New World" at least promised a Fighting Chance for something better for those stout enough for the job.

When ships arrived with slaves, taken mostly from THEIR OWN PEOPLE (who'd risk their lives unnecessarily when they could BUY slaves from the dominant African tribes???) the American settlers looked around, and seeing no other realistic option, bought them, and used them to open and work the land. Now you can read up and find out WHO went and got these slaves, and WHY they did it, and WHERE they came from. I ain't here to spoon-feed anyone.

Short version is ..... it worked. It worked despite the aversion MOST slave owners had to the practice. Remember, religious freedom was a big reason for many New World immigrants' decision to come here, too.

Now the story of abuse in "Uncle Tom's Cabin" no doubt DID occur, but it was NOT the norm!
To believe such, one would have to believe that these slave owners were DUMB enough to DISABLE a VERY, VERY expensive "tool." Farmers just don't do that very frequently, just like MOST mechanics don't abuse THEIR tools, and most ANY workman won't abuse his.
Behavioral problems WERE often punished, and the situation DID create many problems, cultural, behavioral and philosophical, and otherwise. It was a lot like grabbing a Tiger by the tail - it's a lot easier to grab than let loose of! Of such stories, full of rights & wrongs and good & bad, is History made.

In my own case, Sherman's "March to the Sea" came through the area near where I presently live. After taking Atlanta, the Yankees had no real NEED, tactically, for the March to the Sea. It was to be purely a PUNITIVE strike against, essentially, old men, women and youngsters, since almost all able bodied men of fighting age were off with the Southern Army.

Now today's version of history states that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves.
HORSESHIT!!!!!!! Anyone who will check WILL find that only 5 Southern states produced 75% of the National Treasury's income just prior to the War of Northern Aggression. AT THE SAME TIME, they'll find that the Norhtern states held majority votes in Congress. They'll ALSO find that during this time, the Northern states used that numerical advantage in Congress to appropriate Southern produced MONEY to finance THEIR projects, while returning ALMOST NONE of the MONEY to the South to finance much needed projects THERE!

Much wiser souls than me have said that ALL wars are economic in nature and cause, for the simple reason that UNLESS this critical factor be present, there will be no MONEY to FINANCE WAR.

Folks, those who swallow the precept that the American "Civil War" was fought over slavery MUST also believe in the Tooth Fairy!!!! The concept just simply will NOT stand the test of historical FACT! Period!

Lincoln himself, is DOCUMENTED to have stated that if freeing ALL or PART of the slaves, he was amenable to ANY of this IF IT WOULD STOP THE WAR. It wouldn't. THEREFORE, there MUST have been ANOTHER, MUCH MORE IMPORTANT REASON FOR THE WAR. Period. It was, simply, economics.

The people who controlled the Northern states were, essentially, representing manufacturing, processing and imports/exports. The Southern states' representatives essentially represented farmers and PRODUCERS of raw materials, and related endeavors. Thus, the folks in the NORTH were SUPPRESSING the SOUTH by ESSENTIALLY STEALING - BY CONGRESSIONAL MAJORITY - THE SOUTH'S MONEY - THE SUBSTANCE OF THEIR LIVES AND LABORS. Period.

Now if the descendants of slaves here, some of whom are my friends, want reparations for slavery, it seems to ME that if they want it, they should seek it from those who SOLD THEM INTO SLAVERY TO START WITH - i.e., THEIR OWN PEOPLE - AND NOT THE FOLKS WHO CAME SUBSEQENT TO THAT SALE! The PROPER course, legally, would be to sue the ORIGINATORS of the deal - the African tribes who sold them into slavery. But then, THAT wouldn't be quite so LUCRATIVE for them or their "attorneys," would it??????

Just like all wars are economic in nature, all such civil suits are ALSO economic in nature, and political in motivation as well.
Without the economic interest, though, these suits would disappear. Shysters are NOT known for their "social sympathies," or even their "political proclivities" ARE they????
Like Deepthroat said to Woodward and Bernstein, "Follow the money." Without it, NOTHING happens. Those who purport to "love" black people have, for the past 40 years in America, wrought them the perpetual economic slavery of a "Welfare" system which dictates that children born to recipients must NOT have a FATHER IN THE HOME, has provided fertile ground for the decimation of much of their population by illegal drugs, alcohol and black-on-black crime, and has essentially perpetuated and worsened the condition of much, if not most, of the black population in the US.

Fellows, what we're seeing in the world is the result of the Eternal Battle between Good and Evil, and nothing more - or less. The Scriptures and Prophecies WILL be fulfilled, and Evil WILL win - for a time. It will win, for a time, because of the dual nature of man, and the fact that we, collectively speaking, have FAILED to assert the dominance of the GOOD. We, collectively, have vascillated or forsaken our duties in the world, and for that, ALL - even those who have at least tried to enforce the Good - WILL pay. As it rains on the "just" and the "unjust" alike, so will the penalty for our collective shortcomings and failures be upon us all, equally.

This is NOT a pretty picture, or one which I paint with pleasure. Is there one amongst us who is without fault, or who has not contributed to the condition of our world in at least SOME way at SOME time????

That the question of "reparations" for slavery would even be considered, by even a few, as a LEGITIMATE QUESTION is all the evidence needed to understand that we, collectively, have fallen too low down the slipery slope to climb back without dire consequences occurring beforehand.

Truth is no longer "relevant." Power and Money are the bywords and rules of the day.
THIS will NOT lead us where ANY of us will wind up wanting to go, but we're headed there nonetheless.

Reparations???? What about the reparations due my Scots ancestors for the GRIEVOUS depredations foisted upon THEM?????

For my part, the English can KEEP their damnable "blood money!" All anyone has REAL need of is just a bloody, fighting CHANCE - exactly what my ancestors sought in coming here in 1763. That's as good as it gets in this bloody, nonsensical world, and it's as good as there has EVER been for ANY people, including you and me and the descendants of former slaves. You'd think there were no BLACK Rebel Soldiers, and there WERE! But I've gone on too long, and gotten MUCH too ireful. I guess that old Scots temperament lasts a lot longer than anything!

Excellent analysis of the situation.

Will

If there are any out there who want to read more and don't know where to start, try The South was Right and maybe other books by the Kennedy brothers (no, not THOSE Kennedys). A good background on culture (rather than race or victim status) and its effects on material and moral success is undoubtedly in one or another of the culture trilogy by Thomas Sowell, who of course also writes excellent understandable explanations of economics.

For a quick overview of Lincoln's [negative] contributions to the federation, see www.jpfo.org.

Prior to 1954, illegitimacy was less prevalent in the Black community than in the white community. In the county where I live, 69 per cent of Black births are out-of-wedlock. The white illegitimate rate has also climbed dramatically, but is not as high.

When I was a practicing judge, I was taught that children born of mothers under the age of 20 and unwed were 7 more times likely to be incarcerated if male, and 8 time more likely to be single mothers if female than if the mothers were married and over 20. Few ever reach any real level of education other than functional literacy. Those illegitimate children are almost 100 per cent destined for welfare. And their children.... and their children...

It is not a great leap of faith to realize that the chances of a "welfare baby's" learning that earning a living is a possibility, much less a virtue, is a pipe dream if illegitimate children are raising children and everybody is on the dole. (Long sentence.. read it twice.) To hope that more than a few children born into this damned condition would have the intellectual curiosity or education to make a meaningful decision concerning the roots of their poverty is patently ridiculous.

I surely don't think reparations ought to be paid, but if they are...

They should be paid by Teddy Kennedy, Madonna, Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, (and yes) Newt, too... or anyone who believes that sex out of wedlock is a "victimless crime".

Why?

If you are screwing around on your wife, shacked up or giving comfort and fellowship to those who do, how can you complain about those who only follow your example? Harsh words... but perhaps we all should take a deep breath and look at ourselves for accountability.

Janis Joplin sang "You know you got it, if it makes you feel good!" Yep, you got it, for a while... and then the consequences begin to rear their ugly heads.

So, not so indirectly, today, one of the consequences of sexual immorality is that "reparations" are a real political consideration by folks who actually know better. With them, they can buy power from the ignorant, the poor, the bastard children who we encourage to seek "something for nothing" by our own behavior. We of the American society would rather assuage guilt with money than change our behavior. And as to the "great unwashed", those victims of immorality much more than of slavery.. do you question that they, who don't even know their fathers, will will refuse "free money" from the honkies? Who has taught them anything different.

[This message has been edited by judgeg (edited 08-28-2001).]

The origional question posed was about some innocent SOB like ( you and me ) being expected to pay some other SOB whom by virtue of his/her birth and/or travelling circumstnces ended up in some place often not of his own choosing and because some other SOB engineered the whole sorry state of affairs .. regardless or irrespective of "color" which we are all becoming blinded by, the SIMPLE fact is ... WHY should you or me ( black, white, jew, arab, or even irish etc etc ) have to pay out for some other SOB"S sins of the past ... it then ends up becoming a "grievance industy" whereby those whom for whatever reason are then more likely influenced to sit back and "blood suck" off society instead of getting off their backsides and working for a living ... I cant accept that you, me, and our children collectively are responsible for the wrongs of history ...

If we follow that line of thinking then every SOB in the world can claim some form or reparation, next thing is our kids will be claiming off their parents if we start falling into that trap about past sins ..

I sorry I cant but that argement for reparation

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blackwater:
My family originally settled in southeastern Georgia, @ 50 mi. WNW of Savannah in 1763. Two brothers had 2 "sections" (440 ac. each) they'd bought sight unseen in England. I've often wondered just exactly what shade of blue the air turned, due to the language they used, when those two ol' Scots found they'd bought SWAMPLAND!!!!! No doubt, they'd been told it was prime grassland, with rich soil, etc., etc.?????

---

Man I bet they were really torqued when they found out they were shorted on the acreage as well by 200 acres , with only got 440 acres they were told was a section! A section is 640 acres!

I know it was a typo, but I couldn't resist!

------------------
..Mac >>>===(x)===>
DUGABOY DESIGNS
Collector/trader of fine double rifles, and African wildlife art

The fact is, the United States of America fought a war with the Confederate States of America and abolished slavery in the process. I think the descendants of slaves should pay reparations to the United States of America and file their lawsuit against the Confederate States of America.

[This message has been edited by 500grains (edited 08-29-2001).]

"Short version is.....it worked. It worked despite the aversion MOST slave owners had to the practice. Remember, religious freedom was a big reason for many New World immigrants decision to come here too".

Oh boy, Thats the most interesting statement ive heard about the history of slavery in our country ive ever read, just fascinating!

It makes me picture all these hordes of Southern Planatation owner's staying up night's, and sitting in pew's wrestleing with the idea of buying some blackies to be slaves.

There certainly was no alternative. Paying someone to do work, and letting them go home at the end of the day, might have worked north of the Mason Dixon but the practice just never caught on in the south.

Sure there were one or two abuses, nut the practice "worked". Never mind the fact that only less then 10% of Southener's owned slaves , hell, the system worked.

I can just picture all those rich plantation owners sitting in church for hour's, racked with guilt and aversion, fretting from effort from seeking realistic alternatives to systematically denying every human right to a people kidnapped against their will to a foreighn country where they had no alternative to being a slave.

Ole Abe personaly hated slavery but he would have accepted it, knowing it would die out eventually, in order to preserve the Union. Slavery was the emotional issue he turned to in '63 when the North was loseing the war.

The South simply wanted to be their own country. People who call it "The war of Northern aggression" would be well served to read a history book or two. They would find out it was the South who started the war by atacking a U.S Fort..

"The system worked"........Oh man , thats great.....10

Ask those who would like to be repatriated to find out where they came from originally, and send them to that place.

Of course, they have to prove what tribe they belonged to, who actually decided to take them to some other country. Then we would need to find these perpetrators, and charge all costs to them.

It looks like some money making scheme for some lawyers again.

------------------
saeed@ emirates.net.ae

www.accuratereloading.com

How about we forget colour and race and religion, and ALL us hunters go over to Africa, pool our money, and we buy a piece of land from MUGABE, Matabeland will do, and we declare it a "HUNTERS ZONE" no greenies allowed .... then we declare independance and only allow in hunters and wildlife people ... bet we would have thousands crying out to gain Matabeleland citenship ... we can even consider SAEED for president, as he has hunted Matabland so much he almost owns it already

Regards, Peter

What a grand idea!

But why stop at Matabeland! How about the WHOLE of Africa!

------------------
saeed@ emirates.net.ae

www.accuratereloading.com

Just a whitetail tactic I use during drives.

Instead of history books, one MIGHT (???) try reading some concrete records and facts, and make one's own conclusions. For instance, you totally bypassed the FACT that 5 Southern states produced 75% of the Federal income just prior to the War, AND ........ never mind - I've heard it all before. MANY TIMES!!!

It's just a Yankee thing to put down us Southerners, and a LOT of FACTS just won't allow that, so these "little details" just get bypassed entirely. GREAT TACTIC, SIR! "Winning" is EVERYTHING, isn't it, and NEVER MIND THE FACTS. That IS the current ethic, world-wide, is it not???? And SEE how WELL it works for EVERYBODY! What a WONDERFUL world it is when we don't have to deal with facts and truths. Why we can just declare things to be as whatever we WANT them to be, and as long as there's UNITY in the lies, why everything's really PEACHY, isn't it?????

Well here's yet ANOTHER prospect for ya', son. According to "accepted" theory, we Southern boys, most of whom had NEVER owned a slave, went off to War fight for those few LARGE PLANTATION OWNERS, right????? Why SURE! Like inane lap dogs, we went off to support folks we poor Southerners didn't even like or trust! Right, SIR! We're all just THAT dumb here in the Old South. We just do foolish things that don't make sense just so y'all Yankees can make FUN of us! HA! We get a real HOOT out of that, ESPECIALLY when it comes to bleeding and dying. MUCH more fun that way, ya' know!

May this humbled ol' Unreconstructed Rebel suggest that you take some of your OWN advice, and do a little reading and research?
OOPS! I forgot! The Yankees 'won,' so they don't need no steenking facts.

Make what you will of what I said. It's your RIGHT here in the USA, you know. We DO have the right to be wrong, and it's become the way of life for us today it seems. Rock on, bro! Bliss is what counts, and it doesn't matter a whit HOW it's come by.

Like I said above, Evil WILL win, at least for a time, and the lack of respect for Truth is one of the larger reasons for it.

Blackwater:
You are absolutely correct, the winning side in any war always writes the history books. To complicate matters further, every follownig generation of historians then rewrite them, according to their idea of a politically correct interpretation of the events.
Regarding the plight of humanity these days, I think we agree too. The problems are caused by people doing things, wright or wrong, for entirely the wrong reasons.
To put it in terms of religion: Every person with any kind of power, what ever religion he says he belongs to, in reality worships only one god: MAMMON (and possibly EGO).
Or, in terms of political philosophy: It is caused by the socioeconomic system we live under, i.e. "democracy" + "market economy". Now the traditional definition of democracy is "one man, one vote", but at least under the current definition of market economy, everybody votes with his (or her) money. Go figure!
On the other hand, I think your interpretation of the "yankee ethic" needs an extension. Thus: "Winning is everything, as long as there is a PROFIT in it, otherwise never mind."
No, I don't have an idea on how to cure this sad state of affairs, and if I do come up with one, I'll keep my trap shut about it, because I think anybody, who came up with a WORKABLE alternative to the current system and published, would have a very very small chance to survive for any time at all.

Blackwater much of what you say leaves me scratching my head tho I certainly admit you have the right to say it. "Sorry it took me so long to reply but I had totally forgetten about this thread."

And name the place where I said that that Southern boy's "went off to war for those few large Plantation Owner's" , and , name the spot where I said Southener's were "Inane Lap dogs". Now your making things up that I never said "A common ploy among historical revisionist's".

I also find your statement interesting, the one about 5 southern states accounting for 75% of the Federal income just prior to the war starting". Could you please provide more details to back that statement up ?

Did you even read my post ? "Slavery was an emotional issue that "Abe" turned to in '63 when the North was loseing the War" , and , "The South simply wanted to be their own country". "They would find out that the South started the War by attacking a Union fort". Do you disagree with any of this? Do you agree? Or are you just going to Yap nonsense with the hope that other Southener's will come to your aid?

There has been no American war that has been put under the Historical microscope as much as the Civil War. Both sides have been heard, the War has been disected and examined to the point of writing the same words only with new ink. The history Professor's of "The South" have not been left out of this review, the revisionist's only say they have as a prelude todumping their own version of events on us.

Most of those Southern boy's had nothing to do with slavery, "I'll say it one more time with the hope that BW actually reads it". One of their beef's was that the central Govt. in DC was keeping more of their tax money then they were sending back. The South felt that the "Industrialized North" was conspireing to keep them from developeing their own Industrialized base, never mind the fact that many of the necessities to building such a base were only found in the North.

The Northern states had the swing votes in congress due to their higher population. This was a cause for animity also. Yes Slavery was an issue to a very vocal minority but nobody, North or South, wanted to send their son's to die over this issue. The North never even signed a treaty supressing the Slave Trade "Lincoln didnt want to antagonize the South with the issue" until the spring of 1862, with "Great Britain".

Of course the country that was the first to condem slavery was also the country that benefitted most from it, again "Great Britain". The slave trade in the Western Hemisphere began in 1561 when 3 British ships traded their boatloads of Black slavs for goods. Britain then went on to enjoy the vast profits from slavery for another 274 years.

The South's claim that they were "excluded" from the vast profits made in the America's began at this time, under British rule. It should also be noted that the British, who ruled the American colony's, prevented the colony's from Industrializing and instead useing the colony's as a base of agriculture. The seed's of this so-called "conspiracy against the Industrialization of the South" were actually planted by the British before America even became a country.

Much,Much of civil War history was began in this "Pre-Revolutionary War", and "Pre-War of 1812" period. Of particular note the great wealth flowing into Great Britain, Largely due to the success of the Slave Trade, began the modern day "credit system" and created the "moneyed Aristocracy", "BANKER'S".

Of course all this wealth , credit payments,and redirection of Capitol had an arrow with a point on it and this point was pointed right at England.

The War of Independence was fought by the colonies because they were tired of sending all this money to England, tired of getting taxed for everything they not only imported, but exported as well. The American colonies were not even a "partner of the Crown" they were , pure and simple, an agrarian base that existed for the betterment of Great Britain.

And the War of Independence left the former British colonies totally broke. In fact if it wasnt for France extending credit to her, the fledgeling country, now the most powerful the world has ever seen, might never have even been created.

The Hypocracy of the Northern "New England" states began right away when , at the meetings that took place to frame a contitution for the New Republic, a concession was made to NewEngland interest's that the slave trade should be extended to 1808. So's the NewEngland, and Mid-South, shipping companies could recoup some of the monies they lost due to the Revolutionary War.

Much had changed over the next 60 to 70 years. Its true that the North had become a hugely successful "Industrialized" modern economy, with a huge and profitable shipping industry. The clothing industry of the NewEngland states was a model of success for the newly emerging concept of "automation" that was the idea that drove the Industrial Revolution.

The Sotuh was not lacking either, tho many revisionist's like to float the concept that "Northen states drove the South to attacking the North because they had an illegal and immoral monopoly on Industry, shipping, and trade.

This simply wasnt true, or about as true as japanese assertion's that we forced them to bomb Pearl Harbor because of us cutting off oil exports.

The discovery in 1793, or idea behind the discovery, of the cotton Gin did a lot to cure the South of their Post Was of Independence ill's. First off it provided something for the 751,000 black slaves to do. It allowed the Southern Plantation owner's to plant "short staple" cotton over a much greater range of land and soil's, this because cotton drains off much of the nutrients in the land and it demands the need for soil rotation so the land can recover from a planting.

Short staple cotton also needs a shorter growing season and less humidity in the air. Farmers had relied on Long staple cotton only because short staple had so many sticky seed's in it that before the cottin gin it was not a profitable crop to grow.

With a machine to separate the seed's from the cotton the South became an agrarian powerhouse that fueled the clothing industry, as well as other's, all over the world. Over the course of a mere 60 years the South went from having over 600,000 black slaves with nothing to do, to having 4,000,000 which wasnt enough to work the industry that was the salvation of the south.

This lack of enough "quality slaves" only fueled the slave market. It also greatly increased the value of each slave.

In 1800 there were 3,500 bales of cotton produced by the Aouthern states, worth an export value of $5,726,000 ; In 1860 4,300,000 bales were produced with an export value of $184,400,000. And this at the devalued price of cotton "due to industrialization" at 1860 dollars. And by this time in history, with the coming conflict about to become reality, 4,300,000 bales is thought to be severely under reported for purposes of Tax avoidance.

In the years immdeiatly prior to the beinning of hostility's there was a run on Northern banks for Loans to fianance the cotton boom in the states along the Missisipi basin. It was discovered at this time that the soil's along this basin was terrific for the growing of cotton. This there is fual for the fire of those who speculate that a big reason the South wanting to fight was to avoid having to repay these debt's.

There was much money loaned to "south of the Line" by the banks that were "North of the line". Tho not a real noble reason to fight a war, and not one admitted much by leadership, the avoidance of repaying money borroed has probably started more war's then all the "Noble War's" combined.

So there were a myraid of reason's as to why the Civil War was fought. The revisionist's from the South like to portray that , in 1860, that the North had an economical stranglehold on the South and was trying to enforce its own philosophy on their neighbor's to the South, especially concerning the moral issue of Slavery.

I think Lincoln fought it for one reason only "To Preserve the Union". He could have lived with slavery ; He said it many times. Of all the leader's I think Lincoln was the most open minded.

The others ? The giants of Industry, the shipping magnates?, the Generals?, The "other's" with the Political power, and most of all the "passionate few that always seem to get other's to do their fighting" all played a hand in it. The 18yo's who would be doing the killing and the dieing never seem to get their voices heard unless its "from the grave" and in "The context of history". That seem's to be true in every conflict.

Thats why you ought to be a bit more careful when you attempt to "remake" why these kids died BW. If you think slavery was such a good thing, and/or, that blacks are inferior to whites then just come out and say it. Dont attempt to use history as a pretext to justify your own view's on a explosive moral issue, and by saying and implying things like, "When ships arrived with slaves, taken mostly from their own people, the American's looked around, and seeing no other realistic option, bought them, and used them to open and work the land". And, "Short version is....IT WORKED. It worked despiote the aversion MOST slave owner's had to the practice."

You make it sound like these "slaves" just dropped out of the sky and all those concerned, religious,pious, and humane Southener's put them to work out of compassion, totally ignorant of why they ended up there and what system condoned it.

Hell if the system "worked" then it must have been OK. The "concentration camp" system under the Nazi's worked too.

But I just thank God we have a guy like you to educate us about matter's like that. Or you could ask the "Descendants of slaves, some of whom are my friends". At least you know a good "House Nigger" from a bad one............10

I guess I'll just have to take out a lawsuit against the Vikings or maybe the Romans...

Regards, Peter

My father was a Marine (China, WWII and Korea). I was raised on USMC bases until his retirement on my 7th. birthday. While living on the base in NCO housing, a Guamanian with dark colored skin was to be moved into the project. Well, a bunch of "good ol' boys" got together at the NCO club to combat this!
My father was invited, but not told specifically what the meeting would be about.
Well, once all arrived, the leaders of the meeting got up, one by one, and allowed as to how AWFUL it was that a BLACK man was to be moved into THEIR housing unit, and stated various opinions as to how they should go about combatting this situation. After listening to some of this, one of the leaders who knew Dad said, "Hey Virgil! How about you? You're a good ol' southern boy and we haven't heard from you yet. What do you think about all of this?"

With that, Dad arose, took the toothpick out of his mouth he'd been chewing on, and said, "Well, if he's a Marine, I don't see him as black OR white, he's Marine Corps green to me, and if he's good enough to fight with and die with, then by God he's good enough to live with, and that's all I've got to say about that." With that said, he turned and strode out, leaving the building and the meeting.

Well, they moved the Guamanians in - NEXT TO US! A couple of days before this, Mom came to me and my brother, obviously emotional, and kind of fearful I thought. She called us to her, had us sit down, and then began her little explanation that some dark skinned people were going to move in next to us. She said that though they had dark skin, they had red blood in them, and bled just like we did, and should be treated just like we'd treat anybody else. Well, at the age of 4, I thought this was strange, and didn't make any sense. I couldn't understand why Mom was acting so strangely. The only question I had was whether they had any kids our age, and Mom said they did. Boy! Was I HAPPY! PLAYMATES!!! I looked forward to the day!

Well, the day came, and they moved in. That evening, we went next door and Mom took them a little something (don't remember what - long time ago and such things didn't interest me then). I and my brother were introduced to their children, and they were invited to play with me in our sandbox the next day. Hot Diggedy! I had new playmates! The next afternoon after school, the Guamanian children seemed to be a bit tentative about playing with me, and I was a little disappointed. However, Lou, their mother, seemed to feel O.K. about it, and finally told them to go play with me and my little brother, and once we got together, we played together well and had a GREAT time! I was tickled pink. My brother, being smaller - and VERY aggrevating - wasn't much fun, and NOW, I had GOOD playmates!

Well, the next day, we again played in our yard, in the sand box and with our toy trucks, etc. Some time into this, the bully of the block, a big, fat, redheaded, freckle faced boy of 6 or 7 or so, walked by and saw me and my brother playing together. "Hey," he cried out. "What are you doing playing with them niggers?"

Hearing that, my new friends suddenly looked sad, started crying and ran into their house, where Lou met them at the door and ushered them inside. I was INSENSENSED!!!! I got up and hesitated a moment, but when I saw that big kid smirk and laugh, I went ballistic! (something I did quite well then!)

I rushed up to the little white pickett fence between the sidewalk and our yard, straight for the big kid who'd run off my new friends and made them cry. My little fists were balled up as tightly as I'd ever had them. He was surprised, and his face showed it. Not knowing what to say, and not wanting a whippin' for fighting, I just repeated what Mom had said, and let him know that I was mad as a hornet and thought a LOT more of my little playmates than I did of HIM, all the while walking sideways along abreast of him as he made his way home, looking at me, partly puzzled, and partly fearful I was going to jump the fence and start something really nasty. I guess he'd never encountered a crazy little kid with as big a temper as mine.

Mom had been at the door calling me and warning me not to start any fights during the last of my little tirade. Finally, he reached the end of my fence, and I stayed there, shouting warnings while Mom kept telling me if I didn't get inside I was really gonna' get it.

Well, I finally went inside, and with all that emotion pent up inside me, I just cried.
Didn't know anything else to do, and I figured I'd just as well get started before the spanking as well as after.

Just a couple of minutes went by, and Lou, my little playmates' Mom, came to our door, and she was crying, too. I figured the whole dang world must be crying, and just KNEW I was gonna' get a BIG whippin' for all this crying! Mom got Lou to sit down at our little dinette table, and Lou told her that she'd heard what I'd told that boy, and that she knew it didn't come from me, but from her and Dad, and she just wanted to thank them and let them know how much it meant to them.
They'd been a little afraid of what might happen when they moved in, but with this, they were DEFINITELY going to stay. They figured with someone like this living next to them, they'd do O.K. They did stay, and their children were my playmates. After that incident, the big redheaded kid always went to the other side of the road whenever he had to pass by our house. I don't think it was because of me, since he could obviously have "taken" me in a fight. I'm quite sure that the powers that be instructed HIS Dad that if trouble erupted, it would be THEM who'd be moving.

I only learned about the NCO meeting and what Dad had said after Dad retired and some buddies came to the farm to visit for a long weekend. After dinner, they'd put us to bed, and I'd play possum, and once they'd begun talking in the living room, I'd turn some stealth back on those ol' Jarheads, and sneak in around behind a door where I could listen.
Dad would never talk about his wartime experiences, and I thought I'd get to hear some war stories - the kind of thing little boys weren't meant to hear. Besides, I'd been told I wasn't supposed to hear the stuff they'd talk about, and that made me want to hear it all the more. One of his buddies told the story, with quite a laugh, and eavesdropping on this conversation is the only reason I know about it.

Dad joined the Marines in '30 and was inducted in '31. Lots of folks don't realize that poor country boys like Dad had a LOT more in common with blacks than we EVER did with the more prosperous business folk. They picked and hoed cotton, peanuts and whatever else needed picking or hoing or doing right along with the blacks. OUR white folk and black folk KNEW each other. Dad used to play guitar and sing, and they played and sang with blacks AND whites. As long as it was people you knew and could trust, it didn't make a difference. They were NEIGHBORS and FRIENDS, and valued as such. I still have what I believe to be Dad's old Gretsch arch top guitar, that was lost for many years, but that's another story.

Now that you know just a tiny bit about me, and how I was raised (I HATE that word "reared" - sounds like what child abuse to me!) let me just say that I have no intent whatever in responding to your inane questions! The reason is VERY simple. You have the audacity to say:

"if I ever become "pro-slavery" I'll come out and say it instead of just danceing around it, "As some people do"."

Mr. 10-Point, you also stated "And name the place...... (etc.)." Well, maybe good sir you'd be so kind as to FIRST deal with your own INITIAL assumptions that I'm "pro slaverty???????" I think it's entirely fair that we do this CHRONOLOGICALLY, and YOU, sir, were the FIRST to ASSUME something from what I said. All I said was that the settlers were sitting there, looking at the nearly impossible task of clearing swamps and land and not only making a "living," but also SURVIVING. It was NOT difficult to NOT survive. I think I mentioned the number of preadolescent graves in the little family plot, did I not? I NEVER, NEVER EVER said that slavery was right, and FWIW, if anything to you, I considered it self evident that slavery was wrong. Perhaps that was MY error to ASSUME that anyone with any sort of mind would understand that, or that it was so evident it need not be stated implicitly?????
If this was in fact my error, then I apologize to all the simpletons who obviously need spoon-feeding. Perhaps not everyone was raised as I was????

YOU, 10-Point, made the FIRST erroneous - and grievously so - ASSUMPTION that has brought the flames to this temperature, and quite frankly, I think you owe me, and maybe others here, an apology for that. Now I'm trying to calm myself down, as much as anything, because I think progun people like us separate ourselves over misunderstanding and erroneous assumptions WAY too often. I'm sick and tired of having people jump to the conclusion that I'm some sort of bigot just because I try to tell the Truth, and I see no real reason I should NOT be irked by that.

As to the rest of your post, well sir, it just doesn't matter to me. If you want the Truth, you can find it. I wonder if you really do? I think my uncertainty in that regard is entirely warranted. I have no intent to try to instruct you. Doing so would likely only result in your simply denying it, and never checking it, so do your own research. I don't think I have the source in any of my personal books anyway.
I'd suggest you go to historical archives relating to the economics of the War. It WILL keep you busy for a while, so I don't actually think you've got the stomach for it.
I hope you prove me wrong. Only info one finds one's own self tends to counter the type of mindset and attitude you have displayed here. I wish you well in the search, if you choose to undertake it. I KNOW you'll be surprised!

I've got to go eat dinner and feed the dogs.
19-Point, I reassert my belief that you owe me an apology, and invite you to email me at judymi@bulloch.com if you'd like to continue this discussion offline. Maybe once we both cool down a bit, something constructive might be forthcoming. Right now, though, I'm not a bit averse to letting you know that your assumption hurt me just as much as calling a black southern gentleman a "nigger," and I don't appreciate it a bit more than THEY would. You COULD have handled it much differently. All you had to do was ask.

If the Southern part of our country asnt such a terrific place to go I'd have nothing to do with them. Yep, these Southern boy's are pretty good ole Boy's.

BW If you want to stick to history that would be fine by me. Im still trying to get past your claim about how the slaves ships just dumped the slaves on our shores and the Southern plantation owner's "seeing no other realistic option, bought them".

But if you want to stick to history I'll go on with this. I dont want to hear about your Daddy, your 12 hound dogs underneath the porch..........Oh alright, I'll try and get thru this post of your's. I owe you that much.......................................................................................................................................................2 hour's later.................OK, your Daddy was a good man, thats a good thing to be proud of............I take it these were Guatalamanian's and not Guatmanian's ? Thats alright too, my spelling sucks as well. They were dark but were they really black ? Im not sure they count. But OK, your right to be proud of your parents. OK your little fist's were balled up and you went after the big bad boy who called friends "Nigger". shouldnt they have used the word "spic's"?

OK BW, you passed the test. I believe you arent pro-slavery. In fact, I bet you think Micheal Jordan is the cat's ass. But can we return to history, since everything ive said, and asked , has been in a historical contexed. When I say "pro-slavery" I meant, of course, slavery as in the past. This is obvious since we dont have slavery now. You made several statements that led me to believe that slavery was an OK thing in the pre-war south. Do you deny it ?

Now you say you arent going to answer any of my question's because I implied you were Pro-slavery, "in an Historical contex now, mind you".

So I guess that means you arent going to respond to my question concerning your statement "Anyone who will check WILL find that only 5 Southern states produced 75% of the National Treasury's income just prior to the War of Northern aggression". You arent going to respond cause of.....why?

"The Yankee's had no real need, tactically, for the March to the Sea. It was to be purely a punitive strike aganst, essentially, old men,woman, and youngster's, since almost all able bodied men of fighting age were off with the Southern Army".

Since when hasnt the carrying of War into the heartland of your enemy not been an accepted strategic goal in warfare ? I do remember there was a lot of poperty detsroyed but I dont remember there being atrcoties in that march. Splitting your enemy in half, cutting off his means of re-supply and re-armament, and upsetting his lines of communication have always been accepted Strategic goal of warfare. At the time Lee's army was still stong enough to tie up Grants forces in Virginia. Strategically Shermans march was a brilliant move.

"I recentl cleaned up the Old Family cemetary where my Great Grandmother is buried. The graves of children and young adults outnumbered the graves of mature adults. Few today understand what those settlers went thru, or the task's at hand that had to be met, simply to survive here."

"Now how many people do you know who have had the occasion, or even thought of, of HOW one gets such large area's of unusable land into production, so that they , and other's, could simply survive ? Forget about prospering, which was a hope, but definately not a promise. Prosperity had to be envisioned for future generations."

"The taste of freedom and og Opportunity for the future was sweet enough to motivate these brave and hardy souls to commit themselves into the effort-come what may. The english were great suppressor's and dominators, but some just didnt cotton to being supressed or dominated, and the New World at least promised a fighting chance for somthing better for those stout enough for the job."

Here's the part I just love!

"When ships arrived with slaves, taken from THEIR OWN PEOPLE,(who'd risk their lives unnecessarily when they could buy slaves from the dominant African tribes???) The American settler's looked around, and seeing no other realistic option, bought them, and used them to open and work the land. Now you can read up and find out WHO went and got these slaves, and WHY they did it, and WHERE they came from. I aint here to spoon-feed anyone."

"Short version is , it worked" It worked despite the aversion MOST slave owners had to the practice. Rmember , religious freedom was a big reason for many New World immigrants decision to come here".

"Now the story of abuse in "Uncle Tom's Cabin" no doubt did occur, but it was not the norm".

I could go on but theres no real point. If this isnt the typical choice of words someone use's to re-write history, and justify the action's of their ancestor's then I dont know what is.

First off BW you show a remarable lack of knowledge concerning your country in the period between the War of Revolution and the War of Southern Aggression.

To begin with you imply that the settler's of that era had to either accept and use Slavery or their kids would be filling up all the graveyards of the era. I just cant believe anyone here would even believe such tripe. First of all there were so many untreatable disease's, and such a lack of medical knowledge at the time, that the chances of living thru childhood were much slimmer then they are now.

In 1792 there were about 600,000 slaves in America and very little work for them to do. Anybody could buy them, they were certainly cheap enough. But the type of work that made their ownership productive just wasnt available.

That all started changeing the next year, with the discovery of the Cotton Gin , and later, The Cotton Jenny. Now one worker/slave could increase their production of cleaned cotton from 1lb per day to 350lbs. The growing of Cotton is so destructive to the land its planted on that huge tracks of soil have to be owned so that the fields can be rotated and the crop could be made productive to plant.

With this one invention the Cotton culture was established, and the owning of slaves became a part of that institution. When the steam engine was invented the vast New England and English weaving industry's were established.

Slave owner's were ,typically, rich white Southern plantation owner's who owned huge tracts of land and who discovered, as soon as they learned to count, that owning slaves that you didnt have to pay wages to, could be forced to work sunup-sundown, and could even breed you more slaves, made more sense economically then hireing worker's.

They werent purchased by poor immigrants , who had "great aversion" to the practice of slavery. and the institution of slavery wasnt began so that young kids wouldnt fill graveyards, and who died cause they had to do work a slave could have.

The only places slaves made econimical sense was in the vast Southern Cotton plantation's that made an awfully a lot of money for an awfully few people. These same rich people, BTW, Had all the Political power in the South. And had a huge stake in slavery and cotton, and had a huge say concerning the Political issue's that lead up to the civil war.

And , tho BW might not believe it, the business of slavery was a huge , well organized, and well fiananced venture. With the success of getting those seed's out of that cotton the American shipping industry became , arguably, the largest and most well fiananced in the world. At the time ,just prior to the Civil war, america's economy was the envy of much of the civilized world.

Concerning abuse, or "Uncle Toms Cabin". Slaves had no right's in the South. Thats in NONE! You could do anything you wanted with them, they had no more rights thn the horse in the barn did. So I guess abuse did occur. It happened much more often to a "field slave" compared to a "house slave".

In the words of James stirling. "The position of the fieldhands is very different: of those, especially, who labour on large plantation's. Here there are none of those humanizing influences at work which temper the rigour of the system, nor is there the same check of public opinion to control abuse. The "force" is work en-masse, as a great human mechinism; or, if you will, as a drove of human cattle. The proproetor is seldom present to control and direct. even if he were, on large estates the number's are to great for his personal attention to details of treatment. On all large plantation's the comfort of the slave is practically at the disposal of the white overseer"

"Who can say what passes in those voiceless solitudes ? Happen what may, there is none to tell. whatever the slave may suffer there is none to bear witness to his wrong. It needs a large amount of charity to believe that power so despotic, so utterly uncontrolled by public opinion, will never degenerate into violence. It could only be so if overseer's were saint's, and driver's angel's."

I find no Historical refernce, BW , to your assertion that white slave owners ever felt "aversion" to their practice of owning slaves. Perhaps you could point me to where you read that ?

There is no doubt the war was fought about money. The Southern leadership used a lot of ink while trying to pump up their citizens about the unfairness of the Tax system at that time. They used very little ink in describing Lincoln's attitude as one of compromise. Abe Linoln did not want to see American kids killing American kids while he was President. Say what you want but Abe was a decent man.

In fact many of the North's early defeats could have been avoided if Abe would have allowed the Military to assume a more agressive "pre-war" posture. He didnt allow it tho, he feared it would destroy any chances to avoid confrontation and it would give the Hawk's on both sides an exuse to push ,even more, for an attack.

BW I'll be more then glad to continue this thread as long as it sticks to an historical perspective. I'll even leave out the imflamatory words that cause you so much grief, which you apparently have never used before, and which trigger's the "My Daddy" story's. We dont need to feel "white guilt" over not wanting to give a bunch of people, "who never had a wrong done to them", a bunch of money just cause their ancestor's didnt get "40 acres and a mule" 150 years ago.

I dont want to give it to them either, let em damn well work for it. And I dont blame the Africanner's for wanting to keep what they worked their ass's off for, 18 hours a day, and for not wanting to give it to a bunch of beggars,thieve's,commie's, and lazy bastards who dont want to work for what they have. Good honest people are to busy working to be camping out on someone elses farm with their hands out , or even worse, trying to steal with a gun in their hands.

But we dont have to distort, or make up history to support what we feel. History is history. It should never be manipulated by anyone to support political goal's.

If you want to keep this thread going, with that in mind, then Im all for it..........................10

quote:

---

Originally posted by 10point:

You make it sound like these "slaves" just dropped out of the sky and all those concerned, religious,pious, and humane Southener's put them to work out of compassion, totally ignorant of why they ended up there and what system condoned it.

---

They didn't just drop from the sky. They came on Yankee slave ships. Read the Kennedy brothers.

I know how much Yankees love Blacks, because I live among Yankees. Yankees are certainly not all racist, but they are in no position to call Southerners racist, or to attempt to condemn all Southerners because some owned slaves sold by Yankee slave traders.

Every American on this forum should be cautious in addressing fellow-Americans of the Southern persuasion - see http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams.html, column of 9/13/2000. We may all of us be living in the South within a decade, if our actions warrant God's blessing us with peace and freedom, both.

The slaves came in all kinds of ship's, registered to many different countries. It was a different era, and I for one dont think guilt is something that is inherited.

Recono speaks wisdom in "if our action's warrant God's blessing us with peace and freedom,both"..........10

Now, out of respect for a very good, sincere and happy man who happens to own this forum, I'm ceasing trying to teach pigs to sing. I screw up once in a while and re-try that, but it NEVER works. Like I said, the Truth really IS "out there," and if you WANT to find it, you will. Right now, all you want to do is argue, and I simply don't care to indulge you. Make of that - and me, for that matter - what you wish. And you can do the same with the Truth, too. But, you already seem to do THAT anyway.

There's no way the history - and the LIES - of the American Civil War would ever be settled here, especially with one who INFERS way too much (and erroneously, to boot) from what I have written, and clearly has no real interest in anything but continuing the arguement. I gues that means you have the final word here, too. Go to it.