ADVERTISEMENT

GK's Teacher Union Boss is an Idiot.

Slavery was deeply questioned and in many places around the world abolished before the American Revolution, so I think everyone is wrong here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WV-FAN
I believe most teachers join unions to protect themselves from unfair hiring and firing practices and to help increase salaries and benefits. If you polled most teachers, they would dismiss the nonsense some of the union leaders endorse.
 
Last edited:
This is literally just fiction. Before any of those happened slavery was illegal in England proper, Russia, China (de jure though to be fair not de facto), India, Japan, and various smaller European kingdoms.
Noticed there aren't any African nations on that list . . . Just sayin'.
 
Noticed there aren't any African nations on that list . . . Just sayin'.
America was pretty middle of the road when it came to slavery. We weren’t the worst (the Caribbean or South America were way worse) not the best (places that didn’t have it anyway.) We abolished it later than a lot of the western world but there are some unique factors at play there, like that we were the part of the western world that had ever had that many anyway. And we abolished before (sometimes WAY before), as you alluded to, most of Africa.

But American slavery impacted America a lot more than slavery in any other country, which is why we focus on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThunderCat98
This is literally just fiction. Before any of those happened slavery was illegal in England proper, Russia, China (de jure though to be fair not de facto), India, Japan, and various smaller European kingdoms.
The serfs in Russia weren't freed until 1861.

England outlawed slavery in England proper in 1772, but the problem was it was never "legal" to begin with, so the situation is a bit murkier. The coal slaves in Scotland weren't freed until 1799, which according to the Act of Union makes it the same place in regards to legal matters. They didn't free slaves in Canada (or other outlying territories) until 1833.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThunderCat98
The serfs in Russia weren't freed until 1861.

England outlawed slavery in England proper in 1772, but the problem was it was never "legal" to begin with, so the situation is a bit murkier. The coal slaves in Scotland weren't freed until 1799, which according to the Act of Union makes it the same place in regards to legal matters. They didn't free slaves in Canada (or other outlying territories) until 1833.
Yeah you can make the argument that serfs were close enough to slavery that you can call it that, though given the choice I would be a serf over a slave.
 
I wish the African people had not enslaved their own and sold them into slavery.
I wish liberals would stop blaming me for what happend hundreds of years ago and acting like what is in the moment now was in the moment hundreds of years ago.

Frankly, liberals can just be miserable race baiting people.

Finally, the American eduction system is broken and we would be better off if schools were just privatized and the govt got out of it.
 
Yeah you can make the argument that serfs were close enough to slavery that you can call it that, though given the choice I would be a serf over a slave.
Look at this way, if you were the ancestor of a slave in America wouldn't you kind of be glad they were a slave here? If not, you would be swatting flies and looking for your next meal in Africa.

Look at the positives.
 
Are you asking how American slavery is more relevant to American history than that of other countries?
Because we have professional race baiters here is why. That is exactly why. What good does it do for them if it goes away or people move on? Seriously.
 
Look at this way, if you were the ancestor of a slave in America wouldn't you kind of be glad they were a slave here? If not, you would be swatting flies and looking for your next meal in Africa.

Look at the positives.
Yeah, and if not for the Holocaust a lot of Jewish people wouldn’t have fled to the US either. And I’m sure some couples met in concentration camps and didn’t end up dead, and their kids wouldnt exist without the Holocaust, so they ought to be thankful for it. You know, if we’re having a contest for the most asinine point possible.
 
Slavery was deeply questioned and in many places around the world abolished before the American Revolution, so I think everyone is wrong here.

Yet it is still being practiced today. Please explain that...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThunderCat98
Yet it is still being practiced today. Please explain that...
We’re not the worst.

edit: though to be fair we didn’t actually abolish slavery. We just made it a punishment for crime instead of having chattel slavery. Then we let private prisons write laws that led to a really high prison population. Imagine that.
 
Look at this way, if you were the ancestor of a slave in America wouldn't you kind of be glad they were a slave here? If not, you would be swatting flies and looking for your next meal in Africa.

Look at the positives.
technically, anyone here that is a ancestor of a slave would not even exist so......maybe they owe ??
 
Yeah, and if not for the Holocaust a lot of Jewish people wouldn’t have fled to the US either. And I’m sure some couples met in concentration camps and didn’t end up dead, and their kids wouldnt exist without the Holocaust, so they ought to be thankful for it. You know, if we’re having a contest for the most asinine point possible.
why do white suburban liberals feel the need to stir the race debate all the time?
 
America was pretty middle of the road when it came to slavery. We weren’t the worst (the Caribbean or South America were way worse) not the best (places that didn’t have it anyway.) We abolished it later than a lot of the western world but there are some unique factors at play there, like that we were the part of the western world that had ever had that many anyway. And we abolished before (sometimes WAY before), as you alluded to, most of Africa.

But American slavery impacted America a lot more than slavery in any other country, which is why we focus on it.
Bottom line, after becoming a nation (when slavery was a global condition) it didn't take that long in historical terms to abolish it, and our nation fought a civil war over it. Now, of course it took almost another 100 years to work through and get rid of all the jim crow laws that racist democrats imposed across the south.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mlblack16.
Bottom line, after becoming a nation (when slavery was a global condition) it didn't take that long in historical terms to abolish it, and our nation fought a civil war over it. Now, of course it took almost another 100 years to work through and get rid of all the jim crow laws that racist democrats imposed across the south.
Is having to fight a civil war to get rid of slavery a positive in your view?
 
19MU88 is the one that said we fought a civil war over it.
I thought you had in the past as well. Sorrynif that is not the case.

I still believe slavery as an American institution was on its way out in a matter of time for a variety of reasons. And much like today the wars were fought for different reasons between the politicians and the combatants...☹️
 
I thought you had in the past as well. Sorrynif that is not the case.

I still believe slavery as an American institution was on its way out in a matter of time for a variety of reasons. And much like today the wars were fought for different reasons between the politicians and the combatants...☹️
What I’ve said many times is that asking what the North thought the war was about is a waste of time. They didn’t start the war, the south did by seceding. For the north the point was to keep the union intact.

The south seceded because they thought Lincoln would abolish slavery. Lincoln almost certainly wouldn’t and couldn’t have, but I’m not sure how you read the justification the south made for secession at the time and think it was about anything except slavery.

For Johnnie Farm Boy Georgia who actually did the shooting the war was about him seeing himself as a Georgian first, American second (a pretty rational point of view at the time) and defending his state. But Johnnie didn’t make the decision to go to war, so I’m not sure how relevant what it meant to him was.

I mean, I don’t think American soldiers gave much of a shit about Vietnam when the war started; that’s not why they signed on to the army. But we don’t say the Vietnam war was “about” a bunch of Americans wanting GI bills or not wanting to go to jail for draft dodging. The individual soldiers motivations isn’t really what we’re talking about when two nation level entities are at war.
 
I thought you had in the past as well. Sorrynif that is not the case.

I still believe slavery as an American institution was on its way out in a matter of time for a variety of reasons. And much like today the wars were fought for different reasons between the politicians and the combatants...☹️
Separate reply for a separate topic; I’m not sure why people think slavery was on its way out. Slave numbers were at all time highs at the outbreak of the civil war. Industrial tools like the cotton gin that reduced manual labor hadn’t dampened the demand for slavery, it had exploded it. Turns out one slave running a gin could make you a lot more money than one slave doing it by hand.

So yeah, I’ve seen people say they think it was on its way out, and we can never really know for sure, but I don’t know what evidence there is that it was going to be gone any time soon.
 
So yeah, I’ve seen people say they think it was on its way out, and we can never really know for sure, but I don’t know what evidence there is that it was going to be gone any time soon.
This has been discussed on here before. There is plenty of writing on this topic. Specific example: There is a whole section devoted to this topic in the book "creature from Jekyl island" looking at the writings from plantation owners during that time (sourced: library of Congress). Many were moving to mechanized means of cotton harvesting and recognized slavery's time was coming to an end.
 
This has been discussed on here before. There is plenty of writing on this topic. Specific example: There is a whole section devoted to this topic in the book "creature from Jekyl island" looking at the writings from plantation owners during that time (sourced: library of Congress). Many were moving to mechanized means of cotton harvesting and recognized slavery's time was coming to an end.
Mechanized but not automated. Why wouldn’t they just keep using slaves to run the machines like they did the cotton gin?
 
Why wouldn’t they just keep using slaves
Because, as you stated earlier in this thread, slavery was largely ending around the world....

I've also made the assertion that the straw that broke the camel's back in driving the south to civil war/secession was the northern banks limiting the Souths trade with europe and the US navy blocking the trading routes of ships leaving southern ports. As most wars, this was a war of economics/trade before it was a war of slavery.
 
Because, as you stated earlier in this thread, slavery was largely ending around the world....

I've also made the assertion that the straw that broke the camel's back in driving the south to civil war/secession was the northern banks limiting the Souths trade with europe and the US navy blocking the trading routes of ships leaving southern ports. As most wars, this was a war of economics/trade before it was a war of slavery.
Exactly.
 
slavery likely would have ended in the 1870s or 1880's.
Maybe. The closest thing we have to compare it to would be Brazil, who ended slavery in 1888. But there are some important differences. Brazil had a much larger tradition of manumission, so there were a lot of free black people around (about 3/4 of the black and mulatto population was free.)

The south did not have that. Many states had manumission laws that required freed slaves to leave the state. There were 4 million slaves in the south at the start of the civil war and only something like 250k free black people, largely concentrated in Maryland, Virginia, Louisiana and NC.

I’m having trouble imagining what abolition would’ve looked like in the south. You think white slave owners in the south would’ve, ont heir own volition, just said “sure, they’re free” and allowed billions of dollars worth of value, and 4 million people they considered inferior to them to just go free? I really can’t see it, especially on that timeline. There wasn’t, that I can see, growing support in the south for abolition. And I think the problem of “what do we even do with these 4 million people” would’ve kept it going, though probably tapering it off, past the 1880s.
 
Because, as you stated earlier in this thread, slavery was largely ending around the world....

I've also made the assertion that the straw that broke the camel's back in driving the south to civil war/secession was the northern banks limiting the Souths trade with europe and the US navy blocking the trading routes of ships leaving southern ports. As most wars, this was a war of economics/trade before it was a war of slavery.
The straw that broke the camel’s back was Lincoln getting elected. There’s a direct cause-effect between that election and South Carolina seceding. Below are some excerpts and I’m really not sure how anyone can read what the seceding state outright said its reason for leaving the union was and still think it wasn’t slavery.

“The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.”

This is referring to the northern states not returning slaves that escaped to the North.

A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.

That is referring to Lincoln.
 
I highly recommend Thomas Fleming's book "Disease in the Public Mind" that talks about the psychology of the reasons for the war. Some of it is certainly "plant/grow" but there was legit concern after John Brown that the abolition movement, which was getting increasingly violent, would lead to societal collapse in the South.

Between Nat Turner and the situation in Haiti Southerners were like "We'd like manumisson as well, but y'all have to help us figure out what to do with millions of uneducated people" because just releasing them was not an option, which is why Lincoln and most Yankees were in favor of back-to-Africa movements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: raleighherdfan
Look at this way, if you were the ancestor of a slave in America wouldn't you kind of be glad they were a slave here? If not, you would be swatting flies and looking for your next meal in Africa.

Look at the positives.
juhf.gif
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT