The Debate on Slavery

Civility_C wrote:

General Stuart wrote:

So far as the numbers thing, I got my stats (25% owning slaves, 3.5% with 50+) from a history book, so there.

I've read a science book. Wanna know what it said? "The world took 5 BILLION years to evolve." Um... we all kinda know that not true. Yet, it was still in a book.

I"m not disagreeing with you, I"m just sayin'

you're mean...always taking Stuarts side...

" I'm not disagreeeing with you, just saying"

Somebody has a crush....

Yeah Oppie, try to shame the lady into deserting her cause. Real nice.

Hey now, woah woah woah. Me and Stuart? Are you an idiot? Me and Stuart, tahts is COMICAL! lolololololololololooo

I am laughing SO hard right now!!!

That wasnt shaming, I was being serious about both

Nope. I do not have a crush on Stuart.

Moving on

Anyway Stuart answer my post you bad bad boy

still waiting....

and still waiting. *sips cup of chamomile tea*

Oppie, if you're waiting for me to sit here and tell you that slavery is a wonderful institution that we should seriously consider re-instating.... don't hold your breath. Because I'm never going to come to that conclusion. However, as slavery applied to the United States prior to the Civil War, we can only consider how slavery was looked upon by the status quo, and similarly how the status quo looked upon the part slavery played in the Bible. This seemingly lame form of pacification was enough to keep such a practice as slavery stabilized for hundreds of years in America.

There was only one thing that I raise my eyebrows when it comes to slavery.

The South said the blackman wasn't human. That they were property. And yet, they wanted thier property to go to the population count for the House of Repersenatives. That sends mixed messages. The blackman was property, and yet, they were still human in the sense that it profitted the South's white population when it came to the vote. Kind of strange isn't it?

General Stuart wrote:

Oppie, if you're waiting for me to sit here and tell you that slavery is a wonderful institution that we should seriously consider re-instating.... don't hold your breath. Because I'm never going to come to that conclusion. However, as slavery applied to the United States prior to the Civil War, we can only consider how slavery was looked upon by the status quo, and similarly how the status quo looked upon the part slavery played in the Bible. This seemingly lame form of pacification was enough to keep such a practice as slavery stabilized for hundreds of years in America.

so are you finally infering that all slavery was wrong? Sincemorals dont change, the oppinions of the day shouldent have an effect on it...

Iron Brigade General wrote:

There was only one thing that I raise my eyebrows when it comes to slavery.

The South said the blackman wasn't human. That they were property. And yet, they wanted thier property to go to the population count for the House of Repersenatives. That sends mixed messages. The blackman was property, and yet, they were still human in the sense that it profitted the South's white population when it came to the vote. Kind of strange isn't it?

its the poloticians doing

I know that. The politicians were the ones that allowed the slave trade with Africa to exsist until 1810.

did anyone know that slaves outnumbered the number of southerners? that says something..

Slaves (entire US) at time of Civil War: 5 million.
Southerners at Civil War: 5 1/2 million.

how sure are you of those numbers? Cause I seem to remember the difference being greater..

I've read a bunch of materials on it. I don't remember which ones they were at the moment, but very good resources.

eh, I trust the internet cources of texts then textbooks cause they are outdated. The internet is sconstantly being revised

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

The Opposition wrote:

Slaves could have been paid off, threatened, or had there writings forged. I'm just saying we cant overlook what might have been. We need to consider all possibilities.

That is a foolish unbased statement. Give me proof that HUNDREDS of slaves got paid off and I might change my oppinion about its stupidity.

Actually, a systematic analysis of the slave narratives has been written in the form of Paul Escott's Slavery Remembered, and he makes a point that most (if not all) interviews were conducted by white people (in what was still very much a racist society), and therefore the slaves may well have been cautious in expressing any negative emotions regarding their white owners.

Besides, of those slave narratives, only very few were outright positive about their masters. Also, I always like to keep in mind that the interviews were held over 60 years after the war. Only those who had a good enough health to survive were able to tell the tale; I fear that those who were treated worst never had the chance to partake in the interviews.

So, maybe the slaves were not bribed to say some favorable things, but the society they lived in might still have instilled in them a fear to speak out too loudly or too honestly.

The Opposition wrote:

did anyone know that slaves outnumbered the number of southerners? that says something..

The most common numbers I know is that out of the total of 9 million Southerners, 4 million were slaves. There were areas, or even states, where slaves outnumbered free people, however.

PCCalhoun wrote:

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

The Opposition wrote:

Slaves could have been paid off, threatened, or had there writings forged. I'm just saying we cant overlook what might have been. We need to consider all possibilities.

That is a foolish unbased statement. Give me proof that HUNDREDS of slaves got paid off and I might change my oppinion about its stupidity.

Actually, a systematic analysis of the slave narratives has been written in the form of Paul Escott's Slavery Remembered, and he makes a point that most (if not all) interviews were conducted by white people (in what was still very much a racist society), and therefore the slaves may well have been cautious in expressing any negative emotions regarding their white owners.

Besides, of those slave narratives, only very few were outright positive about their masters. Also, I always like to keep in mind that the interviews were held over 60 years after the war. Only those who had a good enough health to survive were able to tell the tale; I fear that those who were treated worst never had the chance to partake in the interviews.

So, maybe the slaves were not bribed to say some favorable things, but the society they lived in might still have instilled in them a fear to speak out too loudly or too honestly.

You're right.

And Stuart, I am STILL WAITING.

General Stuart wrote:

Oppie, if you're waiting for me to sit here and tell you that slavery is a wonderful institution that we should seriously consider re-instating.... don't hold your breath. Because I'm never going to come to that conclusion. However, as slavery applied to the United States prior to the Civil War, we can only consider how slavery was looked upon by the status quo, and similarly how the status quo looked upon the part slavery played in the Bible. This seemingly lame form of pacification was enough to keep such a practice as slavery stabilized for hundreds of years in America.

I hate how people used, and use, the Bible as a scapegoat for some many ubsurd ideas.