Did you know this about slavery?

[Jr.]

This has been a very good and thoughtful thread, but I can't let the last clause of your last sentence pass unchallenged, because it is totally inaccurate. I understand that is what you, your parents and your grandparents were taught in history class, but that does not make it true. It was a lie from the start and being passed from generation to generation does not make it the truth by the passing.

When the southern states seceded from the Union, Lincoln invaded the south with an army of several million to prevent it from establishing itself as an independent country. It was not about freeing slaves, but about the economic viability of the northern states without cheap southern cotton for the New England mills and free access up and down the Mississippi river without paying tariffs for good imported and exported that way.

Make no mistake about it, slavery was immoral and evil whether white or black. The "Civil War" only became about freeing slaves when the north soured on Lincoln's war and he needed a great moral crusade to keep them involved. Also do not make the mistake that Lincoln invaded the South to free slaves. That was not and never was what drove the man. That awful way was all about greed and money and very little else.

I do apologize and hope this does not cause this thread to take a tangent, but the false statement cannot be left to stand without challenge.

This ^^^^^ and the fact he violated the constitution claiming slaves as war property to get extra boots on the geound, and hinder the economy of the south.

[Col4570]

I'm 4th generation Irish. I know the day, boat and location where we came ashore. We fought on both sides of the Civil War, 4 on the Yankees and 2 on the Confederates. I have always said Irish were the first slaves and no, no one knows of this type of treatment. But I ll be honest, we, I dont like the Brits and what colonial Britain represents.

Oh thanks for that,your generalisation does,nt do anything to enhance your image.I detect an anti British air around many comments here by those unable to apply an historical aspect to a discussion.

[Col4570]

in 1807 William Wilberforce( British Parlimentarian) submitted and had accepted a bill to abolish Slavery in the British Colonies.1833 The Bill was accepted and applied banning slavery in the colonies and Britain.
1865 Slavery abolished in the USA at the end the Civil War.
Slavery continued in the undeveloped countries for many years and in fact has been found during present times.
Exploitation of workers although obnoxious cannot be described as slavery since victims have the ability to leave,although constrained by financial considerations.

[dakotashooter2]

Don't for get about the Aztec and Inca civilizations......or Egypt...... Every race has been subject to slavery at one time or another and risen above it...but one seems to be still crying in their milk about it.

[robg]

theres a book ,white gold, about the cosaiers that took whole villages from around the uk coast into slavery in north africa.didnt stop till us brits burnt their ships in the 1700s .

[gwpercle]

We are all slaves, the only thing that changes is your master.
" You may be a business man or some high degree thief
They may call you Doctor or they may call you Chief
But you're gonna have to serve somebody" Robert Zimmerman

My wife and kids are slaves to electronic devices that they carry everywhere and look at constantly...they serve the electronic master.

[Char-Gar]

I know nothing about how non-black slaves were treated but I suspect it was similar to black slaves. When we read material on slaves, we read about the horrible mistreatment by their master. This did occur for some sadistic Esso Bees did buy slaves, but on the main, they were treated fairly well. Slavery was a way of converting capital into labor and profit. Black slaves in America were very costly and people that had them didn't want them crippled or missing work. You would not buy an expensive piece of farm equipment and then beat it into uselessness with a club unless you had a screw loose.

Abuse of children and women continue today in record numbers because some men are just cruel and terrible people. These were the same men 150 years ago who abused slaves.

[MUSTANG]

In my youth I was taught (indoctrinated) to hold Lincoln in high esteem; but as I became older and started to educate myself through reading, research, and an open mind I came to realize that Lincoln is the great destroyer of the Republic. Examples include:

1. The forced conscription of Irish in the North East into the Union Army for cannon fodder who were impoverished, newly immigrated into the country, and despised by the locals.

2. Issuance of the "Emancipation Proclamation" which most today believe was the freeing of all slaves, but it actually only applied to the "Rebellious States"; and it specifically did not apply to Maryland whom the Union feared could also secede and join the Confederates.

3. The Union Army held and utilized slaves. The first I became aware of this was about 30 years ago when I was touring a Museum in Georgia. On display were some of the records of the Union Army, including Quarter Master records documenting about 20,000 Slaves (Black) that were used to mine Gold in Georgia for the Union in order to help pay for the war effort.

Many other examples available, but it does go to show how the issue of "Slavery" is massaged to achieve political objectives throughout time. Slavery is a terrible condition that persists and exists to this day in this old world. It inevitably is about the desire of some men (and women) to control the lives and outcome of others for personal gain and power.

[ErikO]

Even the Vikings took Irish slaves, in the ninth century I think.

Sort of. Vikings tended to bathe daily. Many of their slaves were women who did not wear fetters for some strange reason. Also, many ended up in Scandinavian families...

[Char-Gar]

In my youth I was taught (indoctrinated) to hold Lincoln in high esteem; but as I became older and started to educate myself through reading, research, and an open mind I came to realize that Lincoln is the great destroyer of the Republic. Examples include:

1. The forced conscription of Irish in the North East into the Union Army for cannon fodder who were impoverished, newly immigrated into the country, and despised by the locals.

2. Issuance of the "Emancipation Proclamation" which most today believe was the freeing of all slaves, but it actually only applied to the "Rebellious States"; and it specifically did not apply to Maryland whom the Union feared could also secede and join the Confederates.

3. The Union Army held and utilized slaves. The first I became aware of this was about 30 years ago when I was touring a Museum in Georgia. On display were some of the records of the Union Army, including Quarter Master records documenting about 20,000 Slaves (Black) that were used to mine Gold in Georgia for the Union in order to help pay for the war effort.

Many other examples available, but it does go to show hoe the issue of "Slavery" is massaged to achieve political objectives throughout time. Slavery is a terrible condition that persists and exists to this day in this old world. It inevitably is about the desire of some men (and women) to control the lives and outcome of others for personal gain and power.

You are not alone, as every child in this country since 1865 was taught in public schools a white washed and twisted version of Lincoln and the Civil War. 150 years later, this fable is accepted as true and folks will fight you tooth and nail if you try and dispute the myth. It has a hold on the minds in this country that seems unbreakable. It is true that if you tell a lie often enough and long enough it becomes the truth. The fact that one half of the country invaded and made war on the other half for economic interests of the rich and powerful in the top half, and that hundreds of thousands would be killed and many more crippled for life, is just not acceptable to the American mind. Much better to think it a great moral crusade to free slaves, for that is acceptable and seems worth the sacrifice.

We look askance at the countries of the Middle East who are taught a twisted version of their history. We do the same with Japan who still does not teach the truth about the war crimes of the Japanese Imperial Army. The people in Russia are not taught about the millions killed by Stalin, they know nothing of it. It is easy for us to see the lies and twisted histories that other countries tell to their people, but it is darn near impossible for us to see out own twisted history. We just can't consider the fact that we might have done and supported the doing of bad and evil things. The notion that the man on Mount Rushmore was nothing more than a venal and corrupt politician just can't be tolerated much less accepted.

To be fair, the people in the south were no more stricken with morals and altruism that the folks in the north. For all the talk about "States Rights" and such, the south seceded because they thought it was in their economic best interest. Jeff Davis is not on Mount Rushmore, but he doesn't belong their either.

Unbeknownst to both of them, Johnny Reb and Billy Yank were fighting for the same thing. They were killing each other to keep the rich and powerful...well...rich and powerful. If there was any difference, it was because the Confederate solider had "skin in the game". There was a foreign army coming down the pike toward his home, farm, wife and family. That is a big motivator.

[flyingmonkey35]

Fascinating

[thxmrgarand]

According to histories written at the time, when the US purchased Alaska from Russia the Americans exploring southeastern Alaska for the first time estimated that 60% of the Native population was slaves. The local Natives collected slaves from as far south as what is now California.

The last conventional slavery court case in the US was in 1926. It was an aboriginal slavery case in Sitka, AK.

[waynem34]

If I was born rich back then and I had a "slave".If i treated that slave half as well as I treat other tools.The slave would be kept well,Is what I'm thinking. After all they are human so don't think they won't cut you throat.

[Char-Gar]

After all they are human so don't think they won't cut you throat.

Do a little reading on Nate Turner for some black on white butchery. Although my best bet was he was mentally ill.

My Wife's GGGGrandfather was killed by his slaves. He had moved west into the frontier (Kentucky) as was clearing land, working along side of them. The blacks were afraid of Indians so they killed him, so they could move back to civilization. They claimed Indians had carried him off, but his dog lead them to his shallow grave. We don't know what happened to the blacks, but I expect they were done in pretty darn quick. Nobody would want them around. In addition to being murderous, they were not overly burdened with brains.

[dagger dog]

Some thoughts on the Brit's, they have stood beside their American cousins through 2 World wars and many of our police actions right up to the scuffle in the sand box, always by our right hand, right along with the Aussies, they have never failed to watch our backs !

[Char-Gar]

Some thoughts on the Brit's, they have stood beside their American cousins through 2 World wars and many of our police actions right up to the scuffle in the sand box, always by our right hand, right along with the Aussies, they have never failed to watch our backs !

Did they do so because they truly loved us or was it because of economic and security ties. Also, as I remember how that worked, we saved the Brits asses in those two aforementioned world wars. We went to help them, it was not they who came to our aid. The only two times they came over here, they were trying to kill us and make us subjects of the British Crown.

During the Civil War, the English favored the Confederate states and gave us all kinds of aid in the dark. They allowed the CSA Alabama the Confederate Raider to be built there and allowed us to buy many thousands of weapons including the 3 band Enfield musket. They wanted Confederate cotton and were playing both the black and the red.

[dagger dog]

"Did they do so because they truly loved us or was it because of economic and security ties"

No doubt the economies are so dependent on each other, if one falters the other will suffer. I think love is the wrong word for the mutual dependency, but rather they should be looked at as relatives.

Sorry that I left out the Canadians on the first post.

[peter72]

From an Australian's pov, a very interesting read. Particularly about Lincoln. If you asked some Aussies about Lincoln chances are theyve never heard of him but If they had they associate him with freeing of slaves.

Oh and I think it's only the yanks that think they saved Britains **** in the 2nd WW, Anyone else would agree the result was a forgone conclusion just the date brought forward. Not that I doubt the help wasnt needed nor appreciated.

Edit: the term Yank is applied to all citizens of the US , by us folk down Under in a non derogatory way.
Pete

[10x]

Even the Vikings took Irish slaves, in the ninth century I think.

The Vikings were the first tourists. They toured cathedrals and villages and took home souvieners. They even settled some areas they thought were especially charming.
They brought trade and commerce to many areas of Ireland and England and even left England with an early form of democracy.

.
The folks in Britain liked the Viking so much they would make yearly payments to them.
Even the monestaries gave subsidies and gifts to these new tourists... And there was great excitement and aticipation when Vikings were discovered to be landing on the coast.

Of course women would be enamoured with the strapping and handsome Vikings and the excitement of a new life in the North would be very attractive

[waksupi]

I had found quite a few accounts from slaves in the Smithsonian pages, recounting antebellum slavery. For the most part, they were treated very well, many receiving a portion of the money made on the work, and were treated as family.