The Trump Presidency 2.0

[Devildoc]

Very few people actually owned slaves, but that part of the story never gets told.

That's the other side of the reparation argument that people ignore: slavery was a private and not government action. All those things that happened in WW2 were government sanctioned.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Ok - I'll bite - what is the Sushi angle here ?

If FDR didn't intern 150,000 Japanese it might have been common enough in the American life that they would have made this movie about Sushi instead of Chinese food. With Six You Get Eggroll - Wikipedia

But really, someone on the X the other day was like "why wasn't Sushi common before 2010". Well my friend, let's go down this dark path of racism that occurred during the great WWII. The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 provided reparations to survivors of internment camps, a check of $20,000 each. Fairly certain that's a decent chunk of change in 1988 but not enough to get your life back if you owned a home in the good part of town and a business. Because that check was 40 years late. Maybe it was helpful to those born in the camps.

 

[Topkick]

That's the other side of the reparation argument that people ignore: slavery was a private and not government action. All those things that happened in WW2 were government sanctioned.

The narrative has been pushed, generally, that all white people are responsible for slavery when in reality very few were for slavery and couldn't afford slaves anyway.

 

[ThunderHorse]

That becomes a sticky subject real quick, but over 90% of today's Black population (I've seen as high as 97% estimates) descend from slaves. They also have almost no chance of proving that slave status due to record keeping related to slavery.

I'm sympathetic to the genealogy aspect, but reparations? Hell no, I reject that one wholeheartedly.

Way too many Nigerians and Somalis in this country for it to be 97% unless we're talking about descending from slaves in Africa...

 

[Box]

Way too many Nigerians and Somalis in this country for it to be 97% unless we're talking about descending from slaves in Africa...

Closer to the truth is the possibility that THEIR descendants were the ones selling people to the Europeans...

 

[AWP]

Way too many Nigerians and Somalis in this country for it to be 97% unless we're talking about descending from slaves in Africa...

I've always thought it to be in 80-percent range, but can see 90-ish percent. I've never bought into the 97 percent number but I have seen it tossed around which is why its included. A problem historians get into is absent accurate records you'll see some very broad ranges when it comes to numbers. People killed in a war, a battle, a disease epidemic, etc. They become semi-educated guesses at that point because the data is so incomplete.

 

[The Quartermaster]

And yet certain populations want reparations on things that happened 200-300 years ago despite no evidence their family was involved at all.....

Selfish greed, not because it was an injustice. My family came from Europe way after they were freed here. Yet they insist that we too owe reparations. If that's their logic, then their logic is based on a very racist fallacy. Which to my eyes is the very proof we needed to see that they have no argument other than one based on lies, hate, and deceit.

 

[The Quartermaster]

If FDR didn't intern 150,000 Japanese it might have been common enough in the American life that they would have made this movie about Sushi instead of Chinese food. With Six You Get Eggroll - Wikipedia

But really, someone on the X the other day was like "why wasn't Sushi common before 2010". Well my friend, let's go down this dark path of racism that occurred during the great WWII. The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 provided reparations to survivors of internment camps, a check of $20,000 each. Fairly certain that's a decent chunk of change in 1988 but not enough to get your life back if you owned a home in the good part of town and a business. Because that check was 40 years late. Maybe it was helpful to those born in the camps.

One of my friend's is a descendent of. His family never cashed their check. Instead they had it framed along with the flags of their relatives who served for this nation during that time and afterwards.

 

[Topkick]

Selfish greed, not because it was an injustice. My family came from Europe way after they were freed here. Yet they insist that we too owe reparations. If that's their logic, then their logic is based on a very racist fallacy. Which to my eyes is the very proof we needed to see that they have no argument other than one based on lies, hate, and deceit.

Overall it was something like 3% of Americans owned slaves, but if only 1/4 of southerners owned slaves, I think an argument can be made that the civil war was not only about slavery. Yet, thats the narrative.

 

[AWP]

Overall it was something like 3% of Americans owned slaves, but if only 1/4 of southerners owned slaves, I think an argument can be made that the civil war was not only about slavery. Yet, thats the narrative.

The problem is when the states seceded, the "right" to own slaves was mentioned over and over, both in published and unpublished documents.
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

The declaration acts themselves usually do not mention slavery, but causes of the declaration in documents and speeches made by the governors almost always include maintaining slavery as a root cause. Where it gets ugly is that most Southerners did not own slaves, but they supported or accepted the practice, so even if the rich owned slaves and that was the published reason to go to war, it was accepted by the masses because of their financial ties to the practice.

And that gets into a real ugly argument among some, but one I support, which is slavery came down to simple economics. States right and slavery were secondary to making money and most Southerners made money directly or indirectly from slavery. The Lost Cause Myth turned it into a question of states' rights, steering it away from the root cause(s).

 

[DA SWO]

That becomes a sticky subject real quick, but over 90% of today's Black population (I've seen as high as 97% estimates) descend from slaves. They also have almost no chance of proving that slave status due to record keeping related to slavery.

I'm sympathetic to the genealogy aspect, but reparations? Hell no, I reject that one wholeheartedly.

IIRC they got reparations, 40 acres of land to every freed slave (I'm guessing male because the article didn't specify).

 

[Cookie_]

Overall it was something like 3% of Americans owned slaves, but if only 1/4 of southerners owned slaves, I think an argument can be made that the civil war was not only about slavery. Yet, thats the narrative.

The single digit percent number is counting people in States where slavery was illegal as well, which is why it's so low.

According to census data, about 1/3 of homes in the south had slaves, with most households having less than 20.

As @AWP said, you can make the case the war was really about economics, which is accurate. Then we gotta ask the followup question though.
What economic policy were they upset about? The economics of chattel slavery.

Most southerns didnt own slaves, but that's due to cost, not desire.

This Reddit thread on ask historians (great sub btw) goes a bit more in depth, including the economic questions.

IIRC they got reparations, 40 acres of land to every freed slave (I'm guessing male because the article didn't specify).

This is a misunderstanding of history. Sherman issued a field order saying some ~20,000 slaves in the Southeast be granted 40 acres and a mule. It was overruled by Andrew Jackson later that year.

They also have almost no chance of proving that slave status due to record keeping related to slavery.

Yup. We have records of the number of slaves, but thats only because they counted for population. Otherwise, they were basically considered farm animals, and nobody keeps geneaology of their chickens.

 

[Topkick]

The single digit percent number is counting people in States where slavery was illegal as well, which is why it's so low.

According to census data, about 1/3 of homes in the south had slaves, with most households having less than 20.

Can you post a link? Everything I read says 21-25 % of southern households owned slaves. I'm not challenging you, I just think with something so divisive as slavery, numbers matter. Also, how can you be so sure that all poor southerners desired to own slaves?

I realize that only about 2% of northerners had slaves, I'm not saying that slavery wasn't a reason for both sides, but freeing slaves was not the ONLY reason the north went to war either.

The point I was trying to make still stands. Even your numbers show that a low percentage of white people owned slaves, yet we are all racist and somehow responsible for what a few white people did centuries ago? Nope.

 

[ThunderHorse]

At least they bringing the same energy for Cesar Chavez that they brought for Robert E Lee.

 

[Devildoc]

The single digit percent number is counting people in States where slavery was illegal as well, which is why it's so low.

According to census data, about 1/3 of homes in the south had slaves, with most households having less than 20.

As @AWP said, you can make the case the war was really about economics, which is accurate. Then we gotta ask the followup question though.
What economic policy were they upset about? The economics of chattel slavery.

Most southerns didnt own slaves, but that's due to cost, not desire.

This Reddit thread on ask historians (great sub btw) goes a bit more in depth, including the economic questions.



This is a misunderstanding of history. Sherman issued a field order saying some ~20,000 slaves in the Southeast be granted 40 acres and a mule. It was overruled by Andrew Jackson later that year.



Yup. We have records of the number of slaves, but thats only because they counted for population. Otherwise, they were basically considered farm animals, and nobody keeps geneaology of their chickens.

I would absolutely challenge the assumption that 1/3 owned slaves. I don't think the economics or the demographics support that.

I also challenge the assumption that southerners wanted slaves but simply couldn't afford them. That would assume that most southerners had a need for the manpower (large farms and or/estates), whereas most had small farms or no farms (or what we would today call hobby farms, just enough to sustain the family).

I think popular media like to portray the South as having all these massive plantations, and that just isn't true.

Just a bit of trivia, my great-grandfather was 14 and was working as a tenant farmer, the owner of the farm sent him in his stead to fight in the war, where he lost a leg. A lot of "poor" White people filled the same role as slaves, but certainly paid and treated better (cheap labor as opposed to free labor).

 

[ThunderHorse]

I would absolutely challenge the assumption that 1/3 owned slaves. I don't think the economics or the demographics support that.

I also challenge the assumption that southerners wanted slaves but simply couldn't afford them. That would assume that most southerners had a need for the manpower (large farms and or/estates), whereas most had small farms or no farms (or what we would today call hobby farms, just enough to sustain the family).

I think popular media like to portray the South as having all these massive plantations, and that just isn't true.

Just a bit of trivia, my great-grandfather was 14 and was working as a tenant farmer, the owner of the farm sent him in his stead to fight in the war, where he lost a leg. A lot of "poor" White people filled the same role as slaves, but certainly paid and treated better (cheap labor as opposed to free labor).

Owning 1 slave made (you have to feed and cloth them, even poorly costs a lot of money) would put someone in the upper middle class. Owning a few would make that person rich. Anything more than a handful and you're landed gentry.

Now some folks leased and rented slaves from the wealthy people, but that is not the same as owning. Renting slaves in 1825 was essentially the same as renting a tractor in 1960.

 

[AWP]

Re: How many White Southerners owned slaves (and this speaks to a point I made about statistical ranges across history).

25%
American slavery: Separating fact from myth

Almost 33%.
Selected Statistics

5%
Project MUSE - Historians and the Extent of Slave Ownership in the Southern United States

21%
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w25700/w25700.pdf

Also, ownership rates varied depending on where you lived. That may seem like a "duh" kind of statement, but some states had higher percentages than others.

 

[Topkick]

IIRC they got reparations, 40 acres of land to every freed slave (I'm guessing male because the article didn't specify).

In todays money, 40 acres is worth a lot of cash just about anywhere.

 

[ThunderHorse]

The Republican Party is unserious. The Democrats only have the votes to stop this because the Republicans won't vote in lockstep. They're out there horse trading with liberals who want to destroy our country that will lead to pork in other bills.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2035341669097157112

 

[AWP]

People should just assume anything coming out of Atlanta is far Left propaganda. Anything approaching the center is an accident or omission by the media.