Who cares?

The only thing to remember is that to those that remove history(then forget) are doomed to repeat it! Who were the south slavemasters(Just like todays illegal aliens pushers)? Demoncrap! Why do blacks support Demoncrap? That's the 64K dollar questions!! Smart blacks do not support Demoncrap because they can think for themselves.

"... as complaints rose about the song being a painful, racially insensitive reminder of the oppression of slavery."

Then Hollywood should stop making movies about slavery. (And no more Holocaust movies, either.)

And no more black entertainers. Every time I see a black entertainer I think about their great-great-grandmother being a slave and that's too painful.

Well, as for me

"I wish I was in the land o' cotton Old times there are not forgotten Look away, look away, look away Dixieland.

In Dixie land where I was born in early on one frosty mornin' Look away, look away, look away Dixieland.

Then I wish I was in Dixie, Away, away, In Dixie land I'll take my stand To live and die in Dixie Away,away away down South in Dixie Away, away, away down South in Dixie."

Well, ok, not that far South. Back on the old Wright Plantation, out on the Virginia Peninsula. That's the Southern root of my American story. If I can't live in Michigan (and I can't), then California But if I can't live in California (and I can't), then New England beside New York (the Northern root of my American story. That's where I have to live.

But if I can't live here, then out on the Virginia Peninsula - away, away, away (not all that far down) South, in Dixie.

Slavery was not a good thing. But the South is good. In fact, the South is wonderful.

And there's nothing wrong with pride about the performance of the Army of Northern Virginia, and the CSA Navy in the war. The Army of Northern Virginia achieved stunning feats of military prowess - that war should have been over the first year, the Union should have rolled over Virginia, but the Army of Northern Virginia stopped them cold, threw them back, surprised them time and time and time again. Absolutely masterful campaigning - like the Grande Armee in 1814: impossible odds, but twisting and turning left and right and driving back one superior army after another. Eventually the weight of numbers told their tale and Richmond, like Paris, fell. But military men for all time will study what the Army of Northern Virginia did, and Americans have every right to be proud of that legacy. The greatest military commanders in American history showed what an army can do if it is well-led and well- motivated, even if haphazardly supplied.

And the CSA Navy! In its short existence it was easily the most innovative and revolutionary in history. First Navy to put ironclads to sea - and tear apart a line of enemy ships. First Navy to sink an enemy ship using a submarine and an underwater torpedo. A handful of brave commerce raiders tore a huge hole in the enemy's maritime economy.

From a warrior's viewpoint, Southern valor is indisputable, and it is entirely appropriate that we name warships after Southern victories in the Civil War. They were, after all, won by Americans.

One cannot praise slavery or defend the institution, or the Jim Crow and segregation that followed. Those were bad, and the South is better off rid of them. But Southern pride? It's warranted.

Untangling pride in valor on the battlefield and the vicious racism of the years is tough, because those symbols of valor were expropriated by later generations to be explicit symbols of segregationism, it is far too much to expect Blacks to be sympathetic.

In the end, the right thing happened - slavery ended, segtegation ended, and all of us, Southerners included, are better for that. But we can still honor the valor, and we cannot deny the beauty of the South, or its friendliness.

Carry me back to Old Virginny, and nothin' could be finer than to be in Carolina in the mornin', with Georgia on my mind headed towards Sweet Home Alabama. (And though all my exes don't live in Texas, quite a few of them do).

Slavery was not a good thing.

You are a 100% correct. Slavery is the stealing the production of one and giving it to another without some kind of compensation. Such a welfare state.

The only thing to remember is that to those that remove history (then forget) are doomed to repeat it! Who were the south slavemasters (Just like todays illegal aliens pushers)?

The southern slave owners were wealthy land owners who could afford to own slaves. Slave ownership belonged to only about 6% of the slave state population.

Wealthy Blacks were slave owners, documented back to 1654 and on through the Civil War.

Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates may be best known for the "Beer Summit" with President Obama. He is a graduate of Yale Unitversity and serves as the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor and Director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University. Wikipedia link.

https://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436

Did Black People Own Slaves?

Henry Louis Gates Jr.
The Root
3/04/13 12:03am

[excerpt]

One of the most vexing questions in African-American history is whether free African Americans themselves owned slaves. The short answer to this question, as you might suspect, is yes, of course; some free black people in this country bought and sold other black people, and did so at least since 1654, continuing to do so right through the Civil War.

[...]

In a fascinating essay reviewing this controversy, R. Halliburton shows that free black people have owned slaves "in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery," at least since Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life.

And for a time, free black people could even "own" the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well. Free blacks owned slaves in Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783; by 1790, 48 black people in Maryland owned 143 slaves. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat Butler "regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade," Halliburton wrote.

And the CSA Navy! In its short existence it was easily the most innovative and revolutionary in history. First Navy to put ironclads to sea - and tear apart a line of enemy ships. First Navy to sink an enemy ship using a submarine and an underwater torpedo.

Three crews perished during the short history of the CSS Hunley. One original crew member of the CSS Hunley was Absolum Williams.

http://www.historynet.com/hunley-crewmen-found-december-1999-civil-war-times-feature.htm

Hunley Crewmen Found – December 1999 Civil War Times Feature

9/23/1999 • Civil War Times

Hunley Crewmen Found

BY SCHUYLER KROPF

Two of the South’s great loves–college football and the Confederacy–came together in July when archaeologists confirmed the discovery of four members of the submarine C.S.S. H.L. Hunley’s first crew buried beneath the Citadel’s football stadium in Charleston, South Carolina. The skeletal remains were found among two dozen other graves in a long-lost Confederate cemetery paved over and forgotten when 21,000-seat Johnson Hagood Stadium was built in 1948.

[...]

The recovery of the Hunley’s first crew is related to the continuing effort to raise and restore what is widely recognized as the world’s first successful attack sub. A team of divers funded by best-selling author Clive Cussler discovered the 40-foot, cigar-shaped vessel in 1995 about four miles off nearby Sullivan’s Island.

The sinking of the Hunley in August 1863 did not end the circle of tragedy that surrounded the sub. With Hunley, its inventor, in command, it sank a second time that October in the Cooper River. All hands were lost, including Hunley. After this second disaster, Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard was reluctant to use the sub ever again. “I can have nothing more to do with that submarine boat,” he swore at the time. “It’s more dangerous to those who use it than the enemy.”

On the night of February 17, 1864, however, the hand-cranked Hunley made history when it rammed a 90-pound black-powder charge fitted on a 20-foot spar into the hull of the blockader U.S.S. Housatonic. The Federal ship sank in three minutes with a loss of five men. The Hunley, with her commander, Lieutenant George Dixon, and his supporting crew of eight, were also lost when the sub sank during its return trip.

[snip]

https://www.fold3.com/page/640904518-absolum-williams

Service Record

Absalom Williams Confederate Service, Death and Burial, CSS H.L. Hunley Service:

Service records for A.(Absalom)Williams indicate that he enlisted in the Confederate Army on May 16, 1862 in Newberry, SC where he was born. He was a private in the 25th SCV Company H which was stationed around Charleston, SC. According to his service records, he was transferred to a gunboat (believed to be the CSS Palmetto State) by orders of General G.T. Beauregard on October 23, 1862. On April 16th, 1863 he was transferred back from the gunboat to the 25th SCV Co. H. Absalom Williams was again transferred back to the gunboat (CSS Palmetto State)on April 25, 1863. On August 12th the CSS Hunley arrived in Charleston, SC. after being transported by rail from Mobile, Alabama. The CSS Hunley was initially manned by non-miltary personnel employed by the owner in quest of a $100,000 bounty offered for sinking the blockading ship the USS Ironsides. After 12 days, the local military forces became impatient with the lack of offensive activity by the CSS Hunley and seized the vessel. By August 26, 1863, the CSS Hunley was staffed by Confederate Navy volunteers from the CSS Palmetto State and CSS Chicora, including Absalom Williams. On August 29, 1863, after having dived and surfaced several times around the harbor, Lt John Payne who now commanded the CSS Hunley, ordered the crew to make for the docks at Ft Johnson in Charleston Harbor. As the submarine approached the dock, she submerged suddenly with the hatches open plunging 40 feet to the bottom. Lt Payne and three others escaped the sinking vessel. Absalom Williams and four other crew members drowned. Lt Charles Hasker, who was one of the survivors, later wrote that the sinking was due to Lt Payne inadvertently stepping on the lever that controlled the fins while climbing through the manhole resulting in the submarine diving as it approached the dock. Lt Payne had planned for the CSS Hunley to make an evening attack on the Union blockade that same fateful day. The Confederate compiled service records for A. (Absalom) Williams end after April 1863, corroborating his death on 8/29/1863. In the Confederate Service Record card catalogue at the SC state archives in Columbia, SC the following notation was made for A. Williams:"Transferred to torpedo boat and lost in attempt to blow up USS Ironsides". This is clearly a link to Absalom's service on the CSS Hunley. The CSS Hunley was raised from the bottom of the harbor and the bodies of Absalom Williams and his fellow crew members were recovered from the submarine. They were hastily buried together in the Mariner's Cemetery in Charleston. In 1999, the remains of Absalom Williams and his crew members were uncovered during construction at Johnson Hagood Stadium. The crew members were reinterred in May 2000 at Magnolia Cemetery in Charleston, SC with full military honors.

Added by Lawdog2705 · August 14, 2015

http://www.afrigeneas.com/forum-military/index.cgi/md/read/id/6610/sbj/absolum-williams/

AfriGeneas Military Research Forum

Absolum Williams
By: Gail Williams Patterson
Date: 9/28/2015, 2:40 pm

Absolum Williams was the Grandson of a slave on Daniel T. Williams plantation in Newberry, SC. We believe he was called Jim. His Grandfather and Daniel T. Williams daughter, Sarah, had a child together, Sheppard Williams. Absolum was 19 when he died on the first test run of the CSS Hunley submarine.

Slavery is the stealing the production of one and giving it to another without some kind of compensation. Such a welfare state.

That's not slavery. If you think it is, if you think that you're a slave, then revolt! Or follow Jesus and render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.

One of the most vexing questions in African-American history is whether free African Americans themselves owned slaves. The short answer to this question, as you might suspect, is yes, of course; some free black people in this country bought and sold other black people, and did so at least since 1654, continuing to do so right through the Civil War.

n the 1839 Census, but there were 214 free blacks (out of 320,000 in the country) who owned slaves. Most of the cases in which free blacks owned black slaves were cases of benevolent ownership, whereby free blacks bought friends or family to protect them. After the 1840s, the manumission of slaves was prohibited, so the free black slaveowners who bought friends and relatives could not formally free them. Obviously this was not exploitative or economic slavery.

In French-speaking Louisiana there was a significant cultural difference from the rest of the South owing to both French culture and Catholicism. There, there was a lot more mixing of white slaveowners with black female slaves, sometimes leading to Catholic marriages. Marriage or not, often the mixed-race children were recognized by their fathers, which made them free, and eligible to own slaves. So in French Louisiana there truly was the sort of economic exploitative slavery of some mixed-race slave owners and black slaves, not the benevolent sort of black ownership described above.

So yes, among the approximately 385,000 slaveowners in the USA before the war, 214 of them were black, and among them, a handful of mixed-race French Catholics in Louisiana did indeed practice economic slavery. The rest of the black ownership of slaves elsewhere was of the benevolent protective type.

One half of one one thousandth of Southern slaveowners were blacks owning blacks, almost all of them technical owners of friends and family members to protect them from real slavery. A handful were real slaveowners in the exploitative sense.

Speaking of what happened in the British Colonial period is not relevant if one is speaking of the moral culpability of the United States, any more than one can speak of how relatively well the French treated in the Indians in the French Canadian Michigan territory that eventually became part of the United States. Different regime, different responsibility.

As a nation, America is responsible for what happened after 1776 in the lands that it controlled.

That some free blacks in the South (who constituted only 8% of the black population), used the form of slavery to try to protect their friends and relatives from slavery was a clever use of the law, not a moral fault. The only place where exploitative slave ownership of blacks by mixed-race black-white folks was Louisiana, and the numbers there were a few handfuls.

Not sure what that demonstrates, really. Slavery was bad. Some blacks used the slave law to help others evade real slavery by subterfuge. A few mixed-race people in one state in particular engaged in standard economically exploitative slavery.

If the point is to affix blame for slavery on the blacks, well, it's pretty thin beer, really pathetic, truth be told. Slavery was a white domination thing, not a black thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKIW8v4_HWw

As a son of old Virginia, I hear this song and feel the stirring of pride. As a son of Michigan, I hear this song and feel the stirring of irony.

Both sentiments are completely sincere, and incompatible. War is hell, and civil war is its own particularly hellish form of it.

Slavery had to go. Too bad it came to that.

When your mother and your father fight, you don't want one to kill the other. You want them to stop fighting.

I guess you might say conservatives and libertarians have been revolting for 50 years or more. Its gotten us no were.

The welfare state is just evil in everyway. It never accomplishes what it was said to do and only makes things worse. Welfare state is meant to keep poor people poor, keep middle class stagnate so to force the lower side on subsidies while making everything cost more and the real reason is to make the corrupt richer.

After the 1840s, the manumission of slaves was prohibited, so the free black slaveowners who bought friends and relatives could not formally free them.

This claim is without merit.

Dred Scott was emancipated (manumitted) in 1857. Slaves could and were emancipated/manumitted after the 1840s.

26 Saint Louis Circuit Court Record 263

Tuesday May 26th 1857

Taylor Blow, who is personally known to the court, comes into open court, and acknowledges the execution by him of a Deed of Emancipation to his slaves, Dred Scott, aged about forty eight years, of full negro blood and color, and Harriet Scott wife of said Dred, aged thirty nine years, also of full negro blood & color, and Eliza Scott a daughter of said Dred & Harriet, aged nineteen years of full negro color, and Lizzy Scott, also a daughter of said Dred & Harriet, aged ten years likewise of full negro blood & color.

This was shortly after Taylor Blow obtained ownership of his childhood companion Etheldred Scott by means of a quitclaim deed by then-owner Calvin Chaffee, an abolitionist congressman from Massachusetts.

http://hd.housedivided.dickinson.edu/node/347

New York Times, “Emancipation of Dred Scott and Family,” May 27, 1857

The following text is presented here in complete form, as it originally appeared in print. Spelling and other typographical errors have been preserved as in the original.

Emancipation of Dred Scott and Family.

ST. LOUIS, Tuesday May 26.

DRED SCOTT, with his wife and two daughters, were emancipated today by TAYLOR BLOW, Esq. They had all been conveyed to him by Mr. CHAFFE, of Massachusetts, for that purpose, as the law of this State on the subject requires, that the emancipation shall be performed by a citizen of Missouri. ...

Most of the cases in which free blacks owned black slaves were cases of benevolent ownership, whereby free blacks bought friends or family to protect them. ...

That some free blacks in the South (who constituted only 8% of the black population), used the form of slavery to try to protect their friends and relatives from slavery was a clever use of the law, not a moral fault. The only place where exploitative slave ownership of blacks by mixed-race black-white folks was Louisiana, and the numbers there were a few handfuls. ...

A few mixed-race people in one state in particular engaged in standard economically exploitative slavery.

These claims are unsupported and unsupportable.

There were a large (about 42%) percentage of Black slave owners who owned one slave for benevolent purposes. There were Black slave owners who owned a large quantity of slaves, and this was not for benevolent purposes.

Exploitative slave ownership by Blacks is documented as fact outside of Louisiana. or the deep South in measures beyond any mere handful.

As Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. wrote, quoting John Hope Franklin,

"The great African-American historian, John Hope Franklin, "states this clearly: "The majority of Negro owners of slaves had some personal interest in their property." But, he admits, "There were instances, however, in which free Negroes had a real economic interest in the institution of slavery and held slaves in order to improve their economic status."

Dr. Gates also noted, quoting Joel A. Rogers frojm his book, 100 Amazing Facts About the Negro, "The Negro slave-holders, like the white ones, fought to keep their chattels in the Civil War." Rogers also notes that some black men, including those in New Orleans at the outbreak of the War, "fought to perpetuate slavery."

Also noted by Dr. Gates,

Halliburton concludes, after examining the evidence, that "it would be a serious mistake to automatically assume that free blacks owned their spouse or children only for benevolent purposes." Woodson himself notes that a "small number of slaves, however, does not always signify benevolence on the part of the owner." And John Hope Franklin notes that in North Carolina, "Without doubt, there were those who possessed slaves for the purpose of advancing their [own] well-being … these Negro slaveholders were more interested in making their farms or carpenter-shops 'pay' than they were in treating their slaves humanely." For these black slaveholders, he concludes, "there was some effort to conform to the pattern established by the dominant slaveholding group within the State in the effort to elevate themselves to a position of respect and privilege." In other words, most black slave owners probably owned family members to protect them, but far too many turned to slavery to exploit the labor of other black people for profit.

The amount of investment value and the number of slaves involved practically dictates that there were a number of cases where Black slave ownership was pursued for economic status. A number of cases are cited with ownership of over 50 slaves, and some of over 100 slaves. To put this in perspective, again quoting Dr. Gates,

William Ellison's fascinating story is told by Michael Johnson and James L. Roark in their book, Black Masters: A Free Family of Color in the Old South. At his death on the eve of the Civil War, Ellison was wealthier than nine out of 10 white people in South Carolina. He was born in 1790 as a slave on a plantation in the Fairfield District of the state, far up country from Charleston. In 1816, at the age of 26, he bought his own freedom, and soon bought his wife and their child. In 1822, he opened his own cotton gin, and soon became quite wealthy. By his death in 1860, he owned 900 acres of land and 63 slaves. Not one of his slaves was allowed to purchase his or her own freedom.

Also:

According to Johnson and Roark, the wealthiest black person in Charleston, S.C., in 1860 was Maria Weston, who owned 14 slaves and property valued at more than $40,000, at a time when the average white man earned about $100 a year. (The city's largest black slaveholders, though, were Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, both of whom owned 84 slaves.)

[underscore added.]

Also:

These men and women, from William Stanly to Madame Ciprien Ricard, were among the largest free Negro slaveholders, and their motivations were neither benevolent nor philanthropic. One would be hard-pressed to account for their ownership of such large numbers of slaves except as avaricious, rapacious, acquisitive and predatory. But lest we romanticize all of those small black slave owners who ostensibly purchased family members only for humanitarian reasons, even in these cases the evidence can be problematic. Halliburton, citing examples from an essay in the North American Review by Calvin Wilson in 1905, presents some hair-raising challenges to the idea that black people who owned their own family members always treated them well:

"A free black in Trimble County, Kentucky, " … sold his own son and daughter South, one for $1,000, the other for $1,200." … A Maryland father sold his slave children in order to purchase his wife. A Columbus, Georgia, black woman -- Dilsey Pope -- owned her husband. "He offended her in some way and she sold him … "

As Dr. Gates concluded, "given the long history of class divisions in the black community, which Martin R. Delany as early as the 1850s described as 'a nation within a nation,' and given the role of African elites in the long history of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, perhaps we should not be surprised that we can find examples throughout black history of just about every sort of human behavior, from the most noble to the most heinous, that we find in any other people's history." [underscore added]

[Justified #1] The only thing to remember is that to those that remove history (then forget) are doomed to repeat it! Who were the south slavemasters (Just like todays illegal aliens pushers)?

[Vicomte13 #10] If the point is to affix blame for slavery on the blacks, well, it's pretty thin beer, really pathetic, truth be told. Slavery was a white domination thing, not a black thing.

If the point were remotely to affix blame for slavery on blacks, you might have a point. It was clearly in response to the quote from #1 about removal of history and who were the south slavemasters. About 6% of white southerners owned slaves. About 94% did not, and the vast majority could not afford to own slaves.

Slaves were owned by whites, blacks and indians. They were owned North and South.

Speaking of what happened in the British Colonial period is not relevant if one is speaking of the moral culpability of the United States....

Of course it is relevant, and should include French and Dutch colonialism, and the Portuguese slave trade of the colonial era. With your focus on Louisiana, recall that slavery there was the result of French colonialism which persisted well after British colonialism in America. The slaves did not walk across the water to get here, and the United States government did not exist at the time millions were transported here. The problem was created and left behind by the colonial powers. That cannot be edited out of history as irrelevant.

The Act Prohibiting the Importation of Slaves (2 Stat. 426 of March 2, 1807) was effective in 1808, less than 20 years after the government under the U.S. Constitution was formed in 1889. That addressed the problem of the importation of more slaves, but they had no agreeable solution as to what to do with the millions of existing slaves. Blacks laws in the North resulted in the life expectancy of blacks in the North being less than that of the free blacks in the South.

Gradual emancipation in the North did not emancipate many. On paper, it emancipated slaves at a future date. The reality is that it created a very strong incentive to move or sell one's slave investment South. After the North had more or less succeeded in ethnically cleansing itself, it was ready to free the slaves that it had sold and no longer owned, but to keep them out their back yard with their harsh black laws.

Any Southern ideas of abolition involved exporting the freed slaves to the territories. Even as the Civil War approached, that conflicted with Lincoln's White Dream for the territories.

Sustain these men and negro equality will be abundant, as every white laborer will have occasion to regret when he is elbowed from his plow or his anvil by slave n------.

Lincoln, August 31, 1858, Carlinville, Illinois, CW 3:78 [Lincoln uses the plural N-word without elision]

Is it not rather our duty [as White men] to make labor more respectable by preventing all black competition, especially in the territories?

Lincoln, August 31, 1858, Carlinville, Illinois, CW 3:79

The nation never really addressed and solved the problem of what to do with the slaves if or when they were freed. The U.S. Army solved the problem of freeing them, but the newly freed slaves were pretty much left to their own devices to figure out what to do from there.

This claim is without merit.

Go through the laws of the slave states. You will discover that manumission was largely barred.

Slaves were owned by whites, blacks and indians. They were owned North and South.

Under the British and in the early American Republic, yes, but pretty rapidly the practice ended in the northern states and was pushed down into the South, where they would not give up the practice.

Sure, there were some black and Indian slaveholders. 384,800 white slaveholders, and 214 black or part-black ones. The blacks didn't impose it, and they didn't secede to maintain it.

Northern whites were bigots? Of course lots were, and are. The worst race riot in American history was in Detroit, not the South. Watts and South Central are in LA, not the South.

That's really beside the point. The South was agitated to secede, and did secede, to preserve and extend the institution of black slavery. And that was evil. Obviously.

Nothing more really needs to be said about it. They did it. It was bad, They lost. And slavery is done. Good riddance.

I'm not sure what you're trying to defend by your argument. That there existed a few dozen, a few hundred, of blacks and half-whites in an ocean of otherwise white American Southern slaveholders? Of course. So what? There were Jews who cooperated in the Holocaust too.

That doesn't change anything. Slavery was bad. Dixie fought to preserve it. And lost, with great loss of life and destruction. And that's really too bad. But it is what it is. You can't take the taint of slavery off of Dixie by pointing out that Northern whites were, and are still, many of them, racists. Lots of Americans were anti-Semitic in World War II also - doesn't mean they were culpable for the Holocaust. When the war came, they fought on the right side.

So, what is it that you want us to see, exactly? That there were some (not many, but some) black slaveholders buried in the mass of Southern slaveholders? Sure. ok. So what? That doesn't make the institution of slavery any less reprehensible. It doesn't mean that the blacks, writ large, were responsible for their own enslavement. It doesn't mean that the South was right. It means simply what we all know: Individual men will take their opportunities where they find them.

As far as taking the magesterial tone about manumission, you're engaging in deception. Go through the laws of the Southern states in the decade before the war. Almost all of them prohibited it. Get up to the Border states, where there were not many slaves to begin with, and you might find more laxity.

I really don't know why anybody would put such energy and passion into what you're doing here. You're not "setting the record straight". Your comments about manumission seek to obscure it. Why? Your "them too" comment about blacks holding slaves, and your resolute refusal to acknowledge that the great bulk of the few who did did so for benevoient reasons - to protect friends and family FROM chattel slavery using the only institution that could do that, in a world where manumission was, in fact, mostly illegal.

You're not "setting the record strate", you're obfuscating in order to protect something, something that is long dead and does not need protecting. Why do this?

You have a good legal mind. But you don't flatter yourself trying to defend the indefensible. It reminds me of those contrarian kids back in history class who tried to defend the German side in the World Wars, except that you're not a kid, so unfortunately it starts to resemble those mature adults who try to defend the German side in World War II. Why do that?

You're defending the indefensible. Slavery was really bad. dependence on it hurt the development of the South, fighting to preserve full rights to do it resulted in the devastation of the South, and the bitter racial legacy of slavery and segregation still haunt us. It's why Barack Obama was elected President.

What, then are you hoping to accomplish by putting your legal mind to this subject in this way? You're not standing up for the truth - you're obscuring the truth by pretending that a barely existent side practice was a norm, you're denying the anti-manumission laws that governed most of Dixie. You're smart enough to know better too, but you're still pressing ahead.

It's almost as if you don't want to admit our Southern sin - that's what slavery and segregation were: the great sin of the South. That it happened in the North doesn't matter. The Northerners stopped it, but we didn't (I speak here as the heir of Virginia plantation owners and CSA cavalry officers). Their sins of racism they're accountable for, but that does not excuse our willingness to fight to the death to preserve the "State's Rights"...to preserve and extend slavery. And then to refuse to accept the result and fight for the next century to keep the blacks down.

We all have our sins. Northerners, Southerners, English, French, Protestants and Catholics. We're all sinners. It doesn't do us or our ancestors any good to pretend they didn't, or to try to obfuscate or obscure the magnitude of it. The South seceded over slavery. We shouldn't have. We fought very bravely and, in Virginia anyway, intelligently. We gave the Union forces hell. But we lost. And in the bigger picture of things, that was for the best. We lost, slavery ended - by force because it could not be ended by peaceful politics. And we are all, Northern and Southern, Black and White, better for that. Poor and Middle class Southern Whites are better for it: who can compete with free labor?

This is the very problem of illegal immigration today? And the same sort of folks that stood so strongly for slavery, stand strongly for open borders for cheap labor, for the same reasons: personal profit.

I don't say you're standing for slavery. You're not. But you're trying to give moral cover to it. "Blacks did it too!" So what? Blacks and whites are people. And blacks pay taxes for the social welfare necessary today to continue to try to pull up the impoverishment that remains the overhang of harsh segregation - legal and economic - in our lifetimes, or at least in mine.

My advice: rethink what you are doing. Don't out your legal mind to the task of morally exonerating the slaveholders or the Old South, or the Germans in their distempers. It's a fools errand that will diminish you, because it will force you to obfuscate the decisive truths that render the position you're trying to cover for morally indefensible. In other words: the game ain't worth the candle. Out that mind to use defending something else. Old Dixie is dead. She doesn't need protection anymore.

Whitey will just have to stop buying tickets to the games.Fire the school board!

The worst race riot in American history was in Detroit, not the South.

The worst race riot in American history was in New York city in 1863 an caused the U.S. Army to reroute from Gettysburg to NYC and the U.S. Navy to shell downtown NYC. Blacks were hanged from the lamp posts, giving rise to the expression strange fruit.

Go through the laws of the slave states. You will discover that manumission was largely barred.

Do it yourself. I am not your legal secretary.

You are the one who claimed "After the 1840s, the manumission of slaves was prohibited, so the free black slaveowners who bought friends and relatives could not formally free them." Was your assertion true or false?

I presented documentation of the manumission of Dred Scott in 1857, an impossibility under your thesis.

I presented documentation of the manumission of Dred Scott in 1857, an impossibility under your thesis.

My thesis? My thesis is that slavery and segregation are black marks on the South, but that the South is nevertheless a great place. That was true, and still is.

You decided to take up the cause of "blacks had slaves!" , a strange diversion.

Now you seem dug in on the idea that manumission was possible somewhere, so therefore it wasn't an issue.

And you're doing so with the sort of aggression in your approach that makes enemies, that makes people remember it, makes them think "Ok, that guy is closeted racist".

Not sure why it was necessary to do any of that on your part. Pretty sure I'm not interested in continuing.

Pick your fights better.

You decided to take up the cause of "blacks had slaves!" , a strange diversion.

Your imaginary nonsense is amusing.

Now you seem dug in on the idea that manumission was possible somewhere, so therefore it wasn't an issue.

You claimed that "After the 1840s, the manumission of slaves was prohibited, so the free black slaveowners who bought friends and relatives could not formally free them."

My post was not to you, and was in response to "The only thing to remember is that to those that remove history (then forget) are doomed to repeat it! Who were the south slavemasters," asked by Justified.

The words you quote back at #10 were stated by Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr., a graduate of Yale Unitversity and serves as the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor and Director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University:

One of the most vexing questions in African-American history is whether free African Americans themselves owned slaves. The short answer to this question, as you might suspect, is yes, of course; some free black people in this country bought and sold other black people, and did so at least since 1654, continuing to do so right through the Civil War.

You did not quote a mumbling word of mine.

As documented, the owners of slaves included Blacks. It also included Indians. It is a fact of history. Get over yourself and your religious and French snobbery.

Who were the slaveowners? It was more than a bunch of southern white sinners committing the Great Sin.

#7. To: Justified (#1)

The only thing to remember is that to those that remove history (then forget) are doomed to repeat it! Who were the south slavemasters (Just like todays illegal aliens pushers)?

The southern slave owners were wealthy land owners who could afford to own slaves. Slave ownership belonged to only about 6% of the slave state population.

Wealthy Blacks were slave owners, documented back to 1654 and on through the Civil War.

Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates may be best known for the "Beer Summit" with President Obama. He is a graduate of Yale Unitversity and serves as the Alphonse Fletcher University Professor and Director of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research at Harvard University. Wikipedia link.

https://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436

Did Black People Own Slaves?

Henry Louis Gates Jr.
The Root
3/04/13 12:03am

[excerpt]

One of the most vexing questions in African-American history is whether free African Americans themselves owned slaves. The short answer to this question, as you might suspect, is yes, of course; some free black people in this country bought and sold other black people, and did so at least since 1654, continuing to do so right through the Civil War.

[...]

In a fascinating essay reviewing this controversy, R. Halliburton shows that free black people have owned slaves "in each of the thirteen original states and later in every state that countenanced slavery," at least since Anthony Johnson and his wife Mary went to court in Virginia in 1654 to obtain the services of their indentured servant, a black man, John Castor, for life.

And for a time, free black people could even "own" the services of white indentured servants in Virginia as well. Free blacks owned slaves in Boston by 1724 and in Connecticut by 1783; by 1790, 48 black people in Maryland owned 143 slaves. One particularly notorious black Maryland farmer named Nat Butler "regularly purchased and sold Negroes for the Southern trade," Halliburton wrote.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-09-01   17:17:18 ET

- - - - - - - - - -

And you're doing so with the sort of aggression in your approach that makes enemies, that makes people remember it, makes them think "Ok, that guy is closeted racist".

The holier than thou crap you continually fall back on is just crap.

Take your closeted racist shit and stuff it.

And try not to make any more damn fool statements as at #10:

The only place where exploitative slave ownership of blacks by mixed-race black-white folks was Louisiana, and the numbers there were a few handfuls.

Dr. Gates gave plenty of examples that were not from Louisiana.

The South was agitated to secede, and did secede, to preserve and extend the institution of black slavery. And that was evil. Obviously.

Nothing more really needs to be said about it. They did it. It was bad, They lost. And slavery is done. Good riddance.

[...]

Slavery was bad. Dixie fought to preserve it. And lost, with great loss of life and destruction. And that's really too bad.

I know you can say slavery is bad, as it is your fallback position on many subjects. This thread is not about whether slavery was good or bad, but for the record is was bad.

Rewriting history is also bad. Very bad.

Go through the laws of the Southern states in the decade before the war. Almost all of them prohibited it.

I am not your legal secretary. Do it yourself. You are the one who claimed "After the 1840s, the manumission of slaves was prohibited, so the free black slaveowners who bought friends and relatives could not formally free them." Was your assertion true or false? I presented documentation of the manumission of Dred Scott in 1857. How did you not know of Dred Scott?

your resolute refusal to acknowledge that the great bulk of the few who did did so for benevolent reasons

The facts are undeniable that the vast bulk of the slaves held in servitude by other Blacks was not for benevolent reasons. The relevant statistic is the percentage of slaves held in non-benevolent ownership, not the percentage of owners who so held slaves.

42% of Black slaveholders owned one (1) slave. Other black slaveholders owned over 100 slaves. The vast bulk of black slave owners were benevolent, the slaves held in bulk were not benevolent charity cases.

You paint the history with no sources, while I have sourced to a noted African-American Harvard history professor, and other noted African-American historians he cited, and made the article readily available. Your unsourced history rather comes out like a glowing biography of Abraham Lincoln, of which there are thousands. The shortest list of such books in the world is comprised of such glowing revisions of history written by African-American authors.

You're not "setting the record strate"

You cannot set anything "strate" with demonstrably false statements. Who were you "quoting?"

You're defending the indefensible. Slavery was really bad.

Beating your dog is indefensible. Beating your dog is really bad.

Defending slavery is not at issue, despite your desperrate attempts to make is so.

I am defending history and correcting your horribly skewed version of it.

You're not standing up for the truth - you're obscuring the truth by pretending that a barely existent side practice was a norm, you're denying the anti-manumission laws that governed most of Dixie.

I have not pretended that anything was a norm.

It's almost as if you don't want to admit our Southern sin - that's what slavery and segregation were: the great sin of the South. That it happened in the North doesn't matter.

6% of the Southerners owned slaves. 94% did not. For them, slaves were labor competition. The war was not to end slavery. Wars are fought over power and money. At the outset, the war was marketed as one to preserve the Union. It did not become about slavery until another marketing campaign was needed a couple of years later.

The major slave importers were the Northern states, particularly Rhode Island with the Portuguese slave traders.

Slavery in the South was legal and protected by the Constitution which was agreed to by all the members states, North and South. The North discovered a cheaper and better way to exploit labor.

They worked for the company, lived in company dorms, and spent what little they were paid at the company store. When their labor was used up, they were disposable.

We all have our sins. Northerners, Southerners, English, French, Protestants and Catholics. We're all sinners.

Not this shit again.

God did not rewrite or revise history. God does not takes sides in wars or football games.

God did not transport free men out of Africa to be sold as slaves. If the French had only fought on one side of the war, it could have concluded in a week with the French surrender.

In the more virtuous Land O' Lincoln, they had a more virtuous approach to dealing with unwanted competition. They put it in their State constitution.

Article XIV of the Illinois State Constitution adopted in 1848 stated:

The General Assembly shall at its first session under the amended constitution pass such laws as will effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state, and to effectually prevent the owners of slaves from bringing them into this state, for the purpose of setting them free."

We gave the Union forces hell. But we lost.

My origin is in the South. The south Bronx. We won.

Poor and Middle class Southern Whites are better for it: who can compete with free labor?

We agree on something. 94% of southerners did not own slaves and were compteting with slave labor. On the other hand, that undercuts your argument that those 94% fought a war to keep the free slave labor.

I don't say you're standing for slavery. You're not. But you're trying to give moral cover to it.

And I did not say you're standing for beating your dog. You're not. But you are trying to give moral cover to beating your dog.

Well, gee, big thanks for noting that I do not stand for slavery. But I am not giving any moral cover for slavery either.

"Blacks did it too!" So what?

It is part of history. Deal with it. Don't attempt to edit it out. Remember all of history, not just the parts that you selectively choose. It was wrong when anybody did it. Remember them all rather than selectively editing to select sinners and saints.

My advice: rethink what you are doing.

My advice: don't make further attempts to feed me ahistorical bullshit, like,

The only place where exploitative slave ownership of blacks by mixed-race black-white folks was Louisiana, and the numbers there were a few handfuls.

Dr. Gates gave plenty of examples that were not from Louisiana. The world does not revolve around France and Louisiana.

God does not takes sides in wars or football games.

Of course he does.