No, Slaves Didn't Build This Country

[ptif219]

The key word is opinions, not facts.

As always you are wrong

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Sheet wearing morons thinking that their limited view of the world through those pointy hoods is the final word. Sadly for them, it isn't:

Deeper Roots of Northern Slavery Unearthed
An investigation has revealed that one of Colonial New England’s most aristocratic families participated in the slave trade.
CHRISTOPHER KLEINUPDATED:FEB 5, 2019ORIGINAL:JUN 25, 2014


https://www.history.com/news/deeper-...very-unearthed

African American Slavery in the Colonial Era, 1619-1775


In general, the conditions of slavery in the northern colonies, where slaves were engaged more in nonagricultural pursuits (such as mining, maritime, and domestic work), were less severe and harsh than in the southern colonies, where most were used on plantations. Also there could be found in the northern colonies several influential religious groups that had moral precepts that encouraged them to practice a more benign form of slavery.

https://www.njstatelib.org/research_...l_era_slavery/

The slave owners were the democrats in the south. The truth is a small percentage of the population owned slaves

No shit, Sherlock. Doesn't change the FACTS of the links that contradicts one of the bigoted parroting of your compadre. The "truth" is that without a century or so of slave labor, the 13 colonies and beyond wouldn't have evolved into the USA. Pity you and your ilk insist on your fantasy.

Oh, and you might want to educate yourself on the "Southern Strategy" that flipped the racial ideology of the Dems and the GOP over the decades (or deny it, as you jokers are want to do).

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Saying slaves built America is like saying slaves built the pyramids in Egypt. Neither is true. Free labor, much of it skilled, built America, just as in Egypt the same was true of pyramid or temple construction...

 

[Taichiliberal]

Saying slaves built America is like saying slaves built the pyramids in Egypt. Neither is true. Free labor, much of it skilled, built America, just as in Egypt the same was true of pyramid or temple construction...

Oh yeah, there was NO slave labor in Egypt....Hebrews and Ethiopians all volunteered and were PAID decent wages, given decent hours along with the Egyptian citizenry.



Post #59, folks. See, I told ya so.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

No shit, Sherlock. Doesn't change the FACTS of the links that contradicts one of the bigoted parroting of your compadre. The "truth" is that without a century or so of slave labor, the 13 colonies and beyond wouldn't have evolved into the USA. Pity you and your ilk insist on your fantasy.

Oh, and you might want to educate yourself on the "Southern Strategy" that flipped the racial ideology of the Dems and the GOP over the decades (or deny it, as you jokers are want to do).

Actually, they still would have without a single slave in America. The primary use for slaves in the US and elsewhere were in resource extraction and agribusiness. In the South, the majority of slaves were held by what today would be called "Agribusiness corporations." These today would be companies like Archer-Daniels Midland, Tyson Foods, and the like. At the time, these companies produced crops that were mainly for industrial export like cotton or sugar cane.

Using slaves was simply a cheap, available, expedient for them to maximize their profits. This is why the South languished far behind the North in terms of industry, business, wealth, and infrastructure. Agribusiness didn't need it and what profits they made were largely exported elsewhere. That is, the factory farm was in the South producing, say cotton, but the real owners were living in England and owned textile mills there. That's how things were.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Oh yeah, there was NO slave labor in Egypt....Hebrews and Ethiopians all volunteered and were PAID decent wages, given decent hours along with the Egyptian citizenry.



Post #59, folks. See, I told ya so.

I didn't say that. I stated a specific end use. Slaves weren't used to build temples and pyramids. That work went to skilled craftsmen and semi-skilled labor, like teams of men that were highly practiced and skilled in moving and setting huge stones.

 

[ptif219]

No shit, Sherlock. Doesn't change the FACTS of the links that contradicts one of the bigoted parroting of your compadre. The "truth" is that without a century or so of slave labor, the 13 colonies and beyond wouldn't have evolved into the USA. Pity you and your ilk insist on your fantasy.

Oh, and you might want to educate yourself on the "Southern Strategy" that flipped the racial ideology of the Dems and the GOP over the decades (or deny it, as you jokers are want to do).

That is the point. The democrats need of slave labor had little effect on the other 80% of tyhe country not affected by slave labor

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Oh yeah, there was NO slave labor in Egypt....Hebrews and Ethiopians all volunteered and were PAID decent wages, given decent hours along with the Egyptian citizenry.



Post #59, folks. See, I told ya so.



I didn't say that. I stated a specific end use. Slaves weren't used to build temples and pyramids. That work went to skilled craftsmen and semi-skilled labor, like teams of men that were highly practiced and skilled in moving and setting huge stones.

Your revisionism is solely based on your willful and general ignorance of any subject that involves racial discrimination on any level. Yes, Hawass essentially let his Egyptian ancestors off the hook...despite the dubious theoretics as to how exactly were the pyramids built and a LOT of theorizing built on the evidence of just two tombs. But what YOU do here regarding American slavery in an attempted comparison puts Hawass to shame. YOU just want to ignore ANY history that contradicts your revisionist rhetoric. Then you just parrot the SOS. Carry on.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Your revisionism is solely based on your willful and general ignorance of any subject that involves racial discrimination on any level. Yes, Hawass essentially let his Egyptian ancestors off the hook...despite the dubious theoretics as to how exactly were the pyramids built and a LOT of theorizing built on the evidence of just two tombs. But what YOU do here regarding American slavery in an attempted comparison puts Hawass to shame. YOU just want to ignore ANY history that contradicts your revisionist rhetoric. Then you just parrot the SOS. Carry on.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Your revisionism is solely based on your willful and general ignorance of any subject that involves racial discrimination on any level. Yes, Hawass essentially let his Egyptian ancestors off the hook...despite the dubious theoretics as to how exactly were the pyramids built and a LOT of theorizing built on the evidence of just two tombs. But what YOU do here regarding American slavery in an attempted comparison puts Hawass to shame. YOU just want to ignore ANY history that contradicts your revisionist rhetoric. Then you just parrot the SOS. Carry on.

Well, your bullshit there is without basis. What is your alternative theory on why the American colonies needed slaves?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
No shit, Sherlock. Doesn't change the FACTS of the links that contradicts one of the bigoted parroting of your compadre. The "truth" is that without a century or so of slave labor, the 13 colonies and beyond wouldn't have evolved into the USA. Pity you and your ilk insist on your fantasy.

Oh, and you might want to educate yourself on the "Southern Strategy" that flipped the racial ideology of the Dems and the GOP over the decades (or deny it, as you jokers are want to do).

Actually, they still would have without a single slave in America. The primary use for slaves in the US and elsewhere were in resource extraction and agribusiness. In the South, the majority of slaves were held by what today would be called "Agribusiness corporations." These today would be companies like Archer-Daniels Midland, Tyson Foods, and the like. At the time, these companies produced crops that were mainly for industrial export like cotton or sugar cane.

Using slaves was simply a cheap, available, expedient for them to maximize their profits. This is why the South languished far behind the North in terms of industry, business, wealth, and infrastructure. Agribusiness didn't need it and what profits they made were largely exported elsewhere. That is, the factory farm was in the South producing, say cotton, but the real owners were living in England and owned textile mills there. That's how things were.

Once again, you hood wearing hacks keep trying to pass off your supposition and conjecture coupled with your revisionist blather as logic and fact.

Once again, you fail.

Your screed is chock full of "would have, could have, might have, should have" blather.....totally worthless in a discussion of a valid, documented historical FACTS, as I've laid out.

But being the insipidly stubborn sheet wearing MAGA wonk that you are, you'll just keep regurgitating the SOS. Carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Your revisionism is solely based on your willful and general ignorance of any subject that involves racial discrimination on any level. Yes, Hawass essentially let his Egyptian ancestors off the hook...despite the dubious theoretics as to how exactly were the pyramids built and a LOT of theorizing built on the evidence of just two tombs. But what YOU do here regarding American slavery in an attempted comparison puts Hawass to shame. YOU just want to ignore ANY history that contradicts your revisionist rhetoric. Then you just parrot the SOS. Carry on.

Well, your bullshit there is without basis. What is your alternative theory on why the American colonies needed slaves?

The chronology of the posts clearly shows my providing links to valid sources that document historical records that disproves the subject title of this thread. You and your idiot compadres just want to pretend that doesn't exist....you can't in a printed medium. But you're just too dim and stubborn to acknowledge that.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
No shit, Sherlock. Doesn't change the FACTS of the links that contradicts one of the bigoted parroting of your compadre. The "truth" is that without a century or so of slave labor, the 13 colonies and beyond wouldn't have evolved into the USA. Pity you and your ilk insist on your fantasy.

Oh, and you might want to educate yourself on the "Southern Strategy" that flipped the racial ideology of the Dems and the GOP over the decades (or deny it, as you jokers are want to do).

That is the point. The democrats need of slave labor had little effect on the other 80% of tyhe country not affected by slave labor

Is this what you teach your kids or what was taught to you? No wonder you come off as willfully fucking stupid MAGA minion bigot

Here stupid, for your edification:


By 1840, the South grew 60 percent of the world's cotton and provided some 70 percent of the cotton consumed by the British textile industry. Thus slavery paid for a substantial share of the capital, iron, and manufactured goods that laid the basis for American economic growth.

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/histo...South grew,basis for American economic growth.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The chronology of the posts clearly shows my providing links to valid sources that document historical records that disproves the subject title of this thread. You and your idiot compadres just want to pretend that doesn't exist....you can't in a printed medium. But you're just too dim and stubborn to acknowledge that.

In 5 pages, this is your SOLE link to any article on slavery, and that comes from the History Channel. The article is vague, unsourced, and at best mostly anecdotal.

https://www.history.com/news/deeper-roots-of-northern-slavery-unearthed

This second article, you just now posted pretty much echos what I've stated.

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/histo...South grew,basis for American economic growth

 

[Matt Dillon]

Is this what you teach your kids or what was taught to you? No wonder you come off as willfully fucking stupid MAGA minion bigot

Here stupid, for your edification:


By 1840, the South grew 60 percent of the world's cotton and provided some 70 percent of the cotton consumed by the British textile industry. Thus slavery paid for a substantial share of the capital, iron, and manufactured goods that laid the basis for American economic growth.

https://www.gilderlehrman.org/histo...South grew,basis for American economic growth.

Well, I can't mess with that source right now. I know their sources are accurate.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

As always you are wrong

As usual, you’ve proved you lied about being a Christian.

How long do you think you will burn in hell, Pffft? Will you be going soon?

 

[IBDaMann]

. The "truth" is that without a century or so of slave labor, the 13 colonies and beyond wouldn't have evolved into the USA.

How were you planning on supporting this assertion?

You weren't?

I see. Your assertion is summarily dismissed.

 

[Trumpet]

No I know the facts. The slave owners were democrats. How many democrats voted for the 13th and 14th and 15th and 19th amendments?

The fact is that the South was strongly Democrat until the 1960s, which was the time of the civil right moment, after that the south switched to being Republican because the GOP was more favorable to the south because of their racist feelings.

 

[Nordberg]

Well, your bullshit there is without basis. What is your alternative theory on why the American colonies needed slaves?

Needed? That is an unfair term. They wanted to max profits and get very wealthy. The cheapest and most unprotected labor they could find was what they found in slavery. That is what compelled our manufacturers to move operations to Mexico, then China and then 3rd world countries. The ownership class has never cared about the laborers that make them rich.
Slavery stayed until farming machines made slaves too expensive. Then they threw them out. They no longer had any use
for them.
The colonists used indentured service for cheap labor and slaves. First slave was in 1619.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Needed? That is an unfair term. They wanted to max profits and get very wealthy. The cheapest and most unprotected labor they could find was what they found in slavery. That is what compelled our manufacturers to move operations to Mexico, then China and then 3rd world countries. The ownership class has never cared about the laborers that make them rich.
Slavery stayed until farming machines made slaves too expensive. Then they threw them out. They no longer had any use
for them.
The colonists used indentured service for cheap labor and slaves. First slave was in 1619.

Actually, the 1619 figure for the first slave is disputed by reputable historians.