African Americans are owed no more by the US

Great Debates
41

Sugar, Tobacco, Cotton, textiles, raw materials, and the Gulf Trades. How do they all matter? The South controlled them, the North needed them, and had they left, the North had to import them.

The war was about keeping the status quo if not gaining more in the North, at the expense of the South. The South had infact spent many dollars on research to replace slaves too. The cotton gin, the tractor, and many new inventions were coming and being sought as replacement for slaves. Industry could not afford to keep housing, feeding, and then chasing them. The inevitable end of slavery is forseen by any industry, they are not cost effective. The supervision and gurd over them makes them too costly.

So once more I say, read your history books, and see what REALLY caused that war. HINT: Think Northern Industrialization, and high prices and unbalanced interstate trade, and textiles in the South, needed by the North, and under representation.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. "
Jonathan Swift

42

You are right - I don’t know why I wrote that - I didn’t have to think about it very long before I realized it wasn’t true.

However, can anyone think of a company that has been criminally prosecuted for violation of discrimination laws?

43

Pondering!

True :smiley:

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. "
Jonathan Swift

44

Ukelele Ike:

In theory, nothing at all–and quite a few did become successful in just that way. The problem was that the black community, itself, was under tremendous pressures to not gain wealth so that a black man who became “wealthy” in relation to those surrounding him was generally still not objectively wealthy. Since ghettoes are pretty much a Northern feature, (in the South there were black and white neighborhoods, but they were often close together and, in larger cities, somewhat intermixed), a successful black was always visible to his white neighbors. These successful blacks were often the targets of terrorist acts meant to keep them in their place. The great northern migration did not begin until just before 1920 and it took awhile to reach its peak. In the North, (and in a very few Southern cities) a small black middle class did develop. Redlining and other penalties imposed by banks limited the degree to which many blacks could truly invest to acquire wealth. (Had the sizable ghettoes of the North developed 80 years earlier, it is possible that the black community could have pooled its wealth to establish itself in the manner of the Asians. That is speculation in hindsight, however, and I would not put that forth as a thesis without a lot more investigation.)

StarvinMarvin, this discussion would go farther if you were less shrill and less prone to raise facts to harm your own position. You claim that the the South was working to replace slavery, then mention uninvented tractors and the cotton gin to emphasize your point. In fact, the cotton gin was the instrument that guaranteed that slavery was entrenched in the South. With the exhaustion of the land due to over-planting of tobacco, slaves had become less “useful” at the beginning of the nineteenth century. With the invention of the gin, a new crop that required immense labor resources was opened to the South, which siezed on the opportunity to expand their slave-holding practices. The early tractors (few of which were developed in the South) were underpowered behemoths that were quite adequate for the large grain fields of the Great Plains, but which were totally inadequate to the purposes of picking cotton (which required closely planted crops to be harvested by hand since the technology to pluck the bolls without damage was many decades in the future).

I actually think that with the exhaustion of the land due to monocultural planting, slavery might very well have become a burden by the 1880’s. In the 1850’s however, the South relied upon it and used its considerable political clout to ensure that slavery was never threatened by the Federal Government. I’m amused by claims that the North was imposing its will on the South in a punitive way when I review such Federal legislation as the Fugitive Slave Act and the Missouri Compromise.

Your claims for the goods that the North coveted of the South would make a better catalog if every one of them was not (in 1860) primarily profitable for the South because of slavery. No force prevented the South from investing in its own heavy industry except a culture that disdained to engage in that sort of thing. The iron and copper of upper Michigan and the coal of Pennsylvania had their analogues (based on mid-19th century extraction capabilities) in the South. The South chose to ignore those resources, relying on their agriculture–and further limiting themselves to a monocultural crop that required slavery to be profitable.

No informed person will claim that slavery was the only reason for the secession. It is, however, silly to ignore the fact that it was the driving force for most of the other cultural and financial reasons for the split between the states.

Tom~

45

Tomndebb said, in reply to Starvin Marvin’s claim that slavery would have withered on its own in the South,

Furthermore, the Southern leaders were aware of the likelihood of soil exhaustion in slave-worked areas. Rather than preparing an alternative economy for that eventually, Southern leaders were aggressively pursuing a policy of expansion for slaveholding areas to gain fresh soil. This was not only domestic [e.g. Kansas-Nebraska Act and the provisions in the Dred Scott decision stating the Federal governement could not outlaw slavery in the territories at all], but also foreign- Southern statesmen were advocating conquest and expansionism in the Caribbean and Central America in order to acquire more slave territory.

Northern fear and resentment of this aggressive expansionism was a greater factor than any pro-abolitionist sentiment in the growth of the Republican Party. Outright abolitionists were a minority in the North.

The South definitely did not have any intention of replacing slavery, nor of sitting idly by while soil exhaustion made it unfeasible. The Southern states seceded upon Lincoln’s election, not because he threatened slavery within their borders- he had guaranteed he would not- but because he threatened their efforts to expand slavery into new areas.

46

Hes this man/woman ever read a single history book? Ever visited a single museum? Pondered what hes saying?

The gin replaced 10 slaves with its work, since it could effectively mill more cotton more efficiently than 10 slaves. Eli Whitney was commissioned to do his research by a consortium of plantation owners, to get rid of the slaves, as their costs was causing profit loss.

The tractor was being invented to further remove even more work done by humans and livestock since they all required maintenance costs much higher than affordable.

I did mention that these were being SOUGHT to replace slaves, not existed at the time.

Further each of the crops I mention in no way hurts or hinders any argument.

To contort facts and proven history with speculation on your part, doesnt make the NEW simulated ideology fact. The facts are if you read any biography or autobiography written near that time, you will see the climates and attitudes as they WERE not as WE speculate them to have been from this modern day.

Who better to tell us what actually led to that war and what happened than those who were there? Rent the Civil War series from PBS or any other period piece that ONLY includes documentation from that time not speculation of that time, and you will have a new found view of that war.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. "
Jonathan Swift

47

Nebuli-

You are correct to a large part in your statement. But the Mason-Dixon line agreements and accords were an idea, a theory, it wasnt positively going to be carried out.

But the expansion plans were carried out in the battles with Spain a few decades later, as the Union sought to insure it owned the assets and materials the South had provided all along, in case the issues of secession were not settled and over. Puerto Rico, California, and the Mexican American wars were based partly on the fear of the Union and US governments, that should the South “rise again” they would have less territory to work from/with and that they would have enough raw materials and supplies coming from outside the South itself.

California and the midwest- breadbaskets and rich agricultural soil

Texas and Arizona and New Mexico- posed a threat of Mexican raids, Indian territory, and could be used to keep Californian supplies from reaching Union troops if they were ever sent overland, by cutting them off here.

Black Hills- supplied gold, instant cash flows for the north in the north.

Denver and Rockies- another Ore bed, that Union troops could claim

Until 1912, there was no insurance by either side that the Civil War was over. 1912 and WW1 insured that the nation would unite to fight the common threat, thus diverting attention away from home matters.

This common practice was carried on (ala wag the dog) until now. Hence our involvement in many a war that never threatened the homefromt (except WW2) Now we are all seeing that the truth is, the issues were never settled (ala SOUTH CAROLINA).

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. "
Jonathan Swift

48

StarvinMarvin said:

Since there were about 600,000 slaves in the country in 1793 when Whitney invented the cotton gin, and about 4,000,000 in 1860, I guess the research didn’t quite pan out as intended then.

By allowing one slave to do the work of 10 in “ginning” (separating the seed from the fiber)Whitney’s invention made cotton production much more practical, so for every slave job saved by using the gin dozens more were created to grow and pick the cotton.

49

Give a guy some credit and he tries to backstabb ya.

Seems after seeing the Derrick Thomas thread in the BBQ pit, I shouldnt be surprised.

Im taking a leave of absence from the board, until people calm down, and stop trying to hurt or dirty the reputations of others.

:smiley:

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. "
Jonathan Swift

50

Marvin,

I’m not following your rational on some of the examples you cite- the Mexican American War, & annexations of California, New Mexico and Arizona all preceded the Civil War. how could they be attempts to keep the South from “rising again?”

Sorry I’m going to have to duck out, but I’ve got to leave now, and probably won’t get a chance for a fuller response until tomorrow.

51

Well, OK I’ll post one more bit since we were simul-posting there. Marvin, I’m sorry if you think I was back-stabbing you. I was merely disagreeing with some of your statements, not making a personal attack.

52

[waving over the heads of the milling rabble to get Tomndebb’s attention]

What about the concept of the “Talented Tenth” within the black community? (I forget whether this came from W.E.B. DuBois, or Booker T. Washington) Was this ten percent SUPPOSED to be the black, middle-class professionals, who kept to their own people, delivering black babies, probating black wills, etc.?

Or were they supposed to be the educated group responsible for gaining new foothold for black people in US society as a whole?

And how does Marcus Garvey fit into the scenario? The whole idea of piling all the African-Americans into ships and setting sail for Africa…sounds like a Ku Kluxer’s dream come true. Did that whole scheme collapse with the dissolution of Garvey’s Black Star Company?

Uke

53

Somehow this was left out?!?!?! When I C&P’ed it

The whole California –Arizona-Texas issue was kinda worded funny, sorry. It was meant to say, the Union knew that forcing issues was going to lead to war, thus they preempted it by preparing by stockpiling raw materials (the eventual thing that won the war for the North) that allowed them to continue a sustained and cost intensive war. Texas unfortunately didn’t come to the North’s aide as was planned, and thus creating a 2 front war as had been hoped, but became a Southern supplier.

Now add that in, and the rest should make sense, and the timeline will make more sense.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. "
Jonathan Swift

54

Marvin, you’ve raised some interesting issues and sparked a good debate. Hope you stick around.

You can destroy your now by worrying about tomorrow. Janis Joplin

55

Hmmm. Starvin, you’ve said

And then you tell us you’re

Seems to me that Tom’s being very patient and rational. And it further seems that you’re being very rude and insulting. You’re more than welcome to believe whatever you like. You’re welcome to think people are idiots for not believing the way you do. But you certainly won’t persuade anyone by telling them they’re stupid, ill-bred, and uneducated.

I think you have some good ideas and sound reasoning. But I’m hesitant to offer you my opinions, since it looks like you’ll just tell me my opinions are obviously uninformed. Do you want to discuss or preach? If the former, you’ll have to accept that not everyone will agree with you.

My $0.02.

-andros-

56

First of all, the slave trade was created and maintained by the people, not the government.

Second, why should anybody be held responsible for offenses commited by people who died before they were born?

Life is a tragedy for those who feel and a comedy for those who think.

57

Ukelele Ike, the “Talented Tenth” was the idea of W.E.B. Du Bois that if the finest among his people could be called out and educated, they would ensure that the rest were also educated and would overcome the barriers of poverty. His theory was in opposition to the idea that blacks should first concentrate on “learning trades” and then slowly petition society to admit them as they “proved their worth.”
Here is one of his speeches on the subject:
http://douglass.speech.nwu.edu/dubo_b05.htm

I forlornly admit that I have not studied Garvey to the extent that I should have. The thumbnail sketches of him are so varied (actually contradictory–flipping around among estimations of genius, chicanery, and insanity) that I have never developed a personal sense of who he was. (So much to study and my boss keeps wanting me to show up for work each day. :::sigh:: :slight_smile:

Starvin Marvin, I’m afraid that I find myself unimpressed with your scholarship. Anyone who can completely reverse the results of the invention of the cotton gin (1793) in an attempt to make it look as though the South was attempting to wean itself from slavery has little room for accusing another of not knowing history, I’m afraid.

The results of the gin are well documented. (Note that DuBois condemns its effects in his 1903 speech, linked above. Note also the last sentence in this article in the Encyclopædia Britannica:
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/3/0,5716,26963+1,00.html )
It really isn’t hard to come up with this sort of information.

I am curious about your claims here

Who authorized this effort? Lincoln (who had not even been inaugurated when the Southern states began to meet to discuss secession)? Buchanan (who favored “popular sovereignty” and refused to strengthen Federal forts in the South on the grounds that that would incite violence)? The divided congress? The U.S. Army (many/most of whose senior officers were Southern)? Every account of the origins of the Civil War indicate that each side felt that a three month campaign would decide the issue. The Union only set 90 days for their enlistments, initially. So why were they “stockpiling” for a three month war?

Do you have a citation for this interesting fact? (I’d also be curious as to any evidence that anyone in the North actually thought that slave-holding Texas would side with the North in any dispute.)

I would also point out that the North did not win the four-year-long struggle on the strength of any unrecorded “stockpiling.” The Civil War was the making of northern Michigan’s iron and copper works and of Pittsburg’s foundries because they had to increase production quickly to cover the losses that were incurred in the first few months of the war. (Both would have grown under the impetus of the industrial revolution, anyway, but the Civil War gave them huge infusions of capital so that they developed to the point where they could compete with England, Belgium, and other European industrial nations.)

Tom~

58

BTW, Marvin, this statement of yours also has no basis in fact

[quote]
Methinks TomnDebb is looking to be a politician by ignoring FACTS and HISTORY and trying to become the flag-bearer of the “Look at us we suffered, now pay us Trillions”.**
Had you read my post you would note that I do not believe that reparations are viable. I simply do not choose to couch my objections in terms of racist strawmen.

Tom~

59

I have a question similar to the one rasied by either Astorian or Marvin: if black Africans rounded up other black Africans, that they had caputured in tribal wars etc, and sold then to Arab, Dutch, French and English merchants, why wouldn’t the Africans themselves be as guilty as the slave merchants? Wouldn’t they have to pay first?

You can destroy your now by worrying about tomorrow. Janis Joplin

60

John John:

This is an arguable point. Since I do not believe that reparations are workable (and only the smallest percentage of people are even asking that reparations be discussed, and they don’t believe reparations will be paid) I see no point in defending any particular position.

I will (of course) throw out some considerations:

A) The original intra-African slavery was a much different proposition than the peculiar institution established, here. As a rough analogy, think of the slavery demonstrated in the old movie A Man Named Horse.

B) While the Arabs had established an immense and horrible slave trade before whites ever began dipping into it, the opening of the Americas as a new market created a powerful demand for new slave sources and encouraged the Arabs and some black tribes to increase their slave-capturing activities.

C) Those African who participated in slaving in the 17th through 19th centuries were all colonized (economically enslaved) by the late 19th century so that they have already suffered the bad karma for their activities while being impoverished to the point that they could make no reparations now, anyway.

A) provides a defense that “they didn’t realize what they were doing.”

B) provides a defense that “they are partially guilty, but the U.S. must also share in that guilt.”

C) provides a defense that “they have already paid for their crimes to the extent that they will ever be able to do so.”

I am sure that we can come up with counter-challenges to those defenses.

OK.

No one here has taken a pro-reparation stance. So arguing about shared guilt with long-since-subjugated African nations seems to be a dead end.

There is another aspect to that question that I hope we do not cross over (as we have not yet done). Spending a lot of time worrying about how much guilt various 200-year dead Africans share comes rather close to arguing how much “guilt” the Jews share for the Holocaust because they kept themselves culturally apart from Christian Europe or “how much” guilt Native Americans bear for involving whites in inter-tribal warfare. Whatever part Africans played in the slave trade, dealing with the black experience in the U.S. means dealing with the management of slavery, the imposition of Jim Crow, the terrorism of lynchings and riots, and the economic injustices of redlining and point systems. We do not need to examine the ultimate origins of slavery when we have quite enough baggage to address here.

Tom~