Comments on: SC: Old Habits Die Hard

By: CNSYD

CNSYD — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:18:33 +0000

ohara, you turn a blind eye to other views of the founding fathers. You think it was all race/slavery based. WRONG! When did women, including all white women, achieve the vote? In the present day Islamic nations, what are the rights of women? So are other places so much more enlightened than us? Among white men, who originally had the vote in this country? Only property owners. Why was that? What was the opinion of the founding fathers of the intelligence of the voters? Not high enough to allow them to directly elect their US Senators. So when they said, “all men are created equal” that is exactly what they meant and it had limitations. Was it wrong? No, because it fit the context of the times and was better than what they had before.

By: Skidmarks

Skidmarks — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 12:14:10 +0000

The focus should be that it is incredibly difficult to track down slave ancestry, and the First Lady is very fortunate to have identified her antecedents.

If you think that slavery is illegal in the United States, it isn’t. The Thirteenth Amendment states: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

It was not until 1868 and the passage of the amendment that private slavery was eliminated in Deleware.

By: James the Foot Soldier

James the Foot Soldier — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:39:08 +0000

Old habits die hard – sad but true. The blood is no longer on South Carolinian’s hands.

The new “plantation” owners are the democrats that keep significant portions of their base constituency enslaved in conditions WORSE than the old owners.

Case in point – President Obama’s stomping ground – the South Side of Chicago:
40 Black students killed since Candidate Hopey Changey was sworn in as President.
400 black students shot since Candidate Hopey Changey was elected.

Strong work President Hopey Changey – anyone up for another beer summit at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

By: ohara

ohara — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 02:12:41 +0000

By Rick on October 8th, 2009 at 2:19 pm:
“. . .Seeing that slavery goes back to the beginnings of mankind, I’d say we’ve done pretty well considering that slavery is still alive and well in Africa and the Middle East, not to mention the far East, South America and on and on and on….So ya want to feel all pissed off about the history of this nation, feel free….it’s all a part of how far we as a people have progressed.”

—

Not pissed off about the history of anything. Stating that there was duplicity in our profession of freedoms and protection of slavery (to the point where we had jokes made about it in Europe) while we were claiming freedom from tyranny from the Brits. It was a money deal, pure & simple. The founding fathers owned slaves, and no one wanted to give them up because of financial concerns.

Freedom for all, freedom from tax, except, ah, you see those dudes over there in leg irons, ah, not them. And not the 200+ that Washington owned, or any of Jefferson’s, or . . .”

While Jefferson, most notorious for hanging onto his slaves when Franklin & Washington had released theirs, continually debated himself on the morality of slave ownership, he still was too cheap to let go of his “investments.”

“As it is, we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Holmes, 1820.

The US was late to the table on banning the slave trade, when you compare it to Europe & South America. The reason? Financial. This was less a black & white issue than an opportunistic venture, as you stated, when competing tribes sold their captives to slave traders. But the result was still the same-disenfranchised peoples who were used for financial gain by another class of people. How we treated slave labor in this country was appalling, but the reasons for it were clear. Denigration of an entire class of people justified the further tolerance & promotion of slavery.

Chronology of abolition
1761 Portugal abolishes slavery in mainland Portugal and in Portuguese possessions in India, but not Brazil or Africa,
France abolishes slavery (partly-abortively) in 1794
1807 Great Britain abolishes slave trade within and to the British Empire
1804 France re-legalizes slavery
1811 Spain abolishes slavery at home and in all colonies except Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Santo Domingo
1813 Argentina abolishes slavery
1821 Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela abolish slavery
1823 Chile abolishes slavery
1824 The Federal Republic of Central America abolishes slavery
1829 Mexico abolishes slavery
1831 Bolivia abolishes slavery
1833 British Empire abolishes slavery
1842 Uruguay abolishes slavery
1848 Slavery abolished in all French and Danish colonies
1854 Venezuela abolishes slavery
1863 Slavery abolished in Dutch colonies
1865 United States abolishes slavery
1869 Portugal abolishes slavery in the African colonies
1886 Cuba abolishes slavery
1888 Brazil abolishes slavery

By: CNSYD

CNSYD — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 23:24:42 +0000

ohara, you have your head up your a$$. Your theme is all slave owners were in the South. Not so numb nuts. Check out the census data from the early part of the 19th century.

trey, you are as out to lunch as ohara. I bear no responsibility for what any of my ancestors did or did not do. Lets see. Suppose that if we shake your family tree and we have a murderer or rapist fall out. Then all their descendants are murderers and rapists. Also if any of your modern day clan commits murder or rape they can plead that it is not their fault because it is in their genes.

By: ohara

ohara — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:18:04 +0000

By Mr. Dart on October 8th, 2009 at 2:25 pm:
“Since you know Mr. Obama’s history I’m sure you’re aware that his mother’s ancestors were slave owners. So… Way To Go, Barack! Makes about as much sense as your slap.”
—
That’s a nice theory, but right now, it’s not proven fact. Even the author, William Reitwiesner, claims that he is not sure if it holds up under scrutiny, and no independent genealogists can or will confirm it.

So far it looks doubtful, as Reitwiesner is the only one to date that has come to that conclusion. As far as Obama is concerned, he states that it is entirely possible, since his mothers distant relatives were in the south at the time of slavery.

By: Trey

Trey — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:47:33 +0000

I don’t think we are so easily dismissed from the sins of our fathers. When you look at the pockets of SC where poverty still is persistent and nagging, those are the same areas where there were incredible numbers of people being owned by other people. You can see it in poverty rates, crime, school achievement ect. The “corridor of shame” is no accident and the sons of the fathers continue to pay for that ownership.

By: CNSYD

CNSYD — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:19:51 +0000

BTW, $475 in 1850 is the equivalent of $12,148.19 in 2008. Does that sound like an investment you would mistreat and/or destroy?

By: CNSYD

CNSYD — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:00:33 +0000

ohara, (or are you really the ghost of Thaddeus Stevens?), the growers would go bankrupt without slave labor? Who was buying the cotton and demanding lower prices? The mills in the North and in England. What do you call what was going on in the upstate of SC in the first half of the 20th century wherein WHITE textile mill workers were virtual slaves who lived in mill houses and got their goods from company stores? If you even said the word “union” you were on the street which meant that you now had no place to live. Also have you ever heard of brown lung? Now who owned a lot of these mills? Northerners.

By: me

me — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 20:41:20 +0000

she should be happy, if that hadnt happened she’d still be in africa having sex with goats to cure aids.