Basic logic can be fun.
I read that a higher percentage of blacks in the slave states owned slaves than the percentage of whites who owned slaves. At first I wondered if that was propaganda, but then I realize that, if you deal in simple logic, it is quite likely.
Very few whites owned slaves, maybe ten percent. And slaves were concentrated in areas like low-state South Carolina. In other words, slave owners were clustered where there were lots of slaves.
So where were most of the slaves who bought their freedom? They were in the slave belt where, as in the Roman Empire, slaves constituted the single biggest item of property, probably more than real estate. Blacks who had the ambition to buy their freedom would often go on to accumulate property.
Political Correctness has it that all a black man would do after buying his own freedom would be buy his family’s freedom. There is a true and ironic story about a black woman who owned her husband. She was an ardent Confederate and he was rooting for the Union.
But the simple logical fact is that there were more slaves where free blacks lived, because that was where blacks lived. Basic logic can be fun.
#1 by Alan B. on 11/20/2006 - 2:18 pm
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
What passes for History these days, reflect the fantasy world of the politically correct left, Hollywood. Remember the last scene in the movie Roots, the decendants of Kunta Kinta are free, they packed up the covered wagon and set out to start a new life. This scene was a tear jerker but hardly reflects reality, just where in the hell were they planing to go, I was sitting there with my girlfriend watching this and could not resist adding my own twist to this scene. I said something to the effect, weza free and weza going to head north and start us ghetto, anyway this portrail of history was fantasy land, Hollywood style. Exslaves new only one thing and that was farming and in those days most white citizens nevered traveled more that 30 miles from their homes. Blacks continued to work the land as they had in the past. It comes as little suprise to me that exslaves owned more slaves when compared to the number owned by the white plantation owners, its based on percentages, its simular to the statistics where blacks commit more violent crime than whites per capita. So here we have pre civil war exslaves owning properity in the slave belt and owning a large number of slaves who are I would assume their offspring, cousins etc, it was a family affair so to speak.
#2 by Elizabeth on 11/20/2006 - 9:19 pm
Some white slaveholders gave their mulatto kids some land and some slaves to get them started in life, at least that’s how it looks on the census. I’ve seen some census listings of young mulatto men owning rural property and some slaves. That could be just normal inheritance from mulatto parents in the antebellum South.
#3 by Mark on 11/20/2006 - 11:28 pm
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
Question: How many of us on here found the latest “Kramer from Seinfeld Delivers Racial Attack” news articles from today worth following up on in the “discuss this article” sections with the Mantra, Bob’s Rebutall, and/or Peter’s Definition of Genocide?
I know I am sounding like a broken record but if we are serious about this fight why arent more of us posting the Mantra? I am! Are you?
#4 by Vanishing American on 11/21/2006 - 12:11 am
I read that Louisiana had the greatest number of wealthy
black landowners and slaveholders. A number of them came from
the other French colonies and had come to Louisiana as free blacks.
These are things that most people don’t know because it doesn’t
fit the existing orthodoxy.
#5 by PeterGene Budarick on 11/22/2006 - 1:29 am
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
That goes for the “Holocaust” as well.
Jews comitted far more attrocities against Jews than Germans did.
Whether direct or indired, whether under German jurisdiction or not.
Jews murdered other Jews in large numbers.
Jews killed other Jews and afterwards blamed the Germans when in fact they had almost complete autonomy in the camps and even printed their own money and had their own courts of law.
But the truth goes against the Hollywood script that Jews were united as a people and moral passifists, who simply went to their demise without resistance. There was and is NO STRONGER RESISTANCE THAN THE JEW! And in some way i admire them for it. Whites are gutless sheep by comparison.
The Jews were rounded up in the first place because many of them were, what we today call, “terrorists”. They would have destroyed the entire German infrastructure if not interned.
So it does not surprise me that Nigger ex-slaves had Nigger slaves. I can even imagine that some Niggers had white slaves.
I would not be shocked if i ever learnt of evidence of that.
#6 by Elizabeth on 11/23/2006 - 12:58 am
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
The definition of “white” has been amazingly fluid. Sally Hemmings, for example.
A lot of the early slaves in the English colonies were American Indian, and that trade in Indian slaves was a major industry (to use a more modern term) in early South Carolina.
(See the Walter Edgar history of South Carolina.)
#7 by Alan B. on 11/23/2006 - 4:01 am
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
THE UNDECIDED VOTER
Every election cycle is as dull and uneventfull as the last so to try to make it appear more serious and interesting we now have the focus group called, the all important undecided voters and they are placed on display like the freak exhibits at the carnival. This gathering of the confused and befuttled are a mix of white males and females of various ages and incomes. I recalled one group that was interviewed by Frank Luntz. Frank would poll the group and have them share their concerns and fears, he would ask them which candidate they were leaning towards. My first impression was, man these are some of the dumbest human beings on earth, but them it dawned on me, maybe they are smarter than the rest.
Most of the voters have already made up their minds and know which letter they plan to vote for, issues mean little to these morons, its called party loyality or the statis quo. The undecided voter although uninformed or less retarded than the Letter people, at least they try to sort things out and examine the issues and candidates, so I will atleast give them that much. What I find disturbing about this political side show is the total lack or resourcefullness and insight of these voters. Most were professionals, these people have computers and resource centers where they can seek information, why the sense of helplessnes. Its my guess, its has more to do with the lack of choice and their sence of distrust of both parties. These people are the ones we could attract, they are in the millions, and would jump at the chance to have a real choice, I am all in favor of this.
#8 by richard on 11/23/2006 - 7:45 am
NOT SPAM
NOT SPAM
Bob, I seem to remember you were going to tell us how John Ashcroft prevented a Martin Luther King holiday for years before he died. Let’s hear it!
#9 by Shari on 11/23/2006 - 6:28 pm
Not Spam
Not Spam
We are still having computer problems which we now think originates with the server. Our e-mail is blocked. We are hoping to get it straightened out by next week.