Southern pride gone wrong!

[LuvsDragonflies]

Great book......but there is no way you can equate an immigrant worker who bought the line "streets of America are paved with Gold" hook line and sinker to that of an African or Native Slave that was torn from the arms of their family and tribes and forced to work.....an immigrant worker could have returned home empty handed and still had his family a Slave could NEVER go home and could have no family.

As the old immigrant saying goes " I was told that the streets of America were paved with Gold, when i arrived I found out 3 things: 1. The Streets weren't paved with gold 2. The streets weren't paved at all 3. I was expected to pave them"

Just to point out, many of the slaves "torn from the arms of their family and tribes" were torn asunder by other black tribes. The tribe would then sell the captives of their raids to the white traders. People keep forgetting to mention this part.

Also, how exactly is a penniless immigrant supposed to buy a ticket to get home with??? The money they make barely gives them food to eat, much less extra to buy a ticket home. With the potato famine, why would they go home? There was no food there to eat when they got there.

 

[LuvsDragonflies]

You are misinformed. People did leave and go elsewhere and get other jobs. Families pooled their resources and advanced in just a short time. They bought houses; they started businesses; they sent their children to school. Not everyone was able to do this, but a significant majority was.

On the other hand, slavery did not allow any advancement or education. It was forever. Your very existence depended on someone elses whim.

I'm sorry, are we trying to find merit with slavery now? Because that would be ridiculous.

Slavery = bad

Civil War - slavery = still Civil War.

Regardless of the slavery issue, the Confederate States were STILL unhappy enough to want to secede. The war started because the UNION didn't want to let go of the Confederate States, as they stated they would. They, in essence, kidnapped the Confederate States and brutalized them when THEY wanted THEIR freedom.

So...Lincoln freed the black slaves to enslave the Confederate States to the Union. Awesome.

It's all in how you look at it, isn't it???

 

[punkin]

princessmom29, are you actually sitting here in the 21st century and arguing that slavery wasn't really that bad?

 

[metalis4ever]

Just to point out, many of the slaves "torn from the arms of their family and tribes" were torn asunder by other black tribes. The tribe would then sell the captives of their raids to the white traders. People keep forgetting to mention this part.

Also, how exactly is a penniless immigrant supposed to buy a ticket to get home with??? The money they make barely gives them food to eat, much less extra to buy a ticket home. With the potato famine, why would they go home? There was no food there to eat when they got there.

I know this, people also fail to mention that the largest export of 17th Century South Carolina was Native American Slaves to the Caribbean in exchange for African Slaves.

I wasn't referring to home as in Europe, I meant home as in at the end of the day to their families. Most immigrant workers such as my Great Grandparents had support networks within the communities they lived in i.e Italian, Irish etc..They helped each other out......Like I said there is no true comparison to a free immigrant worker and a slave....it boggles my mind that someone would even try to equate the two.

 

[princessmom29]

You are really serious about comparing immigrant workers to slaves?....I would rather be homeless and starving than fed and shackled.....

they were shackled, just not with physical chains.

 

[princessmom29]

princessmom29, are you actually sitting here in the 21st century and arguing that slavery wasn't really that bad?

no. It was horrible. I am just arguing that the existance of many of the poor working class immigrants in the North was just as bad.

 

[princessmom29]

I know this, people also fail to mention that the largest export of 17th Century South Carolina was Native American Slaves to the Caribbean in exchange for African Slaves.

I wasn't referring to home as in Europe, I meant home as in at the end of the day to their families. Most immigrant workers such as my Great Grandparents had support networks within the communities they lived in i.e Italian, Irish etc..They helped each other out......Like I said there is no true compassion to a free immigrant worker and a slave....it boggles my mind that someone would even try to equate the two.

Umm... Many slaves did go home to families every night. Do you really think they were kept chained to the wall when not working??

 

[punkin]

no. It was horrible. I am just arguing that the existance of many of the poor working class immigrants in the North was just as bad.

No. It wasn't.

 

[metalis4ever]

Umm... Many slaves did go home to families every night. Do you really think they were kept chained to the wall when not working??

They were still slaves, kept in locked quarters. Those that weren't stayed put under the fear of beatings, torture, or death.

 

[princessmom29]

You are misinformed. People did leave and go elsewhere and get other jobs. Families pooled their resources and advanced in just a short time. They bought houses; they started businesses; they sent their children to school. Not everyone was able to do this, but a significant majority was.

On the other hand, slavery did not allow any advancement or education. It was forever. Your very existence depended on someone elses whim.

you are misinformed. The majority of immigrants to this country who started work in a factory died working in that same factory. Very few did what you are talking about. Thier children went to smoe school, that much it true, but they stopped pretty much as soon as they were capable of contributing to the family income.

 

[princessmom29]

They were still slaves, kept in locked quarters. Those that weren't stayed put under the fear of beatings, torture, or death.

Slaves weren't locked in at night for the most part becuase ther was really nowhere thay could get to on foot that wouldbe an escape, jut more plantations. The ida that none of them ever sawtheir familes is a complete fallacy, however.

 

[LuvsDragonflies]

How about the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire that killed 146 women, some barely 14? They died because the managers LOCKED the doors so they couldn't take a break during their 9 hour work day.

This happened in 1911.

Again, people treated like chattel. While they worked, the company owned them. The North treated people no better than the south, they just tossed them a few pennies and said they "paid" them. But then they had to get food, clothes and housing out of the pittance they were paid.

Unfairness is all over. The south didn't have the only ownership of people. They just went about it differently.

Forcing a person into slavery on any term is wrong. Both the North and the South abused their working forces.

 

[princessmom29]

No. It wasn't.

agian, whatever makes you sleep better at night. Burying one's head in the sand doesn't make the facts go away.

 

[princessmom29]

How about the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire that killed 146 women, some barely 14? They died because the managers LOCKED the doors so they couldn't take a break during their 9 hour work day.

This happened in 1911.

Again, people treated like chattel. While they worked, the company owned them. The North treated people no better than the south, they just tossed them a few pennies and said they "paid" them. But then they had to get food, clothes and housing out of the pittance they were paid.

Unfairness is all over. The south didn't have the only ownership of people. They just went about it differently.

Forcing a person into slavery on any term is wrong. Both the North and the South abused their working forces.

Exactly, but most people want to ingnore that ugly little portion of history and insist that those people were "free" BS!

 

[Toad_Passenger]

I'm sorry, are we trying to find merit with slavery now? Because that would be ridiculous.

Slavery = bad

Civil War - slavery = still Civil War.

Regardless of the slavery issue, the Confederate States were STILL unhappy enough to want to secede. The war started because the UNION didn't want to let go of the Confederate States, as they stated they would. They, in essence, kidnapped the Confederate States and brutalized them when THEY wanted THEIR freedom.

So...Lincoln freed the black slaves to enslave the Confederate States to the Union. Awesome.

It's all in how you look at it, isn't it???

Except there is enough evidence both prior to the secession and in the Constitution of the CSA that showed slavery to be important enough to be the impetus for secession. And the Confederate States weren't unhappy enough to want to secede. It was the wealthy 5% of landowners/plantation business families, and the politicians who were unhappy at losing their power in Congress.

The poor families who fought for the Confederacy did so as pawns for men who cared little for their well-being.

Read some of William C. Davis' stuff and you'll find a lot of truths behind the CSA. They were ignorant to the fact that a free-labor based economy was destined to fail, and that the geographic spread of the CSA was completely unfit for a decentralized form of government. Even if the South had won, they would have, eventually, been forced to become the "evil" they had seceded from. In other words, leaving the Union was a terrible move for them, and probably provoked more by the hubris of the politicians & landowners than anything else.

 

[punkin]

How about the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire that killed 146 women, some barely 14? They died because the managers LOCKED the doors so they couldn't take a break during their 9 hour work day.

This happened in 1911.

Again, people treated like chattel. While they worked, the company owned them. The North treated people no better than the south, they just tossed them a few pennies and said they "paid" them. But then they had to get food, clothes and housing out of the pittance they were paid.

Unfairness is all over. The south didn't have the only ownership of people. They just went about it differently.

Forcing a person into slavery on any term is wrong. Both the North and the South abused their working forces.

Moral Equivalence. We go round and round in a circle.

People owned people in the South. People mistreated workers all over. Workers had legal recourse. Slaves were chattel with no rights. If you (plural) can't see the difference, there is no use arguing.

 

[princessmom29]

I know this, people also fail to mention that the largest export of 17th Century South Carolina was Native American Slaves to the Caribbean in exchange for African Slaves.

I wasn't referring to home as in Europe, I meant home as in at the end of the day to their families. Most immigrant workers such as my Great Grandparents had support networks within the communities they lived in i.e Italian, Irish etc..They helped each other out......Like I said there is no true comparison to a free immigrant worker and a slave....it boggles my mind that someone would even try to equate the two.

I don't know why. Both groups had hardships heaped upon them by someone else that they were completely poweless to escape. Both had the support system you are describing of others under similar circumstances. Both groups eventraully broke out of thier prisions.

 

[metalis4ever]

Slaves weren't locked in at night for the most part becuase ther was really nowhere thay could get to on foot that wouldbe an escape, jut more plantations. The ida that none of them ever sawtheir familes is a complete fallacy, however.

If a slave got up and left, he would be hanging from a tall tree by the end of the day, along with his friends and family.


So you are telling me that 1st generation Slaves weren't split from their families, children torn from their mother's arms? Wives torn from the arms of their husbands?

Sure the 2nd and 3rd Generation slaves had Families but they had no way of connecting with their roots, they didn't know their history.

The labor conditions in the North were undoubtedly horrendous but to compare it to slavery is preposterous. White Immigrant workers made the choice to come here, African and Native American Slaves had no choice.

 

[princessmom29]

Moral Equivalence. We go round and round in a circle.

People owned people in the South. People mistreated workers all over. Workers had legal recourse. Slaves were chattel with no rights. If you (plural) can't see the difference, there is no use arguing.

Most workers had no real legal recourse. No court would have found in their favor and few would have even heard the case if they tiredto bring charges on thier employer. To beleive otherwise is idealist at best and foolish at worst.

 

[punkin]

Except there is enough evidence both prior to the secession and in the Constitution of the CSA that showed slavery to be important enough to be the impetus for secession. And the Confederate States weren't unhappy enough to want to secede. It was the wealthy 5% of landowners/plantation business families, and the politicians who were unhappy at losing their power in Congress.

The poor families who fought for the Confederacy did so as pawns for men who cared little for their well-being.

Read some of William C. Davis' stuff and you'll find a lot of truths behind the CSA. They were ignorant to the fact that a free-labor based economy was destined to fail, and that the geographic spread of the CSA was completely unfit for a decentralized form of government. Even if the South had won, they would have, eventually, been forced to become the "evil" they had seceded from. In other words, leaving the Union was a terrible move for them, and probably provoked more by the hubris of the politicians & landowners than anything else.

I agree and just wanted to add a little quote from the "Wealth of Nations"

"From the experience of all ages and nations, I believe, that the work done by free men comes cheaper in the end than the work performed by slaves. Whatever work he does, beyond what is sufficient to purchase his own maintenance, can be squeezed out of him by violence only, and not by any interest of his own."