Southern pride gone wrong!

[Geoff_M]

I think what Geoff is referencing is that slave owners sold their own children. In that they fathered children with slave women and then turned around and sold them as slaves ... and most likely at a higher price because they were lighter skinned and, therefor, more suitable for "house" work.

Sort of... I was more referring to the fact that these Northern White slaves didn't live in fear of having their families ripped apart when an employer decided they needed some cash and sold the the slave's 13 year-old son to a factory on the other side of the state, never to be seen again.

 

[LuvsDragonflies]

Sort of... I was more referring to the fact that these Northern White slaves didn't live in fear of having their families ripped apart when an employer decided they needed some cash and sold the the slave's 13 year-old son to a factory on the other side of the state, never to be seen again.

So what? These "northern white slaves" lived in fear of their children starving to death, freezing to death or of getting sick and not being able to help them.

It doesn't matter HOW you lose a child. It's just as heartbreaking.

 

[badblackpug]

Many, many slaves didthe same thing. This argument doesn't hold water.

No, actually, they didn't. They had to escape under the dark of night. They were subject to the fugitive slave act. They often had to leave their family behind, even if they were legitimately freed, they often could not stay in the area in which their family lived because certain states had laws that stated that if they were free and on state property for a certain amount of time they could be re-enslaved. A freed or escaped slave could not just blend in like a white person. As a matter of fact, that is why plantations originally began using African slaves as opposed to indentured servants. They were afraid that when their period of indenture ended they would buy land, blend in, and infiltrate or overtake the ruling class.

With indentured servitude, while the living and working conditions were certainly poor, it was seen as a means to an end. The average period of indenture was 4-7 years. If you survived those 4-7 years you were free. With all the rights and privileges of every other white man. You could vote, own land, congregate in whatever numbers you chose. You could move freely about the country, you could get an education. You had the opportunity to make a better life for your children.

Slaves were slaves for the remainder of their natural life. Any and all children they had were also slaves. It went on and on for generations with no opportunities to improve the lives of their children Their only opportunity to leave the life of slavery behind was to risk their life escaping, and hope they made it to Canada so they couldn't be returned to slavery or killed by slave catchers.

 

[princessmom29]

You are completely contradicting your own statements.

If you cannot grasp it, I don't know how to help you. I was trying to illustrate how absurd it is to assume any of them really had a choice. I would have thought that was obvious

 

[Geoff_M]

**I don't think it's a laughable moral equivalence. The owners didn't give a hoot whether those people lived or died. Shown by the fact one of the bosses actually did it again. It was to keep a tight eye on the workers so they wouldn't take an "underserved" break.

Incorrect... the secondary exit was locked because the owners were afraid that the workers would use it to steal company property. Gross negligence? Yes. Criminal? Yes (however the two owners were acquitted at trial). Did the owners think anyone would lose their lives because of it? No. A foreman had the key to the door if it was needed, but he was one of the first ones that fled the building via another route and took the key with him. Ironically, the owners were also trapped in the fire too, but managed to survive with others that fled to the roof.

**Highlight away. I say nothing about "happy slaves". Talk about being at a loss.

The term "Happy Slave" refers not to a literal quote, but the name given to an ideology (similar to the term "Lost Cause" used earlier in this thread). It refers to the general idea that has presented through things like Hollywood depictions an other works of art that African Americans were "better off" being slaves and cared for by their patriarchal owners. Here's a newspaper article on the topic. So when you say stuff like many Southern slaves were better off being slaves then having to work in a lot of factories in the North... well, that's pretty much "Happy Slave" talk.

 

[LuvsDragonflies]

In a nutshell:

1. I don't deny slavery sucked.

2.I don't believe black people have cornered the market on the worst treatment in the world. Plenty of other "people's" have had it just as lousy, if not exactly the same. Starting with the Native Americans.

3. The Confederate Flag only stands for slavery if that's what YOU make it stand for. It means different things to different people and there is no good reason to think that southerners should stop using it if they want to.

4. The Civil War was about much more than the end of slavery.

5. The Union wasn't the good guy they like to pretend they were. If they hadn't tried to force the Southern States to remain in the Union by changing the rules (which stated they had the right to secede if they chose to) it most likely would not have come to war.

 

[Geoff_M]

So what? These "northern white slaves" lived in fear of their children starving to death, freezing to death or of getting sick and not being able to help them.

Yes, when I look at my family tree it's pretty easy to feel sorry for all of my ancestors that lost children in New Jersey, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana because they weren't literal slaves and didn't have owners to care for them, cloth them, feed them, and save them from the uncivilized Barbarism that they left in England, Ireland, Scotland, and such other places.

 

[LuvsDragonflies]

Incorrect... the secondary exit was locked because the owners were afraid that the workers would use it to steal company property.


The term "Happy Slave" refers not to a literal quote, but the name given to an ideology (similar to the term "Lost Cause" used earlier in this thread). It refers to the general idea that has presented through things like Hollywood depictions an other works of art that African Americans were "better off" being slaves and cared for by their patriarchal owners. Here's a newspaper article on the topic. So when you say stuff like many Southern slaves were better off being slaves then having to work in a lot of factories in the North... well, that's pretty much "Happy Slave" talk.

"The North has been just as callous and heinous in their treatment of the immigrants as the plantation owners were to their slaves. There were even plantation owners that were better to their slaves than the Northern mill owners were to their people." ~ No where in that statement do I use the term "many slaves" or "happy slaves". Stop making things up as you go along.

 

[LuvsDragonflies]

Yes, when I look at my family tree it's pretty easy to feel sorry for all of my ancestors that lost children in New Jersey, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana because they weren't literal slaves and didn't have owners to care for them, cloth them, feed them, and save them from the uncivilized Barbarism that they left in England, Ireland, Scotland, and such other places.

What does that even mean?

People left Ireland in droves because of a Potato Famine, just in case you hadn't heard of it. They couldn't go "home" because there was no food there. I refer to the mill/factory workers in the cities, not pioneers or maids (which didn't always have it very well either) or shopkeepers.

If you want to purposely mislead yourself, go right ahead. I know what I've stated and know you are blowing smoke out of your proverbial butt.

 

[Wall-E1]

If you cannot grasp it, I don't know how to help you. I was trying to illustrate how absurd it is to assume any of them really had a choice. I would have thought that was obvious

I have to say that this is just about the most bizarre exchange I have ever had on these boards. I'll paste your posts again, this time with Bamafan's post that you were originally responding to...

Almost all of them did. Their options were terrible. Such was the life of a poor person back then. But they could choose to go home after their next shift and never come back. It might mean starvation for them or their children, but the choice was there.

A slave could also choose to sit down and refuse to work anymore. He was also choosing certian death for himself and likely his family, but he had that choice. No one could really force him to stand up and work. He could make the choice to refuse. I really don't see that much of a difference. The outcome is the same.

For the record: I AM NOT STUPID. Sorry that you seem to think so. As a not stupid person, I refuse to allow you to put words in my mouth or think and reason for me. It is really sad that you seem completely unable to comprehend th point I am tryingto make. NONE OF THEM HAD ANY REAL CHOICE.FOR ALL OF THESE GROUPS THE CHOICE IS SLAVERY OR DEATH. THAT IS NOT A REAL CHIOCE!!!!!

So, Bamafan was stating that as bad as it was for a poor person, at least they had a choice. Slaves did not.

You then replied to him that slaves do in fact have a choice, and that they could refuse to work.

Then, a few posts later, in all capital letters, you stated that they had no choice. This is what Bamafan was originally trying to point out to you.

Your statements are completely contradictory. I just can't figure out if you simply don't want to admit it, or if you really can't see it even with me pasting your two posts next to each other.

 

[Geoff_M]

"The North has been just as callous and heinous in their treatment of the immigrants as the plantation owners were to their slaves. There were even plantation owners that were better to their slaves than the Northern mill owners were to their people." ~ No where in that statement do I use the term "many slaves" or "happy slaves". Stop making things up as you go along.

So, if it wasn't "many", would you say that the "plantation owners that were better to their slaves" owned "few" slaves? So saying that Northern "slaves" were treated just the same their Southern counterparts and in fact that there were plantation owners in the South that even treated them even better doesn't imply that a slave's odds were better than in the South? Sounds like "Aunt Jemima Time!!!" to me.

 

[Geoff_M]

What does that even mean?

People left Ireland in droves because of a Potato Famine, just in case you hadn't heard of it. They couldn't go "home" because there was no food there. I refer to the mill/factory workers in the cities, not pioneers or maids (which didn't always have it very well either) or shopkeepers.

For the record, my particular relative came here before the famine (b. abt. 1806). He was also a Protestant from County Antrim, which if you know about the famine gives you a pretty good idea of how they would have made out in the end. He became an indentured servant because he was orphaned and the family decided to send him to the US along with an uncle. The service likely would have been one where he would have learned trade skills to be able to support himself after the term of servitude was over.

If you want to purposely mislead yourself, go right ahead. I know what I've stated and know you are blowing smoke out of your proverbial butt.

Well, there you go! QED! I guess I've been put in my place! (There's a maxim that I like that states that the first one to reach for insults has lost the debate.)

 

[badblackpug]

The issue here is that you can't measure the value of freedom. No matter how deplorable the working and living conditions were in the northern factories and mines, the workers there were still considered humans. They were not owned by anyone, they were not considered livestock, who were subject to breeding programs to produce the best stock. Their children and spouses were not in danger of being sold away from them.

 

[Geoff_M]

The issue here is that you can't measure the value of freedom.

Thank you for interjecting some logic into what's become a wasteland of moral relativism!

 

[FireDancer]

The issue here is that you can't measure the value of freedom. No matter how deplorable the working and living conditions were in the northern factories and mines, the workers there were still considered humans. They were not owned by anyone, they were not considered livestock, who were subject to breeding programs to produce the best stock. Their children and spouses were not in danger of being sold away from them.

Not to mention the matter of mobility. The Sicilian side of my family were tenant farmers outside of Palermo in the late 19th and early 20th century. Feudalism was alive and well in Sicily at the time. There were laws to try and prevent it and no nobility titles but you still worked land owned by someone else and had very few rights. My great grandfather came to America and worked crappy railroad jobs while the rest of the family stayed in Sicily. Every couple of years he'd go back to make a baby and return. At some point he was able to bring the rest of the family here.

As anyone who knows history will tell you the first generation of almost all immigrant groups were treated like crap. They, however, were still free to work and save and make a better life for their children and future generations. My grandpa joined the army and fought in WW2 after which he settled into a suburb and lived a working class life. His father died young because of the work he did but his children had a better life as did his children's children and so on. This is not slavery.

There is no doubt that working conditions in much of the world were terrible at the time of the civil war and not much better at the turn of the century but even in those terrible conditions my ancestors were able to suffer through and make a better future for their kids. That is the aspect of freedom that is missing from slavery. The freedom of class mobility and a better future. Unless you were fortunate enough to be freed upon the death of you owner (much more rare than Mark Twain would have us think) you died a slave as did you children, their children, and so on until someone was brave enough to say no more, this has to end.

The issues with labor were addressed in time but it makes no sense to equate actual slavery with poor working conditions. They have important differences. Besides, you don't wait until every wrong is dealt with before addressing the worst one. It really does sound like a case of "Why am I in trouble, Johnny was doing it too...waaaaaaaaaaaa".

 

[luvsJack]

Oh, it was more than a theory. I'm pretty sure that the white "slaves" up North were in fact allowed to vote, were counted as fully human in Census figures, were allowed to keep their families in tact (unless Alex Haley made all that stuff up and it didn't really happen). I also don't think too many of them received lashings in their places of employment or were hunted down by company posses when they decided to change their line of work.

yep, I am sure being able to vote and being counted in the cenus made them feel oh so much better when they couldn't feed their children or were locked in a factory.

Slavery was a horrible thing to do to any human. And yes, the workers in North were one rung up from the slaves there is no doubt. But barely. The rich in the North thought no more of their paid labor than the rich in the South did of their slaves.

Given the fact that the last public lynching in the US took place one County north of my birthplace... in Indiana... I have a pretty good idea that the South historically hasn't been the sole area of racial dystopia in the US. I also don't get the sense that the Yankees on this thread are morally looking down our collective noses at our Southern brethren (and sistern). I also think I've been pretty even handed in my posts on this thread.

Yes, you have. But there are always those that seem to think that way. Somehow racism and horrible ancesters always seems to be thought of a Southern thing.

 

[LuvsDragonflies]

So, if it wasn't "many", would you say that the "plantation owners that were better to their slaves" owned "few" slaves? So saying that Northern "slaves" were treated just the same their Southern counterparts and in fact that there were plantation owners in the South that even treated them even better doesn't imply that a slave's odds were better than in the South? Sounds like "Aunt Jemima Time!!!" to me.

Keep grasping for straws there kid. I didn't say they were treated "the same". They were both treated horrendously, if also differently. It still sucked to be them.

You can try and "imply" whatever you want and twist my words to suit you. I know, in plain English, what I've stated. If you get your jollies twisting it around, go for it. The fact you need to consistently and purposely misconstrue what people are saying here just shows you don't know what your are talking about or are just trolling.

 

[metalis4ever]

I think what is being lost in this discussion is that both the North and South are to be blamed for Slavery just like they are to blamed for the genocide of Native Americans or the stealing of 85% of Mexico.

Slavery both of Africans and Native Americans, Japanese-American Concentration Camps, Native American Genocide/Native Reservations/Manifest Destiny, Salem Witch Trials, McCarthyism, Invasion of the Philippians, Racial Segregation, Child Labor/Unfair Wages/ Poor Working Conditions, lack of Women's Rights to name a few are all black eyes that are shared by the collective Colony States/United States and cannot be blamed on just the North or just the South.

That being said clearly there are events in Our brief history as a Colony and a Nation that are much worse than others. I think we can all agree these things are bad.

Human Slavery is horrendous and nothing besides Concentration Camp life or Gender Oppression can even be considered a worse living. (Not just Holocaust Camps, all Concentration Camps throughout history as there have been MANY). By Gender Oppression I refer to Foot Bindings, Menses Huts, Bride Burnings, Forced Female Circumcision, etc. Slavery is as old as Hominids, be it stealing women from other tribes/population groupings to use her to increase your tribal/group numbers or slaves as a result of war or Slaves as Trade. Slavery has no color or gender, race isn't the issue and it definitely is not a North vs South issue.

I don't think anyone on here has absolved the North of their part in Slavery, but to compare poor working conditions and child labor to Human Slavery reeks of revisionist History.

"I make no pretension to patriotism. So long as my voice can be heard on this or the other side of the Atlantic, I will hold up America to the lightning scorn of moral indignation. In doing this, I shall feel myself discharging the duty of a true patriot; for he is a lover of his country who rebukes and does not excuse its sins." - Frederick Douglas

 

[LuvsDragonflies]

I don't think anyone on here has absolved the North of their part in Slavery, but to compare poor working conditions and child labor to Human Slavery reeks of revisionist History.

"I make no pretension to patriotism. So long as my voice can be heard on this or the other side of the Atlantic, I will hold up America to the lightning scorn of moral indignation. In doing this, I shall feel myself discharging the duty of a true patriot; for he is a lover of his country who rebukes and does not excuse its sins." - Frederick Douglas

I think that was an excellent post.

I do not, however, think that slavery is/was some kind of be all/end all evil that can't be compared to other evils. That would be ridiculous. Is slavery some kind of Holy Grail that can't be discussed? Why? It's been going on just about forever and still goes on. It was wrong in the beginning, it will always be wrong.

It's like trying to tell someone that your grief is "more" than their grief. What bothers me most are the people that seem to have to take what others say and change it into something they haven't said. State your opinion and stop trying to fuel your interjections with spin. (not "You" but you in general)

 

[princessmom29]

I have to say that this is just about the most bizarre exchange I have ever had on these boards. I'll paste your posts again, this time with Bamafan's post that you were originally responding to...




So, Bamafan was stating that as bad as it was for a poor person, at least they had a choice. Slaves did not.

You then replied to him that slaves do in fact have a choice, and that they could refuse to work.

Then, a few posts later, in all capital letters, you stated that they had no choice. This is what Bamafan was originally trying to point out to you.

Your statements are completely contradictory. I just can't figure out if you simply don't want to admit it, or if you really can't see it even with me pasting your two posts next to each other.

Let me spell it out for you using small words. Mabye that will help. I was being purposely contradictory to show how absurd it is to consider that someone chooing between slavery and death really had any choice. This was the supposed choice for BOTH groups we are discussing. Northern mill workers could choose to be bound to the factory where they worked for thier entire life or starve to death, and lsaves could either work for thier master or be killed. Nither really had a choice. It is a simple analogy. Why, oh, why is it so hard to grasp? My response to Bama fan about slaves having a choice was designed ot illustrate the absurdity of the idea that the choice between slavery and death really gives one viable options. That is the chioce BOTH groups are facing.