The truth on slavery.....

Only to a Pussy.

Grow a pair or stfu if you want to have a discussion with me.

Originally Posted by WTF

Fuck off chimp boy

Indentured servants often came voluntarily, and those who were sentenced to servitude for crimes had a lot more autonomy than African chattel. Originally Posted by Vivienne Rey

A slave is a slave regardless of skin color.

The point is the left is using slavery to tear down statues and causing violence you fucking idiot. But the left doesn't give a fuck about slavery. Originally Posted by bambino

I keep hearing about how the Dems were the slave owners. So then they must have been the ones that built all those Statues. So explain how your team is so fond of then now?
I bets I know why LOL!
(And by "bet" I mean as a figure of speech since we all know how you are when it comes to bets.

Indentured servitude is not slavery. Its pretty bad. But a lot less rape, beatings, and humiliation. Not to hard to pick from the two what you'd rather if either was forced on you.

I keep hearing about how the Dems were the slave owners. Originally Posted by MT Pockets

And Klansmen.

I keep hearing about how the Dems were the slave owners. So then they must have been the ones that built all those Statues. So explain how your team is so fond of then now?
I bets I know why LOL!
(And by "bet" I mean as a figure of speech since we all know how you are when it comes to bets. Originally Posted by MT Pockets

Yeah, I won my bet, jokers like yourself didn't honor their end. BTW, you said " I bets" what a retard.

A slave is a slave regardless of skin color. Originally Posted by bamscram

That is not exactly true. There a different forms of slavery. Slavery practiced in the south was chattel slavery. Because of race or birth (mixed raced people) they were owned lock, stock, and barrel you might say. Their very existence was dependent on the good will of the owner. An owner could kill, maim, or injure their slaves without any consequence other than economics (slaves cost money).

An indentured servant had certain rights that were self evident. They could not be killed or maimed by an owner. They were recognized as humans and people. Their condition was not permanent. They could be beaten or punished without cause.

Two hundred years ago a child was considered by some to be a slave of a sort to their parent (read that as father). Abraham Lincoln was shipped around by his father to provide labor for neighbors and his father pocketed the proceeds. Lincoln wrote that on his 21st birthday he got his freedom.

I suggest that you read Puddin Head Wilson by Mark Twain. He was a lawyer, a country lawyer who was pretty smart. In one case Wilson proved that the master of a plantation in the antebellum era was actually a child of a slave who could pass for white. A slave, who was supposed to be mixed race, was in reality the son of the late master swapped at birth by the slave mother. The "happy ending" was that the former master was now a slave being sold and the former slave was having to come to grips with being a person with rights and wealth.

Two hundred years ago a child was considered by some to be a slave of a sort to their parent (read that as father). Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

In some States the earnings of the child are the property of the parents, so in that sense I suppose they are a "slave of a sort"!

There seems to be some confusion on this board regarding historic behavior and the consequence of that behavior on the relevance of today's assessments. It doesn't matter if yesteryear's global inhabitants, or today's for that mater, participated in the slave trade and used slaves. Slavery is wrong. Slavery is really fucking shitty. There were people in this country who opposed slavery from the nation's earliest days. In those earliest of years they were probably called that time's version of libtard or alt-right or alt-left or anti-progress or whatever. Anyone who promotes a position that tolerates slavery or excuses it just because it happened long ago is full of crap. It was immoral yesterday and yesteryear and it remains immoral today, and it will be immoral forever. It is also immoral and really fucking arrogant to put down another race of people. Every race has committed atrocious behaviors. That's the fate of being human. We do dumb shit. Then and Now. We're guilty of stupid, insensitive behaviors as individuals and as a society and as a race. Beware the fearlessness of arrogance. I worry that the bullshit called American Exceptionalism has blinded us to our own shortcomings.

Saying that slavery is based on race is a mistake on your part. Slavery has been around since the earliest days and that is not a moral position. It is just a fact. Tribal slavery was practiced by Africans and Native Americans. Regional slavery was practiced by the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans. Criminal slavery was practiced by England, Spain, and other European countries.

I have not heard anyone say that slavery is "okay" or "good" on this site. Did you know that chain gangs were a recognized substitute for slavery in the south? Yeah, those old time democrats didn't miss a trick. However, you can't argue with history even if (like the Taliban and ISIS) you wish to destroy it.

Slavery was a human (it still is) thing and not an American thing. England, Spain, Holland, and France brought to this country like an STD. So you can try to climb to a moral high ground by talking about your sensitivities and such but you are a person of your time just like Jefferson and Washington were men of their times. Not an excuse but an explanation. Think of whaling. Two hundred years ago it was a trade. Now whales are recognized as being more intelligent than mere animals and in danger of extinction. A hundred years from now Chimps and whales may be recognized as the equal of humans. What will the future say about you if they find you wrote something to the contrary? That is an important part of history, to be able to judge individuals by the values of their time and not to try to impose your values on them.

So, if the war between the states was about owning slaves; how many of the soldiers that fought in the war actually owned slaves? I am sure you leftist civil war historians know the answer to this one.

So, if the war between the states was about owning slaves; how many of the soldiers that fought in the war actually owned slaves? I am sure you leftist civil war historians know the answer to this one. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

What a ridiculous fucking question!!!

Again, you patriotic "historians" try to explain, justify, equivocate and apologize for the Civil War and slavery. It's a horrible part of our past.

Why don't you just fucking let it go?

I believe it should be studied in US schools, just like all German students are taught about the Holocaust and Naziism.

But it should not be celebrated.

Period.

No you would not ever celebrate for those that would stand up against what they thought was unfair treatment by an overbearing and overreaching government. You would lead them to the trains.
Just like your hero Soros.

No you would not ever celebrate for those that would stand up against what they thought was unfair treatment by an overbearing and overreaching government. You would lead them to the trains.
Just like your hero Soros. Originally Posted by The2Dogs

He would have been picked for the first train out.

Some things that don't make sense...if you're a leftie. At the Siege of Vicksburg, the Union commander was a slaver owner from Kentucky. The Confederate commander was not a slave owner and he did not believe in owning slaves himself.
Fort Sumter, you remember that, the Union commander was a slave owner. In fact there were several Union officers who owned slaves and several Confederate officers (and most enlisted) did not own slaves.