Some Texans Have Prepared a Petition to Secede from the USA

Face you history, ExNYer!!!

New York City rioters turned against black people as their scapegoats and the primary target of their anger. Many immigrants and the poor viewed free black men as competition for scarce jobs, and worried about more slaves being emancipated and coming to New York for work. Some rioters thought slavery was the cause of the Civil War. The mob beat, tortured and/or killed numerous black people, including one man who was attacked by a crowd of 400 with clubs and paving stones, then lynched—hanged from a tree and set alight.

The Colored Orphan Asylum at 44th Street and Fifth Avenue, which then provided shelter for 233 children, was attacked by a mob about 4 in the afternoon. It was a "symbol of white charity to blacks and of black upward mobility." A mob of several thousand, including many women and children, looted the building of its food and supplies, but spared the children, who were led to safety. The mob burned the building to the ground, destroying it in 20 minutes.

Throughout the areas of rioting, mobs attacked and killed at least 100 black people, and destroyed their known homes and businesses, such as James McCune Smith's pharmacy at 93 West Broadway, believed to be the first owned by a black man in the United States. While removed from the midtown area of the riots, white longshoremen used the chaos of events to "remove all evidence of a black and interracial social life from the area near the docks. White dockworkers attacked and destroyed brothels, dance halls, boarding houses, and tenements that catered to blacks. . . .

The exact death toll during the New York Draft Riots is unknown, but according to historian James M. McPherson (2001), at least 120 civilians were killed. At least eleven black men were lynched. Violence by longshoremen against black men was especially fierce in the docks area.

The most reliable estimates indicate that at least 2,000 people were injured. Herbert Asbury, the author of the 1928 book Gangs of New York, upon which the 2002 film was based, puts the figure much higher, at 2,000 killed and 8,000 wounded, but this figure is not widely accepted and is considered myth. Total property damage was about $1–5 million ($15 – $75 million in 2011, adjusted for inflation). The city treasury later indemnified one-quarter of the amount. The historian Samuel Eliot Morison wrote that the riots were "equivalent to a Confederate victory". Fifty buildings, including two Protestant churches and the Colored Orphan Asylum, burned to the ground.

During the riots, landlords had driven blacks from their residences, as they feared their buildings being destroyed. As a result of the violence against blacks, hundreds left New York . . . By 1865 the total black population had dropped to under 10,000, the lowest it had been since 1820. The white working class riots had changed the demographics of the city and exerted their control in the workplace; they became "unequivocally divided" from blacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Another cut-and-paste quickie from the Confederate sympathizer.

It is not my history, since I am first generation American. Nonetheless, I don't have a problem embracing New York's history if it make you happy.

Why is it that you cannot embrace TX history and your ancestors past? Own it, bitch! Own it! The truth shall set you free!

Your questions were answered, ExNYer. Your New York banker elite continued to prosper from slaves and the slave trade while giving lip-service to emancipation. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No, my questions were not answered. Your just deflecting the questions. My questions were about the South, not NY. I know what motivated the NY bankers - MONEY.

And you neglect to mention that while the bankers profited from slavery, countless thousands of NYers died to stop it. Those honored dead were on the right side of history.

Now I want you to tell me what motivated THE SOUTH to fight for slavery to the bitter end. Why was the Confederacy willing to cause over 600,000 dead and countless wounded, if not to maintain slavery?

Were all the Southern dead on the right side of history? Would you be a happier man today if the South had won and slavery lasted another 50 years or more?

If the South had won, which Confederate state do you think would have given slavery up last and approximately what year would it have been? Would at least one of them still allow slavery today?

Another cut-and-paste quickie from the Confederate sympathizer.

It is not my history, since I am first generation American. Nonetheless, I don't have a problem embracing New York's history if it make you happy.

Why is it that you cannot embrace TX history and your ancestors past? Own it, bitch! Own it! The truth shall set you free! Originally Posted by ExNYer

That's right, bitch! Own it! You pretentious jackasses bend over backwards trying to proclaim Northerners had completely washed their hands of slavery and racism when history shows demonstrates otherwise. Own it, bitch!

Missing faces
The Guardian, Friday 23 March 2007
Jackie Kay

As the United Kingdom marks the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade tomorrow, Jackie Kay challenges fellow Scots to acknowledge their forebears' part in this shameful history and reflects on the ordeal suffered by her ancestors
Share

When the producer Pam Fraser Solomon first asked me to write something to mark the 200th anniversary of abolition, I replied that I thought enough had been written about slavery, and that I didn't want to be pigeonholed as a black writer. Black writers are often expected to write about slavery and race. I also thought I knew a lot about the period, and had written the odd poem.

Most British people think of slavery as something that happened in America and perhaps the Caribbean. They know vaguely about boats, Bristol, Liverpool, and something about sugar maybe, but not that Britain was the main slave trader. Nor that two days before a slave ship docked, it could be smelt, the putrescence of blood, faeces, vomit and rotting bodies carried downwind into the port.

Being African and Scottish, I'd taken comfort in the notion that Scotland was not nearly as implicated in the horrors of the slave trade as England. Scotland's self image is one of a hard-done-to wee nation, yet bonny and blithe. I once heard a Scottish woman proudly say: "We don't have racism up here, that's an English thing, that's down south." Scotland is a canny nation when it comes to remembering and forgetting. The plantation owner is never wearing a kilt.

It's a not so delicious irony that the anniversary of the bicentenary is also the bicentenary of the union between Scotland and England, which allowed Scotland to profit from the slave trade in a big way, and changed the face of Glasgow in particular. When Bishop Pococke visited Glasgow in 1760, he remarked that "the city has above all others felt the advantages of the union in the West Indian trade which is very great, especially in tobacco, indigoes and sugar".

I belong to Glasgow, dear old Glasgow town, but, alas, there is something the matter with Glasgow that's going round and round. Glasgow does not readily admit its history in the way that other cities in the United Kingdom have done - Bristol, Liverpool, London. Other cities are holding major events to commemorate the abolition. What's happening in Glasgow? - in the Gallery of Modern Art, for instance, which was originally Cunninghame Mansion, built in 1778, the splendid townhouse of William Cunningham, a tobacco baron? Or in Buchanan Street, the great shopping street, named after Andrew Buchanan, another tobacco lord, or in Jamaica Street, Tobago Street, the Kingston Bridge?

At school, I was taught about the industrial revolution, but not about the slave trade which financed and powered it. I was taught about James Watt's steam engine. In Balmuildy Primary School, I was in the house group Watt (we had four house groups: Baird, Carnegie, Fleming and Watt). I was proud of Watt's steam engine, but I was not taught that money from a slave trader financed his invention. I was taught my times tables the old-fashioned way by rote, but was not taught about the triangular slave trade.

At school, I learnt that Glasgow was a great merchant city. I learnt about the shipping industry, but not about the slave ship Neptune that arrived in Carlisle Bay, Barbados, on May 22 1731, after leaving Port Glasgow months earlier, carrying 144 enslaved Africans, half of whom were children. When they arrived they were "polished" - meaning a layer of skin was removed with fierce scrubbing - and a wadding rammed up the rectum of those who had dysentery, and then put up for sale.

I learnt about the French revolution, the Russian revolution, but not about the Demerara rebellions, the St Kitts uprising. I learnt about clans and clan names and kilts and the differing tartans and the Highland clearances, but not that in Jamaica in 1770 there were 100 African people called MacDonald, or that a quarter of the island's people were Scottish. There was a network of Argyll Campbells at least 100 strong in Jamaica too, concentrated on the west of the island, where the place names were nostalgic: Argyle, Glen Islay.

Yet Scotland never acknowledges the Scottish plantation owner who was often as cruel as his English or American counterpart. It almost seems anti-Scottish to imagine all those MacDonalds out there in Jamaica stuffing their faces on mutton broth, roast mutton, stewed mudfish, roast goose and paw-paw, stewed giblets, fine lettuce, crabs, cheese, mush melon. Or knocking back punch, porter, ale, cider, Madeira wine and brandy - this from a true account of a plantation owner's meal in 1775 - while the enslaved Africans got whipped for sucking a sugar cane.

It's a common misperception that March 25 2007, is "celebrating" the abolition of slavery. It isn't. It is marking the abolition of the slave trade. Slavery itself wasn't abolished by this country until 1838.

Imagine waiting a further 31 years, after most decent people had decided that the slave trade was intolerable. Here's Pitt's speech to the house, way back on April 2 1792: "We may now consider that this trade as having received its condemnation; that its sentence is sealed; that this curse of mankind is seen by the House in its true light; and that the greatest stigma on our national character which ever yet existed is about to be removed."

Imagine the frustration of being an enslaved African in 1807, knowing the trade was supposed to have stopped because people in Britain had decided it was evil, and still being subjected to endless beatings and whippings, and still not getting a sniff of free air for another 31 years.

It's time that Scotland included the history of the plantations alongside the history of the Highland clearances.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007...ardianreview25

No, my questions were not answered. Your just deflecting the questions. My questions were about the South, not NY. I know what motivated the NY bankers - MONEY.

And you neglect to mention that while the bankers profited from slavery, countless thousands of NYers died to stop it. Those honored dead were on the right side of history.

Now I want you to tell me what motivated THE SOUTH to fight for slavery to the bitter end. Why was the Confederacy willing to cause over 600,000 dead and countless wounded, if not to maintain slavery?

Were all the Southern dead on the right side of history? Would you be a happier man today if the South had won and slavery lasted another 50 years or more?

If the South had won, which Confederate state do you think would have given slavery up last and approximately what year would it have been? Would at least one of them still allow slavery today?
Originally Posted by ExNYer

No, your questions were answered, you’re just too willfully ignorant to discern the truth!

That's right, bitch! Own it! You pretentious jackasses bend over backwards trying to proclaim Northerners had completely washed their hands of slavery and racism when history shows demonstrates otherwise. Own it, bitch! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I did own it.

And to their credit, the Northern states did fight and die to end it. Can you say that same about the 11 Southern states in the CSA?

You make the classic mistake of asserting that because some group is not perfect, therefore they cannot criticize another group. This is a fallacy. No humans are perfect or unanimous in their beliefs. So, it is entirely possible that the majority of NYers opposed and fought against slavery while a minority profited from it. But so what? That does not mean that NYers were not justfied in their cause.

Southerners were not unanimous either. Many individuals fought with the Union. Three slave states refused to secede and raise troops to fight the Conferacy. But their valor does not give credit or support to the 11 states that did secede.

That's right, bitch! Own it! You pretentious jackasses bend over backwards trying to proclaim Northerners had completely washed their hands of slavery and racism when history shows demonstrates otherwise. Own it, bitch!

Missing faces
The Guardian, Friday 23 March 2007
Jackie Kay

As the United Kingdom marks the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade tomorrow, Jackie Kay challenges fellow Scots to acknowledge their forebears' part in this shameful history and reflects on the ordeal suffered by her ancestors
Share

When the producer Pam Fraser Solomon first asked me to write something to mark the 200th anniversary of abolition, I replied that I thought enough had been written about slavery, and that I didn't want to be pigeonholed as a black writer. Black writers are often expected to write about slavery and race. I also thought I knew a lot about the period, and had written the odd poem.

Most British people think of slavery as something that happened in America and perhaps the Caribbean. They know vaguely about boats, Bristol, Liverpool, and something about sugar maybe, but not that Britain was the main slave trader. Nor that two days before a slave ship docked, it could be smelt, the putrescence of blood, faeces, vomit and rotting bodies carried downwind into the port.

Being African and Scottish, I'd taken comfort in the notion that Scotland was not nearly as implicated in the horrors of the slave trade as England. Scotland's self image is one of a hard-done-to wee nation, yet bonny and blithe. I once heard a Scottish woman proudly say: "We don't have racism up here, that's an English thing, that's down south." Scotland is a canny nation when it comes to remembering and forgetting. The plantation owner is never wearing a kilt.

It's a not so delicious irony that the anniversary of the bicentenary is also the bicentenary of the union between Scotland and England, which allowed Scotland to profit from the slave trade in a big way, and changed the face of Glasgow in particular. When Bishop Pococke visited Glasgow in 1760, he remarked that "the city has above all others felt the advantages of the union in the West Indian trade which is very great, especially in tobacco, indigoes and sugar".

I belong to Glasgow, dear old Glasgow town, but, alas, there is something the matter with Glasgow that's going round and round. Glasgow does not readily admit its history in the way that other cities in the United Kingdom have done - Bristol, Liverpool, London. Other cities are holding major events to commemorate the abolition. What's happening in Glasgow? - in the Gallery of Modern Art, for instance, which was originally Cunninghame Mansion, built in 1778, the splendid townhouse of William Cunningham, a tobacco baron? Or in Buchanan Street, the great shopping street, named after Andrew Buchanan, another tobacco lord, or in Jamaica Street, Tobago Street, the Kingston Bridge?

At school, I was taught about the industrial revolution, but not about the slave trade which financed and powered it. I was taught about James Watt's steam engine. In Balmuildy Primary School, I was in the house group Watt (we had four house groups: Baird, Carnegie, Fleming and Watt). I was proud of Watt's steam engine, but I was not taught that money from a slave trader financed his invention. I was taught my times tables the old-fashioned way by rote, but was not taught about the triangular slave trade.

At school, I learnt that Glasgow was a great merchant city. I learnt about the shipping industry, but not about the slave ship Neptune that arrived in Carlisle Bay, Barbados, on May 22 1731, after leaving Port Glasgow months earlier, carrying 144 enslaved Africans, half of whom were children. When they arrived they were "polished" - meaning a layer of skin was removed with fierce scrubbing - and a wadding rammed up the rectum of those who had dysentery, and then put up for sale.

I learnt about the French revolution, the Russian revolution, but not about the Demerara rebellions, the St Kitts uprising. I learnt about clans and clan names and kilts and the differing tartans and the Highland clearances, but not that in Jamaica in 1770 there were 100 African people called MacDonald, or that a quarter of the island's people were Scottish. There was a network of Argyll Campbells at least 100 strong in Jamaica too, concentrated on the west of the island, where the place names were nostalgic: Argyle, Glen Islay.

Yet Scotland never acknowledges the Scottish plantation owner who was often as cruel as his English or American counterpart. It almost seems anti-Scottish to imagine all those MacDonalds out there in Jamaica stuffing their faces on mutton broth, roast mutton, stewed mudfish, roast goose and paw-paw, stewed giblets, fine lettuce, crabs, cheese, mush melon. Or knocking back punch, porter, ale, cider, Madeira wine and brandy - this from a true account of a plantation owner's meal in 1775 - while the enslaved Africans got whipped for sucking a sugar cane.

It's a common misperception that March 25 2007, is "celebrating" the abolition of slavery. It isn't. It is marking the abolition of the slave trade. Slavery itself wasn't abolished by this country until 1838.

Imagine waiting a further 31 years, after most decent people had decided that the slave trade was intolerable. Here's Pitt's speech to the house, way back on April 2 1792: "We may now consider that this trade as having received its condemnation; that its sentence is sealed; that this curse of mankind is seen by the House in its true light; and that the greatest stigma on our national character which ever yet existed is about to be removed."

Imagine the frustration of being an enslaved African in 1807, knowing the trade was supposed to have stopped because people in Britain had decided it was evil, and still being subjected to endless beatings and whippings, and still not getting a sniff of free air for another 31 years.

It's time that Scotland included the history of the plantations alongside the history of the Highland clearances.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007...ardianreview25 Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Why the fuck are you posting something about Scotland?

No, your questions were answered, you’re just too willfully ignorant to discern the truth! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Funny, I don't see any answers.

Go ahead. Show us that Southern bravery.

Give us your predictions for when slavery would have ended if the South had won. Predict some actual dates and the last state to give it up.

Isn't there something you can cut and paste from?

ExNY, Quid Sod? Really? We should be having our arguments drunk, just like in the Old Country, brother! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No argument from me on that point.

Funny, I don't see any answers. Originally Posted by ExNYer

The ignorant and willfully blind seldom do.

The ignorant and willfully blind seldom do. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Keep avoiding the questions.

That's what the ignorant and willfully blind often do.

And what's with the Scotland quote?

Keep avoiding the questions.

That's what the ignorant and willfully blind often do.

And what's with the Scotland quote?
Originally Posted by ExNYer

The article written by Jackie Kay pretty well implicates the Scots and the Brits in the slave trade and slavery up to 1838. The wiki article about the New York City riots illustrates period (1860s) Irish-racist sentiments towards blacks: the referenced "immigrants" were mostly Irish, just an FYI. So, that pretty well blankets "the British Isles". The other questions you asked were answered, ExNYer the willfully blind and ignorant.

The article written by Jackie Kay pretty well implicates the Scots and the Brits in the slave trade and slavery up to 1838. The wiki article about the New York City riots illustrates period (1860s) Irish-racist sentiments towards blacks: the referenced "immigrants" were mostly Irish, just an FYI. So, that pretty well blankets "the British Isles". The other questions you asked were answered, ExNYer the willfully blind and ignorant. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Ah, so that's what it is. Blanket everybody with blame, so that let's Confederates off the hook?

And those Irish that rioted in NY were illiterate peasants straight off the boat that were drafted into the Union Army as soon as they landed. It wasn't right, but they had some grounds for being resentful against the US. But, do you really equate that with owning slaves and fighting to keep blacks enslaved? And those Irish wouldn't have had to riot in the first place if the South had not seceded and started a war. So, I guess you can blame that on the Confederacy, too.

So, come on. Let's have a REAL answer. I'll give you my predictions if that helps.

I predict that Mississippi would have given it up last and they would have held onto it until at least the 1920s.

What say you IB?

It all makes perfect sense now!

OH I WISH IB IN THE LAND OF COTTON...
DIPSHIT OF THE YEARS PLUMB ROTTEN
WHIRLAWAY! WHIRLAWAY! WHIRLAWAY! DICKS IN HIS HAND!

IN DIXIELAND WHERE IBS FROM
THE PEOPLE ARE SO FUCKING DUMB...

what a fucking redneck dipshit!

Ah, so that's what it is. Blanket everybody with blame, so that let's Confederates off the hook?

And those Irish that rioted in NY were illiterate peasants straight off the boat that were drafted into the Union Army as soon as they landed. It wasn't right, but they had some grounds for being resentful against the US. But, do you really equate that with owning slaves and fighting to keep blacks enslaved? And those Irish wouldn't have had to riot in the first place if the South had not seceded and started a war. So, I guess you can blame that on the Confederacy, too.

So, come on. Let's have a REAL answer. I'll give you my predictions if that helps.

I predict that Mississippi would have given it up last and they would have held onto it until at least the 1920s.

What say you IB?
Originally Posted by ExNYer

Face your history, ExNYer. Your pretentious belief that your forebears were less racist and that other pretentious pricks like you did not have forebears that profitted off slaves and the slave trade is a myth! Without that myth to enshroud your argument and left-loon sensibilities, you are nakedly exposed as the hypocrite you are. Own it, bitch!

Face your history, ExNYer. Your pretentious belief that your forebears were less racist and that other pretentious pricks like you did not have forebears that profitted off slaves and the slave trade is a myth! Without that myth to enshroud your argument and left-loon sensibilities, you are nakedly exposed as the hypocrite you are. Own it, bitch! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I don't have any forebears that made slaves of black people. We didn't get here until after WWII.

Maybe there were some ancient Celts from the time before the Romans that had slaves, but those were other Celts they enslaved - usually war prisoners.

Not quite the same as keeping slaves based on race is it?

But I have already said that I have no problem stating that slave profiteering NYers did wrong. Now let's see you write something similar about Southerners.

Or do you not agree? Do you think slavery was OK, as your ancestors practiced it? Can we at least get you to admit that it wasn't?