# May I educate you?



## SGT E (Feb 25, 2015)

How Many Slaves Landed in the U.S.? | The African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross | PBS

The guy falsely arrested...called to the white House to have a 
Beer with the cop that arrested him.........

388,000 Slaves were sent to the USA total in the USA total between Between 1525 and 1866...350 years....thats 1100 a year while 11 million went to South America and the Caribbean!

I believe him!

Henry Louis Gates is my backup....I wouldn't wanna be called a racist!

The page will disappear soon!


----------



## stowlin (Apr 25, 2016)

Intriguing


----------



## Montana Rancher (Mar 4, 2013)

My recent recollection was there were about 4 million slaves in the south around 1860

400k is a joke.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

IMO, should have sent the other 388,000 to south America,


----------



## Targetshooter (Dec 4, 2015)

the slaves were brought here because of the lazy azz white man couldn't pick cotton , if they would have did there own farming we wouldn't have the trouble we have now .


----------



## Illini Warrior (Jan 24, 2015)

old Abe had the right solution .... a mule and 40 acres back in Africa ....


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

Over 600000 white soldiers fought and died in the civil war to free the slaves. But not ONE thank you.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Chipper said:


> Over 600000 white soldiers fought and died in the civil war to free the slaves. But not ONE thank you.


Slavery was only a side issue for the Civil War.


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

Yep, the Civil War was more about a Brexit situation than it was about slavery. Then, as now, people/media try to make political issues into moral/social issues.


----------



## SOCOM42 (Nov 9, 2012)

That jerk in Cambridge, is a like minded left wing turd friend of the "thing" in the WH.

Not brought to you by the left wing media, is that the jerky professor has been an anti American activist for a long time, and was well known to the authorities.


----------



## essdub (Feb 13, 2016)

Slavery is wrong now. It was wrong then. 
It is still happening today, just not so much in this country.It wasn't only in the south of the US, either. But it was an established method of doing things. The white people in the southern US didn't invent it. 
AND the whole population of whites in the south wasn't necessarily part of all that. There were a LOT of poor whites who weren't much more than slaves themselves. 
And just where do you suppose they got those slaves to begin with? Someone (not necessarily a white person)sold those slaves to people who then brought them to various places around the world. 
I'll say it again, 
Slavery is and was wrong. 
There is no getting around that. 
But the south wasn't comprised solely of slave owning hate mongers who wanted to rule by force. And the south didn't fight the civil war only because of slavery. But history is written by the victors. Those of you who are 40 and older should look into the"history"children are being taught today in schools. The differences in what we were taught and what they are being taught doesn't stop at slavery. 
Kinda makes you wonder just how much has been"edited" or modified throughout even just our country's history. Brain washing citizens wasn't invented by the U.S. and the current media either. 
But they play a major role and have for quite some time. I read this recently :
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Nazi minister of propaganda said :"think of the press as a great keyboard on which the govt can play". And that's just the media. Imagine the "influence"someone could exert if they controlled the education system. ..


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

It is humorous that the same people in the US that hate the US because of slavery 150 years ago love Africa and even call themselves African-Americans while many countries in Africa currently have millions of slaves. And nearly 100% of the slavers are black muslimes who are enslaving black non muslimes
Dumbasses..


----------



## 8301 (Nov 29, 2014)

Montana Rancher said:


> My recent recollection was there were about 4 million slaves in the south around 1860
> 
> 400k is a joke.


Actually the number is probably about right. Slaves were very expensive and few people could afford them. A $800 slave back then would cost $23,700 in today's money. Most slaves in the US were born here. It was much less expensive to "breed you own" than to buy a slave.

Recent genetic testing on 3000 blacks here in the US show that they average being 13% white and only 87% black. This is mostly from early slave owners "breeding their own".

Sorry if my choice of words offends anyone here. Personally I don't care about the color of a man's skin. You're either a man with honor or you are worthless in my book.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

Montana Rancher said:


> My recent recollection was there were about 4 million slaves in the south around 1860
> 
> 400k is a joke.


Montana, I didn't know you were that old.... to be able to recollect the total slaves first hand.

Also do not confuse total original African slaves "transported" to the total number of Black slaves.

A count of todays black men over 18 as compared to the number of kids under 18, will show that they breed like rabbits....and that would have made good sense to allow and encourage during a slave era, to grow a work force porportionate to the growth of the industry, without the required original purchase price.

And justified on the same metric of cattle having calfs, as to ownership, but conflicting with the concept that a slave only worked off his original purchase price and upkeep....which some owners did honor.

Still...the claim that there were 4 million slaves in the south doesn't sound correct....but I'm willing to be convinced with more information.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Maybe in the whole nation, but a lot of ill-informed prefer to think that the South was where evil resided.
Some still think that, as a matter of fact.


----------



## essdub (Feb 13, 2016)

Denton said:


> Maybe in the whole nation, but a lot of ill-informed prefer to think that the South was where evil resided.
> Some still think that, as a matter of fact.


Yep. And good, those people can think that all they want. They should stay the hell outta the south. Particularly my part of the south


----------



## keith9365 (Apr 23, 2014)

Southern cotton planters did not travel to Africa to capture slaves and bring them here. Look at who was capturing and selling their own people into slavery. Fast forward 400 years and look at the criminal gangs in our inner cities. Their descendants make slaves of their own people today by enslaving them with drugs.


----------



## Rabies (Jun 22, 2016)

The Civil War was nit about slavery, it was about southern rights and independence from the oppression the north was imposing on the south.

Lincoln only freed the slaves to keep England and France from joining the war on the side if the south that freed the slaves before Lincoln did!
Also Lincoln as loosing the war and need man power so he freed the slaves and then forced then to fight in the war!

Look at the many southern Generals that went to war against the north and not only brought ther "slaves" with them but also armed them!
General Nathan Bedford Forest had armed his "slaves" and they were his personal body guards!!!! How many northern generals did that????? None!!!

So sorry but the Civil War had nothing to do about slavery!!! 

If you take a northern battle map and lay it over a southern map of breweries, tobacco and cotton fields you'll see what the War Of Northern Aggression was really about


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

The Civil War was about slavery. Pure and simple. The greatest "state right" the Confederacy was concerned with was slavery. I was born and raised in the South, but wrong is wrong. Sherman said it best when he he said "Never, in the history of war, has anyone fought so bravely for such a terrible cause."


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

csi-tech said:


> The Civil War was about slavery. Pure and simple. The greatest "state right" the Confederacy was concerned with was slavery. I was born and raised in the South, but wrong is wrong. Sherman said it best when he he said "Never, in the history of war, has anyone fought so bravely for such a terrible cause."


I know this is a waste of time as always, but I will once again suggest to all interested in the topic, read,The South Was Right.


----------



## Rabies (Jun 22, 2016)

I'm not saying anything about slavery being right or wrong. 
But the war was not about slavery!
If it was why did the north wait until the last year of the war to end slavery? Long after most southern states did!
And why did the underground railroad go all the way to Massachusetts? That's well past the northern lines!! 
No the north was well involved with slavery, so well involved that they were the ones promoting it! 
It was about the northern govt taxing the heck out of the south and buying southern goods for dirt cheap then selling them overseas at jacked up prices. Just like today!
NYC controls the markets, the shipping, the trading and the money! The south had the textile and cash crops, and booze! Yes believe it or not American booze was all the rage in Europe and was just as valuable as our cotton and tobacco!
What did the north make or grow? What do they make or grow now???? Nothing but money and the markets.

Slavery was a secondary issue of the war........nobody really cared about it back then. The south used slaves in the fields and the north used them in the city's and in their fancy homes, and their fields.

The north was greedy and the south rose up! That's why the Fed Givt called it the "southern uprising" it was never called a war by the north, it was simply a rebellion


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Less than 6% of southerners were slave owners, yet the south rallied to war losing several hundred thousand lives. Read the book, The South Was Right and then you do the math. You might be rethinking history as written by the victors.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

The US government passed legislation in 1807 that prohibited the importation of slaves from 1808 onward. Undoubtedly some were smuggled in after that date, but the vast majority of those slaves directly from Africa were here by 1808. So millions were here by 1808, the 388,000 bred at an exponential rate or somewhere in between the two previous possibilities accounts for 4 million by 1860.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

csi-tech said:


> The Civil War was about slavery. Pure and simple. The greatest "state right" the Confederacy was concerned with was slavery. I was born and raised in the South, but wrong is wrong. Sherman said it best when he he said "Never, in the history of war, has anyone fought so bravely for such a terrible cause."


CSI....I am too and your wrong...slavery was a component. But nothing more than that...just like illegal immigration deportation is a component of today's disagreements.

In fact its very similar, however in reverse. The dems want them here and want them allowed to vote. The Repubs want them here to work but not to vote.... the whole 3/5th compromise....the vast american people just want to be fare and safe and too have our laws upheld.

The idea that the south could ever just free the slave in a short period was and is an asinine one. Minimalisticaly its sort of like the whole close GITMO thing...the Dems wanted it done but they found out it couldn't be done easily...its still there.... The North, just like the Dems of today, used slavery out of political expedience.

The main component of the civil war was political control of the nation...either it was to be by the Federal Government and a Northern state dominated House and Senate or by a weaker Federal Government with States holding superior power within the states boundaries.

Slavery...right or wrong...was a way of life...and the truth is that without the slave trade, most of those 12.5M slaves would have been killed due to the tribal wars in Africa instead of just captured and enslaved...look at the Congo, Rwanda and other places in the 20th century....

After the fact, slavery is viewed as horrendous....I agree since I was raised to believe ALL People are created equal in the eyes of God...but not all people are equal...as shown by differing IQ, genetics, and social standing.

I am not one to judge the past under the lens of today...

But I do like to be as accurate about describing the why's of yesteryear to my kids as I can be...so please correct me where I may be wrong.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

New guy 101 said:


> CSI....I am too and your wrong...slavery was a component. But nothing more than that...just like illegal immigration deportation is a component of today's disagreements.
> 
> In fact its very similar. The dems want them here and want them allowed to vote. The Repubs want them here to work but not to vote.... the whole 3/5th compromise....the vast american people just want to be fare and safe and too have our laws upheld.
> 
> ...


I will add that the disregard towards human indignity and suffering then...which is made so much of in todays discussions.... is still alive and well today...

Just as slaves where considered sub human by many based on color, lack of education, and cultural differences, and was used by some as justification for the practice of slavery and having a superior group rule them....Is exactly the mind set of the political discussions of today but instead of race its ideology that is the factor...by both sides...

We even say things like them being to stupid to vote...

All we've done today is remove the forced labor aspect...slavery is still here....and ironically Dems are still the lead slave masters...so I will never call the democratic party stupid... they are absolutely brilliant.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

I love this topic! My Bachelors Degree is in History and I took quiet a few classes on the Civil War time period from Antibellum through Reconstruction. I'm going to try to write this post without writing another research paper which it could very easily turn to



A Watchman said:


> Slavery was only a side issue for the Civil War.





csi-tech said:


> The Civil War was about slavery. Pure and simple. The greatest "state right" the Confederacy was concerned with was slavery. I was born and raised in the South, but wrong is wrong. Sherman said it best when he he said "Never, in the history of war, has anyone fought so bravely for such a terrible cause."


Both of these quotes are partially correct and partially incorrect.

To understand the causes of the Civil War you have to begin at the founding of the United States. The northern colonies, typically the ones north of Virginia where founded by the Puritans aka Pilgrims who left Europe for religious reasons. The southern colonies, typically the ones south of Pennsylvania where founded by those seeking profit. Right from the beginning there was a culture class which lead to the formation of political parties which dominated by region.

Slavery was unpopular in the former Puritan Colonies and it was outlawed rather quickly while the former southern colonies saw slavery as an essential asset in their agrarian economy. This lead to great debate during the Constitutional Convention. The northern states didn't want slaves to count towards a states population for the purposes of number representatives in the House of Representatives while the Southern States did. They eventually settled on the first slavery compromise where a slave would count towards 3/5 of a person towards a states total population.

For a while this worked, the North was free and the South was slave but then came the expansion of the United States with the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican war. As new territories began to become new states the debate over whether to allow slavery in the new states heated up. The Abolitionist faction made up primarily of radical Whigs wanted straight abolition, there would be no new slave states. The opposition faction made up of Democrats wanted to leave it up to the citizens of the states to decide if they wanted to be a slave state or a free state. This lead to a series of compromises starting with the Missouri Compromise. Under the Missouri Compromise all territory south of the 36°30′ north parallel in the Louisiana Purchase territory would be slave with the exception of Missouri which would also be a slave state and all territory north would be free. This compromise was hailed as a great success and essential part of United States history. Most historians credit its creator Henry Clay as postponing the Civil War for several years due to his ability to make compromises. Later on after the Mexican American war the Compromise of 1850 was reached which brought California in as a free state, allowed Utah and New Mexico to vote on the issue, ended slavery in the District of Colombia, readjusted Texas's borders making it a smaller state, and creating a strong fugitive slave law. Again this compromise was heralded as a great success. However again like most things in politics it didn't last.

The event known as Bleeding Kansas was the prelude to the election of Abraham Lincoln and the start of the Civil War. When Kansas which was north of the 36°30′ north parallel was entering the Union the idea of letting the state pick came back up. Rumors sparked both sides of the debate to flood Kansas in order to vote and ultimately this lead to violence. Between 1854 and 1859 56 people where killed and the state was divided but ended up voting to be a Free State. This conflict saw the rise of nationalism from both regions which lead to the abolitionist movement becoming more extreme which in turn made slave owners equally as extreme and ultimately created the powder keg which ignited when Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860.

I feel like I didn't' give these events justice in this post, like I said though I wanted to not write a research paper. There where many other events outside of slavery such as the Central Bank debate, The Indian Removal Act and the Mexican War debate which contributed towards tensions. Bottom line is you had two different cultures vying for power and trying to force their views onto the other side. Whats really frighting is a lot of the factors that where present prior to the Civil War are present today. We have two sides which cannot agree on anything and do everything in their power to force their views on the other side. The only difference is instead of slavery we talk about gun control, immigrants, and bathrooms today.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

You know I totally left out the nullification debate that occurred in the Virginia acts and Kentucky Resolutions and the Andrew Jackson presidency. The history during this time period is great. Like I said slavery was a BIG issue but I'm of the opinion that this was an inevitable conflict between two sides that just couldn't get a long and today we're starting to see it happen again.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

I also think its worth pointing out that this image Hollywood gives of the huge plantations and cruel overseers is a bit exaggerated. They certainly did exist and there where certainly cruel slave owners but the overwhelmingly majority of slave owning households only had 1 or 2 slaves and they where generally treated much better than free northern industrial workers where at the time. Like others said, slaves where expensive so only the super rich could afford to staff an entire plantation with them and mistreating them wasn't good policy although it did happen.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Your on a roll NotTooProudToHide, now continue on with the South's right to free trade with their farming enterprises and the interference by the North's greedy factories (all staffed by slave immigrants).


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

A Watchman said:


> Your on a roll NotTooProudToHide, now continue on with the South's right to free trade with their farming enterprises and the interference by the North's greedy factories (all staffed by slave immigrants).


Or why all the infrastructure built by the government was primarily in the manufacturing base in the north. The disparity of railroads in the regions was astounding.

I could teach a semester long class on the civil war and events leading up to it. People talk about how great a General Ulysses S Grant was, give Robert E Lee the same troop numbers and the same equipment and see what happens. Even as things where had Stonewall Jackson not been killed by his own sentries he would have lead the assault on Little Round top at Gettysburg, I suspect that would have lead to a much different outcome.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> I love this topic! My Bachelors Degree is in History and I took quiet a few classes on the Civil War time period from Antibellum through Reconstruction. I'm going to try to write this post without writing another research paper which it could very easily turn to
> 
> Both of these quotes are partially correct and partially incorrect.
> 
> ...


I can find no fault in what you state. I would ask further definement of what the major intents where as the new states were formed.... was it purely to propagate them as states that held to the practice of slavery or banishing it?

I submit that the major issue was not in expanding slavery...as the southern states had already had a path to move away from slavery and no new slaves where being imported from outside. The underlying issues in my view where to influence the senate vote.

As I mentioned..the house was ovewhelmingly controlled by the North...so taxation upon exports and agricultural products where seen as unfair and government seen as more supportive of the industrial expansionism.

With the 3/5th compromise this brought a renewed battle to control the senate vote. Expansion to the west was seen as a pivotal point to control the senate and balance the loss of power the house had given up...the 3/5th compromise ultimately was done away with.

One can argue it was done so because the added representatives did not represent the slaves as they could not vote...but instead unfairly gave southern plantation owners more representatives per capita than the north.

Slavery was seen as something to get away from even in the south...but to do so would take decades and increased prices of agricultural products or await the technological revolutions such as the cotten Gin..and mechanical devices.
The North...much like the America today, didn't want to pay more...and would gladly import products from abroad...without import taxes (can you say trade imbalances)..and the federal government prevented prices from being raised...making it damn near impossible to increase the prices...so further the demand for slaves...

All in all its much like todays political climate...a million little issues that gets one name to tear at americas emotions... Like "Sanctuary City"..."Right to work"...."Equal rights"....

So a fight today to expand into more states would be labeled as "Immigrant State" vs "Non Immigrant State" and depending on who won the war to come or who was writing the news...either would look good or bad.

History today...like History 1,000 years ago...is a compilation of view points of the time....viewed through the moral and ideological lens of today...and rarely complete....

The world was factually flat at one time....Radium was a safe way to get rid of gray hair at one time...asbestos was a perfectly safe fire proofing material...and lead based makeup and paint was the rage of the day at one point....

So forgive me if I don't buy anyones view point ...nor should you mine....just consider it and make up your own mind...

And to CSI...I should not have said your wrong...I should have said...I disagree. No offense meant.


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Africa must be more racist than us. They still have more slaves today than was ever brought to the South. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_contemporary_Africa


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Newguy101, the short answer is the representation the new states would have in the House of Representatives and the power that would have in the culture class that was going on between the Whigs and the Democrats. Slavery was already on its deathbed because of the outlawing of importing new slaves and the abolition movement was gaining ground albeit a different way than the powers wanted it to be.

People forget about the American Colonization Society and their plans to compensate slave owners and resettle slaves in Liberia West Africa. Abraham Lincoln was actually a big fan of this idea and tried to get it through but the more radical elements in the Republican party rejected it in favor of government mandated abolition.


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

I will add this little tidbit for thought provoking....
If you do believe that the war was about slavery consider this.....The democrats (vast majority) of the south...fought like hell to force the American people to accept their idea of what was right...and even opposed by the federal army and northern states....nearly won....

Imagine how it would have ended if the federal Government had been controlled by the south?

Now transpose that to todays Democrats doing everything they can to make Americans accept their idea of what's right...and how they not only control the federal government...but the vast majority of media...the west coast, most of the east coast...the northern border and part of the southern border...

What chance do we have in beating them?


----------



## New guy 101 (Dec 17, 2014)

The simple proclamation by Mr. Lincoln that he would free the slaves or keep them enslaved to maintain the UNION..tells me that although many were impassioned by the concern of slavery....the major issue at hand was federal power and control over state sovereignty and slavery was the talking points memo of the time.


----------



## Rabies (Jun 22, 2016)

And let's not forget what the north did to the southern states after the war!

Revisionalist history left that part out!


----------



## essdub (Feb 13, 2016)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> I love this topic! My Bachelors Degree is in History and I took quiet a few classes on the Civil War time period from Antibellum through Reconstruction. I'm going to try to write this post without writing another research paper which it could very easily turn to
> 
> Both of these quotes are partially correct and partially incorrect.
> 
> ...


Thank you. This sounds like the history I was taught in school. I do tend to believe more of the "southern "side, allowing that slavery was AN issue but not THE issue for the war. Part of that is because, as you stated, there are SO many similarities between that time and right now. 
I'm glad that someone who is educated was able to state these things, because when I do it, people just look at me like I'm some dumb rebel *******. Not that I particularly give a flying fuzzy f , but you know.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

essdub said:


> Thank you. This sounds like the history I was taught in school. I do tend to believe more of the "southern "side, allowing that slavery was AN issue but not THE issue for the war. Part of that is because, as you stated, there are SO many similarities between that time and right now.
> I'm glad that someone who is educated was able to state these things, because when I do it, people just look at me like I'm some dumb rebel *******. Not that I particularly give a flying fuzzy f , but you know.


I was extremely fortunate to have a good professor when I was in college who taught the truth rather than a version of it.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> I was extremely fortunate to have a good professor when I was in college who taught the truth rather than a version of it.


Not trying to stir anything, but how do you know?

Never mind me. When someone asks me how old I am, I start the answer with the word, "allegedly." After all, I have no memory of my birth, let alone the date.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Denton said:


> Not trying to stir anything, but how do you know?
> 
> Never mind me. When someone asks me how old I am, I start the answer with the word, "allegedly." After all, I have no memory of my birth, let alone the date.


Fair point.

History is subjective by nature, your bias simply by what you include and what you exclude. I went to a small college, our history department was made up of 3 full time professors and 1 part time, all of them where excellent instructors who had an extreme passion for the area that they taught. The one I was referring too had a background in Southern History and taught things from that point of view. It was the first time in my academic career any teacher differed from the traditional path of instruction about the Civil War and for whatever reason it really stuck with me from the books assigned to the classes themselves. Not only did he differ he didn't try to force his views down students throats, at least from what I saw. There where several students who differed in points of view and their opinions where encouraged in class discussion. When I did the research required to write papers I discovered more and more and more on my own.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> Fair point.
> 
> History is subjective by nature, your bias simply by what you include and what you exclude. I went to a small college, our history department was made up of 3 full time professors and 1 part time, all of them where excellent instructors who had an extreme passion for the area that they taught. The one I was referring too had a background in Southern History and taught things from that point of view. It was the first time in my academic career any teacher differed from the traditional path of instruction about the Civil War and for whatever reason it really stuck with me from the books assigned to the classes themselves. Not only did he differ he didn't try to force his views down students throats, at least from what I saw. There where several students who differed in points of view and their opinions where encouraged in class discussion. When I did the research required to write papers I discovered more and more and more on my own.


When were you born? :tango_face_grin:


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Since people are people and that will never change, I expect if you interviewed 10 people who actually lived during that time you would get 10 different versions. I'm just sayin..........


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Denton said:


> When were you born? :tango_face_grin:


1983. Not quiet a Gen X'er not quiet a millennial


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> 1983. Not quiet a Gen X'er not quiet a millennial


Sigh.

ALLEGEDLY!!


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Denton said:


> Sigh.
> 
> ALLEGEDLY!!


point taken lol :tango_face_smile:


----------

