- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The reality of Slavery in the US vs everywhere else
Posted on 12/12/25 at 9:48 am to TigerSprings
Posted on 12/12/25 at 9:48 am to TigerSprings
quote:And that is fine.
He's trying to turn down the racial animosity towards white people, by saying blacks, given the opportunity, did the same thing.
But every educated American already KNOWS that a handful of free Blacks owned slaves. There are certainly illiterates who are unaware of this fact, and it is even educational to share this info with them.
But these dipshits who keep misrepresenting that some Black was the “largest slaveholder in State X” are not doing that. They are spreading disinformation (knowingly in many cases) with the intent of establishing that Blacks slaveholders were the WORST slaveholders … certainly worse than most Whites.
1
Posted on 12/12/25 at 9:57 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
But these dipshits who keep misrepresenting that some Black was the “largest slaveholder in State X” are not doing that. They are spreading disinformation (knowingly in many cases)
Its still a good way to make liberals face an uncomfortable fact they would otherwise ignore. While trying to prove this person wasn't literally the biggest slave owner in the state, they do have to acknowledge there was indeed a black slave owner though. Once you get them arguing over the amount of slaves the black slave owner owned, they already lost the overall discussion.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 10:13 am to BuckeyeGoon
quote:Sure, if you like lying.
Its still a good way to make liberals face an uncomfortable fact they would otherwise ignore.
The alternative would be to simply provide a list (with links?) of a few prominent Black slaveholders, without the false embellishment.
Personally, I have never found intentional misrepresentation to be a particularly effective means of making a point.
This post was edited on 12/12/25 at 10:15 am
Posted on 12/12/25 at 10:44 am to Tiger Attorney
That's never been in dispute. So it your contention that because a few black guys owned slaves it mitigates the moral issue, if not excusing it altogether.
I suspect slavery was not in any way pleasant for the slave regardless of the skin color of the owner.
Do you doubt or argue that the Southern Planter class that was overwhelmingly white had a vested interest in not only maintaining slavery but also keeping the slaves in line by extreme means if needed?
I suspect slavery was not in any way pleasant for the slave regardless of the skin color of the owner.
Do you doubt or argue that the Southern Planter class that was overwhelmingly white had a vested interest in not only maintaining slavery but also keeping the slaves in line by extreme means if needed?
Posted on 12/12/25 at 11:03 am to Tiger Attorney
quote:
This simple fact destroys every Progressive argument about the Institution of slavery in America.
It does not.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 11:43 am to SOSFAN
quote:
Let's never forget it was black tribes that originally sold the slaves and there were also thousands of free blacks on America that owned thousands of slaves.
Lets also not forget that slaves were only in America for 86 years. Prior to 1776 the slaves were under the British.
600,000 men died to free them, that should cover the 86 years. If reparations are needed they should contact King Charles.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:21 pm to hansenthered1
quote:
Everyone owned slaves. Slavery was normal. The US did not invent it or decide on it, it was the norm.
American slavery varied a lot by religion and region. In the 17th century most people lived in large lots (by our standards) around small towns. Visualize a house and small barn surrounded by 10-50 acres of land. The owner could work the land with his sons and no slaves. He might find one poorer white worker to help out for pay. But Virginia broke the mold with richer people getting grants of 500 or more acres and they bought slaves. So, the slave dependency difference between North and South started before the American Revolution, much less than before the Civil War.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:25 pm to alphaandomega
quote:FFS.
600,000 men died to free them
Those men died to "preserve the Union." Lincoln was VERY clear that he was willing to either (a) free the slaves or (b) leave them in bondage ... whichever would "preserve the Union."
Were there Abolitionists amongst the Union soldiers? Sure. But they were a tiny minority.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:26 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
You’re so disgusting
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:28 pm to Zach
quote:Remember too that those larger landowners started off working their land with indentured servants from England.
American slavery varied a lot by religion and region. In the 17th century most people lived in large lots (by our standards) around small towns. Visualize a house and small barn surrounded by 10-50 acres of land. The owner could work the land with his sons and no slaves. He might find one poorer white worker to help out for pay. But Virginia broke the mold with richer people getting grants of 500 or more acres and they bought slaves. So, the slave dependency difference between North and South started before the American Revolution, much less than before the Civil War.
But Englishmen willing to work a seven-year indenture in exchange for transport became rarer and rarer, plus it was tiresome to replace your entire labor force every seven years. So reliance upon involuntary servitude increased.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:30 pm to Madking
quote:Those are the objective facts, my friend.
You’re so disgusting
Don't rely upon the mythological apotheosis of Lincoln and his motives. Open a book.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:36 pm to alphaandomega
quote:
Prior to 1776 the slaves were under the British.
Not in Louisiana. Slaves in colonial Louisiana even had certain, if limited, rights under the Code Noir. Not to mention the fact that creoles weren't considered black in colonial Louisiana. Once Louisiana was admitted to the Union, they got rid of the Code, and creoles lost most of their rights as well.
And many times what the black slave owners were doing was buying slaves to reunite them with their families. I believe that was the case with the creole owners of Laura Plantation.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:39 pm to Harry Boutte
quote:The simple truth is that most SMALL Black slaveholders were purchasing family members and that applicable state laws prevented them from then freeing their wives and children.
And many times what the black slave owners were doing was buying slaves to reunite them with their families. I believe that was the case with the creole owners of Laura Plantation.
But it is ALSO true that there were small numbers of rich Black planters who owned and treated many slaves no differently than their White counterparts.
Shocking, but both can be true simultaneously. The world is not monochromatic.
This post was edited on 12/12/25 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:44 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
This is not really true.
It's not true that slavery was the norm when America was founded?
How many countries outlawed slavery prior to 1776?
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:48 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
William Ellison
I know Bill Ellison. He is very wealthy, but he owns no slaves
This post was edited on 12/12/25 at 4:53 pm
Posted on 12/12/25 at 12:51 pm to Azkiger
quote:Very few.
How many countries outlawed slavery prior to 1776?
But it was also vanishinly-rare even in most countries that had not legally banned it.
England is a good example. In 1700, the population of England was 5 million, and there were about ten thousand slaves. Two-tenths of one percent of the population. That is not "common," as asserted in the OP.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 1:04 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Very few.
Zero, actually.
quote:
England is a good example. In 1700, the population of England was 5 million, and there were about ten thousand slaves. Two-tenths of one percent of the population. That is not "common," as asserted in the OP.
Why are you comparing a nation that's 800ish years old (at that point in time) to a new nation?
In 1086 over 10% of England's population were slaves, very similar to America in its youth.
This post was edited on 12/12/25 at 2:31 pm
Posted on 12/12/25 at 1:09 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Worst mistake we've made.
I don't know about that. 60 plus million abortions and counting. Those consequences are gonna come due some day.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 1:14 pm to Azkiger
quote:So, you are saying that slavery is a necessary step in the social development of a nation?
Why are you comparing a nation that's 800ish years old (at that point in time) to a new nation?
In 1086 over 10% of England's population were slaves, very similar to America in it's youth.
That sounds remarkably-similar to the Communist dialectic theory.
Posted on 12/12/25 at 1:52 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Lmao
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News