Was Slavery as practiced down South really that bad?

It is interesting....the quotes Smilingjack is quoting from come from a rather 'skewed' website called "Occidental Dissent", which is about "Western Racial and Cultural Preservation"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is from their forum rules:
"OD is a social media website for White Nationalists. It is a tool for networking, sharing information, and political analysis and activism relevant to White Nationalism and the broader pro-White movement."

And this gem:

"I think requesting a Jew free forum is fine - this is our place for our people."

Just putting everything in perspective.

 

I am not advocating the ownership of anyone.........I am merely pointing out the economics and real truth of that time period and using that to some degree to point where we are headed.....make no mistake.......we have a failed economic system..........some well known economists have declared we are headed for a servant aka slave economy....I say that a major reason that our economic system here in America failed was because of political correctness aka using the slavery issue in the south as a excuse to create and prop up disastrous social policies that allowed our industrial base to vanish overseas.....along with our traditional middle class.

Having said that I have posted a little about the 'spiritual basis' of True Liberty. Make no mistake......true liberty for anyone no matter their race can only be found in the spiritual realm.

And since my time on this board is probably getting very short....suprised the censors have allowed me this much freedom---I do want to post the following before I am disappeared.


As Paul wrote to the Galatians:

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal 3:26-2 [I'll take a little liberty with Paul's thought: "There is neither republican nor democrat; there is neither liberal nor conservative; there is neither Catholic nor Protestant; there is neither black nor white; there is neither rich nor poor; there is neither American nor non-American: for all are ONE in Christ Jesus!"]

Surely we know no other liberty, save that which is found only in Christ Jesus our Lord. For the so-called "liberty" which men author and seek, is always bound in some way in self-seeking, because it cannot be any other way. There is no pure liberty except God's. It belongs to no political party, no nationality, no theory of government, no set of ideals, no code of ethics, no system of laws, no erroneously called "Christian" society or any other society based on religion or spirituality, nor in any other thing at all. Except it be found in God through Jesus Christ alone without any of these other things, there is no true liberty. It is a counterfeit liberty pumped up by rhetoric, buzz-words and emotional speeches, by fear-mongering emotion and dubiously "massaged" facts, fooling people that their cause, whatever it is, is just and true and given them of God

 

Interesting sentiment from a poster who is copying and pasting extensively from a white nationalist website that promotes a renewed Confederate States and considers the black man to be worthless, and who has called Americans fools for electing 'a colored man'

 

That explains a great deal.

 

Here's something interesting about black slave owners and the origin of slavery in America.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Africans who entered Jamestown between 1620 to 1650 could expect to be freed after serving their indented time and given 50 to 250 acres of land, hogs, cows and seeds and the right to import both white and black indentured servants. For a brief period in American history between 1630 to 1670, a number of Africans had become freedmen and owned indented white servants. The act of 1670 forbidden free Negroes to own Christian servants but conceded the right to own servants of their own race. By 1670, it was becoming customary to hold African servants as “slaves for life,” and by 1681 what was customary became law.

The act of 1668 dealing with the condition of the colored population related solely to the tax obligations of a free black woman, and two years later an act guaranteed to “negroes manumitted or otherwise free” the right to own servants of their own race and expressly denied to them the right to purchase or to own white or “Christian servants.” This law recognized and sanctioned slavery, but also guaranteed the continuity of the free black class, who were now largely mulatto.

ANTHONY JOHNSON

Black slave owners have not been studied as a part of American history, rather as a datum to American history, and yet slavery as a perpetual institution is legalized based on a case brought before the House of Burgess by an African, who had been indentured in Jamestown, Virginia 1621 and was known as Antonio the Negro according to the earliest records. He later Anglicized his name to Anthony. Anthony Johnson was believed to be the first Black to set foot on Virginia soil. He was the first black indentured servant, the first free black, and the first to establish the first black community, first black landowner, first black slave owner, and the first person based on his court case to establish slavery legally in North America. One could argue that he was the founder of slavery in Virginia.

http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=the-black-slave-owners

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kind of ironic that it was a black man that set the precedent for legally owning slaves. Also mentioned is the fact that free blacks could own whites for a brief time. Important in that is the acknowledgement that whites were owned, too. It's one of those weird anomalies in history.

 

Being a slave is never a good thing. However being a slave to an individual is slightly preferable to being a slave to a government because it is easier to ecape from am individual than from a government. The left by and large and many of them without even realizing that's where they are headed fully intend to make us all slaves to government.

 

I don't know, Mexicans do it all the time, course republicans keep trying to make us the next Mexico, if they succeed we will all have to escape to Canada

 

Sometimes slavery is the better alternative if one wants to survive.....essentially slavery is more of a economic thing than one of morality..........I think it is a mistake to believe slavery in all cases is a great evil.....many Christians mistakenly believe that...however I ask............If racism is wrong? why does the Bible say that slavery is okay? It says that slaves should obey their masters in Ephesians and what about Onesimus?

Slavery is ever with us in one form or another....when a Nation becomes weak and at the mercy of other stronger nations then the door is opened for slavery and that is exactly what is happening to America...we are becoming a vassal state of the Chinese.

Most Americans have no clue as to what has happened or what is happening......they have been led astray into foolishness.

A foolish people will get what they deserve.

 

Slavery a millenia ago was about getting enough to eat. That was not the case in 1850. Slavery largely existed in 1850 because no one had yet invented the tractor.

 

Neither party has much to offer.....the democrats are more dangerous I think......yet---neither party is willing to admit the truth regarding what happened to our economy and what is really needed to fix it....(if they know)...both are so blinded by political correctness --I doubt if they even know.

 

Well...a lot of truth in what you say... slavery actually originated by enslaving captives taken during war instead of killing them...they put them to good use.

Slavery down south was as you say mainly a result of economic factors...much like how the mexican invasion was allowed to happen....farmers in California needed cheap labor to pick their crops and it mushroomed from that....to the point now where they are changing the demographics of the nation.

 

Obviously you know little about the White Nationalist Movement..................we do not believe the Negroes are worthless....personally I think there is a place for them in America...as the traditional servant class...if the natural order had not been skewered by the liberals then our Negroes could be doing the work that the mexicans streamed up here to do ...upsetting again the natural order.

The Americans were extremely foolish electing Obama. When you search for a leader you should not search in the low i.q. realm, nor in the realm of marxism, nor in the realm of a people who have little loyalty to traditional America....yes the people who voted for this Negro were extremely foolish....and all of America is paying the price.

White Nationalism FAQ



Q. What is White Nationalism?

A. The idea that Whites may need to create a separate nation as a means of defending themselves.

Q. Do White Nationalists feel they are superior to other races?

A. No. The desire of White Nationalists to form their own nation has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority.

Q. Do White Nationalists seek to dominate other races?

A. Not at all. In fact, formation of a White nation removes any possibility of White dominance of other races, as well as the plausibility of the accusation that Whites wish to dominate others.

Q. Do White Nationalists seek to insulate themselves from competition from other races?

A. No. A separate White nation would establish a policy of free trade with its new neighbors. Labor markets are global, and the formation of a White nation would not protect Whites from economic competition.

Q. Well if White Nationalists don't feel superior, don't want to dominate others, and don't seek protection from competition, then why would they want a separate nation?

A. To avoid exploitation.

Q. Exploitation? This is rich! So how is it that Whites are exploited?

A. It is a long list. Burdensome racial preference schemes in hiring, racial preference schemes in university admissions, racial preference schemes in government contracting and small business loans. Beyond quotas there is the denial of rights of free speech and of due process to Whites who are critical of these governmental policies. We have special punishments for assaults committed by Whites if the motives might be racial. In addition, Whites pay a proportion of the costs of the welfare state that is disproportionate to what they receive in benefits.

But the most exploitative aspect of the situation is that neither the racial quotas, the business preferences, the loss of freedom of speech, nor the disproportionate contributions to the welfare state have managed to sate the appetites of non-Whites living in the United States.

The more Whites sacrifice, the more non-Whites demand. Many Whites are beginning to believe that no amount of tribute, other than mass suicide, would satisfy the non-White demands.

If our presence stirs up that much hatred in the hearts of non-Whites, then the only sensible course of action is to separate ourselves from them.

Q. You claim that non-Whites are the aggressors and haters in race relations. Aren't you afraid that most Whites will think this is ridiculous?

A. Not in the slightest. For the past 30 years most Whites have taken part in a mass migration or "White flight" away from neighborhoods inhabited by non-Whites. Aggressors don't flee. For example, on a per-capita basis, Blacks are 49 times more likely to assault a White than a White is to assault a Black. Assaults by Whites against Blacks are approximately 40 times scarcer than they would be if races were randomly mixed and assault rates did not vary by race. The best measure of racism is the number of non-economically motivated attacks. White score low in this regard, non-Whites high.

The fact is that non-Whites are clamoring to enter this country in droves. Whites are fleeing en masse to formerly uninhabited areas to escape these new arrivals.

Q. But how can Whites be exploited when it is Whites who have enacted these racial preferences, the taxation, the welfare payments and set immigration quotas?

A. Excellent question! It is true that Whites are exploited by their fellow Whites. In fact, we do not expect any resistance by non-Whites to the formation of a separate nation. We expect White integrationist elites to resist. They are the ones who have a great deal to lose.

Q. If life in America is so bad for Whites why don't you just move back to Europe?

A. We are a majority. We do not have to move back. We can resolve to defend ourselves against this onslaught. We have the option of peacefully ceding lands already inhabited by non-Whites to separate non-White nations. We would save money, and could restore our civil liberties and free ourselves from constant threats of violence by so doing.

Q. What would your separate state look like?

A. The truth is we don't know yet. Our separate state would follow the geographic outlines of White flight. The model for this state would be the modern gerrymander created by the Voting Rights Act to create majority non-White congressional districts. We would simply cede these to a separate nation. The mechanics of this process will be explained more fully later in a post entitled "sweating the details."

Q. Would all Whites be welcome in your separate state?

A. Absolutely. There would be no restriction by country of origin, and no genetic tests, skin color or hair color tests or any nonsense like that. The only restriction would be that those who would wish to recreate the present system by importing non-Whites and then encouraging their hostility would not be welcome. They would have to remain in or move to the lands ceded to the non-Whites.

Q. You are proposing that inclusion and exclusion be based on ideology and feelings. Won't your act of nation splitting turn into a witch hunt?

A. For White liberals it is definitely going to feel like a witch hunt! When the time comes, those who are guilty of "integrationism" should do the sensible thing and flee. It will spare us all a lot of pain.

Q. Is this White nation something that you intend to pursue right away?

A. No. The White nation is, by most accounts, about 20 years off. When the rest of the U.S. begins to look like Southern California it will happen more or less automatically, without much of a push from us.

Q. Why do you use the term "European-American?"

A. All Whites are descended from European immigrants, and we are not actually "White." The term European-American has political significance for two reasons. First, it recognizes that most people in the U.S. of European extraction have intermarried to such an extent that it is no longer possible to identify American Whites as "Irish" or "German" or "Italian." But more important, use of the term "European-American" is intended to recognize that White elites in the United States have exploited differences based on religion and European national origin to divide European-Americans, with the intention of rendering us unable to defend ourselves against non-White demands.

Q. What is White separatism?

A White separatists will agree on most points with a White Nationalist, except that he may not see a need to establish a separate nation within the present territorial boundaries of the U.S.

Q. What is a White supremacist?

A. That is a White who wishes to subjugate other races by force, ordinarily by military conquest. White supremacists are very rare in 1997, and there is no visible trend or base of support which would allow them to carry such a political program into effect.

 

My, what a profound and relevant observation. Truly, your insights are deep...

 

The whole point you are missing is that the "conditions" of slavery were not uniform. Some slaves had masters who NEVER physically or emotionally abused them and, in fact, were quit fond of their slaves. I know it doesn't seem PC to say that but the evidence is the evidence. I've been reading the Slave Narratives and many of the slaves truly loved their masters and their lives on the plantation. Not every slave owner was some cartoonishly evil sociopath. That is the point, PERIOD.

 

It's still going strong because some people refuse to be silenced by the shrill and emotive condemnations of anti-intellectuals who get a warm and fuzzy from displaying their outrage at a non-offense. Nobody is suggesting that slavery isn't categorically bad. People are simply demanding that the EVIDENCE be allowed to speak for itself.

 

The only "kind" you have is human. Accept reality.

 

Well, your recent reference to "your kind" tells me that you have more on your mind than just scholarly analysis.

 

Are you suggesting or implying that most slave-owners were rapists and pedophiles?

 

The ostensible purpose was to question the conventional wisdom surrounding slavery in the US. This was met with a tidal wave of righteous indignation and strawmen, something I found predictable and anti-intellectual.

The OP has revealed himself to be a pathetic racist, though, so the ostensible purposes of the thread are subverted by his use of the terms "my kind" and "you negroes".

Bottom line: It's near impossible to have an intellectual discussion on this forum without running into platitudinous moral outrage and racism!

 

That movement is a "sickness". It would be helpful if you would stand for something that actually benefits mankind.

 

Perhaps you are right but the issue is legitimate nonetheless simply because it speaks to the broader issue of the Civil War and the pervasive mythology surrounding it. Many people actually believe that slavery was the reason for the civil war and many people actually believe that most slave owners were cartoonishly evil sociopaths who deserved to have their economy and society destroyed by the tyrannical Ab Lincoln.

 

I knew way before now, that he was heading for some RACIST view.

Now I'll be watching even more closely.

 

Do you feel the same way about the congressional black caucus or the black panthers or the NAACP or any of the other numerous race-oriented groups that black Americans have created and perpetuated?

 

What part of my post didn't you understand?

that is just a simple rationalization for slavery of Negroes, for an institution that allowed and encouraged the rape of women and acts of pedophilia against children, for torture and degredation. That you condone and celebrate a system that systemically allowed rape and pedophilia is disturbing.
Such rationalizations and excuses sicken me.