Slavery wasn't that bad?

[DeadmanWalking]

Couple of Things!

Lincoln? He was a moderate Republican who spent a lot of time calling out all the extremists. He was the one who used the U.S. Army to protect escaped slaves, and pushed the Congress at the time to ratify the 13th Amendment, which permanently outlawed slavery. At the same time, The President of the Confederate states at the same time in all of this, was a dixie-Democrat.. Pro-slavery, Pro-Military south.

If we are gonna talk about racism, we need to talk about the democrats.. not the republicans. OH I KNOW, ALL YOU LOBSTER BIB LIBERALS are get gonna get so triggered by these facts it might actually make you swallow your own tongue. It can be hard, but I beg you... allow your brain to absorb some REAL knowledge.

The KKK was created by Democrat citizens and members, NOT republicans. While true, there were republican members ( and, in fact, some African-Americans were on the side of Klan).. it was primarily a democrat endeavor. The KKK at the time, and through out American history has been the most violent racists whom have held residence in the US. Lynchings, Church burnings, matricide, Rape, Kidnapping. Perpetuated by a KKK which was at one pointed considered the "Tip of the Spear" for a "Militarist arm of the Democrat Party". Multiple Democrat Presidents, and MMAANNYY Democrat members of congress (both houses) were either card carrying members, or simply supporters.

It was the Democrats who opposed, and voted against the Civil Rights act of 1965, and the backlash of that was sooo bad that some democrats, for the sole-sake of getting re-elected, switched parties so they wouldn't be associated with their party crimes.

And let us not forget that the great Democrat War President, Franklin Roosevelt Banned Japanese and German immigrants during and a short time after WWII, Democrat Jimmy Carter banned Iranian immigrants.... BUT IT IS REPUBLICANS who are the racist bigots? Right? I mean, it's not like we should be in the practice of denying immigrant status to section of population that either we are war with, or has deep ties to an ideology we are at war with (and I am speaking about ISIS, Syrian military members, and Sharia statists)

In the 1960's the Nixon party pushed the Republican Party into the South and they have paperwork that said, "This move will lose us some black voters but the less black voters we have the more southern voters we will get and we will get to be president for decades."

The Republicans didn't get unfairly pinned as racists, the Republicans swept into the south and inherited the Racist Dixiecrats into their party as all those Racist politicians became the backbone for the Southern Republican Party. The Democrats of today are what the Republicans use to be pre-60's. They didn't just go south, by going South they adopted the Dixiecrats into the Republican Party. If LIncoln was alive today he would of been a Democrat.

So nice try, but no. The parties switched roles in the 60's and the Republicans of today are not the same as they use to be, that is what happens when you move your base geographically, you end up filling it with the people who reside there as the soul of the party.

[Tikaru]

Couple of Things!

Lincoln? He was a moderate Republican who spent a lot of time calling out all the extremists. He was the one who used the U.S. Army to protect escaped slaves, and pushed the Congress at the time to ratify the 13th Amendment, which permanently outlawed slavery. At the same time, The President of the Confederate states at the same time in all of this, was a dixie-Democrat.. Pro-slavery, Pro-Military south.

If we are gonna talk about racism, we need to talk about the democrats.. not the republicans. OH I KNOW, ALL YOU LOBSTER BIB LIBERALS are get gonna get so triggered by these facts it might actually make you swallow your own tongue. It can be hard, but I beg you... allow your brain to absorb some REAL knowledge.

The KKK was created by Democrat citizens and members, NOT republicans. While true, there were republican members ( and, in fact, some African-Americans were on the side of Klan).. it was primarily a democrat endeavor. The KKK at the time, and through out American history has been the most violent racists whom have held residence in the US. Lynchings, Church burnings, matricide, Rape, Kidnapping. Perpetuated by a KKK which was at one pointed considered the "Tip of the Spear" for a "Militarist arm of the Democrat Party". Multiple Democrat Presidents, and MMAANNYY Democrat members of congress (both houses) were either card carrying members, or simply supporters.

It was the Democrats who opposed, and voted against the Civil Rights act of 1965, and the backlash of that was sooo bad that some democrats, for the sole-sake of getting re-elected, switched parties so they wouldn't be associated with their party crimes.

And let us not forget that the great Democrat War President, Franklin Roosevelt Banned Japanese and German immigrants during and a short time after WWII, Democrat Jimmy Carter banned Iranian immigrants.... BUT IT IS REPUBLICANS who are the racist bigots? Right? I mean, it's not like we should be in the practice of denying immigrant status to section of population that either we are war with, or has deep ties to an ideology we are at war with (and I am speaking about ISIS, Syrian military members, and Sharia statists)

Hey, that's great, but what about in 2016?

"They were racist back then, so it's cool if I'm racist now", is that what you're trying to say?

The parties have changed, you are correct. Understanding the past to learn from it is good, but you can't use the past to justify current wrongs.

[Manabomb]

Republicans often reference the "blessing in disguise" that was slavery. They go on about how fortunate black Americans are that their ancestors were enslaved, allowing them the opportunity to live in the US.

But you know, Republicans do have a point. If it wasn't for the economical advantage of having slaves shortly after declaring independence, the United States would never of had the economy or the infrastructure to maintain itself as a nation without slavery. So in a way, America as we know it today was built by slaves.

But referencing a horrible atrocity as a "blessing" when the only "blessing" it offered was the foundation of our nation is a bit twisted. It'd be like Germany saying the Holocaust was amazing because Germany wouldn't be in it's fortunate position in the EU right now without those actions caused by Nazi Germany. It's technically correct, but highly morally questionable in a day and age where many humans would like to avoid and forget atrocities committed by all sides.

[DeadmanWalking]

But you know, Republicans do have a point. If it wasn't for the economical advantage of having slaves shortly after declaring independence, the United States would never of had the economy or the infrastructure to maintain itself as a nation without slavery. So in a way, America as we know it today was built by slaves.

But referencing a horrible atrocity as a "blessing" when the only "blessing" it offered was the foundation of our nation is a bit twisted. It'd be like Germany saying the Holocaust was amazing because Germany wouldn't be in it's fortunate position in the EU right now without those actions caused by Nazi Germany.

I guess it was also a blessing that all those native American people had a weakness to Gatlin Gun fire.

[petej0]

Slavery, regardless of treatment, is BAD. You can give someone the best care and food, but if you view them as nothing more then PROPERTY, it's bad.

As a black man myself I will go out on a limb and say this. I would prefer to be a "slave" to someone who feeds me and gives me a roof to sleep under. As opposed to being under paid and not be able to afford to feed or house myself. Oh crap...did I just inadvertently describe social programs (welfare, government housing) of today?

[Deleted]

Right, because there were no free black slave owners in the South...

And we all know that there was never any slavery in history anywhere else than in Rome and the USA. Dem evil whiteys.

[Powerogue]

But you know, Republicans do have a point. If it wasn't for the economical advantage of having slaves shortly after declaring independence, the United States would never of had the economy or the infrastructure to maintain itself as a nation without slavery. So in a way, America as we know it today was built by slaves.

But referencing a horrible atrocity as a "blessing" when the only "blessing" it offered was the foundation of our nation is a bit twisted. It'd be like Germany saying the Holocaust was amazing because Germany wouldn't be in it's fortunate position in the EU right now without those actions caused by Nazi Germany. It's technically correct, but highly morally questionable in a day and age where many humans would like to avoid and forget atrocities committed by all sides.

It's a bit like calling the colonization of the land we took from the natives to be a blessing. It was foundational in forming the country as we know it, that doesn't mean it was a nice thing to do.

[Vynny]

They were a small, small, small minority. This isn't a "gotcha". And even those black slave owners were still subhuman to their follow white slave owners. Please get off this tired talking point.

Do you know who else was a small minority? Slave owners. Only 1.5% of the American population were slave owners at the peak of the slave trade, yet white people in the USA are constantly told to feel guilty for what their ancestors did despite a vast majority of white Americans not being descended from slave owners. On top of that every single major civilization before Western Civilization today practiced slavery, but only 2 have ever abolished it; Persia did it temporarily and the modern West. Yes slavery was completely wrong and the government should take responsibility for that by helping to resolve the still persistent after effects of slavery and Jim Crow, but it doesn't justify lying about history in order to manipulate people who are not even guilty by association let alone guilty of this themselves.

[Ironhorn]

And then the southern strategy happened, and here we are.

Except the Southern Strategy failed it never put a Republican president in the White House and the Southern Congressmen and Governors remained Democrat. It wasn't until Regan changed the focus of the party in the 80s to economic prosperity and responsibility that the South became a bastion of the republicans.

[DeadmanWalking]

As a black man myself I will go out on a limb and say this. I would prefer to be a "slave" to someone who feeds me and gives me a roof to sleep under. As opposed to being under paid and not be able to afford to feed or house myself. Oh crap...did I just inadvertently describe social programs (welfare, government housing) of today?

Even if your master took your 'wife' in his bed chambers every week and sold your child to someone else because 'Look at his daddy! That's some good workin stock right there!" Something tells me you speak from a position of not knowing what the hell you are talking about because you didn't experience it yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

Except the Southern Strategy failed it never put a Republican president in the White House and the Southern Congressmen and Governors remained Democrat. It wasn't until Regan changed the focus of the party in the 80s to economic prosperity and responsibility that the South became a bastion of the republicans.

It failed because of Watergate and Ford's general stupidity. It became a bastion for the Republicans in the South when the Conservative movement pushed for Segregation of schools, failed at that and used Abortion as its call of duty. Don't worry, I Hate it when history and facts actually are mentioned too.

[Vynny]

I guess it was also a blessing that all those native American people had a weakness to Gatlin Gun fire.

More like small pox considering Gatling guns weren't developed until 100 or so years after most of the Native American population had died from diseases that no one understood for another few decades . . . But hey, who needs to be factually accurate when historical revisionism furthers the narrative so much better.

[Dug]

Do you know who else was a small minority? Slave owners. Only 1.5% of the American population were slave owners at the peak of the slave trade, yet white people in the USA are constantly told to feel guilty for what their ancestors did despite a vast majority of white Americans not being descended from slave owners. On top of that every single major civilization before Western Civilization today practiced slavery, but only 2 have ever abolished it; Persia did it temporarily and the modern West. Yes slavery was completely wrong and the government should take responsibility for that by helping to resolve the still persistent after effects of slavery and Jim Crow, but it doesn't justify lying about history in order to manipulate people who are not even guilty by association let alone guilty of this themselves.

I'm not saying all white people or the majority were slave owners so don't need the history lesson, I'm saying that the existence of black slave owners means fuck all to how atrocious slavery was.

[DeadmanWalking]

More like small pox considering Gatling guns weren't developed until 100 or so years after most of the Native American population had died from diseases that no one understood for another few decades . . . But hey, who needs to be factually accurate when historical revisionism furthers the narrative so much better.

It is called exageration, hence why I mentioned their 'special weakness' to it, the military slaughter of entire tribes didn't help any either.

[Xeones]

Except the Southern Strategy failed it never put a Republican president in the White House and the Southern Congressmen and Governors remained Democrat. It wasn't until Regan changed the focus of the party in the 80s to economic prosperity and responsibility that the South became a bastion of the republicans.

Excuse you? Nixon was the first president to successfully use the southern strategy. The southern strategy of course being what brought about the current platforms of the two major parties.

[Ironhorn]

Hey, that's great, but what about in 2016?

"They were racist back then, so it's cool if I'm racist now", is that what you're trying to say?

The parties have changed, you are correct. Understanding the past to learn from it is good, but you can't use the past to justify current wrongs.

The Democratic party is still racist they pander to the Black vote but they never really improve the situation for the Black Community. Because if they were not suffering they would no longer need the Democrats. Welfare does not lift people out of poverty it makes poverty bearable.

[Thage]

And then the southern strategy happened, and here we are.

Modern Republicans have been coasting off Lincoln since the 1960s any time someone points out the blatant racism inherent in the party platform. Kinda like the old man sitting in the park still trying to coast off his high school glory days as the quarterback, ending every wistful reminiscence with "I coulda gone pro," but never explaining why he didn't.

[Deleted]

I feel there is too much discussion about slavery without enough knowledge. Personally I find it detesting, the concept of stealing a humans right to their own free will and force them into labour.
However, what would life for African Americans look like in the event that the slavery of their "race" or whatever you want to call it didn't take place? How would America look overall? How would Africa look?
Not saying that slavery was the best possible outcome for the world, it's just a hard thing to debate over how cruel it really was when we, in fact, (most of us) don't actually know all the variables. I for one would like to know what Africa looked like, culturally, socially etc when the europeans arrived. Suppose I could google it, but I got a dinner to make.

[Daymanmb]

But you know, Republicans do have a point.

Lol no they dont...

[Thage]

The Democratic party is still racist they pander to the Black vote but they never really improve the situation for the Black Community. Because if they were not suffering they would no longer need the Democrats. Welfare does not lift people out of poverty it makes poverty bearable.

Except that every study of modern welfare shows that the overwhelming majority of its recipients are temporarily such, given the stringent requirements in most states for remaining on unemployment and/or jobless benefits/financial aid. Even food stamps are a bitch and a half to get in some states unless you're feeding a family of five on two minimum-wage jobs.

[Deleted]

Old white conservative men should probably not talk positively about slavery.

It never ends well for them.

It's quite disturbing how he can see some good in slavery.

Seriously...