Democrats were the biggest slave owners, that says it all, not that the North didnt have em too, but the most ardent for slavery were democrats and they still are today
Democrats were the biggest slave owners, that says it all, not that the North didnt have em too, but the most ardent for slavery were democrats and they still are today
I agree but let me tell you a story that orally given to my great-great grandfather form his father.
In 1854 my great-great-great grandfather came to the US from Ireland. He got a job building railroads out in the US West.
Well when thy came where they had to blast rock for the train track tunnels it was a tricky job back then so many workers got killed or maimed in the blastings.
There were three principal ethnic groups that worked on the railroad-Irish, Chinese Coolies and black slaves.
When there was blasting the boss would send only Irish or Chinese-because if they died they didn't get paid on Friday-if the black slave died it was a loss property around $2k.
I live in this country because my great grandfather's brother died in a dynamite accident, working in a stone quarry in England. My great grandfather then came to the US to work in another quarry, cutting stone for the Erie Canal.
The problem is that the narrative has it that 'blacks had it bad' and 'whites had it good'-and, on the average correct-but the stories like mine and yours illustrate that the Woke narrative is much too simple and Manichean like all their values.
No, that's not correct about whites having it good. Most whites did NOT own slaves and had an extremely hard existence just staying alive. Blacks were well cared-for by their owners because they were valuable property. The vast majority of whites throughout the budding United States lived a "hand to mouth" existence and struggled to survive!
Have you seen what a тАЬsteel drivingтАЭ man like John Henry had to do to bore the holes for dynamite charges. One holding the spike and one banging on it with a sledge hammer. No thanks.
One thing often overlooked re: the civil war was the demographics at the time. The antebellum, agrarian south did not have a lot of folks, whereas the North full of cities, had many more people and thus votes. In our country, the South never stood a chance politically and it was the end of the compromise era that drove the South to try to exit. The real battle here was between the manufacturing North, and ENGLAND. The South was a тАЬcolonyтАЭ of both, providing resources to both on-coming manufacturing giants. The South was backed by England throughout the war, Surprise!!!! The demographic advantage, ie, the number of available soldiers, was what did in the South. Grant just threw troops at Lee until Lee had no one left.
The victory of the North is what spurred on the Gilded Age which drove the USA way past England in economic power.
BTW, look at today. The power of the cities politically (Blue) contesting the power of the agrarian sector (Red). Politically, the cities will win, just like 1865, but today a strike by teamsters could undo any power the cities have. Cities today are much more dependent than in the 1860s.
Being from Massholechusetts I was never taught that there may have been other valid viewpoints about the Civil War 1 (given our probable future and the real possibility of future uncivil wars, I'm numbering them).
Democrats were the biggest slave owners, that says it all, not that the North didnt have em too, but the most ardent for slavery were democrats and they still are today
And Kamala's family was the biggest slaveholder om Jamaica.
Such a long post. I can see why you missed the Typo.
Cumala
What are the sources of your statement that Harris family was the biggest slaveholder? Never read or heard this anywhere else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Brown
https://www.jamaicaglobalonline.com/kamala-harris-jamaican-heritage/
The sources are legion, mostly based on these and genealogy researchers.
I agree but let me tell you a story that orally given to my great-great grandfather form his father.
In 1854 my great-great-great grandfather came to the US from Ireland. He got a job building railroads out in the US West.
Well when thy came where they had to blast rock for the train track tunnels it was a tricky job back then so many workers got killed or maimed in the blastings.
There were three principal ethnic groups that worked on the railroad-Irish, Chinese Coolies and black slaves.
When there was blasting the boss would send only Irish or Chinese-because if they died they didn't get paid on Friday-if the black slave died it was a loss property around $2k.
So there are many nuances.
I live in this country because my great grandfather's brother died in a dynamite accident, working in a stone quarry in England. My great grandfather then came to the US to work in another quarry, cutting stone for the Erie Canal.
The problem is that the narrative has it that 'blacks had it bad' and 'whites had it good'-and, on the average correct-but the stories like mine and yours illustrate that the Woke narrative is much too simple and Manichean like all their values.
No, that's not correct about whites having it good. Most whites did NOT own slaves and had an extremely hard existence just staying alive. Blacks were well cared-for by their owners because they were valuable property. The vast majority of whites throughout the budding United States lived a "hand to mouth" existence and struggled to survive!
You are generalizing.
In my humble opinion, in the main, it was better to not be a slave than to be a slave-yet there are exceptions as I have offered above.
In the case of blacks, it was better to be a slave.
Have you seen what a тАЬsteel drivingтАЭ man like John Henry had to do to bore the holes for dynamite charges. One holding the spike and one banging on it with a sledge hammer. No thanks.
That's horrible, but some elites tend to feel entitled to treat people in abusive ways.
Darlin, The northerners shipped slaves from Africa to the Carribean for years after the civil war.
Yep, the War of Northern Aggression was only to force a one government rule, just like they are trying to do now to the world.
One thing often overlooked re: the civil war was the demographics at the time. The antebellum, agrarian south did not have a lot of folks, whereas the North full of cities, had many more people and thus votes. In our country, the South never stood a chance politically and it was the end of the compromise era that drove the South to try to exit. The real battle here was between the manufacturing North, and ENGLAND. The South was a тАЬcolonyтАЭ of both, providing resources to both on-coming manufacturing giants. The South was backed by England throughout the war, Surprise!!!! The demographic advantage, ie, the number of available soldiers, was what did in the South. Grant just threw troops at Lee until Lee had no one left.
The victory of the North is what spurred on the Gilded Age which drove the USA way past England in economic power.
BTW, look at today. The power of the cities politically (Blue) contesting the power of the agrarian sector (Red). Politically, the cities will win, just like 1865, but today a strike by teamsters could undo any power the cities have. Cities today are much more dependent than in the 1860s.
Being from Massholechusetts I was never taught that there may have been other valid viewpoints about the Civil War 1 (given our probable future and the real possibility of future uncivil wars, I'm numbering them).
And take away states rights
The Arabs were the biggest slave traders and they preferred white meat.
They as just do good at lies and deception. Gaslighting and projection. Foolery and coersion.
"They are just so good at lies and deception..." like my spell checker