On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:44:42 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.

As Harry would say, your reading comprehension is flawed.

I never said they were better off being enslaved but I do say without
a divisive war their freedom and integration into society would have
been better if there was a financial incentive to let them go. If the
plantation owners could not sell "slave" cotton, they would find
another way to grow cotton that did not involve slaves.
We keep ignoring the fact that most of these former slaves ended up
picking cotton anyway and at slave wages.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:44:42 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.

As Harry would say, your reading comprehension is flawed.

I entered this thread after you said this:
"So you really think the civil war was worth the cost?
It certainly wasn't for black people. They were worse off
in the south for the first 40-50 years and it took almost
100 years for it to just get a little better."

There's only one way to read that.


I never said they were better off being enslaved but I do say without
a divisive war their freedom and integration into society would have
been better if there was a financial incentive to let them go. If the
plantation owners could not sell "slave" cotton, they would find
another way to grow cotton that did not involve slaves.
We keep ignoring the fact that most of these former slaves ended up
picking cotton anyway and at slave wages.

WTF? You haven't given any thought to what it means to be
enslaved. Maybe you think black people can "naturally"
accept being slaves. I can't teach you empathy.
Your alternative history goes against the facts.
The rebs wanted that war, and they got it.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 05:43:16 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:44:42 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.

As Harry would say, your reading comprehension is flawed.

I entered this thread after you said this:
"So you really think the civil war was worth the cost?
It certainly wasn't for black people. They were worse off
in the south for the first 40-50 years and it took almost
100 years for it to just get a little better."

There's only one way to read that.


Exactly. The way it was written.
--

Ban liars, tax cheats, juvenile name-callers, and narcissists...not guns!

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 05:43:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:44:42 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.

As Harry would say, your reading comprehension is flawed.

I entered this thread after you said this:
"So you really think the civil war was worth the cost?
It certainly wasn't for black people. They were worse off
in the south for the first 40-50 years and it took almost
100 years for it to just get a little better."

There's only one way to read that.


I never said they were better off being enslaved but I do say without
a divisive war their freedom and integration into society would have
been better if there was a financial incentive to let them go. If the
plantation owners could not sell "slave" cotton, they would find
another way to grow cotton that did not involve slaves.
We keep ignoring the fact that most of these former slaves ended up
picking cotton anyway and at slave wages.

WTF? You haven't given any thought to what it means to be
enslaved. Maybe you think black people can "naturally"
accept being slaves. I can't teach you empathy.
Your alternative history goes against the facts.
The rebs wanted that war, and they got it.

At a certain point you have to define slavery. If someone is trapped
economically the difference between that and indenture is minimal.
The plantation owner's whip was simply replaced with the ability to
deny employment.
You are also trying to impose 21st century morality on an 18th century
America.
Perhaps you are thinking that things immediately got a whole lot
better for blacks in 1865. There are plenty of people who will tell
you they did not get better by 1965.
I know we all watch the movies like Django and Roots but for most of
these people, this was just a job and they were treated better than a
sweat shop worker or a coal miner up north. At the end of the day,
they were "property" not just an expendable employee and replacing
them cost the owner money, unlike getting a new Irishman who were
coming over on the boat every day.
I understand they couldn't quit but neither could most of the "wage
slaves". Not if they wanted to eat.
Maybe Harry will pull the string on one of his "before the unions"
rants.

wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 05:43:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:44:42 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.

As Harry would say, your reading comprehension is flawed.

I entered this thread after you said this:
"So you really think the civil war was worth the cost?
It certainly wasn't for black people. They were worse off
in the south for the first 40-50 years and it took almost
100 years for it to just get a little better."

There's only one way to read that.


I never said they were better off being enslaved but I do say without
a divisive war their freedom and integration into society would have
been better if there was a financial incentive to let them go. If the
plantation owners could not sell "slave" cotton, they would find
another way to grow cotton that did not involve slaves.
We keep ignoring the fact that most of these former slaves ended up
picking cotton anyway and at slave wages.

WTF? You haven't given any thought to what it means to be
enslaved. Maybe you think black people can "naturally"
accept being slaves. I can't teach you empathy.
Your alternative history goes against the facts.
The rebs wanted that war, and they got it.

At a certain point you have to define slavery. If someone is trapped
economically the difference between that and indenture is minimal.
The plantation owner's whip was simply replaced with the ability to
deny employment.
You are also trying to impose 21st century morality on an 18th century
America.
Perhaps you are thinking that things immediately got a whole lot
better for blacks in 1865. There are plenty of people who will tell
you they did not get better by 1965.
I know we all watch the movies like Django and Roots but for most of
these people, this was just a job and they were treated better than a
sweat shop worker or a coal miner up north. At the end of the day,
they were "property" not just an expendable employee and replacing
them cost the owner money, unlike getting a new Irishman who were
coming over on the boat every day.
I understand they couldn't quit but neither could most of the "wage
slaves". Not if they wanted to eat.
Maybe Harry will pull the string on one of his "before the unions"
rants.




You might of called the Irish coming out off the boats the equivalent of
slaves. They were immediately impressed in to the Union Army. No choice.
Was a true Union, no right to work state setup.

On 4/19/16 11:41 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 05:43:16 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:44:42 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

At least you haven't suggested that blacks were
better off being enslaved, as did Greg.

As Harry would say, your reading comprehension is flawed.

I entered this thread after you said this:
"So you really think the civil war was worth the cost?
It certainly wasn't for black people. They were worse off
in the south for the first 40-50 years and it took almost
100 years for it to just get a little better."

There's only one way to read that.


I never said they were better off being enslaved but I do say without
a divisive war their freedom and integration into society would have
been better if there was a financial incentive to let them go. If the
plantation owners could not sell "slave" cotton, they would find
another way to grow cotton that did not involve slaves.
We keep ignoring the fact that most of these former slaves ended up
picking cotton anyway and at slave wages.

WTF? You haven't given any thought to what it means to be
enslaved. Maybe you think black people can "naturally"
accept being slaves. I can't teach you empathy.
Your alternative history goes against the facts.
The rebs wanted that war, and they got it.

At a certain point you have to define slavery.


Oh, please...what the hell is the matter with you?

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 11:52:18 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



At a certain point you have to define slavery.


Oh, please...what the hell is the matter with you?

So are we done hearing about how horrible working conditions were
before the labor unions?

On 4/19/16 12:21 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 11:52:18 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



At a certain point you have to define slavery.


Oh, please...what the hell is the matter with you?

So are we done hearing about how horrible working conditions were
before the labor unions?


I suspect you are really unfamiliar with the horrors of the sort of
slavery that was practiced in the south.

11:26 AMKeyser Söze
- show quoted text -
I suspect you are really unfamiliar with the horrors of the sort of
slavery that was practiced in the south.
........

Harry, were you there? If not then youre no more familiar than anyone else for that matter.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 12:26:40 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 4/19/16 12:21 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 11:52:18 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



At a certain point you have to define slavery.


Oh, please...what the hell is the matter with you?

So are we done hearing about how horrible working conditions were
before the labor unions?


I suspect you are really unfamiliar with the horrors of the sort of
slavery that was practiced in the south.

Yes and I understand it took 100 years for it to get better ... or you
would not have been down there marching and dodging bullets.

There were slaves in Maryland too but they didn't have the war and you
have already told us how race relations were a lot better, going back
over 100 years.