Started By
Message
re: How many poor dirt farmers owned slaves
Posted on 6/28/15 at 9:03 am to Sleeping Tiger
Posted on 6/28/15 at 9:03 am to Sleeping Tiger
quote:So they took the country back (officially) in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act.
Why was the American Revolution fought?
It was fought over currency.
We were making money interest free. This wasn't cool with the London overlords.
And on Saturday we'll all wave our mini flags, eat hot dogs and apple pie, and celebrate our "independence."
0
Posted on 6/28/15 at 9:39 am to kywildcatfanone
I'll see if I can dumb it down any more. I'll go ahead and use 30% for everything so nobody gets confused.
Let's say 30% of the people in America have access to the internet in their homes. That number includes wives and children. You don't only count the person who pays the internet bill.
Now change internet to slaves. Is that more clear?
Let's say 30% of the people in America have access to the internet in their homes. That number includes wives and children. You don't only count the person who pays the internet bill.
Now change internet to slaves. Is that more clear?
Posted on 6/28/15 at 9:47 am to Stonehog
Stonehog, god damn, dude.
Everyone gets what you're saying, they just think it's fricking retarded. Stop.
Everyone gets what you're saying, they just think it's fricking retarded. Stop.
Posted on 6/28/15 at 9:51 am to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Everyone gets what you're saying
Obviously not.
Posted on 6/28/15 at 9:54 am to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
The Civil War was not fought over slavery, as we're told.
Yep, the Earth is flat alright.
Posted on 6/28/15 at 9:57 am to Tigerwaffe
quote:
The Civil War was not fought over slavery, as we're told.
Yep, the Earth is flat alright.
I'm confident you couldn't count to tariff.
Posted on 6/28/15 at 9:58 am to Stonehog
quote:
Everyone gets what you're saying
Obviously not.
Your second analogy was the same as the first, replacing tv's with the internet.
The logic in it is not only insane, it's pretty simple -- people get it, they just disagree with it.
Posted on 6/28/15 at 10:12 am to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
The logic in it is not only insane, it's pretty simple -- people get it, they just disagree with it.
Then they're disagreeing with the 1860 census. If they have their own census data that refutes anything I've said, I would love to see it.
Posted on 6/28/15 at 10:30 am to Stonehog
quote:
Dude, it's pretty simple. 30% of families owned slaves. You can keep jumping through hoops to lower that number if it makes you feel better though.
Does this only count immediate family, or the whole extended family?
I don't really give a shite either way because my family owned slaves, and I'm not going to feel guilty about it.
Posted on 6/28/15 at 10:36 am to Stonehog
quote:
Now change internet to slaves. Is that more clear?
I know you are trolling as you can not be this stupid
Slaves = Property
Automobile = Property
Are your wife and kids on the title to your car?
Posted on 6/28/15 at 10:43 am to Cheese Grits
They have access to it.
Posted on 6/28/15 at 10:46 am to Stonehog
quote:
They have access to it.
Not what I asked, do they have their name on the title recorded with the state?
Posted on 6/28/15 at 10:55 am to Cheese Grits
quote:
Not what I asked, do they have their name on the title recorded with the state?
See Sleeping Tiger? Cheese Grits still doesn't get it.
Posted on 6/28/15 at 11:30 am to Stonehog
Posted on 6/28/15 at 11:47 am to Stonehog
Look, the exact percentage is not the big picture. The higher up a family was on the Southern economic and social ladder, the more slaves they tended to own.
That wouldn't have been a controversial statement to make at the time. Slave holding was not universal, but fairly common, and usually a small-scale thing except on the plantations.
Your typical grunt in a Southern infantry company usually didn't own slaves. They were younger and not really established yet financially. But I suspect a good many had no moral objections to it and aspired to the kind of economic success that would make owning slaves an option.
It was their society. It was the times.
That wouldn't have been a controversial statement to make at the time. Slave holding was not universal, but fairly common, and usually a small-scale thing except on the plantations.
Your typical grunt in a Southern infantry company usually didn't own slaves. They were younger and not really established yet financially. But I suspect a good many had no moral objections to it and aspired to the kind of economic success that would make owning slaves an option.
It was their society. It was the times.
Posted on 6/28/15 at 12:02 pm to namvet6566
quote:
Not very many, Grant, Sherman owned more slaves than all Southerners together.
Good God WE KNOW! Yes, blacks owned slaves. Yes, northerners owned slaves. Yes, the North was and is racist. Pointing a finger at them doesn't change the fact that the South still has problems. This is like your mom bitching at you for getting an F on a test, and your excuse is "Well Johnny from next door got an F-, but I don't hear you bitching at him." Focus on your own region.
quote:
Learn History people, Northern Indulistrist wanted all the Cotton produced in n the U S, then tax Southern States for goods produced in n the North.
The Northern Powers to be wanted the South to stop selling Cotton to Great Britian.
So are you implying that COTTON was the main reason for the Civil War? Wait, I thought it was States' Rights?
quote:
Blacks should shut Sharpton up, get Educated, stop having Children out of wedlock, stop killing people (what percentage of America is black and what percentage of blacks are in prison)
Oh this is a new idea! Gee, wonder why people didn't think of this before??? Wait, is it because millions of people aren't going to listen to a select few individuals telling them how to run their life? Go figure.
This post was edited on 6/28/15 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 6/28/15 at 1:04 pm to Carolina Tide
somebody please dont let this thread die. any thread with sleeping tiger getting riled up is worth it. insufferable douchebag
Posted on 6/28/15 at 1:32 pm to Carolina Tide
I love how certain non-black people (usually racist people) just assume carte blanche that jackson, sharpton, et al are truly embraced and followed by all black people by virtue of their race alone. It defies logic.
These types of people follow what sharpton says/does more than any black person I know
These types of people follow what sharpton says/does more than any black person I know
Posted on 6/28/15 at 1:40 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Most of the black people I know want Sharpton to just disappear, the ones I know who don't are the kind of people that give the black race a bad name. The only reason the idiot is on TV is because there is profit involved in keep racism in the foreground. I'm not stupid enough to think that racism will ever completely disappear but the majority of it would go away if things were allowed to play out in a natural way without all the political bullshite. Jmo
Posted on 6/28/15 at 1:55 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
I love how certain non-black people (usually racist people) just assume carte blanche that jackson, sharpton, et al are truly embraced and followed by all black people by virtue of their race alone. It defies logic.
Or how we're all uneducated, violent and all born out of wedlock.
Or we're all ok with other black people being this way, and we're not doing anything to fix this problem.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News