Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

monicaangela

(1,508 posts)
6. Oh yes, they were family alright:
Sat Feb 27, 2016, 09:23 PM
Feb 2016

The United States government's support of slavery was based on an overpowering practicality. In 1790, a thousand tons of cotton were being produced every year in the South. By 1860, it was a million tons. In the same period, 500,000 slaves grew to 4 million. A system harried by slave rebellions and conspiracies (Gabriel Prosser, 1800; Denmark Vesey, 1822; Nat Turner, 1831) developed a network of controls in the southern states, hacked by the laws, courts, armed forces, and race prejudice of the nation's political leaders.
It would take either a full-scale slave rebellion or a full-scale war to end such a deeply entrenched system. If a rebellion, it might get out of hand, and turn its ferocity beyond slavery to the most successful system of capitalist enrichment in the world. If a war, those who made the war would organize its consequences. Hence, it was Abraham Lincoln who freed the slaves, not John Brown. In 1859, John Brown was hanged, with federal complicity, for attempting to do by small-scale violence what Lincoln would do by large-scale violence several years later-end slavery.
With slavery abolished by order of the government-true, a government pushed hard to do so, by blacks, free and slave, and by white abolitionists-its end could be orchestrated so as to set limits to emancipation. Liberation from the top would go only so far as the interests of the dominant groups permitted. If carried further by the momentum of war, the rhetoric of a crusade, it could be pulled back to a safer position. Thus, while the ending of slavery led to a reconstruction of national politics and economics, it was not a radical reconstruction, but a safe one- in fact, a profitable one.
The plantation system, based on tobacco growing in Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky, and rice in South Carolina, expanded into lush new cotton lands in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi-and needed more slaves. But slave importation became illegal in 1808. Therefore, "from the beginning, the law went unenforced," says John Hope Franklin (From Slavery to Freedom). "The long, unprotected coast, the certain markets, and the prospects of huge profits were too much for the American merchants and they yielded to the temptation.. .." He estimates that perhaps 250,000 slaves were imported illegally before the Civil War.
How can slavery be described? Perhaps not at all by those who have not experienced it. The 1932 edition of a best-selling textbook by two northern liberal historians saw slavery as perhaps the Negro's "necessary transition to civilization." Economists or cliometricians (statistical historians) have tried to assess slavery by estimating how much money was spent on slaves for food and medical care. But can this describe the reality of slavery as it was to a human being who lived inside it? Are the conditions of slavery as important as the existence of slavery?
John Little, a former slave, wrote:
They say slaves are happy, because they laugh, and are merry. I myself and three or four others, have received two hundred lashes in the day, and had our feet in fetters; yet, at night, we would sing and dance, and make others laugh at the rattling of our chains. Happy men we must have been! We did it to keep down trouble, and to keep our hearts from being completely broken: that is as true as the gospel! Just look at it,-must not we have been very happy? Yet I have done it myself-I have cut capers in chains.
A record of deaths kept in a plantation journal (now in the University of North Carolina Archives) lists the ages and cause of death of all those who died on the plantation between 1850 and 1855. Of the thirty-two who died in that period, only four reached the age of sixty, four reached the age of fifty, seven died in their forties, seven died in their twenties or thirties, and nine died before they were five years old.

http://libcom.org/a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states-howard-zinn/9-slavery-without-submission-emancipation-without-freedom

What kind of family does Barton belong to that treats him this way? I wonder...

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

David Barton is a racist's racist. Agnosticsherbet Feb 2016 #1
This message was self-deleted by its author First Speaker Feb 2016 #2
No shit that is why it is called slavery. You don't get a choice in the matter. Rex Feb 2016 #3
HO-ly shit, that is some seriously twisted logic, with some seriously Marr Feb 2016 #4
"Nat Turner could not be reached for comment"... Liberal_Stalwart71 Feb 2016 #5
Oh yes, they were family alright: monicaangela Feb 2016 #6
So I guess, by that logic, when a rapist eventually concludes his crime... Mister Ed Feb 2016 #7
Down south they called them plantations, yortsed snacilbuper Feb 2016 #8
What a fucking moron. Why do these people get on TV? n/t kdmorris Feb 2016 #9
Many did free themselves, but they had no avenue to change laws bhikkhu Feb 2016 #10
Wow Solly Mack Feb 2016 #11
Fuck that. Who started slavery in the first place in America? craigmatic Feb 2016 #12
Chattel slavery? Igel Feb 2016 #15
Actually the Portugese were first. craigmatic Feb 2016 #17
Fundamentalcase. HughBeaumont Feb 2016 #13
In a way, they have a point Albertoo Feb 2016 #14
So if I set an orphanage ablaze, should I be praised for putting out the fire? Orrex Feb 2016 #16
... about 180,000 black men .. served as soldiers in the U.S. Army. This was about 10 percent struggle4progress Feb 2016 #18
The rebellions concluded with Ilsa Feb 2016 #19
That's "moran" to you. KamaAina Feb 2016 #20
LOL. I can't believe I forgot! Thanks. nt Ilsa Feb 2016 #21
What a racist idiot robhalf4369 Feb 2016 #22
David Barton is an idiot dlwickham Feb 2016 #23
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»'Blacks Were Not Able To ...»Reply #6