hypothetically speaking, if I were a progressive in favor of reparations, it is more logical to move to a different argument than Slavery Reparations.address this, the situation today, as it affects people now, not the situation of 170 years ago.
Slavery was horrible, and its echo causes damage to African Americans to this day. But it is long in the past and cannot be undone or in any way atoned for. The progressives talk about systemic racism as it exists today. Any plan for reparations should
So, reparations should be unhooked from lineal slavery. The argument is that all blacks receive lesser treatment from society. In terms of societal disadvantage, it doesn't matter if a black person was, or was not, descended from a slave. If a copbeats down a black man, he doesn't firs task him whether or not he is descended from slaves.
S
On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 12:18:32 PM UTC-5, Art Sackman wrote:
hypothetically speaking, if I were a progressive in favor of
reparations, it is more logical to move to a different argument
than Slavery Reparations.
Slavery was horrible, and its echo causes damage to African
Americans to this day. But it is long in the past and cannot be
undone or in any way atoned for. The progressives talk about
systemic racism as it exists today. Any plan for reparations should
address this, the situation today, as it affects people now, not
the situation of 170 years ago.
So, reparations should be unhooked from lineal slavery. The
argument is that all blacks receive lesser treatment from society.
In terms of societal disadvantage, it doesn't matter if a black
person was, or was not, descended from a slave. If a cop beats down
a black man, he doesn't firs task him whether or not he is
descended from slaves.
oops! HIT THE post button too soon.
so, reparations should be based on race, not slavery lineage, Of
course that presents another problem, given all those biracial
people.
Also, a huge one time payment will not address the issue of systemic
racism. It will not move the needle one inch. Any payments should be periodic, yearly, or even better, monthly, and of course should be
much smaller and of a reasonable amount, in line with being a
supplemantal to other income. Sort of like Social Security checks. ,
Of course , this will bankrupt the country and is not any more
feasible than any other reparations proposal, but the proponents
should at least be talking about a plan that better addresses the
current situation and compensates all of those who are affected.
leave it to the progressives to be so ignorant and incompetent that
they are unable to articulate the best case for their utopian dream
world.
On 1/29/23 11:28 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 12:18:32 PM UTC-5, Art Sackman wrote:Looks like racism is already "unhooked from lineal slavery." Doesn't
hypothetically speaking, if I were a progressive in favor of
reparations, it is more logical to move to a different argument
than Slavery Reparations.
Slavery was horrible, and its echo causes damage to African
Americans to this day. But it is long in the past and cannot be
undone or in any way atoned for. The progressives talk about
systemic racism as it exists today. Any plan for reparations should
address this, the situation today, as it affects people now, not
the situation of 170 years ago.
So, reparations should be unhooked from lineal slavery. The
argument is that all blacks receive lesser treatment from society.
In terms of societal disadvantage, it doesn't matter if a black
person was, or was not, descended from a slave. If a cop beats down
a black man, he doesn't firs task him whether or not he is
descended from slaves.
that hurt your argument if the problems don't depend on descent?
oops! HIT THE post button too soon.
so, reparations should be based on race, not slavery lineage, OfOne drop. And you left out immigrants.
course that presents another problem, given all those biracial
people.
Also, a huge one time payment will not address the issue of systemic racism. It will not move the needle one inch. Any payments should be periodic, yearly, or even better, monthly, and of course should be
much smaller and of a reasonable amount, in line with being a
supplemantal to other income. Sort of like Social Security checks. ,
Of course , this will bankrupt the country and is not any more
feasible than any other reparations proposal, but the proponents
should at least be talking about a plan that better addresses the
current situation and compensates all of those who are affected.
Thanks for implicitly acknowledging the size of the debt owed to the
enslaved and their descendants.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/obsessed/donald-glovers-atlanta-makes-the-case-for-reparations
leave it to the progressives to be so ignorant and incompetent thatLeave it to the right to construct an enormous strawman.
they are unable to articulate the best case for their utopian dream
world.
On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 1:06:40 PM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/29/23 11:28 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 12:18:32 PM UTC-5, Art Sackman wrote:Looks like racism is already "unhooked from lineal slavery." Doesn't
hypothetically speaking, if I were a progressive in favor of
reparations, it is more logical to move to a different argument
than Slavery Reparations.
Slavery was horrible, and its echo causes damage to African
Americans to this day. But it is long in the past and cannot be
undone or in any way atoned for. The progressives talk about
systemic racism as it exists today. Any plan for reparations should
address this, the situation today, as it affects people now, not
the situation of 170 years ago.
So, reparations should be unhooked from lineal slavery. The
argument is that all blacks receive lesser treatment from society.
In terms of societal disadvantage, it doesn't matter if a black
person was, or was not, descended from a slave. If a cop beats down
a black man, he doesn't firs task him whether or not he is
descended from slaves.
that hurt your argument if the problems don't depend on descent?
oops! HIT THE post button too soon.One drop. And you left out immigrants.
so, reparations should be based on race, not slavery lineage, Of
course that presents another problem, given all those biracial
people.
True, but it was implied. Under current proposals, black immigrants would miss out, though they sill bear as much of the brunt of current racism, as do the slavery descendants.
How is that fair?
Also, a huge one time payment will not address the issue of systemic
racism. It will not move the needle one inch. Any payments should be
periodic, yearly, or even better, monthly, and of course should be
much smaller and of a reasonable amount, in line with being a
supplemantal to other income. Sort of like Social Security checks. ,
Of course , this will bankrupt the country and is not any more
feasible than any other reparations proposal, but the proponents
should at least be talking about a plan that better addresses the
current situation and compensates all of those who are affected.
Thanks for implicitly acknowledging the size of the debt owed to the
enslaved and their descendants.
PAY ATTENTION
I did no such thing!! In fact, I did the opposite. I unhinged reparations from slavery.
I made the point that it should not be paid as a debt, but rather as a corrective for the current situation.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/obsessed/donald-glovers-atlanta-makes-the-case-for-reparations
leave it to the progressives to be so ignorant and incompetent thatLeave it to the right to construct an enormous strawman.
they are unable to articulate the best case for their utopian dream
world.
There is a reason the left won't advocate a race-based reparations approach. It is
clearly unconstitutional. that fact undermines the whole concept of reparations.
On 1/29/23 2:06 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 1:06:40 PM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/29/23 11:28 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 12:18:32 PM UTC-5, Art Sackman wrote:Looks like racism is already "unhooked from lineal slavery." Doesn't
hypothetically speaking, if I were a progressive in favor of
reparations, it is more logical to move to a different argument
than Slavery Reparations.
Slavery was horrible, and its echo causes damage to African
Americans to this day. But it is long in the past and cannot be
undone or in any way atoned for. The progressives talk about
systemic racism as it exists today. Any plan for reparations should
address this, the situation today, as it affects people now, not
the situation of 170 years ago.
So, reparations should be unhooked from lineal slavery. The
argument is that all blacks receive lesser treatment from society.
In terms of societal disadvantage, it doesn't matter if a black
person was, or was not, descended from a slave. If a cop beats down
a black man, he doesn't firs task him whether or not he is
descended from slaves.
that hurt your argument if the problems don't depend on descent?
oops! HIT THE post button too soon.One drop. And you left out immigrants.
so, reparations should be based on race, not slavery lineage, Of
course that presents another problem, given all those biracial
people.
True, but it was implied. Under current proposals, black immigrants would miss out, though they sill bear as much of the brunt of current racism, as do the slavery descendants.Makes you think about those who claimed Obama wasn't "culturally Black" despite suffering those same disadvantages.
How is that fair?
I wonder also if the largely symbolic calls for reparations would abate
if there were any amelioration of the systemic racism that caused the injuries.
You said, "Payments... will bankrupt the country." You did not make it
clear you were calling for a race-based stipend when you called for
payments in the context of reparation.
I will take it on your word you did not mean to acknowledge the debt. However, I will argue that a debt does exist, as much of the US economy
was built on the stolen labor of the enslaved.
Yes, reparations are not Constitutional. They're also not being proposed anywhere other than political thought pieces.
On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 6:51:34 PM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/29/23 2:06 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 1:06:40 PM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:Makes you think about those who claimed Obama wasn't "culturally Black"
On 1/29/23 11:28 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 12:18:32 PM UTC-5, Art Sackman wrote: >>>>>> hypothetically speaking, if I were a progressive in favor ofLooks like racism is already "unhooked from lineal slavery." Doesn't
reparations, it is more logical to move to a different argument
than Slavery Reparations.
Slavery was horrible, and its echo causes damage to African
Americans to this day. But it is long in the past and cannot be
undone or in any way atoned for. The progressives talk about
systemic racism as it exists today. Any plan for reparations should >>>>>> address this, the situation today, as it affects people now, not
the situation of 170 years ago.
So, reparations should be unhooked from lineal slavery. The
argument is that all blacks receive lesser treatment from society. >>>>>> In terms of societal disadvantage, it doesn't matter if a black
person was, or was not, descended from a slave. If a cop beats down >>>>>> a black man, he doesn't firs task him whether or not he is
descended from slaves.
that hurt your argument if the problems don't depend on descent?
oops! HIT THE post button too soon.One drop. And you left out immigrants.
so, reparations should be based on race, not slavery lineage, Of
course that presents another problem, given all those biracial
people.
True, but it was implied. Under current proposals, black immigrants would >>> miss out, though they sill bear as much of the brunt of current racism, as do the slavery descendants.
How is that fair?
despite suffering those same disadvantages.
I wonder also if the largely symbolic calls for reparations would abate
if there were any amelioration of the systemic racism that caused the
injuries.
In some liberal quarters, yes. Logic would have that
In other liberal quarters, no, the greedy and power hungry would have that
You said, "Payments... will bankrupt the country." You did not make it
clear you were calling for a race-based stipend when you called for
payments in the context of reparation.
in the context of affordability, race based or lineage based doesn't matter
I will take it on your word you did not mean to acknowledge the debt.
However, I will argue that a debt does exist, as much of the US economy
was built on the stolen labor of the enslaved.
you can't repay a debt to a long-gone dead person. You can compensate the heirs.
That brings up a third option, modifying the lineal approach to allocating
an amount to each slave, and tracing each of their ancestors to allocate a percentage share.
Thus, a black person with eight slaves in his lineage would get more than a black person with
four slaves in his lineage. It also depends on whether the slave, and the generations of his or her
dependents had lots of children.
Yes, reparations are not Constitutional. They're also not being proposed
anywhere other than political thought pieces.
I'm so heartened to hear that you don't take the reparations idea seriously.
On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 6:51:34 PM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/29/23 2:06 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Sunday, January 29, 2023 at 1:06:40 PM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
I wonder also if the largely symbolic calls for reparations would abate
if there were any amelioration of the systemic racism that caused the
injuries.
In some liberal quarters, yes. Logic would have that
In other liberal quarters, no, the greedy and power hungry would have that
You said, "Payments... will bankrupt the country." You did not make it
clear you were calling for a race-based stipend when you called for
payments in the context of reparation.
in the context of affordability, race based or lineage based doesn't matter
I will take it on your word you did not mean to acknowledge the debt.
However, I will argue that a debt does exist, as much of the US economy
was built on the stolen labor of the enslaved.
you can't repay a debt to a long-gone dead person. You can compensate the heirs.
That brings up a third option, modifying the lineal approach to allocating
an amount to each slave, and tracing each of their ancestors to allocate a percentage share.
Thus, a black person with eight slaves in his lineage would get more than a black person with
four slaves in his lineage. It also depends on whether the slave, and the generations of his or her
dependents had lots of children.
Yes, reparations are not Constitutional. They're also not being proposed
anywhere other than political thought pieces.
I'm so heartened to hear that you don't take the reparations idea seriously.
Since the wealth of the nation was built on their labor, you're saying
we can't afford to return what was stolen.
I will take it on your word you did not mean to acknowledge the debt.
However, I will argue that a debt does exist, as much of the US economy
was built on the stolen labor of the enslaved.
you can't repay a debt to a long-gone dead person. You can compensate the heirs.
That brings up a third option, modifying the lineal approach to allocating an amount to each slave, and tracing each of their ancestors to allocate a percentage share.
Thus, a black person with eight slaves in his lineage would get more than a black person with
four slaves in his lineage. It also depends on whether the slave, and the generations of his or her
dependents had lots of children.
Sounds complicated and prone to abuse and fraud. At the obvious level,
that would dilute the payment to larger families whose members all
suffered from the original slavery and the systemic racism that followed.
I take the underlying principles seriously. Rejecting reparations isn't
the same as ignoring systemic racism.
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 11:30:22 AM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
Since the wealth of the nation was built on their labor, you're saying
we can't afford to return what was stolen.
It's not like we banked it for 150+ years.
And it was mostly built upon capital investment, entrepreneurship, and the labor
of many other non enslaved people. The slaves were working in the fields of southern plantations, not in northern factories, and not
in building the railroad empire.
So, the wealth in question would be limited to southern agriculture.
I will take it on your word you did not mean to acknowledge the debt.
However, I will argue that a debt does exist, as much of the US economy >>>> was built on the stolen labor of the enslaved.
you can't repay a debt to a long-gone dead person. You can compensate the heirs.
That brings up a third option, modifying the lineal approach to allocating >>> an amount to each slave, and tracing each of their ancestors to allocate a percentage share.
Thus, a black person with eight slaves in his lineage would get more than a black person with
four slaves in his lineage. It also depends on whether the slave, and the generations of his or her
dependents had lots of children.
Sounds complicated and prone to abuse and fraud. At the obvious level,
that would dilute the payment to larger families whose members all
suffered from the original slavery and the systemic racism that followed.
i would agree with that. But it is still the most logical node of dispersal. But the other alternatives are also prone to abuse, fraud, inequity, and divisiveness.
I take the underlying principles seriously. Rejecting reparations isn't
the same as ignoring systemic racism.
The underlying principal is warped, as it is tied to slavery, a system ended 150+ years ago.
So much has occurred in our society since then, particularly generational waves of immigration.
Our current day racial problems need to be addressed in the context of our current society,
not tied to an event long passed by, that cannot be erased, and not really be atoned for.
to tie it so slave lineage shortchanges generations of subsequent black immigrants
who share the same challenges, but would remain uncompensated.
I am surprised to see that progressives are so intent on looking backwards, not forward.
On 1/30/23 2:18 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 11:30:22 AM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
Since the wealth of the nation was built on their labor, you're saying
we can't afford to return what was stolen.
It's not like we banked it for 150+ years.It's exactly like we banked it for 150+ years. Stolen labor was invested
in what became today's economy.
And it was mostly built upon capital investment, entrepreneurship, and the laborNot so quick on railroads:
of many other non enslaved people. The slaves were working in the fields of
southern plantations, not in northern factories, and not
in building the railroad empire.
https://railroads.unl.edu/topics/slavery.php
"Some of the first, longest and most ambitious railroads in the nation
were built in the South beginning in the late 1820s. By 1860 the South's railroad network was one of the most extensive in the world, and nearly
all of it had been constructed with slave labor. Moreover, railroad companies became some of the largest slaveholders in the South."
So, the wealth in question would be limited to southern agriculture.And wherever plantation owners invested their wealth.
I will take it on your word you did not mean to acknowledge the debt. >>>> However, I will argue that a debt does exist, as much of the US economy >>>> was built on the stolen labor of the enslaved.
you can't repay a debt to a long-gone dead person. You can compensate the heirs.
That brings up a third option, modifying the lineal approach to allocating
an amount to each slave, and tracing each of their ancestors to allocate a percentage share.
Thus, a black person with eight slaves in his lineage would get more than a black person with
four slaves in his lineage. It also depends on whether the slave, and the generations of his or her
dependents had lots of children.
Sounds complicated and prone to abuse and fraud. At the obvious level,
that would dilute the payment to larger families whose members all
suffered from the original slavery and the systemic racism that followed.
i would agree with that. But it is still the most logical node of dispersal.This level of detail misses the greater point of what was taken to begin with and how the disparities were continued through systemic means.
But the other alternatives are also prone to abuse, fraud, inequity, and divisiveness.
I am surprised to see that progressives are so intent on looking backwards, not forward.
They're looking forward to ending systemic racism which is still with us.
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 5:01:18 PM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/30/23 2:18 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Monday, January 30, 2023 at 11:30:22 AM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:It's exactly like we banked it for 150+ years. Stolen labor was
Since the wealth of the nation was built on their labor, you're
saying we can't afford to return what was stolen.
It's not like we banked it for 150+ years.
invested in what became today's economy.
And it was mostly built upon capital investment,Not so quick on railroads:
entrepreneurship, and the labor of many other non enslaved
people. The slaves were working in the fields of southern
plantations, not in northern factories, and not in building the
railroad empire.
https://railroads.unl.edu/topics/slavery.php
"Some of the first, longest and most ambitious railroads in the
nation were built in the South beginning in the late 1820s. By 1860
the South's railroad network was one of the most extensive in the
world, and nearly all of it had been constructed with slave labor.
Moreover, railroad companies became some of the largest
slaveholders in the South."
That is hardly the American railroad empire.
So, the wealth in question would be limited to southernAnd wherever plantation owners invested their wealth.
agriculture.
"The average slaveowning planter in the US South was living “high”
and in a pretentious manner due to social pressure which was quite
expensive but most were deeply in debt and in precarious financial circumstances. Education, except for military education, was not
valued by the planter class, and sound financial practices were not
popular or followed, as financial recklessness was part of the ‘honor code.’ Washington decried the endless rounds of balls, visiting and
other “just for show” expensive activities that made supporting the planter lifestyle financially draining. He hated the “factors” who
upheld a feudal financial system that paid planters in luxury goods
and plantation supplies instead of cash for their cotton and tobacco,
and who assigned the slave values. He used his own group of
plantations as a case study, trying to find ways to make running them efficient enough to wring out sufficient income to live as
extravagantly as his social demands required. His documentation and evaluations of his ledgers note that he was still failing to make it
work adequately, and would not be able to survive at all without
relying on slave labor. He was trying everything to rejuvenate the
spent soil, plant new kinds of crops to replace tobacco, reduce the
number of workers required, etc."
I am surprised to see that progressives are so intent on looking
backwards, not forward.
They're looking forward to ending systemic racism which is still
with us.
That's the point. Focus on today. Your obsession with atoning for 170
year old slavery is a gigantic obstacle. Paying reparations for
slavery does NOT address systemic racism found today.
That is hardly the American railroad empire.Just the "first, longest and most ambitious railroads in the nation." If your quibble is that the South was only part of the eventual total,
well, too bad.
So, the wealth in question would be limited to southernAnd wherever plantation owners invested their wealth.
agriculture.
"The average slaveowning planter in the US South was living “high”
and in a pretentious manner due to social pressure which was quite expensive but most were deeply in debt and in precarious financial circumstances. Education, except for military education, was not
valued by the planter class, and sound financial practices were not popular or followed, as financial recklessness was part of the ‘honor code.’ Washington decried the endless rounds of balls, visiting and other “just for show” expensive activities that made supporting the planter lifestyle financially draining. He hated the “factors” who upheld a feudal financial system that paid planters in luxury goods
and plantation supplies instead of cash for their cotton and tobacco,
and who assigned the slave values. He used his own group of
plantations as a case study, trying to find ways to make running them efficient enough to wring out sufficient income to live as
extravagantly as his social demands required. His documentation and evaluations of his ledgers note that he was still failing to make it
work adequately, and would not be able to survive at all without
relying on slave labor. He was trying everything to rejuvenate the
spent soil, plant new kinds of crops to replace tobacco, reduce the
number of workers required, etc."
My heart bleeds for the unfortunate slave owners. You refer, of course,
to the pre-cotton gin era, assuming the Washington you cite is George.
I am surprised to see that progressives are so intent on looking
backwards, not forward.
They're looking forward to ending systemic racism which is still
with us.
That's the point. Focus on today. Your obsession with atoning for 170What obsession? I haven't called for reparations, but I understand the reasoning behind it. You, on the other hand, have resisted even acknowledging the existence of systemic racism.
year old slavery is a gigantic obstacle. Paying reparations for
slavery does NOT address systemic racism found today.
I see the last major argument in favor of reparations was nearly a
decade ago:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
https://www.theinsightspark.org/post/understanding-ta-nehisi-coates-argument-for-reparations
That is hardly the American railroad empire.Just the "first, longest and most ambitious railroads in the nation." If
your quibble is that the South was only part of the eventual total,
well, too bad.
You are being ridiculous It was only a part of the network, and not a major part
The southern economy was agrarian and laggard.
You don't know much about American history
So, the wealth in question would be limited to southernAnd wherever plantation owners invested their wealth.
agriculture.
"The average slaveowning planter in the US South was living “high”
and in a pretentious manner due to social pressure which was quite
expensive but most were deeply in debt and in precarious financial
circumstances. Education, except for military education, was not
valued by the planter class, and sound financial practices were not
popular or followed, as financial recklessness was part of the ‘honor
code.’ Washington decried the endless rounds of balls, visiting and
other “just for show” expensive activities that made supporting the
planter lifestyle financially draining. He hated the “factors” who
upheld a feudal financial system that paid planters in luxury goods
and plantation supplies instead of cash for their cotton and tobacco,
and who assigned the slave values. He used his own group of
plantations as a case study, trying to find ways to make running them
efficient enough to wring out sufficient income to live as
extravagantly as his social demands required. His documentation and
evaluations of his ledgers note that he was still failing to make it
work adequately, and would not be able to survive at all without
relying on slave labor. He was trying everything to rejuvenate the
spent soil, plant new kinds of crops to replace tobacco, reduce the
number of workers required, etc."
My heart bleeds for the unfortunate slave owners. You refer, of course,
to the pre-cotton gin era, assuming the Washington you cite is George.
They are long since dead, as well as their slaves. Nothing changes that
I am surprised to see that progressives are so intent on looking
backwards, not forward.
They're looking forward to ending systemic racism which is still
with us.
Exactly how is that?
If it is so entwined in the American exizsence, as the woke claim it to be, how can it be so easily eradicated?
That's the point. Focus on today. Your obsession with atoning for 170What obsession? I haven't called for reparations, but I understand the
year old slavery is a gigantic obstacle. Paying reparations for
slavery does NOT address systemic racism found today.
reasoning behind it. You, on the other hand, have resisted even
acknowledging the existence of systemic racism.
You don't understand the reasoning Slavery isn't it. The current
situation would be it. Many people NOT descended from slaves are affected.
I see the last major argument in favor of reparations was nearly a
decade ago:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
https://www.theinsightspark.org/post/understanding-ta-nehisi-coates-argument-for-reparations
You are obsessed by slavery.
On 1/31/23 1:39 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
That is hardly the American railroad empire.Just the "first, longest and most ambitious railroads in the nation." If >> your quibble is that the South was only part of the eventual total,
well, too bad.
You are being ridiculous It was only a part of the network, and not a major partThat's what I said you'd do, quibble about what part it was.
The southern economy was agrarian and laggard.Sure, before the cotton gin.
You don't know much about American historyhttps://railroads.unl.edu/views/item/slavery_rr
"By 1860 the South was the third leading railroad nation in the world, trailing only the northern United States and the United Kingdom in total miles constructed. It contained 33 percent of the nation's railroad
mileage and 40 percent of its population, and southern states were aggressively promoting railroad development throughout the 1850s.
Indeed, southern railroads built and maintained their roads with
enslaved labor, orchestrating contracts for hire on a scale of
complexity and cost that seemed logical and consistent with their
purposes but far in excess of any other institutions. Railroads began
buying hundreds of male slaves between the ages of 16 and 35 as early as 1841, and in the 1850s were either renting or buying "hands" in groups
of hundreds."
On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 10:51:21 AM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/31/23 1:39 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
That's what I said you'd do, quibble about what part it was.That is hardly the American railroad empire.Just the "first, longest and most ambitious railroads in the nation." If >>>> your quibble is that the South was only part of the eventual total,
well, too bad.
You are being ridiculous It was only a part of the network, and not a major part
The southern economy was agrarian and laggard.Sure, before the cotton gin.
You don't know much about American historyhttps://railroads.unl.edu/views/item/slavery_rr
"By 1860 the South was the third leading railroad nation in the world,
trailing only the northern United States and the United Kingdom in total
miles constructed. It contained 33 percent of the nation's railroad
mileage and 40 percent of its population, and southern states were
aggressively promoting railroad development throughout the 1850s.
Indeed, southern railroads built and maintained their roads with
enslaved labor, orchestrating contracts for hire on a scale of
complexity and cost that seemed logical and consistent with their
purposes but far in excess of any other institutions. Railroads began
buying hundreds of male slaves between the ages of 16 and 35 as early as
1841, and in the 1850s were either renting or buying "hands" in groups
of hundreds."
You are sooooo wrong.
The northeast had 75% of US trackage in 1860, So the south and midwest COMBINED had considerably less than 33%
The total number of slaves working on laying track was only about 500
that was out of about 4 million slaves in the south
And India had had a lot of trackage. 4,000 miles . The south had about 2,900 miles
(30,000 miles US, of which 21,800 was the northeast. the remaining 8,200 miles was split about 65/35
between the Midwest and south, so approximately only 2,870 miles)
France had a large system, mileage unknown
https://www.themaparchive.com/product/1860-us-railroads/
https://usafacts.org/articles/the-1860-census-counted-4-million-enslaved-people-it-counted-zero-in-1870/
On 2/2/23 1:49 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 10:51:21 AM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/31/23 1:39 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
That's what I said you'd do, quibble about what part it was.That is hardly the American railroad empire.Just the "first, longest and most ambitious railroads in the nation." If >>>> your quibble is that the South was only part of the eventual total,
well, too bad.
You are being ridiculous It was only a part of the network, and not a major part
The southern economy was agrarian and laggard.Sure, before the cotton gin.
You don't know much about American historyhttps://railroads.unl.edu/views/item/slavery_rr
"By 1860 the South was the third leading railroad nation in the world,
trailing only the northern United States and the United Kingdom in total >> miles constructed. It contained 33 percent of the nation's railroad
mileage and 40 percent of its population, and southern states were
aggressively promoting railroad development throughout the 1850s.
Indeed, southern railroads built and maintained their roads with
enslaved labor, orchestrating contracts for hire on a scale of
complexity and cost that seemed logical and consistent with their
purposes but far in excess of any other institutions. Railroads began
buying hundreds of male slaves between the ages of 16 and 35 as early as >> 1841, and in the 1850s were either renting or buying "hands" in groups
of hundreds."
You are sooooo wrong.
The northeast had 75% of US trackage in 1860, So the south and midwest COMBINED had considerably less than 33%Yes, you're arguing percentages of track laid when the point was the contributions of the enslaved to railroad construction.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/railroads-confederacy
"The 1850s had seen enormous growth in the railroad industry so that by
1861, 22,000 miles of track had been laid in the Northern states and
9,500 miles in the South. The great rail centers in the South were Chattanooga, Atlanta, and most important, Richmond. Very little track
had yet been laid west of the Mississippi."
The total number of slaves working on laying track was only about 500Working for the railroad: the organization of work in the nineteenth
that was out of about 4 million slaves in the south
century by Walter Licht:
The southern railroads, however, faced strong competition for slave
labor from the agricultural sector. As a result, southern rail companies
were forced in many cases to purchase slaves directly and provide for
their upkeep...
Increased pressure from agriculture and rising hiring prices during the
1850s forced the southern railroads to resort more and more to slave purchasing...
During the Civil War... [i]n Virginia the price of both hired and
purchased slave labor loomed so dear that the directors of the Virginia Central sought a third solution by petitioning the state assembly for legislation empowering the governor to impress slaves for use on the road.
End quote.
And India had had a lot of trackage. 4,000 miles . The south had about 2,900 milesYour unnamed cite also says the Southern portion was mostly built in the 1850s, hence by slave labor.
(30,000 miles US, of which 21,800 was the northeast. the remaining 8,200 miles was split about 65/35
between the Midwest and south, so approximately only 2,870 miles)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1010519/miles-of-railroad-in-us-prior-to-civil-war-1861/
Union: 20,000 miles
Confederacy: 9,000 miles
Add 1,200 miles for Border States and that's a total of 30,200.
So, the South had more than twice that of India. My source said 33% of
the total which is in the ballpark especially if you exclude Border States.
France had a large system, mileage unknown
https://www.themaparchive.com/product/1860-us-railroads/
https://usafacts.org/articles/the-1860-census-counted-4-million-enslaved-people-it-counted-zero-in-1870/I don't see the point of this. Southern railroads owned and rented
slaves. There are receipts.
On 2/2/23 1:49 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 10:51:21 AM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/31/23 1:39 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
That's what I said you'd do, quibble about what part it was.That is hardly the American railroad empire.Just the "first, longest and most ambitious railroads in the nation." If >>>> your quibble is that the South was only part of the eventual total,
well, too bad.
You are being ridiculous It was only a part of the network, and not a major part
The southern economy was agrarian and laggard.Sure, before the cotton gin.
You don't know much about American historyhttps://railroads.unl.edu/views/item/slavery_rr
"By 1860 the South was the third leading railroad nation in the world,
trailing only the northern United States and the United Kingdom in total >> miles constructed. It contained 33 percent of the nation's railroad
mileage and 40 percent of its population, and southern states were
aggressively promoting railroad development throughout the 1850s.
Indeed, southern railroads built and maintained their roads with
enslaved labor, orchestrating contracts for hire on a scale of
complexity and cost that seemed logical and consistent with their
purposes but far in excess of any other institutions. Railroads began
buying hundreds of male slaves between the ages of 16 and 35 as early as >> 1841, and in the 1850s were either renting or buying "hands" in groups
of hundreds."
You are sooooo wrong.
The northeast had 75% of US trackage in 1860, So the south and midwest COMBINED had considerably less than 33%Yes, you're arguing percentages of track laid when the point was the contributions of the enslaved to railroad construction.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/railroads-confederacy
"The 1850s had seen enormous growth in the railroad industry so that by
1861, 22,000 miles of track had been laid in the Northern states and
9,500 miles in the South. The great rail centers in the South were Chattanooga, Atlanta, and most important, Richmond. Very little track
had yet been laid west of the Mississippi."
The total number of slaves working on laying track was only about 500Working for the railroad: the organization of work in the nineteenth
that was out of about 4 million slaves in the south
century by Walter Licht:
The southern railroads, however, faced strong competition for slave
labor from the agricultural sector. As a result, southern rail companies
were forced in many cases to purchase slaves directly and provide for
their upkeep...
Increased pressure from agriculture and rising hiring prices during the
1850s forced the southern railroads to resort more and more to slave purchasing...
During the Civil War... [i]n Virginia the price of both hired and
purchased slave labor loomed so dear that the directors of the Virginia Central sought a third solution by petitioning the state assembly for legislation empowering the governor to impress slaves for use on the road.
End quote.
And India had had a lot of trackage. 4,000 miles . The south had about 2,900 milesYour unnamed cite also says the Southern portion was mostly built in the 1850s, hence by slave labor.
(30,000 miles US, of which 21,800 was the northeast. the remaining 8,200 miles was split about 65/35
between the Midwest and south, so approximately only 2,870 miles)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1010519/miles-of-railroad-in-us-prior-to-civil-war-1861/
Union: 20,000 miles
Confederacy: 9,000 miles
Add 1,200 miles for Border States and that's a total of 30,200.
So, the South had more than twice that of India. My source said 33% of
the total which is in the ballpark especially if you exclude Border States.
France had a large system, mileage unknown
https://www.themaparchive.com/product/1860-us-railroads/
https://usafacts.org/articles/the-1860-census-counted-4-million-enslaved-people-it-counted-zero-in-1870/I don't see the point of this. Southern railroads owned and rented
slaves. There are receipts.
On 2/2/23 1:49 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 10:51:21 AM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/31/23 1:39 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
That's what I said you'd do, quibble about what part it was.That is hardly the American railroad empire.Just the "first, longest and most ambitious railroads in the nation." If >>>> your quibble is that the South was only part of the eventual total,
well, too bad.
You are being ridiculous It was only a part of the network, and not a major part
The southern economy was agrarian and laggard.Sure, before the cotton gin.
You don't know much about American historyhttps://railroads.unl.edu/views/item/slavery_rr
"By 1860 the South was the third leading railroad nation in the world,
trailing only the northern United States and the United Kingdom in total >> miles constructed. It contained 33 percent of the nation's railroad
mileage and 40 percent of its population, and southern states were
aggressively promoting railroad development throughout the 1850s.
Indeed, southern railroads built and maintained their roads with
enslaved labor, orchestrating contracts for hire on a scale of
complexity and cost that seemed logical and consistent with their
purposes but far in excess of any other institutions. Railroads began
buying hundreds of male slaves between the ages of 16 and 35 as early as >> 1841, and in the 1850s were either renting or buying "hands" in groups
of hundreds."
You are sooooo wrong.
The northeast had 75% of US trackage in 1860, So the south and midwest COMBINED had considerably less than 33%Yes, you're arguing percentages of track laid when the point was the contributions of the enslaved to railroad construction.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/railroads-confederacy
"The 1850s had seen enormous growth in the railroad industry so that by
1861, 22,000 miles of track had been laid in the Northern states and
9,500 miles in the South. The great rail centers in the South were Chattanooga, Atlanta, and most important, Richmond. Very little track
had yet been laid west of the Mississippi."
The total number of slaves working on laying track was only about 500Working for the railroad: the organization of work in the nineteenth
that was out of about 4 million slaves in the south
century by Walter Licht:
The southern railroads, however, faced strong competition for slave
labor from the agricultural sector. As a result, southern rail companies
were forced in many cases to purchase slaves directly and provide for
their upkeep...
Increased pressure from agriculture and rising hiring prices during the
1850s forced the southern railroads to resort more and more to slave purchasing...
During the Civil War... [i]n Virginia the price of both hired and
purchased slave labor loomed so dear that the directors of the Virginia Central sought a third solution by petitioning the state assembly for legislation empowering the governor to impress slaves for use on the road.
End quote.
And India had had a lot of trackage. 4,000 miles . The south had about 2,900 milesYour unnamed cite also says the Southern portion was mostly built in the 1850s, hence by slave labor.
(30,000 miles US, of which 21,800 was the northeast. the remaining 8,200 miles was split about 65/35
between the Midwest and south, so approximately only 2,870 miles)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1010519/miles-of-railroad-in-us-prior-to-civil-war-1861/
Union: 20,000 miles
Confederacy: 9,000 miles
Add 1,200 miles for Border States and that's a total of 30,200.
, whic had about
So, the South had more than twice that of India. My source said 33% of
the total which is in the ballpark especially if you exclude Border States.
France had a large system, mileage unknown
https://www.themaparchive.com/product/1860-us-railroads/
https://usafacts.org/articles/the-1860-census-counted-4-million-enslaved-people-it-counted-zero-in-1870/I don't see the point of this. Southern railroads owned and rented
slaves. There are receipts.
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 11:44:54 AM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
On 2/2/23 1:49 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 10:51:21 AM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/31/23 1:39 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
That's what I said you'd do, quibble about what part it was.That is hardly the American railroad empire.Just the "first, longest and most ambitious railroads in the nation." If
your quibble is that the South was only part of the eventual total, >>>> well, too bad.
You are being ridiculous It was only a part of the network, and not a major part
The southern economy was agrarian and laggard.Sure, before the cotton gin.
You don't know much about American historyhttps://railroads.unl.edu/views/item/slavery_rr
"By 1860 the South was the third leading railroad nation in the world, >> trailing only the northern United States and the United Kingdom in total
miles constructed. It contained 33 percent of the nation's railroad
mileage and 40 percent of its population, and southern states were
aggressively promoting railroad development throughout the 1850s.
Indeed, southern railroads built and maintained their roads with
enslaved labor, orchestrating contracts for hire on a scale of
complexity and cost that seemed logical and consistent with their
purposes but far in excess of any other institutions. Railroads began >> buying hundreds of male slaves between the ages of 16 and 35 as early as
1841, and in the 1850s were either renting or buying "hands" in groups >> of hundreds."
You are sooooo wrong.
The northeast had 75% of US trackage in 1860, So the south and midwest COMBINED had considerably less than 33%Yes, you're arguing percentages of track laid when the point was the contributions of the enslaved to railroad construction.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/railroads-confederacy
"The 1850s had seen enormous growth in the railroad industry so that by 1861, 22,000 miles of track had been laid in the Northern states and
9,500 miles in the South. The great rail centers in the South were Chattanooga, Atlanta, and most important, Richmond. Very little track
had yet been laid west of the Mississippi."
The total number of slaves working on laying track was only about 500 that was out of about 4 million slaves in the southWorking for the railroad: the organization of work in the nineteenth century by Walter Licht:
The southern railroads, however, faced strong competition for slave
labor from the agricultural sector. As a result, southern rail companies were forced in many cases to purchase slaves directly and provide for their upkeep...
Increased pressure from agriculture and rising hiring prices during the 1850s forced the southern railroads to resort more and more to slave purchasing...
During the Civil War... [i]n Virginia the price of both hired and purchased slave labor loomed so dear that the directors of the Virginia Central sought a third solution by petitioning the state assembly for legislation empowering the governor to impress slaves for use on the road.
End quote.
And India had had a lot of trackage. 4,000 miles . The south had about 2,900 milesYour unnamed cite also says the Southern portion was mostly built in the 1850s, hence by slave labor.
(30,000 miles US, of which 21,800 was the northeast. the remaining 8,200 miles was split about 65/35
between the Midwest and south, so approximately only 2,870 miles)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1010519/miles-of-railroad-in-us-prior-to-civil-war-1861/
Union: 20,000 milesNO the northeast alone had 21,000 miles.
Confederacy: 9,000 miles
That does not include the midwest, which had about 6,000 miles
Add 1,200 miles for Border States and that's a total of 30,200.
, whic had about
So, the South had more than twice that of India. My source said 33% of
the total which is in the ballpark especially if you exclude Border States.
France had a large system, mileage unknown
https://www.themaparchive.com/product/1860-us-railroads/
You are too stupid to see the point. 500 out of 4 million southern slaves laid rairoad trackhttps://usafacts.org/articles/the-1860-census-counted-4-million-enslaved-people-it-counted-zero-in-1870/I don't see the point of this. Southern railroads owned and rented
slaves. There are receipts.
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 11:12:55 PM UTC-6, [email protected] wrote:
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 11:44:54 AM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
On 2/2/23 1:49 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 10:51:21 AM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
On 1/31/23 1:39 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
That's what I said you'd do, quibble about what part it was.That is hardly the American railroad empire.Just the "first, longest and most ambitious railroads in the nation." If
your quibble is that the South was only part of the eventual total, >>>> well, too bad.
You are being ridiculous It was only a part of the network, and not a major part
The southern economy was agrarian and laggard.Sure, before the cotton gin.
You don't know much about American historyhttps://railroads.unl.edu/views/item/slavery_rr
"By 1860 the South was the third leading railroad nation in the world,
trailing only the northern United States and the United Kingdom in total
miles constructed. It contained 33 percent of the nation's railroad >> mileage and 40 percent of its population, and southern states were
aggressively promoting railroad development throughout the 1850s.
Indeed, southern railroads built and maintained their roads with
enslaved labor, orchestrating contracts for hire on a scale of
complexity and cost that seemed logical and consistent with their
purposes but far in excess of any other institutions. Railroads began >> buying hundreds of male slaves between the ages of 16 and 35 as early as
1841, and in the 1850s were either renting or buying "hands" in groups
of hundreds."
You are sooooo wrong.
The northeast had 75% of US trackage in 1860, So the south and midwest COMBINED had considerably less than 33%Yes, you're arguing percentages of track laid when the point was the contributions of the enslaved to railroad construction.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/railroads-confederacy
"The 1850s had seen enormous growth in the railroad industry so that by 1861, 22,000 miles of track had been laid in the Northern states and 9,500 miles in the South. The great rail centers in the South were Chattanooga, Atlanta, and most important, Richmond. Very little track had yet been laid west of the Mississippi."
The total number of slaves working on laying track was only about 500 that was out of about 4 million slaves in the southWorking for the railroad: the organization of work in the nineteenth century by Walter Licht:
The southern railroads, however, faced strong competition for slave labor from the agricultural sector. As a result, southern rail companies were forced in many cases to purchase slaves directly and provide for their upkeep...
Increased pressure from agriculture and rising hiring prices during the 1850s forced the southern railroads to resort more and more to slave purchasing...
During the Civil War... [i]n Virginia the price of both hired and purchased slave labor loomed so dear that the directors of the Virginia Central sought a third solution by petitioning the state assembly for legislation empowering the governor to impress slaves for use on the road.
End quote.
And India had had a lot of trackage. 4,000 miles . The south had about 2,900 milesYour unnamed cite also says the Southern portion was mostly built in the 1850s, hence by slave labor.
(30,000 miles US, of which 21,800 was the northeast. the remaining 8,200 miles was split about 65/35
between the Midwest and south, so approximately only 2,870 miles)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1010519/miles-of-railroad-in-us-prior-to-civil-war-1861/
Union: 20,000 milesNO the northeast alone had 21,000 miles.
Confederacy: 9,000 miles
That does not include the midwest, which had about 6,000 miles
Add 1,200 miles for Border States and that's a total of 30,200.
, whic had about
So, the South had more than twice that of India. My source said 33% of the total which is in the ballpark especially if you exclude Border States.
France had a large system, mileage unknown
https://www.themaparchive.com/product/1860-us-railroads/
You said slaves didn’t contribute to railroads and they did. Quibbling about own vs rent or what percentage of the enslaved were involved doesn’t change that.You are too stupid to see the point. 500 out of 4 million southern slaves laid rairoad trackhttps://usafacts.org/articles/the-1860-census-counted-4-million-enslaved-people-it-counted-zero-in-1870/I don't see the point of this. Southern railroads owned and rented slaves. There are receipts.
You’ve also degenerated to name calling. Unconvincing.
You said slaves didn’t contribute to railroads and they did. Quibbling about own vs rent or what percentage of the enslaved were involved doesn’t change that.
You’ve also degenerated to name calling. Unconvincing.
You said slaves didn’t contribute to railroads and they did.
Quibbling about own vs rent or what percentage of the enslaved were
involved doesn’t change that.
You said they created vast wealth They did not.
The labor of laying the track does not account for creating the vast wealth of railroad
And the economic difference between voluntary labor and slave labor
is that the slaves didn't get paid wages. That is the extent of any
losses to be compensated for
$2 per day, 2 years, 500 slaves , that comes to $365,000 adjusted for inflation, maybe about $36, 500,000 diveded between all 40 million
current black African Americans, a little over $1 per black person.
And lets pay that in Confederate currency, please!!!!!
You’ve also degenerated to name calling. Unconvincing.
I HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN STARTED YET!
You're head is so far up your ass, its coming out of our mouth
On Thursday, February 2, 2023 at 11:44:54 AM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:
On 2/2/23 1:49 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Wednesday, February 1, 2023 at 10:51:21 AM UTC-5, MINe109 wrote:Yes, you're arguing percentages of track laid when the point was the
On 1/31/23 1:39 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
That's what I said you'd do, quibble about what part it was.That is hardly the American railroad empire.Just the "first, longest and most ambitious railroads in the nation." If >>>>>> your quibble is that the South was only part of the eventual total, >>>>>> well, too bad.
You are being ridiculous It was only a part of the network, and not a major part
The southern economy was agrarian and laggard.Sure, before the cotton gin.
You don't know much about American historyhttps://railroads.unl.edu/views/item/slavery_rr
"By 1860 the South was the third leading railroad nation in the world, >>>> trailing only the northern United States and the United Kingdom in total >>>> miles constructed. It contained 33 percent of the nation's railroad
mileage and 40 percent of its population, and southern states were
aggressively promoting railroad development throughout the 1850s.
Indeed, southern railroads built and maintained their roads with
enslaved labor, orchestrating contracts for hire on a scale of
complexity and cost that seemed logical and consistent with their
purposes but far in excess of any other institutions. Railroads began
buying hundreds of male slaves between the ages of 16 and 35 as early as >>>> 1841, and in the 1850s were either renting or buying "hands" in groups >>>> of hundreds."
You are sooooo wrong.
The northeast had 75% of US trackage in 1860, So the south and midwest COMBINED had considerably less than 33%
contributions of the enslaved to railroad construction.
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/railroads-confederacy
"The 1850s had seen enormous growth in the railroad industry so that by
1861, 22,000 miles of track had been laid in the Northern states and
9,500 miles in the South. The great rail centers in the South were
Chattanooga, Atlanta, and most important, Richmond. Very little track
had yet been laid west of the Mississippi."
The total number of slaves working on laying track was only about 500Working for the railroad: the organization of work in the nineteenth
that was out of about 4 million slaves in the south
century by Walter Licht:
The southern railroads, however, faced strong competition for slave
labor from the agricultural sector. As a result, southern rail companies
were forced in many cases to purchase slaves directly and provide for
their upkeep...
Increased pressure from agriculture and rising hiring prices during the
1850s forced the southern railroads to resort more and more to slave
purchasing...
During the Civil War... [i]n Virginia the price of both hired and
purchased slave labor loomed so dear that the directors of the Virginia
Central sought a third solution by petitioning the state assembly for
legislation empowering the governor to impress slaves for use on the road. >>
End quote.
And India had had a lot of trackage. 4,000 miles . The south had about 2,900 milesYour unnamed cite also says the Southern portion was mostly built in the
(30,000 miles US, of which 21,800 was the northeast. the remaining 8,200 miles was split about 65/35
between the Midwest and south, so approximately only 2,870 miles)
1850s, hence by slave labor.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1010519/miles-of-railroad-in-us-prior-to-civil-war-1861/
Union: 20,000 miles
Confederacy: 9,000 miles
Add 1,200 miles for Border States and that's a total of 30,200.
So, the South had more than twice that of India. My source said 33% of
the total which is in the ballpark especially if you exclude Border States. >>> France had a large system, mileage unknown
I don't see the point of this. Southern railroads owned and rented
https://www.themaparchive.com/product/1860-us-railroads/
https://usafacts.org/articles/the-1860-census-counted-4-million-enslaved-people-it-counted-zero-in-1870/
slaves. There are receipts.
The point is, is that I have proven you to be a liar.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 30:40:08 |
| Calls: | 12,108 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,264 |