patrick.net

Reality says

You can not argue against the simple math that slave population declined from 18% of US population in 1790 to less than 13% in 1860.

I already did. You just didn't understand it. Stick with simple math.

Reality says

Those four states were not at all representative of how slavery system was doing in the US or even in the South from 1790 to 1860.

You can not argue against the simple math that slave population declined from 18% of US population in 1790 to less than 13% in 1860.

Hmmm, criticizing a claim based on the fact there were only 4 Southern States out of the 13 Colonies in 1790, ignoring the fact they had the four had the overwhelming majority of slaves*, then comparing the total slave population to the entire US population in on the eve of the Civil War, ignoring that the Slave States had the lion's share of slaves when more than half the country had completely banned slavery.

That explains nothing, it's only a dodge, and a bad one at that.

* Because you'll say in 1790, Slavery was legal in many Northern States, which is true, but a distortion since slavery was never common at all in the North.

Reality says

Once again, your Soviet education is showing. No, small degree of street justice ( that is already taking place everyday in real life) administered at petty crimes is not the same thing as Jacobian organized mass slaughter of political opponents. Quantitative difference, when big enough, makes a qualitative difference.

The police being permitted to administer "Instant Justice" is also known as "State Terror", which is exactly the thing you rail about...

... when states with policies you don't like do it.

What dodge? Numbers are numbers. The plain fact was that slave population as percentage of total population declined from 18% to less than 30%!. And that's despite the federal fugitive slave return laws. If and when the line of freedom was moved from the Canadian border south to the Mason-Dixon Line, escape for slaves would become much easier, and the slave population as percentage of total population would drop even more dramatically . . . All without a devastating war that turned the US into an empire.

Police has significant leeway in the exercising of police power. That is just reality on the ground, whether you or I like it or not. Many petty crimes do not rise to the level of court procedings; likewise many minor police abuses do not rise to the level of formal prosecution against the specific officers either. It's a numbers game, just like most minor offenses even if prosecuted result in a plea bargain that has little to do with what the accused actually did, and both the prosecutor and the defense know it. That's just reality on the ground.

None of that has anything to do with state terror. If the crime ( whether by criminal or uniformed criminal) rises to high enough of a level, lawsuits will be fought over. As simple as that.

I heard a solution on the Police abuse that sounded quite good, any civil lawsuits should be paid for by the police pension fund, i.e. no taxpayer money. Of course getting something like that passed...

Reality says

What dodge? Numbers are numbers. The plain fact was that slave population as percentage of total population declined from 18% to less than 30%!.

The plain fact is the number of slaves increased every year until the civil war. Numbers are numbers. The fact the country grew faster is meaningless. Stick to simple math otherwise your head will explode.

Reality says

scape for slaves would become much easier, and the slave population as percentage of total population would drop even more dramatically

You have been taking math lesson from cic. So how many years at the 200 per year average number of escapes to the north would it take for all the slaves to escape? Actually it's a trick question since the number of slaves were increasing far more per year than the number of escapes. Being a concerned kind of person I really didn't want your head to explode if you actually tried to figure it out.

By your logic, since minimum wage at $7.5/hr now, which is 12 times what Henry Ford offered his workers at $5/day, which itself was about double the going rate for workers at the time. That is, minimum wage now is 24 times the average worker income back then, therefore minimum wage workers today must be super rich by your logic!

You have to normalize the numbers against the rising tide in long term statistics where massive population explosion or inflation was taking place. When normalized against the population explosion in the background (infant mortality and childhood mortality declining rapidly due to trade and living atandards improving), the slave population as percentage of the total population declined from 18% to less than13%.

indigenous says

I heard a solution on the Police abuse that sounded quite good, any civil lawsuits should be paid for by the police pension fund

I support this line of reasoning. Since qualified pensions (including those of the most noble and blameless among us: CEOs ) are specifically exempt from garnishment/seizure as a matter of longstanding legal practice, this is even more extreme than, say, abolishing limited-liability companies: that is, making all shareholders responsible for what BP did to the Gulf, including seizing the shareholders homes, cars, pension-fund assets - to say nothing of the pensions of all BP employees and executives - gone!

So lets make everything seizable! You do bad things, you should be fully eligible for homelessness.

The limited liability corporation is one of the most vile conceptions in human history, and has served only to provide personal profit without personal responsibility.

Reality says

By your logic, since minimum wage at $7.5/hr now, which is 12 times what Henry Ford offered his workers at $5/day, which itself was about double the going rate for workers at the time. That is, minimum wage now is 24 times the average worker income back then, therefore minimum wage workers today must be super rich by your logic!

Really grasping at straws aren't we? My logic would include the words inflation adjusted.

Reality says

You have to normalize the numbers against the rising tide in long term statistics where massive population explosion or inflation was taking place. When normalized against the population explosion in the background (infant mortality and childhood mortality declining rapidly due to trade and living atandards improving), the slave population as percentage of the total population declined from 18% to less than13%.

No you don't. The slave population of slave states increased from 18% to 45%. quod erat demonstrandum

“eppur si muove.” Galileo

Ford's $5 per day was not given to all workers:

The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus. The bonus came with character requirements and was enforced by the Socialization Organization. This was a committee that would visit the employees’ homes to ensure that they were doing things the “American way.” They were supposed to avoid social ills such as gambling and drinking. They were to learn English, and many (primarily the recent immigrants) had to attend classes to become “Americanized.” Women were not eligible for the bonus unless they were single and supporting the family. Also, men were not eligible if their wives worked outside the home.

Unbelievable.

Anyway, Ford had to offer more money, because the work was grueling 9-hour shifts on an assembly line, and there was easier work to be found elsewhere at the same rate as Ford's pre-bonus wages ($2.50 per day) which would not drive you insane.

Anyway, even for those who got the full $5 a day in 1914, that's equivalent to $120 today, which is 8 hours at 15 per hour.

bgamall4 says

Zionism is the multiracial cabal that is behind our goverment's evil deeds and was also responsible for 9/11. It is responsible for our nation's involvement in the Ukraine as the nation of Israel seeks to establish a Second Israel in the Ukraine.

You forgot to mention that Zionists created AIDS, world hunger, and were responsible for Adam and Eve getting kicked out of the garden. They are also peeing in your soda.

Reality says

What dodge? Numbers are numbers. The plain fact was that slave population as percentage of total population declined from 18% to less than 30%!. And that's despite the federal fugitive slave return laws. If and when the line of freedom was moved from the Canadian border south to the Mason-Dixon Line, escape for slaves would become much easier, and the slave population as percentage of total population would drop even more dramatically . . . All without a devastating war that turned the US into an empire.

What's happening here is you keep putting forward irrelevancies like comparing the population of Slaves, which was almost wholly Southern, to the whole US population, so you can dilute the percentage thanks to free immigration to the North. The percentage of Slaves remained about 1/3 of the Southern Population from the start of the 19th Century to beginning of the Civil War.

This is despite the Constitution banning Slave importation in 1810, and despite the activities of the Royal Navy.. The truth is that the Internal Slave Trade was huge, and slaveowners began breeding blacks and breaking up families to sell people like commodities.

You're ignoring the mass growth in Cotton Exports, accounting for more than half of all US exports prior to the Civil War, up from single digits at the start of the Republic.

You're ignoring the near 700% explosion in the population of Slaves in much less than a Century.

You're ignoring the movement of slavery on a large scale to several new States that didn't exist in 1790:

In Texas' case, Slavery was on the wane in Mexico and the newly independent Mexican authorities began declaring those born into Slavery free at 14. The Texans played legal games by redefining them as "Indentured Servants with Life Terms". During the Revolt against Mexico, whites butchered Slaves tried to run to the Mexican Army and freedom.

The first act of a Free Texas in 1836 was.... to completely return to legalized Slavery.

You have not provided any evidence that Slavery was on the wane.

The South did not leave the Union over the relatively low tariffs in place in the 1850s. They left because they had the fear that the growing number of free white settlers settling the country would result in Slavery being banned. Kansas becoming a Free State despite rampant acts of Terror and Political Shennanigans like the Lecompton Constitution was the big impetus. The price and quantity of exported cotton led them to believe the world depended on their exports and would rush to assist them if the North tried to stop them.

Nor were free blacks prevalent in large numbers in the South:

Anybody wanna guess why the Homestead Act wasn't passed until 1862, despite it being introduced many times before?

Reality says

None of that has anything to do with state terror. If the crime ( whether by criminal or uniformed criminal) rises to high enough of a level, lawsuits will be fought over. As simple as that.

You're moving off track here. We're discussing Rothbard's quote that desires Police to deliver "Instant Punishment", perhaps compensating for "errors" after the fact.

That's State Terror.

thunderlips11 says

What's happening here is you keep putting forward irrelevancies like comparing the population of Slaves, which was almost wholly Southern, to the whole US population, so you can dilute the percentage thanks to free immigration to the North.

I've tried to explain the concept of changes in the rates of change to CIC and indigenous with zero success. It's your turn to try to explain that a subset group can grow larger while simultaneously becoming a smaller percentage of a larger group to johnny reb. Since the average southerner starts with a 30 point IQ deficit compared to the rest of the country it will be a challenge.

bob2356 says

I've tried to explain the concept of changes in the rates of change to CIC and indigenous with zero success.

There's your first mistake: trying to explain a concept to CIC or indigenous. You can't cure stupid.

That's the goddamned problem right there, this graphic is only a modern problem for Obama and his Idiot Lackeys.

Dan8267 says

There's your first mistake: trying to explain a concept to CIC or indigenous. You can't cure stupid.

CaptainShuddup says

That's the goddamned problem right there, this graphic is only a modern problem for Obama and his Idiot Lackeys.

Case in point...

"You have not provided any evidence that Slavery was on the wane."

Of course I did:

Slave population was 18% of US population in 1790, whereas it was less than 13% in 1860.

All the graphs you cite purporting to show any percentage rise in any particular geographical area in the US just means the percentage decline in other parts was even greater. That's just simple math.

BTW, while you rail against attack me for being an Austrian by citing Rothbard's praise of David Duke, who had not committed any murder, you OTOH has a convicted mass murderer and terrorist John Brown as your avatar!

Even without counting your despicable glorification of the convicted mass murderer and terrorist, your round-about way of attacking me via Rothbard makes about as much sense as if I had cited some Stalin or Trotsky "revolutionary" barbarism as a way of attacking you for being pro-Russian.
Comes to think of it, perhaps the worshipping of anti-human bloodthirsty monsters is part of Russian barbarism.

bob2356 says

My logic would include the words inflation adjusted.

Likewise, population ratio instead of nominal numbers when there is a population explosion in a country.

thunderlips11 says

The South did not leave the Union over the relatively low tariffs in place in the 1850s.

The South left for both reasons (tariffs and slavery). Lincoln wanted to enforce Union in order to collect tariffs, which at the time accounted for 80%of USG revenue.

They left because they had the fear that the growing number of free white settlers settling the country would result in Slavery being banned.

In other words, slavery as a political and economic power was on the wane in the US! Why? Because slavery population as percentage of total population was declining, and slavery economy was declining as percentage of the total economy.

Kansas becoming a Free State despite rampant acts of Terror . . .

Ironic statement coming from someone who has the top terrorist in Bleeding Kansas as avatar! While the pro-slavery idiots swaggered and didn't kill anyone, John Brown's gang mass-murdered 5 people in one night "in revenge" starting the Bleeding Kansas chaos!

Reality says

Likewise, population ratio instead of nominal numbers when there is a population explosion in a country.

Slave states went from 18% slaves to 45% slaves. I rest my case.

Reality says

While the pro-slavery idiots swaggered and didn't kill anyone

Except slaves of course, but slaves weren't human so it didn't matter.

Reality says

thunderlips11 says

The South did not leave the Union over the relatively low tariffs in place in the 1850s.

The South left for both reasons (tariffs and slavery). Lincoln wanted to enforce Union in order to collect tariffs, which at the time accounted for 80%of USG revenue.

Yes of course, the south hated the fairly low tariff rates (after rates were reduced in walker tariff act of 1846 and tariff reduction bill of 1857, a bill that southern lawmakers wrote, to the lowest rate since 1816) so much it was one of the 2 reasons they succeeded. In fact the south hated tariffs so much the first thing the confederacy did was institute a high tariff rate. Makes sense. To apologists. But wait there was the dreaded Morrill Tariff. Of course the Morrill tariff never passed until the south had already succeeded and the southern lawmakers had left, but hey don't let facts ruin a good story. The anti slavery british bought the fairy tale that the Morrill tariff caused the succession hook, line, and sinker to the point that they almost recognized the confederacy. Britain being the south's largest trading partner didn't have anything at all to do with it.

Hmm, tariffs were on imported manufactured goods, the south's economy was an export economy. There were no tariffs on american manufactured products. So the south succeeded because they the wanted to buy european manufactured goods instead american manufactured goods and the tariff made them more expensive. Yea, sure right.

I've read the tariffs as a cause of the civil war theory many times. Always from southern slavery apologist writers. The facts don't support it.

bob2356 says

Likewise, population ratio instead of nominal numbers when there is a population explosion in a country.

Slave states went from 18% slaves to 45% slaves. I rest my case.

18% was the slave to overall population percentage in 1790 in the entire US. The slave to overall population percentage in 1860 was less than 13%. What was the 45%? Dishonest switching of base number of the statistics? LOL

bob2356 says

While the pro-slavery idiots swaggered and didn't kill anyone

Except slaves of course, but slaves weren't human so it didn't matter.

Murdering slaves was illegal in north America since before the founding of the US, and punishable by death just like most other kinds of murder. There wasn't any murdering of slaves in Kansas-Nebraska territory that we know of or encourage/financed by pro-slavery side like the abolitionists financing and lionizing the terrorist mass murderer John Brown.

Tariff was a strong point of contention for much of the first half of 19th century. New England almost seceded in the 1820's-30's over the issue. Yes, European imports would be cheaper in the absence of tariffs. America did not become a manufacturing powerhouse turning out less expensive goods (after adjusting for quality) until the late 19th century; otherwise, the Whig platform for protective tariffs would have been quite unnecessary.

Reality says

18% was the slave to overall population percentage in 1790 in the entire US. The slave to overall population percentage in 1860 was less than 13%. What was the 45%? Dishonest switching of base number of the statistics? LOL

In 1790 slavery was legal in all states. So the slave states had 18% slave to overall population ration. IN 1860 the slave states had 45% slave to overall population. Nothing dishonest about comparing slave states to slave states. At least no more dishonest than comparing to states that didn't exist.

Reality says

Murdering slaves was illegal in north America since before the founding of the US

Really?
Virginia, 1705 – "If any slave resists his master...correcting such a slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction...the master shall be free of all punishment...as if such accident never happened."
Louisiana, 1724 - "The slave who, having struck his master, his mistress, or the husband of his mistress, or their children, shall have produced a bruise, or the shedding of blood in the face, shall suffer capital punishment.
North Carolina legislature made the willful killing of a slave murder, unless done in resisting or under moderate correction
Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia A runaway slave refusing to surrender could be killed without penalty
"A slave has no rights that a white man is bound to respect" Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, 1857.
Perfectly legal to murder a slave, and many were. All you have to do is say they had it coming. Or are you going to argue slave owners weren't pro slavery?

Reality says

America did not become a manufacturing powerhouse turning out less expensive goods (after adjusting for quality) until the late 19th century

Really? From The Rise of American Industry:
By 1850 there were over two million spindles in over 1200 cotton factories and 1500 woolen factories in the United States.
There was $1.9 billion total value of annual manufacturing in the country by 1860, over 90% in the north. That was one hell of a lot of money in those days. The south wasn't buying any of it? Where was it all going?

Want to provide some kind of documentation to back up the "after adjusting for quality" crap.

Reality says

New England almost seceded in the 1820's-30's over the issue

Where do you get your history? The federalists were unhappy the 1803 Louisiana Purchase, the national embargo of 1807, and the War of 1812. The hartford convention was december 1814. Not the 1820'-1830's. They never came anywhere close to almost succeeding. I have Thomas J. DiLorenzo's Sovereignty in Transition sitting right in front of me. Go look it up.

Reality says

Slave population was 18% of US population in 1790, whereas it was less than 13% in 1860.

All the graphs you cite purporting to show any percentage rise in any particular geographical area in the US just means the percentage decline in other parts was even greater. That's just simple math.

Once more time:

Your numbers are deliberate dilution to conceal a truth

The percentage of Slavery in the Slave States remained pretty much unchanged; the North was never big on Slavery. More Free Immigrants moving to the North doesn't change the fact that Slavery was as important to the South in 1860 than it was in 1790. MORE important, since Cotton dominated US Exports, over 50% in 1860 from below 10% in 1790.

Ergo, no evidence that Slavery was on the Wane.

Reality says

The South left for both reasons (tariffs and slavery). Lincoln wanted to enforce Union in order to collect tariffs, which at the time accounted for 80%of USG revenue.

The Tariff at the time of secession was one of the lowest in the Early Republic's history, half the rate of the "Tariff of Abominations" from decades before. Southerners did not secede over Tariffs, it was a side issue. The main issue was preserving Slavery; Tariffs were only reinvented as the main cause after the War, when Slavery was despised and Southerners tried to deflect criticism of themselves by substituting a non-moral cause.

bob2356 says

Of course the Morrill tariff never passed until the south had already succeeded and the southern lawmakers had left, but hey don't let facts ruin a good story. The anti slavery british bought the fairy tale that the Morrill tariff caused the succession hook, line, and sinker to the point that they almost recognized the confederacy. Britain being the south's largest trading partner didn't have anything at all to do with it.

The Southerners used the Tariff line with the British to garner support. "If we win, we'll have no tariff, so you can buy all our cotton, and we'll buy all of your manufactured goods."

The Morrill Tariff Fib is very much like the Smoot-Hawley Fib; neither came into effect until after the main event occurred.

One other angle I wanted to mention was that the Civil War came at a time that the US was transitioning from an agrarian economy to a manufacturing economy. No doubt the South had fixed ideas on how things should proceed and slavery should be a part of their future. But technology always wins out eventually.

The main interest Lincoln had in the situation was that the south paid 80% of the tariffs, which was the only source of revenue for the Federal government. This was what he HAD to handle. Not to mention that he wanted a centralized government and a centralized bank and said so for 30 years.

To suggest he intended to free the slaves as anything other than an afterthought is beyond specious.

indigenous says

To suggest he intended to free the slaves as anything other than an afterthought is beyond specious.

HE wanted to preserve the Union at all costs, even if it meant keeping Slavery, at least until the Middle of the war when he realized there was no going back. What the public felt, by giving the most votes to the most anti-Slavery candidate in spite of and probably because of Southern Attitude Problems, was something else.

One myth of the Civil War was the level of support the South had in the foothills and mountains of Appalachia, where they were largely pro-Union. A century of Southern Propaganda has made the great-grandsons of a population that was very Union sympathetic and despised by the Lowland Planters into Confederate Bumper Sticker owners.

thunderlips11 says

HE wanted to preserve the Union at all costs, even if it meant keeping Slavery

Agreed, and he was no better than any other asshole that wanted power and ideology IOW one of the worst fucks in the White House ever.

It should be noted that the South had already seceded before Lincoln arrived at the White House for the first time or took the Oath of Office.

But he made it clear what is intention was, they seceded after his election.

He was an asshole.

indigenous says

But he made it clear what is intention was, they seceded after his election.

huh? You said he didn't want to abolish slavery. The tariff nonsense has been pretty well debunked. So what are these intentions that he made clear that caused secession?

Centralized govt and bank and an intent to increase the tariff

indigenous says

Centralized govt and bank and an intent to increase the tariff

Stop it--you're killing me. They seceded out of the union because Lincoln was likely to raise the tariffs? You're kidding, right? What does centralized government even mean? And what does Lincoln getting elected have to do with it?

tatupu70 says

What does centralized government even mean?

Sactly, that is your problem.

also he intended to increase mercantilism.

indigenous says

Sactly, that is your problem.

also he intended to increase mercantilism.

I've got news for you. States don't secede over intent.

Please explain how government became more centralized in the time between Lincoln's election and the secession. What exactly occurred to cause the South to leave the Union.

tatupu70 says

What exactly occurred to cause the South to leave the Union.

Read the thread

indigenous says

Read the thread

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Let me rephrase.

Now that the tariff nonsense has been thoroughly debunked here, and given that some of the Southern states seceded before Lincoln even took office--what do YOU think caused the Civil War?

tatupu70 says

what do YOU think caused the Civil War?

A seismic fault between Hamiltonian Centralized government and the Republic defined in the Constitution. A seismic fault between an agrarian culture and a manufacturing culture.

indigenous says

A seismic fault between Hamiltonian Centralized government and the Republic defined in the Constitution. A seismic fault between an agrarian culture and a manufacturing culture.

It was rich fuckers who wanted to own other people.

Or is that too hifalutin? Not plain-spoken and direct, like, say "seismic fault between Hamiltonian Centralized [sic] government and the Republic [sic] defined in the Constitution", plus using words like "culture".