patrick.net

thunderlips11 says

Yes, it's no accident that many states - and especially in States with a long history of brutal repression (the South) - take away voting rights forever from one conviction. You could get into a stupid bar brawl at 23, live a perfect life the rest of your years - even be a Combat Veteran, and still be banned from voting.

Worse--if you are not even convicted, the arrest record alone will bar most gainful employment for years to come, if not your entire life (except in NY and CA, and perhaps a couple other non-Southern states I'm not aware of). You forego a large opportunity at upward mobility. Disenfranchising minorities and non-whites is definitely part of the agenda in addition to curbing the vote.

Dan8267 says

I'm a white liberal, and I don't believe that. Would a policy of non-violence have stopped the Nazis?

I know your definition is the historical one, but I suppose I mean what is commonly accepted as "liberal" in America. American liberals love the idealized Gandhi or MLK, because it bolsters their belief in what I can only compare to magic; the oppressor will be overwhelmed with guilt, or the public will be so outraged that the oppressor will cave and a period of peace and harmony will ensue.

I used to think we had lost our ability to have collective shame of that magnitude (due to Faux News phony outrage, ADHD, Smartphones, 24 hr news cycles, etc), but I think that it was never really as powerful as we had been led to believe. Seeing the post Kent State polls blaming the students who "got what they deserved" seems to indicate that we aren't all that moved by rights and human dignity, or the liberal democratic tradition.

I thought this was interesting: http://theredphoenixapl.org/2009/10/18/gandhi-was-wrong-nonviolence-doesnt-work/

"If the right is becoming increasingly violent, not only in its rhetoric but its actions, and there is plenty of evidence that this is true, to whom should the poor progressives appeal to?

Not exactly his point, but interesting to think that that non-violent resistors might have liberals on their side, but are "targeting" the violent with non-violence. They are trying to appeal to people who by definition don't believe in non-violence. Sounds like a fool's errand and a circle jerk.

"Far more important is the fact that those who have elevated non-violent resistance, which should be seen only as a tactic and not a strategy, to the level of a religious creed, would have progressive forces accept failure and defeat for the sake of an idea that is not shared by the other side. As alluded to before, the ruling class has no qualms about violence when it is used in its favor. It is only when they are on top that they want peace and stability."

indigenous says

yet no other country had to have a war to abolish slavery.

That's a fault I'd lay at the hands of the southern ruling class, who brainwashed the poor whites under them into thinking slavery was in their interest to defend.

Gosh: Come to think of it, that situation sounds familiar.

Dan8267 says

Exactly. And if the government is unwilling or incapable of doing that, the people should take back political and legal power from the government, by force if necessary. To say otherwise is to say the American Revolution was not justified and our government is not legitimate.

That's what I think too. France and America, but also Haiti. How long would Black Haiti have to wait until they were treated with human dignity? 400 years? More?

I know the Right tends to believe that Lincoln's "War of Aggression" was unnecessary because slavery was going to end soon on its own accord. That doesn't do much for the countless generations that came before then (if you believe the premise) who were born, lived and died in subhuman bondage. I'd want freedom in my own lifetime, and would be willing to resort to just about anything to achieve that end.

From Gandhi's Doctrine of the Sword, "But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish, it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature. A mouse hardly forgives cat when it allows itself to be torn to pieces by her."

In other words, non-violence is only a valid tactic when it is coming from someone who has the ability to punish and refrains. Certainly not the case with the American minority population.

HydroCabron says

That's a fault I'd lay at the hands of the southern ruling class, who brainwashed the poor whites under them into thinking slavery was in their interest to defend.

And yet more free Blacks lived in the South than the North. If it were as bad in the south as you say then why did they stay?

No I have to say that Lincoln caused the war. Lips talks about Britain not needing a war because they did very little labor intensive work in Britain like they did in the south, but Britain was not the only country that had slavery and ended it without war.

Not to mention that Lincoln started the war by supplying Fort Sumter. He bypassed habeas corpus for thousands of reporters in order to keep them quiet about the war, 80% of tariffs were being paid by southern states with most of the benefits going to the north, which was the sole means of revenue for the Federal Government at that time (which is probably the real reason for Lincoln's actions), along with the fact that Lincoln wanted to implement mercantilism to the benefit of the North. The cronyism that Bob talks about. Which I would think would have ended by the 1870s?, he did not free one slave in the North through the Emancipation Proclamation.

CL says

I know the Right tends to believe that Lincoln's "War of Aggression" was unnecessary because slavery was going to end soon on its own accord. That doesn't do much for the countless generations that came before then (if you believe the premise) who were born, lived and died in subhuman bondage. I'd want freedom in my own lifetime, and would be willing to resort to just about anything to achieve that end.

Right, but the problem with the "Slavery Woulda Disappeared" theory is that slavery was dramatically expanding into the US going into the Civil War, and the internal interstate slave trade (actually breeding slaves and forcibly separating them from their families) took over from the trans-Atlantic Trade. In 1790, most Southern Planters would have thought Slavery would slowly die out; by 1830 their sons and grandsons were rabidly intent on expanding it.

This is a favorite argument over at neo-confederate Symp sites like Mises. Here's the proof it's BS:

... and why they don't incorporate charts into their articles.

Ah, and don't forget the Fugitive Slave Act:
If it's legal for me to kidnap people and make them work for me and beat them when they don't comply in my state, so if I visit your state, your state laws be damned - my kidnap victim is still my property.

"My State's laws in your State, too, by the Power of the Southern Dominated Supreme Court and thus the Federal Government."

After all, only a Statist Tyrannical Authoritarian Regime would seize somebody's property just because they crossed a border.

Damn Southern Activist Judges.

indigenous says

No I have to say that Lincoln caused the war. Lips talks about Britain not needing a war because they did very little labor intensive work in Britain like they did in the south, but Britain was not the only country that had slavery and ended it without war.

My main thrust was that Britain didn't need to go to war because the Plantation Owners of Barbados and Jamaica couldn't have possibly, as island nations, revolted successfully against the might of the British Navy.

You're also ignoring my point that the British ended Slavery world wide, by unilaterally searching ships and impounding blackbirders.

indigenous says

And yet more free Blacks lived in the South than the North. If it were as bad in the south as you say then why did they stay?

Not that many blacks lived in the north at all. If they were free why would they move? What would be their reason?

We have a serious Russian propagandist/apologist here. LoL

1. No, Holodomore had nothing to do with forcing people into the cities. It was a policy to extract the maximum from the farmers in order to finance the big heavy industrial projects planned by the Soviet regime, many of which turned out to be big white elephants and couldn't possibly pay for the farm products they want via mutually willing exchanges. They applied what they thought were core pillars of colonial exploitation on their own people the farmers. The result was economic collapse. Their colonial exploitation economic model simply doesn't work. Ruthless exploitation simply doesn't work even when dealing with internal "colonies/natives."

2. The American Civil War did not start over slavery, but over import tariff. Lincoln made it quite clear in his first inaugural speech that if it would take slavery to keep the union together he would enforce slavery; not just letting the southern states keep slavery but also enforcing slave return laws in the free states! The Emancipation Proclamation took place only half way through the war, and it did not free a single slave but only a diplomatic device to keep Britain and France from intervening on behalf of the South like France intervened on behalf of the 13 colonies during the earlier secession struggle.

3. When talking about "colonialism" in social economic discussion, the subject does not refer to the original granting of "excessive population" migration charter of the 16th century, but the global land grabs of the mid to late 19th century. Yes, of course those conquests were carried out on behalf of a very mercantist central planning agenda: envisioning the monopolistic control of the local native resources and markets in "colonies." The 16th century colonies were set up for the purpose of getting rid of over population, little different from the founding of new settlements since time immemorial; whereas the late 19th century "colonies" entailed the de facto enslavement of vast local native population by a thin layer of white adminstrators.

4. In an ideal world, pumping oil from Alaska should involve no more than a $5 registration fee as far as government involvement is concerned, just like the homesteading of Oklahoma that attracted so many Americans and European Immigrants alike. So that the barrier to entry is low and competition will let the nature's bounty benefit all people who need to use oil without the government taxation in the middle. We do live in a real world however, where thugs like the Russian regime would kick out oil companies after they invested billions of dollars in oil infrastructure, like what happened in Sakhalin oil projects a decade ago. In order to prevent Alaska from becoming like Sakhalin, someone has to pay for the defense necessary to prevent the predatory takeovers. So some fee has to be paid one way or another in order to defend the property rights associated with the investment. Whether such arrangement is central planning is highly dependent on the amount of fee involved. The defense part is of course central planning, as in Pentagon vs. Stavka (or whatever it's modern incarnation is called). The drilling and technology part in the US is much less centrally planned compared to Russians.

5. 19th century England had all sorts of schools of thoughts. Even Karl Marx and Frederick Engles were living in England. Nations that were/are accustomed to top-down state slavery systems for the bulk of their population tend to see what they want to see and copy the worst dehumanizing schools of thoughts coming out of England: the Prussian learned and copied Eugenics from England; the Russians and Chinese learned and copied Marxism from England.

The slave population in the US was actually growing significantly slower than the US population in general. For exmaple, between 1850 and 1860, the US population grew by 35+%, whereas the slave population grew by less than 25%.

The rapid population growth at the time had a lot to do with declining infant mortality and generally improving standards of living as transportation technology improved and trans- regional and global trade in the first half of 19th century

One thing to keep in mind about this is that government by definition does not use reason. It's only motivation is it's own self interest and or survival. To this end it only uses force. The reason part comes from the individual. So the greater the manifestation of reason the greater the influences of individuals, your Voltaire, Queen Elizabeth, and Thomas Paine types.

@CL

Have you thought about the slavery imposed on you by your citizenship? Your liability to have to have a passport to go anywhere outside the country of your birth (i.e. a form of proof that you are owned by the country), and if you are a US Citizen your liability to life time taxation regardless where you live in the world?

Have you thought about bursting into a Section 8 household and tell them they should be freed from the bondage of the bureaucrats at the housing authority or the food stamp bureaucrats or their kids from public schools where the teaching agenda is set by someone else or the medicine they are getting . . . All of which are free but quality and quantity decided by someone else, their effective overlords . . . Just like slaves living on a large plantation with senior slaves deciding who gets what free housing free food free education free medicin, etc., etc.

John Brown did try. What he found in response was apathy, just like what you'd find today in a section 8 household if you tried.

The typical slave owners of the mid 19th century probably cared far more about the well being of their slaves than today's section 8 bureaucrats about their charge. . . Just like you'd care far more about your own car, especially if it represents the bulk of your networth, than you'd care about a rental car.

No, this is not an apologia for slavery. However, slavery comes in many forms throughout human history. Public rental slavery resulting from centralized top down government treatsthe individual slave far worse than private owership of slaves.

Reality says

2. The American Civil War did not start over slavery, but over import tariff. Lincoln made it quite clear in his first inaugural speech that if it would take slavery to keep the union together he would keep slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation took place only half way through the war, and it did not free a single slave but only a diplomatic device to keep Britain and France from intervening on behalf of the South like France intervened on behalf of the 13 colonies during the earlier secession struggle.

Sorry, this is Neo-Confederate Bullshit.

The Tariff of 1857 featured the lowest tariff rate in more than a decade.
The Morill Tariff of higher rates did not pass until after the core 7 Southern States seceded from the Union in 1861. This argument is similar to the Smoot-Hawley Canard.
John C. Calhoun wrote "Slavery is a Positive Good", not "Tariffs are a Negative Evil".
Bleeding Kansas was over Free vs. Slave States, no Jayhawker or Bushwhacker ever committed acts of violence over the Tariff Rates.
As were the endless squabbles between Clay and Calhoun. They always compromised over Tariffs, for example, the South got more fortifications in return for a tariff increase.
The Southern Dominated SCOTUS issued decision after decision to allow slaves to remain property of their owners, not only if the Slaves escaped there, but even if the kidnappers took their Slave victims to Free States.
Dred Scott and the debates over the Fugitive Slave Act caused Riots, but not Congressional Tariff horsetrading.
The "Peculiar Institution" of the US was always described by foreigners as Slavery, not the Tariff Schedule.
The elderly Sumner was not beaten by South Carolina Congressman Preston Brooks with a club over Tariffs, but over his remarks about Slavery.
Every pre 1865 mention of States Rights is almost always in the context of Slavery.

And most importantly, the Confederate Constitution was almost a verbatim copy of the US Constitution, except where Slavery was concerned, where most of the fundamental differences occur:
https://cwemancipation.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/slavery-in-the-permanent-constitution/

The most obvious example:
US Constitution, Section 8:

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.

Confederate Constitution, Section 8:

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

As the Confederate Constitution stated, it would literally beyond the power of any Confederate Government to eliminate slavery in the future. So much for the "on it's way out soon anyway" argument.

And here, from the Horse's mouth, Calhoun:

'I consider the tariff act as the occasion rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things...The truth can no longer be disguised, that the peculiar domestick institution of the Southern States and the consequent direction which that and her soil and climate have given her industry, has placed them…in opposite relation to the majority of the Union…'

At best, Tariffs were a "Sideshow" to Slavery.

Reality says

You are once again showing your ignorance. Before World War I, people in west and central Europe could travel across country borders without passport until they hit the borders of the "notoriously despotic regimes" of Russia and Ottoman Empires. Most people today don't even know that degree of freedom.

How about British Imperial Lawyers? Could they ride in the First Class train car or Stagecoach they paid for, anywhere in the Empire without being thrown off or beaten before World War I?

The only time I would approve of violence is if was used against Democratic & Republican voters because they are destroying this nation.

Reality says

The slave population in the US was actually growing significantly slower than the US population in general. For exmaple, between 1850 and 1860, the US population grew by 35+%, whereas the slave population grew by less than 25%.

Was it growing or not? Was the Slave Population in 1790 a fraction of what it was in 1850, 1860? Was not the pre-Civil War period focused on John Brown and Bleeding Kansas and the Lecompton Constitution, with the South trying to increase the number of Slave States? What actual evidence do you have that Slavery was on the wane in the American South?

Reality says

No, this is not an apologia for slavery. However, slavery comes in many forms throughout human history. Public rental slavery resulting from centralized top down government treats the individual slave far worse than private owership of slaves.

"Amos don't want to leave my plantation where he works sunset to sundown picking my cotton, where my crackers whip him if he's sluggish, and he eats only cornbread and goober peas. Not for no Section 8 housing where he's free to come and go as he pleases anytime of day, and a WIC card that lets him buy a steak.

Amos is happy where he is, goddammit!"

thunderlips11 says

Yes, it's no accident that many states - and especially in States with a long history of brutal repression (the South) - take away voting rights forever from one conviction.

One of the primary purposes of the War on Drugs is to prevent minorities from voting. This is why Republicans love the War on Drugs.

CL says

I know your definition is the historical one, but I suppose I mean what is commonly accepted as "liberal" in America. American liberals love the idealized Gandhi or MLK, because it bolsters their belief in what I can only compare to magic; the oppressor will be overwhelmed with guilt, or the public will be so outraged that the oppressor will cave and a period of peace and harmony will ensue.

People redefine words to discredit ideas by confusing them with others. The philosophy of liberty, or liberalism, is one that reaches far beyond America. So when people try to confuse liberalism with leftist, socialism, or communism, I simply state the true definition. To do otherwise would be to abandon a long history of liberalism improving the lives of the common people.

As for the belief that the oppressor will be overwhelmed with guilt, that has never happened. Occasionally the public will be outraged, but that also has never resorted in reform of government, only in reform of culture.

Philistine says

Worse--if you are not even convicted, the arrest record alone will bar most gainful employment for years to come, if not your entire life (except in NY and CA, and perhaps a couple other non-Southern states I'm not aware of). You forego a large opportunity at upward mobility.

Yes, an arrest record without a conviction is defamation of the worst kind. Besides being a travesty to the individual, it is also bad for society because that individual is less productive and more likely to have to resort to leading a life of crime.

CL says

I know the Right tends to believe that Lincoln's "War of Aggression" was unnecessary because slavery was going to end soon on its own accord.

Ironically, private ownership of slaves would have ended in America sooner if the American Revolution had not been fought. Clearly the revolution was not about freedom.

indigenous says

And yet more free Blacks lived in the South than the North. If it were as bad in the south as you say then why did they stay?

Because moving wasn't nearly as easy back then, especially if you were penniless.

And are you really trying to make the point that blacks did not have it bad in the American South after the Civil War. Not even you are that stupid.

thunderlips11 says

Ah, and don't forget the Fugitive Slave Act:

If it's legal for me to kidnap people and make them work for me and beat them when they don't comply in my state, so if I visit your state, your state laws be damned - my kidnap victim is still my property.

The Fugitive Slave Act is exactly why Jury Nullification is necessary.

Reality says

The slave population in the US was actually growing significantly slower than the US population in general. For exmaple, between 1850 and 1860, the US population grew by 35+%, whereas the slave population grew by less than 25%.

That is utterly meaningless. The US population was growing fast because of high immigration and westward expansion. Comparing that to the birthrate of slaves is ridiculous bit of nonsense even for you. Let's see between 1845 and 1853 we picked up Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Those all became part of the US population. How much was the population of the south growing?

Restriction against individual movement across boundaries ( be it plantation boundaries, fief coundaries, "national" boundaries) makes the person _attached_ to the land owned by the entity with that boundary. That's the very definition of serfdom and slavery.

"Throughout British Empire" was an entirely different geographical concept contrasting with "western and central europe." Less than 5% of the land area of the British Empire was in western and central europe.

Ghandi had no difficulty riding first class stage coach anywhere in Britain itself or much of the continental Europe west of Russia and Turkey. India was/is east of Russian and Ottoman Empire, in case anyone needs a reminder.

The fact that slavery was already waning in the US could be seen from the very numbers you cited vs. US census data:

In 1790, slave count was close to 0.7 mil out of a US population count of close to 4 mil, or close to 18% of the population were slaves.

In 1860, slave count was close to 4, whereas US population WA over 31 mil; less than 13% of the population were slaves.

Even the Kansas conflict showed that slavery was on the wane: the free soil force did win the conflict despite very vocal and very organized pro-slavery attempt to preserve land south of the Mason-Dixon line for slavery. Part of the southern fear was the fact that slavery was clearly on the way out in the US, and they were becoming a minority not only in the House of Reps but also in the Senate soon if not already.

The Mason-Dixon Line was a compromise and agreement only a couple decades before between the pro- and anti-slavery forces regarding future statehood in territories. Kansas was clearly south of the line, yet the pro-slavery forces lost the state/ territory to anti-slavery forces on the ground. From their perspective, it was a clear breach of faith when the northern states allowed the free-soilers to ban slavery in that state instead of allowing slave ownership there as per Mason-Dixon comprise.

Fugitive Slave Laws showed 3 crucial facts

1. Slavery was and is a government-enforced institution. Without government enforcement paid for by other tax payers, it would be cost prohibitive for slave owners to enforce slavery and prevent escapes.

2. Yes, strong argument for Jury Nullification and de facto secession by the northern states like Minnesota from the inhumane slavery enforcement laws.

3. Lincoln was willing to enforce fugitive slave return laws in order to keep the union together. So it was nonsense to argue that the North fought the war to free slaves. Lincoln fought the war to preserve tariffs. South seceded to avoid tariffs as well as preserving their slavery institution, which was on the way out in the US as a whole.

In case it's not obvious, I'm in favor of the Southern States' right to secede and in favor of southern slaves' right to secede from plantations. Slavery in an independent CSA would not last long as the line of freedom for fugitives slaves would be moved from the Canadian border to Delaware, Pensylvania and Mason-Dixon Line. Those were the common sense views in the north before Lincoln banned antiwar newspapers in the north and threw editors into jails, in order to whip up a war frenzy to build his empire.

It's amusing that believers in the benevolence of government officials exercising bureaucratic monopoly power over individuals have no difficulty envisioning slave owners abusing their power. It's like believing people treat rental cars or government assigned cars (like in the USSR) better than people treat their own cars!

Oh yeah, that's right, those are the same sort of idiots who believed that socialist managers not owning the means of production but can only extract through slash and burn during their stint in office would be more efficient and benign compared to private capitalists managing the same resources.

Reality says

Restriction against individual movement across boundaries ( be it plantation boundaries, fief coundaries, "national" boundaries) makes the person _attached_ to the land owned by the entity with that boundary. That's the very definition of serfdom and slavery.

That is a strange definition. You learn something new everyday on patnet!! So If I restrict someone from entering my house, I am enslaving them????

Dan8267 says

indigenous says

And yet more free Blacks lived in the South than the North. If it were as bad in the south as you say then why did they stay?

Because moving wasn't nearly as easy back then, especially if you were penniless.

And are you really trying to make the point that blacks did not have it bad in the American South after the Civil War. Not even you are that stupid.

Bullshit, if it was as insufferable as Lips makes it out to be they would have moved.

bob2356 says

Not that many blacks lived in the north at all. If they were free why would they move? What would be their reason?

Almost half lived in the north.

I think Lincoln was a centralist and was in league with Roosevelt and Wilson regarding subjugating the states and intended mercantilism (cronyism) and a central bank. He was a Whig and this is what Whigs pushed. This is most likely why Lincoln wanted the war. Again 80% of the Federal Revenue was paid by the South, so Lincoln's hand was forced regarding this.

Not that any of yous will listen to this but it is quite relevant.

https://mises.org/library/lincoln-and-triumph-mercantilism

Reality says

It's amusing that believers in the benevolence of government officials exercising bureaucratic monopoly power over individuals have no difficulty envisioning slave owners abusing their power.

Uhh. Because our government is democratically elected, held accountable, consent of the governed and all that.

Slaves don't pick their masters or fire them.

No, Lost. However if you restrict a grown adult in full possession of his own faculty from leaving your house, that is de facto slavery.

When a bunch of land owners owning all adjacent lands collude with each other and prevent servants from entering without their masters' permission, they have in effect put together a serf - slavery system attaching the subjects to their land.

CL,

You are propagating The Divine Right of the One Who Gets Support From Less Than 25% of the Population. Most bureuacts don't even change regardless which person wins the 25% population support.

Reality says

When a bunch of land owners owning all adjacent lands collude with each other and prevent servants from entering without their masters' permission, they have in effect put together a serf - slavery system attaching the subjects to their land.

In effect you are subjugating the slaves control of their body to your demands?

Yes. The right to vote with one's feet is far more fundamental than the right to vote. The fundamental freedom of a human being is the right to pack up and leave, i.e. to secede.

Reality says

You are once again showing your ignorance. Before World War I, people in west and central Europe could travel across country borders without passport until they hit the borders of the "notoriously despotic regimes" of Russia and Ottoman Empires. Most people today don't even know that degree of freedom.

Only if they can't come up with the price of a carton of cigarettes and a birth certificate. The global labor market is incredibly fluid, except the US. Labour, businessmen, and tourists move very freely around the world. This is the biggest reason so many people speak english today. It's everyone's second language. Go any place with a lot of transit labour and there will be dozens of languages, but everyone communicates in english with anyone not speaking their language.

Sorry to tell you this, but the EU, which takes you from the atlantic to the borders of russia and the former ottoman empire, doesn't use passports within the EU zone. You just drive right across borders without stopping. So people today do know that degree of freedom.

Your history is weak. Until napoleon consolidated them in the early 1800's there weren't many countries in europe. You paid each city/duchy/fiefdom to pass through. You needed substantial funds to ecxesize your freedom to travel. As the countries organized and became political entities by mid 1800's they established fixed borders. After the world wide economic slump of 1873 countries were introducing boarder controls and immigration restrictions excluding "inferior" groups. Border controls of various types existed around Europe well before WWI.

In the US states regulated immigration until ellis island and other federal facilites opened in 1892. You first had to prove you were able to pass immigration inspection to the steamship agent before being given tickets. There was a substantial fine to the steamship companies for anyone turned back at ellis. Once arriving you had to pass both a medical and legal inspection. So people weren't travelling freely without restrictions into the US. Chinese weren't allowed in at all after 1882.

indigenous says

bob2356 says

Not that many blacks lived in the north at all. If they were free why would they move? What would be their reason?

Almost half lived in the north.

Almost half of the free blacks. Gee whiz free blacks were a whopping 1.5% of the population. OMG, a whole .75% of the population was free blacks living in the north.
Census of 1860. http://www.bowdoin.edu/~prael/lesson/tables.htm
New England 99% white
Mid Atlantic 98% white
Midwest 99% white
Far West 98% white

Reality says

No, Lost. However if you restrict a grown adult in full possession of his own faculty from leaving your house, that is de facto slavery.

When a bunch of land owners owning all adjacent lands collude with each other and prevent servants from entering without their masters' permission, they have in effect put together a serf - slavery system attaching the subjects to their land

Very few countries prohibit people from leaving. Most countries and before that villages and clans did set up rules for coming in-mostly for resources. Even animals will not allow strange animals to come into their 'territory". Lions , hyenas, other primates all have core territories they will defend against others of their kind.

Reality says

The fact that slavery was already waning in the US could be seen from the very numbers you cited vs. US census data:

In 1790, slave count was close to 0.7 mil out of a US population count of close to 4 mil, or close to 18% of the population were slaves.

In 1860, slave count was close to 4, whereas US population WA over 31 mil; less than 13% of the population were slaves.

and the numbers for the south in total were 12,237,998 total population with 3,950,051 slaves or 32% slave count, while the lower south had 6,395,143 total population with 2,754,526 slaves or 43.1%. This is waning? When almost 1 person in 2 is a slave in an entire section of the country. Who are you trying to bullshit here?

http://www.bowdoin.edu/~prael/lesson/tables.htm

bob2356 says

Almost half of the free blacks. Gee whiz free blacks were a whopping 1.5% of the population. OMG, a whole .75% of the population was free blacks living in the north.

Census of 1860. http://www.bowdoin.edu/~prael/lesson/tables.htm

New England 99% white

Mid Atlantic 98% white

Midwest 99% white

Far West 98% white

That doesn't change the point.

In the context of the discussion, the time period before World War 1in Eruope was of course in reference to the mid to late 19th century free trade period in Europe. I.e. after the Vienna Conference after Napoleon Wars. The last time I checked, Ellis Island was not in Europe.

You are trying to bullshit: the single snap shot you took had little meaning. The deep south had even higher slave population percentage in 1790. Slaves and slave holders as PERCENTAGE OF population was declining.

There are no man made laws in place preventing anyone leaving the planet, except for the US having bureaucratic interpretation of law preventing expatriation to another planet. Yes, the bureaucrats already thought of that. LoL.

Attaching people to land is called serfdom or slavery. That is not a new definition. It's the same definition since ancient Roman and Greek time. Someone needs to learn basic history in addition to basic economics.

Lost,

People were not allowed to leave for most of the time since "government" was invented. That was the basis of feudal serfdom. Free movement of the people was a relatively new concept emblematic of Enlightenment (as opposed to medieval barbsrism). Many countires in the world however turned the clock backwards on the issue of liberty and freedom in the 20th centiry. Even today, more than half the world's populations live in countries that have significant limitations on emigration (leaving, not entering): almost all the big countries do today.

As for territorial defense, invasion refers to attempts by foreign powers trying to impose control over domestic population, not individual migrants not looking for any political power over domestic population.

Reality says

Ghandi had no difficulty riding first class stage coach anywhere in Britain itself or much of the continental Europe west of Russia and Turkey. India was/is east of Russian and Ottoman Empire, in case anyone needs a reminder.

But not everywhere in the British Empire, right?

I think everybody knows what happened when the well-educated Lawyer Gandhi took his first class seat on the train, and after he was kicked off by a White Conductor, and was later beaten later for not giving up his stagecoach to Whites in South Africa.

indigenous says

Dan8267 says

indigenous says

And yet more free Blacks lived in the South than the North. If it were as bad in the south as you say then why did they stay?

Because moving wasn't nearly as easy back then, especially if you were penniless.

And are you really trying to make the point that blacks did not have it bad in the American South after the Civil War. Not even you are that stupid.

Bullshit, if it was as insufferable as Lips makes it out to be they would have moved.

Just because you don't like the truth, doesn't make it less so. History has borne out, time and time again, that conservatives are just plain evil. In every single battle of good vs. evil over the past 3000 years including the past 400 years of American history, conservatives have been the biggest, and often only, advocates for evil. Slavery, apartheid, suppression of women, gay bashing, immigrant bigotry, child exploitation, suppression of wages, gerrymandering voting districts, Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, fraudulent voter ID laws, rigging elections, torture, rape, etc. In every single fight against evil, conservatives have been the foot soldiers and generals of evil.

If you don't want to be judged as immoral, then stop being so god-damn, cartoonishly evil.