Big Money, Big Prizes, Midnyte Loves it.

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » June 1, 2005, 12:10 am

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » June 1, 2005, 8:48 am

In all fairness, the south is still a little sore about not being able to buy, sell and abuse black people anymore. So of course they're going to import.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » June 1, 2005, 9:44 am

Yeah because the North didn't fucking have over 60% of the slaves in the United States up until 1864 you stupid motherfuckers. God. I hate some of you sometimes.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » June 1, 2005, 9:50 am

I love you too

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 1, 2005, 1:03 pm

wow i read this story on CNN.com like 3 years ago =)

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » June 1, 2005, 1:59 pm

Canada also had slaves...

(Obviously not to the extent in the U.S. but the point remains.)

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » June 1, 2005, 2:14 pm

Yes. They did a very nice job on our railroads.

All you have to do is watch Question Period up here in Mooseland over the last few weeks to see that idiocy is not geographically limited to warmer climates. I assure you, you won't be catching me claiming my country's moral or intellectual superiority

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » June 3, 2005, 1:37 am

That is a horrible statement Sylvos, I'm afraid to say. In Georgia, the enslaved black population outnumbered the white population. In Alabama and Mississippi, plantations could be found with hundreds of blacks and about fifty white to supervise.

While the Dred Scott decision of 1857 made a blanket "non-citizen" clause for all blacks, the blacks in the North were not slaves, they just were not citizens, much like women. Saying that the North had 60% of the slaves up to 1864 is horribly inaccurate, unless you're saying that in 1864 they had all the slaves in the US, at which point I would say the North had 100% of the slaves, seeing as how the South was not a recognized part of the US. Care to tell us why you said that, because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » June 3, 2005, 9:53 am

Kaldaur wrote:That is a horrible statement Sylvos, I'm afraid to say. In Georgia, the enslaved black population outnumbered the white population. In Alabama and Mississippi, plantations could be found with hundreds of blacks and about fifty white to supervise.

While the Dred Scott decision of 1857 made a blanket "non-citizen" clause for all blacks, the blacks in the North were not slaves, they just were not citizens, much like women. Saying that the North had 60% of the slaves up to 1864 is horribly inaccurate, unless you're saying that in 1864 they had all the slaves in the US, at which point I would say the North had 100% of the slaves, seeing as how the South was not a recognized part of the US. Care to tell us why you said that, because it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

no?
The north conscripted most of its slaves during the Civil War, oh the high and mighty Yankee MORAL CODE!
Lincoln: Shit we need more troops to fight the insurrection.
Lincoln's advisors: How bout the niggers?
Lincoln: GENIUS! They aren't really people anyway! Sure offer them freedom for 4 years conscription! oh then i'll just emancipate them later and make the South look even more evil!
Lincoln's cabinet: yes! genius!

Obviously that's improv but not far off the mark, and the statement is not horribly inaccurate at all. The North had almost 3x the population of the South in 1860, and about 2/3's as much farmland. The North did in fact have at least 60% of the slave population just due to sheer population size differance alone. The Dred Scot decision made them non-citizens but it did not grant them emancipation until the Amendment was passed, many blacks were given "freedom" at the end of their military term or at the termination of the War.