|
That's an optimistic revisionism of a horrible reality where the label "free" for any black person in America was a joke.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
euphronius posted:That's an optimistic revisionism of a horrible reality where the label "free" for any black person in America was a joke. You've got to have some sort of term for 'black people who weren't slaves' when describing the history of America at the time, and the generally accepted word used for that is 'free'. It's not a claim that everything was lovely for non-enslaved black people of the time; it obviously wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
Well there must've been free blacks in the north otherwise the fugitive slave law that let slavers poach up north with impunity wouldn't've been as big of a deal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:The Romans were fine with enslaving human beings, so they didn't need to invent bullshit about how their slaves were subhuman. Jerry Toner, a Classics professor at Cambridge, has written a book I'd recommend called "A Roman Guide to Slave Management", which is a look at Roman writings on slavery and managing slaves. (The conceit is that he writes as a Roman nobleman who is synthesizing all the Roman slave manuals, and then Toner provides commentary as himself about the biases and implications of the advice. It's a fun book.) But one of the things he looks at is the distinction between Greek and Roman slavery, which focuses on the question of whether slavery is a natural condition (The Greek view) or whether it's an artificial condition imposed by violence (the Roman one).
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:You've got to have some sort of term for 'black people who weren't slaves' when describing the history of America at the time, and the generally accepted word used for that is 'free'. It's not a claim that everything was lovely for non-enslaved black people of the time; it obviously wasn't. "Unindentured" might serve? Or hell even just unenslaved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Why was rice so valuable in the first centuries of the American plantations? It's just grain who cares.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Why was rice so valuable in the first centuries of the American plantations? It's just grain who cares. The economy of the antebellum South made it the only viable local food source due to plantation owners destroying the region's soil with cotton.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Why was rice so valuable in the first centuries of the American plantations? It's just grain who cares. It's just an essential staple food, who cares.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:It's just an essential staple food, who cares. Why not grow grain instead of importing it from the Carolinas circa 1720? And I don't think it was a staple in the Euro-American diet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Why was rice so valuable in the first centuries of the American plantations? It's just grain who cares. Most other grains prefer cooler temperatures. Rice is about the only major cereal that thrives in hot weather.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Most other grains prefer cooler temperatures. Rice is about the only major cereal that thrives in hot weather. Sorghum? IANAF
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
isn't rice one of the most efficient crops in terms of calories/area (at least using contemporary agricultural technology)
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Sorghum? IANAF According to Wiki, sorghum cultivation wasn't a thing in the US until the 1850s, so it was a late addition to the scene. It was a big deal after the Civil War, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Why not grow grain instead of importing it from the Carolinas circa 1720? Who are you saying should have grown grain instead of importing from the Carolinas? It was a staple in places it grew well. Just like what's a staple where wheat grows well, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Why was rice so valuable in the first centuries of the American plantations? It's just grain who cares. It's a good food source that keeps and ships well and you can't grow it in most of Europe. The only bad part of rice is it's relatively labor intensive to cultivate, but, well. They had that issue solved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
Could rice explode a ship or is that just a Horatio Hornblower plot?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Why was rice so valuable in the first centuries of the American plantations? It's just grain who cares. Someone's never had Louisiana rice and gravy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:You've got to have some sort of term for 'black people who weren't slaves' when describing the history of America at the time, and the generally accepted word used for that is 'free'. It's not a claim that everything was lovely for non-enslaved black people of the time; it obviously wasn't. To be fair our founders felt it was necessary to specify free when talking about white persons too, which implies there were non-free whites as well. (http://historythings.com/history-immigration-law-america-rich-still-rolling/)
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 08:27
|
|
|
User posted:To be fair our founders felt it was necessary to specify free when talking about white persons too, which implies there were non-free whites as well. (http://historythings.com/history-immigration-law-america-rich-still-rolling/) Based on my reading of that passage, they were excluding non-white free people, not non-free white people
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
That's silly, which is of course well within your rights. Silly is wonderful and I celebrate it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Based on my reading of that passage, they were excluding non-white free people, not non-free white people Well, both really. They were trying to exclude indentured servants, who made up a LOT of the colonial population -- by some estimates about 40% of the total number of European immigrants to the 13 Colonies were indentured. It was the only way for many poor people to get to the colonies, because the cost of Atlantic passage was equivalent to a couple years' wages. Indentured servants were not free in any sense until their term was up and particularly those on southern plantations were treated just as badly as black slaves. They couldn't marry, could legally be beaten by their employer, and were punished by the law if they ran away. The only saving grace was that they were unfree for a fixed term and free thereafter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 12:40
|
|
|
That's true that indentured servants made up a big part of colonial immigrants, although you see the term "free white people" continue to be used in America even after indentured servitude had pretty much stopped. So, for instance, in the Lincoln Douglas Debates, Lincoln said: quote:Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska or other new territories is not a matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best use shall be made of those territories. We want them for homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave states are places for poor white people to remove from, not to remove to. New free states are the places for poor people to go to and better their condition. For this use, the nation needs these territories. And later in the debates: quote:Now, irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether there is a right or a wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home-may find some spot where they can better their condition-where they can settle upon new soil and better their condition in life. I am favor of this not merely, I must say it here as I have elsewhere, for our own people who are born among us, but as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over, in which Hans, and Baptiste, and Patrick, and all other men from all the world, may find new homes and better their condition in life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Could rice explode a ship or is that just a Horatio Hornblower plot? It got wet and swelled up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Most other grains prefer cooler temperatures. Rice is about the only major cereal that thrives in hot weather. Wheat is grown everywhere in hot weather. I think the difference is rice doesn't mind wet weather, summer storms, humidity etc which I see all the time in the US south. That will ruin wheat that likes hot and dry just before harvesting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:New Hardcore History is up and six hours of the Roman conquest of the Celts. From the title it appears to be from the Celtic perspective though the sources will all have to be Roman. Anyone got a download link for this ep-60? They usually come up direct download on his website but for some reason this one isn't (only itunes download links). The site's last shown episode is 59 - destroyer of worlds on the homepage, and if you click around and get this newer ep, the download link is the older ep 59 - destroyer of worlds, so something has gone wrong. E:VV Thanks, for some reason I couldn't get that page. Fo3 fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Aug 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
[quote="“Fo3”" post="“475293035”"] Anyone got a download link for this ep-60? They usually come up direct download on his website but for some reason this one isn’t (only itunes download links). The sites last shown episode is 59 - destroyer of worlds, and if you click around and get this newer ep, the download link is the older ep 59 - destroyer of worlds too. [/quote] http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-60-the-celtic-holocaust/
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Who are you saying should have grown grain instead of importing from the Carolinas? Wren't most white people in the American south circa 1710 prisoners, in James Oglethorpe's cult, mountain men, and the occasional freeholding near-peasant who grew their own food? Who is going to buy food from a plantation enough to make rice super lucrative? I have to assume they exported it somewhere. Baron Porkface fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Aug 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Wren't most white people in the American south circa 1710 prisoners, in James Oglethorpe's cult, mountain men, and the occasional freeholding near-peasant? Who is going to buy food from a plantation enough to make rice super lucrative? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Wren't most white people in the American south circa 1710 prisoners, in James Oglethorpe's cult, mountain men, and the occasional freeholding near-peasant who grew their own food? Who is going to buy food from a plantation enough to make rice super lucrative? I have to assume they exported it somewhere. Caribbean plantation owners. Why plant rice on good sugarcane land?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Wren't most white people in the American south circa 1710 prisoners, in James Oglethorpe's cult, mountain men, and the occasional freeholding near-peasant who grew their own food? Who is going to buy food from a plantation enough to make rice super lucrative? I have to assume they exported it somewhere. Themselves? Why do you miss that? It took a while before they were growing enough to export to other places.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
It doesn't make sense to me to sail across the atlantic and buy a shitton of slaves (which needs serious captal) just to feed a family of five. Selling to Carribean planters makes more sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:It doesn't make sense to me to sail across the atlantic and buy a shitton of slaves (which needs serious captal) just to feed a family of five. Selling to Carribean planters makes more sense. What are you talking about? You don't need to buy slaves to start farming rice, there were plenty of desperate people to work hard labor from the start. Is it your impression that you can't grow any rice without a 100 square mile estate or what?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
fishmech posted:What are you talking about? You don't need to buy slaves to start farming rice, there were plenty of desperate people to work hard labor from the start. I had read that rice was THE big buisness of the early American slave plantion economy, dwarfing indigo and tobacco. It wasn't just some farmers feeding themselves
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Maybe there should be Ask us about the ante bellum South and American civil war thread?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 20:14
|
|
Fish of hemp posted:Maybe there should be Ask us about the ante bellum South and American civil war thread? 'Ask us about American History', maybe?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:I had read that rice was THE big buisness of the early American slave plantion economy, dwarfing indigo and tobacco. It wasn't just some farmers feeding themselves Rice was an international commodity, like any other cereal grain. It was especially well adapted to grow in the hot, wet climate of the American southeast. I don't get what's so mysterious to you about it. Other grains didn't grow well, but rice did and they took advantage of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I don't get what's so mysterious to you about it. To the best of my knowledge, the rice plantations were very isolated (and the most important ones were on Carolina's islands) so that rice has to be 1. Exported somewhere by boat, in a time when boat travel was a huge hassle 2. expensive enough to be a better crop than tobacco and indigo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:To the best of my knowledge, the rice plantations were very isolated (and the most important ones were on Carolina's islands) so that rice has to be If there is enough cargo, any boat will make the trip, it doesn't matter. Boat travel may have been a huge hassle, but it was the only way to get around in the day so it was what you did. There were boats constantly making transatlantic voyages for trade. Stopping by a port in Georgia or South Carolina was generally on their way to somewhere else, so it cost nothing extra. Again, it was a commodity they could make money off of. It's not particularly complicated. They eventually grew tobacco and indigo for the same reasons. Tobacco is actually very fussy to grow and requires very specific soil conditions. It wouldn't just grow by magic anywhere and took a lot of expertise. Hence the more sophisticated (and drier) Virginia grew a lot of tobacco, while the wilder and wetter Deep South grew rice and cotton.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Thank you
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Boat travel was a huge hassle relative to what?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2017 20:41
|
|