Can Atheists Be Parents?

[nhboy (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

The last straw was the common man and his affinity for his state. Where She went, he went. .

You don't mean...."my country, right or wrong"?

BTW, who were the principal new money men you spoke of, after all practically everyone had slaves in one form or another (mustn't forget sharecroppers both black and white), some as few as one or two?

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by nhboy

You don't mean...."my country, right or wrong"?

BTW, who were the principal new money men you spoke of, after all practically everyone had slaves in one form or another (mustn't forget sharecroppers both black and white), some as few as one or two?

...the vast majority of Southerners did NOT own slaves and the vast majority of slave owners owned only a handful.

William Yancey is noted as the A #1 new money agitator. The fire eaters.

Read the book.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Kain99

Just to play devil's advocate:

How effective can a parent be, if he believes in nothing?

Don't frigging start. The religious do not have a corner on the ethics market. And the man does believe in something I am sure, he probably believes empirical evidence and free thinking trumps indoctrination and mindless dogma.

The sanctimonious nature of the religious folks in this country is getting completely out of hand.

[nhboy (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...the vast majority of Southerners did NOT own slaves and the vast majority of slave owners owned only a handful.

William Yancey is noted as the A #1 new money agitator. The fire eaters.

Read the book.

Yes, I will read the book as you suggest. Not to be argumentative, as I enjoy your inputs on this forum, and if you haven't already seen it you may be interested in this website on slaveholders in 1860.

Slaveholders and African Americans 1860-1870

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by nhboy

Yes, I will read the book as you suggest. Not to be argumentative, as I enjoy your inputs on this forum, and if you haven't already seen it you may be interested in this website on slaveholders in 1860.

Slaveholders and African Americans 1860-1870

...the short version of what the link is saying?

[Kyle (Premo)]

The concept of sovereign states is lost and forgotten. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Kyle

The concept of sovereign states is lost and forgotten. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

...that's a whole other angle. Many argue Lincoln was the bad guy in the downfall of states rights.

My argument is the sucessionists are solely responsible.

When they bailed out, almost every single man in this nation at the time, North and South, did not want black equality, even almost all of the abolitionists. They thought slavery wrong but they were not advocating equality.

Lincoln himself did not advocate, at all, any federal intervention in slavery where it existed. He and many others simply said it can not expand.

It is interesting to wonder what would have happened if the South either left in peace or didn't leave at all. Before long, slavery would have died a natural death, as many had already predicted, due to the industrial age. It would have become impossibly expensive to keep slaves in light of mechanization.

Then what?

The slave owners, in their desire to save slavery, killed it faster and quicker than any abolitionist ever dared dream of.

Fascinating.

[nhboy (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...the short version of what the link is saying?

A whole lot of folks had a whole lot of slaves.

[nhboy (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

...that's a whole other angle. Many argue Lincoln was the bad guy in the downfall of states rights.

My argument is the sucessionists are solely responsible.

When they bailed out, almost every single man in this nation at the time, North and South, did not want black equality, even almost all of the abolitionists. They thought slavery wrong but they were not advocating equality.

Lincoln himself did not advocate, at all, any federal intervention in slavery where it existed. He and many others simply said it can not expand.

It is interesting to wonder what would have happened if the South either left in peace or didn't leave at all. Before long, slavery would have died a natural death, as many had already predicted, due to the industrial age. It would have become impossibly expensive to keep slaves in light of mechanization.

Then what?

The slave owners, in their desire to save slavery, killed it faster and quicker than any abolitionist ever dared dream of.

Fascinating.

Absolutely fascinating! I'm making a list of the books available on the individual Fire Eaters. It seems they are described as arrogant, angry men prone to duels and such. Appears like the pols of that era really had a set!

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by nhboy

A whole lot of folks had a whole lot of slaves.

The last U.S.census slave schedules were enumerated by County in 1860 and included 393,975 named persons holding 3,950,546 unnamed slaves, or an average of about ten slaves per holder. The actual number of slaveholders may be slightly lower because some large holders held slaves in more than one County and would have been counted in each County. Excluding slaves, the 1860 U.S. population was 27,167,529, with about 1 in 70 being a slaveholder. It is estimated by this transcriber that in 1860, slaveholders of 200 or more slaves, while constituting less than 1 % of the total number of U.S. slaveholders, or 1 out of 7,000 free persons, held 20-30% of the total number of slaves in the U.S.

1 in 70 owning slaves? People owning 200 or more made up less than 1% of slave holders yet held 30% of the slaves?

I think we're talking the mega rich owning, by and large, most of the slaves, yes? And we are for sure talking about being a slave owner, 1 out of 70, being a distinct minority, yes?

Further, if you take out 30% of 4 million owned by less than 1% of 393,975 owners, then 2,800,000 were owned by about 390,000 or 7 each on average with 3,000 owning that 200 each or more.

Small business v. corporations so to speak.