Debunking Narratives on Slavery in the United States.

This one is much easier than some of the others.

1. Slave trafficking existed in the United States for 18 years.

2. Slavery in general existed in the United States for 76 years.

3. Any narrative that omits the plain facts above, which are necessary context in any discussion of slavery in the United States, is a lie narrative intended to deceive.

4. Within 3/4 of a century of its creation, the Enlightenment-based governing principles of the Rule of Law, embodied in the Constitutional Republic form of government, abolished slavery in the U.S. That is an achievement we should all be very proud of as U.S. citizens.

5. Weaker more democratic constitutions (France) led to anarchy, dictatorship, injustice, rampant colonialism, and a resulting vacuum that allowed slavery to survive, existing even TODAY in Mauritania.

6. The reasonable conclusion is that the Constitutional Republic, and not any hybrid "democracy," is the swiftest end and surest prevention of slavery. So we should defend our Constitutional Republic at all costs.

7. Any resentment narrative that appeals to slavery in Colonial America in a vacuum without dealing with the very common practice of slavery all over the world throughout history, and especially ignores slavery in the world that still exists and why it exists, is a lie narrative intended to deceive.

What are your thoughts on slavery in the United States?

 

Human trafficking in the US is being orchestrated by by illicit individuals within the US.

 

The Democratic Party convinced the blacks to trade in metal shackles for mental ones. That is my thought on slavery in the U.S.

 

Good OP.

 

Well, Sweden banned slavery in 1335. Norway had already abolished slaves by the 1300s. Japan banned slaves in 1590. Most of Europe had banned slaves by the early 1800s. Venezuela abolished slavery in 1817. Chile abolished slavery in 1823. Mexico banned slavery in 1829 ...

The US? Not till 1863, and it took a bloody civil War to accomplish that goal. Can't really claim to be on the for-front of the anti-slavery movement, now can we ...

 

1853, Argentina abolishes slavery.
1854, Peru abolishes slavery.
1855, Moldavia abolishes slavery.

1857, The US rules in the Dred Scott decision that black slaves and their descendants cannot gain American Citizenship and that slaves are not entitled to
freedom even if they live in a free state for years.

1863, Lincoln signs the Emancipation Proclamation. Nearly 600,000 Americans die in a Civil War from states wishing to keep slavery.

Yup - the US is great at many things - but it can't claim any kind of righteousness when it comes to slavery. We were WAYYY behind the curve on that one, and most countries didn't have a bloody civil war to end it, they just past proclamations in a civilized manner.

 

How long had Sweden, Norway, Japan, Venezuela, Chile and Mexico been nations under persistent self-rule when they banned slavery? The U.S. had been a nation for only 18 years when it banned slave trafficking and 76 years when it abolished slavery altogether. That's exemplary compared to all those laggards you listed in failing to make a point. I think that's pretty strong given the dependence on slave labor that had built up during the colonial and pre colonial frontier days. Why was the U.S. able to rid itself of slavery so very quickly while those other countries practiced it far longer? The great invention of the Constitutional Republic is the reason.

One of the main tricks of grievance propagandists on slavery in America is to blend in the frontier and colonial centuries with the fledgling United States government to give the impression to ignorant people that slavery existed in the United States far longer than it actually did. That is a lie narrative intended to deceive.

 

1794, France abolishes slavery.
1798, Napoleon captures Malta and frees all slaves.
1804, Haiti abolishes slavery after declaring independence.
1814, Slavery is abolished in the Netherlands.
1815, The Congress of Vienna declares it's opposition to slavery (United Kingdom, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, France, Austria, Russia, Spain, Prussia are all signatories).

IF the US had remained a British Colony, slavery would have ended almost 60 years earlier than it did, and without the bloody revolution.

 

Well, put it this way. Venezuela became a country in 1811, and abolished slavery in 1817, and did so without a bloody revolution.
Mexico became a country in 1810, and abolished slavery in 1829.
Chile became a country in 1810, and abolished slavery in 1823.

You were saying ...?

 

Not likely. Revisionist history is fun though, kind of in the same way that BS sessions in the dorm as a college freshman were fun.

 

So you're saying that the Southern Colonies would have fought the British to keep their slaves? And yet you try, in the same thread, to claim that there was some kind of enlightened view on slavery in the area. Dude - make up your mind.

 

So all the work you did listing out all those dates without attributing the wiki page you got them from was for naught, and all you have left now are three examples. OK. It's to those three countries' great credit that they abolished slavery after escaping Spanish colonialism. No idea whether and to what degree their colonial pre nation days parallel the U.S., especially with respect to how much their economies may or may not have depended on slave labor, nor do I care to look into it. I don't think you are countering any of my points in the OP though, unless you are making the case that those countries' forms of government then were superior to the Constitutional Republic?

If that, we CAN learn something from Mexico, Venezuela and Chile, what ends up resulting in countries that do not adopt a strong Constitutional Republic based on the Rule of Law. Can you guess what it is? It begins with a "d" and ends with a "ictatorship." A form of government the U.S. has never suffered under since its founding. But OK, they were truly great at getting rid of slavery...not so much at other things. I'll stick with my points in the OP as not materially refuted for the time being.

 

This is a good point. Even though the US was chronologically later than other nstions in banning slavery it was very matured considering how young of a nation it was. I would venture to say that we're even more enlightened now and if the people of the United States were to form a new nation today, it would hold slaves for no more than 45 years.

 

No. -You- made a dorm BS session level claim about what would have happened in the U.S. that is pure speculation. You didn't ground your speculation in any way. OK.

 

Ah look, another one from the dorm BS session. OK. Do you have anything to say about the facts relevant to the actual topic? Or just dorm BS session stuff?

 

What is a dorm BS session?

I was in agreement with you. The people of the US were enlightened and was able to ban slavery so quickly. The people of the US would ban it even quicker now.

 

OK, maybe I didn't understand. I thought you were saying that the United States would support slavery for -any- amount of time in the present day, something it certainly would not do. Sorry if I misunderstood.

 

Yep, the US had slaves. Yep, the US was slow in abolishing slavery. Yep, the US has done more to free all people in the world than any other country in the history of the world. Yep, the US has done more to feed the people of the world than any other country in the history of the world. Yep, the US has the most generous people in the history of the world. Yep, the US allows it's people the most freedom of any country in the history of the world.

 

Maybe the lack of play this topic got is a promising indicator that resentment propagandists are finally moving on from this narrative. It's about time. It is a rotten, divisive narrative based on taking U.S. slavery in a vacuum to try and extrapolate to victimhood today that simply doesn't exist. It is used to make people resentful of their fellow citizens while at the same time advocating for continuing social programs that have done the country ill.

Of people alive today, only a few outliers do not have slavery somewhere in their family tree. The myth of the "white slaver" as anti white racism in the present needs to go away. Slavery was practiced all over the world by people of every color. We -should- fight against slavery, and there is plenty of it in various forms still practiced today to fight against.

Any anti slavery narrative that is not focused on ending world slavery in the present is a lie narrative intended to deceive.

 

Come on...greedy people will use any justification to exploit other people for their own profits. Cotton plantations in the South fed the British textile industry, which fed the British Empire. Slavery has almost always been for the purpose of low-cost labor and punishment for those who do not willingly submit.

 

Slavery has been gone for over 150 years.
Look for new crutches

 

I think that you are confused. The Republican Party convinced poorly educated whites that is ok to be trickled down on.

 

Like trillions upon trillions of dollars going to bankers from 2008 to 2016?
That kind of trickle down?

 

There are more people enslaved today than at any time in history

Slavery is more illegal now than it was in the past but it is still very widespread, even in First World countries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_21st_century

 

I will be debunking gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex lie narratives on "trickle down economics" in its own thread soon, but this isn't that thread. The topic of this thread is debunking LW Complex lie narratives on slavery in the United States, please stick to it.