12 days a slave

Just watched this for the first time, hard to watch suppose to be a big movie, hard to stomach all the violence that slaves took. I cant watch it again, it left me feeling awful.

What you see in a movie is what someone wants you to see from their viewpoint, or from an angle that will "stir the pot". I have no doubts that many slaves were grossly mistreated, but many were well cared for. Even the most accurate documentary type movie will have something added just to keep your attention. Speaking of slavery, have you ever read about living conditions in cities such as New York during the late 1800s and early 1900s? And how about the way the Native Americans were treated by the white man? Blacks aren't the only ones who have suffered.

Yes all of us light skinned people are to feel guilty about some thing that happened hundreds of years before we were even born.

Too many are still blaming that for the trouble that minority is still having yet today.

This victim mentality is the main cause of the current troubles.

As for this movie being hard to watch. I would like you to watch the things that US soldiers have gone through to make sure that slavery never happens here again. Do you think the battles at Gettysburg would be easier to watch??? Thousands of men killed and wounded in just days over this very same issue.

Just my thought on this. Slavery was terrible but I never had anything to do with it so why should I feel guilty about it???? Just Hollywood making a PC correct movie.

I am so sorry but my poor fathers did not have slaves. I tell any body who trys to tell me that I ow it to them. one of my poor fathers came to the U.S.A did a job and was sent back to his home land. I ow nobody nothing.

Shadetreeret: You are so right. Being poor in the 1800s and early 1900s was not a picnic for anyone.
That was not all bad. It made people work hard to not be poor if they could.

I am all for helping people but I am tired of "carrying" people that will not help themselves.

Actually as stated some slaves were well treated. I know it sounds bad but they were valuable property. So most owners didn't abuse them unless they had a problem one. Then they were often sold. Northern LA had about the worst abuses. In fact that is were problems slaves were sent. The phrase "selling someone down the river" allegedly comes from "bad slaves" being sent down the various rivers to LA.

My family never owned slaves. 1 they were never rich enough and 2 they didn't arrive in the US until after it was illegal.

Rick

That was then, and this is now.

I know slavery was bad. It was wrong. Yet the Africans want to share none of the blame. The warring tribes would capture their enemies and sell them to the slavers.

But I have alway wondered. Slaves were very expensive and valuable for the times. We had livestock that "misbehaved" We put rings in sows noses, and put up electric fences.

But would you starve or beat a prize bull or boar hog? Would you beat any breeding stock?

My dad grew up with mules. They treated those mules like family. Their livelyhood depended on the health and ability to work that those animals had.

If you were a shrewed farmer with a large crop of cotton to harvest, do you want a bunch of beaten, half starved workers?

I dont know the answer. I may be way off base.

Gene

The Civil War was more about state's rights than slavery. Several of the Union states had slaves at one time or another. HOWEVER, being only 2nd generation in this country, I owe descendants of slaves nothing.

Amen brother!!!!

It's not often that I agree with you,but this is one time that I do. Freebee programs from the Gov keeps the poverty level on the thin edge. The legitimate entertainment agency and its patrons makes exceptions to the rules. Speaking from experience, I can name black entertainers that could not be placed in the pot of worthlessness ie Sammy Davis Jr,Oscar Peterson, Quincy Jones,Errol Garner,Ella Fitzgerald,Louie Armstrong all come to mind. They weren't selling dope, robbery,rape and pillaging. I have done a couple stints with two of the above,and can tell you they were quite exciting talented people who never was on the dole to anybody. Some played for Royalty abroad . This is just a few that come to mind. JMHO.
LOU

Good point, Lou. And there have been many blacks who were active in the agricultural field as well.George Washington Carver for one. He developed many products from peanuts, soybeans, and sweet potatoes.

There were also black slave owners. And a FACT most of the blacks in this country would not even exist if their ancestors had not been slaves. And the slave trade continues in the world today. I would agree there were probably some who were mistreated and slavery is and was wrong.

Lou I can't name all the good hard working African Americans I have met or worked with in my life. That is what is sad. The fact that the majority of Black Americans have very good lives and are hard working. Makes those that do not work even worse in my opinion.

What is really bad is that the popular "Black" youth culture is demeaning being hard working and educated. Your an "Uncle Tom" for doing these things.

Another terrible thing that the Social welfare programs have done is destroy the Black family structure. It rewarded single Mothers over whole families so you have more single Mothers. A working family would not draw as much money as a split family without a male wage earner.

Some thing I have often wandered about is: Lyndon Johnson was a very racist man. He has been credited with creating the social programs that have evolved into what we have today. Was what has happened the "Grand" plan all along???

If you wanted to destroy or limit a race as a whole a good way would be to cripple or destroy the family unit. Was is some "plan"???

Slavery still exists today in the U.S.A.- It can be any one of any color. There are many stories about Indonesian servants that are held 'captive' by their "masters" only to be beaten, starved, not paid and passports taken. Also, child fornication slaves. There are too many to name. Heck, I've even seen Foster Care parents that abuse the youth they were 'supposed' to care of. (Oh, the stories I could tell you about that!)

Slavery continues here and around the world.

It's not just a 'Black" issue that occurred 150 years ago.

Oldtanker, I tend to agree. Why would an owner
intentionally damage his property? I'm sure it
happened though, human nature hasn't changed
since the Garden of Eden, some wise, some
incredibly dumb!

Maybe it's just closer to my time, but I've seen
some terrible mistreatment in the years following
abolition. Segregation and denial in areas of the
basic necessities; education, housing, legal
representation, even medical care are truly
despicable!

At the same time, nothing is solved by holding a
grudge. The attitude of entitlement gets nothing
but a bad reputation.

Of course slavery in America was wrong, and we are still paying the price for that error. But it was just as it was wrong for the thousands of years that it existed in the world prior to the first African being brought to this hemisphere, and as it exists in the world today in its various manifestations. It should be noted and remembered, however, that throughout human history slavery, in one form or another, was the natural state of existence for most people. Virtually everyone except the ruling classes owed their fealty to some despot, tyrant or liege lord. The notion of individual liberty was a concept unthinkable until it blossomed here in the 1700s. Blacks do not have ownership of the legacy of slavery, though some might have us believe it was a historical anomaly applicable only to them.
<b
>In recent years there has been considerable agitation in favor of the notion of “reparations”---monetary awards to the descendants of America’s slaves as compensation for the injustices inflicted upon their ancestors. I consider those claims to be absurd (even though many of the claimants are now in fact receiving reparations, in one form or another.) In reality, these modern-day descendants should be rejoicing in the knowledge that because of the hardships borne by their forefathers, they now live where a majority of the world’s population would like to be---America.

P.S. –A previous post referred to slaves being “sold down the river” , specifically citing north Louisiana. There were many cotton plantations in north Louisiana (still are), but the dreaded destination for slaves was south Louisiana, where the work in the sugar cane fields was especially grueling.

Anything that is reported as fact should be taken with a grain of salt. There was a lot of mistreatment of slaves but there were just as many who were treated well enough that when they were emancipated they stayed with their former masters. During the early 1800's and on into after the civil war Irish and Chinese emigrants, for the most part, were treated as bad or worse than black slaves. If there was a dangerous job it was cheaper to hire an Irishman than risk injury or death to a slave. A slave may have cost $1000 or more but they could hire an Irishman for 10 cents a day. If he got killed you just hired another Irishman.

A lot of people like to claim "state's rights" was the cause and there's some truth in it but the big question is the state's right to do what? Keep slavery legal! So the state's rights was still the secondary motive in the end, otherwise the nation would have never gone to war over any other issues in the day.

I should stop here but I'm not that smart.
If your squeamish about politics or religion then DO NOT READ ANY FARTHER! Although the subject matter isn't that bad, somebody might want to poof the thread and that's not my intention.

What is sad to me isn't the fact we went to war to decide the issue of slavery but the fact it took nearly a 100 years of looking the other way while the practice flourished under the document that said all men are created equal.

I always cringe when people make jokes about how the founding fathers wrote how all men are created equal and then jokingly say "wink wink" they meant only the white man. The true history reveals they DID mean all men, but it couldn't be enforced or we'd still be under British rule today. It took years of bargaining and haggling between the colonies before we got to the point of becoming united, signing the Declaration of Independence and thumbing our nose at King George.

Slavery was the biggest issue they had to deal with and soon became an obvious road block to the colonies becoming united as one nation. They would never be united against Britain if slavery was not allowed because many colonies voted to NOT join the union otherwise. To preserve the hope of a union amongst the states, they had to look the other way on slavery or they would never be able to stand against Britain if they weren't all in. The slavery issue would just have to wait for another day because fighting the British took precedence and if the new nation of USA fell against Britain, the slavery issue would be a moot point anyway. So deal with it later was the accepted thought, not knowing later would end up being nearly 100 years later.

Before AND after the Revolutionary war, many leaders of the day are quoted as saying in so many words that the issue would eventually have to be resolved and worried if the country was strong enough to survive it. Most were ashamed the practice was still going and knew it was hypocritical of our founding documents.

For comparison today, we have the abortion issue and a woman's right to kill an unborn child. Moral issues aside, each State makes its own laws on the issue. Once again, we can't seem to get rid of it as a practice, but to keep peace in the nation amongst our population, we try to minimize the practice as much as possible and not let it spread, knowing that allowing some abortion, (immoral as it is) in certain cases is still better than losing the abortion fight on Capitol Hill and having ALL abortion legal. Same thing they did with slavery laws leading up to the civil war. The nation tried very hard to at least contain it. And much like the issue of gun rights today, those opposed will chip away at gun rights until there's nothing left so all gun bearing citizens need to be aggressive against ANY laws restricting our rights to bear arms. Likewise, the south was afraid if they gave an inch, the writing would be on the wall, so they dug in their heels. Of course abortion isn't based in any one region so we as a nation will just degrade as a whole and implode as we become more and more immoral, selfish and uncaring of our fellow man.

When the chickens come home to roost on this one I'm afraid it will be North vs. South in a more.... let's say....religious setting. When I meet St.Peter someday and he's reluctant to let me in because I'm a sinner, I'll be sure to ask him to review my voting record. Those of you who don't vote and say its not your problem, well, they say you get what you deserve for a government. I say as a nation WE ALL get what YOU deserve. So thanks for your non-action and your probably not out of the woods with the Big Guy either.
Heaven help those of you who keep voting in the baby killing politicians who not only condone it but are forcing the rest of us to pay for the slaughter of innocents. I think I'd rather stand at the pearly gates as a slave owner than be in your shoes. Hee Haw!

What about all of the people that voluntarily enslave themselves to the banks, credit card companies, cable/satellite companies, their own personal wants, etc, etc.? A different form, but slavery just the same.

Planned parenthood was started by a lady who had ties to Nazi Germany and was a progressive nnalert . The plan was to eliminate the inferior races Blacks and mentally ill. then the progressive put in the housing projects and welfare to get them out of the neighbor hood and work place. The nnalert have never been a friend to the black race but in the last few decades they tend to vote that way for the freebies

As Greg1959 said we need to be more concerned for the present day slaves. I saw an ad on during the news about an upcoming investigative report about runaway teen girls in the cities. Pimps hang out at bus stations and befriend them, then bring them " under their wing".

The different kinds of money
Gold---Money of Royalty
Silver-Money of Gentlemen
paper--Money of Fools
Credit-Money of Slaves

(quoted from post at 00:04:54 01/25/15) Just watched this for the first time, hard to watch suppose to be a big movie, hard to stomach all the violence that slaves took. I cant watch it again, it left me feeling awful.

Click to expand...

Then you are feeling exactly as you were intended to feel. That's what propaganda is all about.

"A lot of people like to claim "state's rights" was the cause and there's some truth in it but the big question is the state's right to do what?"

Much of it was as it is today. The federal government was supposed to be limited as to how much it could interfere in states business. Most of what you've said is basically true according to what is taught in government schools. Lincoln wanted to keep the country together and used slavery as the tool to get support from the northern states for the war. Actually Robert E. Lee was more of an emancipationist than Lincoln.
There was nothing right about slavery but it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the government had kept it's nose out of it. Slavery was fast becoming too expensive for the south. Mechanization was developing fast and the customers for the south's cotton was putting pressure on them to not use slaves. Irish and Chinese emigrants were cheaper to hire than keep slaves.
If slavery had been allowed to die out on it's own, I believe that blacks would be an extremely strong part of society. Same with the Indians but that is another subject. The south was destroyed and for almost 100 years the poverty level in the south drug the rest of the country down. And that is just the cost of rebuilding property. The cost of lives on both sides is unmeasurable.

It was a horrible time in the USA when that was legal. But, did you know that President James Madison wanted a bill drafted by congress in the 1830s to start sending the slaves back to Africa.

Strawboss. I could not agree more with your post and have been saying some of the same things for years. I copied you post for future reference once this post gets deleted. Most will probably be offended by your reply because they don't really want to face the truth. Bravo to you and God bless you.

While I'm sure everything depicted in the movie and worse happened the majority of slaves were well treated and the slave owners worked in the fields along side the slaves under the same conditions. There just has always been and always be a few ruthless people that have no regard for their fellow man.

All part of the progressives' master plan to divide the races. Remember, a script can be written to tell or promote any point of view. Historical accuracy is oftentimes irrelevant.

My great grandfather was a slave owner and when the slaves were freed, most remained on the place a tennant farmers.

That movie like most movies and things on TV are dramatized to make it interesting enough to get you to watch it.
Even the history books our kids use in school do not tell the whole truth. The parts that are in the history books that do not meet the agenda of certain groups are passed over or forgotten to enforce what they want us to remember.

If the civil war was about slavery from the get go; explain to me how the southern states seceded from the union starting in December 1860 and ending in June 1861 but the Emancipation Proclamation was not drawn up until September 1862.

If the north was all about "freedom and equal rights to all men" Then explain to me why a white union private made $13 a month and his black counterpart made $7 a month.

Slaves were very expensive. Why would anyone ever beat the one thing that brought them wealth. It would be like you going outside and setting fire to your tractor.

If slavery was all about southern plantations then how do you explain that most of our founding fathers owned slaves; slavery was around long before the U.S. was ever a country; and we have words like "Choctaw freedmen" where the Choctaw were forced to set their slaves free.

I could go on but will stop here.

we have a lot of slaves here today in the USA and they are many colors what they have in common is gov well fair. just to dam lazy to work

Strawboss: I agree with the majority of what you have written. The sad fact is most of us will have a hard time on judgment day. I feel in my deepest soul that we all will be judged on how we have treated the weakest among us, the children/unborn.

Those that allow it to go on are not guilt free either. I do not know how to stop it within our current form of government. The Federal powers are too strong now.

The war for southern independence did not start over slavery, that was an after thought.
It started over unfair trade practices the north was forcing on the south.
The people of color hold Abe Lincoln in high regard, but if they would read some of the letters he wrote and the program he was trying to enact they might think otherwise.
At the start of the war Robert E. Lee freed all his slaves. At the end of the war U.S. Grant released his.

I avoid movies that are made to promote something I don't believe in so I won't be watching it. Racism is alive and well only because Hollywood and the Government want it to be.

If I watch a movie it's strictly entertainment. I don't think slavery then or now would be entertaining.

>The war for southern independence did not start over slavery, that was an after thought.

That is revisionistic nonsense, yet it has been repeated enough that many folks think it to be true.

The first state to secede from the union was South Carolina. If you read South Carolina's "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union", you will find nary a mention of unfair trade practices. You can read this document at the link below. The essence of its argument is that the constitution is a contract between the states, and since some of the northern states weren't capturing and returning escaped slaves, those states had violated the contract and South Carolina was no longer obligated to comply with the constitution, either.

Now that is not to say there were not other sore points between the north and south. But the secession needs to be taken in the historical context, and the context in the 1850s was one of growing contention over slavery between the north and south. "Bleeding Kansas" and John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry are a couple of examples where blood was shed over slavery prior to the outbreak of the Civil War.
Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

Ones belief doesnot change the facts. Besides, why debate something that happened 155 years ago, neither one of us were alive then, and history is written by the victors.
People should be more concerned of what is happening to our nation today and maybe we can prevent another useless war. With political corrections its difficult to tell the truth without getting labeled a radical.

Mark;
You need to stop reading those northern history books if you what to really know what went on in the south just before the war.

The war was started because southern states started seceding from the union and were breaking the country apart.
The reason they started seceding was because the north were federalists that thought congress and the president should set all the rules and the south were anti-federalists that thought the states should make their own rules.

If the south would have given up at the very beginning of the war slavery would never have come into question.
It was not until Sept 1862 (a year after the states seceded) that slavery was a war topic when the north decided not to win a war but rather to crush the south.
They continued this crushing of the south after the war threw reconstruction.

> Ones belief doesnot change the facts.

Exactly. You had the opportunity to read the facts, but that didn't change your belief. Do you know the difference between reality and BS? Reality is true even if you don't believe it.

(quoted from post at 14:09:27 01/25/15)

(quoted from post at 00:04:54 01/25/15) Just watched this for the first time, hard to watch suppose to be a big movie, hard to stomach all the violence that slaves took. I cant watch it again, it left me feeling awful.

Click to expand...

Then you are feeling exactly as you were intended to feel. That's what propaganda is all about.

Click to expand...

INGO! Nail on the head.

(quoted from post at 21:58:40 01/25/15) &gt; Ones belief doesnot change the facts.

Exactly. You had the opportunity to read the facts, but that didn't change your belief. Do you know the difference between reality and BS? Reality is true even if you don't believe it.

Click to expand...

facts" can be skewed in many different ways to meet the authors agenda.

John, I wasn't aware that history books are divided into "northern" and "southern" history. What I do know is that some books try to explain history while sticking to well-established facts, while others play fast and loose with the facts in pursuit of the author's agenda.

It might be acceptable to speculate on the motives of, say, the participants of the Peloponnesian War. After all, the facts have become a bit murky over the years. That's not the case for the American Civil War, where the intentions and actions of its participants are documented in great detail through artifacts like the one I referenced earlier. To ascribe anachronistic motives to those participants isn't southern history or northern history. It's simply Bad History.

The revisionists would have you believe that the southern states seceded over some abstract principles, when they had plenty of very concrete reasons to do so. They saw the northern abolitionists as direct threats to their wealth, livelihood and way of life.

Diesel, the authors of the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" were the secessionists themselves. Are you suggesting they had some hidden agenda that they chose to conceal by giving the escaped slave issue as their sole reason for secession? Or do you simply think the document is a forgery?

(quoted from post at 07:38:04 01/26/15) John, I wasn't aware that history books are divided into "northern" and "southern" history. What I do know is that some books try to explain history while sticking to well-established facts, while others play fast and loose with the facts in pursuit of the author's agenda.

It might be acceptable to speculate on the motives of, say, the participants of the Peloponnesian War. After all, the facts have become a bit murky over the years. That's not the case for the American Civil War, where the intentions and actions of its participants are documented in great detail through artifacts like the one I referenced earlier. To ascribe anachronistic motives to those participants isn't southern history or northern history. It's simply Bad History.

The revisionists would have you believe that the southern states seceded over some abstract principles, when they had plenty of very concrete reasons to do so. They saw the northern abolitionists as direct threats to their wealth, livelihood and way of life.

Click to expand...

Having read a good deal on the causes of the Civil War/War of Northern Aggression, I've come to realize the causes were many and that the 2 main causes were intertwined with a lot of others, the 2 main causes being slavery and state rights. You cannot separate one from the other in that discussion. We have to remember int he context of the day that we were "...these united States." Not "The United States". Until you grasp that and what was happening at the Federal level you're just going to spin your wheels. The wound had been festering since 1776 or before.

Personally, I found the whole thing heart breaking.