thebluefood

U.S. Congress Part 116

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, Burgold said:

Well, you got to figure those with descendants from the North weren’t slave owners. That was about half the county and may have been the more populous half. Then, not all Southerners owned slaves. So, the number has to be at least below half. 

 

Ive done no research on this though. 

 

Problem is, though. 

 

Assuming that only 1% of the US population owned slaves, how many ancestors do you have to have, for there to be a 50% chance one of them owned a slave?  

 

Spoiler

At 5 generations, assuming generations 1-3 were too young to own slaves, you've got 48 ancestors. (16+32). 48 ancestors, with a 1% chance that each individual owned a slave, makes the odds 39% that one or more owned slaves. At 6 generations, it's 68% that one did.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Problem is, though. 

 

Assuming that only 1% of the US population owned slaves, how many ancestors do you have to have, for there to be a 50% chance one of them owned a slave?  

 

  Hide contents

At 5 generations, assuming generations 1-3 were too young to own slaves, you've got 48 ancestors. (16+32). 48 ancestors, with a 1% chance that each individual owned a slave, makes the odds 39% that one or more owned slaves. At 6 generations, it's 68% that one did.

 

Fair, but that’s also assuming all your descendants lived in America or at least some did. 

 

I think my my family all came in at some point in the 20th Century, for example. So, it’s safe to say, no matter how far back yo go, none of them owned a slave in America. 

 

Based on that, the percentage may be larger than I might guess, but smaller than the above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I'm not sure what part of this has to do with my question.  The only thing that has anything at all to do with the topic is the 32%.  But that only gives a starting point to the question at hand.

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

Problem is, though. 

 

Assuming that only 1% of the US population owned slaves, how many ancestors do you have to have, for there to be a 50% chance one of them owned a slave?  

 

  Hide contents

At 5 generations, assuming generations 1-3 were too young to own slaves, you've got 48 ancestors. (16+32). 48 ancestors, with a 1% chance that each individual owned a slave, makes the odds 39% that one or more owned slaves. At 6 generations, it's 68% that one did.

 

Yea understanding how the math would work out is important.  The second link I posted did a good job of breaking that down plus including people whose family didnt own slaves but married into a family that did a few generations before, the kids would now be tied to a slave owning family.  Things like that is why I think the percentage would actually be pretty high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

Dude, thank you so much for posting this, I always had a feeling this was unequivocal BS:

 

Quote

“Black people fought for the Confederacy.”

 “Historical fact shows there were Black Confederate soldiers. These brave men fought in the trenches beside their White brothers, all under the Confederate Battle Flag,” reads a statement from the South Carolina chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

 

Is it true?: Here is a case where rhetorical precision is key. Did blacks serve in the Confederacy? Absolutely: As enslaved people, countless black Americans cooked, cleaned, and worked for Confederate regiments and their officers. But they didn’t fight; there’s no evidence that black Americans—enslaved or free—fought Union soldiers under Confederate banners.

Toward the end of the war, a desperate Confederate Congress allowed its army to enlist enslaved Africans who had been freed by their masters. A small number of black soldiers were trained, but there’s no evidence they saw action. And even this measure was divisive: Opponents attacked it as a betrayal of the Confederacy’s aim and purpose. “You cannot make soldiers of slaves, or slaves of soldiers,” declared Howell Cobb, president of the Provisional Confederate State Congress that drafted the Confederate States of America constitution. “The day you make a soldier of them is the beginning of the end of the Revolution. And if slaves seem good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong.”

 

The myth is a product of the post-war period, when former Confederate leaders worked to retroactively redefine secession from a movement to preserve slavery to a fight for abstract “state’s rights” and a hazy “Southern way of life.”

 

Bottom line: Even if there were black soldiers in the Confederate army, it doesn’t change the truth of the Confederacy: Its goal was the protection and expansion of slavery. The institution was protected in the Confederate constitution. “Our new government is founded upon … the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition,” said Confederate vice president Alexander Stephens in his “Cornerstone Speech.” “This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't see the benefit of the above debate or discussion. With the future of the country, who cares if Mitch came from slaves? Does that have anything to do with his policies?

Let's not talk about wealth inequality, health care, education and the other issurs that are important.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

^^^^ watched that earlier. It’s scary what Fox allows tucker and it’s hosts to get away with. 

 

any Company sponsoring on that network should be looked at as supporting the white supremacist and xenophobic views and agenda the network constantly pushes and that company should feel the ramifications in its bottom line 

Edited by Momma There Goes That Man
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, visionary said:

 

 

She can go now. I'm happy to have people push back against excessive military spending, but this isn't the way to go about it. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^

 

That just proves that getting rid of Trump wont change that the GOPs line has been moved in what they will put up with.  I hope Cocaine Mitch is sleeping on the couch tonight for that one, because he sounds like if someone said to them on the street hed do nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I assume the real reason they went along with it is something like they can't really stop the admin, since Trump just go around congress somehow as he has with other issues.  In other words, they could fight Trump on it for a while and lose, or spend time on other things they care more about or that they have more control over.  But that's just a guess.

Edited by visionary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, visionary said:

or spend time on other things they care more about that they have more control over

Outside of the wall, they haven't done much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.