|
thompsonx -> RE: Unreasonable? (12/31/2015 7:20:35 PM)
|
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
good point and I suppose it really doesn't matter. He will come back with his usual "you are wrong" like he does with any comments made
Since you continue to post from a point of ignorance I will continue to point it out.
and I will continue to think
Something anyone has seldom seen you do.
most of the shit he posts comes straight out of his ass. SSDD
If you could refute the shit I post you would...you can't so you don't[8|]
I have already refuted this tripe.
Actually all you have posted is tripe.
Coates proposes that the value of slaves (all 4 million of them) exceeded the value of all buildings, all property in the united states.
The definitive valuation of slaves puts their worth at 3.4 billion dollars;
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-economics-of-the-civil-war/
Still, this doesn't come close to comparing to the value of all property in the US. Remember again, the cost of the civil war alone, depending on your source, but the 1887 report commissioned by the US government that pegged the cost at 8.9 billion dollars.
The cost of the civil war is irrelevant. Why do you keep insisting that it is a factor in this issue?
Coates made the unreferenced assertion "“In 1860, slaves as an asset were worth more than all of America’s manufacturing, all of the railroads, all of the productive capacity of the United States put together,” the Yale historian David W. Blight has noted.
It is wrong; it is fiction, and no logical edifice constructed on a fiction can stan. The entire work is preposterous.
What is the value of 4 million workers at $10 an hour is 40 million an hour.40 million at 12 hours a day is 480 million a day 480 million for a year is 175+ billion a year.[8|]
Two quick additional notes: I have no question that what happened in Chicago was HORRIBLE. Of course, lawsuits have been waged on that very question. Courts have and will decide what the just remedies for that are. Since this is part of an existing framework it doesn't really support the idea of reparations as Coates called for.
I will note, that just as was always true - that these outrages were conducted under a democratic machine.
Somehow you seem to think that there is some diference between demopubs and republicrats...there is not.
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Nice post CD.
Only the most ignorant of racists would feel so.
The case for reparations suffers some other glaring difficulties.
1. The total number of slaves imported into the united states over its entire history was approximately 400k.
One of your garing difficulties is that you wish to conflate imports with the total number of slaves in amerika.
On the eve of the civil war more than 4 million slaves lived in the usa.
The average price paid per slave over this time was roughly $500 per slave. Call it $200,000,000 unadjusted for the entire period over 150 years - and you get a value of about 2 million a year.
So you wish us to believe that the price of a slave was .50 cents each
Compare this to the cost of just the revolutionary war of $66 million dollars that the continental congresses allocated - which in itself represented a tiny fraction of the money spent by the states and an even tinier percentage of the value of all goods and services and you can see that any claim that the country was formed on the back of negro labor is entirely specious.
Only to morons who would posit such idiocy.
2. In 1860 the national debt was $60 million. In 1865 it was 2.7 billion dollars. An 1879 report put he total cost of the civil war at 8.3 billion dollars. Pension costs to soldiers were roughly 300 million dollars per year.
Why is the cost of the civil war germane to this topic?
" The total number of slaves imported into the united states over its entire history was approximately 400k".
"There were approximately 4 million slaves at that time".
Both of these statements are yours.
But in addition to capital costs, there were more than 15 million acres of land given to soldiers and slaves after the civil war.
Curiously you fail to document your opinions. Well perhaps not all that curious.
More than 91 million rations were handed out in the 15 months after the war to slaves.
91 million devided by 15 months equals (even for dumbasses) 6 million rations for 4 million people or 1.5 rations per month.
4,300 schools were built.
4 million devided by 4300 equals (even for dumbasses) 1 school per 100,000 people
So, focusing on debt alone and ignoring hundreds of millions of dollars of taxing authority spent in furtherance of the civil war, you can see that the cost the government spent on fighting the civil war - leaving out the human costs, exceeded the price per slave more than 400%. When you consider that almost a million americans died in this fight to free four million slaves one has to wonder - does that not hold weight?
Your arguement falls flat on it's face when you claim that the civil war was fought to free slaves. Lincoln said this to horace greely
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery."
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm
|
|
|
|
