Fred On Slavery: “We Drift In A Sea Of Historical Fraud”

Worth your time.

Billy Yank, Johnny Reb, or anywhere in between.

NB: Under the USC and BoR as drafted, enacted, and ratified, chattel slavery was legal.

31 responses to “Fred On Slavery: “We Drift In A Sea Of Historical Fraud”

  1. enlightening essay by Fred. In any case, we are now plagued by c. 50,000,000 Trayvons and Latwanas, all weaponized against us by the Jews.

    And almost all received “history” is twaddle. Professional historians are, in general, paid to lie. So they lie.

  2. Dearest Jamie, please go fuck yourself in the eye with rusty rebar. Signed We The People. You and your cronies have ruled this boat long enough. How much coke can one man snort, how many hookers can you bang, how many widows can you rob?
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-14/jamie-dimon-its-embarrassing-american-listening-stupid-shit-we-have-deal

  3. During the integration riots of the late sixities, the largest such event occurred not in Atlanta, Charleston, or Knoxville but Boston a northern city.

  4. Whatever.
    Nothing Fred wrote is news to anyone, except those with the usual subpar public education.

    Less than 8% of the South owned about 4M slaves in 1861.
    It’s just they were the 8% that ran everything in the South.
    (Some witless wonders still repeat nonsense to the effect that if the North wanted to end slavery in 1861, they could have simply bought them all; problem solved. Well, yes…except it would have taken the entire federal budget from 1787-1925 or so to do it. Details, details, right?)

    Oligarchy as such is never in your best interests.

    • NB: Under the USC and BoR as drafted, enacted, and ratified, chattel slavery was legal because of the desire to include the 5 plantation slave-dependent states in the original nation created, until amended by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, in 1865, 1868, and 1870, respectively.
      FIFY.
      1870 interprets 1787.

      The original compromise, and what is has cost the nation to this date, are rather widely reported and commented upon, then and since.

      If anyone has a workable plan to disassemble the welfare state and re-colonize Liberia as originally intended, with every malcontent locatable, I’ll subscribe to your newsletter and march in your parade. The resultant demographic shift would benefit both countries, and the respective mean IQs of each would probably double.

      • Point was that the Divine Inspiration of the USC/BoR as noted by some apparently included chattel slavery.

        • Politics is rarely – if ever – divinely inspired. By definition.
          The USC/BoR haven’t been much improved on to date (in fact, rather the opposite – witness the abomination of Amendments XVI-XIX inclusive), but neither are they anywhere close to infallible, nor ever were so. Anyone who posits or suggests otherwise is woefully ignorant, or simply a cretin.

          IIRC, even for the Chosen People, God’s plan was to leave the tribes alone, and let them suffer their own fates, according to their merit and obedience to revealed law.
          Worked out about like one would expect.
          Much to the chagrin of earnest Libertarians, and their similarly vacuous reasoning skills.

        • We note no mention of such in the D of I, however.
          For what it’s worth.

          • DoI is a good place to start, once equality is omitted.

            Others will disagree.

            • i believe all americans have an equal chance to succeed.

              most, do not take advantage of this.

              so you get what we have here…

              a cuntry full of murkin under-achievers, .gov parasites, and plain old losers.

            • Pretty sure that equality refers to standing before GOD; as endowed by their Creator follows.
              Not equality as in interests, aspirations or abilities.
              Thus, there is no inherently superior class of men.
              Of course, those who would be masters will disagree.

      • Offer payment of $20-30,000 immediately after getting sterilized at a Planned Parenthood clinic. Blacks in America would be a dead race walking in 20 years.

    • Northgunner

      “(Some witless wonders still repeat nonsense to the effect that if the North wanted to end slavery in 1861, they could have simply bought them all; problem solved. Well, yes…except it would have taken the entire federal budget from 1787-1925 or so to do it. Details, details, right?)”
      Funny that you mention that….
      That exact point was raised by John Ross late in “Unintended Consequences”, it was in a conversation between the pResident and his friend, the former chief justice. The former judge raised that point and the pResident replied, “that would have been exorbitantly expensive”. To which his friend replied, “No, it would have been dirt cheap compared to all the lives needlessly lost.”

      Remember that Freedom is always cheaper than slavery, unless you’re into running/profiting from slavery (ask any moslem how this works..especially ‘what the right hand possesses’).

      That murderous parasitic shitweasel lincoln freed NO ONE; all he and his ilk did was to attempt to reaffirm chattel slavery upon EVERYONE in America.
      John Wilkes Booth was right, he just should have gotten to him MUCH sooner!!!

      Yours in Daily Armed Liberty via anarchy!
      Northgunner III

      • It’s playground logic by the innumerate.
        Look around the world: nothing is cheaper than lives.
        Buying the slaves would have cost from $2B-$4B, in real 1860 dollars.
        {Ross’ number was $1000@(for a healthy young male) X 4M or so. Say half that for the rest. Call it $3B to split the difference.}
        Which total is greater than the entire federal budget for everything, from 1787 to multiple decades beyond the Civil War (once the inflation post-1865 is accounted for), and notably including the budget for the entire Civil War. War was cheaper than purchase. QED.

        As Casey Stengel used to say, you could look it up.
        The slave population, and the federal budgets for every year, are readily available on the internet with mouse clicks.
        The average federal budget for the first fourscore and five years was $10-30M. So if they’d only mortgaged the entire country to buy 3,950,000 slaves, we’d have paid off the note on the war we didn’t fight by about WWI or so. (The entire federal budget from 1789-1849 was a shade under $1.2B, so that’s almost the first third of the note.)
        Except that there’d have been no government, no nation, and we would have ceased to exist in about a minute. We would have been wiped out an re-absorbed into the British empire in 1812. Unless that’s the point of the exercise (and probably even if it is) that’s simply retarded.

        Feel free to argue that anarchy or non-existence was the preferred way to save the union. Show your work.

        If buying them out were ever an option, it would have been discussed seriously at the time.
        It was not, and for anyone to peddle that line of twaddle seriously is to parade their inability to grasp mathematics, let alone economics.
        It’s like watching flash-thawed Dr. Evil come up with a ransom amount, except not as comedically funny, just pathetically stupid.

        This is why John Ross is an idiot, on at least that point, and a lazy one at that, for not bothering to check his figures.
        If he can’t get something that simple correct, how deep does the derp go?
        Just spit-balling, but I suspect the bottom cannot be plumbed with existing instrumentation.

  5. Same as it ever was, but not the most important concern at this point in history as the future is the concern of the living

  6. Kenyon Hull

    This American slave issue has been beaten to death. How about a little perspective! Of the 12,000,000 slaves brought to the western hemisphere, only 500,000 were dropped off in America. How about some balance on the issue here, Fred. As for slavery in the rest of the world, Islam wins the grand prize. They enslaved a couple hundred million from Africa, Europe, India and other parts of Asia, basically where ever conquered a people group. And furthermore, they are still at it. The western mind likes to think that Islam has stopped its slaving ways but he western mind has no clue about Islam. So Fred, I am so tired of you people beating the dead horse of slavery in America. Why don’t you write about the complete package.

  7. Kenyon Hull

    Not to put too fine of a point on the subject of Islamic slavery, they loved white meat for their harems. They ravaged the coastal villages of Europe for white women as well as the balkans. They enslaved upwards of 1,000,000 white women. How about an essay on this, Fred.

    • Northgunner

      Excellent points regarding islam and slavery.
      Slavery is a core component of ‘mo’s’ death cult..the relation of a moslem to the imaginary moon god that ‘mo’ grafted onto it is that of a slave to its Master (availed moslems to mohammed as a sycophant to their cult leader..think of the late Jim Jones or Sun Yung Moon).

      The idea of ‘Freedom’ doesn’t exist for the moslem..it’s totally blasphemous in the eyes of his charlatan ‘mo’..and each moslem is to pattern his/her life explicitly upon ‘mo’s’ deeds and words..this is actually MORE important than ‘worship’ to allah.

      Yes ‘mo’ was directly involved with slavery and the African slave trade during his lifetime and it continued after his death…and still does (the saudis and other moslems in the mideast and Africa still do it). Also several African tribes actively colluded with the moslems to help capture other Africans for profit. About 120 million Africans were the victims of islam; the majority of male African slaves they took didn’t make it to the market as they bled to death when the moslems castrated them after capture…to put into context the ones that made it to America had it good compared to those that died or remained under moslem control.

      The moslems also took over one million Europeans into slavery via slave raids on the European coastline and in areas they controlled, like Spain (especially women via ‘mo’s’ comment of ‘what the right hand possesses’, this directly affirms that moslems can make sex slaves of any non-moslem woman, regardless of age, look at what’s happening with the moslem ‘grooming sex gangs’ against young girls in England and to women and girls in Europe..let alone what 4 rapefugee invader cubs did to a 5 yr old special needs girl in Twin Falls, Idaho/’Rawelsland’.

      Please watch Dr. Bill Warner’s videos on islam and slavery, especially the video. “Why We Are Araid of A 1400 Year Old Secret”.

      Also please take a look at Matt Bracken’s latest novel, “Red Cliffs of Zerhoun” due out in kindle format on the 16th (paperback available on the 20th). His novel is about the moslem abduction of young girls for their sex trade and what some men decide to do about it.

      Yours in Daily Armed Liberty – Furthermore islam and it’s enables and supporters MUST be destroyed!!!
      Northgunner III

  8. Grey Ghost

    Fred got it mostly right which is rare these days. I could argue a few points but won’t. But I will add this little know fact for all the bootlicking Lincoln CONservatives out there; no “freemen” (freed slaves) were allowed at Lincoln’s funeral… .not.one. …while hundreds of “freemen” paid their respect to Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest at his funeral. Sea of historical fraud indeed.

    /r
    Grey Ghost

  9. And for the unanswered questions of why ,if the yankies where so fabulouly wealthy from slave trading, would they sacrifice 300,000 plus in lives and money to stop the use of slaves?
    Resources, natural resources. The Southern farmers were sitting on tons of coal and other mineral resources plus timber the yellow pine (think Turpintine ). Once the war was over most land owners lost their land for taxes and these deeds were scooped up for pennies on the dollar by northern bankers. What couldn’t be mined or timbered or turpintined, were simply left for agriculture with new slaves the share croppers. The yankies made a killing , literally, off the war and left the blacks with no value on their lives until the carpet baggers learned about vote farming.

    • Jimmy the Saint

      “And for the unanswered questions of why ,if the yankies where so fabulouly wealthy from slave trading, would they sacrifice 300,000 plus in lives and money to stop the use of slaves?”

      The yankees had already made their money from the slave trade; there weren’t any new shipments coming in, and the triangle trade had long since ended.

  10. the murkins love being drained of their wealth.

    there’s no better proof as one travels along murkas highways and witnesses abject poverty and despair among the ramshackle homes and shacks as the rusted hulks of Detroits once thriving auto industry litter their dirt driveways and overgrown backyards… the old saying “proud to be poor” is held dear to the inhabitants hearts as they display that tattered blood-soaked rag hoisted and hung for all to see. all in the most prosperous nation in the history of the world.

    their elected politicians and the regimes blue uniformed enforcers enjoy the spoils of their plunder with bloated paychecks, cadillac health care benefits, and golden retirement packages… you would be hard pressed to find any of the parasite class without dental insurance and paid vacations that would make the common man blush with embarrassment. yet instead, they are arrogant and greedy for even more blood from their hosts. and still more red white and blue flags and stickers are bought and displayed by the peasant class in honor of their malevolent tormentors.

    yep. the murkins are slaves who enjoy rising early to work the fields, and groveling and begging for their daily existence as they wait their turn to be beaten, robbed, raped, or murdered by their protectors.

  11. Fred’s right, history is one lie after another.

    Dirk

    • in general, yes; but we get a blast of truth now and then. Like when the Bolsheviks seized and published the Czarist regime’s secret diplomatic files, revealing much of the dirty dealing between Britain, France, and Russia that preceded WW I.

  12. Alfred E. Neuman

    Reblogged this on FOR GOD AND COUNTRY.

  13. From Wikipedia: “Economic historian Robert E. Wright argues that it would have been much cheaper, with minimal deaths, if the federal government had purchased and freed all the slaves, rather than fighting the Civil War.[168] Another economic historian, Roger Ransom, writes about how Gerald Gunderson compared compensated emancipation to the cost of the war and “notes that the two are roughly the same order of magnitude — 2.5 to 3.7 billion dollars” [169][170] Ransom also writes that compensated emancipation would have tripled federal outlays if paid over the period of 25 years and was a program that had no political support within the United States during the 1860s.[170]”

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

    Of course one might wonder how to place a value on 650,000 deaths…

    • See above.
      They can “argue” all they like, but clearly they can’t count.

      The inflation post-CW caused the federal budget to increase 800%-1500% in perpetuity after 1865, compared to pre-1861 budgets.

      So such a recockulous purchase would have cost not the $3B pre-war, but $24B. Which is more than the total federal budget expenditures from independence through about WWI.

      During which time no other federal outlays would exist.
      No Louisiana Purchase; no Mexican War; no army for western settlement or Indian wars; no Panama Canal; no intercontinental railroad; no navy; no patent office; no Alaska; no nothing. And, in all likelihood, the entire US re-absorbed into the British empire in 1812.
      And every penny raised already spent on a commodity that would have been, at best, shipped back to Africa.

      If you want to argue that would have been cheaper than what the Great Society welfare dole has cost us since 1964, go ahead on; but trying to argue we could have done it prior to 1900, instead of the Civil War, requires one to remain wholly ignorant of basic economic realities.

      • Well all that is a moot point anyways because who ever said that the South would of sold them back the slaves to begin with…The whole premise of debating whether or not it would of been cheaper or not is a foolish endeavor and a waste of time and energy…Don’t we have enough on our plates as it is… Cheers…