The Logistics of Reparations

[Drich]

Yet another yankee engaging in confederate revisionism.  

Slaves were not well kept.

never said all were. perhaps none by today's standard, but that is not a fair judgement is it because by that standard even slave owners were not well kept. the standard of living was much much lower. some intentionally treated slaves as dogs, and others did not. the treatment of slaves was as unique as the people keeping them. it is well documented that some slaves loved their masters and vise versa. Jefferson was an example that comes to mind as a benevolent owner. again the cost of a slave made him a very valuable investment.

Slaves became increasingly available to poorer and poorer owners for lower and lower prices throughout the entirety of the slave trades history,

which again is where i concede not all slaves were treated well/like kings, however their treatment was in relation to how the owners themselves lived.

until, hilariously....the slave rush of the civil war - where owning a slave could get you out of confederate service.  They were being bred as livestock.

there never was a surplus, as many many white men fought for the south and never owned a slave. many who fought while land owners lived a more meager existence than what a slave could have on a much larger plantation. again there was no set rules to slavery that said all must be beaten so many times a day. that all must be hated, that all must be miserable.

Slaves did not stay where they were because they were being paid or because they were well kept or because they wanted to.

that's not true. by this time many of thee slaves were lighter in color than pure african slaves as they shared a blood line with their masters which is why many of them took their last names after the war like washington smith ect.. they were literally family.
this is proofed out by the fact that before the war started there were far more free blacks in the south than in the north. after the war those who wanted to stay did so. there were many who flooded the big cities which pushed many of the new settlers west.
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-america...rth-right/

 They stayed because there was nowhere to go.

this was true for some, but again the governement offered a trip back to africa or to colonize south america, many were headed north to work in factories, or you can stay and work your grandaddy's farm.

 The freed slave problem was such that the majority were seeking employment in the north, who didn't actually want them, and who very much would have liked to put them on boats, again, and ship them off to the forgetting place, a place that freed american slaves had overwhelmingly never known to begin with.  

do not disagree. how ever i would like to point out those who wanted to leave did so.

The 40 acres and a mule bit was a great idea, but was overturned by Lincolns successor Andrew Johnson, and what little land had been dispersed through this program was returned to the planters who had originally owned it - all of them confederate traitors.

originally sherman allocated land here for that, and it was over turned. but as an incentive to colonize central and south america lincoln was going to force all black people out and down there with the 40 acres and 2 mules. then johnson tried to sell it but more stayed.

Nothing, absolutely nothing in your post is a factual recounting of history.  Who told you that, and why do you believe it?

i have a book of letters lincoln wrote i read a while back. he was no abolitionist. while he himself did not care for the practice of slavery he saw the good it did and the evil at the same time. by today's standards lincoln was indeed a racist. he did not see the black man as an equal. the few educated black people he saw as a unique novelties and thought most black people were not able to live as civilized men. not his fault. the science of his day claimed such things for men of 'colored races'. as this was also the prevailing thought for most natives as well. for lincoln he did not care if blacks were to be enslaved for a 1000 years or cared if he had to free them, he just wanted the war to end. he even made this deal to the leaders of the confederacy. It is lincoln's observation on how slaves were treated that i take a large part of and share with you. that and i know that in primary sourced material stuff of the period and not just the revisionist commentary you depend on IE I source period written articles period letters and books written in that time, rather than what some revisionist expert has to say about this man today. same with jefferson. if you read his own memoirs and personal letters that have been published you would know he was a man of great faith in God. and not the atheist revisionist make him out to be. in fact i have taken alot of my own personal belief about God religion and how it all works from a model of what jefferson laid out in his own hand. in 200 years if this website survives someone may look at what i had to say about God the church and jesus and like jefferson determine i am more atheist than any of you. but if you read my personal word and thoughts here for yourself you know this not to be true.

here is a link... i do not remember the name of the book it was something my grandfather/white one always talked about and read us passages out of. i got it after he died and read it once, and many thing stuck with me as it painted a very different picture of lincoln and the era than i ever heard told. this contrast between what i was sold/told in school verses the man's own words and thoughts was one of the reason i reexamined the bible. wanted to see how the church may have gotten things wrong. i still have that first bible and it is full of questions and notes that show contradictions between what i was learning in church at the time and what the bible said. (still hadn't decided to become full on christian yet/had to figure all of this out first)
https://www.loc.gov/collections/abraham-...ollection/ this link is something similar. i don't think there's any run up commentary.. like the book we had explain to whom lincoln was speaking and the circumstance of the letter to give it context.

---

...Who told you that, and why do you believe it?

Probably a message from gawd.

actually it was letters from lincoln