Sierra Leone
As Stephen Drescher observes in The Mighty Experiment, the total failure of free society in Sierra Leone, a free labor colony in West Africa chartered by abolitionists to take on slave labor in the British West Indies was an early warning of the economic collapse that would later be unleashed in the Caribbean:
“The Sierra Leone Company envisioned its own venture as part of a head-to-head competition between cultivation by free labor in Africa and slavery in the West Indies. Although the directors did not look forward to spectacular profits, their employers were instructed that their main and immediate priority was commercial viability. Sugar was selling at prices they had not been offered for almost a century. The Sierra Leone venture was soon so heavily subscribed that abolitionists boasted of having to take precautions to see that West Indians did not attempt to obtain a substantial share of the capital. Company directors and the governor felt that an ideal, perhaps divinely ordained, opportunity had been offered to them. The English press was also filled with high hopes for more cotton and sugar from West Africa. The optimism was echoed in York, Manchester, Northampton, Norwich, Chester, Derby, Shrewsbury, Reading, and Leeds. By the end of March, 1792 £200,000 had already been subscribed and the company announced the termination of subscriptions. Expectations for Sierra Leone, as for other tropical ventures, rested on the environmental premise of “tropical exuberance.” The directors reasoned that Africa’s natural fertility would enable the colony to compete with West Indian planters, who had to beat the costs of purchasing and transporting an abused, debilitated, and demoralized labor force from the very area in which the colony was establishing its colony.”
Free labor was going to prove its superiority to slave labor with positive incentives in the very area where the slaves were captured and transported to the Caribbean at great expense and subjected to negative inducements to labor like the whip on West Indian sugar plantations!
“The Sierra Leone experiment managed to endure through enormous initial difficulties, including internal strife, heavy mortality, and a devastating French raid in 1794. The list of plants designated for culture at Sierra Leone during the first two decades of its existence included sugar, cotton, coffee, pepper, rice, tobacco, cinnamon, guinea-grass, and mangoes. Aside from the difficulties of drought and pests, however, the chief complaint of the governors and directors turned out to be the difficulty of obtaining steady farm labor, either from white or black settlers or from native Africans. Successive waves of (HW: free black) migrants from England, Nova Scotia, and Jamaica all failed to meet the directors’ expectations and hopes. As early as the late 1790s, the company was no longer thinking in terms of profits, either from local agriculture or more distant trade. A decade after its launching, the company’s entire capital had fallen by over 90 percent from its early subscription days of 1791-1792.”
This answers John Bonaccorsi.
“When, on the verge of bankruptcy, the Sierra Leone Company petitioned for the colony’s transfer to the crown in 1807, it acknowledged its inability to compete with the slave traders. In the reasons for retention of the colony, its economic value and potential were not mentioned. The only hope was that the closing of the slave trade might remove “the want of a regular supply of labourers,” at that point “far below the demand.” A year before the company’s petition, the government had already contemplated breaking up the colony to reinforce its black West India regiments. The abolitionists’ rational for the colony’s existence now veered sharply away from its initial status as a staple-producing rival to slave labor. The company’s violation of free labor principles had indeed become one of the many charges laid against Sierra Leone’s managers. Maintenance of the colony was now defended in strictly humanitarian terms, as a residence for the resettled black victims of the American Revolution and of slaves rescued by British warships from the African slave trade.”
The British abolitionists’ great experiment in free labor in the 1790s was a total failure and became a major talking point for the slave interest:
“The abolitionists’ strategy became permanently defensive. Responding to increasingly sarcastic attacks, they stated that the experiment has proven that the people of Africa were capable of free labor and self-sustaining cultivation. In the turmoil of the early 1790s, the colony could be defended as an incomplete and interrupted experiment, not yet put to a fair trial. Its defenders could promise that favorable data would soon be forthcoming. Antiabolitionists, on the other hand, were relentless in their close attention to evidence of the total commercial failure of the company. In Parliament they took meticulous notice of the precipitous slide in the annual par value of the company’s shares before 1807. Above all, they yearned to close the books on the project and so designate it as a fully failed experiment. Whatever the lines of reasoning on either side, after 1807 it was clear that the abolitionists silently distanced themselves from the idea of Sierra Leone as a labor experiment in direct competition with West Indian slavery.”
Freedom failed.
As part of OD’s celebration of Black History Month 2012, we went to Sierra Leone to explore the dystopian result of 220 years of free society in Review: Blood Diamond and Review: Cry Freetown.
Note: The British abolitionist experiment in free society in Sierra Leone depicted in the movie Blood Diamond below was complemented by its American abolitionist wingman next door in Liberia. For more details on how that experiment worked out see The (Black) “Land of the Free” and “Greater Liberia” Goes Full Gangsta.
I appreciate your addressing my point, Mr. Wallace; but the failure of an enterprise that seems to have been undertaken with idealistic, abolitionist purpose–not an undertaking inspired by true business drive–and whose very incorporation seems to have been opposed from the beginning, or near-beginning, by the entire force of the government-chartered slave traders and God-knows-what-else of the then-existing economic arrangements doesn’t tell us anything.
But again: I don’t see the importance of the subject. Was Liberia a failure? By your definition and mine, it probably was. If the abolitionists of the period of its creation had asked me to predict how it would fare, I probably would have said, “Feebly, at best. I happen to think whites and blacks are beings of completely-different ways and that blacks are, as a mass, probably well-suited only to the kind of life they were living before they were taken out of Africa in slavery. For whites’ sake, they (the blacks) should be removed from the United States; for their own sake, they should probably be eased into some kind of simple life, as I say, to which they’re suited. If you insist on more than that, you’ll cause only misery.”
PS A bit more about the Sierra Leone Company here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_Leone_Company
This is sort of like saying that the electronic puppy-murdering machine is demonstrably more efficient than the old-fashioned hand-cranked puppy-murderer.
The question remains, however: why are you so obsessed with murdering puppies?
Wow, the evidence indicates conclusively that stealing sugar and cotton is far more profitable than paying for it.
“Freedom failed”?
Sounds like your slogan should be “Pirates unite”!
Better read “White Lotus”, pal. I can’t wait to hear your rousing defense of slavery when it’s your own grand-daughter wearing the Chinaman’s chains.
Re: John Bona
(1) Not true.
In the 1790s, the price of sugar in Europe had surged to a century high due to the disruptions in the French Caribbean caused by the abolition of slavery by the Jacobins in 1794.
There were sugar riots in France during this period. Previously, the French Caribbean had produced so much sugar that it dominated the world market. The free labor colony in Sierra Leone couldn’t have been founded in more ideal economic conditions.
(2) As Drescher notes in the book, the Sierra Leone colony was heavily capitalized by British entrepreneurs eager to capitalize on France’s folly and it also had the support of philanthropists. Wilberforce himself was invested in the colony.
(3) Sierra Leone was an economic disaster. It failed because the blacks wouldn’t work on the plantations as free laborers. The slave interest couldn’t stop the founding of Sierra Leone which was a sop to the abolitionists who had at the time just been defeated in their attempt to abolish the slave trade.
(4) Liberia was also an economic failure. Sierra Leone was an economic failure and a demographic failure. The death rate in “free labor” Sierra Leone was worse than any “slave labor” colony in the Caribbean.
Over a period of forty years, the British government spent millions of pounds subsidizing the failed abolitionist free labor experiment in Sierra Leone, and the abolitionists themselves quickly gave up trying to justify the expenditure on economic grounds.
oscar,
If slavery was a vast murdering machine, then why did Southern slaves have a higher life expectancy than the free labor Black Undertow in the Northern states? Why were Southern slaves more prolific in increasing their numbers than the British working class in their free labor textile mills? Why did Southern slaves in Dixie, unlike the White working class in London, have a positive birthrate?
oscar,
The Bible establishes a double standard:
http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm
“However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.” (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
“If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.”(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
“When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. ” (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
“Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them.” (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
“The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
Grinch: on what are you basing this concept of right and wrong on? Any religion? The Founding Fathers? Aristotle? Your moral play book is from the modern liberal left, the same “religion” that has forced miscegenation as a right and will soon force sodomy on our society. Slavery is like hate, it’s a natural state of mankind. Look the the left to wage a mindwar on “hate” in the near future too. Don’t you see how the left works? Cede the moral high ground in one area and they take it to extremes of profanity and sickness.
Django belongs in chains.
Hunter: great work. I see your writings as beneficial in breaking down the left’s narrative that 1 Our Southern ancestors were evil, 2 that slavery in the South was some freakish fetish to punish blacks. Slaveryis the old hammer used to beat Southerners into submission on everything, from feminism to gay rights and God knows what next. Slavery is ignored everywhere else, only Anglos are to be silenced. It really quiet apparent to anyone paying attention.
OTG: I spent. Lose to a month in Haiti and seriously doubt they would not welcome colonialasm returning to house, medicate, feed and supply them with jobs. The forlorn looks I saw that bear witness for me. Tell me, Mr. Morality, is it better that Africans starve and slaughter each other, or they be cared for and worked? In the US it appears the caring for is done to significant degree by the taxpayer, we only miss the work part.
And I’m not defending slavery so much as I am defending the reputation of mr forefathers.
“Is it better that Africans starve and slaughter each other…?”
I don’t really care what they do, for better or worse, starve, prosper, slaughter, praise Allah, whatever — so long as it’s outside a white man’s country and therefore out of my sight. Best would be to let the Africans go their own way, get them out of our country, or give them quarantined turf of their own (same thing, really, though I much prefer expelling them from this hemisphere permanently), see to it that no more of them arrive here, and stop caring about what they do once they’re out of our sight. Africans are of no concern to me, never were, never will be, and I’d prefer to live in a society that kept it that way. But you can’t do dreadful things to them for your own personal profit and expect no karmic payback. The cosmos doesn’t operate that way.
HW: Charming Bible quotes. Be sure to provide them to your own white grand-daughter, when she’s sweating under the Chinese whip. I’m sure she’ll derive great comfort from your biblical belief in the justness of de slabery.
OTG: now u are making no sense. We Southerners get “karma” from slavery (exactly what the left uses against us) but watching a people starve does not garner karma payback? You go along with the left, OTG, and you will find whites blamed for every black civilization, if not directly then for “not doing enough”.
African slaves in the US and colonies thrived. They were fed and shod. They multiplied like rabbits. Nigs should quit complaining.
Wayne — well I guess it’s fair for you to detect a species of contradiction w/in my “karma” remark, but the truth is, it was just a kind of short-hand for a more complex view. But I don’t think it’s worth the trouble to take a lot of time to explain. Cheerio!
Hunter, with all due respect, I really don’t understand why you keep blogging these slavery v free labor kind of articles. You may be forgetting something.
What’s the big argument “free trade” advocates make? Is it not that out sourcing is more efficient and profitable than protecting home industries and home jobs? Why so? Is it not all that cheap, virtual slave Chinese, Indian, Mexican, et al labor? If they don’t out source there’s always the H1B visa and non White immigration. The non White foreigners drive down wages and put White Americans out of work (among other things).
Oh sure, it’s efficient and profitable for the fortune 500 corporations but what about the rest of us?
Couldn’t the “free trade” crowd make the same kind of argument for “cheap”, vitual slave labor today that you are making for slave labor 200 years ago? I am not trying to champion the Negro here. IMO it would have been better for everyone if he had been left in Africa.
More of the Same: the difference was that slaveowners bore the cost of their property and the slaves were not citizens, and therefore did not vote to change the dominant culture. For immigrants, the taxpayer bears the cost, effectively subsidizing the employers meager wage payments. All the while the society at large bears the cost of these new “citizens aka democrats”.
Hunter: tip of the hat to you, Sir, for your moral courage and intellectual honesty. You have examined the issues, formed your opinion, and have the conviction to back it up. Your detractors here have either not thought out the issue or don’t have the courage of their cove toons.
Moral courage is what is most lacking in today’s “conservatives”.
Okay, it’s clear Africans are more productive and beneficial to a society under the condition of slavery, and that the deconstruction of that institution has been catastrophic for Whites.
I get it. I agree with it. But so what.
If I had a choice to enslave modern Africans living in America, or, put their black asses on the first steamship back to Africa, you can bet your White skins they’d be sailing in less than a hair’s breadth.
Oscar,
I’m probing the issue because I am writing a book about the economic collapse and the rise of the Black Undertow that followed the triumph of freedom and equality in the post-emancipation South and Caribbean.
There has already been a lot of scholarship done on the issue, which I am progressively reading through (8 books reviewed so far, 6 coming up, more on the way), which just so happens to provide fodder for the blog.
Mighty,
Most of the slaves in the South worked on cotton plantations. In the Caribbean, they worked on sugar plantations. In the 21st century, the blacks are no longer necessary to pick cotton or harvest/refine sugarcane in either area, so the issue of their reenslavement is a moot question.
Abolitionism was a fanatic movement that destroyed the prosperity of the South and the Caribbean – it unleashed the Black Undertow on society, whose devastating consequences endure to the present day.
Emancipation would have happened without abolition. The mechanization of agriculture would have ended slavery in the South and the Caribbean. The blacks could have been humanely sent back to Africa in the twentieth century. The problem could have been easily solved.
It is not too late for that solution.
But that requires getting rid of the bad ideas and narratives which have legitimized the status quo.
Mr. W —
I don’t think you saw my point. I’m not going to get into the discussion whether the economic conditions were great for the Sierra Leone project. It wasn’t a business project; it was an abolitionist project. You yourself point out that Wilberforce was involved; that was my very point. The undertaking was out to prove something; in the manner of every liberal effort to prove something, it proved the opposite.
My main point, as I’ve said, is that I think this whole subject is unimportant. That is to say, I don’t think you’ve demonstrated that slave labor has ever been more efficient than free labor, but it wouldn’t matter to me if you had. Unless I’m mistaken, South Africa had no slave labor during the twentieth century, but its economy and its population of free black laborers exploded in that period. In fact, if I’m not mistaken, blacks entered South Africa to labor there; they didn’t have to be brought there in slave galleys.
Your response to that statement is predictable. As I remarked in another post here, you’ll say something like “X wouldn’t have happened because of Y”–e.g., “Free black labor grew in South Africa because of [mechanization, the climate, fill-in-the-blank]. Things were different in the Caribbean.” It’s all nonsense. If the European monarchies had forbidden their subjects, right from the beginning, to take or hold slaves, the Caribbean might still have exploded with sugar plantations, with free black labor, imported from Africa.
What would have been the condition of those black laborers? Pretty miserable. The conditions of blacks alongside whites are just about invariably miserable, because the races are different. That misery can be arranged in different ways: slave shacks in Dixie, ghettos in the U.S., shantytowns in South Africa. At bottom, it’s one phenomenon. None of it is good for blacks or whites.
In one of your other posts, I see, as you respond to Silver, you make this remarkable statement:
“As we have already seen, the average single black woman in the United States has a net worth of $5 and the average negro household under free society has an average net worth of about $6,000, whereas the average slave in 1860 was worth around $135,000.”
You’re just throwing around numbers. You’re making a bizarre comparison between the holdings of a ghetto black and some supposed evaluation of a slave–as capital–in a shack on a plantation. Are we to understand that the enslaved blacks on the plantations were living middle-class lives?
Nothing you’re saying means anything. The only reason you’re saying it is that you’re intent on proving that Dixie was right all along. That’s the same reason you refuse to allow separation of the questions of slavery and of segregation. Because you have no answer to the moral objection to slavery, you have to argue that opposition to slavery entailed advocacy of integration. It didn’t–and it doesn’t.
For all your Southron talk of honor, you exhibit none. Nothing you say is honest.
I’ll ask you to forgive the disjointedness of the preceding. I don’t have time to rework it.
John Bonaccorsi: connect the dots, sir. Sodomy is being pushed on us today by the very same spirit of moral superiority that saw the need to sacrifice 600,000 whites to free the slaves.
“John Bonaccorsi: connect the dots, sir. Sodomy is being pushed on us today by the very same spirit of moral superiority that saw the need to sacrifice 600,000 whites to free the slaves.”
That’s probably true, Wayne. My point is that opposition to that spirit doesn’t entail support of slavery.
Segregation would be a compromise. Of course that might be the point.
“Segregation would be a compromise. Of course that might be the point.”
I personally advocate segregation, John, but not as a compromise–as a duty. If, for example, the sugar plantations of the Caribbean had been based on free black labor, I would still have found them objectionable, not only because they would have resulted in black wretchedness, however freely chosen, but because they would have involved the bringing of blacks to live among whites. Apart from the misery that that produces for blacks, it harms whites.
Let’s put it another way: Suppose the slaves of the Caribbean plantations had been white. I personally would have found the enslavement of them morally objectionable, but it wouldn’t have involved the further wrong of the bringing of blacks to live among whites. That in itself is objectionable, whether the blacks are enslaved or free.
For all your Southron talk of honor, you exhibit none. Nothing you say is honest.
That’s it right there, John B. He cannot possibly be so stupid as to be unable to differentiate between such basic economic concepts as net worth and market value yet he continually conflates them in an effort to…I’m not even sure what…disparage blacks, exonerate his forbears? It’s as though he thinks he has no right to racial life unless he can demonstrate that blacks are not only inferior, but infinitely more inferior than anyone previously believe and that his ancestors were moral paragons to an extent never before or since witnessed on this earth. When you get down to it it’s just another variation on the age old WN hardnut theme that seeks to tie positive white identity to supremacy on the one hand and racial loathing on the other, nothing less being satisfactory.
“As we have already seen, the average single black woman in the United States has a net worth of $5 and the average negro household under free society has an average net worth of about $6,000, whereas the average slave in 1860 was worth around $135,000.”
SO THE FUCK WHAT if black women have an average net worth of $5!! Net worth is a result of personal decisions on what to do with one’s income (namely, spending vs saving) and has little bearing on an individual’s value to society. If Bill Gates decided to splurge so wildly that he ran through his entire savings and borrowed more to finance such a profligate lifestyle he’d have a negative net worth. Would we be right to then conclude that such an individual is of next to no value to society? Of course not. God, it’s elementary. (I should add: it’s certainly superior from an individual’s point of view to have a higher net worth than a lower net worth, all things considered, but the freedom to lead a life so profligate that one’s net worth is near zero is a freedom worth defending in its own right.)
Same with the value, Hunter, the value of slave being ~$20,000 in 2010 dollars (not $135,000, for which the case has most certainly not been made, yet you settle on that figure solely for dramatic effect): who cares what the value of slave today would be. In today’s world slavery is immoral and that’s final, so any such figures produced can only be of academic interest — not something to tie the future of your race to.
I personally advocate segregation, John, but not as a compromise–as a duty.
I advocate it, too, and would be willing to fight to achieve it — and not necessarily because I personally am so interested in it but as a matter of principle. In addition, I believe that we’ve advanced far enough with respect to group relations that it should be possible to permit the existence of mixed societies for those who desire them without this requiring endless tension (to the point of bloodshed) between segregationists and mixers. More than that, I would argue that a country or a system or a social order which provided for both would be superior to one that insisted on solely segregation or mixedness. It cannot be stressed enough: THIS WORLD IS BIG ENOUGH FOR ALL OF US.
John Bonaccorsi: connect the dots, sir. Sodomy is being pushed on us today by the very same spirit of moral superiority that saw the need to sacrifice 600,000 whites to free the slaves.
Pick your fights carefully, Wayne. Faggotry is of trivial importance compared to race. Only the greatest of fools (and the mass of WNs surely qualify) would insist that racial survival and positive racial identity are inextricably linked to opposition to homosexuality.
And I’m not defending slavery so much as I am defending the reputation of mr forefathers.
I piss on the reputation of your forefathers. How do you like that? Nevertheless, I’m still willing to stand up for, speak up for, and, if it comes down to it, fight for your right to a racial existence. I’ve said this before but it bears repeating: I’m convinced white will be saved in spite of the best efforts of WNs, not beause of them. (An exaggeration sure, but it’s hard to deny it contains a kernel of uncomfortable truth.)
“In today’s world slavery is immoral and that’s final”
Apparently not since it is a view not shared by any number of people in many countries. Saudi Arabia or Somalia for example, or your average pimp of drug addicted street walkers in any number of “civilized” metropolises worldwide.
Apparently not since it is a view not shared by any number of people in many countries.
They are an inconsequential minority in the grand scheme of things.
“They are an inconsequential minority in the grand scheme of things.”
The millions upon millions of factory workers (especially young women) in China who work as slaves in all but name are not however.
“If slavery was a vast murdering machine, then why did Southern slaves have a higher life expectancy than the free labor Black Undertow in the Northern states? ” – Haiti, or post abolitionism british colonies are the better comparison here, blacks in the north suffered from a host of environmentally driven ills that made slavery ultimately unworkable in the north.
“Couldn’t the “free trade” crowd make the same kind of argument for “cheap”, vitual slave labor today that you are making for slave labor 200 years ago? I am not trying to champion the Negro here. IMO it would have been better for everyone if he had been left in Africa.” – On the contrary, the slave owners themselves banned the importation of additional slaves. they emphatically did not want cheap labor, they wanted to protect their monopoly on african labor scarcity. Every additional slave imported meant that their own wealth would fall.
The world isn’t big enough. Indeed now we’ve reached such a high population white people will fight or perish. There’s nowhere left to run or discover. We’ve banrupted our space programmes, so this is it.
Bankrupted…
Silver: Bullshit! Hunter and OD has the courage of his convictions and says what is on his mind, as do I. You, sir, have the herd mentality.
If it were up to Silverman sites like these would be banned. Silverman hates that we challenge the status quo, although his ilk challenged and overthrough ours decades ago. He pisses on my Southern ancestors, but his type have been doing that for 50 years now. If anyone on here is dishonest it is Silverman. He know well that controlling the past equals controlling the future. He also knows that destroying the pride of our children in their ancestors will cause them to roll over and surrender their inheritance. Silverman, a few of us know the score here, and we’re not going away peacefully.
“I’m convinced white will be saved in spite of the best efforts of WNs, not beause of them. (An exaggeration sure, but it’s hard to deny it contains a kernel of uncomfortable truth.)”
And just what particularly uncomfortable kernel is that exactly?
Notice how Silverman says we’ve progressed far enough to live together. He seems so happy with our progress, driven and steered by his Marxist elite.
Silverman, I think are battle on this site is wisely chosen–the root cause. I don’t care about sodomites really, I care about the effect of sanctioned sodomy on society. Sodomites may be 2 percent of the population, if that, but the MSM would have us believe it is 50 percent.
Good question, Rudel. I’m sure Silverman knows that if things don’t change and fast our descendants will be second class hated minorities in the very lands our fathers built for them.
Rodney King and Silber agree on one thing. Why can’t we all jes git along?
Well, do until we don’t.
@Wayne
First of all, OverTHREW, not “overthrough”.
And, OUR, not “are”.
“Silverman, a few of us know the score here, and we’re not going away peacefully.”
– But you indeed have gone away peacefully. You (I assume you were referring to Southern nationalists/secessionists/neo Confederates) are no more than a forgotten, unnoticed, sui generis culture that has been relegated to tiny circles on the internet.
Chris: I’m on an iPhone so cut me some slack.
As Southerners go, other whites will be next. Why, in this day of government sanctioned identity politics are you playing for the team?
Chris: It seems we’re not forgotten or unnoticed by you, though, are we?
iPhone’s play havoc on spelling. Mechanically and auto correct is a horror. This forum is not edited either. Don’t be pedantic.
@Wayne
I only happen to notice, when you guys make ridiculous suggestions such as that negro slavery was culturally positive and morally acceptable, or that European monarchy was superior to American democracy, or that “Dixie” will ever be anything more than a escapist-paradise, confined to the imaginations of present-day Southerners who refuse to accept reality.
No European electorate has to sate elected a nignog. No nignog heads of state. That’s reality, Chris. Deal with it.
Sure, Chris. My question is why it bothers you, since we are such a small and insignificant group, not a credible threat to anything.
Regarding Monarchy, the founders thought the British monarchy was the best system of government, and they hated democracy. That’s not me, that’s thei opinion.
Has to date…