cults

DNC suspending Delegates in a pen for next segregation of open enrollment Fem led sufferager sons half kenyans buthering ea other into the moslem system of chit banking or enslavement merged now with Farrakhan sunni pvt bankers of France aka AXA Grp holding men in debt prisons and women and children hostage to social workers of the state WACO Eldorado Weaver Demands of Shoot baby shoot?

in 70s africans complained of being tazer gunned in police stations-- So tazers were outlawed. Today Locke Wright Caracker aka Typical Whites as Obama son says-slave DNC elites have respotred tazer to the PTSD hired cops who unload their pistols and hymens on any suspect blk or white!

any one know where cracker is rooted?

POOR WORKING CLASS WHITE FOLK FROM colony of GEORGIA who opposed slavery of its whites of the crown's penal colonies.

The Crown slave dealers with moslems of Arabbia then sent in Black to take out White endentured servants and penal colonists in prison for debt to the govt!

How much of the 7T in social programs since obama DNA kin LBJ's amended CRA for state owned women and children open enrollmented -- and sub prime housing in inner cities have black theologists Wright crackers returned to treasury and white folks!

spit on Helms grave and in Byrds face for knowing enough to stay away from CRA and NAFTA over a John Locke Slave master liberal!

Here, then, is the origin of Negro slavery. The reason was economic, not racial; it had to do not with the color of the laborer, but the cheapness of the labor. As compared with Indian and white labor, Negro slavery was eminently superior.

"In each case," writes Bassett, discussing North Carolina, "it was a survival of the fittest. Both Indian slavery and white servitude were to go down before the black man's superior endurance, docility, and labor capacity."

For the Caribbean colonies the solution [. . . ] was slavery. The lesson of the early history of Georgia is instructive.

Prohibited from employing slave labor by trustees who, in some instances, themselves owned slaves in other colonies, the Georgian planters found themselves in the position [. . . ] of people whose legs were tied and were told to walk.

So the Georgia magistrates drank toasts "to the one thing needful" - slavery - until the ban was lifted. "Odious resource" though it might be [ . . .] slavery was an economic institution of the first importance.

It had been the basis of Greek economy and had built up the Roman Empire. In modern times it provided the sugar for the tea and the coffee cups of the Western world.

It produced the cotton to serve as a base for modern capitalism. It made the American South and the Caribbean islands.

Seen in historical perspective, it forms a part of that general picture of the harsh treatment of the underprivileged classes, the unsympathetic poor laws and severe feudal laws, and the indifference with which the rising capitalist class was "beginning to reckon prosperity in terms of pounds sterling, and . . . becoming used to the idea of sacrificing human life to the deity of increased production."

· Adam Smith, the intellectual champion of the industrial middle class with its new-found doctrine of freedom, later propagated the argument that it was, in general, pride and love of power in the master that led to slavery and that, in those countries where slaves were employed, free labor would be more profitable.

Universal experience demonstrated conclusively that "the work done by slaves, though it appears to cost only their maintenance, is in the end the dearest of any.

A person who can acquire no property can have no other interest than to eat as much, and to labour as little as possible."

· Adam Smith thereby treated as an abstract proposition what is a specific question of time, place, labor and soil. The economic superiority of free hired labor over slave is obvious even to the slave owner.

Slave labor is given reluctantly, it is unskillful, it lacks versatility. Other things being equal, free men would be preferred.

But in the early stages of colonial development, other things are not equal. When slavery is adopted, it is not adopted as the choice over free labor; there is no choice at all. The reasons for slavery, wrote Gibbon Wakefield, "are not moral, but economical circumstances; they relate not to vice and virtue, but to production.

" With the limited population of Europe in the sixteenth century, the free laborers necessary to cultivate the staple crops of sugar, tobacco and cotton in the New World could not have been supplied in quantities adequate to permit large-scale production.

Slavery was necessary for this, and to get slaves the Europeans turned first to the [Caribindian] aborigines and then to Africa.

· But the experience with white servitude had been invaluable.

Kidnapping in Africa encountered no such difficulties as were encountered in England. Captains and ships had the experience of the one trade to guide them in the other. Bristol, the center of the servant trade, became one of the centers of the slave trade. Capital accumulated from the one financed the other.

White servitude was the historic base upon which Negro slavery was constructed. The felon-drivers in the plantations became without effort slave-drivers. "In significant numbers," writes Professor Phillips, "the Africans were latecomers fitted into a system already developed."

· Here, then, is the origin of Negro slavery. The reason was economic, not racial; it had to do not with the color of the laborer, but the cheapness of the labor. As compared with Indian and white labor, Negro slavery was eminently superior.

"In each case," writes Bassett, discussing North Carolina, "it was a survival of the fittest. Both Indian slavery and white servitude were to go down before the black man's superior endurance, docility, and labor capacity."

The features of the man, his hair, color and dentifrice, his "subhuman" characteristics so whitely pleaded, were only the later rationalizations to justify a simple economic fact: that the colonies needed labor and resorted to Negro labor because it was cheapest and best.

This was not a theory, it was a practical conclusion deduced from the personal experience of the planter. He would have gone to the moon, if necessary, for labor. Africa was nearer than the moon, nearer too than the more populous countries of India and China.

But their turn was to come.

· With free trade and the increasing demands of the sugar plantations, the volume of the British slave trade rose enormously.

The Royal African Company, between 1680 and 1686, transported an annual average of 5,000 slaves. In the first nine years of free trade Bristol alone shipped 160,950 Negroes to the sugar plantations.

In 1760, 146 ships sailed from British ports for Africa, with a capacity for 36,000 slaves; in 1771, the number of ships had increased to 190 and the number of slaves to 47,000. The importation into Jamaica from 1700 to 1786 was 610,000, and it has been estimated that the total import of slaves into all the British colonies between 1680 and 1786 was over two million [since this book was written, these numbers have been revised upward - significantly].

· But the slave trade was more than a means to an end, it was also an end in itself.

The British slave traders provided the necessary laborers not only for their own plantations but for those of their rivals.

The encouragement thereby given to foreigners was contrary not only to common sense but to strict mercantilism, but, in so far as this foreign slave trade meant the Spanish colonies, there was some defense for it.

Spain was always, up to the nineteenth century, dependent on foreigners for her slaves, either because she adhered to the papal arbitration which excluded her from Africa, or because of a lack of capital and the necessary goods for the slave trade.

The privilege of supplying these slaves to the Spanish colonies, called the Asiento, became one of the most highly coveted and bitterly contested plums of international diplomacy.

British mercantilists defended the trade, legal or illegal, with the Spanish colonies, in Negroes and manufactured goods, as of distinct value in that the Spaniards paid in coin, and thus the supply of bullion in England was increased.

The supply of slaves to the French colonies could plead no such justification. Here it was clearly a clash of interest between the British slave trader and the British sugar planter, as the trade in the export of British machinery after 1825 led to a clash of interests between British shippers and British producers.

The purchase of slaves called for a business sense and shrewd discrimination.

An Angolan Negro was a proverb for worthlessness; Coromantines (Ashantis) from the Gold Coast were good workers but too rebellious; Mandingoes (Senegal) were too prone to theft; the Eboes (Nigeria) were timid and despondent; the Pawpaws or Whydahs (Dahomey) were the most docile and best-disposed.

<link>

Rice was a popular crop along coast; further inland they grew wheat and other products whose hulls needed to be "cracked" before use, hence "Cracker," a derogatory name for poor upcountry farmers.

Colonial Georgia

Georgia History 101

by Col. Samuel Taylor U.S.M.C. (Ret.)
exclusively for Our Georgia History

The colony of Georgia was truly the vision of James Edward Oglethorpe. His plan to use the new colony as a haven for people in debtors prison grew out of his committee work while a member of Parliament.