Should Mt. Rushmore be Demolished or Altered because it is on Native American land? - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Should Mt. Rushmore be Demolished or Altered because it is on Native American land?

Yes
1
5%
No
16
84%
Alter it in some way (explain)
2
11%
#15105493
Image

Wealthy slave owners in the South belonged to the planter aristocracy (0.6%). The overall figure is 25%, including those who owned less than 10 slaves (18%). 75% of whites were mostly former indentured servants who were freed after serving their masters for around 5 years. One-half to two-thirds of the immigrants who came to the American colonies arrived as indentured servants, who typically worked four to seven years in exchange for passage, room, board, lodging and freedom dues.

The great planters, as families that owned more than 100 people were known, dominated southern society and politics, even though they were few in number.

Only about 2,000 families across the entire South belonged to that class. The vast majority of slaveholders owned fewer than five people. But slaveholding itself was far from the norm: 75 percent of southern whites owned no enslaved people at all. Yeoman farmers scraped by, working the land with their families, dreaming of entering the ranks of the planter aristocracy.

Wealthy slaveowners devoted their time to leisure and consumption. They attended balls, horse races, and election days. They built stately mansions and furnished them with manufactured goods imported from the North and Europe. Unlike in the urban North, where there were many community institutions and voluntary associations, plantations were isolated estates, separated from each other by miles of farm and forest. Frederick Douglass, who was enslaved as a child and young man, described the plantation as “a little nation by itself, having its own language, its own rules, regulations, and customs.”

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ ... y-republic
#15105505
Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).

Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).

Total number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population).

Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five. (A complete table on slave-owning percentages is given at the bottom of this page.)

For comparison's sake, let it be noted that in the 1950's, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950's America.

On a typical plantation (more than 20 slaves) the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital value of the land and implements.

Confederate enlistment data is incomplete because many records were lost when the South collapsed, but it is possible to estimate, very loosely, the number of men in the Confederate army who came from slave-holding families. For this discussion, click here.

https://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/selec ... very_i.htm
#15105521
    Bergen County developed as the largest slaveholding county in the state,[2] in part because many slaves were used as laborers in its ports and cities.[3] At its peak Bergen County had 3,000 slaves in 1800, constituting nearly 20% of its total population.[4] After the Revolutionary War, many northern states rapidly passed laws to abolish slavery, but New Jersey did not abolish it until 1804, and then in a process of gradual emancipation similar to that of New York. But, in New Jersey, some slaves were held as late as 1865. (In New York, they were all freed by 1827.) The law made African Americans free at birth, but it required children (born to slave mothers), to serve lengthy apprenticeships as a type of indentured servant until early adulthood for the masters of their slave mothers. New Jersey was the last of the Northern states to abolish slavery completely. The last 16 slaves in New Jersey were freed in 1865 by the Thirteenth Amendment.[5]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History ... New_Jersey
#15105607
Pants-of-dog wrote:
    Bergen County developed as the largest slaveholding county in the state,[2] in part because many slaves were used as laborers in its ports and cities.[3] At its peak Bergen County had 3,000 slaves in 1800, constituting nearly 20% of its total population.[4] After the Revolutionary War, many northern states rapidly passed laws to abolish slavery, but New Jersey did not abolish it until 1804, and then in a process of gradual emancipation similar to that of New York. But, in New Jersey, some slaves were held as late as 1865. (In New York, they were all freed by 1827.) The law made African Americans free at birth, but it required children (born to slave mothers), to serve lengthy apprenticeships as a type of indentured servant until early adulthood for the masters of their slave mothers. New Jersey was the last of the Northern states to abolish slavery completely. The last 16 slaves in New Jersey were freed in 1865 by the Thirteenth Amendment.[5]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History ... New_Jersey


OK, there were almost no slaves in the North by 1850. It doesn't quite change my argument: It doesn't make much sense to include the Northern population in that denominator, which if anything underestimates the extent of White slave ownership where it truly matters (the South).
#15105656
Pants-of-dog wrote:Provide evidence for this claim.


Why is it that I have to constantly educate you on matters you insert yourself into. Read a book or two, look it up, Is it really that hard for you to understand that the many different Indian tribes sometimes fought each other and or weren't even the original people to be on the land?
#15105670
@Finfinder

If you are not going to support your claims, there is no reason to think that you ever studied or did any research.

You have not shown that you know anything at all.

Edit: there is no historical record of the Black Hills being occupied when the Lakota settled there.
#15105728
I'm surprised PoFo is against doing things to Mt. Rushmore because the Democrats certainly seem to be open to the idea. That latest Democrat to weigh in on it is Senator Tammy Duckworth from Illinois. She said that Mt. Rushmore is on "native land" and that during his 4th of July speech, President Trump spent all of his time talking about "dead traitors." Trump gave a speech about George Washington, the Founding Fathers and other famous Americans like Martin Luther King Jr. and Elvis Presley. Duckworth does not appear to have elaborated on which of those people were traitors.
#15105820
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Finfinder

If you are not going to support your claims, there is no reason to think that you ever studied or did any research.

You have not shown that you know anything at all.

Edit: there is no historical record of the Black Hills being occupied when the Lakota settled there.


Its not "my" claim it's fact and history that many different Indian tribes occupied and fought over ownership of land and territory. You should know this as a "given" before you enter this debate.
#15105830
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Finfinder

Your lack of argument and any support is noted.

Unless you provide evidence that the Lakota took the land from someone else, you will be ignored from now on.


Typical moving the goal posts and then fabricating what I posted to fit your unsubstantiated arguments. Please post where I even mentioned "Lakota"

Lets remind everyone the "generality"you started this argument with.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, we should dismantle the USA and give the land back to the indigenous people. Those who wish to live by the laws of the people whose land this is can apply for immigration.


Please provide proof which Indian tribes first occupied and rightfully owns specific territories. Your lack of argument and projections are noted by all on this thread.
#15105840
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Finfinder

Your lack of argument and any support is noted.

Unless you provide evidence that the Lakota took the land from someone else, you will be ignored from now on.


I responded out of consideration for historical truth;

http://www.americancowboychronicles.com ... ove%20West.

The Lakota were literally the last tribe to get the region in question, after being pushed out of Minnesota by other tribes themselves. Story of the world.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

@wat0n 1. I have no idea what you are asking o[…]

Election 2020

Regardless of whether or not other countries do it[…]

Maxwell Smart + 99 = Sig 139

https://i.imgur.com/KlfkjZK.jpg […]

You support China with all your heart and mind, as[…]