Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...



Recommended Posts

Before the EBS, there was Conelrad.  The idea was to have a  radio station on 24/7, if it went off the air - got nuked.  Guess no one thought about power  or electronic transmitter failure.  :wacko:

I have a mint (virtually new) Heathkit CA-1, originally used to turn off transmitter (so the Russians won't use it as a homing beacon :lol:). Can be repurposed for station on/off the air operation. Use a special tube call a thyratron.






Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Forgotten History of Britain's White Slaves in America
By Janet Levy
American Thinker

June 13, 2020

The Forgotten History of Britain's White Slaves in America
By Janet Levy

Slavery in America, typically associated with blacks from Africa, was an enterprise that began with the shipping of more than 300,000 white Britons to the colonies.  This little known history is fascinatingly recounted in White Cargo (New York University Press, 2007).  Drawing on letters, diaries, ship manifests, court documents, and government archives, authors Don Jordan and Michael Walsh detail how thousands of whites endured the hardships of tobacco farming and lived and died in bondage in the New World. 

Following the cultivation in 1613 of an acceptable tobacco crop in Virginia, the need for labor accelerated.  Slavery was viewed as the cheapest and most expedient way of providing the necessary work force.  Due to harsh working conditions, beatings, starvation, and disease, survival rates for slaves rarely exceeded two years.  Thus, the high level of demand was sustained by a continuous flow of white slaves from England, Ireland, and Scotland from 1618 to 1775, who were imported to serve America's colonial masters. 

These white slaves in the New World consisted of street children plucked from London's back alleys, prostitutes, and impoverished migrants searching for a brighter future and willing to sign up for indentured servitude.  Convicts were also persuaded to avoid lengthy sentences and executions on their home soil by enslavement in the British colonies.  The much maligned Irish, viewed as savages worthy of ethnic cleansing and despised for their rejection of Protestantism, also made up a portion of America's first slave population, as did Quakers, Cavaliers, Puritans, Jesuits, and others.

Around 1618 at the start of their colonial slave trade, the English began by seizing and shipping to Virginia impoverished children, even toddlers, from London slums.  Some impoverished parents sought a better life for their offspring and agreed to send them, but most often, the children were sent despite their own protests and those of their families.  At the time, the London authorities represented their actions as an act of charity, a chance for a poor youth to apprentice in America, learn a trade, and avoid starvation at home.  Tragically, once these unfortunate youngsters arrived, 50% of them were dead within a year after being sold to farmers to work the fields.

A few months after the first shipment of children, the first African slaves were shipped to Virginia.  Interestingly, no American market existed for African slaves until late in the 17th century.  Until then, black slave traders typically took their cargo to Bermuda.  England's poor were the colonies' preferred source of slave labor, even though Europeans were more likely than Africans to die an early death in the fields.  Slave owners had a greater interest in keeping African slaves alive because they represented a more significant investment.  Black slaves received better treatment than Europeans on plantations, as they were viewed as valuable, lifelong property rather than indentured servants with a specific term of service.

These indentured servants represented the next wave of laborers.  They were promised land after a period of servitude, but most worked unpaid for up to15 years with few ever owning any land.  Mortality rates were high.  Of the 1,200 who arrived in 1619, more than two thirds perished in the first year from disease, working to death, or Indian raid killings.  In Maryland, out of 5,000 indentured servants who entered the colony between 1670 and 1680, 1,250 died in bondage, 1,300 gained their right to freedom, and only 241 ever became landowners. 

Early in the 17th century, the headright system, a land allocation program to attract new colonists, began in Jamestown, Virginia as an attempt to solve labor shortages.  The program provided acreage to heads of households that funded travel to the colony for destitute individuals to work the land.  It led to the sharp growth of indentured servitude and slavery because the more slaves imported by a colonist, the larger the tracts of land received.  Promises of prosperity and land were used to lure the poor, who were typically enslaved for three to 15 years.  All the while, agents profited handsomely by augmenting their land holdings.  Corruption was rampant in the headright system and included double-counting of individual slaves, land allocations for servants who were dead upon arrival, and per head fees given for those kidnapped off English streets.

Purveyors of slaves often worked in teams of spirits, captains, and office-keepers to kidnap people from English ports for sale in the American labor market.  Spirits lured or kidnapped potential servants and arranged for their transport with ship captains.  Office-keepers maintained a base to run the operation.  They would entertain their prey and get them to sign papers until an awaiting ship became available.  Spirits and their accomplices were occasionally put on trial, but court records show that they got off easily and that the practice was tolerated because it was so profitable.

The indentured servant system of people who voluntarily mortgaged their freedom evolved into slavery.  England essentially dumped its unwanted in the American colonies, where they were treated no better than livestock.  Servants were regularly battered, whipped, and humiliated.  Disease was rampant, food was in short supply, and working and living conditions were grim.  War with local native Indian tribes was common.  Severe punishment made escape unrealistic.  Initially, running away was considered a capital crime, with clemency granted in exchange for an agreement to increase the period of servitude.

In the 1640s, the transportation of the Irish began.  Britain's goal was to obliterate Ireland's Catholics to make room for English planters.  Catholics who refused to attend a Protestant church could be fined.  If they were unable to pay, they could be sold as slaves.  Following the end of the English Civil Wars in 1651, English military and political leader Oliver Cromwell focused his attention on Ireland, where the people had allied with the defeated royalists during the conflict.  Famine was created by the intentional destruction of food stocks.  Those implicated in the rebellion had their land confiscated and were sold into slavery.  Anyone refusing to relocate was threatened with death, including children.

Scots were also subjected to transportation to the British colonies for religious differences, as England imposed Anglican disciplines on the Church of Scotland as well.  The English army was deployed to break up illegal church assemblies and imprison or deport religious protesters. 

Cruelty to servants was rampant.  Beatings were common, and the perpetrators, buttressed by juries made up of fellow landowners, were rarely punished for abuse or even murder.  In time, efforts were made to improve the lot of servants.  Legislation in 1662 provided for a "competent diet, clothing and lodging" and disciplinary measures not to "exceed the bounds of moderation."  Servants were granted the right to complain, but the cruelty continued. 

Infanticide by unmarried women was common, as they could be severely punished for "****."  The mother faced a whipping, fines, and extra years added to her servitude.  Her offspring faced time in bondage as well.  If the mother was the victim of a rape by the master, he faced a fine and the loss of a servant but wasn't subjected to whipping.

Several uprisings in the American colonies awakened slave owners to problems, exposing their vulnerability within the caste-like master-servant social system they had created.  In 1676, Nathaniel Bacon, an aristocrat from England who became a Virginia colonist, instigated an insurrection, referred to as Bacon's Rebellion, that changed the course of white slavery. 

Prior to Bacon's Rebellion, much discontentment existed among servants over seemingly empty promises of land following their periods of indenture.  When they were finally freed of their obligations, many found that they couldn't afford the required land surveying fees and the exorbitant poll taxes. 

In 1675, when war broke out with some of the native tribes, Bacon joined the side of the warring settlers and offered freedom to every slave and servant who deserted his master and joined Bacon in battle.  Hundreds enthusiastically joined him in the insurgency.  When Bacon died suddenly, his supporters fled or surrendered; some were recaptured, put in chains, and beaten or hanged.  However, because of the revolt, whites gained rights.  Whippings were forbidden without a formal judicial order. 

By the early 1770s, the convict trade was big business, more profitable than the black slave trade because criminals were cheap.  They could be sold for one third the price of indentured servants.  England's jails were being emptied into America on a significant scale.  Additionally, merchants who traded in convicts from England and Ireland received a subsidy for every miscreant transported to America.  Up to a third of incoming convicts died from dysentery, smallpox, typhoid, and freezing temperatures.  Upon arrival, they were advertised for sale, inspected, and taken away in chains by new masters.

Following the Revolutionary War, the British continued to ship convict labor as "indentured servants" to America.  During that time, seven ships filled with prisoners made the journey, and two successfully landed.  In 1789, convict importation was legally banned across the U.S.  America would no longer be the dumping ground for British criminals.  It took another 30 years before the indentured servant trade ended completely.  

A well written and well researched historical narrative, White Cargo does an excellent job of elucidating a forgotten part of our colonial past by telling the story of thousands of Britons who lived and died in bondage before African slaves were transported to the New World.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/the_forgotten_history_of_britains_white_slaves_in_america.html#ixzz6PMFy37d2
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spectator logo

Disagreeing With Doug Bandow on Robert E. Lee

He is right about what Lee would have wanted — but those removing the monuments and memorials are not acting in good faith.

Yesterday here at The American Spectator, the estimable Doug Bandow posted a very well-reasoned column containing possibly the best argument yet made for why the statue of Robert E. Lee that sits atop a pedestal in Richmond, Virginia, and all of the other remaining examples of public art depicting Lee throughout the South and elsewhere, perhaps ought to come down.

Before explaining why Bandow is wrong, let me first congratulate him on identifying that very strong argument: taking Lee’s statues down is what Lee would have wanted.

All of the evidence we have from the period following the Civil War until Lee’s death indicates that is likely true. Lee, as Bandow noted, foreswore any attempts to profit off his notoriety following the war, going so far as to refuse to attend war memorial events. He wrote no memoir of the war, which surely would have been a financial windfall to replace the fortune he lost when the Confederacy surrendered, and he devoted the remainder of his life to the cause of reconciliation. Lee assumed the presidency of struggling Washington College in Virginia, which is now known (at least for now) as Washington & Lee, using his position to mold young Southern men in the post-bellum era to be good Americans.

That man would very likely have been uncomfortable with the monuments erected in his name, and in all likelihood would have gladly suggested tearing them down in the name of national reconciliation.

That is an excellent argument in favor of Bandow’s position. But it doesn’t win the day.

It doesn’t win the day because that argument assumes those people attempting to tear down Lee’s statue are acting in good faith.

And they most certainly are not.

I can speak to this issue from having seen the monument controversy play out here in Louisiana. Four monuments of post-Reconstruction vintage were torn down in New Orleans during an excruciating public campaign from 2015 to 2017, courtesy of then-Mayor Mitch Landrieu’s quest for “woke” relevance and national celebrity. The most celebrated was the Lee monument in the circle that bore his name, but there was an equestrian statue of P. G. T. Beauregard, a Confederate general born and raised in the New Orleans area whose life story was considerably more interesting than the sum of his four years wearing the gray, a statue of Jefferson Davis, and a monument to the victory of racist Democrats over the then-reigning Republican power structure in New Orleans in what was essentially a street brawl.

The Beauregard statue was, it can be very convincingly argued, illegally taken down, as it rested in a state park. To date no one in a position of authority has had the stones to take up that cause or to reclaim the statue, which molders in a police impoundment yard in a part of town where bullets routinely whizz past. That Beauregard fought at Fort Sumter, Shiloh, Bull Run, and Petersburg might well have entitled him to such shoddy treatment, but following the war he put his military training to use in designing the streetcar system New Orleans has so long been known for, and in fact the local hero lost a mayoral campaign he otherwise might have won by running on a civil rights platform.

Those same protest mobsters who claimed Lee, Davis, and Beauregard in New Orleans celebrated their victories by defacing a statue of Joan of Arc and have since only increased their demands for defenestration of the city’s historical landmarks. Just last weekend two of these hoodlums, one black and one white, stole a granite bust of 19th-century philanthropist John McDonogh, the founder of the city’s public schools and an interesting figure who systematically freed his slaves after teaching them marketable skills, and dumped it into the Mississippi River.

That same mob has demanded that New Orleans’ iconic statue of Andrew Jackson come down, and two weekends ago it quite possibly would have had law enforcement not drawn a firm line in locking down Jackson Square to the mob of protesters threatening to bowdlerize the statue. Whatever else you might think of Jackson, the man literally saved the city of New Orleans in the battle against the British just east of the city at the close of the War of 1812; had it not been for his efforts the United States would have lost control of the mouth of the Mississippi and American history would have played out in much less grand fashion; if New Orleans cannot have a statue of Jackson then no statue could ever be warranted on public grounds anywhere in America.

We know that the people who are spearheading the efforts to take down these monuments in New Orleans are avowed communists. Malcolm Suber, the titular head of an organization named Take Em Down NOLA, which was the prime mover behind the Lee, Beauregard, and Davis defenestrations, is an alumnus of the Communist Party USA. The money behind his organization comes from a woman named Gavrielle Gemma, an avowed communist from New York.

Of course they’re communists. The bowdlerization of American history is thus for them a compulsion to which there is no satisfaction; that is clear from the current spate of rioting and lawlessness. Bandow notes there are attacks on Washington and Columbus and suggest those be taken on a case-by-case basis, but he’s wildly off the mark there — the wreckers don’t share his powers of discrimination. When statues of abolitionists are defaced in Philadelphia, the Lincoln Monument is vandalized in Washington, and the “protesters” attack churches and even mosques, they’re not reasonable people with whom an accord can be made. What they’re after is a revolution of the proletariat, and they see black people in the cities as that proletariat. To make accommodations with these people is to validate the words attributed to Lenin, that a capitalist will sell you the rope with which you hang him.

Back here in Louisiana, a current controversy has erupted over demands to rename LSU’s main campus library, which is in any event slated to be torn down as it is an architectural eyesore in poor physical condition. The library’s namesake is a famous World War II figure, Gen. Troy H. Middleton, who served as a professor and administrator at LSU between World War I and World War II and then was the school’s president from 1951 to 1962. In uniform, Middleton’s career marked him as one of America’s greatest military heroes. He fought Pancho Villa, he served at the Battle of the Marne and in the Argonne campaign in World War I, and in World War II he emerged as the flag officer most under fire — spending 480 days at the battlefront. He led the charge into Salerno and Sicily, he secured the French port city of Brest for the Allies, and he was a major figure in the drive not just across France but all the way into Czechoslovakia by the end of the war. Middleton was the commander who refused to surrender Bastogne, a decision Patton later called “a stroke of genius,” and he was therefore responsible for the victory in the Battle of the Bulge that broke the Nazi war effort and sealed the result of the war in Europe.

But Middleton must go, because of a 1961 letter he wrote in response to the then-president of the University of Texas offering advice on how to handle the early desegregation of their respective universities. The letter reads horribly in a current context, but it wasn’t written in that context; at the time it was a very real threat that black students on integrated college campuses might suffer the fate of an Emmett Till or Medgar Evers, and at stake wasn’t just the question of Troy Middleton’s Neanderthal racism but how to keep integration from boiling over into rioting and loss of life. Nobody who wasn’t alive to see conditions on the ground at the time can make a true judgment on Middleton’s character in 1961, and even were that possible the 1961 letter wasn’t the sum of the man’s performance on the race issue.

Following his retirement as LSU’s president the next year, Middleton served on a gubernatorial commission on race relations that was credited with a largely orderly desegregation of Louisiana’s public facilities, and he earned accolades for his efforts at racial reconciliation — specifically the National Conference of Christians and Jews’ annual brotherhood award for 1966, and that same year a bronze plaque awarded by the Louisiana Association of Broadcasters to Middleton for his accomplishments in racial peace-keeping.

There will be no end to these demands to remove statues, because they are not made in good faith. The people making them are not attempting to make a more just and harmonious world; they’re aiming to tear America down beyond its foundations.

But if Bandow insists on serving the communist revolutionaries at his rope store, may I suggest he at least charge full retail prices? Before we accede to demands that statues of Lee, or Washington, or Columbus, or Lincoln, or any of America’s other founding figures, be obliterated from public view, can we at least get something for them beyond empty promises of peace in our time? Can we at least force the bowdlerizers to offer up a consideration or two?

I suggested to a state representative here in Louisiana that the Black Lives Matter activists demanding Middleton’s name come off the library, something that will be decided at a Friday meeting of the LSU Board of Supervisors, be made to offer something in return. If they want to unperson Middleton, then how about they take responsibility to raise $50 million for a new library on campus? Surely all of these “woke” corporations posting homage to Black Lives Matter on their websites and in obsequious emails to their clientele would be willing to pony up for a new, socially just library at LSU, no? Or if not, then perhaps BLM doesn’t actually have any junk in its trunk.

Or perhaps what they really are is takers, and nothing else. Perhaps they aren’t capable of any real positive activity. Perhaps all they know is vitriol and victimology. And perhaps they’ll never mature beyond the destructive mentality into which they’ve been indoctrinated.

We’re unlikely to find out, because none of the cowards who run LSU, up to and including Louisiana’s Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards, who certainly didn’t win reelection on a promise to trash the state’s historical personages (and certainly wouldn’t have won had the issue come up last year), are willing to resist demands from BLM. Everyone in that negotiation is on the same side of the table.

Lee might have gladly offered his likeness up to the altar of reconciliation. But Lee also was willing to engage in horrors current Americans can barely contemplate in defense of his home and heritage. The guess here is he would be quite skeptical of today’s mob gunning for him and everyone else whose visage is displayed in bronze from Fairbanks to Key West.

Scott McKay is publisher of the Hayride, which offers news and commentary on Louisiana and national politics. He’s also a novelist — check out his first book “Animus: A Tale of Ardenia,” available in Kindle and paperback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, hamradio said:

The Aunt Jemima brand, acknowledging its racist past, will be retired





So what about the Quaker logo?



Do they still dress like that today? ;)




I wasn't aware that Quakers were slaves in America, or that Quakers were lynched in the Jim Crow era or that Quakers have been a target of institutionalized racism which resulted in systemic racism in American police departments.

I also was not aware of Quakers being discriminated against in employment, housing, Health Care or banking.

If you were really interested in this issue, you would have looked for a box of Uncle Ben's converted rice, hello? LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hamradio said:

The Aunt Jemima brand, acknowledging its racist past, will be retired





So what about the Quaker logo?



Do they still dress like that today? ;)





1 hour ago, jakeem said:


Uncle Ben’s announces plan to change branding of the rice, a move that follows a similar announcement from the company that owns Aunt Jemima’s syrup.
3:13 PM · Jun 17, 2020·SocialFlow


1 hour ago, jakeem said:




Brands like Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben’s are finally confronting the racist tropes behind their names and images.
2:01 PM · Jun 17, 2020·Vox Media

FYI-- Also, I don't think Quakers need the Voting Rights Act or Affirmative Action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...