"Dennis Jaywood" <Super DJwood> wrote in message 
news:sulnd194s9vsrlqnvhc29pgp85788akuct@4ax.com...
> The plantation owners (my mother was the daughter of someone who
> managed to hang onto the family property until integration destroyed
> my Grandfather) were able to accomplish what they did because they
> were hard workers and smart.

No, they were lazy. They had others to do the work for them.

   They did not need any other Whites to
> keep them in their positions.  They were the natural leaders of the
> south because they were the more intelligent and hard working.

Bullshit. Planters for the most part lived a life of leisure,and saw menial 
labor as beneath them.

>
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:47:41 -0400, "Chris" <mountaininf@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Dennis Jaywood" <Super DJwood> wrote in message
>>news:dvcmd1d1mttkhgdpf688q9ijbckk0buj2b@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 14:08:39 -0400, "Chris" <mountaininf@cox.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is nonsense.  No Whites had to depend upon slavery for their ego.
>>
>>Wrong. 3/4 of the southern population didn't own slaves; they were still
>>stuck in the 18th century when the North was moving to a modern economy. 
>>To
>>avoid an uprising by poor white farmers, the large plantation owners used
>>race to keep them in line. "You may be poor, but at least you're not 
>>black."
>>It was the South that defined race as a
>>mental construct, not as just physical genetic characteristics. Because of
>>this, poor white farmers could feel better about themselves and keep
>>plantation owners in power.
>>
>>>
>>> France and England were bad nations.  In fact the English got rid of
>>> slavery at the turn of the century.  I think that that was when the
>>> decline of the British Empire started.   The British Empire use to be
>>> larger than ancient Rome was.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Wm James" <wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>
>