Whenever a genetic sorting event is sufficiently in the past among a homogeneous population group, its effects do not last long. Australia, for example, was colonized by the dregs of English society but now there is no measurable difference between it and other Anglo-European countries in terms of IQ or other measures. Regression to the mean and the relative reproductive difficulties of the truly slow (not to mention the positive effects of a frontier in rewarding the healthy and hardworking) seem to overcome a one-time sort pretty quickly.

The much bigger danger, of course, is multi-generational sorting, like for example when the government overtaxes the middle classes and allows their jobs to be outsourced. The poor are too dumb to limit their reproduction and the rich are usually too selfish to have many children, so the middle class is the fount of the quality population growth in a society. When the middle class lacks the take-home earning power to support large families, really nasty stuff can happen pretty quickly to a country’s genetic capital.

Side Note: “Okra” was a native African plant brought to America to insure that the slaves had a native dish that they were accustomed to eating.

Those ‘personality maps’ are interesting, but certainly the Northeast and the Southeast are, demographically, nothing much like what they were in Adams’ day. The 21,000 or so East Anglians who settled New England, the ancestors of John Adams, are probably not the progenitors of most people who inhabit the New England states now. That area was the first part of the country to receive much of the immigrants of the mid-19th century, who tended to be very much other than English. And most recently, the Northeast is being populated by Hispanic and Caribbean immigrants. I think some of the old Yankee stock migrated to the Midwest and elsewhere from the 19th century onward.

The Southeast, too, is now being swamped by immigration, despite having been untouched to a large extent by earlier waves of immigration.
-VA

You neglect to mention, of course, the “pre-emptive racism” employed by the GOP. “Republicans”(sic) tend to eat their own long before the professional blacks or professional hispanics can do unto them. (Case in point, Trent Lott)

Pop culture is what it is because sheep-like conservatives, convinced that the glass really is half full, have trusted that Uncle Sam really does care about them, and that their children could actually get a a quality education from a state that seeks only to promote its own “command economy” and necessarily caters to the lowest common denominator. The schools spend countless millions in order to turn out model citizens — eager for their bread and circuses and too intellectually lazy to seek their own betterment, intellectually, politically, or otherwise.

I didn’t mean to go on about this, but it’s become increasingly clear to me that all of the Founders — even uber-Federalist Alexander Hamilton — would roll over in their graves if they could see what their beloved republic has become.

African/Americans should get down on their knees at night and thank God that their ancesters were placed in a Christian/Slavery nation called America. Genecide produces very few offspring!

Oh man, I could not agree with you more. What a waste of treasure and lives! Sam Houston tried to warn his fellow Texans not to get involved and they would not listen. The war was a disaster for our family, on both sides.
I’m sensative to the race baiting and down right bigotry that the Democratic party (and their minions) regularly engage in. I’m also sensative to how the issue is treated in pop culture. I’m just judging from your initial critique and follow up that you are a little more sensative than I.

I was referring to Abigail Adams’ comments about the capital being built by slaves, but that was probably historically accurate. I know JQA was an abolitionist, so he probably was brought up that way.

Slavery was obviously evil in its effects on the country. I just object to its use as a political weapon currently (reparations, guilt, and the like), nor do I think it was worth 500,000 American lives when it would have ended on its own anyway. And we’ll never know what we really lost, as those were our 500,000 best men, many never fathering children.

An interesting historical factoid is that colonial Virginia initially tried to outlaw it, but the Crown and New England forced it upon the South because the New England slave traders were making too much money.

A southern history textbook I have from about 1880 (written by Lee’s niece) simultaneously celebrates the accomplishment of Wilberforce in ending the slave trade in England while offering a balanced view of its practice in the South.

The first necessary sin associated with slavery is the initial act of manstealing, and the people blamed for slavery had little to do with that. The guilty were largely African, English or New Englanders, particularly the colony of Rhode Island.

The Old Testament would seem to imply that absent manstealing, slavery is not morally objectionable. Slaves acquired for payment of debts, who volunteer to remain slaves (awl through the ear thing), and those gained from victory in war (presumably legitimate defensive wars) are fair game.

The theologian Dabney framed the debate this way: Men are stolen across the sea a thousand miles from your home in Virginia. You are a farmer in 1650 who could use some labor, and the Crown, who you are supposed to obey as a Christian, has commanded the institution of slavery in Virginia. Under such a situation, is the holding of slaves still a personal sin?

Dabney points out that the law has always placed statutes of limitations on things, such that stolen property cannot be recovered forever or torts not pursued forever lest people be too insecure in their property. Furthermore, the law itself, the king of England, has explicitly declared any such statute of limitations or tort to be void.

The same question, reposed: is it morally unacceptable to accept money stolen by the government with un-Biblical taxes? Is everyone receiving a Social Security check, money that is literally stolen by forced slavery from others, guilty of sin?

I do not believe so, but the ridiculousness of the question illustrates the long chain of blame necessary to place slavery at the feet of the South.

The initial act of evil in both cases was the government-sponsored theft, not those who receive the stolen goods. I would argue that this was a situation God turned to good in His Providence, as the most successful Christian mission work ever done among Africans was done among our own African-Americans. A situation that the Unitarian Pharisaical descendants of New England manstealers found intolerable.

What did you think about the Ben Franklin portrayal? Seems like he “got freaky” in France while everyone else was suffering the Revolution. Actually the movie did a good job portraying the ambassadorial efforts of Adams, Jefferson and Franklin. While Abigail and John Adams suffered mightily Jefferson and Franklin seemed to enjoy their exile. (Somebody had to do it).

I didn’t pick up on slavery “sophistry” but I’m not hypersensitive about the issue and I don’t think there is any justification for the institution ever existing in this country. (I wouldn’t want to seem completely agreeable since I consider myself, first and foremost, a Texan.)