By on February 5, 2012

One of the most famous cars in the world is one of the most despised cars on my very short list of despised cars.

Hell – who am I kidding? I love all old cars more than most people.

But I don’t love the General Lee.

I love 1969 Chargers- maybe not as much as ’68 Chargers – but I hate the General Lee. I have never even watched ten minutes of ‘The Dukes of Hazzard’, but I also hate this old TV show – probably more than the General Lee.

Sadly, I have seen the commercials and ‘highlights’ from ‘The Dukes of Hazzard’ and the horrible carnage of too many ’69 Chargers sailing through the air toward a very uncertain future. I am no expert on physics, but I do know that large cars will fold like a cheap suitcase every time they get launched into a low orbit and return to earth.

The TV show was a rip-off from the Burt ReynoldsBandit” movies that starred a Firebird Trans Am. The herd of ‘TA Birds were not thinned as drastically because movies are not filmed on a weekly basis, unlike ‘The Dukes of Hazzard’.

As a result, many 1969 Chargers were harmed during the filming of this highly forgettable TV show. This ridiculous excuse for a TV show wiped out a big chunk of 1969 Chargers and infringed on ’68 and ‘70 models during the process.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not a sophisticated comedy guy. In fact I love the Three Stooges almost as much as I love old vehicles, but Moe and the boys were smart enough to inflict most of their damage on themselves and other people in the successful pursuit of comedy. The idjits behind ‘The Dukes of Hazard’ simply wiped out vintage Chargers every episode, and that is a very serious eye-poke-worthy offense.

Excuse me if I feel nothing but contempt for the General Lee. It is the ugly bastard child of a brutally bad TV show that only serves as a sad reminder of the extermination of a fine car model from the Mopar boys.

In a perfect utopian world, the next General Lee that goes over a cliff would have every one of the bozos who created this TV monster strapped inside and screaming like girls.

For more of Jim Sutherland’s work go to mystarcollectorcar.com

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

68 Comments on “Why I Hate The General Lee ‘Dukes Of Hazzard’ TV Star Car...”


  • avatar
    GS650G

    There is no doubt this silly show contributed to the rarity of those cars.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dukes_of_Hazzard#Vehicles

  • avatar
    gotsmart

    Black is a much better colour for a Charger of that era, anyway.

    Bullitt.

  • avatar
    FromaBuick6

    The Dukes of Hazzard ran from ’79-’85, meaning the Chargers used were 10-16 years old at the time. They were just old cars – it’d be like blowing up an SN-95 Mustang ever week on a modern TV show.

    Something like 325 Chargers were trashed on the show. Given the popularity of the show and the General Lee, I’ll bet that it inspired people to save ten times as many cars.

    I do hate the General Lee, though, because I hate tribute cars as a rule. And I hate The Dukes of Hazzard, because it was a stupid, terrible show.

  • avatar
    seabrjim

    Agreed! Bullitt only used 2 68 charger R/T’s for the movie. I saw an episode of cajun pawn stars last week where a girl asked for $70,000 for a General Lee clone! Needless to say, they laughed her on her way.

  • avatar
    DougD

    Oops, I was expecting something informative or insightful here, my fault for not realizing this was just going to be a rant.

    Actually the Dukes of Hazzard was inspired by a film called Moonrunners, and I liked that show a lot but I was 10 years old, which was probably the targeted demographic.

    I would agree with Buick6 that the show caused people to save a large number of Chargers, so overall the show was a net benefit to Charger survival. Yes they trashed a few hundred, but they were good sellers and there must have been 10s of thousands made.

    I’m not fond of General replicas either, it’s a bit much “hey look at me” but mostly because I think Chargers don’t look their best in orange. Dark greens, blues and black look great on them, maybe we need more Bullit tribute cars with an endless supply of hubcaps.

    Next time let’s have some information or a coherent viewpoint or… something? Where’s Murilee when you need him?

  • avatar
    Jimal

    You guys take things way too seriously. I mean, how many cars of a similar vintage did they wipe out making years of “CHiPs” episodes? It was light entertainment; no better or worse than the crap on TV now. At least it was clearly fictional and not the “reality TV” we have today. And so what if a bunch of old Chargers got trashed. At the time they weren’t particularly coveted and Chrysler probably loved any publicity at the time.

    There was a story out there, I don’t know how true it is, that Chrysler was in such dire straits at the time that writing off all those Monacos and Furys they used as police cars in all those bang-bang shows in the late 70′s actually helped the company.

  • avatar
    TonyJZX

    chargers are ok… but challengers are better

    i mean classic challengers not the new new 4,400lb tanks

  • avatar
    "scarey"

    Love the show, the car, Waylon Jennings,and the actors, especially Catherine Bach. Also Boss Hogg’s Caddy. I also like the Andy Griffith Show.

  • avatar
    Cole Trickle

    Kinda a lot of, eh, italics, eh?

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    There is a guy around here who does the Puget Sound car show scene and he has a ’69 Charger that had been rescued from the set of the Dukes of Hazzard. He has a book with a ton of photos, including when the show was shooting. There were pictures of dozens upon dozens of General Lee’s that were used in the show – many just for one car destroying stunt.

    It was depressing to look at all of those Chargers in a row. These were not done up as nicely as the “General Lee” but certainly good enough to pass for the car in fuzzy made for SD TV resolution.

    His Charger is NOT done up like the General Lee.

  • avatar
    Dukeboy01

    FIGHTING WORDS! YOU HAVE, I SAY, YOU HAVE INSULTED THE SACRED HONOR OF MY INTERWEBS NOM DE PLUME AND I WILL HAVE SATISFACTION,SIR! I propose that we meet at dawn tomorrow at the middle school soccer fields behind my house with circular saws as our choice of weapon.

    All kidding aside, I agree that television tribute cars are lame.

  • avatar
    Zykotec

    As much as I agree, I actually liked the film with Johnny Knoxville (yes, I know, I’m the only one) , mostly because of some awesome driving, and some really serious jumps (that surely killed another 10-15 ’68-’70 Chargers , all done up to look like ’69′s, and none in a decent presentable condition) and because I find all Jay Chandrassekar (sp?) movies hilarious :)
    But as said above, the series added to the cars popularity, and a lot were probably saved (even if they are now orange tribute cars) Just as were the fact with 58 Plymouths after Christine.
    They actually made 69.000 Chargers in 69, and a lot of the cars that were smashed were also 68′s and 70′s (96k and 49k made)
    In a related side note, does the ’68-’70 Dodge Chargers ever appear in any movie without getting destroyed ?

    • 0 avatar
      DougD

      Now that would be something, a 58 Plymouth done up like the General Lee!
      And now that you mention it, the Arnie’s buddy in Christine drove a Charger and it didn’t get destroyed as I recall.

    • 0 avatar
      66riviera

      I concurr. just about every 68-70 charger I ever see in movies are left crumpled up, destroyed, and done well. I’m not even a mopar fan. but as far as the general lee goes, I have the first release 1:18 die cast charger with opening hood and trunk in great condition… and damn it. I love it. wouldn’t own a tribute car tho, it just screams white trash.

  • avatar
    debaser

    Imagine being the poor person who had to paint big dumb confederate flags on all those cars.

  • avatar
    Syke

    And what is dumb about the Confederate battle (not national) flag? There’s a hell of a lot of history behind that flag, and it doesn’t start in the mid-50′s in Selma, Alabama either. As to that Duke’s of Hazzard abortion, er, movie (no, I’m not a fan of the TV show), the real disgusting part was that wonderful PC moment when they felt they had to apologize for the flag being on the car.

    • 0 avatar
      Robert.Walter

      Lots of history yes, but unfortunately, for that cool-looking flag, like the nazi flag, all that history was bad.

      • 0 avatar
        geeber

        The Confederates weren’t remotely comparable to Nazis, and their history wasn’t remotely comparable, either.

        Clinging to an archaic institution that was practiced all over the world at one time (and was practiced in many areas of the world well into the 20th century, including Africa), is hardly the moral equivalent of systematically murdering entire groups of people, pased on their religion or racial background.

        Let’s compare apples to apples next time.

      • 0 avatar
        Robert.Walter

        Pls see below.

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      They were a failed rebellion based on a patriarchal society who wanted to continue to own other people to support their failing agrarian society. If you’re from the South with heritage going back that far there is truly NOTHING to be proud of, your ancestors were racist, slave-owning, spiteful people. The difference between Nazis and slave owners in the south was that Nazis didn’t see Jewish slave labor as an investment so keeping them alive wasn’t a big reason.

      For the record the US was also the last western society to end slavery and again our slavery system was based on race while most other slavery systems that existed after it were essentially POW systems that didn’t nearly as mistreat those they owned as the US did.

      Softening slavery = pointless. Accept your ancestors were heavily flawed people and stop trying to rewrite history to suit your goals. We all have skeletons in the closet and I don’t fault you for wanting yours exonerated but it just doesn’t work that way.

      • 0 avatar
        geeber

        A little education here – I was born and raised in Pennsylvania, and still live here. So instead of assuming things about people you obviously know nothing about, I’d suggest that you learn about history, as you don’t know much about that, either.

        A little more education here – both the North and the South were “patriarchal” societies in the 1860s, and so were Europe and the United States in the 1930s. (Women could not vote in the United States until 1920.)

        At least, they were if we use the definition that many feminists use. I don’t know what point you were trying to make by throwing out that ultimately meaningless buzzword.

        You don’t know any slaveholders, so I’d suggest that you skip the generalizations obviously based on your ignorance and prejudice and leave that discussion to people who have actually studied history. Making gross generalizations about people you obviously know nothing about isn’t doing much for your credibility here.

        Slavery, as practiced in the South, was a complicated system that resulted in various relationships between whites, slaves and free blacks that defy both your nonsense and the Gone With the Wind attempts at whitewashing history.

        “Xeranar: For the record the US was also the last western society to end slavery and again our slavery system was based on race while most other slavery systems that existed after it were essentially POW systems that didn’t nearly as mistreat those they owned as the US did.”

        More ignorance on display. You apparently don’t know that, slavery, as practiced in the South, resulted in an INCREASE in the native-born slave population, which wouldn’t have happened if they were as mistreated as they were in other societies.

        That is why the United States was able to stop participating in the slave trade in the early 1800s, and the Confederacy even resisted efforts to overturn that ban when the states attempted to secede from the union.

        One reason southerners resisted abolition was that, in some states, there were more slaves than whites.

        Slavery was quite common in the world at that time. Then, as now, Western Europe and North America were a small part of the total world.

        And, where, exactly, is your proof that slaves were treated better in other societies than they were in the South? Use logical reasoning – if your slaves are “essentially POWS,” as you claim, you will thus always be ensured of a new supply of slaves (just keeping attacking neighboring tribes for new slaves, which is essentially what happened).

        You also don’t have much incentive to treat them very well. And you certainly aren’t going to emancipate them at any time – just work them to death.

      • 0 avatar
        Xeranar

        “Slavery, as practiced in the South, was a complicated system that resulted in various relationships between whites, slaves and free blacks that defy both your nonsense and the Gone With the Wind attempts at whitewashing history.”

        I teach at a university, in fact I teach HISTORY at a university. I teach US history with a focus on race relations. Do you really want to stroll down this road? I enjoy having these discussions but to argue that the south was anything but a horrible place to have existed for any but the elite is a farce. White plantation owners were in a continuous downward spiral because the value of agrarian products were fading directly after the creation of the US due to the industrial revolution. Eventually the only valuable thing they had were slaves and usually were sold westward as cotton came into vogue while eastern states in the south bred slaves. The handful of free blacks in the south are so miniscule that to discuss them as an intricate piece of the puzzle is insulting to the reality of the situation. The lower class whites though were a more important piece and thus their heavy-handed racism was developed to make these people feel important to what is otherwise an elite-only society.

        In the North it was still racist no doubt, but by 1840 the north was largely slave-free (I believe a few still resided until the civil war in New Jersey).

        “More ignorance on display. You apparently don’t know that, slavery, as practiced in the South, resulted in an INCREASE in the native-born slave population, which wouldn’t have happened if they were as mistreated as they were in other societies.

        That is why the United States was able to stop participating in the slave trade in the early 1800s, and the Confederacy even resisted efforts to overturn that ban when the states attempted to secede from the union.”

        This is actually an ass-backwards statement, it’s the fact that the US constitution transferred the power to regulate slave importation after 20 years and congress immediately prohibited it that started the increase in slave population. Prior to that period most slaves died without producing offspring. There were studies done of the record that seem to prove this point even better than I can. Once the South knew they couldn’t get any more they started to treat them better so they would last.

        “One reason southerners resisted abolition was that, in some states, there were more slaves than whites.”

        North Carolina was the only state to ever have a slave-majority. Other states came close but never reached more than about 40-45%. Still they didn’t have firearms or an organized militia, think back to Nat Turner. The retribution was awful.

        “Slavery was quite common in the world at that time. Then, as now, Western Europe and North America were a small part of the total world.”

        We refer to this argument as cultural diversity fallacies. If you want to compare apples to apples compare them. In western society we were the last ones to relinquish slavery.

        “And, where, exactly, is your proof that slaves were treated better in other societies than they were in the South? Use logical reasoning – if your slaves are “essentially POWS,” as you claim, you will thus always be ensured of a new supply of slaves (just keeping attacking neighboring tribes for new slaves, which is essentially what happened).

        You also don’t have much incentive to treat them very well. And you certainly aren’t going to emancipate them at any time – just work them to death.”

        I’m only up on this subject honestly enough to refute the republican talking point kids I teach in my classes. From what I understand of African slave-holding (which is what I assume you’re talking about) it was in essence a relocation and working in the tribe. There were no fields to till in the same respect that it was organized in the US. It was much more similar to the Roman or Greek approach to slavery where citizenry was rare.

  • avatar

    I always thought they should have called it the “General Sherman”. I thought he was a bit faster than Lee.

  • avatar
    Crabspirits

    I’m want to make a show about stunt drivers that features them rolling pink DN101 Taurii every week while solving crimes. Then in the future some guy will get mad whenever he sees a pink Taurus that has been spared by the crusher.

  • avatar
    Volt 230

    Maybe the reason for the shortage is that they were made poorly and fell apart after a few years of normal use

  • avatar
    boxelder

    Completely disagree with Mr. Sutherland. I was a very young boy when this show was airing, and I absolutely LOVED this car. The General Lee was, and still is, one of my heroes – and it’s only a car! This car/paint job combination will go down in history as one of the most recognizable of all time, and this smells like immortality to me. Perhaps what we all aspire to in some way. So they trashed some (now very valuable) cars. That’s what made it awesome, and why we’re still talking about it today.

  • avatar
    boxelder

    P.S. – my wife just made the famous “horn sound” when I mentioned what I was typing about. And she’s not a “car person”.

  • avatar
    Mike C.

    Let’s not forget, if there is enough demand the shells could be re-created as they are now doing for several Mustang models from the 60′s.

  • avatar
    Terry

    It could have been worse…
    http://www.google.com/search?q=starsky+and+hutch+car&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=l2t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=OjAvT_izM6702wWk3vyHDg&ved=0CEcQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=921

  • avatar
    Ryoku75

    There was n episode where these weren’t thrashed, of course it didn’t even have the General in it.

    In later seasons they ended up using more toys than actual cars.

  • avatar
    bluetick

    I really dislike the name “Jerry”.

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    I feel the same way as the OP regarding the destruction of these cars. I actually enjoyed the stupidity of the show, and Daisy was always a bonus. The flag was cool, too. But seeing those irreplaceable Chargers destroyed really bothered me. I don’t buy that interest in the car (fostered by the show) saved far more than attrition’s toll simply because most performance cars of this era became collectible as the years passed. And that is especially true for vintage Mopars. But at least the movie gave Jessica Simpson an opportunity to slip into those “Dukes”….

  • avatar
    ZoomZoom

    I watched this foolish show with my college buds and roommates. We knew it was dumb, but we loved it along with Knight Rider, Airwolf, and Miami Vice. I’ll catch reruns of some of these shows now and again and I’m continually amazed not at how bad the shows were, but at how low our quality standards were as viewers back then.

    And none of it got any better with the movies and sequel series! Furthermore, my tastes have not gotten much better now either, since I’m hooked on all the CSI shows plus Bones and Body of Proof/Evidence, whatever…

    I probably should just unplug my satellite service. I’m not sure my life is any better for it; not even for the news offerings…

    But for Daisy, that is. Whether she was played by Catherine Bach or Jessica Simpson, she may have been the one thin thread of intelligence in the whole damned thing!

    The Charger was a Chrysler product. And the KITT cars from Knight Rider were from General Motors. I’m only saddened by the knowledge that more were NOT destroyed. Yeah, I’m mean like that…

  • avatar
    windswords

    Yeah, it was a disgusting show for wrecking all those Chargers! The other disgusting one was The A-Team. Every episode they would take a Jeep and run over a ramp with one wheel higher than the other so it would somersault through air and crash. No wonder those used Jeeps cost so much money! And then there is all the other cop shows that destroyed all those Plymouth Satellites. So that’s why I never see them anymore! Oh, the pain!

  • avatar
    skor

    The Blues Brothers movie wrecked more Mopars than Chrysler built that year. That’s got to be some kind of record.

  • avatar
    Jerry Sutherland

    No problem-I got together with Jerry Seinfeld and Jerry Rice and we’re all going back to Jerome in honor of the legendary Jerome “Curley” Howard.
    So far Jerry Lewis is a holdout-the old curmudgeon isn’t buying in. Thanks for the motivation.

  • avatar

    I was just a kid when this show was on the air and I never missed it, along with The A-Team, Fall Guy, CHIPS, etc., if it had cars crashing I was going to watch it.
    Until I was 11-12 when I lost interest and left wondering what I ever saw in them.
    Once you notice the storylines are soooo lame and all the same, and the cars always crash in the same way it’s time to move on, go outside and ride a bike or something.
    While it’s sad about the Chargers, aren’t we forgetting about all those defenceless 75-78 Plymouth Fury’s, Dodge Monaco’s etc. that met their end, usually by sailing through the air, not too many tears for those.

  • avatar
    SuperACG

    OK, I’m VERY upset at this posting which seems more like a rant than an intelligent piece. Also posting on Super Bowl Sunday where the article is less likely to be seen is also a cheap tactic.

    I grew up watching this show and believe the ‘General Lee’ is the most iconic ‘celebrity car.’ There were others in the 80s like K.I.T.T., A-Team Van, DeLorean Time Machine, et. al., but nothing was as cool as the honest, blue-collar ‘General Lee.’

    Is there anything wrong with tribute cars? I believe the reason for so many orange Chargers is simply because people are used to seeing them that way! Same goes true for DeLoreans, early 60s Beetles (Herbie), and Gran Torinos (Starsky/Hutch).

    And please, name one ‘celebrity car’ from the past 2 decades outside of Eleanor (Gone in 60 Seconds, 2000) that has been memorable. Nope, haven’t been any except for the one-offs in one episode car build shows.

    If I had a ’69 Charger, would I build a tribute car? YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT! And just to piss all of you off, I’d lift it, add 33″ MTs, and swap in a Cummins 6BT…and park it next to a DeLorean with time circuits, and a Grey over Black 1984 GMC Van and pity all you jealous fools.

  • avatar
    Carbon

    I did a little googling and turned up a production number for the 68 Charger. 69000. You can pretty quickly figure out that they destroyed less than 1/2 of 1% of the total production of a vehicle that, as someone else pointed out, was already 10+ years old when the TV series started. They also borrowed cars from the 69 model year (96,000 units) and 70 (49,000). So in total the series wrecked 320 out of over 200,000 cars produced.

  • avatar
    Robert.Walter

    I liked watching the show, seeing the car, and vaguely dreaming of what it must have been like to mount a pintle hook on Daisy’s rear bumper, and although I had no idea of what a pintle hook was at that age, it was something I felt compelled to do.

  • avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater

    I’d prefer to take a road trip in a blue Mustang with the stars and stripes painted on its roof, called the General Sherman.. Maybe go visit Atlanta..

  • avatar
    DanDotDan

    It’s funny how we’re talking about this “highly forgettable” show twenty-five years later.

  • avatar
    VanillaDude

    The massive success of this show negates the complaints against it. It was even enormously popular in Europe.

    There might be more 1969 Chargers around if the show never existed, but it is because of the show there are still 1969 Chargers around and valued higher than they ought to be.

    Southern US folks have rarely been insulted by this show because they know it isn’t real. They just enjoy the circus. The moral freaks who get all hot and bothered by it are the ones with the problems. These same folks wouldn’t be so openly hostile if the show was about one of their sacred cows looking adorable through stereotypes, would they?

    • 0 avatar
      bikegoesbaa

      “The massive success of this show negates the complaints against it.”

      In other words, popular equals good; and the number of people who like something is a reliable indicator of its quality.

      Does massive success of McDonalds negate any complaints that their food isn’t very good?

      • 0 avatar
        VanillaDude

        That isn’t what I wrote. I’m not as simple minded as you are or you think I am.

        The joy created by this show is far greater than the concerns voiced by those who complained about it. Just as a roller coaster brings those who wish to ride it, a great deal of fun, those who complain that roller coasters are not fun or safe are missing the point.

        Kind of how you are.

  • avatar
    Zackman

    The only reason these Chargers are collectable is that they’re pillarless hardtops that actually work, even if they are as flimsy as tin foil. You can put a big engine in just about anything.

    On a side note: Does anyone wonder why so many commercials are filmed showing the actors in classic convertibles (mostly) and pillarless hardtops (sometimes), as if those cars are still around, as if anyone can buy one? Just my theory, but it always bugs me to see that. How about a current convertible or nice sedan instead? Those old cars aren’t coming back, ever.

    Did they use a current-gen 4-door Charger in the movie? I never saw it and only tolerated the TV show ’cause my kids got a kick out of it. I tried to ignore it…

  • avatar
    MR2turbo4evr

    What an utterly useless article. At least post some facts or something to make it somewhat interesting to read.

  • avatar
    Pinzgauer

    One of the first web pages I ever visted/read in the mid-late 90′s was some guy’s recap of how they bought all the left over General Lee’s from the show that were sitting in some studio lot somewhere. I found it through an Altavista search. All in various states of disrepair, it said that some even had rudimentary exposed pinion/spider gear rear ends that could drive the cars just enough to be launched off some type of ramp to utter death.

  • avatar
    TEXN3

    You know how Boss Hogg could have gotten the Duke Boys?

    Build a bridge.

  • avatar
    geeber

    “Xeranar: I teach at a university, in fact I teach HISTORY at a university. I teach US history with a focus on race relations. Do you really want to stroll down this road?”

    Yes, because there is nothing more fun than taking a PC-spouting university professor out to the woodshed. Especially when you get several basic facts critical to the discussion incorrect.

    “Xeranar: As you are about I enjoy having these discussions but to argue that the south was anything but a horrible place to have existed for any but the elite is a farce. White plantation owners were in a continuous downward spiral because the value of agrarian products were fading directly after the creation of the US due to the industrial revolution.”

    You’re mixing two different arguments here, neither of which proves your point. Whether the South was succeeding economically has nothing to do with what relations were like between slaves, free blacks and whites. Race relations were considerably more complex than the simple-minded, PC version of history.

    At any rate, you are incorrect that white plantation owners were in a continuous downward spiral during these years.

    While tobacco was declining in importance, due to exhausted lands in the east, cotton was easily taking its place. Cotton was increasing in economic importance right up until the Civil War.

    In 1800, the United States exported 18 million pounds of cotton – or 7 percent of total exports. By 1860, the South was exporting 1,700 million pounds of cotton – or 57 percent of total exports.

    If that represents a “downward spiral,” I don’t think you know the meaning of the phrase.

    And the South’s agricultural output was not limited to cotton and tobacco. Between 1840 and 1860, for example, the South grew up to 3/4 of the nation’s corn crop.

    Lousiana, meanwhile, had the highest concentration of millionaires in the United States in 1860.

    Southern agriculture was hardly in a downward spiral during the early 1800s. Far from it.

    “Xeranar: In the North it was still racist no doubt, but by 1840 the north was largely slave-free (I believe a few still resided until the civil war in New Jersey).”

    Your original argument was that the South was “patriarchal.” Which of course, ignores that the 1860s North was, by those standards, patriarchal, too. So was 1860s Western Europe.

    I never mentioned slavery in the North, which has nothing to with this particular point of the discussion, unless you are going to argue that only slave societies are patriarchal, which, of course, is nonsense.

    You need to stay on point AND keep your arguments straight.

    “Xeranar: This is actually an ass-backwards statement, it’s the fact that the US constitution transferred the power to regulate slave importation after 20 years and congress immediately prohibited it that started the increase in slave population. Prior to that period most slaves died without producing offspring. There were studies done of the record that seem to prove this point even better than I can. Once the South knew they couldn’t get any more they started to treat them better so they would last.”

    Incorrect. The South agreed to limit the overseas slave trade because it had no trouble replenishing the supply of slaves through reproduction among native-born slaves.

    The slave population increased fourfold between 1810 and 1860 in the antebellum South.

    But even before 1810, the slave population in the South almost doubled from 1790 through 1810.

    The population of slaves in the South grew more slowly when new slaves could be legally imported, than it did when the importation of new slaves was banned.

    Remember that there was LESS demand for slaves from 1790-1810, as the impact of Eli Whitney’s cotton gin had not been fully realized. When there was MORE demand for slaves as cotton boomed after 1810, the native slave popluation increased – and at a higher rate than it did from 1790 to 1810 – without any imports of new slaves from Africa.

    Given these trends, there simply was less need for imported slaves in the United States than in other western hemisphere areas with slavery. Thanks to a variety of factors – a better ratio of females to males, better working conditions and lower overall mortality rates – the United States simply did not need to import slaves, and thus was able to ban this sordid practice in 1808.

    And working conditions and changes in medicine and sanitation didn’t improve dramatically for whites from 1790 to, say, 1820, let alone for slaves.

    The simple fact is that the slave population was increasing in the South both before and after the ban in 1808, which casts considerable suspicion on the contention that slaves were treated worse in the South than in other cultures were slavery was practiced. The population growth rate of southern slaves even outstripped the growth rate of slave populations in other western hemisphere countries or colonies that practiced slavery.

    “Xeranar: North Carolina was the only state to ever have a slave-majority. Other states came close but never reached more than about 40-45%. Still they didn’t have firearms or an organized militia, think back to Nat Turner. The retribution was awful.”

    Incorrect. You need to do more research. There were two states that had majority slave populations – South Carolina and Mississippi.

    In Alabama and Louisiana, the split was almost 50-50, but there were still more whites than slaves.

    At any rate, population of both slave and whites was not evenly distributed throughout the South during those years. In some areas of individual states, slaves outnumbered whites by 13-1.

    I originally posted that whites were afraid of abolition because they were outnumbered by slaves in many areas, and you have not proven this incorrect. If anything, the entire Nat Turner insurrection of August 1831 proves my point. Southern paranoia increased dramatically after this happened, and only hardened attitudes regarding abolition or even gradual emancipation.

    “Xeranar: We refer to this argument as cultural diversity fallacies. If you want to compare apples to apples compare them. In western society we were the last ones to relinquish slavery.”

    And, in the real world, we call your argument trying to explain uncomfortable facts by ignoring other areas when its convenient. The simple fact is that slavery was quite common in the world, and nothing you have posted proves that incorrect.

    “Xeranar: I’m only up on this subject honestly enough to refute the republican talking point kids I teach in my classes. From what I understand of African slave-holding (which is what I assume you’re talking about) it was in essence a relocation and working in the tribe. There were no fields to till in the same respect that it was organized in the US. It was much more similar to the Roman or Greek approach to slavery where citizenry was rare.”

    You apparently missed the part, for example, where African tribes regularly captured combatants or even entire rival tribes and sold them into slavery to other tribes and Europeans. And Roman slavery was harldy a piece of cake, either. You were treated as a slave and worked to death.

    Please show me where the slave populations in ancient Rome or even 19th and 20th century Africa were increasing in population due to natural reproduction among slaves, as they were in the antebellum South. That is the relevant question, and one that must be answered if you are going to prove that slavery was worse in the South than in other areas or times.

    Was slavery a piece of cake? No. Was it better that we ended it? Of course. But comparing the antebellum South to Nazi Germany, which was what was done in the original post, is simply nonsense.

    • 0 avatar
      Robert.Walter

      Just because the latter filled more check-boxes on the list of atrocity than the former did, they are still comparable and reprehensible; the difference is only variety and scale.

      Just because the confederates were a little less bad than the nazis doesn’t make them any more admirable or their symbolism any more palateable.

      • 0 avatar
        VanillaDude

        “Just because the confederates were a little less bad than the nazis doesn’t make them any more admirable or their symbolism any more palateable.”

        The Nazi murdered millions of innocent women and children systemically within a matter of five years. They shaved their heads to harvest their hair, they pulled the gold out of their teeth to smelter, they pulled the skins off their bodies to find uses as leather products, they incinerated so many innocent people, human ashes floated upon nearby towns. They did this to ladies, elderly women, frail people, children, infants. They did this to anyone who was reported by their neighbors as different to them. Millions.

        A little less bad?

        Importantly, ALL Americans, including former slave owners – fixed these problems without being forced by an invasion from other countries. We didn’t have to be invaded by Canada, England or Germany to end slavery and give Civil Rights to any American. What happened under the Nazis would have continued until not another soul was left. They were forced to end these blasphemous crimes. Where would these high-and-mighty moral elitist Eurotrash be if their side won WWII? How wonderful would their world be today if Nazis stayed in power, as they voted them in to be in power?

        America fixes it’s problems because we are a moral and just people and have a government that can be altered to do what is just and right. Don’t compare America to other places in order to make your political point.

        Your need to insult people with differing opinions than yours, borders on insanity. Get a grip. Find your damn heart. Find your damn brain.

      • 0 avatar
        Robert.Walter

        You’re missing the forrest for the trees because you are picking nits.

        Who am I insulting, history? The people who supported, committed and profited from brutality, slavery and eugenic practices be they large or small? Please.

        My arguments are not ad hominem, but yours certainly are.

        I suggest you step-back, and reexamine the point I’m making with an eye to both the context of and how the discussion at hand unfolded.

        I know the history you cite backwards and forwards; I still have the entry-permit issued to my father for US-personnel present at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials. So I need no breathless lesson from you on either the depravity of specific atrocities nor the scale on which they were committed.

        These things lie on the same continuum. I’m looking at this from an attribute perspective, i.e good or bad. On this scale, both = bad.

        Again, my point was that symbology linked with such events is best consigned to the scrap-bin of history just as the ideas for which it served, rather than being proudly displayed or defended.

  • avatar
    debaser

    Ungh. That’s a lot of words spent to sound like a slavery apologist, geeber.

    So, Xeranar basically says “slavery sucked, and even the elites were in decline”, and you wanna go on about the economic situation, with lots of stats and all. So like, the white plantation owners were actually making a lot of money? With SLAVE LABOR? No shit!

    Population demographics, the history of other cultures, who cares? The confederate flag is still a giant sign for “YES HELLO I AM A RACIST”, and for good reason.

  • avatar
    DougD

    Ok, now THAT’s a good reason to hate the General Lee Dukes of Hazzard TV STar Car, because whenever you bring it up we start getting into endless prattle about the south, slavery, etc.

    For an easier solution, why doesn’t geeber take Xaranar’s history course, you can debate it in the classroom and maybe geeber can pick up a few credits while he’s at it. That’ll save all of us from having to read this. It was a stupid article to begin with.

  • avatar
    svenmeier

    I have a thing for the ’70s Dodge St. Regis and it saddens me that so many of them, no wait, virtually all of them, were destroyed in film work back in the day. It was such an elegant car in my opinion.

  • avatar
    Stonewall Jackson 02

    I guess most of yall are a mess of damn Yankees and a 69 charger looks a hell of a lot better than what you city folk would try and paint it


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India