Southern Aristorcracy

[Hanny]

Cash
"Slavery was about domination, and of necessity it rested on coercion. The murders, beatings, mutilations, and humiliations, both petty and great, were an essential, not incidental, part of the system. To be sure, one could dwell upon the wild, maniacal sadism of some frenzied slave owners who lashed, traumatized, raped, and killed their slaves; the record of such lurid tales is full. But perhaps it would be more instructive to underscore the cool, deliberate actions of, say, Robert 'King' Carter, the largest slaveholder in colonial Virginia, who petitioned and received permission from the local court to lop the toes off his runaways; or William Byrd, the founder of one of America's great families, who forced an incontinent slave boy to drink a 'pint of pi$$'; or Thomas Jefferson, who calmly reasoned that the greatest punishment he could inflict upon an incorrigible fugitive was to sell him away from his kin. Without question, the history of slavery is the story of victimization, brutalization, and exclusion; it is the story of the power of liberty, of a people victimized and brutalized." [Ira Berlin, "Coming to Terms With Slavery in Twenty-First Century America," in James O. Horton and Lois E. Horton, eds., _Slavery and Public History: The Tough Stuff of American Memory,_ p. 6]

The problem here is that economist life Foegel/Engerman/meyer quantified these issues/points, and there is nothing in the above that does as you suggest in regard to Fogel. Hortons anthology is the out of flavour histograhy set currently, this is part of there attempts to grap the public attention to the out of favour textual/chronological approach over anylitcal intreptation thats repaced it in the mainstream academia.
I can sum up this books intent for you with a quote from it.
"If you don't tell it like was ... it can never be as it ought to be" (p. 33).

Trice
With all due respect, you have the facts of the Dred Scott cases all bollixed up. You are wrong on the dates and the order of events, wrong on what courts decided. Please stop making claims that absolutely cannot be backed up.
Here is a section of the chronology you can find at the Washington University in St. Louis website (http://library.wustl.edu/vlib/dredscott/chronology.html). I used the italics to highlight certain parts for you. Please use it to correct the many mistakes in what you have said so far.

Yes it does appear going from memory will not sufice when posting, while looking at the parts that actualy intrest me in detail.

Trice
The whole point of the ongoing discussion was that 1) masters cared for their slaves 2) an indication of masters who cared for their slaves were freeing them in their wills 3) some large proportion of the slave masters were "good" or "kind" or "nice" or what-have-you. Single examples were being presented as if they concluded the matter. I was pointing out how such evidence rarely proves a matter about a large group, because you have no idea if it represents the norm or the exception unless you do a rigorous examination of the facts.

ok, lets drop the matter of your specif question you find unable to carry on with and return to more general points.
while salves they on average were sick less days a year than they were in 1890 as free men, by a order of 20%, there expected life span had dropped by 10%, the dietry intake was down compred to while in slavery and incidence of dieases brought on by inferior protien and vitamin diffiecency this brought to them they did not have while slaves, the skills base of ocupations fell from that while a slave, no longer were 25% in skilled/magerial ocupations, but declined to under half that, while manual labour rose from 49% as a slave to over 70% while free, the comparable wage difference for negro to white for the same ocupation fell until ww1, they lived on average in less floor space than while a salve, had less cloths.
All these are indicators that while slaves they were cared for better than that which replaced it, thats what fogel did and thats his conclusions. seems pretty self explantory to me.

Trice
So 1 or 2 or 3 wills freeing slaves does not prove the matter. It never could unless you took a large number of wills of slave-owners and saw what they did with their slaves upon their death. If you can tell me that 10 or 20 or 30 percent of the slaveowner wills freed slaves, we might make a start. If you can say that they freed all their slaves or only a few, that has an impact (did they "care" only for the fate of a few or for all?)

I already have done that, a third of every slave ever made free, pre war, was done so by deed of will on death of owner.

Trice
Please note: Your approach seems to address something important to you. It does nothing at all for the discussion that was underway when you jumped in. You are talking about oranges when I asked a question about apples. If you think differently, simply take what you said, apply it in a clear fashion, and give us the answer (or your approximation of the answer) to my question.

And yours often is to ask a specific quation and deny asking it, ignore it as if it never happened. to me waht is importnat that when you dont like a specific answer to a specific point, you dont pretend its imaterial when the answer to that question is something you dont like or find difficult to refute. again the answer to your question is what i said, i note you again ask it by tge way.

Terry
You're right Hanny. Welcome back to the board.

Hi
last time i was here you were deep into Lee logistics during G-burg, what did you conclude from the book?.

Trice
Do you understand that, in the Dred Scott Case, Chief Justice Taney and the Supreme Court threw out the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787? Declared that the US Congress had no power to make a territory or state free, or to prevent a master from bringing his slave into any part of the land? As a result, the conditions and laws that made Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory free under US law were null and void? That his residence in those two areas was the sole basis for Dred Scott's claim to freedom?

Since Congress already did that to the Mo comprimise, in 1854 on its own, what the SCOTUS did hardly therfore made any impact.

If you are, then you understand that the effect of Dred Scott was to make useless any state law that acted as you claim. Taney was telling the world that slave property was inviolate in the United States, and that a citizen of, say, South Carolina could take his slaves to any "free state" at all and count on the support of the Federal government to safeguard his ownership of his slaves.

Already had that in Federal law, dateing from the NWO "Providing that any person escapping the same, from whom labour service is lawfully claimed in any state or Terr in the US, such fugative shall be lawfully recl;aimed and coneveyed to the person caliming his or her labour or service as aforesaid."
Thomas prosio, ie slavery prohibited above 36/30 in the La purchase, was taken verbatim from the NWO that have the same codicile.
What Tanney was saying was what the law said it said, its just other laws conflicted, and he chose to follow what the Constition plainly spelt out about ownership of labour, not really a suprise.

No Supreme Court decision had ever said that before. That being the case, anything to the contrary you want to quote prior to that moment in Federal law has now been over-ruled by Taney's Court as of 1857.

Not really, any SCOTUS rulling can be reversed by the next case, lemmon being the nest one up in SCOTUS.

Texas2nd
IMHO, You should consider this when lashing at the South for the institution of slavery:
The Union treaded heavily on it's moral right to eradicate slavery through war... after the war started. There was plenty of time before the war to have eradicated slavery if that was the true purpose. That did not happen.

well in a nut shell they kept putting off what to do, and expanded to fill up the Continent, makeing sure a balance of Sn from free and slave sattes exited to prevent sectional dominace, once the room to expand to ran out the issue w3as settled by secesion and force to prevent seccesion, slavery in 1860 in the Union was as safe it could possibly be, only war removed it vand onl6y by secesion was war brought on, they would have done better to gain a change in constional protection for themsleves, pre war rather than argue about extending slavery west.

And people wonder why the Civil War was fought. Over 140 years later we are still fighting it, via the pen, the keyboard, etc.

WSC "Its better to jaw, jaw than war, war."

Matt

No. Not at all. "Give me liberty, or give me death." [Patrick Henry]

odd concept, while your alive the opurtunity for change exists, i only know of 2 people comming back from death, and neither of them come to a good end.
Always like to remind people of P Henry man servent who took Henry at his word, and deserted to join the UK forces after that speech and gain his freedom.

[Hanny]

Cash
NWO.
Northwest Ordinance

same provision in law, NWO is based on NWT which is based in UK fundametal law in the Mansfield case.

Cash
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
in MO Scott using the law i said he could use, residence in another state for one year, brought suit for freedom for wife and now 2 daughters and himslef, on the basis that the owner of that property had willingly and voluntary taken his proprty onto free soil for one year,

State law, not federal law.

Cash
Well yes other wise it would be importing from a forgien state into the Union and the slave would be made free undere federal law.

Cash
Once again, you've completely muddled things. Justice GAMBLE dissented from the Missouri Court Ruling. His opinion was not the law--it was the DISSENT!!

Yes i said that he was comenting on the existing law, mentioned he was outvoted 2:1, and that no law was changed by the rulling in this case.

Cash
As usual, you're wrong. Taney ruled that the Missouri Circuit Court, whose jury had declared Scott free, had no jurisdiction because Dred Scott was not a citizen of Missouri. Taney further ruled that Scott wasn't a citizen of the US and therefore had no standing to sue in Federal Court. He denied jurisidiction of the Supreme Court here as well. He never declared the Missouri Supreme Court's ruling a nullity.

You have a bad habit of saying others wrong when they are not, only that there opinion is contary to yours, i only mention this charcter flaw in passing, because i dont have time today to get into verbal duelling mode, and you might bmiss the nodd snipe.
If the MO SC is not annulled it carries force of law and enters case law.
If the SCOTUS has no jursidiction why was it hearing the case and not decling as the judicary act requires it to do before any trial begins?.

Cash
You fail to comprehend Dred Scott, you completely muddle the facts, and because of that, you therefore misrepresent them.

easy to say, sadly youve not convinced me.

Cash
The 1870 Census then. You really are making this up as you go along, aren't you?

No i was i hoped been clear, the next census after whenever any state Emancipation of its slaves.

Where do all the slaves go?.
http://www.slavenorth.com/index.html
State Mass. N.H. N.Y. Conn. R.I. Pa. N.J. Vt.
European settlement 1620 1623 1624 1633 1636 1638 1620 1666
First record of slavery 1629? 1645 1626 1639 1652 1639 1626? c.1760?
Official end of slavery 1783 1783 1799 1784 1784 1780 1804 1777
Actual end of slavery 1783 c.1845? 1827 1848 1842 c.1845? 1865 1777?
Percent black 1790 1.4% 0.6% 7.6% 2.3% 6.3% 2.4% 7.7% 0.3%
Percent black 1860 0.78% 0.15% 1.26% 1.87% 2.26% 1.95% 3.76% 0.22%

Trice
As usual, you're wrong. The Rhode Island law provided that all the adult slaves at the time the law was passed [February, 1784] would remain slaves. Their female children born after 1 March would be freed at age 18 and their male children born after 1 March would be freed at age 21.
Rhode Island in 1790: 958 slaves, 3,484 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1800: 380 slaves, 3,304 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1810: 108 slaves, 3,609 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1820: 48 slaves, 3,554 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1830: 17 slaves, 3,561 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1840: 5 slaves, 3,238 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1850: 0 slaves, 3,670 free blacks.

Cash
Im wrong? because http://hsus.cambridge.org/HSUSWeb/HSUSEntryServlet as a source differs to the numbers you use?, newsflash, the numbers are a couple different but the ones im using are the ones used since 1975 for all reaearchers.
so lets see what those numbers mean, you know like where do all the middle aged people go. Between 1790 and 1850 RI negro population rose by 200 or so, when other negro populations was rising at rate of of many % points per annum, so why does RI and other states pop mdecline?, it because the pop make up of age groups is young/old and very few in there prime, no women of child bearing age, they all sold south and breeding there instead.

Cash
In the fall of 1799, Rhode Island banned the sale of any slave outside the state without his consent. [Arthur Zilversmit, _The First Emancipation: The Abolition of Slavery in the North,_ p. 120]
"The law made elaborate provision for the protection of the property rights of slaveowners. Although freeborn Negro children would remain with the master who owned their mother for at least one year, the towns would assume the expense of raising and educating them. Furthermore, masters would now be allowed to free any healthy slave, twenty-one to forty years old, without assuming any financial responsibility." [Ibid., p. 121]
In January of 1784, Connecticut adopted statutes providing for the gradual abolition of slavery. [Ibid., pp. 123-124]
"The action of Connecticut and Rhode Island meant that within a year of the conclusion of the Revolutionary War provision had been made for the abolition of slavery in all the New England states. As a result, the 1790 federal census reported only 3,763 slaves in New England, out of a total of 16,882 Negroes. Ten years later, there were only 1,339 slaves in New England, and by 1810 the total was reduced to 418--108 in Rhode Island and 310 in Connecticut." [Ibid., p. 124]
Vermont abolished slavery outright before it ratified the Constitution, and Massachusetts abolished slavery immediately by judicial decree--neither used gradual emancipation.

i dont see what your doing, i understood and stated the problem to be where did all the prime easy to sell assets go, youve done nothing to answer that, or refute that they were sold south. All you did is confirm the loss of population.

Cash
Once again, as usual you're wrong. You're making up your reference to "studies," aren't you? The fact is that while there were a number of slaves who were sold to southerners, the Northern states cut off the practice, and some of the Northern states didn't allow it to happen to start with. Of course, after laws were passed to stop selling slaves some scofflaws did still sell their slaves south, but they were the tiny minority of slaveowners.

Again with the wrong, ( are those letters fadded on your keyboard yet?, or can you see inside the keyboard?) but a complet avoidence of any expalantion of where did they go and why did the free northern pop not grow as demogrphics would except it to do.

Cash
Let's stick with what's actually the case. Very little of what you post bears any relation to the facts.

well lack of sense of humour must mean you really upset at not haveing a clue about answering my question. And the day you stick with case will be nice as well.

Cash
His discussion of the treatment of slaves, while not entirely wrong, are slanted due to his methodology. He's contradicted by nearly every other historian of slavery, including Ira Berlin and David Brion Davis.

Cite one who has taken issue then, as its nearly every histiorian on slavery you claim ( odd fogel got a Noble prize and they diod not dontch athink though) then, should be easy, so what i want from you is something in TOTC thats is refuted/contradicted by anyone at all.
I wait with anticipation for you example from TOTC and evidence that it is inacurate.

Cash

It was in fact common enough that all the slaves knew of it and feared it would happen.

like dying you mean?.

Cash
You just make statements, little of which relate to the actual facts.
The fact is that the system for control of the slaves was intact during the Civil War.

On the contary, i always go to great lengths to exlain my reasoning, based on facts, now answer the question how many members are there in the CSA in this 175000 strong anti slave force you tell me is present, is it 175k or more or less?.

Cash
Are you always this confused? It would help you avoid confusion if you didn't simply make up statistics out of thin air.
The 1860 Census gives a total of 44,614 owners of at least 20 slaves in the confederate states. Remember the 20-slave rule applied to owners and overseers. Additionally, there were slaveowners who hired substitutes to fight for them, and others who joined home guards and militia to keep the slaves under control. Add to that sheriffs, marshals, and other law enforcement officers. The whites were all armed, the slaves had no weapons. The whites had superior mobility, being allowed to ride horses anywhere they wanted. The slaves had no such mobility. The whites were organized in military units, the blacks had no such organization.

The statistic of exemptions is cited in Battle cry freedom by Mcpherson, see index under conscritption and the 20:1 rule, see it comes from CSA exemptions taken up by CSA owners.
Cenus data on slave ownership also shows the age of the owners, if your going to use the wrong data to try and find something, at least get the mil age and sex of the owners right first before making up your facts to support your alice in wonderland conclusion pre formed conclusion that your hurrying to support with made up numkbers, most of the people you just cited enlisted in 61 amnd were conscripted therafter.

Cash

Another ignorant defense of slavery, eh? The reality is that slaves weren't paid. That's why they're slaves. The money went to their owners. In some cases the owners would allow selected slaves to keep a portion of their hiring fee, but that was AFTER the owner had gotten his due. The slave never "earned" as much as a free worker would earn.

sadly your post has nothing bto do with what i posted, i can only asume you did not understand it.

Cash
The true facts will always trump the stuff you make up.

true, but i made nothing up, its the numbers from economy text books, so how do you like knowing i know you have no idea about what i said?.

Cash
Canada or US states that outlawed slavery.
Your red herrings are irrelevant, since blacks were indeed actually allowed to stay in the free states.

Non free ones were returned to slavery and free ones were barred from staying, and those in slavery were bought and sold.

[ole]

Thank you Cash and Trice. That's the kind of great reason to be on this forum -- ask a question, get an answer. I might here point out that Ft. Snelling was west of the Missippippi near what is now Minneapolis. Until I get around to building a timeline, I'll assume that it was considered part of Wisconsin Territory at the time or, at least, what some maps call "unorganized territory."

Thanks.
Ole

[Hanny]

Cash
You keep proving your ignorance of the actual conditions that existed in the confederacy at the time.
"Both slaveowners and government officials did what they could to increase wartime surveillance and controls over all sections of their black populations. A month after the fall of Fort Sumter, the Tennessee legislature thus passed a law to raise 'a Home Guard of Minute Men' whose duties included the responsibility 'to see that all the slaves are disarmed; to prevent the assemblage of slaves in unusual numbers; to keep the slave population in proper subjugation; and to see that peace and order is observed.'

a month after the fall of Sumpter?, in Tenn?, thats may of 61 then right?, Tenn seccedes on 8 may, so it has its entire mil age bearing population to call on and do with what it wills, this is before any mil conflict, Vol to raise an Army, CSA conscription, do you have no honest grasp of context?.

Cash
"During and after the war, Confederate apologists regularly pointed to the lack of open slave revolts as proof of black loyalty to their masters. As already noted, the same argument has recently been revived. But in fact, attempting an insurrection when nearly all white men were not only armed but also organized in the military would have been suicidal. Even trying to reach and join the Union army risked the most severe potential penalties. As an insightful Georgia writer reminded his countryfolk early in 1865, 'Evidences are not wanting to illuminate the ill suppressed discontent of many of our slaves.' Because this discontent had not exploded in open revolts, he warned, some of his neighbors had grown 'over secure.' But 'they should remember that the whole white population being under arms, any uprising of the negroes was more than ever impracticable.' The South, he admonished, should not mistake the slaves' understandable caution for contentment." [Bruce Levine, "In Search of a Usable Past: Neo-Confederates and Black Confederates," in James O. Horton and Lois E. Horton, eds., _Slavery and Public History: The Tough Stuff of American Memory,_ p. 205]

This is from the Hortons book, chapter claiming there are no cases at all of any negro soldiers serving with the South is its theme and conclusion, but i ask again this white population under arms, how many are not in service and holding down the negro? and comprise this body of men?.

Cash

Is English not your native language? Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary and learn the meaning of "every family."

ive skipped the nonsense, but will point out your posts are becomming a tad offensive, ive no objection to a snipe as long as its understood its done in good humour, but im finding no humour in you at all, its replaced with anger at posting your version/opinion of history which when quesstioned and shown to be faulty, causes you to become hostile, now in future ill adjust my posting style to you as i may have given offence where none was intended.

[Hanny]

Originally Posted by Battalion

Strange.

The number of blacks did not increase.

4,442 (total) in 1790. 3,670 in 1850.

"Sold down the river" instead of being freed?

exactly so, but earlier than you might think.

The rate of increase among the colored population of the United States has been, by the census, as follows:

In the decade from--Per cent1790 to 180032.23 1800 to 1810 (slave-trade ceases)37.58 1810 to 182028.58 1820 to 183031.44 1830 to 184023.41 1840 to 185026.62 1850 to 186021.90

there is no other conclusion the fall in RI and other stastes, while nationaly and regional in the south it rises 30%.


so you see population demographics show why the free northern population was smaller than it ought to have been had it follwed statastical norms, the answer was the future generations were denied being born in the north due to its unbalnced age mix after the selling off pre emancipation in each state of the north of the negros.

[ole]

so you see population demographics show why the free northern population was smaller than it ought to have been had it follwed statastical norms, the answer was the future generations were denied being born in the north due to its unbalnced age mix after the selling off pre emancipation in each state of the north of the negros.

I don't think we can rely on statistical norms here. In the south, slaves were encouraged (indeed, often required) to procreate. The northern white population was pumped by immigration. The northern freed population was not and may well have been holding its birthrate down to affordable numbers.

Even today, if a society holds its birthrate to 2 children per couple, you have zero population growth.

Just a thought.

Ole

[trice]

Originally Posted by Hanny

Quote:
Trice
As usual, you're wrong. The Rhode Island law provided that all the adult slaves at the time the law was passed [February, 1784] would remain slaves. Their female children born after 1 March would be freed at age 18 and their male children born after 1 March would be freed at age 21.
Rhode Island in 1790: 958 slaves, 3,484 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1800: 380 slaves, 3,304 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1810: 108 slaves, 3,609 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1820: 48 slaves, 3,554 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1830: 17 slaves, 3,561 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1840: 5 slaves, 3,238 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1850: 0 slaves, 3,670 free blacks.

Cash
Im wrong? because http://hsus.cambridge.org/HSUSWeb/HSUSEntryServlet as a source differs to the numbers you use?, newsflash, the numbers are a couple different but the ones im using are the ones used since 1975 for all reaearchers.
so lets see what those numbers mean, you know like where do all the middle aged people go. Between 1790 and 1850 RI negro population rose by 200 or so, when other negro populations was rising at rate of of many % points per annum, so why does RI and other states pop mdecline?, it because the pop make up of age groups is young/old and very few in there prime, no women of child bearing age, they all sold south and breeding there instead.

Once again, PLEASE do not attribute things to me that were said by someone else. I really cannot see why you would do it here, since you were replying to a post by Cash, quoting extensively from his post, when you suddenly and obviously by your own action attributed something he said to me. This causes needless confusion, to say the least.

As I pointed out to you in another post, the decline in slave population before 1800, amounting to a few hundred, *might* be attributed to slaves out-of-state, but the state passed a law making that illegal in 1800. The static or declining total Black population after that would be attributed to other factors, as I noted to you. Between 1840 and 1850, the Black population actually increased, and I would suspect this was due to the improved status of Black people in that state after the Dorr Rebellion (i.e., they were given the right to vote, etc.)

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Originally Posted by Hanny

Well it all depends when your talking about, in the walker Bible that was in wide use, untill the King james repalced it and omits these scriptual advice, it laid down the length and thickenss of the rod to use to chastise a slave or women and the number of strokes etc. Also in that age corporal punishment was the norm for teaching children, still more so as punishment for offences. ...

ONCE AGAIN, PLEASE STOP making these posts where you fraudulently put my name on quotes made by other people. You have done it again several times in your post #224.

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Originally Posted by trice

No Supreme Court decision had ever said that before. That being the case, anything to the contrary you want to quote prior to that moment in Federal law has now been over-ruled by Taney's Court as of 1857.

Originally Posted by Hanny

Not really, any SCOTUS rulling can be reversed by the next case, lemmon being the nest one up in SCOTUS.

Your point? Obviously a later Court can reverse a previous one. Just as obviously, in 1857 the Taney Court presented a decision that DID roll back all actions taken in the Northwest territory and the Missouri Compromise, declaring the US Congress had no such power to act. Are you trying to tell us that the Taney Court reversed itself on Dred Scott before the Civil War? If so, simply show us where, instead of trying to avoid admitting the truth.

Regards,
Tim

[trice]

Originally Posted by trice

Trice
So 1 or 2 or 3 wills freeing slaves does not prove the matter. It never could unless you took a large number of wills of slave-owners and saw what they did with their slaves upon their death. If you can tell me that 10 or 20 or 30 percent of the slaveowner wills freed slaves, we might make a start. If you can say that they freed all their slaves or only a few, that has an impact (did they "care" only for the fate of a few or for all?)

Originally Posted by Hanny

I already have done that, a third of every slave ever made free, pre war, was done so by deed of will on death of owner.

Apparently you have a great difficulty understanding that your point has nothing to do with what you were responding to. I have to assume you just feel you should talk about whatever strikes you, whether or not it is relevant to what you are responding to.

Your post does not address the point. It is a complete tangent to it. It has no application to the question under discussion, the one you were responding to.

For example, if you said that 1/3rd of all wills of slaveowners freed slaves, you might have a good point. You change the topic and tell us that 1/3rd of all slaves freed were freed by wills -- which tells us nothing.

For example: There were some 460,000 slave owners in 1860. If we wish to consider wills that freed slaves as an indication of the care of masters for their slaves, how many of those 460,000 were going to free their slaves in their wills? Or how many of their 4,000,000 or so slaves were they going to free, which would also indicate how much "care" they felt for their slaves, as a group? Your oft-repeated statement tells us NOTHING about the questions and so adds nothing of benefit to the discussion.

For example, using your statement, if there were 9 slaves freed in an average year, that would mean what, exactly, about the "care" or "kindness" of the masters for their slaves? If they were all freed by the same man, what would that indicate about the other 459,999? Your point just does nothing at all for the discussion we were having.

If you want to open a discussion on some topic, fine, go ahead, start another thread. Don't jump into the middle of an existing one, going off on tangents, mixing up posts, contradicting factual posts with things you think you remember when they are false. Most particularly, do not falsely attribute the statements of one person to another: this at best causes confusion, and at worst is deceptive.

Regards,
Tim