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

Pray This Does Not Happen On Tuesday 5 November 2013!!!


Recommended Posts

Dargo2,

 

Jake doesn't have me anywhere because he doesn't believe the black man merited to be free like how the white man deserved to be free from mother England.. This isn't an exercise in one up man ship as you seem to think but a discussion of the morality of slavery as far as I'm concerned. Anyone that thinks slavery was a good thing is morally bankrupt and talks out of the side of their mouth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think both of you know the person masquerading as Jake trying to get you to buy one segment of his point in order to validate his whole argument. A little like admitting this nation is a republic in order to move the State's legislatures to change back to selecting its own Senators -- and not the state's voters.

 

I do not know if this line of arguing the validity of 18th and 19th century reasoning over slavery is a positive in airing out our differences, or ultimately negative practice of entrenchment in of ideals long-since examined and dismissed as not progressing the human condition.

 

To one line of thinking, slavery isn't immoral, but amoral without a judgment one way or the other, and to that logic, any _entity_ is within its rights to justify slavery's existence by means that it is just a form of providing a steady working population for nation's fiscal growth. That way, any _entity_ that has a workforce will be justified in how free it is in practicing its own desired business model.

 

If the person masquerading as Jake keeps this up, I think we need to see him following his liberty in business practices in satin breeches, velvet waistcoat, and frilly neck sash.

Link to post
Share on other sites

staytonf: You wrote:

 

"Given this, it's perfectly understandable that the Southern states would deem themselves beleaguered, and oppressed, and consider armed conflict against the duly constituted government as their sole option".

 

Are you being sarcastic? If Lincoln didn't have the policial power to outlaw slavery in the slave states, why was it 'perfectly understandable' for those states to attack the Union?

Link to post
Share on other sites

After you two mop up all that regurgitation, bear in mind that slavery is still being practiced in this country. In some measure. Convicts cleaning freeways; "workfare"; community service; even the exploitation of illegal immigrants doing hard work for pennies a day.

 

The mentioning of instuctions for slaves and slaveholders in the Bible questions the purported "immorality" of the practice. It might just be that in those times, slavery meant something else to them. Like any general term. For instance, the word "spanking" means different things to different people. I, for instance, might consider a quick brushing of the backside in one soft slap to be a spanking. To others, it might require a bare bottom and dozens of enthusiastic drubbings with a hairbrush or wooden spoon. It's the generality of the word that makes it neccessary to disavow the practice altogether. Same thing with slavery. Personally, I find the idea of "owning" another human being for the purpose of having them do what you wish to be distasteful.

 

I find it hard to believe that even a sleepy-eyed, mouth breathing knuckle dragger would find slavery to be a valid practice.

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

>I find it hard to believe that even a sleepy-eyed, mouth breathing knuckle dragger would find slavery to be a valid practice.

 

Very true, Sepia...and don't you think THIS is the very reason that otherwise reasonably intelligent people(such as Jake) even to this very DAY will attempt to cloak the issue of the American Civil War in the context of "States' Rights"?!

 

It's most often their "fall-back argument" of course, and one in which they can THEN attempt to come across as "enlightened" enough to know this, but yet NOT admit that they and "the Cause" they were fight for was/is on the "wrong side of history"!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So it would seem that this thread, originally being about Robert Osborne's opening comments about the airing of Gone With the Wind and then later the discussion centered around the film premier and the associated publicity of the event in Atlanta was the main focus of this thread.

 

Eventually this thread became a thread about slavery and the people who looked up to certain Civil War generals. Now the thread is mostly about slavery and the opinions of those who write here claiming that certain people who fought during the Civil War were traitors and how the term traitor is now being applied to the founders of our country.

 

This really should be for an American History blog or message board don't you all think?

 

Meanwhile if you all would be interested in reading about the FACT that many of the northern colonies also participated in slavery you should go to this website:

 

http://www.slavenorth.com/index.html

 

Read the Slavery in the North part. Very interesting.

 

As far as the founding fathers are concerned?.

 

If you read the Declaration of Independence, there is this passage near the top of the second paragraph:

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- *That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness*. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

 

More info can be found here:

 

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/thirteenthamendment.html

 

and:

 

http://www.crf-usa.org/black-history-month/the-constitution-and-slavery

 

Very interesting that in order to get the Constitution approved, southern states slavery rights were also put to the test. And just like it was with the Declaration of Independence, the whole ball of wax depended on satisfying the southern states' views on slavery to get the darned thing passed.

 

No where in the Constitution did it say anything about slavery until the adoption of the 13th Amendment in 1865.

 

"But that the Supreme Court, in its infamous decision in Dred Scott v Sandford (1857), ruled that Congress lacked the power to prohibit slavery in its territories. In so doing, Scott v Sandford invited slave owners to pour into the territories and pass pro-slavery constitutions. *The decision made the Civil War inevitable*. Chief Justice Roger Taney, writing for the majority in Scott, also concluded that people of African ancestry (whether free or a slave, including Scott) could never become "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, and hence lacked the ability to bring suit in federal court."

 

Edited by: fxreyman on Dec 3, 2013 1:53 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're correct that this thread has gotten way off track. But it is interesting.

 

I really don't understand why you mention that northern states had slaves. We all know this. We know that many of the founding fathers and men held in high regard today (e.g. Jefferson), had slaves. I fail to see how those FACTS relate to the 'what is a traitor' issue.

 

Maybe we just view the term 'traitor' differently. I do NOT view the term as a default negative term. i.e. one can be a moral traitor. It all depends on why someone decides to take up arms against their government and the actions of said government. As I said, I view the founding fathers as moral traitors, but not the South as it relates to the civil war.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.

 

Abraham Lincoln Speech Congress 1848

 

Jake in the Heartland

Link to post
Share on other sites

*The withdrawal of a State from a league has no revolutionary or insurrectionary characteristic. The government of the State remains unchanged as to all internal affairs. It is only its external or confederate relations that are altered. To term this action of a Sovereign a 'rebellion' is a gross abuse of language.*

 

President Jefferson Davis

 

Jake in the Heartland

Link to post
Share on other sites

>jjguitar:

>Are you being sarcastic?

 

Yes. I was pointing out the emptiness of the South's rationalization for it's attack on the United States. It created a mythology of oppression, when in fact it was largely prevailing in the political, legislative, and judicial arenas. Contrary to it's characterization of it's position as a defensive one, it was actually pursuing an aggressive campaign to expand and force it's policies on the rest of the nation, and the newly established states.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This joker can't even get the chronology of the Morrill Tariff correct.:

 

Seven of the states that would form the Confederacy seceded from the Union between December 1860 and February 1861, before the passage of the Morrill Tariff. Four more states would secede following the attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861.

 

I've never understood the logic of the name The War Between the States. It sounds like individual states were fighting one another for no particular reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.jewish-history.com/civilwar/shockoe.htm

 

http://www.sc.edu/uscpress/books/2000/3363.html

 

Jews were an integral and powerful part of the Confederacy

with Judah Benjamin on Jefferson Davis' cabinet and the

Lehman Brothers in Montgomery Alabama just to name a

few.

 

Jake in the Heartland

 

Edited by: JakeHolman on Dec 4, 2013 8:28 PM

Link to post
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. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...