Support
Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Fundamental Concepts – Slavery [Weirddave]
A few weeks back I went to Mount Vernon. I took lots of pictures of the grounds, many of which will be featured in the garden thread later today. Anyone who has the opportunity should definitely visit Mount Vernon, especially if you have an historical bent. The tours are well done and there is a plethora of information about George Washington and life presented that is truly fascinating and well worth your time. There's just one thing that bugged me about the entire experience that bugged me, and that's that all too often the purpose of the tour seemed to be to beat you over the head with the fact that “George Washington kept slaves!”. “George Washington kept SLAVES!” “GEORGE WASHINGTON KEPT SLAVES, DID YOU HEAR? SLAVES!!!”. It is an exaggeration to say that visitors are greeted “Welcome to Mount Vernon, a colonial era plantations that was home to 300 slaves and some guy named George”, but not that much of one.
Let me get this out of the way right up front. In no way, shape or form is this a defense of slavery. Slavery is a vile institution, a stain upon the history of this country, and may ultimately prove to be the one thing that ensured that we would lose the Republic we were designed to inherit. The authoritarian policies that the US had to adopt to end the scourge of slavery have borne bitter, bitter fruit indeed in the Leviathan that today enslaves all of us in chains that are in many ways harsher than the physical chains forced upon enslaved blacks. An historian observing American history from a thousand years in the future may very well conclude that slavery was the poison pill that we were never able to overcome.
What's missing from the conversation is context. Slavery is a horrible, dehumanizing, awful thing, but it is a horrible, dehumanizing, awful thing that has been practiced by every group, society and race of humans in history. Yes, many of the Founding Fathers were slave owners. So were everybody else in the world at the time. What's different about the time of America's founding is that in America, and in the Christian West, the idea that owning another human being was simply a right was being challenged, ultimately successfully. Think of it this way: You're an alien race who stumbles across Earth 3500 years ago. Using your advanced technology, you survey the entire planet and notice that the dominant life form is a group of talking monkeys living in tribal societies, and one of the things that all of these societies have in common is that all of them enslave other monkeys for their labor. You fly away with your report, and Alien Star Command puts Earth on a list to be observed periodically. Every hundred years a space ship comes back, and each time their report notes slavery, all over the planet. This would have been the norm for millennia, until the 1700s when the occupants of the western part of the greater continental mass began to agitate for the abolition of slavery, based upon the teachings of a philosopher who had lived in the Middle East region 18 centuries earlier. In a remarkably short period of time, slavery is recognized as evil and abolished in a large part of the world. Historically speaking, that's exactly what was occurring on planet Earth. Instead of recognizing that America and the rest of the West were the vanguard of a new human awareness that slavery was a great evil, the people of that time are cast as evil slavers and thus not worthy of recognition. Slavery is the default state of mankind. It still exists across large swaths of the world today (it still exists in the West today, but when it is discovered it is viciously prosecuted). What was happening at the time in America was that an institution that had stood unquestioned since time immemorial was being questioned, and within a century it would be overthrown. Washington manumitted his slaves in his will. While it's easy to criticize the personal convenience of that act, it's also something that wasn't common at the time. A step on the journey from slavery being accepted to slavery being condemned. While the Constitution didn't ban slavery, it did contain the seeds of it's ultimate destruction. Article 1 Sec. 9 ended the slave trade by 1808. The 3/5th compromise did not, as so many today like to put it “say that blacks were 3/5 of a person” at all. The 3/5ths compromise was an anti-slavery measure designed to weaken the power of slave states. These statutes were painstakingly hammered out to allow the formation of the US*. A couple of generations later, the Civil War. Can anyone name another civilization that has ever fought a bloody war where the dominant ethnic group was fighting itself with the goal of freeing an enslaved minority?** One of the two main political parties in the country was established strictly to end slavery, and it continues to be a power today, 150 years later, with a history of defending minority rights against majority tyranny. THAT'S the real context of history. The founders of this country should not be condemned because they were products of their times, they should be commended for leading the fight to change what that meant. History is a process, and change takes time. Attacking Washington for owning slaves is like criticizing the QB in the first quarter because he hasn't won the game. Of course not, the game isn't over yet. As an American, I am appalled by the reality of what slavery was in this country, but I am immensely proud of how the country as a whole fought to overcome and end it. The racial history of America is one of achievement and a journey from darkness to enlightenment. I can stand tall and unashamed with that as my birthright.* Imagine a world where these compromises aren't reached, and two or more countries form instead of one United States. Do you think that southern America would have any incentive to free their slaves absent pressure from northern abolitionists? Why would they, it's a different country, who cares what they say?
** Yea, I know, fight it out in the comments. Here's the proximate question though: If you're claiming that some other cause than slavery was the real cause of the Civil Way, would that cause have led to war absent the slavery issue? I can't think of one.
Comments
(Jump to bottom of comments)1
Sorry I'm late, Thanks to CBD for keeping things going. I was just going to wait, the Lancaster thread is fascinating. I've been to the dam busters museum in Nanton, Ab. and walked through one of those planes, it's amazing how small they actually were.
Posted by: Weirddave at April 25, 2015 11:28 AM (WvS3w)
2
Thanks Weird Dave. I predict this thread will take an ugly turn at some point.
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at April 25, 2015 11:29 AM (NeFrd)
Posted by: Bill Cliton at April 25, 2015 11:31 AM (xQX/f)
4
I'm going to keep an eye on it. I don't know how I could have been clearer if someone tries to claim I'm pro-slavery or some garbage like that.
Posted by: Weirddave at April 25, 2015 11:31 AM (WvS3w)
5
They want to put y'all back in chains!
Posted by: Joe Biden, brutha yo at April 25, 2015 11:32 AM (XrHO0)
6
And now, we're all just slaves to taxation and the surveillance state.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
Posted by: Jim at April 25, 2015 11:32 AM (RzZOc)
7
He who stomps is stomped.
Posted by: The Great White Snark at April 25, 2015 11:33 AM (w6xPd)
8
If you're claiming that some other cause than slavery was the real cause of the Civil Way, would that cause have led to war absent the slavery issue? I can't think of one.
/shrugs
Money, territory, and power?
I think I'll be ducking out for the impending flamewar. Nice post, nevertheless.
/shrugs
Money, territory, and power?
I think I'll be ducking out for the impending flamewar. Nice post, nevertheless.
Posted by: antisocial justice beatnik at April 25, 2015 11:34 AM (l3LvV)
9
The 13 Zombie Sharkmen who died in the civil War fighting for the North (out of 42 who served) just emailed me to say "Tell Dave "nice column".
Posted by: Sharkman at April 25, 2015 11:35 AM (rXB/r)
10
So, once we get reparations squared away racism will be a thing of the past. Right?
Posted by: Hank at April 25, 2015 11:36 AM (K+1ie)
11
Actually the South was already on its way to freeing the Slaves... probably would have happened because of basic economics in the next 50 or so years, as the Industrial revolution really got rolling.
IMO there would have been holdouts... and really ugly stuff before they were freed... but slavery just does not make economic sense in any type of industrialized society (note, all the 'modern' slavery of the West, are domestics).
IMO there would have been holdouts... and really ugly stuff before they were freed... but slavery just does not make economic sense in any type of industrialized society (note, all the 'modern' slavery of the West, are domestics).
Posted by: BB Wolf at April 25, 2015 11:37 AM (qh617)
12
And thanks to the Democrats for ending slave...oh, wait. Ok, thanks to the Democrats for civil rights legis...oh, sorry.
Posted by: Brave Sir Robin at April 25, 2015 11:37 AM (5buP8)
13
Just bear in mind that most slavery was practiced among similar tribal/racial groups. The Spartans enslaved the Helots, the semetic Egyptians enslaved the Jews, African Muslims enslaved African pagans...
The very early British colonists to America viewed slaves (bond-servants, indentured workers) in much the way we view prisoners, hostages, military draftees -- these were PEOPLE who were HELD by powerful, other, people, for a specific purpose for a more or less limited time. People held could be released, and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson did, eventually, release the people they held.
It was a rather uniquely US American view that evolved after 1700 that came to see racially different "slaves" as inherently "NOT-people". Could never be released, any more than a dog or a horse could be expected to be released and make a successful life apart from a master. This was not the view of any Americans in 1820, and was not the view of the majority in 1860, but it was the view of enough people in the highest places that the situation became intolerable. PARTICULARLY when the US Supreme Court held, in "Dred Scott", that one-size-fits-all and federal law trumps states' rights and a formerly enslaved person in a free state must be returned, as a re-enslaved prisoner, to a slave state to be re-sold or restored to the "original owner". This legal doctrine was NOT the way things were understood 3500 years earlier in places like Sparta, or a half century earlier in Boston. It was a new and perverse accommodation with an ancient evil. And it HAD to be a concept destroyed in fire and blood.
The very early British colonists to America viewed slaves (bond-servants, indentured workers) in much the way we view prisoners, hostages, military draftees -- these were PEOPLE who were HELD by powerful, other, people, for a specific purpose for a more or less limited time. People held could be released, and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson did, eventually, release the people they held.
It was a rather uniquely US American view that evolved after 1700 that came to see racially different "slaves" as inherently "NOT-people". Could never be released, any more than a dog or a horse could be expected to be released and make a successful life apart from a master. This was not the view of any Americans in 1820, and was not the view of the majority in 1860, but it was the view of enough people in the highest places that the situation became intolerable. PARTICULARLY when the US Supreme Court held, in "Dred Scott", that one-size-fits-all and federal law trumps states' rights and a formerly enslaved person in a free state must be returned, as a re-enslaved prisoner, to a slave state to be re-sold or restored to the "original owner". This legal doctrine was NOT the way things were understood 3500 years earlier in places like Sparta, or a half century earlier in Boston. It was a new and perverse accommodation with an ancient evil. And it HAD to be a concept destroyed in fire and blood.
Posted by: Pouncer at April 25, 2015 11:38 AM (rUSDY)
14
6 And now, we're all just slaves to taxation and the surveillance state.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
Posted by: Jim at April 25, 2015 11:32 AM (RzZOc)
good point... now our Labor is OWNED by the Federal Government... not one person...
Annddddd... who instituted the first ever Income Tax???
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
Posted by: Jim at April 25, 2015 11:32 AM (RzZOc)
good point... now our Labor is OWNED by the Federal Government... not one person...
Annddddd... who instituted the first ever Income Tax???
Posted by: BB Wolf at April 25, 2015 11:38 AM (qh617)
15
Here come all the southerners....
Posted by: William Tecumsah at April 25, 2015 11:38 AM (6iE18)
16
Most of the founders set their slaves free. Many joined or established anti-slavery organizations in their states. They banned importation of slaves into the US early on. The founders were divided on the issue, but all the popularly known ones (jefferson, madison, etc) were against it but knew the country could not be formed if they made it a do-or-die issue. They figured it would be hashed out in future generations, and it was.
That said, I'm not 100% entirely opposed to all forms of slavery; we still allow it with prisoners. The 13th amendment specifically has an exemption saying "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted," and we do work people in jail without pay or ability to quit or leave.
Further judges will require some criminals to work in community service for a time period in a state of temporary enslavement.
I think a system by which at least some criminals are required to work off their debt to society in a more specific, direct sense would be better, as indentured servitude: a specific, limited time period, only for punishment for crimes or a method of working off a debt, and with a clear end point.
Slavery is a word that people always presume is without exception wholly evil and wrong, but it isn't. It just was the way it was done in the past.
That said, I'm not 100% entirely opposed to all forms of slavery; we still allow it with prisoners. The 13th amendment specifically has an exemption saying "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted," and we do work people in jail without pay or ability to quit or leave.
Further judges will require some criminals to work in community service for a time period in a state of temporary enslavement.
I think a system by which at least some criminals are required to work off their debt to society in a more specific, direct sense would be better, as indentured servitude: a specific, limited time period, only for punishment for crimes or a method of working off a debt, and with a clear end point.
Slavery is a word that people always presume is without exception wholly evil and wrong, but it isn't. It just was the way it was done in the past.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 11:39 AM (39g3+)
17
Oh,, goody; Another opportunity for a flame war over the War Between the States/Civil lWar/War of Northern Aggression. Another opportunity for leftists to gloat because we're fighting over something that took place over 150 years ago and not being on the same side against leftist totalitarians. Yay!! :^(
I'm out, and yes, Mount Vernon is a beautiful place to visit and George Washington wanted his slaves freed after his death. I don't think Martha was on board with that, however.
I'm out, and yes, Mount Vernon is a beautiful place to visit and George Washington wanted his slaves freed after his death. I don't think Martha was on board with that, however.
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at April 25, 2015 11:40 AM (DXzRD)
18
Gay Langland was right.
Posted by: Ed Anger at April 25, 2015 11:40 AM (RcpcZ)
19
Ignore everything else the US has accomplished. Fixate on one thing. Two hundred years ago, slavery was legal.
Ignore the way the democrat party keeps the descendants of slaves dependant on the democrat party and the politicians who lead it.
Ignore the fact that descendants of slaves are now given special treatment. Make excuses for the crimes committed by the descendants of slaves, because slavery was once legal.
Crucify Any descendant of slaves who make a good life for himself and his family without swearing allegiance to the democrat party and call him a traitor to his race.
Ignore the greatest prosperity for the largest number of people, the greatest freedom, the scientific achievements, the years of peaceful trade, and fixate on destroying the country for something that was over with a hundred years ago.
And hate the joos because they are not human, hate the rich who are not democrats, and ignore the law because it was written by white men, except when the law grants you special entitlement because your skin color is the same as the skin color of those who were once slaves.
Makes perfect sense.
Ignore the way the democrat party keeps the descendants of slaves dependant on the democrat party and the politicians who lead it.
Ignore the fact that descendants of slaves are now given special treatment. Make excuses for the crimes committed by the descendants of slaves, because slavery was once legal.
Crucify Any descendant of slaves who make a good life for himself and his family without swearing allegiance to the democrat party and call him a traitor to his race.
Ignore the greatest prosperity for the largest number of people, the greatest freedom, the scientific achievements, the years of peaceful trade, and fixate on destroying the country for something that was over with a hundred years ago.
And hate the joos because they are not human, hate the rich who are not democrats, and ignore the law because it was written by white men, except when the law grants you special entitlement because your skin color is the same as the skin color of those who were once slaves.
Makes perfect sense.
Posted by: Newman Smith Jr. at April 25, 2015 11:40 AM (iIu+4)
20
You can't blame the Democrats the Civil War or not voting for civil rights. Those crackers were on their way to being all GOPey anyway.
Posted by: Hank at April 25, 2015 11:41 AM (K+1ie)
21
As an American, I am appalled by the reality of what slavery was in this country, but I am immensely proud of how the country as a whole fought to overcome and end it.
I can't agree. The New York Draft Riots and the Civil War taking place at all are nothing to be proud of. There's an old boaters poem about 'being right, dead right' that comes to mind when I think of Lincoln.
I'm not an apologist for slavery, it's vile. But it was an institution destined to fail of its own weight, quicker with the correct pressure being exerted.
I can't agree. The New York Draft Riots and the Civil War taking place at all are nothing to be proud of. There's an old boaters poem about 'being right, dead right' that comes to mind when I think of Lincoln.
I'm not an apologist for slavery, it's vile. But it was an institution destined to fail of its own weight, quicker with the correct pressure being exerted.
Posted by: SE Pa Moron at April 25, 2015 11:41 AM (xQX/f)
22
Slavery as practiced in the early US and slavery as practiced in the classical world were entirely different animals.
Posted by: kartoffel at April 25, 2015 11:42 AM (uEmgg)
23
George Washington wanted his slaves freed after his death. I don't think Martha was on board with that, however.
His will actually freed them after her death.
His will actually freed them after her death.
Posted by: Weirddave at April 25, 2015 11:42 AM (WvS3w)
24
Slavery as practiced in the early US and slavery as practiced in the classical world were entirely different animals.
-
?
-
?
Posted by: The Great White Snark at April 25, 2015 11:43 AM (ifw3z)
25
If Jefferson had said, "The Hell with the South! I'm putting my snarky comments about the salve trade into the Declaration of Independence!" what would have happened then?
The North would have been fighting the South AND the British at the same time. The North would have lost, the British would retain the colonies and the South would have been rewarded by the Brits for helping to annihilate the North.
We'd still have slavery today.
The Founding Fathers were right to compromise and say, "We need the South with us. Let's not do the abolition thing yet. Let's get King George off our backs first."
The North would have been fighting the South AND the British at the same time. The North would have lost, the British would retain the colonies and the South would have been rewarded by the Brits for helping to annihilate the North.
We'd still have slavery today.
The Founding Fathers were right to compromise and say, "We need the South with us. Let's not do the abolition thing yet. Let's get King George off our backs first."
Posted by: RKae at April 25, 2015 11:44 AM (XeIqw)
Posted by: eman at April 25, 2015 11:45 AM (MQEz6)
27
Sounds like the author has bought into the leftist guilt trip. No one alive today, nor their parents or grand parents had anything whatsoever to do with slavery. At this remove it is an entirely academic issue.
Besides the left doesn't care about the history of world slavery nor American slavery. They operate completely on emotional, hysterical mob attacks. They know that the population has been prepped for these attacks by the academic brainwashing on their issues. Just watch the upcoming 2016 election for more hysterical smears on the party of freedom.
Besides the left doesn't care about the history of world slavery nor American slavery. They operate completely on emotional, hysterical mob attacks. They know that the population has been prepped for these attacks by the academic brainwashing on their issues. Just watch the upcoming 2016 election for more hysterical smears on the party of freedom.
Posted by: Harold at April 25, 2015 11:45 AM (I2R/U)
28
Most slave owners never fought in the civil war, they were legally exempt.
Posted by: just bob at April 25, 2015 11:45 AM (wkuqO)
29
The North won the War for Industrial Slavery.
Posted by: Ed Anger at April 25, 2015 11:45 AM (RcpcZ)
30
Posted by: Pouncer at April 25, 2015 11:38 AM (rUSDY)
Interesting idea... but the Spartans self identified through the 'Tribe' of Sparta, much more than any other Identity.... so the helots were still 'others'... it just was not based on Race...
Its like the American Indian Tribes... who in their own languages called themselves Human Beings... other tribes... were not.... but someone could become a human being (tribe member) even if of some other Race... (very famous example of a Black Apache..)
Interesting idea... but the Spartans self identified through the 'Tribe' of Sparta, much more than any other Identity.... so the helots were still 'others'... it just was not based on Race...
Its like the American Indian Tribes... who in their own languages called themselves Human Beings... other tribes... were not.... but someone could become a human being (tribe member) even if of some other Race... (very famous example of a Black Apache..)
Posted by: BB Wolf at April 25, 2015 11:46 AM (qh617)
31
Great post. Thanks, weirddave.
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at April 25, 2015 11:46 AM (mB6ez)
32
good point... now our Labor is OWNED by the Federal Government... not one person...>>>
And in the place of Plantations the power players and their cronies live in mansions.
Exhibit 1 http://tinyurl.com/24lrbu9
Al Gore's $9M mansion
And in the place of Plantations the power players and their cronies live in mansions.
Exhibit 1 http://tinyurl.com/24lrbu9
Al Gore's $9M mansion
Posted by: Buzzsaw at April 25, 2015 11:46 AM (81UWZ)
33
Slavery never went away. It's hiding in the tax code at the IRS.
Posted by: Fritz at April 25, 2015 11:46 AM (ty633)
34
*Do you think that southern America would have any incentive to free their slaves absent pressure from northern abolitionists? Why would they, it's a different country, who cares what they say?
Counter examples: South Africa, Rhodesia, South and Central America.....
*Do you think that southern America would have any incentive to free their slaves absent pressure from northern abolitionists? Why would they, it's a different country, who cares what they say?
Counter examples: South Africa, Rhodesia, South and Central America.....
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 25, 2015 11:47 AM (kdS6q)
35
Slavery as practiced in the early US and slavery as practiced in the classical world were entirely different animals.
Well that's certainly true WRT Muslim slavery. 11 million African slaves came to the Americas, 900K to the US. 150 million Africans were enslaved by Muslims over 13 centuries, and upwards of 80% of them died before getting back to the Middle East where the men were castrated and the women forced into prostitution. Very different indeed, both in scale and in treatment.
Well that's certainly true WRT Muslim slavery. 11 million African slaves came to the Americas, 900K to the US. 150 million Africans were enslaved by Muslims over 13 centuries, and upwards of 80% of them died before getting back to the Middle East where the men were castrated and the women forced into prostitution. Very different indeed, both in scale and in treatment.
Posted by: Weirddave at April 25, 2015 11:47 AM (WvS3w)
36
The Left has worked very hard to shatter the American mythology around its founding as a key element in dismantling the culture. We were taught that America was uniquely blessed among nations; the last generation has been taught that America is uniquely evil in the history of mankind.
No nation can survive the complete undermining of its common narrative. A people weened on guilt cannot even show up for the future. Ceding control of the culture and its vectors of transmission to the Left has allowed them to gnaw through the roots, and its only a matter of time before the tree falls.
No nation can survive the complete undermining of its common narrative. A people weened on guilt cannot even show up for the future. Ceding control of the culture and its vectors of transmission to the Left has allowed them to gnaw through the roots, and its only a matter of time before the tree falls.
Posted by: Beef at April 25, 2015 11:47 AM (/q4N3)
37
States' rights took a fatal shot in the Civil War. it is however, natural for a thing to grow and the Feds are no exception.
Posted by: just bob at April 25, 2015 11:47 AM (wkuqO)
38
It was a rather uniquely US American view that evolved after 1700 that came to see racially different "slaves" as inherently "NOT-people". Could never be released, any more than a dog or a horse could be expected to be released and make a successful life apart from a master. This was not the view of any Americans in 1820, and was not the view of the majority in 1860, but it was the view of enough people in the highest places that the situation became intolerable. PARTICULARLY when the US Supreme Court held, in "Dred Scott", that one-size-fits-all and federal law trumps states' rights and a formerly enslaved person in a free state must be returned, as a re-enslaved prisoner, to a slave state to be re-sold or restored to the "original owner". This legal doctrine was NOT the way things were understood 3500 years earlier in places like Sparta, or a half century earlier in Boston. It was a new and perverse accommodation with an ancient evil. And it HAD to be a concept destroyed in fire and blood.
----
This really cannot be overstated. It's worth pointing out that this concept of other races or groups as, well, animals, to be either used, exterminated, or petted is at the heart of pretty much every evil ideology.
----
This really cannot be overstated. It's worth pointing out that this concept of other races or groups as, well, animals, to be either used, exterminated, or petted is at the heart of pretty much every evil ideology.
Posted by: Jenny Hates Her Phone at April 25, 2015 11:49 AM (mB6ez)
39
Like Pouncer said, slaves in the old world were not considered to be non-people, often because there was not as much genetic difference between the slavers and the enslaved. It was the intercontinental slave trade (pioneered by conquering Arabs) that made the American practice particularly awful.
Posted by: kartoffel at April 25, 2015 11:49 AM (uEmgg)
40
@11 BB Wolf "the South was already on its way to freeing the Slaves... probably would have happened because of basic economics in the next 50 or so years"
Yeah, so my great-grandfather thought in the 1840's. A sod-buster who thought Iowa too crowded and planned to go west and seek his fortune in the Kansas-Nebraska territories... And the Missouri Compromise of 1820 had defined the areas where slavery would be confined to die out gradually and gracefully, and opened up the other areas where free men could earn their own way.
Ever hear about "Bleeding Kansas"? The concept of slavery essentially chased freemen down, terrorized, pillaged and burned and most of all rigged elections to expand that evil into territories where it would not make economic sense, but only served the political purpose of preserving a balance in the US Senate -- two "slave" senators for every two "free" senators. And "moderates" like Stephen Douglas claimed not to care, so local territories could "decide for themselves."
Evil pays no attention to economics. Evil will spend itself destitute to perpetuate itself.
Yeah, so my great-grandfather thought in the 1840's. A sod-buster who thought Iowa too crowded and planned to go west and seek his fortune in the Kansas-Nebraska territories... And the Missouri Compromise of 1820 had defined the areas where slavery would be confined to die out gradually and gracefully, and opened up the other areas where free men could earn their own way.
Ever hear about "Bleeding Kansas"? The concept of slavery essentially chased freemen down, terrorized, pillaged and burned and most of all rigged elections to expand that evil into territories where it would not make economic sense, but only served the political purpose of preserving a balance in the US Senate -- two "slave" senators for every two "free" senators. And "moderates" like Stephen Douglas claimed not to care, so local territories could "decide for themselves."
Evil pays no attention to economics. Evil will spend itself destitute to perpetuate itself.
Posted by: Pouncer at April 25, 2015 11:49 AM (rUSDY)
41
Sounds like the author has bought into the leftist guilt trip. No one
alive today, nor their parents or grand parents had anything whatsoever
to do with slavery. At this remove it is an entirely academic issue.
Yes, I'm buying into it by attacking it's premise as false. Tell me, what color are the trees on your planet?
Counter examples: South Africa, Rhodesia, South and Central America.....
Different historical time periods.
alive today, nor their parents or grand parents had anything whatsoever
to do with slavery. At this remove it is an entirely academic issue.
Yes, I'm buying into it by attacking it's premise as false. Tell me, what color are the trees on your planet?
Counter examples: South Africa, Rhodesia, South and Central America.....
Different historical time periods.
Posted by: Weirddave at April 25, 2015 11:50 AM (WvS3w)
42
Fuck the GOP. Especially that slave-owning part.
Posted by: Cloyd Freud, Unemployed at April 25, 2015 11:51 AM (QRz0C)
43
Here's the proximate question though: If you're claiming that some other cause than slavery was the real cause of the Civil Way, would that cause have led to war absent the slavery issue? I can't think of one.
Tariffs.
Tariffs greatly favored the North, to the detriment of the South. A severe economic downturn in the South (caused by, e.g., new competition for agricultural products) could have led to a dispute over tariff policy that might have led to Southern secession.
Tariffs.
Tariffs greatly favored the North, to the detriment of the South. A severe economic downturn in the South (caused by, e.g., new competition for agricultural products) could have led to a dispute over tariff policy that might have led to Southern secession.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 25, 2015 11:52 AM (oKE6c)
44
Lincoln didn't free the slaves in the North anyway. He freed the slaves in the south where he had no control at the time. Interesting side bar.
Posted by: just bob at April 25, 2015 11:54 AM (wkuqO)
45
South and Central America.....
Different historical time periods.
Posted by: Weirddave
You really should google that first before making that declaration.
South and Central America.....
Different historical time periods.
Posted by: Weirddave
You really should google that first before making that declaration.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 25, 2015 11:55 AM (kdS6q)
46
It was a rather uniquely US American view that evolved after 1700 that came to see racially different "slaves" as inherently "NOT-people". Could never be released, any more than a dog or a horse could be expected to be released and make a successful life apart from a master.
--------
Uniquely American? Isn't it more an African custom that the courts codified. You know that whole black slave owner filing a lawsuit to prevent his black slave from being freed.
--------
Uniquely American? Isn't it more an African custom that the courts codified. You know that whole black slave owner filing a lawsuit to prevent his black slave from being freed.
Posted by: Buzzion at April 25, 2015 11:55 AM (z/Ubi)
47
I think the movie GLORY exemplifies your point, WD. The protagonist (Denzel Washington) starts out hating all white men and white culture (for excellent reasons, frankly), but ends up carrying the banner of the country into a battle against what he actually hated: The institution and culture of slavery.
Best line in the movie is "Give 'em hell, 54!" Still chokes me up a bit.
Best line in the movie is "Give 'em hell, 54!" Still chokes me up a bit.
Posted by: jwpaine at April 25, 2015 11:56 AM (0bXhD)
48
If the left gave a Harvey Milk tour, I wonder if they'd mention over and over again the fact that he molested teen boys.
Posted by: Sunni LeBeouf at April 25, 2015 11:57 AM (XrHO0)
49
The purpose of the pitch at Mount Vernon was not to educate people about slavery, but to neutralize George Washington as an ideological influence on today's world.
The Left spent the better part of the last century worshipping at the feet of the Soviet Union and every Marxist by-blow that popped up around the planet. Societies where every man, woman, and child was enslaved to its leaders and government.
Historically the Left has not been opposed to the total control of other people. They're against the Founders and the founding principles of this nation which gave more freedom to more of its population than any other in history. Washington? Jefferson? Don't ever look at anything about their lives but the slaves.
The Left spent the better part of the last century worshipping at the feet of the Soviet Union and every Marxist by-blow that popped up around the planet. Societies where every man, woman, and child was enslaved to its leaders and government.
Historically the Left has not been opposed to the total control of other people. They're against the Founders and the founding principles of this nation which gave more freedom to more of its population than any other in history. Washington? Jefferson? Don't ever look at anything about their lives but the slaves.
Posted by: TB at April 25, 2015 11:58 AM (8u/5i)
50
48
no
no
Posted by: just bob at April 25, 2015 11:58 AM (wkuqO)
51
Weirddave,
Slavery was the "boiling point" but most of the south v north stuff was the same types of issues we're at each others throats over right now.
If you read primary sources (on either side) no one fighting the Civil War thought they were fighting "for slavery" and very few thought they were fighting "against slavery."
In fact, a very small minority of wealthy 1%ers in the south owned most of the slaves in this country. The overwhelming majority of soldiers fighting on behalf of the confederacy never owned slaves.
To the south, the war was over state sovereignty. To the north, it was over protecting the Union and federal supremacy.
Slavery was the "boiling point" but most of the south v north stuff was the same types of issues we're at each others throats over right now.
If you read primary sources (on either side) no one fighting the Civil War thought they were fighting "for slavery" and very few thought they were fighting "against slavery."
In fact, a very small minority of wealthy 1%ers in the south owned most of the slaves in this country. The overwhelming majority of soldiers fighting on behalf of the confederacy never owned slaves.
To the south, the war was over state sovereignty. To the north, it was over protecting the Union and federal supremacy.
Posted by: mynewhandle at April 25, 2015 11:59 AM (AkOaV)
52
Evil pays no attention to economics. Evil will spend itself destitute to perpetuate itself.
Posted by: Pouncer at April 25, 2015 11:49 AM (rUSDY)
Yep.... exactly what I am saying... it would have been ugly... but just as you state, evil (slavery) would have spent itself destitute, and then ceased to be a power... and then ceased to exist... IMO...
The only thing that may have changed that, would have been the Industrial barons of the North.... it may have been economically viable to run slaves in the big Iron factories...
but this is all intellectual masturbation.... who knows... history is weird and often hinges on very strange people and events...
Like Napoleons dismissal of the Russians, and their Generals stemmed from a VERY dismissive letter he got when he tried to Join the Russian Army when he graduated Military School....
Posted by: Pouncer at April 25, 2015 11:49 AM (rUSDY)
Yep.... exactly what I am saying... it would have been ugly... but just as you state, evil (slavery) would have spent itself destitute, and then ceased to be a power... and then ceased to exist... IMO...
The only thing that may have changed that, would have been the Industrial barons of the North.... it may have been economically viable to run slaves in the big Iron factories...
but this is all intellectual masturbation.... who knows... history is weird and often hinges on very strange people and events...
Like Napoleons dismissal of the Russians, and their Generals stemmed from a VERY dismissive letter he got when he tried to Join the Russian Army when he graduated Military School....
Posted by: BB Wolf at April 25, 2015 12:00 PM (qh617)
53
The purpose of the pitch at Mount Vernon was not to educate people about
slavery, but to neutralize George Washington as an ideological
influence on today's world.
Which is what I'm pushing back against.
The purpose of the pitch at Mount Vernon was not to educate people about
slavery, but to neutralize George Washington as an ideological
influence on today's world.
Which is what I'm pushing back against.
Posted by: Weirddave at April 25, 2015 12:00 PM (WvS3w)
54
Check out how freed slaves settled in Liberia treated the indigenous Africans.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 25, 2015 12:00 PM (oKE6c)
55
The 3/5ths compromise was an anti-slavery measure designed to weaken the power of slave states.
I'm going to disagree on this point. Designed to weaken the power of the slave states? Yes.
An anti-slavery measure? No. It was simply used to prevent the slave states from being able to put more bodies in the House of Representatives. Remember, at the time of the 3/5ths Compromise, the non-slave states still had no issue with capturing and returning escaped slaves.
I'm going to disagree on this point. Designed to weaken the power of the slave states? Yes.
An anti-slavery measure? No. It was simply used to prevent the slave states from being able to put more bodies in the House of Representatives. Remember, at the time of the 3/5ths Compromise, the non-slave states still had no issue with capturing and returning escaped slaves.
Posted by: Country Singer at April 25, 2015 12:01 PM (nL0sw)
56
Its like the American Indian Tribes... who in their
own languages called themselves Human Beings... other tribes... were
not.... but someone could become a human being (tribe member) even if of
some other Race... (very famous example of a Black Apache..)
Posted by: BB Wolf at April 25, 2015 11:46 AM (qh617)
As one of wife's kinfolks, Cynthia Ann Parker, mother of Quanah, last war chief of the Comanche Nation.
own languages called themselves Human Beings... other tribes... were
not.... but someone could become a human being (tribe member) even if of
some other Race... (very famous example of a Black Apache..)
Posted by: BB Wolf at April 25, 2015 11:46 AM (qh617)
As one of wife's kinfolks, Cynthia Ann Parker, mother of Quanah, last war chief of the Comanche Nation.
Posted by: SouthTexas at April 25, 2015 12:01 PM (/orPj)
57
@38 Jenny Hates...
"This really cannot be overstated. [] this concept of other races or groups as, well, animals, to be either used, exterminated, or petted is at the heart of pretty much every evil ideology."
To bring this to the modern debate -- "fetuses" or "stem cells" are either rats to be destroyed as parasites or resources to be experimented on; or they are in some degree or another human. I do not know. But I see no reason to suppose that a bare majority of Supreme Court Justices knows, either. I see even less reason to suppose that New York and Georgia should have the same law on fetuses under Roe V Wade because the "same law" concept on "Dred Scott" definitions of "human" worked out so freakin' well.
Ditto marriage. Ditto prohibition, or legalizing marijuana, or birthright citizenship, or right-to-work. Not-so-ditto immigration or "sanctuary cities" -- adult citizenship IS a federal issue.
And yes I know this makes me sound like Stephen Douglas and a hypocrite that "every state should decide for itself". But the difference is that Douglas was looking at territories becoming states and I'm looking at states that have been, are still, and are in no danger of becoming other than, states.
"This really cannot be overstated. [] this concept of other races or groups as, well, animals, to be either used, exterminated, or petted is at the heart of pretty much every evil ideology."
To bring this to the modern debate -- "fetuses" or "stem cells" are either rats to be destroyed as parasites or resources to be experimented on; or they are in some degree or another human. I do not know. But I see no reason to suppose that a bare majority of Supreme Court Justices knows, either. I see even less reason to suppose that New York and Georgia should have the same law on fetuses under Roe V Wade because the "same law" concept on "Dred Scott" definitions of "human" worked out so freakin' well.
Ditto marriage. Ditto prohibition, or legalizing marijuana, or birthright citizenship, or right-to-work. Not-so-ditto immigration or "sanctuary cities" -- adult citizenship IS a federal issue.
And yes I know this makes me sound like Stephen Douglas and a hypocrite that "every state should decide for itself". But the difference is that Douglas was looking at territories becoming states and I'm looking at states that have been, are still, and are in no danger of becoming other than, states.
Posted by: Pouncer at April 25, 2015 12:02 PM (rUSDY)
58
Weird Dave, I look forward to your weekend columns with great anticipation, it's one of the things I love best on AoS, but I fear you may have gone off the rails a bit with this one.
I appreciate you're now on the record as being foursquare against slavery. That's a bold stance. And thanks for informing me we should put the actions of our forefathers in historical context. That too came as a revelation to me.
Meanwhile, there are more slaves today on the continent of Africa than in the history of America, but I guess we're okay with that because it's mostly black people enslaving black people. Wait, let's not say we're okay with it, let's just say it's never discussed ... including in your column.
And by the time of the Civil War less than 5% of Southerners owned slaves, and most of them had maybe two or three. They were too damn expensive. I'm not sure 95% of their neighbors volunteered to bleed and die just so Magnolia Belle could continue sippin' her juleps on the front porch of their thousand-acre plantation.
Referencing Jesus as the source of slavery's abolition is also WAY outta the box: Jesus "never spoke a word against slavery, as far as we know." http://pathofthebeagle.com/2011/10/20/what-did-jesus-say-about-slavery/
If you think slavery's "vile," that's on you, not Christ. I'm not expressing a personal opinion on slavery, but I will say that our current welfare state is doing far more to destroy both the black and white communities than anything that happened in 1846 (or 30 AD for that matter).
It's also disappointing to see so many commenters corroborate what I've mentioned in the past: this is not the blog to discuss race, as proven by the numerous admonitions about "flame wars" posted above ... none of which have happened. Apparently the cautionary scolds far outnumber actual contributors to a meaningful and substantive dialog.
Still love ya, Dave, and look forward to your May 2 contribution.
I appreciate you're now on the record as being foursquare against slavery. That's a bold stance. And thanks for informing me we should put the actions of our forefathers in historical context. That too came as a revelation to me.
Meanwhile, there are more slaves today on the continent of Africa than in the history of America, but I guess we're okay with that because it's mostly black people enslaving black people. Wait, let's not say we're okay with it, let's just say it's never discussed ... including in your column.
And by the time of the Civil War less than 5% of Southerners owned slaves, and most of them had maybe two or three. They were too damn expensive. I'm not sure 95% of their neighbors volunteered to bleed and die just so Magnolia Belle could continue sippin' her juleps on the front porch of their thousand-acre plantation.
Referencing Jesus as the source of slavery's abolition is also WAY outta the box: Jesus "never spoke a word against slavery, as far as we know." http://pathofthebeagle.com/2011/10/20/what-did-jesus-say-about-slavery/
If you think slavery's "vile," that's on you, not Christ. I'm not expressing a personal opinion on slavery, but I will say that our current welfare state is doing far more to destroy both the black and white communities than anything that happened in 1846 (or 30 AD for that matter).
It's also disappointing to see so many commenters corroborate what I've mentioned in the past: this is not the blog to discuss race, as proven by the numerous admonitions about "flame wars" posted above ... none of which have happened. Apparently the cautionary scolds far outnumber actual contributors to a meaningful and substantive dialog.
Still love ya, Dave, and look forward to your May 2 contribution.
Posted by: Kate58 at April 25, 2015 12:02 PM (oLZsm)
59
6
And now, we're all just slaves to taxation and the surveillance state.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
Posted by: Jim
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If they beat me over the head with that when I visit I'll make an ass out of myself by telling them that the people selling him the slaves were the black African tribesman that captured and sold them and that slavery is still practiced in many parts of the world, especially in countries in Africa.
I don't have ANY white guilt over slavery. That ship sailed over 150 years ago and the price for their freedom here was American blood. Not African blood, American.
The SJW's trying to guilt trip me can go pound sand.
And now, we're all just slaves to taxation and the surveillance state.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
Posted by: Jim
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If they beat me over the head with that when I visit I'll make an ass out of myself by telling them that the people selling him the slaves were the black African tribesman that captured and sold them and that slavery is still practiced in many parts of the world, especially in countries in Africa.
I don't have ANY white guilt over slavery. That ship sailed over 150 years ago and the price for their freedom here was American blood. Not African blood, American.
The SJW's trying to guilt trip me can go pound sand.
Posted by: Gmac- Pulling in feelers in preperation... at April 25, 2015 12:02 PM (4CRfK)
60
It was a rather uniquely US American view that evolved after 1700 that came to see racially different "slaves" as inherently "NOT-people".
Posted by: Pouncer
Care to explain why my black ass is in chains?
Posted by: The African Slaves of the Caribbean and Central and South America
It was a rather uniquely US American view that evolved after 1700 that came to see racially different "slaves" as inherently "NOT-people".
Posted by: Pouncer
Care to explain why my black ass is in chains?
Posted by: The African Slaves of the Caribbean and Central and South America
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 25, 2015 12:02 PM (kdS6q)
61
So I guess this means Ben Affleck automatically gets the lead role in the next George Washington movie?
Posted by: tu3031 at April 25, 2015 12:03 PM (EDYaR)
62
"flame wars"
Yes, indeed they have happened when the subject of the Civil War has been discussed-just not yet.
Yes, indeed they have happened when the subject of the Civil War has been discussed-just not yet.
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at April 25, 2015 12:04 PM (DXzRD)
63
The dirty little secret about slavery in the USofA is that northern textile merchants prospered from it greatly. They hired girls and young women to work in their factories for a relative pittance, while being able to buy southern grown raw materials (cotton, indigo) for another relative pittance and sell their finished goods at a sizable profit because of the tarifs imposed on imported goods.
The yankee abolutionists? they were the decendents of said factory owners.
The dirty little secret about slavery in the USofA is that northern textile merchants prospered from it greatly. They hired girls and young women to work in their factories for a relative pittance, while being able to buy southern grown raw materials (cotton, indigo) for another relative pittance and sell their finished goods at a sizable profit because of the tarifs imposed on imported goods.
The yankee abolutionists? they were the decendents of said factory owners.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at April 25, 2015 12:04 PM (VvOZ5)
64
Just not yet here now.
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at April 25, 2015 12:04 PM (DXzRD)
65
Imagine if the power brokers in the south would have let history take its course as newly formed western states more often fell on the abolish side, instead of getting their MSM buddies of the time to gin up secession sentiments.
Well we'd probably still have a federal leviathan after WW1 and 2 and it is no use crying over spilt milk. The war was about not letting the south secede but the facts I know say the secession was to avoid slavery being made illegal.
Well we'd probably still have a federal leviathan after WW1 and 2 and it is no use crying over spilt milk. The war was about not letting the south secede but the facts I know say the secession was to avoid slavery being made illegal.
Posted by: PaleRider at April 25, 2015 12:04 PM (7w/kf)
66
To the south, the war was over state sovereignty. To the north, it was over protecting the Union and federal supremacy.
Strangely enough, you've got that backwards. I know, everyone does, but a closer look reveals that the big issue in the south was the failure of the Federal government to impose it's sovereignty over the states and impose a federal recognition of their right to own slaves. The courts were allowing individual states to declare free blacks that southerners claimed ownership of, they wanted the courts to recognize their property rights over the individual state's sovereign right to outlaw slavery.
Strangely enough, you've got that backwards. I know, everyone does, but a closer look reveals that the big issue in the south was the failure of the Federal government to impose it's sovereignty over the states and impose a federal recognition of their right to own slaves. The courts were allowing individual states to declare free blacks that southerners claimed ownership of, they wanted the courts to recognize their property rights over the individual state's sovereign right to outlaw slavery.
Posted by: Weirddave at April 25, 2015 12:05 PM (WvS3w)
67
The weapons were ahead of the generals in the civil war, and WW1. However a lot of generals on both sides were killed along with their soldiers in the Civil War.
Posted by: just bob at April 25, 2015 12:05 PM (wkuqO)
68
Make a list of the tools a slave-owner used 200 years ago to get and keep his slaves.
Now make a list of the new versions of those tools.
The Left knows that it can get and keep slaves, but it can't use the old tools anymore.
Not yet, that is.
Now make a list of the new versions of those tools.
The Left knows that it can get and keep slaves, but it can't use the old tools anymore.
Not yet, that is.
Posted by: eman at April 25, 2015 12:06 PM (MQEz6)
69
61 So I guess this means Ben Affleck automatically gets the lead role in the next George Washington movie?
Posted by: tu3031 at April 25, 2015 12:03 PM (EDYaR)
Yeah.... but he's going to play Benedict Arnold... you know.. the REAL hero of the Revolution, the one Washington betrayed...
/and yes, this is sarc....
Posted by: tu3031 at April 25, 2015 12:03 PM (EDYaR)
Yeah.... but he's going to play Benedict Arnold... you know.. the REAL hero of the Revolution, the one Washington betrayed...
/and yes, this is sarc....
Posted by: BB Wolf at April 25, 2015 12:06 PM (qh617)
70
48 If the left gave a Harvey Milk tour, I wonder if they'd mention over and over again the fact that he molested teen boys.
Yeah, I don't think the left is tripping over its dick to proclaim Margret Sangers "thoughts" on race. Activist? Sure. Racist eugenicist? The HELL you say!
Yeah, I don't think the left is tripping over its dick to proclaim Margret Sangers "thoughts" on race. Activist? Sure. Racist eugenicist? The HELL you say!
Posted by: Brave Sir Robin at April 25, 2015 12:06 PM (5buP8)
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 25, 2015 12:07 PM (oKE6c)
72
There's this word I picked up on the Z Blog: "mokita: the truth we all know but agree not to talk about". For me, mokita is that I don't give a crap about slavery. When I was young, I watched Roots and felt really bad about all those poor black people and how much they suffered. Now, though, I think American blacks are so degenerate they wouldn't even make decent slaves anymore. If the Chinese ever conquer the U.S., blacks would be lucky to find themselves chained to a plow out in a field. It's more likely their new overlords would use them as pig fodder.
My family had experience with slavery, yeah. As Serbs, we WERE slaves, to the dirty Ottoman Turks. For a lot more centuries than Africans were in the U.S. And you don't hear my people sniveling and blubbering about how nothing is their fault because they were traumatized 8 generations ago. I'm done with American slavery or feeling sorry about it. I no longer offer the traditional "Of course slavery was a terrible, terrible injustice" blah-blah-blah genuflection when it's mentioned, just as I no longer automatically say "Of course the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and law-abiding, etc. etc." My give-a-shit-o-meter has simply conked out from overuse.
My family had experience with slavery, yeah. As Serbs, we WERE slaves, to the dirty Ottoman Turks. For a lot more centuries than Africans were in the U.S. And you don't hear my people sniveling and blubbering about how nothing is their fault because they were traumatized 8 generations ago. I'm done with American slavery or feeling sorry about it. I no longer offer the traditional "Of course slavery was a terrible, terrible injustice" blah-blah-blah genuflection when it's mentioned, just as I no longer automatically say "Of course the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and law-abiding, etc. etc." My give-a-shit-o-meter has simply conked out from overuse.
Posted by: Dr. Mabuse at April 25, 2015 12:07 PM (VBbCO)
73
@55 "[] the time of the 3/5ths Compromise, the non-slave states still had no issue with capturing and returning escaped slaves."
Well, the issue they had was to escape any burden or cost with being obligated to do so. Also, the (small free states, like New Hampshire) feared that if the South should dominate "war making" decisions in Congress, a slave revolt or insurrection in the South might obligate them (like NATO treaty members, now) to send militiamen to help suppress that revolt. In particular Portugeuse-speaking slaves from the US South fleeing to Spanish-speaking Florida were feared as potentially forming a locally-grown invasion force. The North didn't want to see Spanish invaders, but they didn't want to be fighting within South Carolina, either. So, 3/5th of an obligation to defending Slave-State status quo ...
Well, the issue they had was to escape any burden or cost with being obligated to do so. Also, the (small free states, like New Hampshire) feared that if the South should dominate "war making" decisions in Congress, a slave revolt or insurrection in the South might obligate them (like NATO treaty members, now) to send militiamen to help suppress that revolt. In particular Portugeuse-speaking slaves from the US South fleeing to Spanish-speaking Florida were feared as potentially forming a locally-grown invasion force. The North didn't want to see Spanish invaders, but they didn't want to be fighting within South Carolina, either. So, 3/5th of an obligation to defending Slave-State status quo ...
Posted by: Pouncer at April 25, 2015 12:08 PM (rUSDY)
74
I guess "racist eugenicist" should be filed under "redundancy."
Posted by: Brave Sir Robin at April 25, 2015 12:08 PM (5buP8)
75
Re: the Founders being "bad men" because they owned slaves, the "Art of Manliness - Churchill's Guide to Manhood" pieces referenced in the ONT this week shed some light on the adolescent desire to cast people as black or white. The older and wiser one gets, the more you are accepting of contradictions because you understand context.
Yes, Jefferson wrote eloquently on the rights of Man but owned slaves. Yes, the Bible has many verses that contradict other verses. But your judgment of Jefferson or of how to apply scripture should be informed by the totality, not by staring only at one tree in the forest.
To a degree we all seek to simplify our thinking - it's natural and efficient. It frees up brainpower to focus on areas more relevant to your own life and challenges. However, it can also serve as cover for mental laziness, or an outright desire to evade inconvenient truths (what Ayn Rand called the "blank out").
Just as kids try out lying to see how it works for them, they also make sweeping generalizations, judgments and rationalizations. Part of adulthood and learning real critical thinking skills is to filter that out and develop real discernment and judgment skills. The critical theory cultural Marxist Left provides the adolescent with a Toys R Us worldview in which they never have to grow up. They can know all the answers to the world's important metaphysical, moral and political questions by high school and get on to the more relevant and important stuff - how to indulge themselves without the baggage of deep thought about things like other people or the future. It feeds their vanity with the most tempting thoughts to all adolescents - "my generation is the New Man realized - we are better than our parents and things will be different when we're in charge. And we should be in charge now!"
All power and glory, little to no responsibility. Why bother weighing Jefferson in the balance when you can toss him out entirely. Why bother with people in general when the Idea and the Cause are so pure they trump mere people?
And for anyone applying this to conservative "purity" I'll speak for myself in saying that I've weighed the present GOP in the balance, good and bad, and found it wanting. They've sold on so many important issues for so long that it's not an oversimplification or rush to judgment to walk away from them. Objectively they've demonstrated that they will not cut spending in any meaningful way or otherwise reform D.C. Reagan was a conservative acting in good faith who achieved good things which outweighed his mistakes. What major political figure on the Right since Reagan passes that test?
Yes, Jefferson wrote eloquently on the rights of Man but owned slaves. Yes, the Bible has many verses that contradict other verses. But your judgment of Jefferson or of how to apply scripture should be informed by the totality, not by staring only at one tree in the forest.
To a degree we all seek to simplify our thinking - it's natural and efficient. It frees up brainpower to focus on areas more relevant to your own life and challenges. However, it can also serve as cover for mental laziness, or an outright desire to evade inconvenient truths (what Ayn Rand called the "blank out").
Just as kids try out lying to see how it works for them, they also make sweeping generalizations, judgments and rationalizations. Part of adulthood and learning real critical thinking skills is to filter that out and develop real discernment and judgment skills. The critical theory cultural Marxist Left provides the adolescent with a Toys R Us worldview in which they never have to grow up. They can know all the answers to the world's important metaphysical, moral and political questions by high school and get on to the more relevant and important stuff - how to indulge themselves without the baggage of deep thought about things like other people or the future. It feeds their vanity with the most tempting thoughts to all adolescents - "my generation is the New Man realized - we are better than our parents and things will be different when we're in charge. And we should be in charge now!"
All power and glory, little to no responsibility. Why bother weighing Jefferson in the balance when you can toss him out entirely. Why bother with people in general when the Idea and the Cause are so pure they trump mere people?
And for anyone applying this to conservative "purity" I'll speak for myself in saying that I've weighed the present GOP in the balance, good and bad, and found it wanting. They've sold on so many important issues for so long that it's not an oversimplification or rush to judgment to walk away from them. Objectively they've demonstrated that they will not cut spending in any meaningful way or otherwise reform D.C. Reagan was a conservative acting in good faith who achieved good things which outweighed his mistakes. What major political figure on the Right since Reagan passes that test?
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at April 25, 2015 12:09 PM (QKIQb)
76
>this is not the blog to discuss race, as proven by the numerous admonitions about "flame wars" posted above
The flame war warning was in regard to the people who like to re-fight the Civil War here every couple of weeks. Discuss away.
The flame war warning was in regard to the people who like to re-fight the Civil War here every couple of weeks. Discuss away.
Posted by: kartoffel at April 25, 2015 12:10 PM (uEmgg)
77
The dirty little secret about slavery in the USofA
is that northern textile merchants prospered from it greatly. They hired
girls and young women to work in their factories for a relative
pittance, while being able to buy southern grown raw materials (cotton,
indigo) for another relative pittance and sell their finished goods at a
sizable profit because of the tarifs imposed on imported goods.
The yankee abolutionists? they were the decendents of said factory owners.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at April 25, 2015 12:04 PM (VvOZ5)
Yep. Hence my point above re tariffs.
Northerners profited from slavery in other ways. The endowment of Brown University famously came from the slave trade.
is that northern textile merchants prospered from it greatly. They hired
girls and young women to work in their factories for a relative
pittance, while being able to buy southern grown raw materials (cotton,
indigo) for another relative pittance and sell their finished goods at a
sizable profit because of the tarifs imposed on imported goods.
The yankee abolutionists? they were the decendents of said factory owners.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at April 25, 2015 12:04 PM (VvOZ5)
Yep. Hence my point above re tariffs.
Northerners profited from slavery in other ways. The endowment of Brown University famously came from the slave trade.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 25, 2015 12:11 PM (oKE6c)
78
Posted by: Weirddave at April 25, 2015 12:05 PM (WvS3w)
Well.... looking at it from a twisted Property Right viewpoint...
Does your horse change ownership if it crosses State Lines?
The Constitution already had a clause in it about having to 'honor' each others papers... and this was not being enforced on this one particular issue... (same as with Concealed Carry Permits today)...
So... the North was trying to ignore a Constitution that said both Slavery was legal (by implication) AND that Papers had to be Honored... WITHOUT amending the Constitution first....
Just like the Courts ignore the Constitution today.... with their penumbras and sophistry.
Well.... looking at it from a twisted Property Right viewpoint...
Does your horse change ownership if it crosses State Lines?
The Constitution already had a clause in it about having to 'honor' each others papers... and this was not being enforced on this one particular issue... (same as with Concealed Carry Permits today)...
So... the North was trying to ignore a Constitution that said both Slavery was legal (by implication) AND that Papers had to be Honored... WITHOUT amending the Constitution first....
Just like the Courts ignore the Constitution today.... with their penumbras and sophistry.
Posted by: BB Wolf at April 25, 2015 12:11 PM (qh617)
79
Slavery is a horrible, dehumanizing, awful thing, but it is a horrible,
dehumanizing, awful thing that has been practiced by every group,
society and race of humans in history.
Everybody wants to live on the products of other people's labor. Those of us in the free market camp recognize as a moral and practical matter the optimization brought about by exchange rather than force. The slavers just want what they want and do not care for the rights of others, or whether we are a better off as a whole, whether they're old folks wanting SS and medicare, the urban poor who want their iphones and HDTVs, the single gals who want their offspring solved, or the pointlessly wealthy who want pretty lawns without making the effort themselves. And of course everyone in government who wants to feel influential despite doing nothing productive to earn that status.
dehumanizing, awful thing that has been practiced by every group,
society and race of humans in history.
Everybody wants to live on the products of other people's labor. Those of us in the free market camp recognize as a moral and practical matter the optimization brought about by exchange rather than force. The slavers just want what they want and do not care for the rights of others, or whether we are a better off as a whole, whether they're old folks wanting SS and medicare, the urban poor who want their iphones and HDTVs, the single gals who want their offspring solved, or the pointlessly wealthy who want pretty lawns without making the effort themselves. And of course everyone in government who wants to feel influential despite doing nothing productive to earn that status.
Posted by: Methos at April 25, 2015 12:12 PM (ZbV+0)
80
Alternate question...
Is an Income Tax.... slavery?
Does a Property Tax inherently destroy the idea you OWN your land?
Has the modern taxation system, not made us into SERFS?
Is an Income Tax.... slavery?
Does a Property Tax inherently destroy the idea you OWN your land?
Has the modern taxation system, not made us into SERFS?
Posted by: BB Wolf at April 25, 2015 12:15 PM (qh617)
81
So Barack's history would seem to come from the slave sellers, certainly not from American slavery, unless it was on his mother's side. One of Barry's books mentions a great grandfather that bought a wife from the Muslims, iirc, making his ancestry both slave and slave owner.
Obama Sr. said taxes could be as much as 100%, which is its own form of slavery.
I'm not sure there is a nation where blacks are better off than America. If there is, it would only be because Democrats like Sharpton destroy efforts to advance the cause, pushing so many into the black grievance industry state of victimhood.
Obama Sr. said taxes could be as much as 100%, which is its own form of slavery.
I'm not sure there is a nation where blacks are better off than America. If there is, it would only be because Democrats like Sharpton destroy efforts to advance the cause, pushing so many into the black grievance industry state of victimhood.
Posted by: Illiniwek at April 25, 2015 12:15 PM (QGjci)
82
Methos exactly. Socialism by government's iron fist is slavery.
Posted by: just bob at April 25, 2015 12:16 PM (wkuqO)
83
78 But see that's my point....the North is claiming states rights to abolish slavery trump the Constitutional requirement to recognize other states laws WRT slavery, and the south wanted those provisions enforced. It was the south pushing for an increase in federal power and the north resisting on states rights grounds-exactly the opposite of the way it's commonly portrayed.
Posted by: Weirddave at April 25, 2015 12:16 PM (WvS3w)
84
Mohammedans still allow slaves.
I'll leave this here. Black WaPo writer says Blacks should get on their knees and thank God they were slaves taken to America.
http://tinyurl.com/p5ux7et
I'll leave this here. Black WaPo writer says Blacks should get on their knees and thank God they were slaves taken to America.
http://tinyurl.com/p5ux7et
Posted by: Nip Sip at April 25, 2015 12:16 PM (0FSuD)
85
@60 The African Slaves of the Caribbean and Central and South America ask:
"Care to explain why my black ass is in chains?"
You couldn't get loose.
Some of your ancestors did. And joined pirate crews, or British merchant crews, or British Navy crews, or US Yankee whaling ship crews, otherwise went from captivity on the islands to freedom of the seas. A black-skinned man aboard ship was no more (or less -- let's be fair, a seaman's lot involved poor diet, frequent whippings, and dangerous work) harsh than a white-skinned man's. But a slave on an island has very little room to run and no "underground railroad" to free territory EXCEPT to ships of the sea. It was infrequent -- but those who made it to ship were NOT viewed by authorities of the ship owners and sea faring nations as "property" to be restored to island nations, the way US authorities viewed those falling off the underground railroad were lost baggage to be restored to slave "States".
Glad you asked.
"Care to explain why my black ass is in chains?"
You couldn't get loose.
Some of your ancestors did. And joined pirate crews, or British merchant crews, or British Navy crews, or US Yankee whaling ship crews, otherwise went from captivity on the islands to freedom of the seas. A black-skinned man aboard ship was no more (or less -- let's be fair, a seaman's lot involved poor diet, frequent whippings, and dangerous work) harsh than a white-skinned man's. But a slave on an island has very little room to run and no "underground railroad" to free territory EXCEPT to ships of the sea. It was infrequent -- but those who made it to ship were NOT viewed by authorities of the ship owners and sea faring nations as "property" to be restored to island nations, the way US authorities viewed those falling off the underground railroad were lost baggage to be restored to slave "States".
Glad you asked.
Posted by: Pouncer at April 25, 2015 12:16 PM (rUSDY)
86
Serious question: Do you think anybody in the "mainstream" civil rights community is opposed to the concept of slavery? Sure, they don't want to be a slave themselves, but they behave not as if they oppose slavery but as if they are its copyright holders.
Posted by: AmishDude at April 25, 2015 12:17 PM (b4b5c)
Posted by: Retard Strength Trumps Smart Power at April 25, 2015 12:17 PM (n/vq+)
88
80 Alternate question...
Is an Income Tax.... slavery?
Does a Property Tax inherently destroy the idea you OWN your land?
Has the modern taxation system, not made us into SERFS?
Posted by: BB Wolf at April 25, 2015 12:15 PM (qh617)
Pretty much, yes.
We serve in an enormous vote-buying machine.
Is an Income Tax.... slavery?
Does a Property Tax inherently destroy the idea you OWN your land?
Has the modern taxation system, not made us into SERFS?
Posted by: BB Wolf at April 25, 2015 12:15 PM (qh617)
Pretty much, yes.
We serve in an enormous vote-buying machine.
Posted by: eman at April 25, 2015 12:17 PM (MQEz6)
89
Posted by: Weirddave at April 25, 2015 12:16 PM (WvS3w)
No.... the South was pushing for the Status quo the Constitution created...
for the contract that they, as States, had agreed to...
Note... the Free State vs. Slave State thing was coming out of the Congress of the US.... not all from State Legislatures...
No.... the South was pushing for the Status quo the Constitution created...
for the contract that they, as States, had agreed to...
Note... the Free State vs. Slave State thing was coming out of the Congress of the US.... not all from State Legislatures...
Posted by: BB Wolf at April 25, 2015 12:18 PM (qh617)
90
I visited Mt. Vernon with my parents when I was a kid. That was back in the 60s, and I don't remember an emphasis on slavery at the time.
I think the current emphasis on slavery in today's educational system is a leftist effort to discredit America's form of government. Mention anything about the Founders or the Constitution to a young person, and they will respond, "But slavery!!!111!!" The response is as automated as Pavlov's dog.
The constant harping on slavery also fuels racial resentment among blacks, like constantly picking at an old scab.
I think the current emphasis on slavery in today's educational system is a leftist effort to discredit America's form of government. Mention anything about the Founders or the Constitution to a young person, and they will respond, "But slavery!!!111!!" The response is as automated as Pavlov's dog.
The constant harping on slavery also fuels racial resentment among blacks, like constantly picking at an old scab.
Posted by: rickl at April 25, 2015 12:19 PM (sdi6R)
Posted by: Nip Sip at April 25, 2015 12:19 PM (0FSuD)
92
Posted by: Country Singer at April 25, 2015 12:01 PM (nL0sw)
Well, the 3/5ths thing was the southern states saying "slaves are our personal property. But for census purposes, let's count them as people." (hoping to get more representation in congress)
And northern states (I want to say it was a rep from Rhode Island or CT) were having none of that. Their argument was, "okay, well... can we count cows towards the census? Or any other chattel? If not, and if you claim that slaves are chattel, then..."
Long story short, they compromised (yay bi partisanship!) and ended up with the 3/5ths of "other persons" for congressional allocation purposes.
Well, the 3/5ths thing was the southern states saying "slaves are our personal property. But for census purposes, let's count them as people." (hoping to get more representation in congress)
And northern states (I want to say it was a rep from Rhode Island or CT) were having none of that. Their argument was, "okay, well... can we count cows towards the census? Or any other chattel? If not, and if you claim that slaves are chattel, then..."
Long story short, they compromised (yay bi partisanship!) and ended up with the 3/5ths of "other persons" for congressional allocation purposes.
Posted by: mynewhandle at April 25, 2015 12:20 PM (AkOaV)
93
I won't jump into the fray this time, but I must say that I enjoy reading your essays, Weirddave.
Posted by: Insomniac at April 25, 2015 12:20 PM (mx5oN)
94
Get back to work, bitches.
Posted by: Nip Sip at April 25, 2015 12:19 PM (0FSuD)
OK if you insist. Cya'll later.
by the way Dueling is allowed on foggy mornings down by the river.
Posted by: Nip Sip at April 25, 2015 12:19 PM (0FSuD)
OK if you insist. Cya'll later.
by the way Dueling is allowed on foggy mornings down by the river.
Posted by: just bob at April 25, 2015 12:21 PM (wkuqO)
95
Just to reiterate what Dave said, the historical reality is that slavery (peonage, indentured servitude, feudalism, or whatever other term you care to use), was a generally accepted practice throughout the world and throughout all of man's history, as far back as one cares to go.
Finally, about 200-odd years ago, Western Civilization (yeah, THAT Western Civilization, the one the Left so loves to eternally criticize as unalterably evil) put an end to it, at least in those regions of the planet under it's purview.
Was it messy? Bet your ass. Over 700,000 dead in the Civil War, more than all the other wars the US has fought combined. Yes, I know there are those who will say the Civil War was fought over secession of the South, "state's rights", etc, ad nauseam. Bullshit. The ultimate cause of the Civil War was over the issue of slavery, and by the time the whole bloody mess was over, slavery was indeed ended in the United States.
It was a coincidence that the founding of this country happened around the same time that the process of ending slavery was taking place. Unfortunately the practice of slavery was established here before that process was completed, so our ancestors (at least, those of us who had ancestors who were here at that time) were left to clean up the mess.
Indeed, far more slaves were brought over from Africa to places like the Caribbean, central and south America than were ever brought to US shores. But like so many other things, that does not get talked about. Just as it was black Africans who initially sold those people into slavery to start with is not talked about. Or, as Dave mentioned, what the "3/5 of a man" thing was really all about never gets talked about. Or that much beloved Democrat Woodrow Wilson was instrumental in imposing the Jim Crow laws that were passed down in some states early in the 20th century never gets talked about. And on and on...
Finally, about 200-odd years ago, Western Civilization (yeah, THAT Western Civilization, the one the Left so loves to eternally criticize as unalterably evil) put an end to it, at least in those regions of the planet under it's purview.
Was it messy? Bet your ass. Over 700,000 dead in the Civil War, more than all the other wars the US has fought combined. Yes, I know there are those who will say the Civil War was fought over secession of the South, "state's rights", etc, ad nauseam. Bullshit. The ultimate cause of the Civil War was over the issue of slavery, and by the time the whole bloody mess was over, slavery was indeed ended in the United States.
It was a coincidence that the founding of this country happened around the same time that the process of ending slavery was taking place. Unfortunately the practice of slavery was established here before that process was completed, so our ancestors (at least, those of us who had ancestors who were here at that time) were left to clean up the mess.
Indeed, far more slaves were brought over from Africa to places like the Caribbean, central and south America than were ever brought to US shores. But like so many other things, that does not get talked about. Just as it was black Africans who initially sold those people into slavery to start with is not talked about. Or, as Dave mentioned, what the "3/5 of a man" thing was really all about never gets talked about. Or that much beloved Democrat Woodrow Wilson was instrumental in imposing the Jim Crow laws that were passed down in some states early in the 20th century never gets talked about. And on and on...
Posted by: The Oort Cloud - SMOD is inbound at April 25, 2015 12:21 PM (yTMXB)
96
a slave on an island has very little room to run
Posted by: Pouncer
Hi!
Posted by: Toussaint L'Ouverture - Running Around in the Hills for Years
a slave on an island has very little room to run
Posted by: Pouncer
Hi!
Posted by: Toussaint L'Ouverture - Running Around in the Hills for Years
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 25, 2015 12:22 PM (kdS6q)
97
(Anyone else amused that the ovation for Bruce Jenner and his Circus of Sexual Identity has stumbled over a statement of his being a......(gasp)...Republican?)
Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at April 25, 2015 12:22 PM (gwDMH)
98
We have reached Peak Batman.
Posted by: Not a dirty Ashe Schow pun at April 25, 2015 12:22 PM (bBix/)
99
It was infrequent -- but those who made it to ship were NOT viewed by
authorities of the ship owners and sea faring nations as "property" to
be restored to island nations, the way US authorities viewed those
falling off the underground railroad were lost baggage to be restored to
slave "States".
That's an inexact comparison because the slaves changed jurisdictions. US Slaves who made it to Canada were unquestionably freed, but if they returned to Alabama they would surely be re-enslaved. If the slaves had disembarked back to their original islands, they would have been put back in chains too. That's at the heart of the fight in America, whose jurisdiction? States or Feds?
authorities of the ship owners and sea faring nations as "property" to
be restored to island nations, the way US authorities viewed those
falling off the underground railroad were lost baggage to be restored to
slave "States".
That's an inexact comparison because the slaves changed jurisdictions. US Slaves who made it to Canada were unquestionably freed, but if they returned to Alabama they would surely be re-enslaved. If the slaves had disembarked back to their original islands, they would have been put back in chains too. That's at the heart of the fight in America, whose jurisdiction? States or Feds?
Posted by: Weirddave at April 25, 2015 12:22 PM (WvS3w)
100
Long story short, they compromised (yay bi partisanship!) and ended up with the 3/5ths of "other persons" for congressional allocation purposes.
Posted by: mynewhandle at April 25, 2015 12:20 PM (AkOaV)
And based on this historic precedent.... we have decided to allow Undocumented Immigrants to have 3/5ths of a vote...
and we have the agreement of my Good Friends across the isle on this historic bipartisan bill.
Posted by: mynewhandle at April 25, 2015 12:20 PM (AkOaV)
And based on this historic precedent.... we have decided to allow Undocumented Immigrants to have 3/5ths of a vote...
and we have the agreement of my Good Friends across the isle on this historic bipartisan bill.
Posted by: Juan McCain at April 25, 2015 12:22 PM (qh617)
101
People today think the Federal Income Tax was always there, is something natural like a breezy day.
It is not supposed to be there.
It is not supposed to be there.
Posted by: eman at April 25, 2015 12:23 PM (MQEz6)
102
"If you think slavery's "vile," that's on you, not Christ."
The entire story of Exodus and the history of the Old Testament Jews in general shows a Judeo-Christian moral objection to slavery. Commandment-wise, slavery is a theft of labor (one of Lincoln's favorite points), and entails a great deal of coveting as well, toeing the line on placing the master in God's place in the bargain.
From a simple Golden Rule perspective, slavery is clearly and deeply wrong.
The means by which one is enslaved and kept in bondage are pure violence on par with rape or maiming, if not outright murder.
All that said, in the hierarchy of crimes, it's not the worst thing one can do to another person, but how far does that argument get you?
The entire story of Exodus and the history of the Old Testament Jews in general shows a Judeo-Christian moral objection to slavery. Commandment-wise, slavery is a theft of labor (one of Lincoln's favorite points), and entails a great deal of coveting as well, toeing the line on placing the master in God's place in the bargain.
From a simple Golden Rule perspective, slavery is clearly and deeply wrong.
The means by which one is enslaved and kept in bondage are pure violence on par with rape or maiming, if not outright murder.
All that said, in the hierarchy of crimes, it's not the worst thing one can do to another person, but how far does that argument get you?
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at April 25, 2015 12:24 PM (QKIQb)
103
Posted by: mynewhandle at April 25, 2015 12:20 PM (AkOaV)
Which makes the point that the free states at that time essentially held the same attitude concerning the humanity of slaves as the slave states. If they had felt otherwise, then it stands to reason that by promoting slaves as being equivalent humans the existence of slavery could more easily be morally undermined.
Which makes the point that the free states at that time essentially held the same attitude concerning the humanity of slaves as the slave states. If they had felt otherwise, then it stands to reason that by promoting slaves as being equivalent humans the existence of slavery could more easily be morally undermined.
Posted by: Country Singer at April 25, 2015 12:24 PM (nL0sw)
104
Posted by: Pouncer
And you completely danced over 400 years of race based slavery South of the Rio Grande.
Posted by: Pouncer
And you completely danced over 400 years of race based slavery South of the Rio Grande.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 25, 2015 12:24 PM (kdS6q)
105
Posted by: Pappy O'Daniel at April 25, 2015 12:22 PM (gwDMH)
Yes. I love it. Absolutely hilarious.
Yes. I love it. Absolutely hilarious.
Posted by: mynewhandle at April 25, 2015 12:25 PM (AkOaV)
106
Slavery was both capital and labor. I actually did a paper in grad school on this.
Slaves were not cheap. The thought that an owner would abuse his slaves is stupid. You don't go out and make your investment less valuable.
Slaves, well kept, were extremely valuable and productive.
So where were the NY bankers in 1860? Instead of killing a million Americans, the North could have bought every slave their freedom.
The Northern Irish wage slaves would not have been so lucky.
Just saying.
Slaves were not cheap. The thought that an owner would abuse his slaves is stupid. You don't go out and make your investment less valuable.
Slaves, well kept, were extremely valuable and productive.
So where were the NY bankers in 1860? Instead of killing a million Americans, the North could have bought every slave their freedom.
The Northern Irish wage slaves would not have been so lucky.
Just saying.
Posted by: Nip Sip at April 25, 2015 12:25 PM (0FSuD)
107
101 People today think the Federal Income Tax was always there, is something natural like a breezy day.
It is not supposed to be there.
Posted by: eman at April 25, 2015 12:23 PM (MQEz6)
Yup... Civil war started the train wreck by adding power to the Federal Government...
but it was in the early 1900s that the US went off the rails... with changes to our Constitution.
It is not supposed to be there.
Posted by: eman at April 25, 2015 12:23 PM (MQEz6)
Yup... Civil war started the train wreck by adding power to the Federal Government...
but it was in the early 1900s that the US went off the rails... with changes to our Constitution.
Posted by: Juan McCain at April 25, 2015 12:25 PM (qh617)
108
the history of the Old Testament Jews in general shows a Judeo-Christian moral objection to slavery.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame
Awful lot of rules in the Bile on the proper handling of slaves to be making that argument.
the history of the Old Testament Jews in general shows a Judeo-Christian moral objection to slavery.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame
Awful lot of rules in the Bile on the proper handling of slaves to be making that argument.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 25, 2015 12:27 PM (kdS6q)
Posted by: eman at April 25, 2015 12:28 PM (MQEz6)
110
Posted by: Country Singer at April 25, 2015 12:24 PM (nL0sw)
I don't think it proves that.
I think it proves that everyone knew slavery was a giant sham. The southerners knew (in their hearts) they were enslaving humans, and the northerners knew that the southerns were enslaving humans.
I don't think it proves that.
I think it proves that everyone knew slavery was a giant sham. The southerners knew (in their hearts) they were enslaving humans, and the northerners knew that the southerns were enslaving humans.
Posted by: mynewhandle at April 25, 2015 12:28 PM (AkOaV)
Posted by: BB Wolf at April 25, 2015 12:28 PM (qh617)
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 25, 2015 12:28 PM (kdS6q)
113
Mount Vernon is very neat. When I visited there, back in the early '90's, a couple of things struck me. One was the gardens, showing what Washington grew, but oddly enough didn't show the plant that his hemp came from. Gee, wonder why?
The other thing was some huge tree was near the house and had a lightning rod running up the tree and down to the ground. I don't think I had ever seen anything like that.
And yeah, I do remember them talking about the slaves.
The other thing was some huge tree was near the house and had a lightning rod running up the tree and down to the ground. I don't think I had ever seen anything like that.
And yeah, I do remember them talking about the slaves.
Posted by: HH at April 25, 2015 12:29 PM (Ce4DF)
114
Our culture / religion / whatever has never been comfortable with slavery. Which is why the western world abolished it. It existed for centuries and centuries in most of the world, but within a few hundred years of it become "an institution" in the western european world, it was banned world wide.
That's how I read it anyways.
That's how I read it anyways.
Posted by: mynewhandle at April 25, 2015 12:29 PM (AkOaV)
115
"I will say that our current welfare state is doing far more to destroy
both the black and white communities than anything that happened in 1846."
Apple-orange. I hate the welfare state and believe giving someone money without some effort on their part is the surest way to destroy them and their families. Slavery did the same thing to the "white" community pre-20th century that Free Shit Army is doing to blacks and whites here now. It turned Roman citizens into self-indulgent slackers amusing themselves to death. The Roman Republic could survive with a small percentage of slaveholders ruling over a majority of citizen farmers and artisans who at most had a house domestic or two. What killed it in large part was a lopsided proportion of free men vs. slaves as well as few producers and many consumers (the urban dolewallas and their rich patrons).
both the black and white communities than anything that happened in 1846."
Apple-orange. I hate the welfare state and believe giving someone money without some effort on their part is the surest way to destroy them and their families. Slavery did the same thing to the "white" community pre-20th century that Free Shit Army is doing to blacks and whites here now. It turned Roman citizens into self-indulgent slackers amusing themselves to death. The Roman Republic could survive with a small percentage of slaveholders ruling over a majority of citizen farmers and artisans who at most had a house domestic or two. What killed it in large part was a lopsided proportion of free men vs. slaves as well as few producers and many consumers (the urban dolewallas and their rich patrons).
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at April 25, 2015 12:31 PM (QKIQb)
116
Posted by: mynewhandle at April 25, 2015 12:28 PM (AkOaV)
I'm just pointing out that maybe, just maybe, the attitude in the free states wasn't quite the perfectly humanitarian one that people like to pretend it was.
I'm just pointing out that maybe, just maybe, the attitude in the free states wasn't quite the perfectly humanitarian one that people like to pretend it was.
Posted by: Country Singer at April 25, 2015 12:31 PM (nL0sw)
117
What are you trying to say?
Posted by: eman at April 25, 2015 12:28 PM (MQEz6)
Not much, except that buying freedom for slaves was an option that was not considered. Instead we killed a million Americans in a war that could have been avoided. Money. The South would have accepted a buy out.
Sometimes people let their pride, on both sides, get in the way of their brains
To this day the damage of the War is still affecting this country.
Posted by: eman at April 25, 2015 12:28 PM (MQEz6)
Not much, except that buying freedom for slaves was an option that was not considered. Instead we killed a million Americans in a war that could have been avoided. Money. The South would have accepted a buy out.
Sometimes people let their pride, on both sides, get in the way of their brains
To this day the damage of the War is still affecting this country.
Posted by: Nip Sip at April 25, 2015 12:32 PM (0FSuD)
118
And as someone said, the old history of "slavery" was not always chains and whips. The Bible encourages man to be (by choice) a "doulos" for the Lord, so it is not a completely negative term. That literally means "slave". There were also instructions on being a fair master, in an old world where life was often very brutal.
Of course being brutal to workers or women happened on many levels, but being a "slave" way back was more part of the social structure, and certainly is difficult for us to understand as part of older culture. Being a slave to a good master was probably much better than being "free" to roam the countryside without the protections of a tribe.
Of course being brutal to workers or women happened on many levels, but being a "slave" way back was more part of the social structure, and certainly is difficult for us to understand as part of older culture. Being a slave to a good master was probably much better than being "free" to roam the countryside without the protections of a tribe.
Posted by: Illiniwek at April 25, 2015 12:32 PM (QGjci)
119
Everybody wants to live on the products of other people's labor.
****
Also, everybody wants to live with their capital secured by someone else's risk. (see "too big to fail", bailouts, etc). This adds to the distortion of the concept of free market capitalism into the rent-seeking, cronyism that now seems so prevalent. If your capital is not at-risk are you really a capitalist?
****
Also, everybody wants to live with their capital secured by someone else's risk. (see "too big to fail", bailouts, etc). This adds to the distortion of the concept of free market capitalism into the rent-seeking, cronyism that now seems so prevalent. If your capital is not at-risk are you really a capitalist?
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at April 25, 2015 12:32 PM (NeFrd)
120
I'm saving this one for future reference.
Posted by: KT at April 25, 2015 12:34 PM (qahv/)
121
"And yet... Jews kept Slaves...."
As did Jefferson. Jews and Christians break all the commandments but it doesn't change the fact that they aren't being Jewish or Christian in doing so. Isocractes in Greece (among others) stated the Golden Rule - which quite obviously bars slavery.
As did Jefferson. Jews and Christians break all the commandments but it doesn't change the fact that they aren't being Jewish or Christian in doing so. Isocractes in Greece (among others) stated the Golden Rule - which quite obviously bars slavery.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at April 25, 2015 12:34 PM (QKIQb)
122
If government was not so powerful and lucrative and tempting to those who seek such things, what would the folks like Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton do for a living?
They would be gangsters and crooks and otherwise completely useless.
Many of the folks who scramble to the top of government do so because they want the money and power and because they know they can't do anything else.
As long as we allow government to be so tempting, we will always be under the boot of such people and the tyrrany-machine they control.
They would be gangsters and crooks and otherwise completely useless.
Many of the folks who scramble to the top of government do so because they want the money and power and because they know they can't do anything else.
As long as we allow government to be so tempting, we will always be under the boot of such people and the tyrrany-machine they control.
Posted by: eman at April 25, 2015 12:34 PM (MQEz6)
123
And thanks to everyone for proving me wrong in my comment at #2.
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at April 25, 2015 12:36 PM (NeFrd)
124
So how do you guys think Kanye "George Bush doesn't care about black people" West feels about his step father-in-laws politics? More specifically, that Bruce is a "conservative Republican"?
Posted by: mynewhandle at April 25, 2015 12:36 PM (AkOaV)
125
Posted by: Country Singer at April 25, 2015 12:31 PM (nL0sw)
Oh, I absolutely agree with that.
Racism (or whatever you want to call it) was very prevalent across the country.
Oh, I absolutely agree with that.
Racism (or whatever you want to call it) was very prevalent across the country.
Posted by: mynewhandle at April 25, 2015 12:38 PM (AkOaV)
126
And the group enslaving people now, from Mauritania, to the Sudanese so-called lost boys, to Saudi Arabia with their tortured maid-sex slaves and unpaid workers with their passports taken, to ISIS brazenly enslavng as their sacred right...stems from Islam, which the world praises! And dare not say its name. Ending slavery may be a blip in history and we regress back to enslavng as a God given right. If the elite and the world leaders get their way, in that we stay silent, (and they are trying to force us to stay silent), it could, and is, happening right before our eyes.
Posted by: Stephanie at April 25, 2015 12:38 PM (sF0CB)
127
it doesn't change the
fact that they aren't being Jewish or Christian in doing so.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame
There's an extensive list of slave holding rules in the OT. Your argument is utterly void.
it doesn't change the
fact that they aren't being Jewish or Christian in doing so.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame
There's an extensive list of slave holding rules in the OT. Your argument is utterly void.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 25, 2015 12:39 PM (kdS6q)
128
"Being a slave to a good master was probably much better than being
"free" to roam the countryside without the protections of a tribe."
Ancient cultures varied in how they treated slaves, granted, but I wouldn't use that as a moral defense. Sparta's Helots were tied to their masters but also plundered by them at will. They'd have welcomed being free farmers subject only to random rather than systemic banditry. There are shades of grey in the slavery question but my objection to the modern Left's trope on slavery is that it's long past and the modern conditions for blacks are astoundingly better than in the 1960's. I don't see the need to open a can of worms trying to nuance the pros and cons of pre-20th century slavery.
"free" to roam the countryside without the protections of a tribe."
Ancient cultures varied in how they treated slaves, granted, but I wouldn't use that as a moral defense. Sparta's Helots were tied to their masters but also plundered by them at will. They'd have welcomed being free farmers subject only to random rather than systemic banditry. There are shades of grey in the slavery question but my objection to the modern Left's trope on slavery is that it's long past and the modern conditions for blacks are astoundingly better than in the 1960's. I don't see the need to open a can of worms trying to nuance the pros and cons of pre-20th century slavery.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at April 25, 2015 12:39 PM (QKIQb)
129
Posted by: Nip Sip at April 25, 2015 12:32 PM (0FSuD)
Interesting idea.
Once bought, they would be freed, I guess. Then what?
Interesting idea.
Once bought, they would be freed, I guess. Then what?
Posted by: eman at April 25, 2015 12:39 PM (MQEz6)
130
Awful lot of rules in the Bile on the proper handling of slaves to be making that argument.
there was no such thing as a penal system in the old testament when the bible speaks of slaves they were more like convictsrather than what we think of as slavery today.if a member of your tribe or family commited a crime against another tribe or family it was taken before the elders if found guilty the offendingparty was required to offer up one or moreof its members as a slave
Awful lot of rules in the Bile on the proper handling of slaves to be making that argument.
there was no such thing as a penal system in the old testament when the bible speaks of slaves they were more like convictsrather than what we think of as slavery today.if a member of your tribe or family commited a crime against another tribe or family it was taken before the elders if found guilty the offendingparty was required to offer up one or moreof its members as a slave
Posted by: kj at April 25, 2015 12:39 PM (lKyWE)
131
And yet... Jews kept Slaves....
Indeed they did. It was a standard practice when someone was unable to pay their debts back to work them off with slavery in the distant past. What Israel had that was different from every other nation on earth was a set of very strict laws protecting slaves and carefully limiting their period of enslavement unless they voluntarily stayed a slave. Which some did: security, shelter, etc.
The problem here is that people hear "slavery" and automatically think of Kunta Kinte chained to a barn being whipped by people that thought he wasn't human. That's not how slavery was done in most of history.
Again: the 13th amendment specifically allows slavery in the USA for prisoners today. People need to learn what the difference is or this kind of discussion will never make sense.
Indeed they did. It was a standard practice when someone was unable to pay their debts back to work them off with slavery in the distant past. What Israel had that was different from every other nation on earth was a set of very strict laws protecting slaves and carefully limiting their period of enslavement unless they voluntarily stayed a slave. Which some did: security, shelter, etc.
The problem here is that people hear "slavery" and automatically think of Kunta Kinte chained to a barn being whipped by people that thought he wasn't human. That's not how slavery was done in most of history.
Again: the 13th amendment specifically allows slavery in the USA for prisoners today. People need to learn what the difference is or this kind of discussion will never make sense.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 12:41 PM (39g3+)
132
"There's an extensive list of slave holding rules in the OT. Your argument is utterly void."
Why did the Jews leave Egypt? Why did God want Pharoah to let His people go ?
Why did the Jews leave Egypt? Why did God want Pharoah to let His people go ?
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at April 25, 2015 12:41 PM (QKIQb)
133
82 Methos exactly. Socialism by government's iron fist is slavery.
Posted by: just bob at April 25, 2015 12:16 PM (wkuqO)
It's not coincidental that slavery--real slavery--made a big comeback in the 20th century in such totalitarian socialist states like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
Posted by: just bob at April 25, 2015 12:16 PM (wkuqO)
It's not coincidental that slavery--real slavery--made a big comeback in the 20th century in such totalitarian socialist states like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
Posted by: rickl at April 25, 2015 12:41 PM (sdi6R)
134
But like so many other things, that does not get
talked about. Just as it was black Africans who initially sold those
people into slavery to start with is not talked about. Or, as Dave
mentioned, what the "3/5 of a man" thing was really all about never gets
talked about. Or that much beloved Democrat Woodrow Wilson was
instrumental in imposing the Jim Crow laws that were passed down in some
states early in the 20th century never gets talked about. And on and
on...
Posted by: The Oort Cloud - SMOD is inbound at April 25, 2015 12:21 PM (yTMXB)
According to Hugh Thomas's book "The Slave Trade," the biggest impediment the British faced in abolishing the slave trade was ... African chieftains. They were making a fortune (one made 20X the annual income of the wealthiest aristo landowner in England), and getting rid of troublemakers, criminals, political opponents, and threatening neighboring tribes while doing it. What was not to love as far as they were concerned? It would be as if Martians came down and offered us $10 million for each convict in San Quentin. Woot!
And re Wilson, Democrats crow (?) that a Democrat - Truman - ended segregation of the US armed forces, but somehow neglect to mention that it was a Democrat - Wilson - who segregated them in the first place. So, no points.
talked about. Just as it was black Africans who initially sold those
people into slavery to start with is not talked about. Or, as Dave
mentioned, what the "3/5 of a man" thing was really all about never gets
talked about. Or that much beloved Democrat Woodrow Wilson was
instrumental in imposing the Jim Crow laws that were passed down in some
states early in the 20th century never gets talked about. And on and
on...
Posted by: The Oort Cloud - SMOD is inbound at April 25, 2015 12:21 PM (yTMXB)
According to Hugh Thomas's book "The Slave Trade," the biggest impediment the British faced in abolishing the slave trade was ... African chieftains. They were making a fortune (one made 20X the annual income of the wealthiest aristo landowner in England), and getting rid of troublemakers, criminals, political opponents, and threatening neighboring tribes while doing it. What was not to love as far as they were concerned? It would be as if Martians came down and offered us $10 million for each convict in San Quentin. Woot!
And re Wilson, Democrats crow (?) that a Democrat - Truman - ended segregation of the US armed forces, but somehow neglect to mention that it was a Democrat - Wilson - who segregated them in the first place. So, no points.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 25, 2015 12:41 PM (oKE6c)
135
BTW WeirdDave, this got me to thinking about something else, as we're sitting here dissecting the minds and thought processes of people from 150+ years ago.
Here's something that may provide some fodder for an upcoming Fundamental Concepts post:
http://tinyurl.com/yj8x5zp
Here's something that may provide some fodder for an upcoming Fundamental Concepts post:
http://tinyurl.com/yj8x5zp
Posted by: Country Singer at April 25, 2015 12:41 PM (nL0sw)
136
Whiteys were the first slaves to enter the New World as becoming an indentured slave was the only way many could afford the passage.
Posted by: Cicero Kaboom! Kid...ancesors were slaves at April 25, 2015 12:42 PM (G3KwU)
137
when the bible speaks of slaves they were more like convictsrather than what we think of as slavery today.
Posted by: kj
Rubbish. There's explicit rules when "purchasing" slaves and making slaves out of captives.
when the bible speaks of slaves they were more like convictsrather than what we think of as slavery today.
Posted by: kj
Rubbish. There's explicit rules when "purchasing" slaves and making slaves out of captives.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 25, 2015 12:43 PM (kdS6q)
Posted by: eman at April 25, 2015 12:43 PM (MQEz6)
Posted by: Bruce J. at April 25, 2015 12:43 PM (iQIUe)
140
Awful lot of rules in the Bible on the proper handling of slaves to be making that argument.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 25, 2015 12:27 PM (kdS6q)
*******************
You beat me to it, LDC. Slavery was assumed to exist, both in Moses's time (see Leviticus 25:44-47) and in Jesus's and Paul's. As for Jesus, his objective wasn't wordly, but rather the eternal souls of men. Paul reminds us in Galatians 3:28 that there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for all are one in Christ. I get on my soapbox from time to time when leftists claim Jesus was a Marxist (which He decidedly was not), and this is another example where there is simply a misconception by modern-day people of what life during that time was like. I think part of the confusion may stem from the fact that much of the opposition to slavery was found in the churches, and that is a wonderful thing, but it has nothing to do with the Bible.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 25, 2015 12:27 PM (kdS6q)
*******************
You beat me to it, LDC. Slavery was assumed to exist, both in Moses's time (see Leviticus 25:44-47) and in Jesus's and Paul's. As for Jesus, his objective wasn't wordly, but rather the eternal souls of men. Paul reminds us in Galatians 3:28 that there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for all are one in Christ. I get on my soapbox from time to time when leftists claim Jesus was a Marxist (which He decidedly was not), and this is another example where there is simply a misconception by modern-day people of what life during that time was like. I think part of the confusion may stem from the fact that much of the opposition to slavery was found in the churches, and that is a wonderful thing, but it has nothing to do with the Bible.
Posted by: Oberlin Dean of Students at April 25, 2015 12:44 PM (5f5bM)
141
My Fundamental Concept of Destructive Change.
Posted by: Prez'nit 404 at April 25, 2015 12:44 PM (Dwehj)
142
That 3/5ths thing really pisses me off. People deliberately misunderstand that and when you explain it and the history, they just ignore the truth and cling to what they've been taught about it. Its infuriating.
The 3/5ths compromise had nothing to do with humanity, worth, value, or dignity. It was entirely a mathematical system to prevent the south from dominating the legislature by counting people who were completely unable to vote and had no say in their lives. It had nothing to do with what slaves meant or how human they were, it was only about counting heads for the purposes of representation in congress.
The 3/5ths compromise had nothing to do with humanity, worth, value, or dignity. It was entirely a mathematical system to prevent the south from dominating the legislature by counting people who were completely unable to vote and had no say in their lives. It had nothing to do with what slaves meant or how human they were, it was only about counting heads for the purposes of representation in congress.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 12:45 PM (39g3+)
143
It's not coincidental that slavery--real slavery--made a big comeback in the 20th century in such totalitarian socialist states like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.>>>
But the words Gulag and Concentration camps aren't "Trigger" words like "slavery" to the SJWs
But the words Gulag and Concentration camps aren't "Trigger" words like "slavery" to the SJWs
Posted by: Buzzsaw at April 25, 2015 12:45 PM (81UWZ)
144
" It was a standard practice when someone was unable to pay their debts back to work them off with slavery in the distant past."
Thanks CT. The objection to slavery expressed in Exodus was that Pharoah had exceeded his authority/covenant with the Jews - saddling them with obligations they hadn't chosen and mistreating them in the bargain.
The fact that Mosaic law details treatment of slaves doesn't mean Jusaism sanctioned subjugation for the purpose of labor. War captives like convicts wre considered to be working off a debt to society. Apple-Orange.
Thanks CT. The objection to slavery expressed in Exodus was that Pharoah had exceeded his authority/covenant with the Jews - saddling them with obligations they hadn't chosen and mistreating them in the bargain.
The fact that Mosaic law details treatment of slaves doesn't mean Jusaism sanctioned subjugation for the purpose of labor. War captives like convicts wre considered to be working off a debt to society. Apple-Orange.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at April 25, 2015 12:46 PM (QKIQb)
145
Rubbish. There's explicit rules when "purchasing" slaves and making slaves out of captives.
Correct, but you're misunderstanding something.
Slaves being "purchased" were almost always someone working off a debt. You were buying the debt, as it were, paying money to get this person's services for you instead of the original person they owned.
As for the captives from war: the alternative was... death. Those were the ways of handling enemies. Slavery meant life, shelter, and protection. And it was only for a short time period during the conquest of Canaan that it was an issue.
Correct, but you're misunderstanding something.
Slaves being "purchased" were almost always someone working off a debt. You were buying the debt, as it were, paying money to get this person's services for you instead of the original person they owned.
As for the captives from war: the alternative was... death. Those were the ways of handling enemies. Slavery meant life, shelter, and protection. And it was only for a short time period during the conquest of Canaan that it was an issue.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 12:47 PM (39g3+)
146
Interesting idea.
Once bought, they would be freed, I guess. Then what?
Posted by: eman at April 25, 2015 12:39 PM (MQEz6)
FWIW, Edward Franklin Frazier, a black sociologist who wrote his doctoral dissertation ("The Negro Family in America") in 1939, distinguished those slaves who achieved their own manumission through their industry (regarding whom he is laudatory) from those who were freed through no actions of their own (regarding whom he is deprecatory).
He claims that the former group had established themselves in their own communities, were well-regarded generally, and were doing fine when they were inundated by the latter group, which caused all of them to be held in low regard.
The book is available, free, on Project Gutenburg, and is worthwhile reading.
Once bought, they would be freed, I guess. Then what?
Posted by: eman at April 25, 2015 12:39 PM (MQEz6)
FWIW, Edward Franklin Frazier, a black sociologist who wrote his doctoral dissertation ("The Negro Family in America") in 1939, distinguished those slaves who achieved their own manumission through their industry (regarding whom he is laudatory) from those who were freed through no actions of their own (regarding whom he is deprecatory).
He claims that the former group had established themselves in their own communities, were well-regarded generally, and were doing fine when they were inundated by the latter group, which caused all of them to be held in low regard.
The book is available, free, on Project Gutenburg, and is worthwhile reading.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 25, 2015 12:48 PM (oKE6c)
147
The fact that Mosaic law details treatment of slaves doesn't mean Jusaism sanctioned subjugation for the purpose of labor.
Please read the second half of Leviticus 25 and report back. There is a distinction made between enslaving Jews (which can only be temporary) and enslaving people from other tribes.
Please read the second half of Leviticus 25 and report back. There is a distinction made between enslaving Jews (which can only be temporary) and enslaving people from other tribes.
Posted by: Oberlin Dean of Students at April 25, 2015 12:49 PM (5f5bM)
148
135 Thank you, I'll keep it in mind. LOL should have told me yesterday, reason I was late today is that I completely writer's blocked last night and didn't even start writing this until 9:30 this morning.
Posted by: Weirddave at April 25, 2015 12:49 PM (WvS3w)
149
My take on the cause of the Civil War? The North and South hated each other and were itching for a reason to get at each other's throats. Slavery was the perfect reason.
Cavalier vs Puritan. The English Civil War of Royalists vs Roundheads prefigured ours by 200 years, with the same cultural antagonists.
Cavalier vs Puritan. The English Civil War of Royalists vs Roundheads prefigured ours by 200 years, with the same cultural antagonists.
Posted by: Taro Tsujimoto at April 25, 2015 12:49 PM (/pB9Z)
150
I think part of the confusion may stem from the fact that much of the opposition to slavery was found in the churches, and that is a wonderful thing, but it has nothing to do with the Bible.
Actually, it had everything to do with the Bible. The basis for the opposition to slavery as it was being done was that all human beings are made in the image of God and we are no better morally or innately than another person simply because they are easily identifiable in our culture by their coloration and physical characteristics.
The entire argument was Biblical, because the system was to choose a specific sort of human being and consider them subhuman so you could enslave them perpetually.
Actually, it had everything to do with the Bible. The basis for the opposition to slavery as it was being done was that all human beings are made in the image of God and we are no better morally or innately than another person simply because they are easily identifiable in our culture by their coloration and physical characteristics.
The entire argument was Biblical, because the system was to choose a specific sort of human being and consider them subhuman so you could enslave them perpetually.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 12:49 PM (39g3+)
151
Rubbish. There's explicit rules when "purchasing" slaves and making slaves out of captives.
.so how did the tribes of the old testament handle matters of punishment for what we would now call civil crimes?
Rubbish. There's explicit rules when "purchasing" slaves and making slaves out of captives.
.so how did the tribes of the old testament handle matters of punishment for what we would now call civil crimes?
Posted by: kj at April 25, 2015 12:50 PM (lKyWE)
152
As I was taught in my history class in high school. It was the unions and the minimum wage that ended slavery, and that was a gift from democrats.
Posted by: reality man at April 25, 2015 12:51 PM (BNEdd)
153
Please read the second half of Leviticus 25 and report back. There is a distinction made between enslaving Jews (which can only be temporary) and enslaving people from other tribes.
Posted by: Oberlin Dean of Students
Sorry, but this is a lost cause. People are simply making shit up without any basis in biblical text or historical facts.
Please read the second half of Leviticus 25 and report back. There is a distinction made between enslaving Jews (which can only be temporary) and enslaving people from other tribes.
Posted by: Oberlin Dean of Students
Sorry, but this is a lost cause. People are simply making shit up without any basis in biblical text or historical facts.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 25, 2015 12:51 PM (kdS6q)
154
Edward Franklin Frazier, a black sociologist who wrote his doctoral dissertation ("The Negro Family in America") in 1939, distinguished those slaves who achieved their own manumission through their industry (regarding whom he is laudatory) from those who were freed through no actions of their own (regarding whom he is deprecatory).
The reason the Tuskeegee Institute exists is because George Washington Carver (former slave) argued that former slaves would never amount to anything unless they learned the innate value of work as work rather than bondage. The first buildings of the institute were built by the students that studied there.
In Up From Slavery (a book I highly recommend), Carver comments on freed slaves who were given some money but had no concept of its value, how a market worked, or the uses of labor. They bought fancy clothes and carriages and fine things so they'd be like the master... then were out of money and had no idea how to get more or how to try to make it in the world.
An awful lot of folks black and white and all other hues, just like that today.
The reason the Tuskeegee Institute exists is because George Washington Carver (former slave) argued that former slaves would never amount to anything unless they learned the innate value of work as work rather than bondage. The first buildings of the institute were built by the students that studied there.
In Up From Slavery (a book I highly recommend), Carver comments on freed slaves who were given some money but had no concept of its value, how a market worked, or the uses of labor. They bought fancy clothes and carriages and fine things so they'd be like the master... then were out of money and had no idea how to get more or how to try to make it in the world.
An awful lot of folks black and white and all other hues, just like that today.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 12:53 PM (39g3+)
155
Let me weigh in on these Biblical matters.
Posted by: Mr. Foo Foo at April 25, 2015 12:53 PM (Dwehj)
156
Correct, but you're misunderstanding something.
***************
See my above post, CT. The distinction is between enslavement of other Jews and enslavement of non-Jews. The former was more akin to an indentured servitude for a term of several years. The latter was chattel slavery, straight up.
***************
See my above post, CT. The distinction is between enslavement of other Jews and enslavement of non-Jews. The former was more akin to an indentured servitude for a term of several years. The latter was chattel slavery, straight up.
Posted by: Oberlin Dean of Students at April 25, 2015 12:53 PM (5f5bM)
157
Please read the second half of Leviticus 25 and report back. There is a distinction made between enslaving Jews (which can only be temporary) and enslaving people from other tribes.
Actually, the years of Jubilee set all slaves free, not just Jewish ones. It was always meant to be temporary for all peoples.
Actually, the years of Jubilee set all slaves free, not just Jewish ones. It was always meant to be temporary for all peoples.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 12:54 PM (39g3+)
158
Regardless of slavery, States' rights was eventually going to lead to war.
Regardless of States' rights, slavery was eventually going to lead to war.
In short, war was inevitable.
Regardless of States' rights, slavery was eventually going to lead to war.
In short, war was inevitable.
Posted by: Just A Guy at April 25, 2015 12:54 PM (CGzAz)
159
The distinction you're noting was about making sure Jewish tribes kept their identity and ownership, not about making two types of humanity that were treated differently.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 12:55 PM (39g3+)
160
Oh, crap. Didn't realize I had my Oberlin Dean of Students sock still on from yesterday. That was a pretty good one, by the way. I apologized for chess being sexist and mandated that the object of the game every other day be to capture the queen rather than the king.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 25, 2015 12:55 PM (5f5bM)
161
Posted by: reality man at April 25, 2015 12:51 PM (BNEdd)
Unions and the Democrat party also gave us the 40 hour work week and ended child labor, too.
Before that, people were basically slaves -- forced to work in unsafe conditions 120 hours a week from age 4 until they died to eek out a living.
Unions and the Democrat party also gave us the 40 hour work week and ended child labor, too.
Before that, people were basically slaves -- forced to work in unsafe conditions 120 hours a week from age 4 until they died to eek out a living.
Posted by: mynewhandle at April 25, 2015 12:56 PM (AkOaV)
162
.so how did the tribes of the old testament handle matters of punishment for what we would now call civil crimes?
Posted by: kj at April 25, 2015 12:50 PM (lKyWE)
*************
Beaucoup rules in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Lots of them.
Posted by: kj at April 25, 2015 12:50 PM (lKyWE)
*************
Beaucoup rules in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Lots of them.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 25, 2015 12:56 PM (5f5bM)
163
Christopher Taylor:
Actually the 3/5ths thing was a compromise by the northern and southern states.
The northerners didn't want to count slaves, period. The southern states refused to sign the Constitution under those circumstances. They bargained on the matter, and settled at 3/5ths for slaves and Indians.
Actually the 3/5ths thing was a compromise by the northern and southern states.
The northerners didn't want to count slaves, period. The southern states refused to sign the Constitution under those circumstances. They bargained on the matter, and settled at 3/5ths for slaves and Indians.
Posted by: Kristophr at April 25, 2015 12:57 PM (6fIOn)
164
Before that, people were basically slaves -- forced to work in unsafe conditions 120 hours a week from age 4 until they died to eek out a living.
you mean like the textile mill bill and hillary clinton set up in hati?
Before that, people were basically slaves -- forced to work in unsafe conditions 120 hours a week from age 4 until they died to eek out a living.
you mean like the textile mill bill and hillary clinton set up in hati?
Posted by: kj at April 25, 2015 12:57 PM (lKyWE)
165
159
The distinction you're noting was about making sure Jewish tribes kept
their identity and ownership, not about making two types of humanity
that were treated differently.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 12:55 PM (39g3+)
******************
Please, CT, open and read the book before opining on what it says. Second half of Leviticus 25.
The distinction you're noting was about making sure Jewish tribes kept
their identity and ownership, not about making two types of humanity
that were treated differently.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 12:55 PM (39g3+)
******************
Please, CT, open and read the book before opining on what it says. Second half of Leviticus 25.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 25, 2015 12:58 PM (5f5bM)
166
Did you know that ghey marriage is sanctioned twelve times throughout the Old Testament? Well, did you?
Posted by: Mr. Foo Foo at April 25, 2015 12:58 PM (Dwehj)
167
There are sweat shops in NYC.
Posted by: eman at April 25, 2015 12:58 PM (MQEz6)
168
Enjoying the civil comments. One thing, be careful with statistics. One often quoted is most southerners at that time weren't slave owners. True, as far as it goes, but a ore accurate measure would be slave owning families. This was recorded in all the censuses up to and including 1860. For instance a man and wife with 8 children would have just 1 person, the husband , as a slave owner. Extrapolating these kind of figures over all the states where slavery was legal and you could falsely assume only 10% of the people were slave owners.
Posted by: JHW at April 25, 2015 12:58 PM (w+zdY)
169
The northerners didn't want to count slaves, period. The southern states refused to sign the Constitution under those circumstances. They bargained on the matter, and settled at 3/5ths for slaves and Indians.
Correct. But it was never about human worth or defining value. It was simply a mechanism for counting representation in congress. Ignorant people and activists manipulating them say its claiming blacks were 3/5ths human when it had nothing to do with that and many non-blacks were also slaves.
Correct. But it was never about human worth or defining value. It was simply a mechanism for counting representation in congress. Ignorant people and activists manipulating them say its claiming blacks were 3/5ths human when it had nothing to do with that and many non-blacks were also slaves.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 12:59 PM (39g3+)
170
"Please read the second half of Leviticus 25 and report back."
I'm aware that Jews had elevated status and purchased slaves from lesser nations.
The point-scoring "report back" and "utterly void" smugness here is obscuring the original argument - WD said JC morality was the major moving force behind ending slavery and others said Christ had nothing to do with it.
I noted above how cherry-picking scripture can lead to exactly this kind of argument. Take JC in its entirety and it's anti-slavery root and branch. The Golden Rule, which underlies JC morality (see Hilel in the 1st century, for instance) clearly bars slavery - unless you rely on "Otherizing" the slave outside of humanity. Not a hill I'd choose to die on.
I'm aware that Jews had elevated status and purchased slaves from lesser nations.
The point-scoring "report back" and "utterly void" smugness here is obscuring the original argument - WD said JC morality was the major moving force behind ending slavery and others said Christ had nothing to do with it.
I noted above how cherry-picking scripture can lead to exactly this kind of argument. Take JC in its entirety and it's anti-slavery root and branch. The Golden Rule, which underlies JC morality (see Hilel in the 1st century, for instance) clearly bars slavery - unless you rely on "Otherizing" the slave outside of humanity. Not a hill I'd choose to die on.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at April 25, 2015 12:59 PM (QKIQb)
171
Posted by: Kristophr at April 25, 2015 12:57 PM (6fIOn)
Indians not subject to tax weren't counted, but you're mostly right.
The debate was how to apportion representation. Small states wanted each state to be represented at the federal level equally. Larger states thought they should have more influence.
The first compromise was to make the House apportioned by population, and the Senate picked by the legislatures of the states, 2 per state regardless of size.
Then there came the issue of how to "apportion by population". The south -- who ALSO argued that slaves were property, not people Created Equal -- wanted their slaves counted as part of the census in order to get more seats in congress.
The north, obviously, disagreed. This was the second compromise. They'd count 3/5s of "other persons". The south was supposedly willing to walk over this...
Indians not subject to tax weren't counted, but you're mostly right.
The debate was how to apportion representation. Small states wanted each state to be represented at the federal level equally. Larger states thought they should have more influence.
The first compromise was to make the House apportioned by population, and the Senate picked by the legislatures of the states, 2 per state regardless of size.
Then there came the issue of how to "apportion by population". The south -- who ALSO argued that slaves were property, not people Created Equal -- wanted their slaves counted as part of the census in order to get more seats in congress.
The north, obviously, disagreed. This was the second compromise. They'd count 3/5s of "other persons". The south was supposedly willing to walk over this...
Posted by: mynewhandle at April 25, 2015 01:00 PM (AkOaV)
172
***"there's just one thing that bugged me about the entire experience, and that's that all too often the purpose of the tour seemed to be to beat you over the head with the fact that "George Washington kept slaves!"***
Reminds me of going to the museum at the Hiroshima Peace Park. They only bother telling you that Japan started the entire chain of events with one little blurb that's kind of hard to see.
The rest of the exhibit is spent subtly beating you over the head that the United States is bad.
Reminds me of going to the museum at the Hiroshima Peace Park. They only bother telling you that Japan started the entire chain of events with one little blurb that's kind of hard to see.
The rest of the exhibit is spent subtly beating you over the head that the United States is bad.
Posted by: Burn the Witch at April 25, 2015 01:00 PM (xSCb6)
173
The regime intends for SLAVER OWNERS to be the dominant theme of American's beginnings. This weakens the legitimacy of the Constitution and the culture itself. Ask any young person today; all the know of US history is that OUR FOUNDERS OWNED SLAVES!
And Obama and his appointees are putting that front and center, even mounting an entire exhibit at the Smithsonian about Jefferson the SLAVE OWNER!!!
The United States is evil! Eleventy!!
http://tinyurl.com/n7t9bhe
And Obama and his appointees are putting that front and center, even mounting an entire exhibit at the Smithsonian about Jefferson the SLAVE OWNER!!!
The United States is evil! Eleventy!!
http://tinyurl.com/n7t9bhe
Posted by: PJ at April 25, 2015 01:01 PM (cHuNI)
Posted by: mynewhandle at April 25, 2015 01:01 PM (AkOaV)
175
Please, CT, open and read the book before opining on what it says. Second half of Leviticus 25.
I understand you heard this all in a Comparative Religion class in school but trust me on this, I've been studying the Bible and Old Testament history for almost 50 years.
You're trying to create a distinction in a manner that did not exist. There was a distinction between prisoners taken in war and covenant members, but you're exaggerating it significantly. The years of Jubilee were to set all slaves free. Granted, Israel never once celebrated a single one but that was one of the effects of the celebration.
I understand you heard this all in a Comparative Religion class in school but trust me on this, I've been studying the Bible and Old Testament history for almost 50 years.
You're trying to create a distinction in a manner that did not exist. There was a distinction between prisoners taken in war and covenant members, but you're exaggerating it significantly. The years of Jubilee were to set all slaves free. Granted, Israel never once celebrated a single one but that was one of the effects of the celebration.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 01:01 PM (39g3+)
176
Before that, people were basically slaves -- forced
to work in unsafe conditions 120 hours a week from age 4 until they died
to eek out a living.
Posted by: mynewhandle at April 25, 2015 12:56 PM (AkOaV)
I love leftist revisionist history. Everybody worked like dogs back then by our standards today. Don't like working conditions in factories? Plump for the easy life on the farm, kick back and enjoy yourself.
It's of a piece with leftists whining about the wages overseas ("it's slave labor! Who can live on $X/day?"). Newsflash, leftists: they're not living in Manhattan, or Beverly Hills. Where they live, $X/day is a reasonable wage. How do we know this? Because people are willing to work for it, and are not coerced into accepting the job.
to work in unsafe conditions 120 hours a week from age 4 until they died
to eek out a living.
Posted by: mynewhandle at April 25, 2015 12:56 PM (AkOaV)
I love leftist revisionist history. Everybody worked like dogs back then by our standards today. Don't like working conditions in factories? Plump for the easy life on the farm, kick back and enjoy yourself.
It's of a piece with leftists whining about the wages overseas ("it's slave labor! Who can live on $X/day?"). Newsflash, leftists: they're not living in Manhattan, or Beverly Hills. Where they live, $X/day is a reasonable wage. How do we know this? Because people are willing to work for it, and are not coerced into accepting the job.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 25, 2015 01:01 PM (oKE6c)
177
Actually, the years of Jubilee set all slaves free, not just Jewish ones. It was always meant to be temporary for all peoples.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 12:54 PM (39g3+)
******************
No, you are flat out wrong. Leviticus 25:44-46, and more generally 39-54. Verse 54 sums up the theory behind the release of the Israelites from bondage in the Year of Jubilee: The Israelites were servants who all ultimately belonged to the Lord, not to each other (but not so the people from other tribes).
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 12:54 PM (39g3+)
******************
No, you are flat out wrong. Leviticus 25:44-46, and more generally 39-54. Verse 54 sums up the theory behind the release of the Israelites from bondage in the Year of Jubilee: The Israelites were servants who all ultimately belonged to the Lord, not to each other (but not so the people from other tribes).
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 25, 2015 01:02 PM (5f5bM)
178
Reminds me of going to the museum at the Hiroshima Peace Park. They only
bother telling you that Japan started the entire chain of events with
one little blurb that's kind of hard to see.
At dinner at the home of Japanese colleague his wife (rather sanctimoniously) asked me how I felt when I visited Hiroshima. Not wanting on one hand to be an ungracious guest, but on the other not wanting to let bullshit pass, I replied, "Pretty much the way I felt when I visited Nanjing."
She had no idea what I was talking about. None. All of that has been airbrushed out of the Japanese history taught in Japan.
bother telling you that Japan started the entire chain of events with
one little blurb that's kind of hard to see.
At dinner at the home of Japanese colleague his wife (rather sanctimoniously) asked me how I felt when I visited Hiroshima. Not wanting on one hand to be an ungracious guest, but on the other not wanting to let bullshit pass, I replied, "Pretty much the way I felt when I visited Nanjing."
She had no idea what I was talking about. None. All of that has been airbrushed out of the Japanese history taught in Japan.
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 25, 2015 01:04 PM (oKE6c)
179
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 25, 2015 01:01 PM (oKE6c)
Yeah, and before the savior FDR, children and seniors were dying in the street from lack of food. Just keeling over left and right. Republicans had to step over their stupid bodies just to get to their $500 a plate dinners. And they did it with joy.
And before the savior Wilson, robber barons bought and sold the country and stole the labor of their basically slave labor force to become fabulously wealthy. They were, obviously, all Republicans. Democrats eventually were able to save the country from these horrific exploiters.
Yeah, and before the savior FDR, children and seniors were dying in the street from lack of food. Just keeling over left and right. Republicans had to step over their stupid bodies just to get to their $500 a plate dinners. And they did it with joy.
And before the savior Wilson, robber barons bought and sold the country and stole the labor of their basically slave labor force to become fabulously wealthy. They were, obviously, all Republicans. Democrats eventually were able to save the country from these horrific exploiters.
Posted by: mynewhandle at April 25, 2015 01:05 PM (AkOaV)
180
Posted by: Jay Guevara at April 25, 2015 01:01 PM (oKE6c)
If I could make the money I make in CA and pay Kansas prices, hoo boy, I'd be rich.
If I could make the money I make in CA and pay Kansas prices, hoo boy, I'd be rich.
Posted by: eman at April 25, 2015 01:05 PM (MQEz6)
181
"And let them take up their mattresses and be fruitful" - Lamentations 7:22-23
Posted by: Mr. Foo Foo at April 25, 2015 01:06 PM (Dwehj)
182
Society and CT, I agree 100% with you that slavery is a bad thing and noted above that much of the opposition started and was centered in the churches, which is also a good thing. But abolition was a movement created by people, that had nothing to do with the Bible, and nothing to do with Christ or Paul, both of whom just accepted that there were some people who were slaves. Slaves are equal to free men in Christianity, even though they are not equal on Earth. Christ died for our souls, no matter what our earthly circumstances. The existence or nonexistence of slavery is irrelevant to that mission.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 25, 2015 01:07 PM (5f5bM)
183
I've been studying the Bible and Old Testament history for almost 50 years.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor
Logical fallacy: Appeal to accomplishment
I've been studying the Bible and Old Testament history for almost 50 years.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor
Logical fallacy: Appeal to accomplishment
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at April 25, 2015 01:08 PM (kdS6q)
184
"The regime intends for SLAVER OWNERS to be the dominant theme of
American's beginnings. This weakens the legitimacy of the Constitution
and the culture itself. Ask any young person today; all the know of US
history is that OUR FOUNDERS OWNED SLAVES!"
Pretty much sums it up except for two things -
1. Our current prosperity is due to stealing wealth and labor from the third world.
2. The Joos are behind all of this.
American's beginnings. This weakens the legitimacy of the Constitution
and the culture itself. Ask any young person today; all the know of US
history is that OUR FOUNDERS OWNED SLAVES!"
Pretty much sums it up except for two things -
1. Our current prosperity is due to stealing wealth and labor from the third world.
2. The Joos are behind all of this.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at April 25, 2015 01:08 PM (QKIQb)
185
Great Essay Weird Dave. I think Johnson's war on poverty has cause more damage to modern day Americans than Slavery. In the 60's and 70's there were entire communities run by black people. They owned the banks, the stores and had intact families. Through out the post slavery history black people focused on families and education. That for the most part is gone.
I read a very interesting cited statistic that said, if you take all of the prisoners out of lockups across this nation that are products of broken homes, what you will have left mirrors our current demographics.
The slavery issue, as terrible as it was, has become an excuse for the democratic party's twelve trillion dollar fuck up called the war on poverty.
I read a very interesting cited statistic that said, if you take all of the prisoners out of lockups across this nation that are products of broken homes, what you will have left mirrors our current demographics.
The slavery issue, as terrible as it was, has become an excuse for the democratic party's twelve trillion dollar fuck up called the war on poverty.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at April 25, 2015 01:09 PM (KbNXw)
186
I bet Moo Moo watches "19 Kids and Counting" and dreams of being a Duggar girl.
Posted by: eman at April 25, 2015 01:09 PM (MQEz6)
187
Posted by: JHW at April 25, 2015 12:58 PM (w+zdY)
That's a very valid point... and one I had never considered.
That's a very valid point... and one I had never considered.
Posted by: BB Wolf at April 25, 2015 01:10 PM (qh617)
188
Sigh. I should have known that my Biblical cherry-picking would be wasted on the socon rubes. Well, back to the cow wash.
Posted by: Mr. Foo Foo at April 25, 2015 01:12 PM (Dwehj)
189
What a different World it would be if the trans-Atlantic slave trade had never happened.
Imagine travailing throughout the U.S., the Bahamas, the Caribbean, Brazil, and the Guiana's and never see a single black face?
Of course none of those western hemisphere blacks alive today and none of their predecessors back to the first New-World coupling in their gene pool would ever have existed.
Imagine travailing throughout the U.S., the Bahamas, the Caribbean, Brazil, and the Guiana's and never see a single black face?
Of course none of those western hemisphere blacks alive today and none of their predecessors back to the first New-World coupling in their gene pool would ever have existed.
Posted by: Frank at April 25, 2015 01:13 PM (izfXE)
190
Well, I've got to go mow the lawn.
This is exactly like slavery. I'm being oppressed by Big Grass.
This is exactly like slavery. I'm being oppressed by Big Grass.
Posted by: rickl at April 25, 2015 01:13 PM (sdi6R)
191
Once bought, they would be freed, I guess. Then what?
Posted by: eman at April 25, 2015 12:39 PM (MQEz6)
Like everyone else in the country, they are on their own. My great great great grandfather worked as an indentured servant for SIX years to pay for a boat ride over.
That's the way it is. Move along.
Posted by: eman at April 25, 2015 12:39 PM (MQEz6)
Like everyone else in the country, they are on their own. My great great great grandfather worked as an indentured servant for SIX years to pay for a boat ride over.
That's the way it is. Move along.
Posted by: Nip Sip at April 25, 2015 01:13 PM (0FSuD)
192
Hey Foo Foo, there's an entire book on that subject that will make you blush reading it. Song of Songs (aka Song of Solomon).
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 25, 2015 01:14 PM (5f5bM)
193
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 12:49 PM (39g3+)
and yet Slavery continued to exist for almost 2000 years...
And Jesus never said anything (at least that was written down years after he died) about Slavery...
Without extrapolation... there is just no way to know how he felt about it... or what he SAID about it... considering the Bible was 'edited' by the Romans... who KEPT SLAVES...
and yet Slavery continued to exist for almost 2000 years...
And Jesus never said anything (at least that was written down years after he died) about Slavery...
Without extrapolation... there is just no way to know how he felt about it... or what he SAID about it... considering the Bible was 'edited' by the Romans... who KEPT SLAVES...
Posted by: BB Wolf at April 25, 2015 01:14 PM (qh617)
194
You'd think that Black Americans would be particularly sensitive to people and systems trying to turn them back into slaves again--Obama, Marxism---but you'd be wrong.
Posted by: ahem at April 25, 2015 01:14 PM (lKGzI)
195
Wait, George Washington owned slaves?
I suppose next you'll tell me he didn't chop down his daddy's cherry tree.
I suppose next you'll tell me he didn't chop down his daddy's cherry tree.
Posted by: Fritz at April 25, 2015 01:15 PM (ty633)
196
1. Our current prosperity is due to stealing wealth and labor from the third world.
2. The Joos are behind all of this.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at April 25, 2015 01:08 PM (QKIQb)
Who knew Injuin Liz posted at the AoSHQ?
2. The Joos are behind all of this.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at April 25, 2015 01:08 PM (QKIQb)
Who knew Injuin Liz posted at the AoSHQ?
Posted by: Nip Sip at April 25, 2015 01:15 PM (0FSuD)
197
Of course none of those western hemisphere blacks alive today and none of their predecessors back to the first New-World coupling in their gene pool would ever have existed.
Posted by: Frank at April 25, 2015 01:13 PM (izfXE)
Except that the majority of Blacks in America today, cannot trace their roots to any Slave... most are immigrants...
Posted by: Frank at April 25, 2015 01:13 PM (izfXE)
Except that the majority of Blacks in America today, cannot trace their roots to any Slave... most are immigrants...
Posted by: BB Wolf at April 25, 2015 01:16 PM (qh617)
198
Who knew Injuin Liz posted at the AoSHQ?
Posted by: Nip Sip at April 25, 2015 01:15 PM (0FSuD)
HuffPo is not radical enough.
Posted by: Nip Sip at April 25, 2015 01:15 PM (0FSuD)
HuffPo is not radical enough.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at April 25, 2015 01:16 PM (KbNXw)
199
"...but abolition was a movement created by people, that had nothing to do with the Bible"
Just so we're clear, I'm an Objectivist atheist. I'm the last person here who's going to say "the Bible" created something. However, the abolitionists themselves clearly believed they were acting according to Christian faith in opposing slavery. Christianity was a major force in abolition, which was the original point. I don't see how you can draw neat lines around the issue and say that the Bible had nothing to do with abolition, and there's a world of nuance as to why Christ and Paul accepted that some people were slaves, as CT and others discuss above. I frankly don't see why some here, no so much yourself, Caesar, are so invested in making the counterargument. I give Christianity its due even as an atheist. If others see it differently, I'm not worried about it from a religious perspective.
Just so we're clear, I'm an Objectivist atheist. I'm the last person here who's going to say "the Bible" created something. However, the abolitionists themselves clearly believed they were acting according to Christian faith in opposing slavery. Christianity was a major force in abolition, which was the original point. I don't see how you can draw neat lines around the issue and say that the Bible had nothing to do with abolition, and there's a world of nuance as to why Christ and Paul accepted that some people were slaves, as CT and others discuss above. I frankly don't see why some here, no so much yourself, Caesar, are so invested in making the counterargument. I give Christianity its due even as an atheist. If others see it differently, I'm not worried about it from a religious perspective.
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at April 25, 2015 01:16 PM (QKIQb)
200
194 You'd think that Black Americans would be particularly sensitive to people and systems trying to turn them back into slaves again--Obama, Marxism---but you'd be wrong.
Posted by: ahem at April 25, 2015 01:14 PM (lKGzI)
You forgot Islam. That's a biggie, both historically and in the present day.
Posted by: ahem at April 25, 2015 01:14 PM (lKGzI)
You forgot Islam. That's a biggie, both historically and in the present day.
Posted by: rickl at April 25, 2015 01:17 PM (sdi6R)
201
Of course none of those western hemisphere blacks
alive today and none of their predecessors back to the first New-World
coupling in their gene pool would ever have existed.
Posted by: Frank at April 25, 2015 01:13 PM (izfXE)
There's a reasonable argument that rather than modern-day whites owing them reparations for bringing their ancestors over, they owe whites at least eternal gratitude.
alive today and none of their predecessors back to the first New-World
coupling in their gene pool would ever have existed.
Posted by: Frank at April 25, 2015 01:13 PM (izfXE)
There's a reasonable argument that rather than modern-day whites owing them reparations for bringing their ancestors over, they owe whites at least eternal gratitude.
Posted by: Al "You Scratched My Anchor" Czernik at April 25, 2015 01:17 PM (5f5bM)
202
Regardless of States' rights, slavery was eventually going to lead to war.
In short, war was inevitable.
Posted by: Just A Guy at April 25, 2015 12:54 PM (CGzAz)
Nah, we could have been bought. The only haggling would be over the price of each slave.
It could of happened and we would be a better nation if it had.
I blame the darn Joos for not figuring this out.
In short, war was inevitable.
Posted by: Just A Guy at April 25, 2015 12:54 PM (CGzAz)
Nah, we could have been bought. The only haggling would be over the price of each slave.
It could of happened and we would be a better nation if it had.
I blame the darn Joos for not figuring this out.
Posted by: Nip Sip at April 25, 2015 01:19 PM (0FSuD)
203
There's a reasonable argument that rather than modern-day whites owing them reparations for bringing their ancestors over, they owe whites at least eternal gratitude.
Posted by: Al "You Scratched My Anchor" Czernik at April 25, 2015 01:17 PM (5f5bM)
Yep. Cell phones, Air Jordans and KFC beats Ebola and rats steamed in palm leaves.
Posted by: Al "You Scratched My Anchor" Czernik at April 25, 2015 01:17 PM (5f5bM)
Yep. Cell phones, Air Jordans and KFC beats Ebola and rats steamed in palm leaves.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at April 25, 2015 01:20 PM (KbNXw)
204
Good post Wierddave
Posted by: qixlqatl at April 25, 2015 01:22 PM (nN+u3)
205
Society, thanks for the response. It's actually a variant on the all-too-common argument people make that Jesus was a leftist, which is contrary to the actual Bible and conforms to something they want to believe, in part because they were taught that in liberal churches that are profoundly leftist and want to believe it. Not to put it too bluntly, but the actual historical Jesus reported in the Gospels had very little interest in economic systems per se. His interest was in the souls of people.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 25, 2015 01:23 PM (5f5bM)
206
15
Here come all the southerners....
Posted by: William Tecumsah
----------------------------
Pffft. That's rich irony probably coming from some Yankee, as he drives down I-95 to get away from a cold Chicago Winter in January. You don't see many Southerners doing the reverse in the summer.
Here come all the southerners....
Posted by: William Tecumsah
----------------------------
Pffft. That's rich irony probably coming from some Yankee, as he drives down I-95 to get away from a cold Chicago Winter in January. You don't see many Southerners doing the reverse in the summer.
Posted by: JohnMc at April 25, 2015 01:24 PM (RHBWt)
207
It could of happened and we would be a better nation if it had.
I blame the darn Joos for not figuring this out.
Posted by: Nip Sip at April 25, 2015 01:19 PM (0FSuD)
Yeah.... the population and economy of the South was decimated.... and so lagged behind the North in the industrial revolution...
I blame the darn Joos for not figuring this out.
Posted by: Nip Sip at April 25, 2015 01:19 PM (0FSuD)
Yeah.... the population and economy of the South was decimated.... and so lagged behind the North in the industrial revolution...
Posted by: BB Wolf at April 25, 2015 01:24 PM (qh617)
208
No, you are flat out wrong.
Sigh. I was trying to avoid quoting the Bible, because people just don't want to read it and it never solves anything but you just don't want to read anything except one chapter you were given in a college class.
Just so you're comfortable, here's a verse from that chapter:
"And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family."
-Leviticus 25:10
And Jesus never said anything (at least that was written down years after he died) about Slavery...
Well, putting aside that Jesus was God and God is the author the whole Bible through the writers (and not "Romans" as you fallaciously claim - put the Dan Brown down), Jesus is not the only person in the Bible. I noted the Biblical principles above; you can reject them as being something you don't believe in, but you can't simply say they aren't Biblical.
Sigh. I was trying to avoid quoting the Bible, because people just don't want to read it and it never solves anything but you just don't want to read anything except one chapter you were given in a college class.
Just so you're comfortable, here's a verse from that chapter:
"And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof; it shall be a jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family."
-Leviticus 25:10
And Jesus never said anything (at least that was written down years after he died) about Slavery...
Well, putting aside that Jesus was God and God is the author the whole Bible through the writers (and not "Romans" as you fallaciously claim - put the Dan Brown down), Jesus is not the only person in the Bible. I noted the Biblical principles above; you can reject them as being something you don't believe in, but you can't simply say they aren't Biblical.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 01:27 PM (39g3+)
209
"....Jesus was a leftist..."
Did you catch the article on the KGB roots of liberation theology the other day? Starring the present Putin-puppet head of the Russian chuch, BTW. I've always taken the author with a grain of salt given his roots but his story fits with other KGB efforts in the peace/disarmament field. They did most of their best work in ideological subversion.
http://tinyurl.com/n5wqoyv
Did you catch the article on the KGB roots of liberation theology the other day? Starring the present Putin-puppet head of the Russian chuch, BTW. I've always taken the author with a grain of salt given his roots but his story fits with other KGB efforts in the peace/disarmament field. They did most of their best work in ideological subversion.
http://tinyurl.com/n5wqoyv
Posted by: SocietyIs2Blame at April 25, 2015 01:27 PM (QKIQb)
Posted by: Seamus Muldoon at April 25, 2015 01:28 PM (NeFrd)
211
Pffft. That's rich irony probably coming from some Yankee, as he drives
down I-95 to get away from a cold Chicago Winter in January. You don't
see many Southerners doing the reverse in the summer.
Ever been to Maine in August? Going by license plates, well, you'll think you're in Quebec, but other than that, Florida, Georhgia, NS Carolina, etc... are not uncommon at all.
down I-95 to get away from a cold Chicago Winter in January. You don't
see many Southerners doing the reverse in the summer.
Ever been to Maine in August? Going by license plates, well, you'll think you're in Quebec, but other than that, Florida, Georhgia, NS Carolina, etc... are not uncommon at all.
Posted by: Weirddave at April 25, 2015 01:28 PM (WvS3w)
212
Nah, we could have been bought.
*****************
Sorry to join this discussion late, but I thought I had heard something about this. I hate to cite Politifact, but Lincoln did get a bill through Congress appropriating money to buy all the slaves in Delaware, which was to be a start. http://tinyurl.com/kd3g63h There are better sources cited in the article.
*****************
Sorry to join this discussion late, but I thought I had heard something about this. I hate to cite Politifact, but Lincoln did get a bill through Congress appropriating money to buy all the slaves in Delaware, which was to be a start. http://tinyurl.com/kd3g63h There are better sources cited in the article.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 25, 2015 01:28 PM (5f5bM)
213
I agree that the Civil War didn't have to happen but frustration and rage over the federal government encroaching on states was building for a variety of reasons just like it is today and it eventually was going to come to a head over some issue.
Slavery was the most obvious and timely one, and while it could have been avoided by the North working with the South to help transition to a non-slave economy... that would have probably violated state's rights as well.
Slavery was the most obvious and timely one, and while it could have been avoided by the North working with the South to help transition to a non-slave economy... that would have probably violated state's rights as well.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 01:29 PM (39g3+)
214
This post got me thinking about how the contrast between the moral thinking upon which America was founded vs. the reality of slavery applies to our world today. There is also a contrast between the moral thinking of today's progressives and their behavior.
I wonder what Weirddave's visitors from another world would think today?
VDH ""The danger of the new hard-left progressivism is that the old sins of greed, connivance, and malfeasance are now offset by assertions of cosmic morality."
http://tinyurl.com/lwmo8kf
I wonder what Weirddave's visitors from another world would think today?
VDH ""The danger of the new hard-left progressivism is that the old sins of greed, connivance, and malfeasance are now offset by assertions of cosmic morality."
http://tinyurl.com/lwmo8kf
Posted by: KT at April 25, 2015 01:30 PM (qahv/)
215
and not "Romans" as you fallaciously claim
************
CT, I never said it was the Romans, that was BBWolf. Nice research.
************
CT, I never said it was the Romans, that was BBWolf. Nice research.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 25, 2015 01:32 PM (5f5bM)
216
That "Jesus was a leftist" thing annoys me because Jesus wasn't interested in terrestrial politics at all. The New Testament is almost entirely devoid of political content other than "you're all under God" and a statement by Paul that the purpose of government is to punish the wicked and encourage the righteous.
Both the left and the right can find things about what Jesus taught on earth that they embrace and think opposes the other side's viewpoints. But Jesus had bigger things in mind than our petty squabbles.
Both the left and the right can find things about what Jesus taught on earth that they embrace and think opposes the other side's viewpoints. But Jesus had bigger things in mind than our petty squabbles.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 01:32 PM (39g3+)
217
Yeah.... the population and economy of the South was
decimated.... and so lagged behind the North in the industrial
revolution...
Posted by: BB Wolf at April 25, 2015 01:24 PM (qh617)
Until after WWII, the South suffered. Remember, EVERY railroad was ripped up by Sherman. Only after WWII did migration resume to the "promise land". Now we even have a net influx of Blacks.
Union's what can't they fcuk up?
decimated.... and so lagged behind the North in the industrial
revolution...
Posted by: BB Wolf at April 25, 2015 01:24 PM (qh617)
Until after WWII, the South suffered. Remember, EVERY railroad was ripped up by Sherman. Only after WWII did migration resume to the "promise land". Now we even have a net influx of Blacks.
Union's what can't they fcuk up?
Posted by: Nip Sip at April 25, 2015 01:33 PM (0FSuD)
218
But Jesus had bigger things in mind than our petty squabbles.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 01:32 PM (39g3+
Agree 100%!!
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 01:32 PM (39g3+
Agree 100%!!
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 25, 2015 01:33 PM (5f5bM)
219
Only after WWII did migration resume to the "promise land". Now we even have a net influx of Blacks.
Union's what can't they fcuk up?
Posted by: Nip Sip at April 25, 2015 01:33 PM (0FSuD)
Yeah, my best friend here in SC is a black guy from Long Island.
Union's what can't they fcuk up?
Posted by: Nip Sip at April 25, 2015 01:33 PM (0FSuD)
Yeah, my best friend here in SC is a black guy from Long Island.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at April 25, 2015 01:34 PM (KbNXw)
220
CT, I never said it was the Romans, that was BBWolf.
I'm sorry I thought that the fact that I quoted him made it obvious that I was responding to that quote at that point, not you. Sorry for the confusion, it is my understanding that's how discussions work and its never been a source of misunderstanding in the past when I have used that method.
I'm sorry I thought that the fact that I quoted him made it obvious that I was responding to that quote at that point, not you. Sorry for the confusion, it is my understanding that's how discussions work and its never been a source of misunderstanding in the past when I have used that method.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 01:34 PM (39g3+)
221
One thing that is missing from the discussion of historical chattel slavery here is the practice of debt slavery. It's the reason that bankruptcy is included in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the US Constitution.
And its reimposition is the reason that Obamacare included a Federal takeover of the student loan program.
And its reimposition is the reason that Obamacare included a Federal takeover of the student loan program.
Posted by: cthulhu at April 25, 2015 01:36 PM (T1005)
222
But Jesus had bigger things in mind than our petty squabbles.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 01:32 PM (39g3+
Like his important teachings on crossbows.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 01:32 PM (39g3+
Like his important teachings on crossbows.
Posted by: Weirddave at April 25, 2015 01:36 PM (WvS3w)
223
There's just one thing that bugged me about the entire experience that bugged me, and that's that all too often the purpose of the tour seemed to be to beat you over the head with the fact that "George Washington kept slaves!". "George Washington kept SLAVES!" "GEORGE WASHINGTON KEPT SLAVES, DID YOU HEAR? SLAVES!!!". It is an exaggeration to say that visitors are greeted "Welcome to Mount Vernon, a colonial era plantations that was home to 300 slaves and some guy named George", but not that much of one.
Weirddave, you are so naive!
America-hating communistic narratives have been implemented at MOST government-run historical sites, especially since Obama took office, but it started even before that.
Right here in the San Francisco Bay Area, if you go to...:
Alcatraz, there's a whole exhibit PRAISING the "Indian Takeover" of the early 1970s, with exhibits (produced by the Federal government) saying essentially "The evil White Man stole the Indians' land, and the righteous Native American revolutionaries demanded it be returned, but we just wouldn't do it, because the USA and white people are evil and horrible, and we feel guilty even having this exhibit on stolen Indian land."
Port Chicago, it is all about how racist the Army was during WWII, totally accepting the arguments of the soldiers who refused to work there after the blast, and blaming the explosion on (specifically) the white officers, not on the black soldiers. Much whining and hand-wringing about about the Army gave the "dangerous" job of loading ammunition onto ships to black soldiers, with absolutely no mention of the obvious fact that as dangerous as that was, it was vastly LESS dangerous than being a soldier on active combat duty on, say, Iwo Jima. And that if you "went on strike" on Iwo Jima for working under "unsafe conditions," you'd have a field court martial and be executed on the spot. But no, the black workers are depicted as HEROES for committing treason and refusing to load munition ships, thereby endangering the entire war effort. Because racism.
Angel Island, which has a whole museum about the racism of America, because on the island was an immigration station which was in use back when there were limitations on immigration from Asia, which is racist, because we should always allow everyone to immigrate unchecked to our racist/awful/cruel nation.
Etc. etc. etc. I see reports like this from government-run historical sites all around the country. It's par for the course now.
Weirddave, you are so naive!
America-hating communistic narratives have been implemented at MOST government-run historical sites, especially since Obama took office, but it started even before that.
Right here in the San Francisco Bay Area, if you go to...:
Alcatraz, there's a whole exhibit PRAISING the "Indian Takeover" of the early 1970s, with exhibits (produced by the Federal government) saying essentially "The evil White Man stole the Indians' land, and the righteous Native American revolutionaries demanded it be returned, but we just wouldn't do it, because the USA and white people are evil and horrible, and we feel guilty even having this exhibit on stolen Indian land."
Port Chicago, it is all about how racist the Army was during WWII, totally accepting the arguments of the soldiers who refused to work there after the blast, and blaming the explosion on (specifically) the white officers, not on the black soldiers. Much whining and hand-wringing about about the Army gave the "dangerous" job of loading ammunition onto ships to black soldiers, with absolutely no mention of the obvious fact that as dangerous as that was, it was vastly LESS dangerous than being a soldier on active combat duty on, say, Iwo Jima. And that if you "went on strike" on Iwo Jima for working under "unsafe conditions," you'd have a field court martial and be executed on the spot. But no, the black workers are depicted as HEROES for committing treason and refusing to load munition ships, thereby endangering the entire war effort. Because racism.
Angel Island, which has a whole museum about the racism of America, because on the island was an immigration station which was in use back when there were limitations on immigration from Asia, which is racist, because we should always allow everyone to immigrate unchecked to our racist/awful/cruel nation.
Etc. etc. etc. I see reports like this from government-run historical sites all around the country. It's par for the course now.
Posted by: zombie at April 25, 2015 01:36 PM (K4YiS)
224
Until after WWII, the South suffered. Remember, EVERY railroad was ripped up by Sherman. Only after WWII did migration resume to the "promise land".
Well, that and the North for about 50 years did everything it possibly could to weaken, demean, destabilize, and crush the South. To this day ignorant people think a southern accent means "stupid." Every time a comedian wants to mock stupid white people, out comes the faux southern accent. Its just hateful bigotry, but acceptable because of the targets.
Its like how you can hold 900 "white trash" themed parties in your frat but hold one "ghetto" theme party and you're thrown off campus.
Well, that and the North for about 50 years did everything it possibly could to weaken, demean, destabilize, and crush the South. To this day ignorant people think a southern accent means "stupid." Every time a comedian wants to mock stupid white people, out comes the faux southern accent. Its just hateful bigotry, but acceptable because of the targets.
Its like how you can hold 900 "white trash" themed parties in your frat but hold one "ghetto" theme party and you're thrown off campus.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 01:36 PM (39g3+)
225
Sorry for the confusion, it is my understanding
that's how discussions work and its never been a source of
misunderstanding in the past when I have used that method.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 01:34 PM (39g3+)
OK, ISWYDT. Sorry.
that's how discussions work and its never been a source of
misunderstanding in the past when I have used that method.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 01:34 PM (39g3+)
OK, ISWYDT. Sorry.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 25, 2015 01:36 PM (5f5bM)
226
Yeah, my best friend here in SC is a black guy from Long Island.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at April 25, 2015 01:34 PM (KbNXw)
Not unusual. Blacks want to come home and we welcome them.
Posted by: Oldsailors Poet at April 25, 2015 01:34 PM (KbNXw)
Not unusual. Blacks want to come home and we welcome them.
Posted by: Nip Sip at April 25, 2015 01:37 PM (0FSuD)
227
Weirddave, you are so naive!
America-hating communistic narratives have been implemented at MOST
government-run historical sites, especially since Obama took office, but
it started even before that.
I didn't say that I was surprised by this, just that I noticed it and wanted to offer a contrary view.
America-hating communistic narratives have been implemented at MOST
government-run historical sites, especially since Obama took office, but
it started even before that.
I didn't say that I was surprised by this, just that I noticed it and wanted to offer a contrary view.
Posted by: Weirddave at April 25, 2015 01:39 PM (WvS3w)
228
America-hating communistic narratives have been implemented at MOST government-run historical sites, especially since Obama took office, but it started even before that.
Yeah the Smithsonian started this trash when President Bush was in office. Its why the Seattle Mariners have gay-cheering days and NASCAR drives pink cars. Because a very determined and well-financed group of extremist zealots cannot leave anything alone and must politicize the world to the annoyance of 90% of the population.
Yeah the Smithsonian started this trash when President Bush was in office. Its why the Seattle Mariners have gay-cheering days and NASCAR drives pink cars. Because a very determined and well-financed group of extremist zealots cannot leave anything alone and must politicize the world to the annoyance of 90% of the population.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 01:39 PM (39g3+)
229
zombie, did anyone contact you about guest-hosting an ONT?
Posted by: cthulhu at April 25, 2015 01:40 PM (T1005)
230
As to the "default state of mankind" being slavery, that seems largely true, in a cultural sense maybe.
So man clubs wife, brings her to cave ... slavery.
(Metaphorical) Adam and Eve, put in garden to dress it and keep it, can freely eat of every tree.
I prefer to think of "default" as the Renaissance Man, or the self reliant man. Evil comes along when man falls from the graces of discipline and hard work, and all that we are supposed to learn by the time we finish Kindergarten.
The Bible says the next heaven and earth will end all these ills, but America was a pretty good attempt at (re-?)establishing a higher order here. In any case "Moral Man and Immoral Society" is pretty interesting, but over my head mostly. I was named after the author, but guess it didn't take. ha But I prefer to think of man as fundamentally good.
So man clubs wife, brings her to cave ... slavery.
(Metaphorical) Adam and Eve, put in garden to dress it and keep it, can freely eat of every tree.
I prefer to think of "default" as the Renaissance Man, or the self reliant man. Evil comes along when man falls from the graces of discipline and hard work, and all that we are supposed to learn by the time we finish Kindergarten.
The Bible says the next heaven and earth will end all these ills, but America was a pretty good attempt at (re-?)establishing a higher order here. In any case "Moral Man and Immoral Society" is pretty interesting, but over my head mostly. I was named after the author, but guess it didn't take. ha But I prefer to think of man as fundamentally good.
Posted by: Illiniwek at April 25, 2015 01:41 PM (QGjci)
231
228 America-hating communistic narratives have been implemented at MOST government-run historical sites, especially since Obama took office, but it started even before that.
Yeah the Smithsonian started this trash when President Bush was in office. Its why the Seattle Mariners have gay-cheering days and NASCAR drives pink cars. Because a very determined and well-financed group of extremist zealots cannot leave anything alone and must politicize the world to the annoyance of 90% of the population.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 01:39 PM (39g3+)
Compare Soviet propaganda with modern American government pronouncements and policies.
It makes for a shocking Venn diagram.
Yeah the Smithsonian started this trash when President Bush was in office. Its why the Seattle Mariners have gay-cheering days and NASCAR drives pink cars. Because a very determined and well-financed group of extremist zealots cannot leave anything alone and must politicize the world to the annoyance of 90% of the population.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 01:39 PM (39g3+)
Compare Soviet propaganda with modern American government pronouncements and policies.
It makes for a shocking Venn diagram.
Posted by: eman at April 25, 2015 01:42 PM (MQEz6)
232
One of the things I'd do as dictator of America would be to fix all those signs and displays to be strictly historical and lean toward patriotism. The Zinnification of America has got to be vigorously and consistently opposed.
I'd also ban the National Public Broadcasting system, the Department of Education, require all agencies to submit to an external, neutral audit that leads to a 25% across-the-board budget cut, and fire every single worker in all agencies, requiring them to re-apply and re-interview, to weed out the extremists and zealots.
I'd also ban the National Public Broadcasting system, the Department of Education, require all agencies to submit to an external, neutral audit that leads to a 25% across-the-board budget cut, and fire every single worker in all agencies, requiring them to re-apply and re-interview, to weed out the extremists and zealots.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 01:43 PM (39g3+)
233
I didn't say that I was surprised by this, just that I noticed it and wanted to offer a contrary view.
Posted by: Weirddave
Well, that's good!
You may also note that slavery existed in the New World for almost 300 years prior to the formation o the United States, and that its existence and practice here had nothing to do with the United States therefore obviously, and was implemented primarily by the Portuguese, French and Spanish colonists, and that from the moment the US was founded there was a strong anti-slavery movement, but the structure (federalism) of hwo the nation was set up prevented any central authority from even having the power to ban slavery nationwide, but even so, after a very short time history-wise (89 years), slavery WAS finally banned nationwide. And even before that, slavery has ALWAYS been illegal in a majority of states. So if anything the US should be universally praised as the nation that ENDED slavery, a pre-existing institution which it inherited against its will.
Posted by: Weirddave
Well, that's good!
You may also note that slavery existed in the New World for almost 300 years prior to the formation o the United States, and that its existence and practice here had nothing to do with the United States therefore obviously, and was implemented primarily by the Portuguese, French and Spanish colonists, and that from the moment the US was founded there was a strong anti-slavery movement, but the structure (federalism) of hwo the nation was set up prevented any central authority from even having the power to ban slavery nationwide, but even so, after a very short time history-wise (89 years), slavery WAS finally banned nationwide. And even before that, slavery has ALWAYS been illegal in a majority of states. So if anything the US should be universally praised as the nation that ENDED slavery, a pre-existing institution which it inherited against its will.
Posted by: zombie at April 25, 2015 01:48 PM (K4YiS)
Posted by: zombie at April 25, 2015 01:50 PM (K4YiS)
235
To be fair, the British were the first nation to actually make a specific and legal effort to ban not just slavery in their midst, but to actively hunt down and stop slave ships to other nations. Definitely to their credit.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 01:51 PM (39g3+)
236
One of the things I'd do as dictator of America
would be to fix all those signs and displays to be strictly historical
and lean toward patriotism. The Zinnification of America has got to be
vigorously and consistently opposed.
I'd also ban the National Public Broadcasting system, the Department
of Education, require all agencies to submit to an external, neutral
audit that leads to a 25% across-the-board budget cut, and fire every
single worker in all agencies, requiring them to re-apply and
re-interview, to weed out the extremists and zealots.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 01:43 PM (39g3+)
********************
That's a good start. I think the Republican nominee should start immediately after the convention and convene a commission to review and propose elimination of executive orders, agency directives, etc., all of which can be changed with the stroke of a pen (and I guess a phone call). Start with the most recent and work backwards. That is the task for January 21. Then, starting January 22, the Sunshine Commission is established as a permanent agency to start reviewing and proposing regulations and laws for elimination. Are they going to get everything they want? No, that's not the way Washington works, but if they get 25% that's a huge win.
would be to fix all those signs and displays to be strictly historical
and lean toward patriotism. The Zinnification of America has got to be
vigorously and consistently opposed.
I'd also ban the National Public Broadcasting system, the Department
of Education, require all agencies to submit to an external, neutral
audit that leads to a 25% across-the-board budget cut, and fire every
single worker in all agencies, requiring them to re-apply and
re-interview, to weed out the extremists and zealots.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 01:43 PM (39g3+)
********************
That's a good start. I think the Republican nominee should start immediately after the convention and convene a commission to review and propose elimination of executive orders, agency directives, etc., all of which can be changed with the stroke of a pen (and I guess a phone call). Start with the most recent and work backwards. That is the task for January 21. Then, starting January 22, the Sunshine Commission is established as a permanent agency to start reviewing and proposing regulations and laws for elimination. Are they going to get everything they want? No, that's not the way Washington works, but if they get 25% that's a huge win.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 25, 2015 01:52 PM (5f5bM)
237
Slavery was being abolished in the 1700s based on the philosophy of a philosopher who lived only about 100 years before named John Locke. John Locke advocated liberalism which is the application of an individualistic morality to politics. Liberalism features respect for intellectual freedom, universal application of laws, and respect for minority rights. John Locke's liberalism was derived from his empiricism. Empiricism states that all knowledge is derived from direct experience. If all knowledge is derived from direct experience, then all men are born as blank slates, and each man is the author of his own character. Thus, all men are created equal. The West was Christian for about 1,700 years and failed to make any significant advances in politics, economics, science, or morality compared to the rest of the world. It was the Enlightenment's confidence in reason and the resultant individualism and scientific naturalism that yielded all of the West's advancements.
Posted by: Skinny Pete at April 25, 2015 01:52 PM (zkOIn)
238
234
229 zombie, did anyone contact you about guest-hosting an ONT?
Posted by: cthulhu
Nope!
Posted by: zombie at April 25, 2015 01:50 PM (K4YiS)
It had come up several nights ago when Maet said that he was going to be traveling. If you had the slightest interest, I would recommend that you get in touch with Ace and/or Maet. It seemed a very popular notion with the ONT crowd......
229 zombie, did anyone contact you about guest-hosting an ONT?
Posted by: cthulhu
Nope!
Posted by: zombie at April 25, 2015 01:50 PM (K4YiS)
It had come up several nights ago when Maet said that he was going to be traveling. If you had the slightest interest, I would recommend that you get in touch with Ace and/or Maet. It seemed a very popular notion with the ONT crowd......
Posted by: cthulhu at April 25, 2015 01:53 PM (T1005)
239
Yep. Hence my point above re tariffs.
Northerners profited from slavery in other ways. The endowment of Brown University famously came from the slave trade.
Posted by: Jay Guevara
The John Hancock Company (aka insurance) and others profited greatly by lending to southern slave owners.
Northerners profited from slavery in other ways. The endowment of Brown University famously came from the slave trade.
Posted by: Jay Guevara
The John Hancock Company (aka insurance) and others profited greatly by lending to southern slave owners.
Posted by: JohnMc at April 25, 2015 01:55 PM (RHBWt)
240
That's a good start.
Well its just the first day. I agree on executive orders. The first thing I'd do upon winning the election would be to get a group of trustworthy, intelligent people together to examine every executive order that still has validity from every president ever and see if they should be thrown out or not.
The concept is fine; the president has to be able to preside over the executive department and issue orders, but they've been grossly overused and abused.
The West was Christian for about 1,700 years and failed to make any significant advances in politics, economics, science, or morality compared to the rest of the world.
That is nearly total in its lack of historical validity.
Well its just the first day. I agree on executive orders. The first thing I'd do upon winning the election would be to get a group of trustworthy, intelligent people together to examine every executive order that still has validity from every president ever and see if they should be thrown out or not.
The concept is fine; the president has to be able to preside over the executive department and issue orders, but they've been grossly overused and abused.
The West was Christian for about 1,700 years and failed to make any significant advances in politics, economics, science, or morality compared to the rest of the world.
That is nearly total in its lack of historical validity.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 01:56 PM (39g3+)
241
Chattel slavery ends when in the aggregate it isn't economically viable. In the north at the time immigrants were cheaper than slaves. Work or starve/freeze to death. Harder to starve/freeze people in the south. So open slavery. By invading the south the northern aristocracy got public financing for all the things they wanted that had been stalled by the south. Unfortunately they also got a taste of war profiteering.
Posted by: historical at April 25, 2015 01:59 PM (PGh+Q)
242
Posted by: zombie at April 25, 2015 01:50 PM (K4YiS)
It
had come up several nights ago when Maet said that he was going to be
traveling. If you had the slightest interest, I would recommend that you
get in touch with Ace and/or Maet. It seemed a very popular notion with
the ONT crowd......
Posted by: cthulhu at April 25, 2015 01:53 PM (T1005)
Wait? Zombie? This will NOT work! ha ha.
I'll bet he will do a great ONT.
Email the ewok.
It
had come up several nights ago when Maet said that he was going to be
traveling. If you had the slightest interest, I would recommend that you
get in touch with Ace and/or Maet. It seemed a very popular notion with
the ONT crowd......
Posted by: cthulhu at April 25, 2015 01:53 PM (T1005)
Wait? Zombie? This will NOT work! ha ha.
I'll bet he will do a great ONT.
Email the ewok.
Posted by: Nip Sip at April 25, 2015 02:01 PM (0FSuD)
243
Conservatives have to learn that they get no credit at all for the "don't get me wrong, slavery is bad" paragraph. It is unnecessary and it undermines the point you're making.
Posted by: bjk at April 25, 2015 02:01 PM (x2rNW)
244
It had come up several nights ago when Maet said that he was going to be traveling. If you had the slightest interest, I would recommend that you get in touch with Ace and/or Maet. It seemed a very popular notion with the ONT crowd......
Posted by: cthulhu
Well, as much as an honor as that would be, I'm not sure I'm "up for it," because I shy away from having must-do responsibilities these days, because of various work and family reasons.
I mean, I have unrestricted posting rights at PJM still, and can write anything and have it be on the front page on any topic at any time of my choosing, and they beg me to do it -- but I still don't, because a. I've lost the motivation, and b. I'm in a life-place where I can't commit the time to see a report fully through (promoting it, responding to comments, defending it from critics, cross-posting, making updates, etc.). I've gotten to the point where I feel that if I'm going to make a post, it needs to be a "home run," or it isn't worth the effort -- yet I just don't have the gumption at the moment to put in that effort. It'd feel odd making an ONT, which is (let's be frank) mostly just a list of interesting topics to start discussions, when I should be breaking big stories and writing investigative scoops!
This is also not mentioning that I still have my own site/blog, which at one point was among the Top 50 most-visited conservative sites, but which I have let stand mostly idle for years, again because of the lack of time and motivation.
My ambivalence is showing.
Posted by: cthulhu
Well, as much as an honor as that would be, I'm not sure I'm "up for it," because I shy away from having must-do responsibilities these days, because of various work and family reasons.
I mean, I have unrestricted posting rights at PJM still, and can write anything and have it be on the front page on any topic at any time of my choosing, and they beg me to do it -- but I still don't, because a. I've lost the motivation, and b. I'm in a life-place where I can't commit the time to see a report fully through (promoting it, responding to comments, defending it from critics, cross-posting, making updates, etc.). I've gotten to the point where I feel that if I'm going to make a post, it needs to be a "home run," or it isn't worth the effort -- yet I just don't have the gumption at the moment to put in that effort. It'd feel odd making an ONT, which is (let's be frank) mostly just a list of interesting topics to start discussions, when I should be breaking big stories and writing investigative scoops!
This is also not mentioning that I still have my own site/blog, which at one point was among the Top 50 most-visited conservative sites, but which I have let stand mostly idle for years, again because of the lack of time and motivation.
My ambivalence is showing.
Posted by: zombie at April 25, 2015 02:02 PM (K4YiS)
245
236
One of the things I'd do as dictator of America
would be to fix all those signs and displays to be strictly historical
and lean toward patriotism. The Zinnification of America has got to be
vigorously and consistently opposed.
I'd also ban the National Public Broadcasting system, the Department
of Education, require all agencies to submit to an external, neutral
audit that leads to a 25% across-the-board budget cut, and fire every
single worker in all agencies, requiring them to re-apply and
re-interview, to weed out the extremists and zealots.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 01:43 PM (39g3+)
********************
That's
a good start. I think the Republican nominee should start immediately
after the convention and convene a commission to review and propose
elimination of executive orders, agency directives, etc., all of which
can be changed with the stroke of a pen (and I guess a phone call).
Start with the most recent and work backwards. That is the task for
January 21. Then, starting January 22, the Sunshine Commission is
established as a permanent agency to start reviewing and proposing
regulations and laws for elimination. Are they going to get everything
they want? No, that's not the way Washington works, but if they get 25%
that's a huge win.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 25, 2015 01:52 PM (5f5bM)
Another good start would be to declare every government agency whose mandate is not included in the enumerated powers of the Constitution "unconstitutional", institute a lockout, fire everyone in it, and immediately throw all their data into the cloud. This would include the EPA, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, NLRB, Department of Education, and the Department of Labor.
It should be very difficult to restart such organizations when their contempt for the people they are "meant to help" is exposed.
One of the things I'd do as dictator of America
would be to fix all those signs and displays to be strictly historical
and lean toward patriotism. The Zinnification of America has got to be
vigorously and consistently opposed.
I'd also ban the National Public Broadcasting system, the Department
of Education, require all agencies to submit to an external, neutral
audit that leads to a 25% across-the-board budget cut, and fire every
single worker in all agencies, requiring them to re-apply and
re-interview, to weed out the extremists and zealots.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 01:43 PM (39g3+)
********************
That's
a good start. I think the Republican nominee should start immediately
after the convention and convene a commission to review and propose
elimination of executive orders, agency directives, etc., all of which
can be changed with the stroke of a pen (and I guess a phone call).
Start with the most recent and work backwards. That is the task for
January 21. Then, starting January 22, the Sunshine Commission is
established as a permanent agency to start reviewing and proposing
regulations and laws for elimination. Are they going to get everything
they want? No, that's not the way Washington works, but if they get 25%
that's a huge win.
Posted by: Caesar North of the Rubicon at April 25, 2015 01:52 PM (5f5bM)
Another good start would be to declare every government agency whose mandate is not included in the enumerated powers of the Constitution "unconstitutional", institute a lockout, fire everyone in it, and immediately throw all their data into the cloud. This would include the EPA, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, NLRB, Department of Education, and the Department of Labor.
It should be very difficult to restart such organizations when their contempt for the people they are "meant to help" is exposed.
Posted by: cthulhu at April 25, 2015 02:02 PM (T1005)
246
No one wants to go back to the constitution because then they couldn't use the government to force others to do their bidding. To go back to the constitution there would be no-such-thing as executive orders. Everything would have to go through congress. The house of representatives would be much larger. Depends on which way the wealth goes on what we get as our next form of government. The collectivist have killed the gooses that lay the golden eggs. If the US quits exporting food and weapons then a whole lot of the world starves and has peace.
Posted by: the truth at April 25, 2015 02:08 PM (PGh+Q)
247
244
It had come up several nights ago when Maet said that he was going to
be traveling. If you had the slightest interest, I would recommend that
you get in touch with Ace and/or Maet. It seemed a very popular notion
with the ONT crowd......
Posted by: cthulhu
Well, as much as an honor as that would be, I'm not sure I'm "up for
it," because I shy away from having must-do responsibilities these
days, because of various work and family reasons.
I mean, I have unrestricted posting rights at PJM still, and can
write anything and have it be on the front page on any topic at any time
of my choosing, and they beg me to do it -- but I still don't, because
a. I've lost the motivation, and b. I'm in a life-place where I can't
commit the time to see a report fully through (promoting it, responding
to comments, defending it from critics, cross-posting, making updates,
etc.). I've gotten to the point where I feel that if I'm going to make a
post, it needs to be a "home run," or it isn't worth the effort -- yet I
just don't have the gumption at the moment to put in that effort. It'd
feel odd making an ONT, which is (let's be frank) mostly just a list of
interesting topics to start discussions, when I should be breaking big
stories and writing investigative scoops!
This is also not mentioning that I still have my own site/blog,
which at one point was among the Top 50 most-visited conservative sites,
but which I have let stand mostly idle for years, again because of the
lack of time and motivation.
My ambivalence is showing.
Posted by: zombie at April 25, 2015 02:02 PM (K4YiS)
I'm well aware of all of these points. OTOH, if you ever wanted to do a "here's interesting stuff" post -- not a thoughtful blog post, an investigative scoop, or a "home run" -- it would be a fitting place to do it.
It had come up several nights ago when Maet said that he was going to
be traveling. If you had the slightest interest, I would recommend that
you get in touch with Ace and/or Maet. It seemed a very popular notion
with the ONT crowd......
Posted by: cthulhu
Well, as much as an honor as that would be, I'm not sure I'm "up for
it," because I shy away from having must-do responsibilities these
days, because of various work and family reasons.
I mean, I have unrestricted posting rights at PJM still, and can
write anything and have it be on the front page on any topic at any time
of my choosing, and they beg me to do it -- but I still don't, because
a. I've lost the motivation, and b. I'm in a life-place where I can't
commit the time to see a report fully through (promoting it, responding
to comments, defending it from critics, cross-posting, making updates,
etc.). I've gotten to the point where I feel that if I'm going to make a
post, it needs to be a "home run," or it isn't worth the effort -- yet I
just don't have the gumption at the moment to put in that effort. It'd
feel odd making an ONT, which is (let's be frank) mostly just a list of
interesting topics to start discussions, when I should be breaking big
stories and writing investigative scoops!
This is also not mentioning that I still have my own site/blog,
which at one point was among the Top 50 most-visited conservative sites,
but which I have let stand mostly idle for years, again because of the
lack of time and motivation.
My ambivalence is showing.
Posted by: zombie at April 25, 2015 02:02 PM (K4YiS)
I'm well aware of all of these points. OTOH, if you ever wanted to do a "here's interesting stuff" post -- not a thoughtful blog post, an investigative scoop, or a "home run" -- it would be a fitting place to do it.
Posted by: cthulhu at April 25, 2015 02:10 PM (T1005)
248
And based on this historic precedent.... we have decided to allow Undocumented Immigrants to have 3/5ths of a vote...
and we have the agreement of my Good Friends across the isle on this historic bipartisan bill.
Posted by: Juan McCain at April 25, 2015 12:22 PM (qh617)Actually Juan, to make up for our vicious racist past, we're giving all the DREAMING, Loving, and Undocumented Illegals here to live the good life in El Norte, at least a 5/3rds of a vote!
and we have the agreement of my Good Friends across the isle on this historic bipartisan bill.
Posted by: Juan McCain at April 25, 2015 12:22 PM (qh617)Actually Juan, to make up for our vicious racist past, we're giving all the DREAMING, Loving, and Undocumented Illegals here to live the good life in El Norte, at least a 5/3rds of a vote!
Posted by: Hrothgar at April 25, 2015 02:11 PM (ftVQq)
249
One of the best books you can read on the Founding view of these and other issues is Thomas G. West's Vindicating the Founders: Race, Class, Sex and Justice in the Origins of America.
Every partisan of the Founding should read it.
Every partisan of the Founding should read it.
Posted by: some asshole at April 25, 2015 02:16 PM (ibgjc)
250
It was the Enlightenment's confidence in reason and the resultant individualism and scientific naturalism that yielded all of the West's advancements.
Woo Hoo; Let's hear it for the enlightenment-which in part was the basis for getting rid of nasty old religion-which in tern lead to such to such glories of individualism as the French Revolution..
"The West was Christian for about 1,700 years and failed to make any significant advances in politics, economics, science, or morality compared to the rest of the world."
I'm not even going to go into the errors in the generalization there. Not enough time
Woo Hoo; Let's hear it for the enlightenment-which in part was the basis for getting rid of nasty old religion-which in tern lead to such to such glories of individualism as the French Revolution..
"The West was Christian for about 1,700 years and failed to make any significant advances in politics, economics, science, or morality compared to the rest of the world."
I'm not even going to go into the errors in the generalization there. Not enough time
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at April 25, 2015 02:31 PM (DXzRD)
251
To go back to the constitution there would be no-such-thing as executive orders.
Those aren't unconstitutional by nature. All they are is the chief executive directing the agencies on policy. As long as they aren't writing law or violating existing law, they're not just acceptable but necessary. Its like a CEO telling the fabric department to make more plaid patterns to meet demand.
Those aren't unconstitutional by nature. All they are is the chief executive directing the agencies on policy. As long as they aren't writing law or violating existing law, they're not just acceptable but necessary. Its like a CEO telling the fabric department to make more plaid patterns to meet demand.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 02:32 PM (39g3+)
252
My ambivalence is showing.
The same thing happened to me - although my blog was not even remotely as popular or big as yours - I just got to the point I stopped caring so much. For me it was the realization that we were past the point where my pathetic little efforts were going to make any damn difference at all. And that's why I was blogging, to try to do my little part to educate, inform, and shape culture.
But my one molecule of water wasn't doing anything against the 1000 foot tsunami of leftist cultural power. Too much time and effort to justify the regular blogging I was doing. Now I spend that time writing and selling.
The same thing happened to me - although my blog was not even remotely as popular or big as yours - I just got to the point I stopped caring so much. For me it was the realization that we were past the point where my pathetic little efforts were going to make any damn difference at all. And that's why I was blogging, to try to do my little part to educate, inform, and shape culture.
But my one molecule of water wasn't doing anything against the 1000 foot tsunami of leftist cultural power. Too much time and effort to justify the regular blogging I was doing. Now I spend that time writing and selling.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 02:35 PM (39g3+)
253
West- Bad- rest of the world enlightened, reasonable and all on board with scientific advancement. Uhh huh
Did you hope on over from Huffpo?
Did you hope on over from Huffpo?
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at April 25, 2015 02:37 PM (DXzRD)
254
Make that "hop" on over.
Posted by: FenelonSpoke at April 25, 2015 02:38 PM (DXzRD)
255
That Onion article about people watching documentaries and buying into them uncritically then presenting themselves as experts is so woefully, painfully accurate. Too often satire nudges up way too close to reality.
I've run into this over and over and try very hard not to do it myself. Its too easy to watch a show on something you like and just assume they got it all right, aren't twisting things a way you prefer to hear, and are telling the whole story.
But there's a whole industry of activists putting out faux documentaries to manipulate viewers ever since Michael Moore made it big doing that and its depressing when they bust out the Blackfish argument or whatever else they've seen recently on Netflix. Seems like half the non-gay shows that Netflix adds each month are these trash docs.
I've run into this over and over and try very hard not to do it myself. Its too easy to watch a show on something you like and just assume they got it all right, aren't twisting things a way you prefer to hear, and are telling the whole story.
But there's a whole industry of activists putting out faux documentaries to manipulate viewers ever since Michael Moore made it big doing that and its depressing when they bust out the Blackfish argument or whatever else they've seen recently on Netflix. Seems like half the non-gay shows that Netflix adds each month are these trash docs.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 25, 2015 02:48 PM (39g3+)
256
True! Zombie, on the anti-us exhinits. In philly the Liberty Bell presentation was so anti it was almost embarrassing. Supposedly even the black presenters objected to it
Posted by: pj at April 25, 2015 02:57 PM (cHuNI)
257
Good stuff, Weirddave. Excellent.
One little rhetorical thing that's a potential nuclear landmine:
===>>>> "Leviathan that today enslaves all of us in chains that are in many ways harsher than the physical chains forced upon enslaved blacks. "
This is a problem because HOW is it harsher than being an African slave?
I presume that was a bit of rhetorical flourish, but it's a big hole that needs fixing. Our life in the slouching welfare state of Gomorrah isn't like slavery at all, except maybe in principle - but certainly not in practice or reality. Hayek knows there are better analogies.
I'm with you on everything else, I just think this little bit is a hole in your argument that needs patching.
One little rhetorical thing that's a potential nuclear landmine:
===>>>> "Leviathan that today enslaves all of us in chains that are in many ways harsher than the physical chains forced upon enslaved blacks. "
This is a problem because HOW is it harsher than being an African slave?
I presume that was a bit of rhetorical flourish, but it's a big hole that needs fixing. Our life in the slouching welfare state of Gomorrah isn't like slavery at all, except maybe in principle - but certainly not in practice or reality. Hayek knows there are better analogies.
I'm with you on everything else, I just think this little bit is a hole in your argument that needs patching.
Posted by: Beth at April 25, 2015 03:07 PM (Epq7Y)
258
Great post, WeirdDave,
You wrote: If you're claiming that some other cause than slavery was the real cause of the Civil Wa[r], would that cause have led to war absent the slavery issue? I can't think of one.
I had slave-holding ancestors on both sides of my family and my direct ancestors and relatives on my mother's side were instrumental in setting up the slavery-supporting Southern Baptists in Mississippi.
On my father's side, I'm a cousin of Ben and Henry McCulloch, who were the only brothers to serve as Confederate generals in the civil war. McCulloch County in Texas is named after them.
On my mother's side, I'm a cousin of General Hiram Granbury, for who the Texas town of Granbury is named after.
I am not proud of my ancestry. I find slavery and any sort of racism horrifying. If I could go back in time, I would hunt out my ancestors and relatives, shake the hell out of them, and read them the Riot Act from the Bible. That goes double for the pukes who helped establish the Mississippi Southern Baptists.
Slavery was the proximate cause of the Civil War. Period.
Having rightfully trashed my ancestry, the sad thing is that:
1) The north benefited from slavery in the south. The cotton growers were in the south while the textile mills and merchants were in the south.
No one's hands were clean, except for the activist abolitionists.
2) Slavery ended in the north more quickly than it did in the south. The reasons were mostly practical, not moral. Here's a good site to learn what is left out of the history books:
http://slavenorth.com/
The fairy tale told today is dead wrong about the north being moral, good, and anti-slavery while the south was bad and pro-slavery.
3) If the north had wanted to, they could have ended slavery in the south decades earlier. I'm not defending the south, but I am saying that the tariff system set up to benefit the north encouraged southern slavery. The north saw southern whites as inferiors while southern whites saw blacks as inferiors. Both were obviously wrong.
Slavery and racism was an American problem, not just a problem confined to the southern states.
4) The Civil War and the resultant amendments to the constitution could have ended legalized racism in the US. Bad Supreme Court cases like Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal) and the horribly racist policies of the Wilson administration were preventable. The north didn't live up to the ideals they professed and the south was only too happy to continue institutionalized racism.
You wrote: If you're claiming that some other cause than slavery was the real cause of the Civil Wa[r], would that cause have led to war absent the slavery issue? I can't think of one.
I had slave-holding ancestors on both sides of my family and my direct ancestors and relatives on my mother's side were instrumental in setting up the slavery-supporting Southern Baptists in Mississippi.
On my father's side, I'm a cousin of Ben and Henry McCulloch, who were the only brothers to serve as Confederate generals in the civil war. McCulloch County in Texas is named after them.
On my mother's side, I'm a cousin of General Hiram Granbury, for who the Texas town of Granbury is named after.
I am not proud of my ancestry. I find slavery and any sort of racism horrifying. If I could go back in time, I would hunt out my ancestors and relatives, shake the hell out of them, and read them the Riot Act from the Bible. That goes double for the pukes who helped establish the Mississippi Southern Baptists.
Slavery was the proximate cause of the Civil War. Period.
Having rightfully trashed my ancestry, the sad thing is that:
1) The north benefited from slavery in the south. The cotton growers were in the south while the textile mills and merchants were in the south.
No one's hands were clean, except for the activist abolitionists.
2) Slavery ended in the north more quickly than it did in the south. The reasons were mostly practical, not moral. Here's a good site to learn what is left out of the history books:
http://slavenorth.com/
The fairy tale told today is dead wrong about the north being moral, good, and anti-slavery while the south was bad and pro-slavery.
3) If the north had wanted to, they could have ended slavery in the south decades earlier. I'm not defending the south, but I am saying that the tariff system set up to benefit the north encouraged southern slavery. The north saw southern whites as inferiors while southern whites saw blacks as inferiors. Both were obviously wrong.
Slavery and racism was an American problem, not just a problem confined to the southern states.
4) The Civil War and the resultant amendments to the constitution could have ended legalized racism in the US. Bad Supreme Court cases like Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal) and the horribly racist policies of the Wilson administration were preventable. The north didn't live up to the ideals they professed and the south was only too happy to continue institutionalized racism.
Posted by: Michael the Hobbit at April 25, 2015 03:22 PM (0RdKg)
259
Standing in line to see the liberty bell you're subjected to the same sort of thing regarding slavery and I thought it was simply the wrong place for it.
Posted by: beth at April 25, 2015 03:27 PM (kiy9d)
260
Beth,
You bring up an interesting point. I considered what you are saying before posting, and ultimately decided that the point is defensible. The intellectual, economic and moral bondage in which today's welfare state keeps it's victims is arguably worse in some ways than the purely physical bondage of yesteryear, not least of which is that it co-opts ALL of us into supporting it. I was actually surprised that it took so long for someone to bring this up.
You bring up an interesting point. I considered what you are saying before posting, and ultimately decided that the point is defensible. The intellectual, economic and moral bondage in which today's welfare state keeps it's victims is arguably worse in some ways than the purely physical bondage of yesteryear, not least of which is that it co-opts ALL of us into supporting it. I was actually surprised that it took so long for someone to bring this up.
Posted by: Weirddave at April 25, 2015 03:31 PM (WvS3w)
261
Weirddave: I still want to go with something more like serfdom to describe where we are today, rather than a slavery analogy, but I DO understand your point. Maybe I'm being pedantic. LOL
Posted by: Beth at April 25, 2015 03:41 PM (Epq7Y)
262
Burn the Witch: Thanx for the correction.
Yea I misread Article 1. Non-taxed indians were completely excluded from the census, and "all other persons" ( slaves ) were counted as 3/5ths.
The point being that 3/5th was a northern proposal. The southern states wanted to fully count slaves.
Yea I misread Article 1. Non-taxed indians were completely excluded from the census, and "all other persons" ( slaves ) were counted as 3/5ths.
The point being that 3/5th was a northern proposal. The southern states wanted to fully count slaves.
Posted by: Kristophr at April 25, 2015 04:00 PM (6fIOn)
263
The left claims the West is deeply racist, but they know full well that the West ended slavery for the first time in history and only in nations where Western ideas have made inroads are racist ideas on the defensive.
The left claims the West is deeply sexist, but they know full well that only in Western countries have women gained full voting, property, and contractual rights.
The left claims the West is deeply sexist, but they know full well that only in Western countries have women gained full voting, property, and contractual rights.
Posted by: Skinny Pete at April 25, 2015 04:10 PM (gCivS)
264
My ancestors on both sides owned slaves and fought for the Confederacy. I have never owned a slave, but would have fought for the Confederacy. Neither my ancestors nor I owe anybody a damn thing.
Posted by: Eromero at April 25, 2015 04:26 PM (go5uR)
265
NO, the REAL CONTEXT should be that there are over 1 million black people being held and traded as slaves today. But they are held primarily by black muslim slaveholders, so the NAACP pays no attention to that.
African muslim slave traders are not going to feel guilty and give prizes to the descendants of slaves on another continent, so they don't count, apparently.
~~
The whole Civil War slavery argument always misses the key point: WHY were over a million Southerners, almost all poor, with no slaves or allegiance to slaveholders, willing to risk their lives to fight?
What the self-righteous sons of the abolitionists never tell you is that they had NO PLAN other than "free the slaves." No plan to move them to Liberia as Lincoln envisioned, no plan to give them food, shelter, or any way to make a living. They were to be freed in place, turned off the plantations, and wander the countryside desperate for food to survive. The abolitionists didn't care what happened to them or the people in the South after that.
If you were a poor white dirt farmer with a family, that's pretty darned scary. Like visiting today's inner city housing projects at night.
African muslim slave traders are not going to feel guilty and give prizes to the descendants of slaves on another continent, so they don't count, apparently.
~~
The whole Civil War slavery argument always misses the key point: WHY were over a million Southerners, almost all poor, with no slaves or allegiance to slaveholders, willing to risk their lives to fight?
What the self-righteous sons of the abolitionists never tell you is that they had NO PLAN other than "free the slaves." No plan to move them to Liberia as Lincoln envisioned, no plan to give them food, shelter, or any way to make a living. They were to be freed in place, turned off the plantations, and wander the countryside desperate for food to survive. The abolitionists didn't care what happened to them or the people in the South after that.
If you were a poor white dirt farmer with a family, that's pretty darned scary. Like visiting today's inner city housing projects at night.
Posted by: Adjoran at April 25, 2015 04:40 PM (QIQ6j)
266
Don't forget that Af-Am resentment today is not just slavery (used to denigrate the American ideal), but serious stuff over at least 200 years. Remember that the Reconstruction post-Civil War, put Af-Ams back into servitude. Read your history. Lincoln needed to be tough; instead he forgave those who ripped the U.S. apart. He should have kept troops in the South (like Japan, Germany) to reform the culture away from proto-slavery with violence and lawlessness used as methods.
This meant that 90% of Af-Ams were forced into one poor rural class, without education, without voting rights, with life and limb always under threat. The black entrepreneurs who were successful were executed. I say this not as a leftist, but as someone who is proud of my American heritage, warts and all. I may not be proud of this chapter.
Obama Af-Am supporters -- when they are not islamists, Black Grievance Industry opportunists, Obama's thug "sons", corporate cronies, financials thieves -- are living examples of this deep, deep Af-Am resentment -- proto-slavery segregation kept on track up to the 1960s; Af-Ams contained as a left-out group of (Americans?). Final segregation of WashD.C. under Woodrow Wilson. Evil! Post-World War II wealth kept from many Af-Ams, discrimination continuing, etc..
Things only started changing for the better with the Civil Rights Movement, one of the most important movements for representative democracy in U.S. history. Unfortunately it got taken over by vile evil resentful bastards. Communists (Obama's poet mentor, maybe father) kept the fissure-like wound festering. Af-Ams made the largest leap forward in every area post-1960; families were being constituted and wealth accumulated. You all know the rest. Welfare gutted it.
I write this so we -- readers of Ace of Spades -- do not forget the bitter, bitter, bitter resentment that resides in both the conscious and unconscious of every Af-Am. All Americans need to hold this experience and own it as ours, too.
Obama may be a "slave" on his father's (not B.H. Obama) side while a "slave-holder" on his mother's. What a split. What evil pours forth. If Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr., is his father, then that split erupts volcanic-like emissions hatred in the form of pure Islamism and pure Marxism -- along with the reality of a drunken, many-married wife-beater. It could hardly be worse.
This meant that 90% of Af-Ams were forced into one poor rural class, without education, without voting rights, with life and limb always under threat. The black entrepreneurs who were successful were executed. I say this not as a leftist, but as someone who is proud of my American heritage, warts and all. I may not be proud of this chapter.
Obama Af-Am supporters -- when they are not islamists, Black Grievance Industry opportunists, Obama's thug "sons", corporate cronies, financials thieves -- are living examples of this deep, deep Af-Am resentment -- proto-slavery segregation kept on track up to the 1960s; Af-Ams contained as a left-out group of (Americans?). Final segregation of WashD.C. under Woodrow Wilson. Evil! Post-World War II wealth kept from many Af-Ams, discrimination continuing, etc..
Things only started changing for the better with the Civil Rights Movement, one of the most important movements for representative democracy in U.S. history. Unfortunately it got taken over by vile evil resentful bastards. Communists (Obama's poet mentor, maybe father) kept the fissure-like wound festering. Af-Ams made the largest leap forward in every area post-1960; families were being constituted and wealth accumulated. You all know the rest. Welfare gutted it.
I write this so we -- readers of Ace of Spades -- do not forget the bitter, bitter, bitter resentment that resides in both the conscious and unconscious of every Af-Am. All Americans need to hold this experience and own it as ours, too.
Obama may be a "slave" on his father's (not B.H. Obama) side while a "slave-holder" on his mother's. What a split. What evil pours forth. If Barrack Hussein Obama, Sr., is his father, then that split erupts volcanic-like emissions hatred in the form of pure Islamism and pure Marxism -- along with the reality of a drunken, many-married wife-beater. It could hardly be worse.
Posted by: pyromancer76 at April 25, 2015 05:02 PM (zvcr8)
267
The only reason slavery existed in America is that the slave owning kings of Africa were thrilled to sell slaves that they didn't consider worthwhile keeping.
Posted by: Avi at April 25, 2015 05:14 PM (n/4Zy)
268
In a former life I was to Mount Vernon and Monticello. I think Belle Grove out in the Shenandoah is a lot more fun. I can't be 100% but I think it was Belle Grove. What I remember best is that we showed up on a lark and wandered the grounds with 2 kids for an hour before a tour kicked off and it got all regimented. I grew up on a decent sized farm so the chance for my kids to run around a couple of acres of lawn without screaming helicopter moms and garbage strewn about was fantastic.
Posted by: bestie21 at April 25, 2015 05:32 PM (qifmL)
269
Boo hoo hooo, blacks are so offended at slavery that millions of them are muslim, who enslave blacks to this very day !
Posted by: ron n. at April 25, 2015 05:53 PM (YVQn/)
270
Cthulhu... I was thinking it would be nice if our next president acted as a true commander in chief and fixed our military and national defense and had a vp who wad in change of the sort of deregulating and down sizing and eleliminating departments you suggest.
Posted by: Beth M at April 25, 2015 05:57 PM (kiy9d)
271
"Slavery ... may ultimately prove to be the one thing that ensured that we would lose the Republic we were designed to inherit."
Possible, but unlikely. People hold grudges for a long time (I once read 300 years; I forget the source) and we're halfway past that.
If the stain of slavery proves to be the Republic's undoing, it will be an ostensible cause only. The actual cause with lie with the Communists. They're really on a roll.
Possible, but unlikely. People hold grudges for a long time (I once read 300 years; I forget the source) and we're halfway past that.
If the stain of slavery proves to be the Republic's undoing, it will be an ostensible cause only. The actual cause with lie with the Communists. They're really on a roll.
Posted by: FireHorse at April 25, 2015 06:12 PM (8cWgt)
272
That would piss me off too. All those lully gardens and what do you get? Liberal BULLSH|T at every turn as if you hadn't heard it all before as if you couldn't have taught them the subject yourself. It's irritating.
Man, oh man. What's a person to do? Make a scene. Just go ahead and do it then get off it for a return to a good time but register displeasure on the spot, it's important. How about:
IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT SLAVERY CONTINUOUSLY, AND YOU DO, LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW THE DEMOCRAT PARTY NEVER DID DISABUSE THEMSELVES OF THEIR PROPENSITY FOR IT AND THE IMPULSE AND THE INSISTENCE.
Man, oh man. What's a person to do? Make a scene. Just go ahead and do it then get off it for a return to a good time but register displeasure on the spot, it's important. How about:
IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT SLAVERY CONTINUOUSLY, AND YOU DO, LET'S TALK ABOUT HOW THE DEMOCRAT PARTY NEVER DID DISABUSE THEMSELVES OF THEIR PROPENSITY FOR IT AND THE IMPULSE AND THE INSISTENCE.
Posted by: bour3 at April 25, 2015 07:49 PM (5x3+2)
273
Late to the party, but this:
"no one fighting the Civil War thought they were fighting "for slavery""
Couldn't be wronger. Alec Stephens (Vice President, C.S.A.), the "Cornerstone" speech (March 21, 1861):
http://tinyurl.com/lxepaeq
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating
questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it
exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of
civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and
present revolution."
I believe the people who were actually there over the revisionists spinning 150 years later.
"no one fighting the Civil War thought they were fighting "for slavery""
Couldn't be wronger. Alec Stephens (Vice President, C.S.A.), the "Cornerstone" speech (March 21, 1861):
http://tinyurl.com/lxepaeq
"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating
questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it
exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of
civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and
present revolution."
I believe the people who were actually there over the revisionists spinning 150 years later.
Posted by: Knemon at April 25, 2015 08:46 PM (dbEhd)
274
"If you think slavery's "vile," that's on you, not Christ. I'm not expressing a personal opinion on slavery"
Yeah, I think you kinda are.
Yeah, I think you kinda are.
Posted by: Knemon at April 25, 2015 08:51 PM (dbEhd)
275
Name another cause that would have led to the War between the sates?
Don't need to. I'll just name the real cause that led to the war and it wasn't slavery, it was the tariff system.
The north needed raw goods from the South and could not bid competitively for them against Europe and so the forced the price to make it impossible to get fair market prices for the raw products. Then when it appeared that the South might reverse that, the North suddenly decided that the terms by which representations was decided was inhumane.
That was the cause, slavery was the poster used to apologize *after the fact*.
Which is not to say that Lincoln was in any way wrong to use the war as an opportunity to force the issue and give the survivors something to point at and feel some pride in accomplishment, rather than leave the country a bloodied and scarred family set against itself.
A better question to contemplate might be:
"If the North had not been able to convince the public that the war was fought to free the slaves, what impact would it have had on the following years?"
Don't need to. I'll just name the real cause that led to the war and it wasn't slavery, it was the tariff system.
The north needed raw goods from the South and could not bid competitively for them against Europe and so the forced the price to make it impossible to get fair market prices for the raw products. Then when it appeared that the South might reverse that, the North suddenly decided that the terms by which representations was decided was inhumane.
That was the cause, slavery was the poster used to apologize *after the fact*.
Which is not to say that Lincoln was in any way wrong to use the war as an opportunity to force the issue and give the survivors something to point at and feel some pride in accomplishment, rather than leave the country a bloodied and scarred family set against itself.
A better question to contemplate might be:
"If the North had not been able to convince the public that the war was fought to free the slaves, what impact would it have had on the following years?"
Posted by: TSgt Ciz at April 25, 2015 09:53 PM (af5xa)
276
Again: slavery "was the immediate cause of the late rupture and
present revolution." The Confederate Vice President said that in a public speech shortly before Fort Sumter.
Whole lotta tap dancing around the obvious on this thread.
present revolution." The Confederate Vice President said that in a public speech shortly before Fort Sumter.
Whole lotta tap dancing around the obvious on this thread.
Posted by: Knemon at April 25, 2015 10:36 PM (dbEhd)
Posted by: Burnt Toast at April 25, 2015 11:11 PM (NaeCR)
278
And when slavery was abolished in America, what happened to the slaves? Did they walk off the plantations into the sunset and a better life? No! thousands of them died of starvation and disease, and the northerners didn't give two sh*ts.
Why was the U.S. under Lincoln the only one of 30+ countries to abolish slavery with violence? He was a tax and spend liberal who bit off more than he could chew by exploiting as a tax base southern industry and trade.
Why was the U.S. under Lincoln the only one of 30+ countries to abolish slavery with violence? He was a tax and spend liberal who bit off more than he could chew by exploiting as a tax base southern industry and trade.
Posted by: unfatmatt@outlook.com at April 25, 2015 11:16 PM (kyTFr)
279
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." ~Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address
Sounds like Obama on Amnesty.
Sounds like Obama on Amnesty.
Posted by: unfatmatt@outlook.com at April 25, 2015 11:20 PM (kyTFr)
280
The fact that they're still whining about this proves civil rights has been a total failure. Let's roll it back so that the left no longer has an excuse to pilfer my private property and so that the streets can be safe for white women and children once again.
Posted by: Dale at April 26, 2015 08:54 AM (gCivS)
281
So how do you all "know" that slavery was destined to end? So were we all just supposed to wait around for it to end on it's own? Are you saying the civil war wasn't justified?
Look, let's deal with the reality of now and pretend we "know" what should have, could have happened.
We have a concerted effort by the academic left to discredit our founding fathers because of slavery. Yes, some of them, not all by any means, did own slaves. This repulsive institution was legal at the time and practiced WORLD WIDE and had been since the beginning of human history as far as we know. Slavery has been the native state of man in history; freedom has not been the native state of man. The white man didn't invent slavery, and in fact, Western European nations were late coming into the African slave trade. By contrast, the Middle East has much to answer for a slave trade that went on far longer than the transatlantic slave trade. The slave trade has never really ended in Africa and the Middle East - but no one really cares about this. It's not slavery; it's human trafficking! (note sarcasm)
By discrediting the founding fathers the left discredits them politically, historically, and most importantly, discredits the accomplishment of creating a brilliant political system that allowed the common man have a voice in governing himself regardless of rank. Because many of the founding fathers owned slaves, the constitution is invalid and there needs to be a new constitution. This is the reasoning of the left. And guess what? They spoon fed this idea to young kids in school every day, and the kids are whipped into a radical frenzy of hatred for their country.
Look, let's deal with the reality of now and pretend we "know" what should have, could have happened.
We have a concerted effort by the academic left to discredit our founding fathers because of slavery. Yes, some of them, not all by any means, did own slaves. This repulsive institution was legal at the time and practiced WORLD WIDE and had been since the beginning of human history as far as we know. Slavery has been the native state of man in history; freedom has not been the native state of man. The white man didn't invent slavery, and in fact, Western European nations were late coming into the African slave trade. By contrast, the Middle East has much to answer for a slave trade that went on far longer than the transatlantic slave trade. The slave trade has never really ended in Africa and the Middle East - but no one really cares about this. It's not slavery; it's human trafficking! (note sarcasm)
By discrediting the founding fathers the left discredits them politically, historically, and most importantly, discredits the accomplishment of creating a brilliant political system that allowed the common man have a voice in governing himself regardless of rank. Because many of the founding fathers owned slaves, the constitution is invalid and there needs to be a new constitution. This is the reasoning of the left. And guess what? They spoon fed this idea to young kids in school every day, and the kids are whipped into a radical frenzy of hatred for their country.
Posted by: Mistress Overdone at April 26, 2015 10:21 AM (2/oBD)
282
Excuse me. So Washington and others of his time should have immediately freed the slaves.
Where would they have gone? They had no housing, no food, no jobs.
Some people could say we enslave pets. So, by all means, let's free them immediately to be struck by cars, to starve to death, to be eaten by predators.
Seriously, you have to think about the realities of the time. Free men were starving and homeless and free children were working as chimney sweeps and down in mines. Were they better off than slaves?
Where would they have gone? They had no housing, no food, no jobs.
Some people could say we enslave pets. So, by all means, let's free them immediately to be struck by cars, to starve to death, to be eaten by predators.
Seriously, you have to think about the realities of the time. Free men were starving and homeless and free children were working as chimney sweeps and down in mines. Were they better off than slaves?
Posted by: Supreme Being at April 26, 2015 04:36 PM (SJ184)
Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.0384 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0147 seconds, 291 records returned.
Page size 215 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Real Clear Politics
Gallup
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Primary Document: The Audio
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Top Top Tens
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
Greatest Hitjobs
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat