Our founders, slavery and the leftist attack on our Constitution
nealboortz
Michelle Bachmann is taking heat from the ObamaMedia because she said that
the founding fathers of this country "worked tirelessly" to end slavery.
She's been pretty much under attack for that statement for the past four or
five days. I promised to address this issue on my show today . so here
goes:
As we begin this discussion on slavery, the founding fathers and our
Constitution -- know this. Most liberals -- and by most we mean close to
100% of the progs you would find in and around any major college or
university campus, and pretty much the same percentage living and working in
Washington DC -- absolutely and completely despise our Constitution. They
want it gone. The want it out of the way, invalidated and ignored. I guess
you could say that liberals want the Constitution to be declared
unconstitutional.
Why?
The Constitution is in the way ... always in the way of the leftist agenda.
The Tenth Amendment, though largely ignored, looms as a threat to the
liberal dream of an all-powerful centralized government - that antiquated
document written by white men. All it would take is one or two new Supreme
Court justices who believe the 10th Amendment actually means what it says to
turn the liberal big-government agenda on its head and return the bulk of
American governance to the states, where it belongs.
To progs the Second Amendment conjures images of armed patriots determined
to preserve their personal liberty by force, if necessary. When your entire
political philosophy is focused on centralized government power, the idea of
the great unwashed actually being able to protect themselves from tyranny
can be, shall we say, a little unsettling.
The liberal statist agenda is, therefore, to denigrate the Constitution to
the point that the dumb masses - who sadly make up the bulk of the American
electorate, look upon it as a horribly flawed document, badly in need of
revision at best, and a complete rewrite at worse. You will grow old
looking for a liberal to sing the praises of the Constitution - a document
that set in motion and created the framework for the greatest exercise in
self-government this world has ever seen.
But how to really demonize the Constitution and the men who wrote it?
Easy . do what liberals have been doing so very well for decades. Play the
race card. Tie our Constitution and our founders to slavery. If they're
connected in any way to slavery, then any works they do - no matter how
good - are suspect and simply must be thrown in history's garbage can.
Liberals believe that if they manage to tie slavery to the Constitution,
then the Constitution will lose legitimacy in the eyes of the people. You
can almost hear the argument now. "The Constitution? You support the
Constitution? So I guess that means you support slavery too, right? You're
a racist, and anyone who believes in the Constitution is a racist!" I can
almost hear the words coming out of the mouth of some prog like Al Sharpton,
Dick Durbin James Clyburn, Shelia Jackson-Lee or Maxine Waters (chose your
own loon) now!
So ... was Michelle Bachman right? Did our founding fathers work tirelessly
to end slavery? Well, some did -- others not so much. But that's not the
real point here. A thorough reading of history leaves no doubt that the
founding fathers were adamantly opposed to Slavery, and determined to end
it. Here, though, is where the progs screw up the narrative. Being
strenuously opposed to slavery is one thing. Developing a working plan to
end slavery is another. For instance -- do you just want to end slavery in
just the Northern colonies or states? Or do you want to see it ended in all
of the 13 states. If your ultimate goal is to end slavery in the South as
well, then it would certainly behoove you to make sure that the southern
colonies were part of the battle for independence and then the newly formed
United States of America.
The founding fathers that liberals just love to denigrate knew that if they
insisted on an immediate end of slavery, the southern colonies would take a
hike. With those colonies not being a part of the union, the anti-slavery
forces from the North would lose all leverage over them. Historian H.A.
Ohline (now pontificating at William & Mary) wrote: "It would have been
impossible to establish a national government in the 18th Century without
recognizing slavery in some way." So it really looked like the choice was a
United States of the north without slavery, a United States of the south
with slavery --- or some middle ground is sought that would allow for the
fight for independence and the founding of our nation while leaving the
slavery battle for another day.
Even before the Declaration of Independence our founders were on record as
opposing slavery. The General Articles of Association were adopted in 1774,
and in that document the importation or purchase of slaves was forbidden
after January 1, 1775. One year later the Declaration of Independence was
originally written to include a section denouncing slavery. This portion
was eventually removed because the document needed a unanimous vote for
approval, and at the time Georgia and South Carolina refused to vote for the
Declaration of Independence with the following paragraph included:
".he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most
sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of distant people who never
offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another
hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.
This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of
the Christian king of Great Britain. [determined to keep open a market where
MEN should be bought & sold,] he has prostituted his negative for
suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable
commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of
distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms
among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by
murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them, thus paying off former
crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he
urges them to commit against the lives of another."
This paragraph appeared in the original version of Thomas Jefferson's
Declaration of Independence. When it came time to draft the Constitution of
the United States, the theory is that the Founding Fathers were willing to
compromise on the issue of slavery because A) They knew that Georgia and
South Carolina would never give in, considering their economies relied on
the institution and B) Those opposed to slavery thought that they would
have more influence over the Southern states by having them as a part of the
union and therefore be able to better influence them over the coming years
to give up the institution of slavery.
Likewise, when it came to writing the Constitution our founders opted to
form the union first and deal with the slavery issue later. That's why the
Constitution included Article 1, Section 9 granting to the Congress the
power to regulate or to ban slavery as of January 1, 1808. That segment
reads:
"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now
existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax
or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for
each Person."
Why were the southern states so adamant about slavery? You might be
surprised to learn that Georgia was the first of the 13 colonies to abolish
slavery. Georgia soon found out, however, that it could not compete
agriculturally with the other southern colonies without slaves -- so the
prohibition was rescinded. The southern states simply felt they could not
compete economically without slavery; certainly not for many years. I'm not
presenting that as an excuse - just as a reason.
Here's something else you need to know about slavery. The institution of
slavery was born in Africa (and pretty much only exists in Africa today.
Ironic, isn't it?) Slaves were the spoils of African tribal conflict and
warfare. In the 15th century slavery was virtually wiped out in Europe by
the emergence of a Christian society. It was the Portugese who, in the mid
1940s, rediscovered slavery, so to speak, in their explorations along the
western coast of Africa. Slavery (generally in support of the sugar
industry) then started to make its way across the Atlantic and into the
Caribbean. From the islands of the Caribbean slavery was then introduced
into the southern colonies.
Look; I'm getting a bit carried away with my own narrative here. Let's cut
to the chase: The simple truth is that if our founding fathers made up
their mind in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence, or in 1787 with
our Constitution, that slavery was going to be illegal in the United States,
and that all people held in slavery were going to be freed at that point --
the southern colonies or states would have simply said "no way in hell" and
gone their own way. Without the southern colonies in the Revolutionary War,
independence would not have been achieved and we would be throwing flowers
and Prince William and Princess Kate later this week when they're though
with Canada. This was truly one of those "we must all hang together or we
will most assuredly hang separately" situations. The more pragmatic move
was to forge ahead with the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain
and the creation of a new nation; with a stated determination to address and
correct the slavery issue later.
To say that the Founding Fathers were proponents for slavery completely
ignores their incredible achievements on the issue. During their lifetimes,
the Founding Fathers were able to accomplish many things in accordance with
their anti-slavery beliefs.
a.. They limited and eventually outlawed the importation of slaves.
a.. They outlawed slavery in the majority of the states within their
lifetime.
a.. They outlawed the expansion of slavery into areas where it currently
did not exist.
a.. They passed or influenced legislatures to pass laws making slavery
more humane.
a.. Many individual slave owners, largely through the efforts of the
founders, voluntarily freed their slaves.
Like many of the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson pushed for the abolition
of slavery. In his home state of Virginia, Jefferson proposed the abolition
of slavery in 1778 and 1796. Along with Jefferson, George Washington,
Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Wilson and countless others were opposed
to the institution of slavery and organized to end the practice. None were
more outspoken than Benjamin Franklin, who founded the Pennsylvania
Abolition Society in 1789. Others like George Washington, Alexander
Hamilton and John Jay signed a petition to the New York State legislature in
1786 to end the slave trade. This widely circulated petition was the
foundation for the establishment of the "New York Society for Promoting the
Manumission of Slaves and Protecting Such of Them as Have been or may be
liberated.'' Also, Hamilton and Washington, along with General Nathaniel
Greene made a concerted effort to recruit blacks into the Continental Army.
They thought this would be a key step in bringing about emancipation.
Alexander Hamilton wrote a letter to John Jay (President of the Congress at
the time) about recruiting blacks from South Carolina to serve in the
Continental Army:
"An essential part of the plan is to give them their freedom with their
swords. This will secure their fidelity, animate their courage, and, I
believe, will have a good influence upon those who remain, by opening a door
to their emancipation. This circumstance, I confess, has no small weight in
inducing me to wish the success of the project; for the dictates of
humanity, and true policy, equally interest me in favor of this unfortunate
class of men...."
On the eve of the creation of our Constitution, John Jay himself wrote about
the hypocrisy of American ideals if we were not to abolish the institution
of slavery:
"It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honor of the
States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon
them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and
to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be
excused."
Before we move on --- a word about the Three-fifth's compromise. This is
the section of our Constitution that many race whores like to use to
illustrate the racist leanings of our founding fathers. How many times have
you heard that our Constitution says that blacks are only three-fifths
human. Well --- whoever told you that is an idiot (at best) or a malicious
liar (at worst). It's not there. The Constitution says no such thing.
Just click here to read my notes on "Race Baiting and the Constitution."
Welcome to clarity of thought.
History is clear. Our founders wrote on many occasions about their desire
to end the institution of slavery and history demonstrates their efforts to
do so. You can read some more of those quotes here, but the point is that
liberals would like you to believe that our Constitution was founded by a
bunch of pro-slavery racists because this is a way of diminishing the value
of our Constitution. Remember that the Constitution is just a roadblock for
many Democrats who seek to increase their power over you.
David Johnston
>Michelle Bachmann is taking heat from the ObamaMedia because she said that
>the founding fathers of this country "worked tirelessly" to end slavery.
>She's been pretty much under attack for that statement for the past four or
>five days. I promised to address this issue on my show today . so here
>goes:
>
>So ... was Michelle Bachman right? Did our founding fathers work tirelessly
>to end slavery? Well, some did -- others not so much. But that's not the
>real point here. A thorough reading of history leaves no doubt that the
>founding fathers were adamantly opposed to Slavery, and determined to end
>it.
First of all that word? "Adamantly"? [Inigo] I do not think it means
you think it means. [/Inigo]
Adv. 1. adamantly - inflexibly; unshakably; "adamantly opposed
to the marriage"
When you are "adamantly" opposed to something, it means that you don't
compromise on the subject. You don't make deals. You don't leave the
issue for another day in favour of more pressing matters. It's kind
of like Michele Bachman saying the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly
to end slavery. To be fair to Ms Bachman, to say that someone works
tirelessly to do something doesn't actually mean that they succeed or
even make headway. But still...no, they didn't. Because "working
tirelessly" would mean that that they did it all the time to exclusion
of other priorities and didn't stop until the job was done. They just
plain didn't do that.
This little flap is of course an object lesson in the stupidity of
using hyperbole. Hyperbole has two uses. The first is to stampede a
crowd into a thoughtless emotional response. The other is to make the
person using it look stupid because they said something ridiculous.
Yes, some founding fathers opposed slavery. Others obviously didn't.
But even the founding fathers who opposed slavery weren't "adamantly"
opposed to it and didn't work "tirelessly" to end it. They
compromised when other things were more important to them. When it
turned out to be too difficult to achieve, they gave up and turned
their attention to other matters. That's really quite a sensible
thing to do. It just isn't what Michelle Bachman said they did, and
thus she looks stupid.
But on the bright side, a facade of stupidity served the previous
President well at the polls. Gaffes are much less damaging to a
politician when nobody takes what comes out of their mouths seriously.
So when Bachman announces that the United States was founded on
diversity and
�How unique in all of the world, that one nation that was the resting
point from people groups all across the world. It didn�t matter the
color of their skin, it didn�t matter their language, it didn�t matter
their economic status. Once you got here, we were all the same. Isn�t
that remarkable?�
That this is statement is factually untrue in an easily recognized
way, may not in fact matter as in fact it doesn't matter to you.
Barb May
> Most liberals -- and by most we mean
> close to 100% of the progs you would find in and around any major
> college or university campus, and pretty much the same percentage
> living and working in Washington DC -- absolutely and completely
> despise our Constitution.
Outrageous lie #1
> So ... was Michelle Bachman right? Did our founding fathers work
> tirelessly to end slavery? Well, some did -- others not so much. But
> that's not the real point here. A thorough reading of history
> leaves no doubt that the founding fathers were adamantly opposed to
> Slavery, and determined to end it.
Outrageous lie #2
In 1784, five years before he became president of the United States,
George Washington, 52, was nearly toothless. So he hired a dentist to
transplant nine teeth into his jaw--having extracted them from the
mouths of his slaves.
> This paragraph appeared in the original version of Thomas Jefferson's
> Declaration of Independence.
Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves during his lifetime and believed that
blacks were inferior to whites. He freed five male slaves in his will,
including two "natural" sons, Madison and Eston Hemings. The remaining
130 slaves at Monticello were sold to pay his debts.
> use to illustrate the racist leanings of our founding fathers. How
> many times have you heard that our Constitution says that blacks are
> only three-fifths human. Well --- whoever told you that is an idiot
> (at best) or a malicious liar (at worst). It's not there. The
> Constitution says no such thing.
Outrageous lie #3
No, it doesn't say anything about them being 3/5ths human. Here's the
exact wording.
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several
States which may be included within this Union, according to their
respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole
Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of
Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other
Persons."
Boortz creates a straw man and tries to use it to convince the morons
who follow his rants that the 3/5ths compromise doesn't exist.
Boortz asserts that the founding fathers hated slavery and wanted to end
it but they couldn't because the South wouldn't go along with it. Well
then it cannot be said that the founding fathers as a whole wanted to
end slavery. Only some of them did and not enough to consititute a
majority.
Boortz also fails to mention that another reason slavery wasn't ended by
the founding fathers is because many of the Northerners who said they
hated slavery didn't want their own slaves freed because the slaves
represented a significant part of their wealth.
So the only honest representation is that SOME founding fathers
recognized that slavery was evil but they didn't have the will to end
it, and they did not work "tirelessly" to end it.
Boortz is a liar, and not a particularly good one.
--
Barb
cpt banjo
(Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3):
"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or
Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but
shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or
Labour may be due."
In other words, it didn't matter if a slave ecaped to a free state --
his slave status wouldn't be affected.
tomcervo
<Actually, "invalid profile" suits him better>
A lot of horseshit that has nothing to do with this group. As to its
accuracy, you don't see many footnotes do you? That's because no
responsible historian will sign off on this drivel.
Rhino
<Neal Boortz> wrote in message
news:MdCdnX_BpaUhgI7T...@giganews.com...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ObDDLhVJJzA
>
> Michelle Bachmann is taking heat from the ObamaMedia because she said that
> the founding fathers of this country "worked tirelessly" to end slavery.
> She's been pretty much under attack for that statement for the past four
> or five days. I promised to address this issue on my show today . so here
> goes:
[snip]
> Here's something else you need to know about slavery. The institution of
> slavery was born in Africa (and pretty much only exists in Africa today.
> Ironic, isn't it?) Slaves were the spoils of African tribal conflict and
> warfare. In the 15th century slavery was virtually wiped out in Europe by
> the emergence of a Christian society. It was the Portugese who, in the
> mid 1940s,
As typos go, that one's a doozy. I think he means the 1540s, not the 1940s.
> rediscovered slavery, so to speak, in their explorations along the western
> coast of Africa. Slavery (generally in support of the sugar industry)
> then started to make its way across the Atlantic and into the Caribbean.
> From the islands of the Caribbean slavery was then introduced into the
> southern colonies.
>
[snip]
--
Rhino
Barb May
> On 7/6/2011 2:04 PM, Mason Barge wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 10:20:42 -0400, <Neal Boortz> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Michelle Bachmann is taking heat from the ObamaMedia because she
>>> said that the founding fathers of this country "worked tirelessly"
>>> to end slavery. She's been pretty much under attack for that
>>> statement for the past four or five days. I promised to address
>>> this issue on my show today . so here goes:
>>
>> history will roll their eyes at Bachman's silly remark.
>
>
>
>
> How do you suppose they could ban Slavery that had been and would be
> legal under the King,
If they could declare their independence and then win a war against
England, they could certainly ban slavery as well.
And FYI: Slavery was abolished in Great Britain in 1772 by Lord
Mansfield in R v Knowles, ex parte Somersett. This decision freed an
estimated 15,000 slaves in England.
> they needed to get the slave owners on the side
> of the Revolution or "we would all" remain property of the King.
The Declaration of Independence severed our relationship with the King
of England. Slavery was not mentioned, though it was in an early draft.
No mention of slavery in that document would have ended slavery anyway.
Slavery was not a factor in the Revolution. It was a factor in
negotiations over the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.
> It was a trade off and had they held onto the idea of ending all
> slavery there would be NO USA to have later expanded freedom.
The debate is over whether the founding fathers "worked tirelessly" to
end slavery. Some did, but a roughly equal number worked just as
tirelessly to preserve slavery. So any statement that makes such a broad
claim is incorrect.
--
Barb
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 10:20:42 -0400, <Neal Boortz> wrote:
>
>>
>> Michelle Bachmann is taking heat from the ObamaMedia because she said that
>> the founding fathers of this country "worked tirelessly" to end slavery.
>> She's been pretty much under attack for that statement for the past four or
>> five days. I promised to address this issue on my show today . so here
>> goes:
>
> will roll their eyes at Bachman's silly remark.
How do you suppose they could ban Slavery that had been and would be
legal under the King, they needed to get the slave owners on the side of
the Revolution or "we would all" remain property of the King.
It was a trade off and had they held onto the idea of ending all slavery
there would be NO USA to have later expanded freedom.
It was what you claim Obama is, it was being pragmatic and taking what
they could get at the moment with hopes of later achieving more freedom.
Obama took the ObamaCare he could get, while still wanting his Marxist
single payer Government health care. Does that mean that Obama
supports private health care?
Of course NOT... Obama still wants to get to his Socialist Health Care.
Just as many of the founding fathers wanted to end slavery but they
accepted their limited ability to get that and accepted as much freedom
as they could grasp at the moment, and that was to be free from the KING.
Sometimes you have to shorten your wish list, and work on it again,
later in life.
Mason Barge
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ObDDLhVJJzA
>
>Michelle Bachmann is taking heat from the ObamaMedia because she said that
>the founding fathers of this country "worked tirelessly" to end slavery.
>She's been pretty much under attack for that statement for the past four or
>five days. I promised to address this issue on my show today . so here
>goes:
I'll pass, thanks. Anyone with reasonable knowledge of American history
John Gilmer
Perhaps.
But there are two parts of the 1789 Constitution that indicate that the
US was moving, albeit slowly, toward eliminating slavery.
You must remember the "context" in which the Constitutional Convention
wrote: much/most of the wealth of the US was found in the "slave"
states. Without the slave states, the constitution would have been a
dead letter.
The provisions:
Article I, Section 9 says that the slave trade would only be protected
by The Constitution until 1808 but that, immediately, the Congress could
impose a modest tax ($10) on imported slaves. Today, it's easy to say
this wasn't any kind of "big deal" but it was. It was the first step
of the new nation to get rid of slavery.
Article I, Section 1 contains the infamous 3/5th rule whereby for
purposes of setting the number of congresscritters each state can have,
slaves ("other persons") were only to be counted as 3/5th of their
actual number. The purpose of this wasn't to say that a slave was only
3/5th of a person but that a state would be penalized in the congress if
many of its residents were slaves.
Again, not a "big deal" but in the context of the time, it was a first
step. Other steps followed. The silly part of Backmann's statement
was the word, "tirelessly" which is routinely overused and has no
meaning. But any clear headed reading on the Constitution would show
that the "founding fathers" were interested in the eventual end of
slavery.
The problem Ms. Backmann (and Sarah P. with the famous ride) had was
that she went a step further into her study of that era and found some
FACTS that had been forgotten by our education system. When she brings
up such facts, the usual suspects try to make her out an idiot. The
reality is that he knows more about the subject than her critics.
David Johnston
Uh-hunh. So then it wasn't just possibly a compromise reached between
the fear of the slave economy states that they would be muscled out by
the north having more free voters, and the fear of the non-slave states
that their representation would be washed away by a small number of
southerners swelling their representation by importing lots of slaves?
Beam Me Up Scotty
It was to the slave owners benefit to call a slave a whole person and
get to vote and use the slaves head count for added representation.
The fact they count as 3/5 of a "citizen since citizens vote and need
representation and persons don't vote" Slavery was already being phased
out by the constitution by denying the slave owners more power.
> Uh-hunh. So then it wasn't just possibly a compromise reached between
> the fear of the slave economy states that they would be muscled out by
> the north having more free voters, and the fear of the non-slave states
> that their representation would be washed away by a small number of
> southerners swelling their representation by importing lots of slaves?
Same thing, it was to diminish the power of the slave trade and owners.
It would have been better to count slaves as zero since they need no
representatives because they aren't citizens. Or let them vote.
David Johnston
But it was NOT to the benefit anyone in a non-slave state.
>
> The fact they count as 3/5 of a "citizen since citizens vote and need
> representation and persons don't vote" Slavery was already being phased
> out by the constitution by denying the slave owners more power.
>
>
>> Uh-hunh. So then it wasn't just possibly a compromise reached between
>> the fear of the slave economy states that they would be muscled out by
>> the north having more free voters, and the fear of the non-slave states
>> that their representation would be washed away by a small number of
>> southerners swelling their representation by importing lots of slaves?
>
> Same thing, it was to diminish the power of the slave trade and owners.
However that is not the same thing as the founders in general having
some kind of long term plan to get rid of slavery. It's just one part
of the country agitating to limit the political power of another, more
powerful, part of the country as much as they can get away with.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Correct...
Which is why it was in the original constitution that a slave was 3/5 of
a person. Just over 1 head for every two slaves, to get the south 1 and
1/2 times the "real" population representatives and other Federal perks
that come with population. That's 50% more or less than they deserved
so says the NORTH. Slaves didn't need the services, funds or
representation.
["""The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence
and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and
Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"""]
"All duties posts and excise taxes shall be uniform"
the Problem was that all taxes were "uniform"
but having slaves meant that more money would be sent to slave owner
districts when money was being used/dispersed based on population.
Slave owners would get more of everything that is measured by
population, the NORTH was looking to stop those perks from getting to
the south. This was a 3/5 rule to prevent the south from getting equal
shares of the Federal tax and the grants for the slaves that the NORTH
had decided didn't need those funds allocated to slaves.
We all got the "Winners history book" version after the Civil War.
The real version says that the NORTH were NOT against slavery..... but
they were actually against their taxes being redistributed to the south
to slaves that they didn't think needed or used what was to be spent on
them. Slavery was a great way for the NORTH to demonize their economic
enemy to the south and it was slavery that shifted tax dollars.
It was always taxes and tariffs between the NORTH and SOUTH that led to
the Civil War. It became a war about "MORALS" after the NORTH won the
war. Slaves were used as pawns by the North to create chaos in the South.
David Johnston
> It was always taxes and tariffs between the NORTH and SOUTH that led to
> the Civil War.
No. To say that the North wasn't fighting to free the slaves does not
mean that the South wasn't fighting to keep the slaves.
Barb May
> The problem Ms. Backmann (and Sarah P. with the famous ride) had was
> that she went a step further into her study of that era
lol
--
Barb
Beam Me Up Scotty
It was only about being moral, after the war where slavery was used as a
pawn and the South was burned and under the boot heal of the North.
The entire exercise was about States Rights and money. The slavery was
incidental to that end.
Why burn the South to free slaves that lived in the homes and ate the
food that was supplied by the those very places the NORTH burned? The
NORTH was killing the slaves and starving them and making them homeless
by the tens of thousands... destroying their ability to survive and
they did that to give them the ability to die and starve and get sick
from malnourishment related disease, as free but dead people?
Just how many slaves died of starvation and sickness that was created by
the NORTH burning the South.... it's almost funny(if weren't so
inhumane) to do that to the people in the south and then to claim you
did it to free the people that you killed, it's down right sad that
anyone would believe that.
True that Clinton burned the children at Waco to free those children,
but it was a smaller scale. the concept doesn't really hold with
rational thinking. The survivors are free, but at what cost?
90% of the people at Waco with David Koresch died.
David Johnston
States rights to own slaves. The money represented by the economic
value of slaves.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Change the constitution...
Killing tens to hundreds of thousands of slaves to end slavery was not
an act of kindness... it was a bit harsh. The ex slaves starved for a
long time after the war, and the economy of the South was destroyed to
SAVE it. The children of both slaves and slave owners were totally
innocent and yet they were targeted for starvation and the war of
attrition that threatened to purposely send disease all across the
SOUTH. The NORTH were NOT nice people.
The dead slaves killed by the NORTH really aren't free.
David Johnston
Pfeh. Yeah right.
>
>
> Killing tens to hundreds of thousands of slaves to end slavery was not
> an act of kindness... it was a bit harsh. The ex slaves starved for a
> long time after the war, and the economy of the South was destroyed to
> SAVE it. The children of both slaves and slave owners were totally
> innocent and yet they were targeted for starvation and the war of
> attrition that threatened to purposely send disease all across the
> SOUTH.
Geez, then maybe the South shouldn't have started a war.
Beam Me Up Scotty
All the NORTH needed to do was accept the secession and remove their
troops in the spirit of Amendment 3, and the war was over before it started.
After all, the NORTH could go to war anytime they wanted.
David Johnston
>> Geez, then maybe the South shouldn't have started a war.
>
>
> All the NORTH needed to do was accept the secession and remove their
> troops in the spirit of Amendment 3, and the war was over before it started.
I just love pro-slavery libertarians.
trotsky
Yes, well, it's a good thing they have civil unions for that.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Just what did the NORTH decide was worth killing all the people that
died in that war? Was there that many... slaves because they killed
600,000 soldiers and then other free people and it doesn't really wash
when you suggest that you would kill as many as a million people with
all the starvation and disease to save a few hundred thousand.
There were 3 million total slaves and some were in the north...
So to get maybe 2 million slaves free, they killed about a million men
women and children and totally destroyed the economy of 50% of the
States. Not a very good trade for the major part of the million that
weren't actual slave owners to die for what was a doomed system of
slavery.
["""[ and that the sudden emancipation of four million slaves would be
problematic for the slave owners and for the economy that drew its
greatest profits from the labor of people who were not paid.
They also argued that banning slavery in new states would upset what
they saw as a delicate balance of free states and slave states. They
feared that ending this balance could lead to the domination of the
industrial North with its preference for high tariffs on imported goods.
The combination of these factors led the South to secede from the Union,
and thus began the American Civil War. Northern leaders had viewed the
slavery interests as a threat politically, and with secession, they
viewed the prospect of a new southern nation, the Confederate States of
America, with control over the Mississippi River and the West, as
politically and militarily unacceptable.]"""]
And you suppose that was pro slavery, because I suggested they NOT
starve and spread disease and kill up to 250,000 slaves and 600,000
military men, to save the 3 million slaves from slavery?
Ending slavery is good, killing slaves and non slave owners to do it, is
NOT so good.
I'm thinking you liked Clinton's solution to the Waco stand off where
Clinton had the children killed, so that they would be saved from David
Koresch.
It was a bit of a cultist, megalomania sort of solution and very
possessive and psychotic on Clinton's part.
It's like a guy who kills a girl and says "if I can't have her no one
can". Killing people so they either live as you decide or are dead is
a severe imbalance and people like that need to be watched carefully.
David Johnston
> On 8/10/2011 5:01 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 8/10/2011 2:03 PM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>
>>>> Geez, then maybe the South shouldn't have started a war.
>>>
>>>
>>> All the NORTH needed to do was accept the secession and remove their
>>> troops in the spirit of Amendment 3, and the war was over before it
>>> started.
>>
>> I just love pro-slavery libertarians.
>
> Just what did the NORTH decide was worth killing all the people that
> died in that war?
The preservation of their nation. Remember, the South was fighting for
slavery, the North was fighting against secession. The North was
content to leave slavery as is in the slave owning states for the
foreseeable future. But that wasn't good enough for their opponents.
Was there that many... slaves because they killed
> 600,000 soldiers and then other free people and it doesn't really wash
> when you suggest that you would kill as many as a million people with
> all the starvation and disease to save a few hundred thousand.
>
> There were 3 million total slaves and some were in the north...
> So to get maybe 2 million slaves free,
No, they all ended up free as a result of the war.
they killed about a million men
> women and children and totally destroyed the economy of 50% of the
> States.
If the South didn't want a war, they shouldn't have started one. They
could have waited out the North. They chose not to.
>
>
> And you suppose that was pro slavery, because I suggested they NOT
> starve and spread disease and kill up to 250,000 slaves and 600,000
> military men, to save the 3 million slaves from slavery?
Are you seriously imagining that it would be all peaches and sunshine if
the United States yielded without a fight? How likely would it have
been that two relatively evenly matched nations with ongoing disputes
racing to expand into the same territories would not end up at war with
each other? How likely would it have been that there would be no slave
rebellions over the next sixty years? In the short term war would have
been averted, but that would have been a trade off for more wars later.
Not to mention it isn't 3 million slaves. It's generation after
generation of slaves. And when they were finally freed sometime in the
20th century, you can rest assured starvation would happen. The odds
that they would gently and methodically wean the slave population into
self-sufficiency are slim.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Did they go to war to stop the slavery in any other Nation other than
the Confederate States of America?
So my reckoning is that they didn't really have to go to war. Their
concience wasn't really weighing that heavy at that time.
> How likely would it have been that there would be no slave
> rebellions over the next sixty years? In the short term war would have
> been averted, but that would have been a trade off for more wars later.
> Not to mention it isn't 3 million slaves. It's generation after
> generation of slaves. And when they were finally freed sometime in the
> 20th century, you can rest assured starvation would happen. The odds
> that they would gently and methodically wean the slave population into
> self-sufficiency are slim.
I gave that some thought a while back and decided that had they freed
slaves over 40 and their miner children and then 2 years later freed all
over 30 and children and then all over 20 and then all slaves....
The older slaves were of less value so it would have been a smaller
adjustment and people (slaves and owners) would have adjusted and could
have moved from slavery to paid positions.
It would have allowed time to adjust and fewer slaves and other people
would have starved to death. And they might NOT have had to burn the
infrastructure of the south and created death and disease and lingering
poverty and destitution in the South..... Of course that presumes that
the NORTH didn't really want to cause death and disease and didn't want
to ransack the south and plunder and pillage the wealth of the south.
But I suppose a cynical person might think the robber-baron's of the
NORTH EAST just needed an excuse to plunder and pillage the South for
the sheer profit in the endeavor.
David Johnston
>> Are you seriously imagining that it would be all peaches and sunshine if
>> the United States yielded without a fight? How likely would it have
>> been that two relatively evenly matched nations with ongoing disputes
>> racing to expand into the same territories would not end up at war with
>> each other?
>
>
> Did they go to war to stop the slavery in any other Nation other than
> the Confederate States of America?
They didn't go to war to stop the slavery in the Confederate States of
America. The Confederate States of America went to war for slavery.
There's a difference.
>
>
>
>
> I gave that some thought a while back and decided that had they freed
> slaves over 40 and their miner children and then 2 years later freed all
> over 30 and children and then all over 20 and then all slaves....
Then the slaves over 40 would starve along with the minor children. I
mean, how the heck would they support themselves?
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On 8/10/2011 8:41 PM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
>>> Are you seriously imagining that it would be all peaches and sunshine if
>>> the United States yielded without a fight? How likely would it have
>>> been that two relatively evenly matched nations with ongoing disputes
>>> racing to expand into the same territories would not end up at war with
>>> each other?
>>
>>
>> Did they go to war to stop the slavery in any other Nation other than
>> the Confederate States of America?
>
> They didn't go to war to stop the slavery in the Confederate States of
> America. The Confederate States of America went to war for slavery.
> There's a difference.
No they went to war over territory, the Confederate states forced the
U.S. Military off the land that was the Confederate States. Slavery was
NOT the issue.
["""[The Lincoln Administration, just as the outgoing Buchanan
administration before it, refused to turn over Ft. Sumter—located in the
middle of the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. Jefferson Davis
ordered the surrender of the fort. Union Maj. Anderson gave a
conditional reply which the Confederate government rejected, and Davis
ordered Beauregard to attack the fort before a relief expedition could
arrive. After a heavy bombardment on April 12–13, 1861 (with no
intentional casualties), the fort surrendered. ]"""]
The war was started over territory....
Secession was for economics and slavery was economic.
The South could not withstand a complete emancipation that would free
all slaves at the drop of a hat. It would create economic chaos.
The reason Lincoln freed the slaves was to use it as a military tactic
to create chaos, he didn't even free the slaves in the NORTH with that
emancipation proclamation. Lincoln didn't actually free any slaves,
until he won the war in 1865. He had no jurisdiction over the southern
States that had seceded and he didn't free any slaves in the North where
he did have Jurisdiction.
["""[At the beginning of the war, some Union commanders thought they
were supposed to return escaped slaves to their masters. By 1862, when
it became clear that this would be a long war, the question of what to
do about slavery became more general. The Southern economy and military
effort depended on slave labor. It began to seem unreasonable to protect
slavery while blockading Southern commerce and destroying Southern
production. As one Congressman put it, the slaves "...cannot be neutral.
As laborers, if not as soldiers, they will be allies of the rebels, or
of the Union."]"""]
["""[Republicans—put pressure on Lincoln to rapidly emancipate the
slaves, whereas moderate Republicans came to accept gradual, compensated
emancipation and colonization.[151] Copperheads and some War Democrats
opposed emancipation, although the latter eventually accepted it as part
of total war needed to save the Union. The Irish Catholics generally
opposed emancipation, and when the draft began in the summer of 1863
they launched a major riot in New York City that was suppressed by the
military, as well as much smaller protests in other cities.[152] Many of
the recent immigrants viewed freed slaves as competition for scarce
jobs, ]"""]
["""[In 1861, Lincoln worried that premature attempts at emancipation
would mean the loss of the border states, and that "to lose Kentucky is
nearly the same as to lose the whole game."[157] At first, Lincoln
reversed attempts at emancipation by Secretary of War Simon Cameron and
Generals John C. Frémont (in Missouri) and David Hunter (in South
Carolina, Georgia and Florida) to keep the loyalty of the border states
and the War Democrats.
Lincoln warned the border states that a more radical type of
emancipation would happen if his gradual plan based on compensated
emancipation and voluntary colonization was rejected.[158] Only the
District of Columbia accepted Lincoln's gradual plan, which was enacted
by Congress. When Lincoln told his cabinet about his proposed
emancipation proclamation, Seward advised Lincoln to wait for a victory
before issuing it, as to do otherwise *would seem like* "our last shriek
on the retreat".[159] In September 1862 the Battle of Antietam provided
this opportunity, and the subsequent War Governors' Conference added
support for the proclamation.[160] Lincoln had already published a
letter[161] encouraging the border states especially to accept
emancipation as necessary to save the Union. Lincoln later said that
slavery was "somehow the cause of the war".[162]"""]
["""[Since the Emancipation Proclamation was based on the President's
war powers, *it only included territory held by Confederates* at the
time.]"""]
["""[The Emancipation Proclamation[172] greatly reduced the
Confederacy's hope of getting aid from Britain or France. Lincoln's
moderate approach succeeded in getting border states, War Democrats and
emancipated slaves fighting on the same side for the Union. The
Union-controlled border states (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware
and West Virginia) were not covered by the Emancipation Proclamation.]"""]
Dano
"David Johnston" wrote in message news:j1un4p$4d1$2...@dont-email.me...
Pfeh. Yeah right.
=========================================
Oh come on. Next you're gonna say the South could have come up with an
economic model that DIDN'T require human bondage as it's lynchpin. Pardon
the expression...
David Johnston
> On 8/10/2011 11:10 PM, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 8/10/2011 8:41 PM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>
>>>> Are you seriously imagining that it would be all peaches and sunshine if
>>>> the United States yielded without a fight? How likely would it have
>>>> been that two relatively evenly matched nations with ongoing disputes
>>>> racing to expand into the same territories would not end up at war with
>>>> each other?
>>>
>>>
>>> Did they go to war to stop the slavery in any other Nation other than
>>> the Confederate States of America?
>>
>> They didn't go to war to stop the slavery in the Confederate States of
>> America. The Confederate States of America went to war for slavery.
>> There's a difference.
>
> No they went to war over territory, the Confederate states forced the
> U.S. Military off the land that was the Confederate States. Slavery was
> NOT the issue.
Except that they could have simply waited them out. The Confederates
didn't want to. After all, they figured they needed a war to forge
their new nation.
>
>
> Secession was for economics and slavery was economic.
> The South could not withstand a complete emancipation that would free
> all slaves at the drop of a hat. It would create economic chaos.
No such thing was a possibility until they started the war.