Posted on 02/26/2009 5:26:00 PM PST by Davy Buck
"When Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to China this month, she said human rights concerns could not interfere with talks about the economic crisis."
Doesn't that sound eerily similar to the South's . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
How about Muslim slavery that still is going on to this day?
Was Only Southern Slavery Evil?.....”
If you want to have some fun, point out to libs that slavery started in the northern states and much of the old money there has ties to slavery. True!
When the South fired on Fort Sumter, beginning the war, there were eight slave states in the Union and only seven in the Confederacy. And The odds were against the Confederate soldier even owning any slaves. And everyone in Gray were fuming that slave-owners in Delaware, Maryland, Missouri and Kentucky, the slave holding states that remained in the Union were allowed to keep their slaves.
Confederate soldiers most of which did not own slaves were fighting against a proportion of Union Army soldiers who had not been asked to give theirs up.
And the first state to legalize slavery? Hint, it was not in the South.
Bottom line is; slavery is wrong. I have ancestors who fought and died on both sides of that war. I’m glad the union was preserved.
There is a genuine, heartfelt patriotism among Southerns, despite us flying the Rebel flag. We’ll fight you to keep it flying, but let the USA be threatened and we will be first in line to do battle for Old Glory.
(Most of us fly the Rebel flag only because it pisses off the liberals.)
My uncle was a slave for several years. In the Phillipines during WW2. Slavery goes on all over the world and has since time began. But the only racists are white southerners.
But the only racists are white southerners....”
I’ve noticed that. So long as there are races of man, there will be racists among mankind.
Since they were under United States control and no longer in rebellion, the Emancipation Proclamation didn't apply. Nonetheless, the state of Louisana passed a new constitution in September, 1864 that outlawed slavery.
Slavery was a legacy from the colonies, which were under British rule if you remember, so saying that one state was the first to legalize it doesn't make any sense. That said, the first African slaves in North America were landed by a Dutch ship at Virginia in 1619.
The first African slave in the colonies was owned by a free black man.
And when he tried to pass his farm on to his son, the court declared that it had to pass to a white man.
Interesting. What happened to his slaves?
Legacy? Africa has been in the slave trading business since the beginning of recorded history. It was the colonist in the Americas who were just their latest customers, And it was the those same colonist who did more that any other people in World history to finally bring an end to acceptance of slave trading and ownership. If Americans deserve any legacy for slavery, it should be for being the ones to finally end it.
A few years ago we toured a plantation in Louisiana that was owned by blacks who had black slaves. Wish I could give you a name and place, maybe it will come to me later. I remember it was not in the delta country but more in the center of the state.
Well, we're talking 17th Century, so the records are spotty, but the name of Anthony Johnson's slave, John Casor, turns up a couple more times over the years in connection with Johnson's widow, so most think that he remained a slave until his death.
The legal history of early slavery in North America is really about the transition from the indenture system, which brought poor whites from the British Isles for a seven year term (which they frequently didn't survive), to the introduction of Africans into the indenture system (which is how Anthony Johnson got here and became free after seven years) and a gradual shift to extending the terms of indenture for Africans to longer and longer terms and finally to lifetime indenture, which they began to call slavery and legally redefine.
In the case of Johnson, his indentured servant, Casor, sued for his freedom, claiming that his term of indenture was up. Johnson claimed that the indenture was for life and won, with the court calling Casor a slave in its decision. It's the first use that anyone can find of the use of the word "slave," which is why some people claim that a black man was the first slaveowner in America, but it's clear that "indenture for life" --the same thing as slavery--was an established precedent in order for Johnson to have won that claim.
You seem very intent on blaming blacks for slavery.
And it was the those same colonist who did more that any other people in World history to finally bring an end to acceptance of slave trading and ownership. If Americans deserve any legacy for slavery, it should be for being the ones to finally end it.
You really need to study the history of the abolition movement. Britain was ahead of us in ending slavery and did far more to suppress the slave trade globally. Slavery was declared illegal in Britain in 1772 and outlawed throughout the empire in 1833.
The fact is that, in the timeline of slavery abolition in the western world, we were fairly late in the game. We did beat Brazil and Cuba, though.
They don't care about forced labor in China, child labor in Indonesia, female circumcision in parts of Africa, decapitations in the Middle East, etc etc etc. Show me the money! It's no secret, some of our most senior political power brokers have their fortunes tied to China, as is the case with Feinstein. China helped play a crucial role in financing the election campaign of the Clinton's in the second term......... Show me the money!!!!!!! Ross Perot already as far back as the early 90s use to claim the US government is essentially “for sale” to the highest bidder, and Obama the agent of change that refused public financing is nothing but the epitome of hypocrisy. What change? That he let every special interest group buy him that was willing to pay? That he today will like his predecessors ignore human rights in China?
Like the Germans who love to lecture the US about “Bush oil cowboys, no blood for oil” and that sort of nonsense, it is actually the Schroeders, or Obamas that will look the other way and hop in bed with Iran at the blink of an eye for a few Euros. China is to the US as Iran is to Germany, and both nations are selling their soul to the devil one small piece at a time.
China shouldn't be on the US most favored trade list. There is NO rational answer based on any moral or national security rationale one can give. It's pure greed, the sort of stuff Madoff was driven by, and that allows our own politicians and many consumers to look the other way regards China today when a product is $2 cheaper. For the average Jewish Floridian investor giving his money to Madoff, things did look good for a long time. I guess likewise today trade and dependency on China seems like a “good idea” also.
bookmark
It’s the only slavery with profit, so yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.