Skip to comments.War Crimes Against Southern Civilians
Posted on 08/28/2013 8:03:18 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
click here to read article
“I already dealt with it fool.”
Somebody squeezing your head, rocky? Some of what popped out ended up in your post.
Of course you haven’t “dealt with it” in any other manner than your usual name calling.
So I’ll make the problem real simple for you. I’ll start with your premise that slave owning is evil.
Slave owners = Evil
Founders = Slave owners
In math class tomorrow, rocky, you can ask your teacher to explain to you the Transitive Property of Equality and he can tell you what C equals in the example above.
Even television shows manage to throw in a back handed slap in every other episode.
I'd give examples, but I'm sicker than a dog right ow, and can't find my notebook (yes, I actually keep/kept a notebook by my chair for things like this)
Thanks - I saw previews for that one and it looked like something pelham would like so I never wasted my time watching it.
“So, IMO, it is not possible to say that slavery is a sin per the Bible.”
That’s really all that I was arguing. The modern conceit is that slavery is an obvious evil and a sin.
But that view is a modern conceit, nothing more than moral posturing that ignores the moral world of the past. The moral world of the Founders had a greater familiarity with the Bible than most people possess today.
Deuteronomy was the work most cited by the American founders according to Bernard Bailyn in his ‘The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution’. They certainly knew what the Bible had to say, or failed to say, on the issue of slavery. Moderns assume that it contains a clear denunciation of the practice until they are challenged to produce one.
The Founders would also have been familiar with Aristotle’s defense of slavery, which while it wouldn’t carry the moral weight of the Bible would have carried some intellectual regard.
“But then if we take all parts of the Bible literally we cant wear clothes of blended fibers or eat lobster, and we must not suffer a witch to live.”
I think that you’ll find mentioned in the New Testament that the dietary laws in particular were no longer in effect. But that’s a whole other discussion.
Well, IMO the issue is not that the Bible was right and we are wrong today.
That is perhaps the most difficult issue for me to reconcile with the Bible being the word of God.
Slavery was such an integral part of almost every human society that not one, to my knowledge, ever came up with the theory that slavery was always a moral wrong. Only western civ.
“We would do better to remind people of the Democrat slaver Partys history of not only slavery, but of their racism, their KKK, their Progressive to socialists, communism, their hatred for god and Bible, their holocaust of babies, etc. “
Good grief.. you really are a product of the public education system, aren’t you?
The party that first had a close connection with radicals and socialist Revolutionaries was in fact the Republican Party. You need to learn who the ‘48ers were... Carl Schurz, Franz Sigel, among others. The Republicans attracted all sorts of interesting support at the time; be sure to look for the Corresponding Secretary for Germany signing this letter:
I try look at slavery from the standpoint of the slaveholders. These were people who had become addicted to slavery. Often, their families had for generations been supported by the labor they stole from their slaves. They became trapped in a culture of dependency and that's why we hear the explanation that they "knew no other way of life." From the nursery, they were raised and cared for by slaves.
Slavery was a parasitic relationship. The slaveholders became totally dependent upon their slaves for economic and personal support. Many of the slaveholders talked about the need to end slavery, but most of them could not conceive of how they might make their own way in the world without the support of their slaves. So, naturally, they got lazy and did nothing. Then, when they felt that their parasitic lifestyle was being threatened by talk of abolition, they very desperately tried to declare a "secession" so that they could continue to use the machinery of their State governments to protect their indolent lifestyles. The slaveholders felt trapped. One need only read the first paragraphs of Mississippi's Declaration of Secession to sense the level of slaveholder desperation. They felt that they had no other choice, no option but "secession."
Most Southerners now are strongly opposed to slavery. Most now are very grateful that Lincoln and the United States freed the slaves and many now are also very grateful that Lincoln and the United States freed the slaveholders from their parasitic addiction to slavery. Granted, some of the slaveholders couldn't make it on their own and their lives could not be reconstructed. However, most regained their self-respect and moved on. In fact, the South today is providing an example of how this country might best go forward economically.
Is it possible that the Civil War was really just a case of very tough love - harsh, but necessary, for our country's development?
As usual, Lincoln addressed this issue best.
Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses north and south. ..
When southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery, than we; I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists; and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution.
However, what is always and forever evil is declaring evil to be a positive good, much less launching a vicious war to protect an evil institution. I do not include all southerners in this group, not even southerners of the time. But I do that small minority of southerners who worked for and plotted to bring about secession, the Fire-Eaters.
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.
Therefore, as tongues of fire lick up straw and as dry grass sinks down in the flames, so their roots will decay and their flowers blow away like dust; for they have rejected the law of the Lord Almighty and spurned the word of the Holy One of Israel. Therefore the Lords anger burns against his people; his hand is raised and he strikes them down. The mountains shake, and the dead bodies are like refuse in the street.
Lincoln also addressed this issue best.
If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
You’re right of course but I take a certain amusement by scatological insults who idiotically attempt to dance between the rhetorical raindrops on the issue.
At the time of the Declaration of Independence, our Founders believed that slavery had been imposed on America by Britain, and that was one item in Jefferson's original list of grievances against the king.
When the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, slavery was legal in all 13 colonies.
Even by the Constitutional Convention of 1787 only Vermont and Massachusetts had fully abolished slavery, while Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Rhode Island began gradually phasing it out.
Slavery in Pennsylvania, for example, did not fully end until 1847.
At same time that some northern states began to slowly abolish slavery, southern Founders like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and James Madison all acknowledged slavery was wrong and should be eventually abolished.
Had those views prevailed in the South, there would certainly be no Civil War, and our whole national conversation today would have been much different.
But between the time of Thomas Jefferson and, say, Jefferson Davis, there was a major change in attitude in the South, caused by economic realities and a pro-slavery ideology developed to justify them.
So, where Thomas Jefferson saw slavery as an evil to be abolished, eventually, Jefferson Davis saw it as a positive good to be defended with lives of hundreds of thousands of fellow Southerners.
That's the difference.
This is why non slave owing officers an enlisted had no problem with Confederate Emancipation, their will to fight would not have been dampened one bit if this had happened. I think this was never understood by the Confederate leadership.
In 1860 New Jersey still had 18 slaves, though redefined as "apprentices for life." This was due to the peculiarities of the various emancipation laws passed over the course of the 19th century.
If any of them were still alive and not emancipated during the War, NJ joins DE and KY as the only states where slaves were actually freed by 13A in 1865.
Possible, though never tested, since Davis squashed and hushed up the only proposition of this type made by an army officer.
As you probably know, this was by Patrick Cleburne, one of the very best southern officers. Despite his competence and the desperate need of the CSA for high level officers, his career stalled after this incident. He died at Franklin.
It was reported that even the officers of the Army of the Tennessee did not support him in his proposition. The CSA Congress, as late as early 1865, when presumably even the most stupid congressmen were aware the situation was critical, had a great deal of difficulty bringing itself to emancipate even slaves recruited as soldiers.
I have long believed that if the CSA had really wanted independence as their primary goal, they could easily have had it. Emancipate the slaves in 1861,or even schedule very gradual emancipation, and Britain and France would have been delighted to recognize the South's independence and resume trade. If the US Navy attempted to interfere, the RN would have promptly sunk it, the US Navy being greatly inferior.
The problem was that this seemingly obvious solution was quite literally unthinkable to southern leaders. The reason they wanted independence was to protect and eventually expand the institution of slavery, so independence without slavery was meaningless and inconceivable.
It is possible you are right about the "common men" of the South, but it is well-documented that the more slaves a man owned in 1860/61, the more likely he was to favor secession. The ordinary men of the South fought primarily not to defend or expand slavery, as their betters did, but, quite justifiably, to repel an invasion of their home.
That invasion, of course, was precipitated by secession, which was initiated by and in the interests of wealthy slaveowners. No slavery, no secession, no invasion, no war.
You refuse to see. I cannot offer help you, you are trapped in a loop of reconstructed lies and misinformation.
Not just defended, expanded. Of course, the dominant southern ideology of the 1850s saw no distinction between the two.
One of the areas of agreement between Fire-Eaters and moderate non-abolitionist Republicans like Lincoln was that both sides believed the institution was like a shark. It had to keep moving ahead or die.
AFAIK, this unproven assumption was never really challenged. The Democratic Party split, ending any hope of stopping the Republicans, over northern Democrats refusal to bow to southern demands they insert a pledge to abandon popular sovereignty in the territories and impose it on the inhabitants whether they wanted it or not via a Federal Slave Code enforced by federal troops. (It is interesting that the last national institution, the Democratic Party, split over southern demands that the power of the Federal Government be expanded.)
Whether slavery had to expand or die was true or not, all southern leaders certainly believed it. Which led to some obvious difficulties for them. Expansion into the remaining territories was a symbolic issue, as none had the climate that would allow slavery to thrive, at least slavery of the type southerners were familiar with.
So we are supposed to assume that southerners, had they been allowed to depart peacefully in 1860/61, would have been content to remain in their existing boundaries, and peacefully watch their beloved institution gradually wither and die.
They wouldn't, of course. They would have promptly attempted to move South and conquer new territory in Latin America.
This would most certainly not have worked, since the only way to attack these areas, given the tech of the time, was via the sea. And the Royal Navy (not to mention the US Navy) would never have allowed conquests in the interests of slavery. That such expansion was possible was a peculiar delusion widely shared in the 1850s South.
Wasn't their concern that if free states continued to be added to the United States, but slave states were not, then it was only a matter of time until the free states had the legislative numbers in Congress to outlaw slavery?
Regardless of how some Southerners feeeeeeeeelt about it, the Constitution is not an "alliance".
It's a Federal Republic, a "compact" among "we the people" of the United States, who in 1788 formed "a more perfect union".
It was not intended to be treated as a gentlemen's club that one might join or leave "at pleasure".
Serious "oppressions" or "injuries" were required to justify secession.
And before Fort Sumter, the vast majority of Virginians believed no such conditions existed, and so they refused to vote for secession.
After Sumter and Lincoln's call for troops to suppress rebellion, Virginians instantly changed their minds and voted for secession.
Indeed, by the time of Virginia's voter referendum on May 23, 1861 (3 to 1 for secession), the Confederacy had already formally declared war on the United States, and so Virginians with one vote accomplished three separate actions:
And all this happened before a single Confederate soldier had been killed in battle with any Union force.
Amendment required. So the 14 slaves states existing in 1860 would be enough even at the present day to prevent ratification.
I don't think any sane southerners in 1860 seriously believed slavery in the states was immediately threatened. I believe they were just sick and disgusted, not unreasonably, with sharing a nation with people who constantly told them the basic institution on which their society was based was evil.
The problem, of course, is that it was evil.
That's true. In addition, in a parasitic relationship, the parasite tends to become more (and never less) dependent with each generation. Look at what has happened here since the New Deal and the Great Society.
Ultimately, the parasite becomes so crippled by dependency that the relationship can only be terminated by either a rejection by the host (a slave revolt) or by force applied from an external source (the Union). The parasite becomes too weak and dependent to ever initiate the change on its own.
Slaveholders depended upon the machinery of government to preserve their status as parasites. When it became clear to them that the government in Washington was slowly withdrawing support for their lifestyle, they became increasingly dependent upon state governments for protection.
Nowadays, the parasites are dependent upon the government in Washington to preserve their lifestyle and this time the parasites are more frightened by attempts by state governments to free them from their culture of dependency. Now as then, the parasites become weaker, more dependent and less capable with each new generation. Dependency is never a pretty picture.
The more things change, . . .
This has nothing to do with the argument; it is nothing more than what a child does when he wants to quarrel.
Be that as it may, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a troll in defense of the Democrat Party and all that it stands for. But the rest of your post does beg the question; by singularly bringing up the imperfections of the Republican Party's history, are you defending the Democrat Party?
Pelham: "Moderns assume that it contains a clear denunciation of the practice until they are challenged to produce one."
You really should read the posts here, and their links.
For example, in post #127 above, Sherman Logan provided a link to a long list of Biblical quotes on slavery, some of which are quite critical of it.
In posts 116, 128 & 132 I discussed the Bible's views on slavery.
Here are two highly revealing verses:
So clearly, God has a big problem with slavery for his chosen people.
He doesn't want it.
The new testament takes the word "slave" and turns it into a metaphor:
The New Testament also makes all followers of Christ in effect God's chosen people.
So there can be no doubt that both Old and New Testaments oppose involuntary slavery to anyone, and voluntary "slavery" to anyone other than God's laws, Christ's love and our own brothers and sisters in Christ.
It was not my intent to suggest he ran as “TGE” and I don’t believe that I have. It is my position that the mantle of Great Emancipator has been, IMO, undeservedly placed upon him post hoc by those pushing a political narrative that the war was primarily about ending slavery when in fact it was about retaining the southern states. My comments were directed at those who swallow that narrative. Yes slavery was dead after the war, along with the southern economy and bid for independence. Look, I don’t question the immorality of holding humans in slavery, but if you negate the legitimacy of the southern drive for independence over issues of property and national self determination, what does it say of the original colonial revolt? Why were the slaveholders of 1776 any more entitled to nationhood than the slaveholders of 1861? I think they probably weren’t, so we build myths about the war and its causes that appeal to emotion and patriotism to obscure the uncomfortable realities.
None of that negates the fact that Lincoln was willing to allow the institution of slavery to continue in the states where it already existed and only went to war to retain them in the union. I’m also not sure Britain and France would have recognized them without greater military success on the part of the Confederacy. They were both colonial powers practicing their own forms of de facto slavery on a national scale.
2 If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
So a Hebrew man could sell himself into slavery, or sell his children, or be enslaved because he couldn't pay a debt. The Law was opposed to illegal enslavement of Hebrews, not to enslavement as such.
The tone of the discussion about slavery throughout the OT, and for that matter the NT, is matter of fact and non-judgmental.
And of course the Law with regard to foreign slaves was essentially the same as that of the nations around them. Anything goes.
I really, really wish this was not the case, and I could say the Bible is as non-supportive of slavery as it is non-supportive of racism. But it says what it says, and that is that slavery was such a fact of life that none of the Bible writers considered abolishing it, anymore than they considered abolishing air. And for much the same reason.
That said, slavery in the ancient world was in some ways less harsh than in the American South. "All men were created equal" hadn't crossed anybody's mind yet, so the line between slavery and freedom wasn't as clear. Everybody existed on a scale, with people above and below them.
Most non-slaves weren't really free in the sense we use the term. There were intermittent conditions, and those who really were legally slaves were often wealthy, powerful and respected. See Abraham's slave Eleazar, who was his heir until his sons were born.
All women of the time existed in a condition we would consider very near that of slaves. A woman did not choose her husband, for instance, she was quite literally given, or possibly sold, to her husband.
There was no link between "race" and condition of servitude. Slaves came in all colors. So everybody knew they could be enslaved themselves. Often it was the price of losing a war or having your ship taken by pirates. To our minds it is thus totally illogical to believe men were naturally slaves, when their condition was often the result of bad luck. But the ancients just didn't see it this way.
But if you accept the proposition that all men are equal, then by definition non-equal slaves become in some sense less than men.
I don’t know anybody who disagrees with your first sentence. Certainly not me.
Why do pro-South types keep bringing this up? Do you think Lincoln going to war to save the Union rather than to free the slaves was an illegitimate war goal? Aren’t you aware that Lincoln himself said this many times? You act like you are debunking some misapprehension, when it is just the normally accepted version of history.
But goals and intentions change with time, and nothing changes them faster than a great war. By the summer of 1862 Lincoln was determined to end slavery.
Union men were increasingly in agreement with this goal. This can be seen by the many claims early in the war that if an Emancipation Proclamation was issued numerous Union soldiers and even regiments would desert. When it actually was issued, no such thing happened. The soldiers had decided, as Lincoln had, that ending slavery was necessary to win the war. So slavery would have to go.
As far as UK not interfering, we have the records of Cabinet discussions from 1862. It is very clear from them that the primary factor was that Her Majesty’s Government could not be seen as interfering on the side of slavery. If not for that, they would have been very happy to see a major competitor nobbled. When Lincoln released the EP, they essentially dropped the idea of jumping in, with regret.
I would argue that there's a difference between the reasons that led the nation to war in 1861 and the reasons that, over the course of the war and in the decades that followed, emerged as important.
I'd also argue that the binary "either/or" reasons you give aren't mutually exclusive.
Why were the slaveholders of 1776 any more entitled to nationhood than the slaveholders of 1861?
Ah, well there you run into political theory and philosophy. I tend toward a view that no one is "entitled" to nationhood, and that it's a construct established by facts on the ground, not by abstract notions of "natural law" or "entitlement." To claim otherwise is to open a can of worms in which any group, any area, anywhere can claim an "entitlement" to nationhood.
I don't fault the southern states for launching a rebellion and trying to establish their independence. What I object to is the notion that it wasn't a rebellion and was instead some irresistible legal process that no one had any right to oppose once they said the magic words.
And they would be right, since the purpose at the end of a war is more important than at the beginning.
Let me give you an example from American history. The Mexican War, probably the most dishonest in US history, was purportedly entered into by Polk to repel Mexican invasion of US territory. (In fact, it is questionable whether the clash in question even occurred on US soil.)
But as US forces succeeded, the goal of the war changed, with progressively more and more of Mexico planned to annexation. First NM and then CA. By the end of the war, Polk and his ilk had determined to annex most if not all of Mexico. He even fired his treaty negotiator, who ignored the firing and produced the somewhat more moderate treaty that ended the war.
But the point is that "what the Mexican War was about" changed with the ebb and flow of the war. Public goals at the start were quite different from those at the end. Same with WBTS.
Wars, particularly civil wars, are like revolutions. Those who start a war almost never wind up where they intended.
Emancipation Proclamation Jan 1, 1863 was followed one month later by the Union Conscription Act. Coincidence? Right....
It's really very simple, and it's contained in the DOI. Which is a moral document. It proclaims who has a right to independence. None of the Founders were so stupid they didn't realize any group with sufficient firepower could obtain their independence by force, so they didn't even discuss that issue. The DOI covered whether they had a right to be free, not whether they had the power to win their freedom.
And that moral right existed when a revolution was for the purpose of securing the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness being denied by the existing government.
A revolution for other purposes and in particular for the purpose of denying those rights to others was by the very terms of DOI merely a wicked exercise of physical force.
The men of 1776 did not launch their revolution to protect and extend slavery. In fact, they pretty universally expected the institution to gradually disappear.
The men of 1860 by their own words seceded specifically to protect their institution of slavery. Which means that by the moral principles expressed in DOI it was unjust.
Confederate Conscription Act was passed April, 1862. Coincidence?
To answer your question, both sides discovered you can’t fight a long, bloody war with volunteer armies. Men stop volunteering when they find out war isn’t nearly as much fun as they expected.
The 20-Negro Law in the South was at least as unpopular as Emancipation was in parts of the North.
Lincoln makes it a war to end slavery then conscripts the entire Army. LOL. That IS what happened...
So what does it say that the confederacy resorted to conscription in April, 1862, and that a far higher percentage of the rebel armies were made up of draftees than the United States army?
Your point might make some sense if the CSA had not also resorted to conscription, and quite a bit sooner than the Union.
My point has NOTHING to do with Confederate Conscription and you know it. Your invalid point about how the noble Yankees turned into anti slavery crusaders is hogwash. They were conscripted because most wanted no part in freeing the slaves.
Only in your addled brain. Out of a little over 2 million men in the United States army during the war, a mere 2% were draftees, with another 6% substitutes paid for draftees. The confederate army, on the other hand, was 25% conscripts by war's end, and the rest of the army were virtual conscripts, since the confederate congress had reneged on the terms of all the one-year enlistments, changing them to three years.
But the fact is that very few of them were conscripted, and it’s just as easy to say that the confederates were conscripted (in far greater numbers) because most wanted no part in fighting to preserve slavery.
The enrollment act also turned the current Union Army of volunteers into conscripts.
FRiend, I see perfectly well what your problem here is, and I think I can help clear it up.
Your problem is the definition of the word "slave".
The Bible absolutely did not mean the same thing in referring to Hebrew "slaves" as American secessionists meant referring to their "peculiar institution".
For starters, ancient Israelites could not lawfully become slaves except for specific reasons, usually to pay off a debt.
And even then, slaves had to be given their freedom after seven years.
So by our understanding of terms, that's not really slavery, rather it's a long-term employment contract with "wages" used to pay off debts.
Once the contract is fulfilled, the "slave" goes free.
In colonial times, these people were referred to as indentured servants, and indeed, in the very beginnings, that's also how African slaves were treated.
Only over time did slavery as it was known in 1860 develop, where only people of African descent could be slaves, where slaves were considered sub-human (see Dred Scott) "property", and even when gaining freedom were still subject to vagaries of laws which might re-enslave them (as was declared by the Confederate government during the war).
Note Deuteronomy 23:15 ESV:
So how is it that those who claim slavery was "no sin" cannot see that the Bible condemns both the capturing of slaves and returning escaped slaves to their masters?
If slave-holders were truly interested in Biblical views, wouldn't such verses give them pause?
Sorry, but the decision for war was not Lincoln's, it was Jefferson Davis' -- when Davis chose to start war at Fort Sumter and then soon after formally declared war on the United States.
Lincoln's choice was simply victory or defeat, and he chose victory -- since that is what the Constitution expects when the United States is attacked.
Lincoln also expected that a Union defeat would mean the loss of every slave-holding state and territory and the likely dissolution of the remaining "United States".
By the way, in 1860 US politicians had known for decades that a Civil War would necessarily destroy slavery wherever Union armies controlled slave-holding territory.
Military precedents were set in previous wars, and learned opinions given by the likes of former President John Quincy Adams.
So it would be fair to say that though slavery's destruction was not a stated goal at war's beginning, many Union leaders understood at the time that slavery would not survive a Union victory.
Here's what the confederate act says: "All of the persons aforesaid who are now in the armies of the Confederacy, and whose term of service will expire before the end of the war, shall be continued in the service for three years from the date of their original enlistment, unless the war shall have been sooner ended."
The truth is that substantial numbers of US volunteers, having done their duty, were free to go home and did so. Finally, why would the US army offer bonuses for reenlistment if they were simply extending the terms of service, making reenlistment moot?
Keep for future reference - WELL ARGUED!
Anyone who wonders why the states of the South attempted to "secede" should just read Mississippi's Declaration of Secession. Slaves were considered the most valuable asset class in the world (described as "property worth four billions of money"). The slaveholders were desperate, describing "secession" as "not a matter of choice, but of necessity" to protect their lives as slaveholders.
So, there's really no mystery about what happened. "Secession" was designed to protect slavery and the Union's response was to protect the United States and to protect the rights of American citizens who lived in Southern states.
Nowadays, nearly everyone opposes slavery and most people are very grateful that it was abolished. Slavery wasn't good for the slaveholders and it certainly wasn't good for anyone else. And, now it's gone for good.
It is generally believed by Biblical scholars that the sabbath and Jubilee year provisions of the law were aspirations never actually put into practice. It is possible (male) slaves were indeed freed after seven years, but women slaves and their offspring were for life.
And non-Hebrew slaves were treated as permanent chattel, just like all the nations around them did.
It is true the first few years in America blacks were apparently treated as indentured servants, just like whites were. Based on Caribbean and Spanish precedent, this changed pretty quickly, with the adopting of civil (Roman) law precedence for dealing with slaves over English common law, which had no provision for chattel slavery.
What planet are you living on?
Americans who WORK for a living are slaves of the DC apparatus that extorts money from their paychecks under penalty of imprisonment and monitors their every move.
The working man in this country is no longer free, but a slave to the former slaves, who instead of being repatriated remained in this nation and allied themseleves with Jews, Communists, and homosexuals in a mission to invade every institution and make non-compliance with their poltically correct ideology a crime.
Hard working tax paying Americans are indeed slaves of the political class who confiscates their wealth and redistributes it to the former slaves and foreign invaders.
I'd rather pick cotton and be guaranteed 3 squares and a roof over my head that have my hard earned money stolen from me by a bunch of degenrate beauracrats and faggots.
Just as the slaveholders were parasites, we have parasites today in the form of a welfare class who, like the slaveholder class, are trapped in a culture of dependency. I discussed that in post 170 (above).
It took a powerful external force to free slaveholders from their addiction to slavery and it will take a powerful force to free the modern welfare class from their addiction to welfare. Freeing folks from dependency and addiction is never easy and the addicts never like it at first, but ultimately, if they can regain their independence and self-respect, they wind up grateful to those who forced them to change. We have work to do in this country today.
So, yes, you're right, we are victimized by parasites today. And, it is a burden we should not be forced to bear. However, that said, I'm certainly living much better than did any of the real slaves. ;-)
No, you wouldn't. Working sunup to sundown in the southern summer is no joke, and nobody who could avoid it would ever volunteer, and certainly not for subsistence only.
I understand how hyperbole works, but let's not get carried away.
"When I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him."
Will you throw in your children and your children's children?
Excellent analysis and commentary. Biblical ignorance used to prove a point is almost a specialty at FR.
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.