Posted on 05/04/2018 6:42:25 AM PDT by Bull Snipe
Leading elements of Union Major General George G. Meade's Army of the Potomac cross the Rapidan River. With a few hours they would clash with General Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia in the Battle of the Wilderness. Lieutenant General Grant's Overland Campaign had begun.
jeffersondem: "On this point you are wrong."
And yet the quotes you posted prove I'm right.
jeffersondem: "Who are we to believe?"
Indeed.
“And yet the quotes you posted prove I’m right.”
I have no idea where BroJoeK got his information from but I suspect it’s badly exaggerating the situation.
No you don't, it's one of your preferred M.O.'s -- re-asking questions already answered while pretending they weren't.
jeffersondem: "You argue morality (not economics) drove the abolition of chattel slavery."
Right, especially in Northern states where there were already very few slaves & slavers, with small impacts in larger economies.
So a majority of voters could not be appealed to on economic grounds -- they'd respond, "live & let live" -- but could if they took their Bible studies seriously: God opposes slavery for His people.
jeffersondem: "Then you introduced the moral equivalency of sexual slavery and note it is in on the increase, not withstanding an increase in biblical understanding.
You have omitted the mention that sexual slavery is profitable."
Only because you claimed slavery is totally gone, unlike stealing which while outlawed still thrives.
I pointed out a form of slavery can also still be found today, making slavery and stealing roughly equivalent forms of crime.
As for profitability, all crime can be "profitable" if you don't get caught.
jeffersondem: "A clearer understanding: chattel slavery today is not profitable and is little practiced.
Sexual slavery is profitable and is on the increase."
An even clearer understanding: chattel slavery as practiced in 1860 would be impossible to hide or enforce today, since it requires a legal infrastructure to maintain.
But other forms of slavery, i.e., human trafficking, can be hidden & enforced by violence and so continue where not vigorously suppressed.
jeffersondem: "Both forms of slavery are illegal and can result in very long prison terms for the practitioner but only one form is on the increase.
Do you know why?"
I would start looking for answers in places like this:
…"Chattel slavery, also called traditional slavery, is so named because people are treated as the chattel (personal property) of the owner and are bought and sold as commodities.
Typically, under the chattel slave system, slave status was imposed on children of the enslaved at birth.[12]
Although it dominated many different societies throughout human history, this form of slavery has been formally abolished and is very rare today.
Even when it can be said to survive, it is not upheld by the legal system of any internationally recognized government.[13]"
Chattel slavery requires legal support to maintain on any larger scale and so all-but-disappears when outlawed.
Other forms can be maintained without a legal infrastructure and so continue where not vigorously prosecuted.
Your problem, naturally, is you wish to give economics the starring role (like any good little Marxist) and you're going to obtusely "persist" until you think I've acknowledged that.
But economics were not the prime mover in outlawing either chattel slavery or human trafficking, Biblically inspired morality is.
Of course for those who have no moral principles, then "profitability" would determine their entry to or exit from any particular "business".
DiogenesLamp: "That summarizes most of his output."
Everything I post can be referenced back to a source and all my source links have been posted at one time or another.
If you are unclear about any particular mention, ask and I'll post it again.
But DiogenesLamp here refers not to my lack of sources, but to his own refusal to read not just sources but also any posts which contradict his favored Lost Causer mythological narrative.
We might note here:
jeffersondem: "Yes, a little. Not much; but some.
I get the feeling I'm about to receive a Castro-length intratextual analysis."
"Castro-length" would only be necessary if you attempt to argue at length: the Bible is OK with slavery for God's people.
Two longer paragraphs were struck -- loyalist insurrections and Dunmore's proclamation.
They were replaced with one term, "domestic insurrections" which could mean whatever the reader wished to hear: Laurel or Yanny.
In fact there were no slave revolts, nor did Lord Dunmore call on slaves to revolt, so the correct reading must be "domestic insurrections" = "loyalist insurrections".
But for those who wished to read "slave revolts" our Founders were politic enough not to disabuse them.
Your argument is that "domestic" means slaves, and that is correct regarding 1860 era "domestic institutions".
But our Founders used the word "domestic" in other cases as well:
jeffersondem: "It does appear Lincoln was informed and influenced by the actions of a Prince whose character was marked by every act which may define a tyrant."
For some years now I've looked, without success, for a reference which shows that "contraband of war" (meaning slaves) was acknowledged & practiced long before 1861.
At some point I even read that General Andrew Jackson declared Spanish slaves in Florida, in effect, "contraband of war", freeing them as an act of war against Spain.
This came at the time young John Quincy Adams was US Secretary of State (1817-1825, Virginian Monroe President), and it's implied Adams passed on the information years later (1847) to a young Congressman from Illinois.
That would make the evidence chain for "how to free slaves by presidential decree" Dunmore to Monroe/Jackson to Adams to Lincoln.
But the best I can do on the missing links is here:
The Union Army included black support workers in 1861 and colored troops from 1862.
But perhaps Lord Dunmore's greatest legacy was that in the final throws of its death-rattle the Confederacy itself in 1865 adopted Dunmore's policy: emancipation in exchange for military service.
But most of our Lost Causers don't seem so eager to credit Lord Dunmore for Jefferson Davis' war-end actions.
Wonder why?
... and here comes our progressive minder to herd us all back on the plantation, BroJoke. Where’s your little purse dog? I’m sure he’ll pop out soon enough.
Neither the Bible nor any Founder ever declared an unlimited "right to secede", unilaterally, unapproved & at pleasure.
So all of DiogenesLamp's suggestions to that effect are pure nonsense.
DiogenesLamp: "Our rights either descend from God, or they descend from the indulgences of men, and if they descend from the indulgences of men, then the desire to put other men in chains is just another such indulgence."
The Bible addresses questions related to slavery at some length and consistently opposes imposing slavery on God's people.
DiogenesLamp: "I prefer to believe in an objective right and wrong, not a subjective one, thus rights descended from God are a necessity."
Thus demonstrating DiogenesLamp is not quite as stupid as he often presents.
DiogenesLamp: "In my belief system, slaves still have rights given by God, even though men are refusing to recognize their rights.
They do not disappear merely because Oppressors get an upper hand."
But oddly those slaves' rights magically disappear whenever DiogenesLamp argues in favor of Dred Scott or against Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.
So I suspect that all of DiogenesLamp's alleged "belief system" is in service to the Lost Cause, with no critical thought filters used to sort & separate higher level good from evil.
Thomas Jefferson does.
And author Adam Goodheart, who can scarcely be described as pro-southern, does in his balanced presentation "Domestic Insurrection.
Thomas Jefferson does.
And author Adam Goodheart, who can scarcely be described as pro-southern, does in his balanced presentation “Domestic Insurrection.
DiogenesLamp: "They rebelled to protect everything about their way of life, of which that was also a part at that time in history.
I consider it at that time, a lesser splinter component, but it was in there none the less."
The data tells us that most slaveholders were patriots, but many were not.
At war's end thousands of slaveholder loyalists left the United States, taking their slaves with them.
That says slavery was not the key factor (or even a factor) in determining colonist loyalties -- to old mother Britain or the new USA.
DiogenesLamp: "Most of their complaint was about taxation.
The only reason they wanted 'representation' was so they could vote against the taxation, but I fear they would have learned what the Southerners later learned;
That in a legislature in which you are a minority being taxed to support the majority, you will always be outvoted."
Of course DiogonesLamp can fear whatever you wish, but that does not imply our Founders feared the same things.
The fact is that of the Founders 27 itemized items only one (#17) referred to taxes:
DiogenesLamp: "There is something fundamentally flawed with a democratic system in which a large coalition can take money from a minority because they have more votes.
It's the old 'two wolves and a sheep' adage made real."
And yet such a "flaw" is necessarily built into any elected representative government, no way to avoid it entirely.
And it's basically the entire appeal of our Democrats from Day One: let's use the law to enforce the "rights" of some privileged people to take money or labor away from others, be they old-time slaves or today's harder working Americans.
Our protections against Democrats include constitutional requirements for Due Process and the Free Speech rights to use media to help persuade ravenous wolves not to financially devour their wealthier neighbors.
Of course, that gets us into the question of those alleged "Northeastern Power Brokers", but perhaps DiogenesLamp has not yet realized his own cognitive dissonance on it?
Except when those attacking (forced or not) are Confederates in Union slave-states (Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky), Confederates attacking Union territories (Oklahoma, New Mexico), Confederates invading Northern states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kansas), Confederates attacking Union forts (Sumter, Pickens), Confederates seizing Union property in Union states (every Confederate state before secession), or Confederates formally declaring war before a single Confederate soldier died in any battle or a single Union army invaded any Confederate state.
Under such conditions, attacking (forced or not) is A-OK with DiogenesLamp, just not when the Union responded.
Well... those provisions were included because Southern slaveholders demanded they be included and Northern abolitionists went along to preserve the Union.
That Southerners based their views on African chattel slavery on white supremacy is, of course, axiomatic.
Lincoln's views were also, by today's standards, racist but there are degrees -- despite his racism Lincoln believed slavery should be abolished, whereas Confederates took a different view.
Why would being "pro-Southern" have anything to do with anything?
For some reason or other, you guys are taking the current liberal line -- that "domestic insurrections" referred only to slave rebellions.
“For some reason or other, you guys are taking the current liberal line — that “domestic insurrections” referred only to slave rebellions.”
If you think the term “domestic insurrections”, as used by Thomas Jefferson in the context of the Declaration of Independence means something else, I am interested it learning about it.
For the purpose of this post, let's stipulate you are correct.
Does it then follow that northerners who bought and sold chattel slaves, transported slaves on their ships, bought and sold slave produced products, and even voted to included slavery into the U.S. constitution did so based on their adherence to white supremacy?
Or, did the northern slave states embrace slavery for some purpose that is now known to be charitable?
“That Southerners based their views on African chattel slavery on white supremacy is, of course, axiomatic.”
For the purpose of this post, let’s stipulate you are correct.
Does it then follow that northerners who bought and sold chattel slaves, transported slaves on their ships, bought and sold slave produced products, and even voted to included slavery into the U.S. constitution did so based on their adherence to white supremacy?
Or, did the northern slave states embrace slavery for some purpose that is now known to be charitable?
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.