Posted on 02/19/2021 7:49:50 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica
So now they're going to conduct a reparations commission in congress. Where is everybody pointing out that Britain's Empire was the one who brought the slaves here?
The Founders didn't ignore their role across the ocean. Why do we? Shouldn't we do what our Founders did? That's all.
“...were being pragmatic...”
I asked a pastor once why did God “allow” people to have multiple wives, slavery, etc. - all sorts of stuff that went against the Ten Commandments.
I can’t remember the exact answer - but there were other things that were even more important for his people to get right first. Like getting rid of idolatry for example. And getting the BIG things right will lead to getting the other things right.
So are you going to sing praises for the Jacobins despite being mass murdering psychopaths who set up an even WORSE slave system than the one that existed thanks to Karl Marx wanting to reenact the Reign of Terror?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”
Except in some states for some people, where that’s inconvenient.
Besides, by that same logic, God had a perfect opportunity to “do the right thing” regarding the ten commandments and make people his utter slaves by making them completely incapable of disobeying him after the Exodus, yet he didn’t, which makes him wrong. You really want to go there?
Equality in opportunity, not literal equality, which is what the Jacobins desired, and what you seem to be advocating. And when they got rid of slavery in France, they ultimately replaced it with an even WORSE slavery, the one the COmmunists perfected.
Property doesn’t have equality of opportunity. And you’re studiously ignoring the fact that we got stuck fighting a war with ourselves to end it. All the Founders did was chicken out and write a check we wound up paying with blood later.
You and I are done. Goodbye. Again.
Well, guess what? We’re property of God. Despite calling us His children, we’re little more than his slaves, demands absolute obedience to him.
Your short-sightedness makes you vulnerable to adhering to leftist thoughts, which are even worse.
And let me put it this way, if I were to go the route you seem to advocate, I would in fact end up emulating Lenin, because that’s EXACTLY what his ilk have done, and made the slavery situation even worse than before, and probably would have resulted in America going extinct. You want a Communist America, fine, fight for a Communist America. Heck, fight for a Jacobin America if you so desire. Don’t expect me to be merciful to you if we meet, though, as I have a reason to hate those guys since you butchered us during the French and various Communist revolutions. That’s also the main reason why I’m not fond of Jefferson, because he cheerleaded those butchers.
No major institution anywhere systematically delegitimated the institution of slavery anywhere until the Christians - especially Protestants, and especially British MProtestants - did so. Essentially the Christians of the American South were uniquely situated to be the last to “get" - that is, accept - the word.Published argumentation defending slavery imposed by Christians never occurred anywhere except in the American South. For the simple reason that that was the only place where slavery by Christians both was entrenched and was under Christian moral attack.
Sure, ok. Maybe I have this backwards. I don’t have anything to back this up, but I’ll take what you’re saying at face value to be accommodating.
You said that as the British started using slavery to drive a wedge against rebelling colonists and that the colonists abolitionist laws were a response to these driven wedges. Ok, then that does explain pretty well why so many (pre-revolutionary)colonies started passing abolitionist laws, and it also explains why the first Founding document, the 1774 Continental Association, contains a prohibition on the slave trade in article 2. But just to be clear, the slavery prohibition in the Association wasn’t any more humanitarian than Dunmore’s Proclamation. Both were militaristic in nature. The empire wanted to hurt us, and we wanted to hurt the empire.
Had both sides been on the side of abolition, there would’ve been no “wedge issue”(your language) to use or “fomenting” taking place - even if there was disagreement on every other issue. It would’ve been hand holding and kumbaya between the colonies and the King as they all came together to free the slaves. This is what I’m trying to communicate to you. What you seemed to have ignored is the reasons why the Empire vetoed potential colonial abolitionist laws. The vetoing is the elephant in the living room.
The reality is that only one side was correct here, both sides were not correct, and that’s simply the historical record. Britain didn’t get it right until decades later, which is commendable, but that’s not at issue here. We led the charge, and they led the vetos. It is what it is. By preventing us from doing the right thing, they own it.
I really can’t understand why this is viewed as so provocative, other than the fact that the progressives are forcing us into this position. That I can totally understand. Progressives are agitators, and they keep agitating and agitating that which should have been left in the past. But from our point of view, this is the historical account as it actually happened in the lead up to Independence. Britain did _not_ want any of the colonies abolishing slavery as the colonies (in whatever number) intended to do. Progressives certainly don’t want us telling the truth to anybody, which is obvious. But shouldn’t we be able to at least tell ourselves the truth about the provable historical record? There are enough historians(even modern ones) who have begrudgingly admitted that these abolitionist laws at least did in fact exist. For older historians, there is a more forceful writing on it.
I’m telling you the truth on this, this should not be provocative in any way: The empire vetoed our Founders’ pre-revolutionary abolitionist laws. The historical record proves this to be true, and this was more widespread knowledge prior to the progressives’ historical revisionism in the schools.
As to that “cup of wrath”, you have misjudged my intentions.
“Washington and Adams each signed legislation making it more difficult”
I would greatly appreciate more information about this. I tried looking, but it is all over-shadowed by the 1807 ban.
Of course, the Irish immigrants in the US tended to support the institution even if they lived up north, as they feared free blacks taking their jobs.
We can’t punish them. They’re all dead.
It’s all about the court of public opinion. Right now, the abolitionists are the ones being convicted. See if you can figure that one out.
The abolitionists are being convicted, I surely can’t figure it out. So yes, I stand by the original question. Shouldn’t conservatives stop ignoring The British Empire’s role in slavery? Cause if we don’t act, the abolitionists get hung.
Where’s the fairness in that?
I love Wilberforce and the English abolitionists, but the British Empire was not quite as enlightened as they claimed relative to other powers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act_of_1794
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act_of_1800
Exactly my point.
It's all about the court of public opinion. Right now, the abolitionists are the ones being convicted. See if you can figure that one out.
No good deed.
The abolitionists are being convicted, I surely can't figure it out. So yes, I stand by the original question. Shouldn't conservatives stop ignoring The British Empire's role in slavery? Cause if we don't act, the abolitionists get hung.
It is not about truth. It is about propaganda. Setting up someone else as a target if successful will just reduce the number of arrows shot at one but does it really matter if you get hit by fifty or only thirty arrows?
Where's the fairness in that?
Life is not fair.
You think it is about slavery and it is in a way. But not the historic slavery. It is about setting people up for enslavement in the present and future. You do that by getting them to believe they deserve to be enslaved.
It is classic abuser behavior.
Isolate, belittle, humiliate publicly, abuse of property, abuse of person, torture, enslavement, death.
You are expecting the abuser to respond to reasoned arguments.
They won't.
You are wasting both time and energy that could be used more productively in my opinion.
But they are yours to use as you wish.
There is a very real argument to be made that American Protestants did just as much, perhaps more (and did it sooner) to end slavery than that of British Protestants. At least prior to independence anyways.
Guys like Anthony Benezet, John Woolman, there were a lot of these guys and they preceded Granville Sharp by at least a decade and preceded Wilberforce by probably a half century.
I would say that their hard work paid off, considering that at least 6 states abolished slavery in the nation’s first several decades.
The historical record is clear, which is likely why you aren't trying to refute it but instead playing these mickey mouse games.
If you don't want to "waste your time" standing up for the Founders, fine, whatever. The Founders are worth it in my view. "You do that by getting them to believe they deserve to be enslaved."
You do this by showing them the irrefutable proof that they were on the correct side of history - which America was. Right now, the progressive historians have people convinced of the opposite because nobody takes to the historical field to elevate the facts. But you don't want to defend the Founders, so what really is your complaint?
Even on Free Republic, it's hard to find people willing to defend the Founders. Very sad commentary.
You have a nice evening.
Portugal played a much larger role in the trade itself, but had little bearing on slavery in the US.
The Irish were more concerned about being conscripted to end slavery (since most couldn’t pay for a substitute as easily as a WASP); I wouldn’t say they “supported the institution” (they fought well to help end it). The strangest thing is “Gone With The Wind” is that the slaveowner is Irish - hardly typical.
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.