COLLEGE STUDENT REACTS | Facts About Slavery Never Mentioned In School | Thomas Sowell

YouTube ^ | May 20, 2023 | LFR Jojo

[grundle]

COLLEGE STUDENT REACTS | Facts About Slavery Never Mentioned In School | Thomas Sowell

[DiogenesLamp]

James Madison says otherwise. Madison said that people were both citizens of their state and citizens of the United States, and that a state government does not have the authority to strip its citizens of their citizenship in the United States.

Still, this comes down to one man's opinion, but he was the authority on the intent and meaning of the Constitution.

James Madison talks out both sides of his mouth. His actions contradict his own statements.

James Madison was on the Virginia committee which created Virginia's ratification statement, which explicitly says that Virginia has a right to leave the Union if it perceives the government as being oppressive to the people of Virginia.

If James Madison disagreed that Virginia had a right to leave the Union, he should have made that opinion known to the Virginia legislature instead of later claiming that Virginia did not have the right to leave.

Perhaps he did and they didn't agree? In such a case, Madison is but a single man, with the actual authority resting in the body of the Legislature. It is what *THEY* say which determines legal legitimacy, not what Madison says or said.

As for evidence on the other side, there are THREE US States that specifically articulate a right to recall their powers from the Federal government. They are New York, Virginia and Rhode Island.

This is in black and white and represents the will of the legislative bodies of those states. It's not an opinion such as Mr. Madison has, it is the word of authority from the recognized lawful ruling body of their respective states.

Additionally, the Declaration of Independence absolutely articulates a right to secede. It declares it a right given by God and one that cannot be take away from the people.

In contrast, the US Constitution says absolutely nothing which claims that states cannot leave. It is utterly silent on the topic and with good reason. It was only 11 years earlier that the entire nation and all it's legislatures declared that Independence is a *RIGHT* and you cannot take it away.

Furthermore, Massachusetts and Connecticut both asserted a right to secede during the Hartford convention of 1814. This was only 27 years after the constitutional convention and many of the original framers were still alive. They did not object to the claims of Massachusetts or Connecticut.

There is other evidence, but this is all I wish to put forth off the top of my head, and what do you have to support your side?

Two statements by Madison, both contradicting what he did in 1788 (Virginia ratification committee and convention) and one made 40 years after the fact.

That is not much to hang your argument on. What i've put forth is better evidence, and more authoritative.

[DiogenesLamp]

Thanks for that link.

Very enlightening.

You are welcome. I think it is important for people to know about significant parts of history that have been effectively hidden because they are contrary to a political agenda.

[FLT-bird]

In spite of the Corwin Amendment, the abolitionists would have kept pushing. Think of the Indian treaties. What is signed doesn’t always hold.

They could have kept pushing all they liked but they couldn't have done a damn thing about it. The gun grabbers keep pushing to ban guns but the 2nd amendment is part of the constitution and there's nothing they can do about that. So they're never going to get their wish.

[Irish Eyes]

Bookmark

[DiogenesLamp]

And of course no money or lives were lost during the civil war

Not lives that were important to the ruling class. Remember, the wealthy could buy their way out of service for $300.00. The poor simply had to face death.

Do you think the elite, arrogant ruling class which at that time lived in New York, Boston, and DC cared about the lower class? The South's independence was a threat to their money and therefore they did not care how many lives it took to protect their money so long as none of the lives lost or destroyed were their's.

That doesn’t make any sense

The way modern education establishments tell people about the war doesn't make any sense. To make sense of it, you have to look deeper and then you start finding pieces that explain what happened.

[Mr Rogers]

“So if they tell you the Civil War was about slavery...”

Here is what the North would NOT agree to: Expansion of slavery into the new states forming in the West. It also opposed returning slaves from the North to the South and letting Southern slave-owners bring slaved into the North.

But consider why Texas fought:

“The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States.

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States....

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color—a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States....

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons—We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.”

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html

[DiogenesLamp]

Once you see it, you can never unsee it.

This I have also learned. Additionally, I keep seeing new connections and insights into what was going on. I keep seeing parallels to the present day.

Modern illegal immigration is for the EXACT same reason as giving freed slaves the right to vote. It is to keep the liberal party in power. It is not about the welfare of the illegals or the former slaves, it is only about keeping the political power they have. It is that political power that is the source of their wealth, often from corruption as Joe Biden provides by way of example with his 5 million dollar bribe from Ukraine. (Today on Newsmax, Representative Comer said "Ukraine" was the source of the bribe.)

Does it really shock anybody to hear that the history faculty....ie part of Academia....is just as massively biased and just as prone to pushing narratives, outright lying, and hiding the truth as the corporate media?

It used to shock me. Now it shocks me when the tell the truth.

Once you know you’re being lied to and start looking for the truth yourself, you start finding it. The key is waking up to the fact that you’re being lied to in the first place.

Amen.

[x]

Infrastructure projects like dredging harbors and rivers and mapping channels in waterways benefited the South more than the North. That may also have been true of fort construction, given that the South’s coastline was longer than the North’s.

Also, some of what Southern secessionists saw as special benefits to the North may have been designed to throw something to Easterners while the country was conquering, clearing, surveying, and populating vast tracts in the West. We were fighting wars that benefited land-hungry Westerners, and something was needed to keep Easterners onboard with that.

Also, tariffs protected industrialists in Virginia and other Southern states, as well as in Northern states, and helped to develop the industries that the Confederacy would later rely on. Additionally, tariffs benefited hemp growers in Kentucky and Tennessee and sugar planters in Louisiana. It was the cotton planters who complained, and given the controversy over slavery, their complaints gained support from other Southerners when Lincoln was elected.

[DiogenesLamp]

You can trace a direct line from this to our modern politics. It has never really changed. The Acela Corridor still is at the center of it all today. These parasites are still feeding off of the host body even today. The rest of the country can go through the Great Recession.

And this has been a revelation to me. The reason I keep bringing up the civil war is because the evil power that is currently feeding off of us is the *SAME* evil power the Confederates fought in the 1860s.

It is the DC corruption cartel and it has been feeding off us and lying to us since at least 1861, and most likely since New York was the Federal Capital back in the 1700s.

The issues which caused the Civil War have never been resolved and are still bedeviling our nation today. Our rulers live in the Northeastern part of the country and they are the "elite" untouchables who force all the rest of us to work for them.

The middle class can see hardly any real wage growth in 30 - 40 years, but Imperial Washington just gets richer and richer no matter what.

[Fiji Hill]

I’m 71 and knew nothing about the Corwin Amendment. That really ticks me off.

I'm about the same age, and I didn't learn about the Corwin Amendment until I read this post.

[Albion Wilde]

God bless the child who has just had the truth set him free.

Wait until he figures out which party benefits politically and which public intellectuals benefit financially from keeping the myth alive—of evil white U.S. slavers being solely responsible for the trade.

[Albion Wilde]

The war was about greed. It was not about morality.

Every political conflict everywhere is usually about greed. Follow the money.

[Nifster]

You apparently think the northeast is responsible for all bad things

Your reading and understanding of the civil war lacks the current writings of the times

[Political Junkie Too]

Why would one state leaving dissolve the union for all?

Because we fought a war to stop it from happening.

I'm talking about if we let one go unhindered, then the principle that Madison postulates that if equal states decide unilaterally to leave, then that implies the power of other states to kick out a state (the mass seceding from the lone). That would lead to tyranny when a majority of states chooses to oust a minority state (e.g., abortion states banding together to oust a pro-life state).

What I would support is a Constitutional amendment reversing the process, that is, a process for a state to appeal to Congress for permission to leave, requiring the same vote as required to join.

-PJ

[Nifster]

I’m asking what stupid school he went to

Even my daughter knows where the Balkans are and why they are important

This guy missed several semesters of education

I don’t need people on our side who are ignorant and uneducated

[Brass Lamp]

So if the civil war wasn’t about slavery, what was the Emancipation Proclamation about?

So, if the agenda of the North wasn't the racial purification of the continent, then what was the genocide of natives and concurrent mass deportation of blacks all about?

If slavery was to last forever why did Lincoln free all the inventory?

He didn't free anyone. The Emancipation Proclamation was limited, in scope, to only apply to areas outside of the Union's control.

[FLT-bird]

Yep. Look at that cluster of the richest counties in America right around Washington DC. What does Washington DC produce? What product do they manufacture that everybody wants? What is their value proposition to everybody else?

Nothing.

The one "industry" in Washington DC is government. We don't get a choice about paying into it. These parasites are feeding off of us.

[FLT-bird]

Because we fought a war to stop it from happening. I'm talking about if we let one go unhindered, then the principle that Madison postulates that if equal states decide unilaterally to leave, then that implies the power of other states to kick out a state (the mass seceding from the lone). That would lead to tyranny when a majority of states chooses to oust a minority state (e.g., abortion states banding together to oust a pro-life state). What I would support is a Constitutional amendment reversing the process, that is, a process for a state to appeal to Congress for permission to leave, requiring the same vote as required to join.

One state leaving would not cause the union to fall apart. What it would do is make clear that every other state had that option.....ie that the union is VOLUNTARY and is based on CONSENT. That, in turn would put a huge limit on the power of the federal government to coerce people and to screw them over. After all, they could always leave if it got too bad. THAT is what they fought a war to try to prevent. They wanted to convert the union from one that was voluntary and based on consent to one that is coerced and is based on force, threats and violence. Once the abusive relationship has been established, they are then free to squeeze as much cash out of everyone as they like and/or to trample on others as much as they like.

[CodeToad]

Your comments make even more sense when it is known that Lincoln was the railroad’s chief attorney. He wasn’t planning on running for office but his railroad buddies needed the union to stay together, so they put up Lincoln.

[Political Junkie Too]

James Madison talks out both sides of his mouth. His actions contradict his own statements. James Madison was on the Virginia committee which created Virginia's ratification statement...

So your argument is that people can't "evolve" their thinking, that we are all locked into the things we said 40 years ago?

Didn't the Framers admit that the Constitution wasn't perfect and they may not have gotten it all correct, hence the amendment process to enable it to adapt to growth, technology advances, and social change?

There is other evidence, but this is all I wish to put forth off the top of my head, and what do you have to support your side? ...What i've put forth is better evidence, and more authoritative.

What about SCOTUS with Texas vs. White (1868)? See here and here.

-PJ