Posted on 12/16/2004 6:48:26 AM PST by cougar_mccxxi
in what way is trading slaves different morally than owning them????
free dixie,sw
fyi, i'm just one of the MANY hundreds of thousands of people from the old rebel familes who are still around AND we have not forgotten how sweet it was to breathe FREE dixie air. may i gently remind you that it took 400 YEARS to free EIRE. southrons are PATIENT.
and we still want our FREEDOM, since the libs/PC-idiots & damnyankees just seem to be INcapable of staying out of our lives(that ONE issue is PRECISELY what the first WBTS was about.) AND leaving us alone.
free dixie,sw
NOPE. i'm no gentleman. just an ardent southron patriot from one of the old rebel families AND a direct descendant of one of dixie's most ferocious & notorious Partisan Rangers.
be glad i wasn't around in 1861 & running things. the first thing i would have suggested was setting the northern cites ablaze, one at a time, until the north decided to leave us alone.
imVho, the ONLY thing that is important was/is to WIN our freedom.
btw, the hateFILLED, leftist, arrogant damnyankees would really be happier if we were NOT in their country, as then they could have the sort of self-righteous, Godless,leftist,imperialist "peoples democratic republic", that the blue-staters seem to want.
and HANOI-John was from what state???
free dixie,sw
in what way is trading slaves different morally than owning them????
It's different because he who makes his money on slave trading only stays in business if there is a demand for the slaves. This is why I described it as a "secondary" immorality, because it is derived from the primary evil of slave holding. (I do not use secondary as indicating a lesser moral repugnance, only that it is derives from the primary.)
free dixie,sw
rotflmRao!
hush, while you're even & before people all over FR are laughing AT you..
free dixie,sw
Call yourself whatever makes you happy.
fyi, i'm just one of the MANY hundreds of thousands of people from the old rebel familes who are still around AND we have not forgotten how sweet it was to breathe FREE dixie air.
...out of millions who believe that your yearning to "breathe FREE dixie air" and devotion to that lost cause is either a cute, harmless diversion, (sort of like being a Trekkie) or a borderline embarrassment that they try to simply ignore as they deal with the real issues facing the South in the 21st Century(sort of like how you ignore the crazy old uncle yelling about the UFOs beaming waves into his brain.)
may i gently remind you that it took 400 YEARS to free EIRE. southrons are PATIENT.
But apparently not good spellers. (It's a joke. I don't need a lesson on the basis for your use of "southrons" and how that REALLY how it should be. I know all about it.) If you believe that there is any realistic chance that, barring some sort of national calamity of unheralded proportions, that "the South" would ever be an independent country, you are sadly mistaken.
and we still want our FREEDOM, since the libs/PC-idiots & damnyankees just seem to be INcapable of staying out of our lives(that ONE issue is PRECISELY what the first WBTS was about.) AND leaving us alone.
Yeah, because I understand that the law down South prevents old rebel families from holding office, voting, or doing anything...
Yup, cogently written, well thought out, proper capitalization, logically impeccable. I can see why you'd be laughing...
hush, while you're even & before people all over FR are laughing AT you..
Nonsense. Freepers are a forgiving bunch, with a live-and-let-live attitude. If there's a place at FR for those who sit around pretending to be Robert E. Lee, I'm sure there'll be a place for little ol' me.
As Mark Twain once said, “There are lies, there are damned lies, and then there are statistics!”
That 5% in the South represents the percentage of people who owned LEGAL TITLE to slaves. It doesn't account for all the other members of the family who obtained the benefits from pappy's ownership of slaves. Five minutes of Google research turns up that around 30% of Southern households owned one or more slaves.
The figure for the 4 border states- De, MD, KY and Mo is 16%. The rest of the North States, AFAIK, had outlawed slavery prior to the Civil War.
Nice try to distort reality, though.
I also suggest that you read the Declaration of Independence more carefully. It does not suggest that the ideal is some sort of Egalitarian Society; nor a right to inflict our notions of morality on other peoples. The parts that you paraphrase are dealing with the simple reality--in our view--that the King of England did not have a devine right to rule over us; that if the burden of those things which they then recited--those actions of the King and Parliament--became too oppressive or intolerable, it was our right to rebel against them, and set up a new Government.
Nothing in that gives you the slightest right to kill people to impose your "morality," on the people in other societies. Had you gone South in 1860, however, and set about killing Masters, you might have gotten a quick and terminating surprise from some of those you thought you were freeing. Deny, it how you may, there is a great wealth of evidence of genuine affection between the races in the Old South.
On the other hand, your comparison of the President to an oppressive overseer--not someone ever respected in Southern culture, I might add--actually made me laugh--although I am sure that you are so full of your and his notions of morality, that you will never see the humor in it; just as you do not see the similarities between your own philosophy and those prevalent in the Nazi Germany that waged war against us in the World War to which you refer; or in the Communist effort, which enslaved so much of the world after that War, always in the name of "liberation,' "freedom," and "equality."
I have heard that Thaddeus Stevens and Karl Marx were great admirers of one another.
I do not mind going around in circles with you, as it helps educate others who have been cowed since the Clinton crowd started this new wave of Historic revisionism. It is very, very important that Modern Americans stand up for their roots.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Oh my! You think that those who put people already stripped from their homes, to work under conditions where they are well cared for--as the vast bulk of the Southern slaves were--are in any sense as wicked as those who snatched them form their homes, and natural social environment, and transported them in chains across the ocean?
You are right that it is a market that feeds the provisioning of anything. But has there ever been a time in human history, when man does not make use of available cheap labor? Instead of insulting the values of those long dead, who gave you the very liberty that you enjoy today, why don't you insult those, living today, who are responsible for our open Southern border, and the steady flow of socially incompatible cheap labor, drawn in by the avarice of those now living in your midst? Or is all this just a parlor game to you?
repeating that, or any other LIE, does not make it magically true.
in point of fact, the ACTUAL figure for slave owners was about 5.6% in BOTH north & south in 1860.
free dixie,sw
Then I gave them the attention they deserved.
The Constitution was a compact between States, however you choose to spin it.
You're wrong, however you chose to ignore it.
And however you choose to insult the compromises in the Constitution, does not make them one whit less binding upon honorable men. I suggest that you read what Daniel Webster had to say on the subject: Daniel Webster Speech.
So, the Constitution's slave compromises were binding on the Union, but the Constitution was not binding on the Confederates. Interesting. Well, whatever justification you indulge in when justifying the negation of the entire Constitution by the South, just apply the same reasoning on the slave provisions by the North. That'll solve your dilemma right there.
I also suggest that you read the Declaration of Independence more carefully. It does not suggest that the ideal is some sort of Egalitarian Society; nor a right to inflict our notions of morality on other peoples.
I never said that it has an ideal of an Egalitarian Society. It details the political philosophy, derived from the Enlightenment, which animated the revolutionaries: that all men are created equally free, with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (that's a fancy way of saying the acquisition of property). That the only legitimate government is that which the governed consents to, and that when the people conclude that the present government does not function to secure their rights to life, liberty, etc., that the people have the right to change the government.
The parts that you paraphrase are dealing with the simple reality--in our view--that the King of England did not have a devine right to rule over us; that if the burden of those things which they then recited--those actions of the King and Parliament--became too oppressive or intolerable, it was our right to rebel against them, and set up a new Government.
Have you ever actually read the Declaration? The "parts that [I] paraphrase" was setting out the justification for the revolution, the political philosophy, discussed, supra. After discussing the political philosophy, the document describes the actions of King and Parliament which the revolutionaries believed impinged on these rights, and which, in turn, justified the colonists attempt, by force, to change the government to one to which they would consent.
Nothing in that gives you the slightest right to kill people to impose your "morality," on the people in other societies.
What the hell do you think was going on in the country in 1776, a Tupperware party? Armed men were killing other armed men. Why? Because the first group believed that the second group were depriving them and their compatriots of their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If the Declaration is anything, it is a justification for armed action in the face of the denial of basic individual rights.
Had you gone South in 1860, however, and set about killing Masters, you might have gotten a quick and terminating surprise from some of those you thought you were freeing.
Sure, that's why all the slaves came out in Richmond when Lincoln was there...to protest the killing of the masters. Sure.
Deny, it how you may, there is a great wealth of evidence of genuine affection between the races in the Old South.
Have you ever actually read a slave narrative?
Besides, whether there was affection between the races is really besides the point. Even if every slave in the South was well treated, the slave owners had no right to keep them in the first place. Treating a slave well does not erase the evil in keeping a slave in the first place.
On the other hand, your comparison of the President to an oppressive overseer--not someone ever respected in Southern culture, I might add--actually made me laugh--although I am sure that you are so full of your and his notions of morality, that you will never see the humor in it;
If your sense of humor is like your apparent lack of human decency when it comes to those held as slaves, I'm sure I wouldn't see the humor in it, and wouldn't want to.
just as you do not see the similarities between your own philosophy and those prevalent in the Nazi Germany that waged war against us in the World War to which you refer; or in the Communist effort, which enslaved so much of the world after that War, always in the name of "liberation,' "freedom," and "equality."
Stop being stupid. I said that it is morally justified to wage war to free those held as slaves. Both the Nazis and Communists actually felt it to be okay to wage war (internally and/or externally) to essentially enslave and kill other people. If you can't see the difference here, let me know, and I'll explain it to you.
I have heard that Thaddeus Stevens and Karl Marx were great admirers of one another.
...and I heard that Britney Spears called Christina Aguilera a bitch. What the hell does that matter?
I do not mind going around in circles with you, as it helps educate others who have been cowed since the Clinton crowd started this new wave of Historic revisionism.
Yup, cause everyone knows the slaves, they really didn't mind being slaves at all... Any talk of them being real humans, with a desire to be free and in control of their own lives, that's just that Clinton-era crazy-talk historical revisionism.
It is very, very important that Modern Americans stand up for their roots.
Yeah, and it's more important for Modern Americans to understand that there was nothing noble about slavery.
As for 5% of Northerners owning slaves, there must have been a helluva lot of slaves in the four border states, since slavery was illegal everywhere else in the North.
fyi, no true southerner ever calls the dixie LIBERTY movement, "the lost cause". some DO call it "the TRUE CAUSE".
but that's OK. go back to sleep. everything's fine. (but don't be surprised when you wake up one day/year/decade & find us GONE).
free dixie,sw
fyi, a MAJOR Boston bank & a railroad recently/quietly made a $$$$$-settlement with the desendants of THEIR company's slaves.
free dixie,sw
And your point is? I'm not the one denying that slave ownership by Northerners was reprehensible.
You're the one refusing to admit that a third or so of Southerners owned slaves and that such ownership was reprehensible.
What? Did you actually read what I wrote before you posted this? I specifically stated that I was not making any comparisons as to the level of moral culpability by the use of "secondary." Moreover, the subject was of the moral culpability of insurance companies, banks, railroads, etc. who made it rich on the slave trade, and who I said were enriched immorally. We were not specifically discussing transatlantic slavers.
Now, if you'd like to discuss the morality of those who kidnapped and enslaved the blacks in Africa, I would tell you that I find that their actions were, surprise, immoral. Was someone who actually stuck the slaves in the boats and transported them to America more moral or less moral than the people who held them bondage?? Gee, I'd say there's enough immorality to go around. But more to the point, even if the slave holders treated their slaves better than the ship captains did (which certainly may have generally been the case.) it does not mean that the slave holders were not immoral in the fact that they held other men as property.
You are right that it is a market that feeds the provisioning of anything.
Which is the entire crux of the statement with which you took issue. If the slave holders had not demanded slaves, there would have been no transatlantic slave trade.
But has there ever been a time in human history, when man does not make use of available cheap labor?
But we are not talking about cheap labor, we are talking about slavery. There may be little difference between paying someone a less-than-decent wage and owning them as you would cattle, but there is a difference.
Instead of insulting the values of those long dead, who gave you the very liberty that you enjoy today,
No, they gave me nothing. As is laid out in the Declaration, God gave me the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness: the very same rights the whip-crackers stole from their slaves.
why don't you insult those, living today, who are responsible for our open Southern border, and the steady flow of socially incompatible cheap labor, drawn in by the avarice of those now living in your midst?
Now you want to change the subject to immigration policy. Fine. Illegals: keep them out and punish the companies and employees who have created a black market of human labor.
If legal immigrants want to come here and take advantage of the opportunities that freedom and liberty provide, I say, more power to them. The beautiful thing about America is that anyone, so long as he believes in the freedom and opportunity that America has to offer - so long as he believes in the American creed - can himself become as American as you or I, regardless of his race, religion, native language or nation of origin.
Or is all this just a parlor game to you?
No. It's serious as a heart attack. When people say that the slaves didn't mind being slaves they are saying that they weren't fully human. And that lie, and ones like it, were responsible for too much human suffering in the last century to casually toss around, as you seem to do.
Aww, come on. I know I didn't randomly capitalize words in that post, but you have to admit, the "Trekkie" line was pretty clever.
fyi, no true southerner ever calls the dixie LIBERTY movement, "the lost cause". some DO call it "the TRUE CAUSE".
Well, you can take it up with Edward A. Pollard, who titled his book on the Confederacy "The Lost Cause." Actually you can't because he's been dead since 1872. But what did he know, he wasn't a "true southerner" notwithstanding actually beinga real Confederate.
but that's OK. go back to sleep. everything's fine. (but don't be surprised when you wake up one day/year/decade & find us GONE).
And then the Trekkies are all going to be beamed aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise, right?
i think NOT. (as i said before, repeating self-righteous, damnyankee lies does NOT make them become true.)
free dixie,sw
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.