Posted on 04/23/2019 1:19:22 AM PDT by CondoleezzaProtege
The first practical mechanical cotton harvester was introduced in the 1930's.
Why is owners in quotation marks? Is he saying slaves weren't really owned?
Hmmm. I'll try it again.
https://books.google.com/books?id=rUcWAAAAYAAJ&pg
What is the name of the book?
Southern Wealth and Northern Profits by Thomas Prentice Kettell. Written in 1860. Kettell is a New Yorker.
There were serious problems developing mechanical cotton harvesters.
Cotton growing wasn't beginning to be mechanized until the 1940s - 80 years after the Civil War.
Even if it only took 50 or 60 years to mechanize, that would mean two or three more generations with slavery - a long time to wait.
And what looks inevitable in retrospect, didn't appear so to most people at the time.
Many thought - and feared or hoped - it would last forever, or at least for a very long time.
I do not dispute that Jefferson wanted to make some sort of statement about slavery, but his efforts to put slavery into the Declaration as an issue
"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another. "
were thwarted by the other members of the committee. Why did they toss this out? It would have made a coalition impossible. Slave owners in all 13 states would never have stood for it.
But the fact that Jefferson wrote "all men are created equal..." and regarded it as applying to slaves, doesn't mean that is what the other representatives of the colonies believed it to mean when they signed it. They believed it to be referring to themselves, and the states which they represented certainly took it to mean themselves. Had they took it to be about slaves, it would have been stricken out of the document, just as they did Jefferson's other attempt to introduce slavery into it.
Pennsylvania abolished slavery in 1780
No they didn't. They declared it abolished, but Pennsylvania still had slaves up till the Civil War.
He also wrote about it (why he was against slavery) before he died, too.
Washington was not against slavery until much later in his life, where deliberation and influence of others convinced him that it needed to go. In 1776, I don't think he had yet taken that position.
Before you say someone is “absolutely” wrong, make sure you know of what you argue.
Ditto.
Lincoln was not an atheist. He did believe in some sort of God, even if he wasn’t fully orthodox.
Many thanks!
When you stopped reading you missed the point completely. That characterization is the strawman the author quickly swats aside.
Do yourself a favor, finished the article. It is excellent.
Dude, just concede. I was not “Absolutely” wrong.
And the committee of Jefferson, Franklin and Adams that wrote the Declaration considered the idea, but didn’t put it in.
I never said they did do so, only that they should have. Which is my opinion, based on contemporary facts of the TIME PERIOD.
You can argue with words like “however, but, instead, or contrarily, etc.”, but “absolutely wrong” is just not so. I am a FReeper, show some respect. I respect you and your arguments, they’re good, but my initial point wasn’t that far off the mark.
I think we both agree on everything else.
No thanks.
I dont need to read beyond the gratuitous insult.
Most slaves were not taken by force. Muslim slavers bought slaves from tribes and sold them to slave traders. Taking people by force was a risky business for fear they would revolt.
Oh bullshit you’re just throwing virtue signal bombs....you ever been down here and explored antebellum architecture and old plantations....well I have...these are always churches everywhere just like now exponentially more pro rata than elsewhere and they all had sections where slaves where encouraged to attend.
Man this forum never ceases to amaze me.
At times I think we’ve become a charictature....
That’s why the Bible Belt is in New England. Oh. Wait. Nevermind.
Try not to take it to heart - a lot of dummies here.
I’ve visited Jeff Davis’ church in downtown Montgomery. Episcopalian and very beautiful. (And to that dumb freeper who thinks she knows everything - no, that it NOT a defense of Jefferson Davis!)
What fascinates me about antebellum architecture (at least in AL) is how genuinely modest it is. By 1870-1900, some of the homes really start looking like caricatures of plantation homes - gigantic Corinthian columns, sweeping porches, ornate widow’s walks, lol. As Rhett Butler would say “a stranger without being told a word about us would know this house was built with Carpetbagger’s money.”
Ooops, it looks like someone got triggered.
I hate to give HuffPo a hit, but they cover this.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/understanding-lincolns-atheist-period_b_2145340
Also:
In 1834, while still living in New Salem and before he became a lawyer, he was surrounded by a class of people exceedingly liberal in matters of religion. Volney's Ruins and Paine's Age of Reason passed from hand to hand, and furnished food for the evening's discussion in the tavern and village store. Lincoln read both these books and thus assimilated them into his own being. He prepared an extended essay—called by many a book—in which he made an argument against Christianity, striving to prove that the Bible was not inspired, and therefore not God's revelation, and that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God. The manuscript containing these audacious and comprehensive propositions he intended to have published or given a wide circulation in some other way. He carried it to the store, where it was read and freely discussed. His friend and employer, Samuel Hill, was among the listeners, and seriously questioning the propriety of a promising young man like Lincoln fathering such unpopular notions, he snatched the manuscript from his hands and thrust it into the stove. The book went up in flames, and Lincoln's political future was secure."—Herndon, III, 439, 440.
Needless to say, Lincoln's brand of religion would have absolutely killed his election chances had word of it gotten out to the larger population.
I’m astounded at the number of churches here - one piled right up against another - endless Baptist churches, Methodist, etc. And little storefronts - Zion African Methodist Episcopalian, etc. We even have a wonderful African-American community built around a little church that was started by freemen after the war. A lot like Edna Lewis’ Freetown, Virginia. We were recently welcomed into the church as guests. A religious bounty!
“”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.”
Those words were written by Thomas Jefferson, a substantial slave owner himself. And George Washington was probably the largest slave owner of his time.
What Jefferson was taking aim at in the Declaration was the divine right of kings, something that George III had been asserting to the detriment of his Colonial subjects. But why read Jefferson’s elegant language in context when everyone thinks that he is waxing philosophically over the injustice of chattel slavery.
London issued two emancipation proclamations during the Revolutionary War, Dunmore’s and Philipsburg, so had London defeated the colonial rebels slavery would have ended then.
Doesn’t that put King George on the right side of history according to your formulation?
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.