Posted on 08/23/2025 4:28:03 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
So many myths. You are just full of them.
Obviously you didn’t like the two ultra-specific answers I provided.
It was a sarcastic comment.
In 1860, tarrifs were lower than at any time in our history up until that point. And they would have stayed there if 11 southern states had not pulled out of the Union. With southern states voting, the Morrel tariffs would never had passed. Tariffs at that time represented 95% of Federal revenue.
So you can take your tariff argument and stack it up with the rest of your myths.
The distinctions are imaginary, and the perception of distinctions is the product of a long running smear campaign against the Confederates.
Like what? I am unaware of any "myths" that I am full of.
In the context of the conversation we were having at the time, (which was about the meaning of Article IV, Section 2) you sound like you are trying to say there were lots of Zebras instead of Horses.
No. "Indentured servants" compared to slaves were akin to Zebras compared to Horses.
The Horses are numerous and dominant as a percentage, while the Zebras represent a tiny rare minority.
You are trying to pull a fallacy of composition. You think that by bringing up "indentured servants", you can prove that Article IV, Section 2 is about "indentured servants".
It's not. It is about slaves.
You certainly are trying to milk that "tariff" word. As I said, the economic problems created by the North go way beyond just "tariffs."
Tariffs at that time represented 95% of Federal revenue.
Yes, I know, and the South produced 72% of them.
“It was one of the Compromises made at the time. If you think it is pro slavery, why does it have a sunset written into it.”
That is an interesting comment. It doesn’t seem rhetorical or sarcastic.
How do you define sunset?
That’s total BS. Show us your data on that.
You know, the thought had occurred to me that by bringing up the abolitionist Founding Fathers that you also took the abolitionist Founding Fathers as a smear against the Confederates. You and jeffersondem swooped in, like what an hour after I posted. Super quick.
You guys are clearly in opposition to the idea that there could've been any abolitionism prior to the 1830s, whatsoever. Perhaps the 1820s. But definitely not at the Founding. This belief seems to be an immutable entry in the Civil War ideology.
Wonderful. "sound like" I get to be forced to defend your words while pretending I said them. Yippie.
"You are trying to pull a fallacy of composition. You think that by bringing up "indentured servants", you can prove that Article IV, Section 2 is about "indentured servants"."
All you have to do is choose to read what is already typed. I included three classes: redemptioner, indentured, and slave. Your attempt to say I negated one and replaced it with another is a fail.
The clause applies to all three classes, it is my original and continuing assertion. To say only two or only one is historical malpractice.
Would it cause you to rethink your position if I could show you it was correct?
Something tells me it won't change your mind about what happened, even if it's true.
But yes, I can show you the data. Will it do any good? If not, why should I bother?
You can show it to prove to everyone following this thread you are not a BSer just making s*** up. Let’s see your data. I posted mine based on official government data.
You are trying to characterize them as "abolitionists". Do you know what "abolitionists" do? They abolition!
The Founders didn't abolition, therefore they weren't abolitionists. They may have leaned in that direction later on in their life, but they didn't act upon their leanings.
You guys are clearly in opposition to the idea that there could've been any abolitionism prior to the 1830s, whatsoever.
That is your projection. Massachusetts did it in 1880 or so, but they did it with a trick, and not with actual law.
Other states mouthed ideas and passed statutes about getting rid of it eventually, but they didn't actually get rid of till decades later.
And you are trying to pretend each of these has equal weight and numbers when the reality is that the one catagory outweighs the others perhaps a thousand times.
You are trying to deny that the framers were specifically referring to slaves by obfuscating with these far rarer categories that came nowhere near "slaves" in terms of numbers.
The clause applies to all three classes, it is my original and continuing assertion.
So give me some numbers of "indentured servants" in the 1787 era, and give me some numbers of slaves that existed in that same era.
Let us compare the two numbers together to see if they are anywhere near the same weight.
You are wishful thinking my friend. I hate to rain on your optimistic outlook, but real history has a lot of ugly in it.
I would like to greatly thank you for posting that map. I have posted it so many times in the past that people complain at me every time I post it.
Excellent! I want you to look at it very closely so you understand exactly what it shows.
You aren't going to like it when it finally dawns on you.
If it won't change your mind, I just don't see how it is worthwhile.
You are *acting* like the South producing 72% of the taxes is a big deal. You seem to recognize that this would shed a different light on things, and portray them in a way you don't like.
The South's population was roughly 1/4th of the North's, yet 72% is almost 3/4ths of the tax burden for the whole nation.
So if the South represents 3/4ths of the tax burden divided by 1/4th of the population it equals 3.0 .
And if the North represents 1/4ths of the tax burden divided by 3/4th of the population, it equals 0.33333
The ratio between them is 3.0 divided by 0.333, and so the South was paying 9 times the taxes of the North per capita.
What was the American revolution about? Was it taxes?
John Jay literally signed into law New York's bill abolishing slavery.
Benjamin Franklin literally was the president of the world's first trans-atlantic slavery (of africans) abolition society.
Stephen Hopkins literally authored the bill that the R.H. assembly accepted and passed into law, abolishing the slave trade. That the British subsequently squashed because the crown wanted to keep the practice of subjugating blacks going.
Benjamin Rush(and his buddy Anthony Benezet) literally pioneered the very kind of pressure campaign that made all abolitionists, everywhere, famous for. The kinds of pressure campaigns that were adopted by the British, then re-adopted by your sworn enemies in the 1830s, the Garrisonians. Benjamin Rush did that.
Yes, I know that abolitionists abolition. That's why I brought it up. The guys that I mentioned, they abolitioned.
"You are trying to characterize them as "abolitionists". Do you know what "abolitionists" do? They abolition!"
William Lloyd Garrison did not author any bills abolishing slavery anywhere,(or the slave trade) so therefore William Lloyd Garrison must not have been an abolitionist.
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.