Posted on 06/12/2003 5:58:28 AM PDT by Aurelius
Nonsense, I was soliciting nolu chan's opinion on the subject. And opinion, I might add, which he has not been forthcoming with. I was curious if his position differed from Dr. Bennett and then I was going to ask why he slavishly followed Dr. Bennett when it came to Abraham Lincoln and not when it came to reparations. Alas, we'll never know the answer to that one. Still hoping against hope that he'll express an opinion on Jefferson Davis though.
And where are examples of that growth? Either Davis believed blacks were fit for slavery and slavery alone or he did not. Either he believed that whites were superior to blacks or he did not. Either he believed that blacks were not entiled to any of the same rights as whites or he did not. Where are any quotes from the man indicating that he did not hold to the first part of any of those questions?
By the time the war was over, Davis had spent his entire life fighting to free the slaves. Just like Lincoln.
Now that is just plain silly. Where is a single quote from him saying slavery was evil and must be done away with? Davis was a slave owner all his adult life prior to the war. How can he be a slave-owner and abolitionist, too? Abolition begins at home, as well. Davis owned hundreds of slaves over his life, as many as 116 at a single time. He raked in a huge income from their toils. And in all his life he did not free a single slave that he owned. Not a single one. How could an abolitionist not do that? I'm beginning to wonder if you have taken leave of your senses.
one can hardly argue honestly that being property is worse than attempting to exterminate whole racial/religious populations.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
in point of fact, i asked YOU which was worse IN YOUR OPINION. frankly, i couldn't care less what you think of nolu chan's opinion on the subject.
free dixie,sw
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't I answer you in reply 2048? I said that the holocaust was worse.
frankly, i couldn't care less what you think of nolu chan's opinion on the subject.
Since we haven't gotten nolu chan's opinion on the subject it's hard to say what I think about it.
free dixie,sw
Touching a nerve am I.
free dixie,sw
nolu chan 2012 to Non-Sequitur
[Non-seq] Mr. Bennett has called slavery "the greatest crime in human history." So how do you feel on the subject? Is slavery worse than the Holocaust? Is it worse than, say, Reconstruction?
It seems somewhat pointless to grade two evils such as slavery and the holocaust. No merit can be imputed to the one which is apparently less evil. Considering the scope and duration of slavery, I believe slavery would probably win the prize. To its dubious merit, the purpose of slavery was not extermination.
As you are comparing the subjects of the holocaust and slavery, you may recall that the Jews also spent a few years in slavery.
Wars are fought over power and money. The American Civil War was no great exception. It was not started as some philanthropic effort to free slaves.
Let us consider the hypothetical that the Southern states had not joined the original Union, rather they formed a completely separate nation with all the international rights that entails. The C.S.A. if you will.
Now, if the U.S.A. had simply decided in 1861 that it had seen enough of slavery and could endure no more of such human degradation in its sight, and told the C.S.A. that either it would abolish slavery, or the U.S.A. would invade and kick its ass to kingdom come until it abolished slavery, I could support that.
What I cannot support is the towering hypocrisy that Lincoln was defending the Constitution, that all he did was lawful, or that the war was fought as a philanthropic effort to free slaves. It was a white man's war, and the slaves were pawns.
The Constitution was bent, broken, and raped.
The District of Columbia was under Federal control with no state government control involved. Slavery was maintained there for a significant period of the war until Congress finally voted to end it.
With the passage of the Confiscation Acts, NOTHING stopped the Union Army from freeing slaves. The WHOLE justification was that slaves were property and could be seized. The Union troops were able to seize just about any property imaginable. They took livestock, furniture, silverware, and even ladies dresses. About the only piece of property they seemingly could not seize and take back North was negroes. The only thing they had to do was seize them, take them to a free state, and let them go free. And now I ask you, what state or states would have accepted them?
Certainly not New York. I seem to recall that at one certain time New York City had strange fruit hanging from the lamp posts.
The Underground Railroad went to Canada for a reason.
At the start of the war, the free Negro population of the South was greater than that of the North. But wait a minute, the North had freed its slaves by gradual emancipation. The children of slaves born after some date certain would be free after some period of servitude or somesuch.
Where did all those free Negroes in the North disappear to? I know they were exposed to the bible up North and all, but surely that did not make them forget how to begat.
During gradual emancipation the Northern slave owner had a choice. He could hold his slave and watch the value diminish greatly. He could just sell his slave to a neighbor at diminished value. Or better yet, he could sell South at full value.
It worked like the Negro Mass Migration Program or Northern Ethnic Cleansing Program. Many Northern negroes went South to some Southern Gentleman. And the Southern Gentleman's cold, hard cash went North into the pocket of the Northern Gentleman.
Once that process had matured sufficiently, it was time for the Northern Gentlemen to throw their hands in the air and denounce slavery.
The fact is, slavery was legal. The problem was not Chief Justice Taney and the Dred Scott decision. The problem was the Constitution. As a price of getting the Southern states to join the Union, slavery was permitted and protected.
The choice of the Founding Fathers was not as simple as that may appear. An argument can be made that it was more important to have one united nation than to preclude slavery [slaves dissenting]. From the time of the Constitution, slavery continued about another 75 years. It may have been the hope of the Founding Fathers that the nation would find some way to end it more quickly, and without a civil war. On the other hand, they may well have contemplated the wars and horrors that have visited the many nations of Europe. Since 1790, how would one compare all the horrors that have visited Europe, to slavery? Over one million died in the siege of Leningrad alone. Consider the holocaust, what Britain did to Ireland over the years, the horrors of Stalinist Russia. While it is easy to say the Founding Fathers made a pact with the Devil when they accepted slavery, the alternative may have entailed a different horror.
It was not the goal of the North to preserve the Constitution as it was, but to change the Constitution, and change it they did. The 13th Amendment most definitely changed it for the better. The 15th Amendment changed it for the better. The 15th Amendment should have included the 19th Amendment. The 14th Amendment significantly added to the power of the central Federal government.
The object of the exercise was for the North to dominate the South and to expand the power of the Federal government. The North imposed its will upon the South.
Slaves were freed. It was a good thing. It just wasn't the purpose of the war. Shortly thereafter, the nation went back to business as usual, more or less, and few gave a crap about the slaves that had been freed.
free dixie,sw
Well when it comes to looking silly who better than you would know?
Why Peeshwank, it's nice to know that you still care. So...are Thursdays your work release day or something?
And in almost every southern one. Don't forget that.
No, Jerkweed, I'm retired. I notice you seem to be free to post during normal working hours. Do you have a government job?
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.