But on Africa trip he's soaring (Good Read!)

NY Daily News ^ | 7/10/03 | Stanley Crouch

[borkrules]

Had Jefferson, Madison, and others not acquiesced in the perpetuation of this sin, the nation would be so much further along spiritually, morally, and economically that we wouldn't recognize it.

Had they not acquiesced, we might not have had a country at all. Compromise with the slave owning states was a necessity to even form the initial union, and the (in)famous 3/5's of a man compromise in the constitution is the most obvious manifestation of the fact that the seeds of our near destruction in 1861 were sown at conception.

It's a paradox. On the one hand, compromise with our most highly cherished ideals was a necessity to even get the enterprise off the ground, but it has created the most persistent and chronic social and political problems we have faced throughout our history. And continue to face. The destruction/denigration of the concept of "state's rights" is a DIRECT result of the civil war and desegregation. Old school federalism is almost a dead letter as well, despite the fact that this was one of the hidden jewels that the Founders left us. In some ways, we brought it on ourselves, by appropriating these concepts to justify the monstrous immorality of slavery and state sanctioned racial discrimination. It remains to be seen if we can reclaim them.

[LS]

Brilliant analysis. Actually, Americans had three chances to get rid of slavery fairly peacefully: in 1619, the Virginians could have insisted that black slaves be treated on the same basis as white indentures (as some, for some reason, were); in 1776, with the Declaration, the southern colonies could have broken with slavery in J.'s original wording; and in 1789.

Slavery remains America's worst mistake, and a sin that we continue to pay for.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Some were taught trades but they were not paid wages. He did, apparently, pay slaves wages when they were in France with him. J's views seemed to change over the years for the worst. During the 1780s while in Congress he authored the Northwest Ordinance which did not allow slavery in those territories but while President he embargoed the slave rebels in Haiti attempting to starve them out for the benefit of Napoleon. J's influence was overall negative and his ideas led to the madness which produced the Civil War.

There are plenty of White Male accomplishments to be had without defending those not worth defending. I prefer white males who were on the right side of fundamental questions such as Hamilton, Franklin, to their opponents. PC has nothing to do with any view I ever express and it is simple-mindedness which thinks so. Blame my ideas on ME.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Historically the court has been roundly condemned for its rulings, this is nothing new. But is more evidence of the need to re-elect Bush and defeat RATS. Virtually every bad ruling of late would not be made with a change of a couple of justices. When Ginsberg and Stevens go there will be a big change.

You cannot change history and slavery was legal at the time of the ruling nor can you change the view of that court that it was legal everywhere in the US. It is a moot point and part of history.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Where did you come up with that absurd question? Not from anything I have said that is for sure. What do the Greeks and Romans or Ancient Eygptians have to do with the issue? They had Kings and Tyrants, too. And helots. And peasants.

No, his issue is that it wronged Africa later than the rest of the world and still wrongs it. We weren't importing Europeans or Asians here in the 1800s or selling them in markets down in New Orleans or Charleston.

He is reclaiming the birthright of the Republican Party as is so brilliantly shown by our fellow freeper's, Grand Old Partisian, book "Back to Basics for the Republican Party."
It was born to destroy slavery and extend freedom and Bush should be reminding the world of that. And that RAT obstruction and interference has always worked to prevent progress toward freedom.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Bush called the enslaving of Africans one of the greatest crimes in history. It may be news to you and to W's speech writers, but 'history' happens to include the Greeks, Romans, Mayans, Turks, even Mongols and the Stalinists.

Bush was wrong (or his speech writers) because he attempted to use his visit as a propaganda/campaign opportunity.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Magnificent speech. Too bad it won't be heard in America but will be drowned out by RAT irrelevencies blasted over the air waves by the medialiars.

[mtbopfuyn]

No, I well know that Jefferson was among the more benign slaveowners.

Among the more 4 or 5 benign? Too many tend to equate slaveowners with Satan himself. There are bad apples in every group but the vast majority were merely trying to make ends meet. Think for a moment, a "free" person works hard for years to earn enough $$$ to buy a slave would not constantly beat him with a whip, starve him, deny medical treatment, or deprive him of every human kindness. Yes, I said human because they were considered 3/5th of a person. I'll give you they were probably treated like horses but remember horses HAD to be kept in prime condition or your crops didn't come in, your family starved, and you lost your land.

My grandmother would tell stories her grandmother told her. Granny said she was glad the slaves were set free because they were too much of a bother. It was easier to hire out or have share croppers because with slaves you had the responsibility to house, clothe, feed, and take care of them. But just like today, there are those who won't work menial jobs so who else was there other than slave labor? Their own house, like their neighbors, and clothes weren't that much better than the slaves' and they ate beans at every meal just like their slaves. I have pictures and their house was just a small wooden frame and gramps held his raggedy pants up with a rope - a far cry from Tara of the movies. She also said that they owned them because they were inherited and it was *the way things were* then. Hmm, guess that shows families were NOT always split apart; remember Jefferson and many others had multi-generations. Unhappy slaves made poor workers. Slaves were a responsibility. I'm certainly not saying the life of a slave was utopia but it wasn't as bad as bad as so many try to make it.

[LS]

Well, we must be careful here. The operative word, no matter what you say, is SLAVE. Few people ever volunteered for the job.

Virtually all of the evidence is that slave families were broken up regularly---perhaps not "overwhelmingly," but this was something that simply didn't happen to free laborers.

Slaves were "perstige," so I don't shed any tears for any owner who had to "save up" to buy a slave. There was plenty of cheap land north of the Mason Dixon line where you didn't need slaves to attain the same levels of productivity.

The bottom line is, when allowed to CHOOSE, slaves ran off to Union lines EN MASSE. Yes (and I am a professional historian who has read the accounts) on occasion, a slave would remain with the family, or even "volunteer" to fight with the CSA. This was not even one in 10, however. Read the comments of the slave owners when the slaves were freed. Few said, "Well, good. That's a burden off my back."