Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It doesn't make me uncomfortable at all, but what does it have to do with anything?
It has to do with explaining your position clearly.
Antebellum race-based enslavement is not equivalent to the history of other types & forms of enslavement. This thread is about the current situation in this Country, it is about our history.
Here you say it's compared to ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Chattel slavery is often compared to having livestock. In that case, you can think of the slavemaster as a farmer, and the slaves as his sheep(though probably more akin to beasts of burden). Which is basically the way I see the relationship between citizens and the government. What you need to understand is when you are the "Lord" or the "Slavemaster", you often delude yourself into believing that you are doing good for your slaves/subjects/citizens. That you are the organizer, protector, and even provider of your flock.
& then go on to say this about Thomas Jefferson ...
Quote:
Thomas Jefferson honestly believed he was a beneficent master.
I find it difficult to believe you know nothing about the 'Lost Cause' mythologies.
I also cannot believe you know so little about what led up to the ACW; secession winter is well documented, in the Congressional record & elsewhere.
I'm about finished with this thread, particularly because you're alleging I'm 'off-topic' here.
Antebellum race-based enslavement is not equivalent to the history of other types & forms of enslavement.
Serfdom was hereditary, so is the caste-system in India.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
then go on to say this about Thomas Jefferson
I own dogs, they are my slaves, but I dunno, I think they kind of like being my slaves. Some dogs get treated better than children and live in much better houses. I assume Sally Hemings lived a pretty good life even compared to free white people. She basically just tended house like any wife and lived in a mansion. There are "free white people" in 2020 living in tents and under bridges.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
I find it difficult to believe you know nothing about the 'Lost Cause' mythologies.
Could care less. I dislike both sides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
I also cannot believe you know so little about what led up to the ACW; secession winter is well documented, in the Congressional record & elsewhere.
ACW? Dunno what that is, but I do know what happened, I know about the Corwin Amendment and the Crittenden Compromise. As Robert E. Lee wrote to Lord Acton...
"Judge Chase, the present Chief Justice of the U.S., as late as 1850, is reported to have stated in the Senate, of which he was a member, that he “knew of no remedy in case of the refusal of a state to perform its stipulations,” thereby acknowledging the sovereignty and independence of state action... The South has contended only for the supremacy of the constitution, and the just administration of the laws made in pursuance to it. Virginia to the last made great efforts to save the union, and urged harmony and compromise. Senator Douglass, in his remarks upon the compromise bill recommended by the committee of thirteen in 1861, stated that every member from the South, including Messrs. Toombs and Davis, expressed their willingness to accept the proposition of Senator Crittenden from Kentucky, as a final settlement of the controversy, if sustained by the republican party, and that the only difficulty in the way of an amicable adjustment was with the republican party. Who then is responsible for the war? Although the South would have preferred any honorable compromise to the fratricidal war which has taken place, she now accepts in good faith its constitutional results, and receives without reserve the amendment which has already been made to the constitution for the extinction of slavery. That is an event that has been long sought, though in a different way, and by none has it been more earnestly desired than by citizens of Virginia."
The Civil War may have been averted had it not been for Lincoln's maneuvering at Fort Sumter. Virginia and three other states didn't secede until after Lincoln called on every state to send troops for an invasion of the south.
"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort-Sumpter, even if it should fail; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result." - Abraham Lincoln to Gustavus Fox.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 25 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,588,006 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The Southern governments DID fight for slavery, states' rights was just an excuse.
Harper's Magazine. v.24 Dec. 1861 – May 1862 Early Disunion
Virginia --- Theirs was an honest pride; and long possession of the reins of power made them naturally haughty, boastful, and arbitrary. They were tenacious of distinction. That superiority, and the right to rule which they claimed for Virginia as a Colony, they also claimed for her as a State. That assumption, long cherished and so flattering to State pride, was and has ever been a powerful instrument in the hands of her trading politicians in the management of national affairs; sometimes used so offensively as to disturb the equanimity of the people of the other States, particularly of those of New England.
“I wish,” wrote a leading New Englander as early as 1796 --- “I wish with all my heart that Virginia was out of the Union.” Eight years later another (a United States Senator) wrote: “I feel, I freely confess, no affection for the General Government. It is Virginian all over. …. We feel that we are Virginia slaves now, and that we are to be delivered over to Kentucky and the other Western States when our Virginia masters are tired of us …. I hope the time is not far distant when the people east of the North Rivers will manage their own affairs in their own way, without being embarrassed by regulations from Virginia, and that the sound part will separate from corrupt”. [pg 808 column 1]
It goes on to say that they hoped to have a peaceful sever of the Union and that perhaps a few other States would as well … New Hampshire favored the project as early as 1804.
Two of the Virginia delegates in the Convention that framed the Constitution refused to sign it; and many of her leading men, with Patrick Henry at their head, vehemently opposed it, chiefly because it established a consolidated Government. “Who authorized the Convention, “ asked Henry, “to speak the language of 'We the people, ' instead of 'We the States?' Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor I would have a reason for his conduct.” [column 2]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I love Thomas Jefferson, but America really has nothing to do with Thomas Jefferson. In fact, Jefferson would hate everything about this country.
[pg 810 column 2, article above] Jefferson was in France at the outbreak of the Revolution, and came home filled with enthusiastic admiration of some of the leaders and of their cause, expecting to find his countrymen equally enthusiastic. His own feelings found ready response in Virginia, but the atmosphere beyond its boarders chilled him. He was called to a seat in Washington's Cabinet, and on his arrival in New York he was shocked by the apparent apathy of all classes on the great subject of the people of France against kings and aristocrats --- He stood still with amazement, and then became painfully suspicious of all around him. Washington's dignity and prudent conservatism, and his expressed determination to maintain a strict neutrality toward the nations of Europe, he regarded as a weakness. He desired both the Government and people to show an active, positive, practical sympathy with the French Revolutionists; and he shrunk from contact with every man whose feelings were not coincident with his own. He denounced Hamilton, Jay, Adams, Knox, King, and other leading supporters of Washington's admiration, as “monarchists,” “corruptionists, “ “conspirators against republican liberty, “ and “stipendiaries of Great Britain.”
Then the article goes on to address the arguments on the Alien and Sedation Laws and “we the people” or 'we the states”. Jefferson was the champion for State Rights in that the States reserve the right to interpret the u.s. Constitution independently as it applied to them, in part not as a whole. (absolute power corrupts absolutely) He is the poster boy for the Libertarian Party today and it is through him an individual may understand their sovereignty as at applies to natural rights, rather than to God. (six of one, half a dozen of the other is you ask me) That is his contribution to America, that still resonates in today's time. Jefferson was suspicious of those that had just fought for the Independence of the u.s. from Great Britain, that they appeared to have done a 180 on those same principles, that could only mean they had gone by way of corruption, in his view. [those same sentiments can be found in the 1960s ten years span, as the College Students across this country work up to the realization, they were being lied to by their parents, their church and their government, as to the morals and principles on which America stood, as actions did not reconcile with their words)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Or put simply, if slavery was actually efficient, we would all be slaves.
Without our individual sovereignty and the right to all we make and/or produce to be 100% that of our own, without the taking of portions of it by the Federal Government to dole out the proceeds as they see fit. Imo, the Federal Government has proven just how efficient slavery really is, and it is to be understood that we are not slaves, but rather, good citizens. If we are to believe that, then that is all that matters … to the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
What are the chances the Confederacy would have abolished slavery eventually? 100%.
What was abolished in 1807 was the slave trade across countries. And unless I miss understand what I am reading of that time, the States wished for the trade between the States to cease as well, and each State be treated as a foreign State in regards to the trade. That is what Governor Gist of NC was going on about. If a person moved to the State and took up new residence, then they would and only then be allowed to bring all property and family into the State.
Why Jefferson didn't just free his slaves is the reason many others did not either, the law and the investments (money) would be great. Jefferson had inherited (most of) the property. At the time of the Civil War, the freeing of the property the cost was great, but the Civil War, the cost was greater --- who knew? And in those succession documents, there is one (I do not recall which one) the South was not impressed with the North to free the people without 'none better', in other words their laws had yet to modify to accommodate the move. (you're free drop us a postcard when you get settled)
New Englander and Yale review. v.2 (1844). Shall we Vote to Perpetuate Slavery? (texas)
[pg 593] We shall find, as we think, that the annexation of Texas will operate against every known cause which can be relied upon with the certainty for its abolition. These causes may be reduced to two classes; such as make the system undesirable in point of interest; and such as make it intolerable to the conscience.
Slavery has the causes of abolition within itself. It is inherently weak, and, unless supported by foreign power, must die. Confined within given limits, and receiving no accession from abroad, it must come extinct by a natural process. For, as a system of labor, it impoverishes the soil, while it imposes upon the master the burden of supporting the increasing multitude, without the means of doing it, till at length it compels him to leave them to themselves, and that makes a free man of the master and free laborers of the slaves. Then the energies of freedom will spring up, and the life of the nation revive from within. (my emphasis) [money is the root of all evil and if this doesn't prove it, I do not know what will]
edit:
Abortion --- government don't tell me how to live my life and/or the choices I must make, I'll decide for myself what is right or wrong.
Slavery --- government don't tell me how to live my life and/or the choices I must make, I'll decide for myself what is right or wrong
160 years from now, one can only hope, we'll be judged as we have judged those before us.
Last edited by Ellis Bell; 07-12-2020 at 02:11 AM..
It goes on to say that they hoped to have a peaceful sever of the Union and that perhaps a few other States would as well … New Hampshire favored the project as early as 1804.
Texas didn't threaten to secede until Obama won the election. And California didn't threaten to secede until Trump won the election. The majority party has no interest in seceding, only in dominating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Jefferson was the champion for State Rights in that the States reserve the right to interpret the u.s. Constitution independently as it applied to them, in part not as a whole. (absolute power corrupts absolutely) He is the poster boy for the Libertarian Party today and it is through him an individual may understand their sovereignty as at applies to natural rights, rather than to God.
Jefferson was certainly in favor of States' rights, but it went deeper than that. He was closer to an anarchist than a libertarian. He didn't trust any power at all, not government power and not corporations/banks.
Not only did he want government as close to the individual as possible, but he basically wanted something close to a voluntary government. In a way it would share a lot in common with anarcho-syndicalism.
Quote:
"Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.—It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal."
The Constitution would have to be constantly reauthorized or it would cease to be binding. Thus government would become voluntary under a 19-year contract, at least based on whatever political body agreed to it.
That is his contribution to America, that still resonates in today's time.
Thomas Jefferson was not the only antifederalist. He wrote none of the antifederalist papers. And the ideas put forth by the antifederalists were not necessarily his. His prominence in America primarily had to do with the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson was a great writer but a terrible public speaker, he likely spoke with a lisp. Which is why he didn't deliver his state of the union to Congress as president(as George Washington did).
The Declaration of Independence is an important document, but it didn't really shape America, and I would go so far as to say our Constitution is incompatible with the Declaration of Independence. I would put Thomas Jefferson's biggest political contribution as the Kentucky Resolution, which created the idea of nullification, called the compact-theory, which led to the Civil War.
In essence, Jefferson's greatest contribution to America is causing the Civil War. And every "secession" document put forth by the Confederate states was just a reworded Declaration of Independence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Without our individual sovereignty and the right to all we make and/or produce to be 100% that of our own, without the taking of portions of it by the Federal Government to dole out the proceeds as they see fit. Imo, the Federal Government has proven just how efficient slavery really is, and it is to be understood that we are not slaves, but rather, good citizens. If we are to believe that, then that is all that matters … to the government.
Slavery is civilization. Governments cannot exist unless people give them money and fight in their wars. Either people must do that voluntarily or they must be forced. Governments prefer people do things voluntarily, but if they refuse, the government will resort to force. The military draft is slavery, but even the Confederacy resorted to a military draft because the only alternative was to lose the war even faster.
The purpose of slavery was labor. Had slaves worked voluntarily they wouldn't be slaves. But slaves worked in fear of the whip. Serfs worked in fear of starvation. Which is the primary motivation of modern wage-laborers today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Why Jefferson didn't just free his slaves is the reason many others did not either, the law and the investments (money) would be great.
Manumission was easier after the Revolutionary War, but it became harder because people would often free old or disabled slaves who had become a burden(and thus became a burden on society instead). In 1806 Virginia passed a law that required any slave freed to leave the state.
"If any slave hereafter emancipated shall remain within this commonwealth more than twelve months after his or her right to freedom shall have accrued, he or she shall forfeit all such right, and may be apprehended and sold by the overseers of the poor of any county or corporation in which he or she shall be found."
And then of course, Thomas Jefferson was in massive debt.
Then the energies of freedom will spring up, and the life of the nation revive from within.
This was something Alexis De Tocqueville discussed when he talked about the opposite sides of the Ohio River. Scroll down to part 4 and read the whole section if you have the time.
"The stream which the Indians had distinguished by the name of Ohio, or Beautiful River, waters one of the most magnificent valleys that has ever been made the abode of man. Undulating lands extend upon both shores of the Ohio, whose soil affords inexhaustible treasures to the laborer; on either bank the air is wholesome and the climate mild, and each of them forms the extreme frontier of a vast State: That which follows the numerous windings of the Ohio upon the left is called Kentucky, that upon the right bears the name of the river. These two States only differ in a single respect; Kentucky has admitted slavery, but the State of Ohio has prohibited the existence of slaves within its borders.
Thus the traveler who floats down the current of the Ohio to the spot where that river falls into the Mississippi, may be said to sail between liberty and servitude; and a transient inspection of the surrounding objects will convince him as to which of the two is most favorable to mankind. Upon the left bank of the stream the population is rare; from time to time one descries a troop of slaves loitering in the half-desert fields; the primaeval forest recurs at every turn; society seems to be asleep, man to be idle, and nature alone offers a scene of activity and of life. From the right bank, on the contrary, a confused hum is heard which proclaims the presence of industry; the fields are covered with abundant harvests, the elegance of the dwellings announces the taste and activity of the laborer, and man appears to be in the enjoyment of that wealth and contentment which is the reward of labor."
Last edited by Redshadowz; 07-12-2020 at 05:57 AM..
Do descendants of Jefferson have anymore legitimacy talking about this issue, and does it matter?
They seem to want it down but I like monuments if only because they are not so technical or scientific, but more memorizing.
However I get wanting to put them into a museum, but that becomes more about historically analyzing a figure rather than glorifying them as an image of your nation.
People should think more, but they should also know when not to overthink something.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
