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.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,588,006 times
Reputation: 2576
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Was written by an American politician vs a town haul meeting? of 1844? Written up article for the news of the day?
carry on ---
Do you want to read the Union and Confederate cables? of the events as they played out during the war --- their english was not the same as it is today ---might cause some confusion, then again, some people might have a knack for understanding of words written 200 years ago and its culture. ~ friendly fire happened within the union soldiers, oops ~
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
What was said at a town hall meeting in 1844 does not negate what was said by those living in the Deep South in 1860. New Englanders and those living in the Deep South had opposing views regarding slavery. New Englanders said slavery was on its way out because it required being refueled. However, those living in the Deep South, who depended on slavery for their living, were desperate to keep it going. This is why the Articles of Secession was written. This is why Alexander Stephens said what he said. This is why the Southern Baptist Convention formed. It split from the mainstream Baptist Church because southern Baptists of the time were pro-slavery, and the rest of the church wasn't.
There was a ban on importation --- thus it will die a natural death. None of the documents you can point to release that ban.
it's like looking at abortion rights --- my body, my right
slavery --- my way of life --- my right.
What I decide to do in either of these instances is between me and my God. Not the government to dictate. Thus the reason you'll find people of all nationalities fight for freedom in that era. Not just a few.
Even Abraham Lincoln said, he had no right to dictate --- or did you miss that part?
There was a ban on importation --- thus it will die a natural death. None of the documents you can point to release that ban.
it's like looking at abortion rights --- my body, my right
slavery --- my way of life --- my right.
What I decide to do in either of these instances is between me and my God. Not the government to dictate. Thus the reason you'll find people of all nationalities fight for freedom in that era. Not just a few.
A ban on importation would not have made it die a natural death. Because importing slaves was illegal, slave owners were buying and selling slaves among one another. And slavery was hereditary. If your mother was a slave, you were a slave too. This is where the breeding of slaves would take place. And banning the importation of slaves didn't stop more slave ships from sailing to America. The last slave ship to land in America did so in 1860, the Clotilda, which landed in Mobile Bay. There were people willing to break the law in order to keep on with slavery.
And it was southern politicians who were instrumental in getting the Fugitive Slave Act passed. It was about appeasing the South and keeping the South from seceding. Slavery was not going to just die a natural death.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,588,006 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
There was a ban on importation --- thus it will die a natural death. None of the documents you can point to release that ban.
it's like looking at abortion rights --- my body, my right
slavery --- my way of life --- my right.
What I decide to do in either of these instances is between me and my God. Not the government to dictate. Thus the reason you'll find people of all nationalities fight for freedom in that era. Not just a few.
Even Abraham Lincoln said, he had no right to dictate --- or did you miss that part?
Quote:
Originally Posted by green_mariner
A ban on importation would not have made it die a natural death. Because importing slaves was illegal, slave owners were buying and selling slaves among one another. And slavery was hereditary. If your mother was a slave, you were a slave too. This is where the breeding of slaves would take place. And banning the importation of slaves didn't stop more slave ships from sailing to America. The last slave ship to land in America did so in 1860, the Clotilda, which landed in Mobile Bay. There were people willing to break the law in order to keep on with slavery.
And it was southern politicians who were instrumental in getting the Fugitive Slave Act passed. It was about appeasing the South and keeping the South from seceding. Slavery was not going to just die a natural death.
That of course we will never know will we and one can argue that it is still not dead, as the evidence of slavery within the u.s. (today) has shown us. What you keep pointing at is people believing that the government hasn't the right to dictate. And as the little dude said --- if you don't replenish the soil, the soil eventually dies.
Also you are missing the part, where as, with a decentralized government each State banned the importations within their boundaries. And didn't the black man that was a slave owner, purchase their family members? So even if you have multiple births, you have those that would consume them and the buck stops there.
The only thing that changed is --- the collection of taxes on people as property.
Speaking of the fugitve slave act and people willing to break the law ---
Did you know that the North was heavy in discrimination practices and the organization, The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), founded in 1942 was born up North to combat those practicing beyond their laws of the land? In the 1940s --- The first sit-in was conducted up North ... the protest didn't filter down into the South until 1961?
What the people do and what the government would have you believe they are doing are two totally separate things. (keep everyone fighting amongst themselves and the government can rake in the taxes on all of 'em and no one will complain)
We are judging today what might have been in the hearts of those, by what history books would have us believe today.
No. Categorically no. We are judging them by what they did. And what they themselves said was their motivation for what they did. They wrote down their motives for posterity. It's not guesswork, it's not spin, it's not "what might have been".
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,588,006 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
We are judging today what might have been in the hearts of those, by what history books would have us believe today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
No. Categorically no. We are judging them by what they did. And what they themselves said was their motivation for what they did. They wrote down their motives for posterity. It's not guesswork, it's not spin, it's not "what might have been".
They told us what was in their hearts.
Yep, they wanted to take care of those that they were in charge of, yes, because they thought they didn't have the capacity to take care of themselves. As opposed to the other parts of the u.s --- those people can come live here, but not near me.
("offering none better" its within one of those documents most people cite, but they miss the small print)
Yep, they wanted to take care of those that they were in charge of, yes, because they thought they didn't have the capacity to take care of themselves.
What on Earth are you on about? Some sort of altruistic angle to slavery?
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,588,006 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
Yep, they wanted to take care of those that they were in charge of, yes, because they thought they didn't have the capacity to take care of themselves. As opposed to the other parts of the u.s --- those people can come live here, but not near me.
("offering none better" its within one of those documents most people cite, but they miss the small print)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
What on Earth are you on about? Some sort of altruistic angle to slavery?
What's going on now? Or what was going on then? Because what is going on now, is far different than what was going on then. So no, no angle.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 24 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,588,006 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Tiresome. Bye.
What do you want? You're not going to change your mind --- the government has seen to that. Do you want facts --- there's plenty of them. You're not going to find them in the history books or with a history professor --- you will find them in the newsprint of the 1800s and before --- you'll also find them within the cable contents of the Union and the Confederate Armies
The people in the South didn't abide by the laws any better than the ones up North --- laws were different and so are the people
Not history book material She was just one that got caught, btw.
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.
She was just one that got caught, btw.