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.
Yes, Republicans were forced to break the immoral laws of Democrats during the Underground Railroad.
But also, blacks back then didn’t see themselves as helpless victims and actually took advantage of their opportunities back in the day.
Last sentence is ridiculous. We're talking about too many people, in too many conditions, spread out over too many years to make a blanket statement like that.
It's like today when someone says something like Mexicans are hard workers, or Mexicans are lazy. One is a compliment, the other is not. Both are ignorant and basically racist.
Saying "things were different back then' is just a cop out of sorts imo, I dont care what time period you live in, owning another human, or buying selling them as property is WRONG, thankfully there were people that took action in those days to stop it...
But we have laws that are WRONG today too...we need people to stand up and be willing to fight these just as bad.
You're never going to make any headway in understanding history if you continue to look down on it from your high horse.
And have you joined the fight against modern day human trafficking in America, as has been suggested, oh self righteous one?
The laws are an abomination in light of what we know today. You can view history in today’s light but should not always judge it that way. Things were different back then. Pretty much everyone around the world had slaves. Today we rightfully say they were wrong, but we can’t judge those of the day based on what we know now. That’s why I don’t judge the founding fathers fro having slaves. That was the law of the day. Many did so reluctantly. Were they wrong to have slaves, yes of course because of our current social morals, but they should not be judged on current social morals.
Things were different back then. Although from the beginning, there were 2 sides on enslavement:
Quote:
Stopping the Slave Trade
A deep disagreement arose over slavery. The economy of many of the Southern states depended almost entirely on agricultural products produced by slaves. To protect their economy, the Southern states insisted on two proposals. One was to ban Congress from taxing exports (to protect their agricultural exports). The second proposal was to forbid Congress from banning the importation of slaves. (In fact, the word “slave” was never used in the Constitution. The proposal was written to prohibit Congress from interfering with the importation “of such persons” as the states “shall think proper to admit.”)
When the convention received the draft containing these proposals, another heated debate erupted. Opponents of the ban on exports objected on economic grounds. One delegate said that denying the power to tax exports would take away from the government “half of the regulation of trade.” Another pointed out that taxing exports could become important “when America should become a manufacturing country.”
Those opposed to slavery brought up issues of morality. Luther Martin of Maryland said that forbidding Congress from banning the importation of slaves was “inconsistent with the principles of the revolution and dishonorable to the American character.” Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania said that slavery was a “nefarious institution” and a “curse of heaven on the states where it prevailed.” George Mason of Virginia spoke at length about the horrors of slavery and criticized slave owners, who he called “petty tyrants,” and the slave traders who, he said, “from a lust of gain embarked on this nefarious traffic.”
Ultimately, the delegates who strongly opposed slavery realized that pressing against it would make it impossible for the states to come together. They worked out a compromise with the Southern states. They agreed that Congress could not tax exports and that no law could be passed to ban the slave trade until 1808. And in a final concession to the South, the delegates approved a fugitive slave clause. It required that any person “held to Service of Labour in one State” who escapes into another state “shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.” (The requirement to return fugitive slaves was eliminated when the 13th Amendment abolished slavery.)
The Major Debates at the Constitutional Convention
Plenty of human and sex trafficking going on in the US and around the world right now and what are you doing about it?
Typing self righteous posts on the internet.
Good point. Since 2007, 49,000 cases of human trafficking have been reported. How many weren't caught? Today the trafficking continues at our southern border and who is doing anything about it?
The Underground Railroad continued 'above ground', so to speak, between 1916 & 1970:
Quote:
The Great Migration, sometimes known as the Great Northward Migration or the Black Migration, was the movement of 6 million African Americans out of the rural Southern United States to the urban Northeast, Midwest and West that occurred between 1916 and 1970.[1] It was caused primarily by the poor economic conditions as well as the prevalent racial segregation and discrimination in the Southern states where Jim Crow laws were upheld.[2][3]
Today we have the crisis at the border where cartel coyotes are guiding "migrants" across the border. In 150 years will we look back at the coyotes as brave and humanitarian or will they be considered criminals that exploited the people and violated the laws of the USA?
There is no moral equivalence between the underground railroad and illegal immigration.
And yet when they got to the North, they found that the conditions in the North were the same as the conditions in the South --- testimony given in the, 1619 Project Publication, of a woman that migrated from the Southern States to Illinois in 1940.
What is missing in this is how many of the Southerner States had banned the importation of Slaves, long before that Constitutional Convention. There is also a vote that I'm still trying to validate, (1787) where as the Southern States voted for the abolition of Slavery; the Northern States voted against it. (just little details that were never made known)
1) Yes, they were wrong for breaking the laws
2) If caught they should have been punished
3) Yes, they were doing the moral thing to do and today should be celebrated.
However, this is one case. Each case of law breaking needs to be looked at individually. We would never want a society where steeling from one person to give it to someone else under the guise of being a "robin hood" was accepted. Civil society is built on the rule of law and when a law is broken it needs to be punished. Of course, there are exceptions where law breakers should be celebrated. It is definitely a gray area topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
I wrote a paper in college government based on the Robin Hood laws.
Robin Hood laws for equal school funding are something I as a moderate conservative agree with the liberals on. In the richest country in the world, we can afford to spend similar amounts on each student. Yes, this is a Light from of socialism but one I agree with. (Where I disagree with liberals is that throwing more money at schools is the answer to better outcomes. It isn’t. Better home life and better parents lead to better outcomes). I stand by my statement that rules and laws aren’t he basis for a civil society but everything needs to be judged at an individual basis.
The Underground Railroad was not an organization, it didn't have officers and regular membership or a treasury to meet its expenses. It's existence came about through volunteers. It grew from the public sentiment of the day on the issue of slavery.
Just as Robin Hood is the stealing to give from one to give to another --- there were those in the day of slavery that would make the same claim --- the underground railroad was stealing. Even though they didn't go onto people's property and actually take someone away. They would have been judged according to the rule of law of the day.
That's politics. We judge (celebrate) differently on a personal level as to right and wrong.
As we know that the idea behind Robin Hood is wrong and yet, there's a law based on Robin Hood, within our educational system on the basis of funding our schools.
Politics does not judge on the basis of right and wrong, but on the basis of law. To quote you, " Civil society is built on the rule of law " Those that help (growing from public sentiment) immigrants will be judge on that basis, not whether what they are doing is right or wrong, but rather is it legal or illegal. Morality has nothing to do with it.
4. Ask Your Representatives to Fully Fund Anti-Trafficking Work
Ask your representatives to back up their commitment to end slavery with budgets that fully fund critical programs and policies. For additional information on suggested policies, see the Alliance to End Slavery and Trafficking (ATEST).
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.
