Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
So it's settled, God hates London.
History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VIII
- Thread starter Flying Pig
- Start date
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
It is not that He hates it, merely that It is an affront to Him. 
He's trying to target the false Anglican monarchy who say they ''represent'' him on Earth to replace it with good Catholic monarchs. The Anglicans just keep coming back
#JacobitesRuleHannoveriansDrool
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Long live King Jimmy.
sophie
Break My Heart
Them and Tokyo.
Oh and Rome.
Between the sacks, the fires, the earthquakes, the malaria, and the bombings, Rome is basically the Eternal Sadsack City.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
He's reportedly very fond of Yorkshire, although he sometimes has a funny way of showing it.
caketastydelish
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2008
- Messages
- 9,718
Question: I read a paper when I was in high school that I randomly remembered, but I cannot for the life of me remember who wrote it or who it was addressed to.
The letter was written by a black man living in America before slavery ended. The message was addressed to a white man of political significance (I wanted to say it was Thomas Jefferson but that couldn't have been right). The white man believed slavery should end but otherwise believed that whites are superior to blacks. And that whites should have more children than blacks because he believed whites are more attractive and more intelligent. This man also claimed to be Christian. So basically this man was very racist, but still an abolitionist. In the letter, the black man applauded this white man for being an abolitionist but said he should still change his views that blacks are inferior to whites, and that believing such things are incompatible with Christianity.
These are all the details I remember fo the letter. But like I said, I don't remember who wrote it or who it was addressed to. It was addressed to a white man of political significance. Maybe even a President, but I'm not sure.
The letter was written by a black man living in America before slavery ended. The message was addressed to a white man of political significance (I wanted to say it was Thomas Jefferson but that couldn't have been right). The white man believed slavery should end but otherwise believed that whites are superior to blacks. And that whites should have more children than blacks because he believed whites are more attractive and more intelligent. This man also claimed to be Christian. So basically this man was very racist, but still an abolitionist. In the letter, the black man applauded this white man for being an abolitionist but said he should still change his views that blacks are inferior to whites, and that believing such things are incompatible with Christianity.
These are all the details I remember fo the letter. But like I said, I don't remember who wrote it or who it was addressed to. It was addressed to a white man of political significance. Maybe even a President, but I'm not sure.
Absolution
King
In pre-EU times, did you have to go through a formal borderline gate / guard before entering Vatican City (leaving Italy)?
Lohrenswald
世界的 bottom ranked physicist
Vatican isn't in EU
A lot of Abolitionists - Lincoln (at least originally) included - were racist. A large subset of Abolitionism was against slavery because it kept black people in the USA, and wanted to abolish it in order to ship them all 'back' to Africa.
Lexicus
Deity
Lincoln was not an abolitionist, he was a free-soiler. I think you're confusing abolitionism with anti-slavery sentiment generally. Abolitionists tended to be motivated by religious conviction that slavery was a monstrous crime.
Yes, in the sense that I'm using 'abolitionism' to mean 'the belief that [American] slavery should be outlawed'. Is there a different definition?
Lexicus
Deity
The best definition I've seen for the context of the US is:
The historian James M. McPherson defines an abolitionist "as one who before the Civil War had agitated for the immediate, unconditional, and total abolition of slavery in the United States." He does not include antislavery activists such as Abraham Lincoln or the Republican Party, which called for the gradual ending of slavery.[43]
Even by the definition you've advanced Lincoln and the majority of the Republican Party were not abolitionists. They didn't want to outlaw slavery, they wanted to prohibit its expansion, which everyone at the time understood to mean strangling it to eventual death. Still, there is a meaningful and important difference there because abolitionism was a fringe or, if you will, "radical" political position until the outbreak of the Civil War and abolitionists were typically pretty anti-racist by 19th century standards.
All true, and a welcome correction - though with the obvious caveat that Lincoln's beliefs and agenda changed over time.
What I had in mind was more people like this - who on further reading were far more concerned with free blacks than with slaves. Sending these people 'back' to Africa (again in quote marks, since many of them had had ancestors in North America longer than most of the whites trying to send them 'home') sat on an odd ideological junction between religious anti-slavers, including William Wallace (who was part of the Sierra Leone project), and out-and-proud racists like Henry Clay.
What I had in mind was more people like this - who on further reading were far more concerned with free blacks than with slaves. Sending these people 'back' to Africa (again in quote marks, since many of them had had ancestors in North America longer than most of the whites trying to send them 'home') sat on an odd ideological junction between religious anti-slavers, including William Wallace (who was part of the Sierra Leone project), and out-and-proud racists like Henry Clay.
Lexicus
Deity
Perfectly fair point. You'll notice, though, the abolitionist component there didn't oppose slavery because they wanted blacks shipped back to Africa - they opposed slavery on moral grounds, and figured shipping black people to Africa was the easiest way to deal with race relations and the "problem" posed by the existence of free blacks in a country founded essentially on the dichotomy between white=free and black=slaves.
I suppose it's something like this:
For reference, members of the American Nazi Party attending a Nation of Islam meeting. Because the NoI and the American Nazi Party both believed in race-separatism.
Yes, it's exactly like that. Which in a sense is what makes it so interesting. I can only imagine what their post-meeting pub trips were like.
Lexicus
Deity
I somehow doubt that these actually took placeSimilar threads
