The Fifty First State

[peter grimes]

Is that a promise?

It is.

I have few original thoughts.

If I don't see something - say, a bible reference - I won't think to incorporate it into a discussion.

 

[Racsoviale]

Not enough Samuel L. Jackson in a kilt.

This thread should be aborted.

 

[NickyJ]

Such things do not come in information across the pound without a common notion.

I'm not really sure what you mean there.....

It was just political advice, similiar how one would not be adviced to linked themselves to MisterCooper. Politics is a personal, personal thing.

I am a follower of the Ghost, so that's wasted typing. Cooper, on the other hand.... Yeah, not linking myself with him. (Sorry, Cooper. )

Spoiler :

Granted his denouncement of slavery came in later life but still it is of consideration that the great inventor's observations...

Still, that is just one out of the many founders. Not to say that it isn't important, but there were many others who did own slaves.

Alas we Brits tend to have a... how best to describe it... a biologist approuch to studying American society. There was a funny map I remember on comparing how America views Europe and then how Europe views America.

Yeah, it would be pretty funny to see.

Not enough Samuel L. Jackson in a kilt.

This thread should be aborted.

Mercy lock?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well ok...

I think those quotes are saying violence is not an acceptable means to escape slavery. They are not saying slavery is ok.

The Old Testament quote is tricky and I don't know how to interpret it, but the New Testament quotes are pretty obviously not saying what Ailedhoo seems to think they do. The Ephesians passage is just saying yeah, that the slaves weren't supposed to be trying to overthrow the earthly order but were instead supposed to minister to their masters through obedience. Plus, slavery was a little more like indentured servitude in the sense that it was for punishment for a crime or for debt or for prisoners of war, not because of race, and most slaves did have a peaceful recourse to buy their freedom. Once again, that doesn't make it right of course, but it wasn't quite the same as 19th century US slavery (Which was itself not always quite what the stereotypes say, but at the minimum usually was permanent, and masters did have the right to treat their slaves as property. In Rome, slaves actually did have some real rights.)

As for the Luke quote, that's a parable talking about service to God. Its using an earthly example to make a point, but there's nothing really about literal earthly slavery in it. It was a story to make a point.

 

[Abegweit]

That's all just more apologizing for treason. It can't be taken seriously.

Stuff it. Treason is a word that statist scum use to attack decent folk. It has no meaning aside from defending tyranny.

 

[Abegweit]

Secession is treason.

Oh indeed. And treason is the ultimate goal. The state has to be destroyed.

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

While secession might be treason, those driven to separation must feel in turn betrayed by the federal government.

 

[GamezRule]

I read that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both became quiet abolitionists during their post-1787 political careers.

 

[Crezth]

I read that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both became quiet abolitionists during their post-1787 political careers.

Hell that. TJ was abolitionist in 1776.

 

[Ailedhoo]

The Old Testament quote is tricky and I don't know how to interpret it, but the New Testament quotes are pretty obviously not saying what Ailedhoo seems to think they do. The Ephesians passage is just saying yeah, that the slaves weren't supposed to be trying to overthrow the earthly order but were instead supposed to minister to their masters through obedience. Plus, slavery was a little more like indentured servitude in the sense that it was for punishment for a crime or for debt or for prisoners of war, not because of race, and most slaves did have a peaceful recourse to buy their freedom. Once again, that doesn't make it right of course, but it wasn't quite the same as 19th century US slavery (Which was itself not always quite what the stereotypes say, but at the minimum usually was permanent, and masters did have the right to treat their slaves as property. In Rome, slaves actually did have some real rights.)

As for the Luke quote, that's a parable talking about service to God. Its using an earthly example to make a point, but there's nothing really about literal earthly slavery in it. It was a story to make a point.

1: the interpitation of yours was intresting since it still suggest slavery is ok in its own sence. In Rome slaves rights were limited and would naturally be forced to obey their masters... no matter the order.

2: what is noted is from historic evidence. There has been enough cruelity and striking slaves that attemtped freedom to note a pattern.

3: the Luke quote might be what it said in the book though. I mean that hows YOU state Genesis right? What ever the reason making a comparisent of service to God to slavery is... questionable at best. Surely such idea goes against the idea of free will? Becoming a slave demands your will being chained at the penalty of even greater suffering.



Getting back on topic... there seems little likeness for a additional member to the USA.

 

[Leoreth]

Oh indeed. And treason is the ultimate goal. The state has to be destroyed.

Except that the Confederates didn't want to destroy "the state". They just wanted their own state that suited their form of tyranny better.

 

[Cutlass]

While secession might be treason, those driven to separation must feel in turn betrayed by the federal government.

That wasn't true for the Confederates, and it's not true for people like Gov Rick Perry. It's not about betrayal, it's about the ultimate selfishness of people who cannot tolerate a country that does not cater to their every whim.

 

[Farm Boy]

Keep the conflict goin' boyz. I hear they impeach you when you pursue policies of reconciliation.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Getting back on topic... there seems little likeness for a additional member to the USA.

I haven't been able to tell whether or not most Americans would be opposed to Puerto Rican statehood (as they are the only likely addition in the near-future). I strongly support it, but I think it's a question best left to the Puerto Ricans. I'm excited to see how the vote goes in November on this issue.

In my opinion, "abused" was referring to whippings and beatings.

It is really unfair to represent the history of slavery in the United States as anything but abusive in every way. Posts that seem to downplay the abusive aspects of slavery (while still calling it evil) are rightly mocked as naive and an effort of whitewashing history, to use your terminology. This isn't an issue that lends itself to nuance - you cannot say in good faith that not all slave owners whipped their masters, and posit many fallacious arguments to why the CSA was right to secede and not expect to be attacked for it.

Nuance is wonderful except when nuance is the sole method of defending untenable positions. Some great examples from this thread (paraphrased): 'slavery is evil, but not all slaveowners were abusive/some had familial relationships with their slaves';
(direct quote)

He wasn't justifying slavery. As he said, it is evil, but he was pointing out the common mistake of people thinking that most slave owners beat or whipped there slaves, or otherwise physically maltreated them. (Slavery being excluded, of course.)

(direct quote)

Slavery played a part, but the South had other things that seceded for

While these statements may be technically true - they whitewash greater reality (slavery was evil. the south seceded over the essential issue of slavery) in an effort to paint a rosier picture of the CSA and our shared past.

I suppose so, but then we would also be denouncing the leaders who gave us our independence in the first place, because many of those leaders owned slaves. The fact that they owned slaves is definitely regrettable, but the other parts of their lives should be recognized as well.

Many people do denounce those leaders for just this reason.

Most of what's in this thread has been widely whitewashing and bashing all the things CSA as being racism, which is not correct. Slavery played a part, but the South had other things that seceded for. Plus, the North had their own problems with slavery, which is often overlooked.

Slavery in the North was restricted to frindge states that the CSA claimed and Maryland. It was not an integrated part of the Northern economy once the CSA tried to remove itself and trade links broke down. Nor was the Northern economy dependent on slave-produced products from the south, as evidenced by the war itself and the subsequent abolishment of slavery.

You're also overlooking the fact that though northern states kept slavery until very shortly after the war, they abolished everywhere in the south (i.e. practically everywhere) under their control during the war and at the southern surrender. The northern states ended slavery, period.

 

[NickyJ]

It is really unfair to represent the history of slavery in the United States as anything but abusive in every way. Posts that seem to downplay the abusive aspects of slavery (while still calling it evil) are rightly mocked as naive and an effort of whitewashing history, to use your terminology. This isn't an issue that lends itself to nuance - you cannot say in good faith that not all slave owners whipped their masters, and posit many fallacious arguments to why the CSA was right to secede and not expect to be attacked for it.

Nuance is wonderful except when nuance is the sole method of defending untenable positions. Some great examples from this thread (paraphrased): 'slavery is evil, but not all slaveowners were abusive/some had familial relationships with their slaves';
(direct quote)
(direct quote)
While these statements may be technically true - they whitewash greater reality (slavery was evil. the south seceded over the essential issue of slavery) in an effort to paint a rosier picture of the CSA and our shared past.

So stating facts of history that are often overlooked is now considered whitewashing? Yeesh, talk about trying to block out what you don't like....

Many people do denounce those leaders for just this reason.

No, not many do.

Slavery in the North was restricted to frindge states that the CSA claimed and Maryland. It was not an integrated part of the Northern economy once the CSA tried to remove itself and trade links broke down. Nor was the Northern economy dependent on slave-produced products from the south, as evidenced by the war itself and the subsequent abolishment of slavery.

You're also overlooking the fact that though northern states kept slavery until very shortly after the war, they abolished everywhere in the south (i.e. practically everywhere) under their control during the war and at the southern surrender. The northern states ended slavery, period.

It doesn't matter how long after the war. They kept slaves. Where in the North, nor the fact the North didn't need them, does not matter. Slaves were there.

 

[Ailedhoo]

So stating facts of history that are often overlooked is now considered whitewashing? Yeesh, talk about trying to block out what you don't like....

Facts? Historic observations states otherwise.

No, not many do.

O realy?

It doesn't matter how long after the war. They kept slaves. Where in the North, nor the fact the North didn't need them, does not matter. Slaves were there.

I guess the whole convert "smuggling the enslaved out of the South" thing was just some whitewashed properganda then fact.

 

[NickyJ]

Facts? Historic observations states otherwise.

Historic observations states that few slaves were whipped or beaten, and that the South did indeed have other reasons for seceding.

O realy?

Yes, really. As I said, there aren't any statistics about it. Just "observations".

I guess the whole convert "smuggling the enslaved out of the South" thing was just some whitewashed properganda then fact.

Are you claiming that there were no slaves in the North?

 

[Lord of Elves]

Oh indeed. And treason is the ultimate goal. The state has to be destroyed.

In this specific case the state is a moral good and ought instead to be defended

While secession might be treason, those driven to separation must feel in turn betrayed by the federal government.

Should we feel guilty that we hurt secessionists' feelings by opposing slavery?

 

[Ailedhoo]

Historic observations states that few slaves were whipped or beaten, and that the South did indeed have other reasons for seceding.

You do realise that the harshness of slavery was not limited to the beatings (which were mass enough to come as historic evidence for observing from outisde the USA). It is also in consideration of the facts.

Slavery was not the only factor but it did dominate. Sectionalism could relate with slavery as a influence on ecomonics. The state right issue came with desires of some to bring their slaves with them to the north... something that would be questionable. By 1810, 75 percent of all blacks in the North were free. In the south the same could not be said.

To underestimate slavery's impact on the American Civil War would be a mistake.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It doesn't matter how long after the war. They kept slaves. Where in the North, nor the fact the North didn't need them, does not matter. Slaves were there.

How does that in any way negate anything I wrote - other than because you say it does?
Since you seem so fond of the smileys now that you've moved past crazy fonts, here's a couple for you: