• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jefferson Memorial, Confederate statues enter national race debate

No it wasn't. There was little ambiguity about it at the time the Constitution was drafted. The framers didn't address it in the Constitution for political reasons not for any moral ambiguity. The southern states would never have signed on if slavery were abolished.

And the formation of a union was paramount to civil liberties, so I suppose you're right.
 
And the formation of a union was paramount to civil liberties, so I suppose you're right.

The formation of the the union was the guarantor of civil liberties. If you read the Federalist Papers it's clear that the founders, assuming Hamilton and Jay expressed commonly held sentiments, feared that several small confederacies would not have survived.
 
The formation of the the union was the guarantor of civil liberties. If you read the Federalist Papers it's clear that the founders, assuming Hamilton and Jay expressed commonly held sentiments, feared that several small confederacies would not have survived.

For white people. And their fears wouldn't necessarily have become realities.. The preservation of the union was Lincoln's earliest cause celeb for the war of aggression. Slavery was a convenient expedience that followed.
 
Not intending to overlook the morality, but I think at that time much of it was a business decision. Slavery was considered okay by a great part of society even though the moral outrage of it had begun. I don't think the abolitionists were pure of heart either, some probably didn't like the benefit of free labor that the slaveowners enjoyed; basically an unfair business practice.
Some abolitionists may have viewed it as an economic. However, the predominant arguments against slavery were based in morality. In fact, the Quakers were one of the stronger supporters of abolition and their opposition was based in religious moral grounds. The fact is that the abolitionist movement was an overwhelmingly morals-based movement even if some abolitionists may have had more economic interests in mind.
 
For white people. And their fears wouldn't necessarily have become realities.. The preservation of the union was Lincoln's earliest cause celeb for the war of aggression. Slavery was a convenient expedience that followed.

Perhaps. We have the benefit of hindsight. Having seen how the colonies acted towards each other, and having seen recent European history they were completely justified in their concern.

And while you're right that they were concerned mostly about white people - white males for the most part - I can't imagine how an additional war or wars would have made slaves lives better.
 
By observing his actions instead of just taking him at his word.

So you assumed incorrectly judging on slavery a cultural norm at the time and nothing else? Great system. :roll:

I added this back in since you dishonestly dumped it from my reply.

I ask because you got it completely wrong in every conceivable way...

"With five simple words in the Declaration of Independence—“all men are created equal”—Thomas Jefferson undid Aristotle’s ancient formula, which had governed human affairs until 1776: “From the hour of their birth, some men are marked out for subjection, others for rule.” In his original draft of the Declaration, in soaring, damning, fiery prose, Jefferson denounced the slave trade as an “execrable commerce ...this assemblage of horrors,” a “cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberties.” As historian John Chester Miller put it, “The inclusion of Jefferson’s strictures on slavery and the slave trade would have committed the United States to the abolition of slavery." - The Dark Side of Thomas Jefferson | History | Smithsonian

He initially wanted his words to mean exactly what they said. His intention was NOT that it just be wealthy white people. Later on in life he did become less and less vocal because slavery was a reality of his time. This made him nothing more than a figure of his time and people in our time should not hold him to those standards.
 
Most of whom used slavery to buy and protect their loved ones. Of those who did not, I suspect they knew that slavery was cruel just like white slave owners.

I suspect you have no idea what you are talking about.

In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).

According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.
- Black Slave Owners Civil War Article by Robert M Grooms

Read more history and do less "judging by actions" because it appears you are not a very good judge.
 
Sure and in the 1700s, there were plenty of white people who thought that slavery was cruel. Jefferson himself called it cruel. There were certainly plenty of black people who thought it was cruel.

Then I am glad you understand
 
Jefferson Memorial, Confederate statues enter national race debate - LA Times


See how it usually starts, with a mere mention...a pondering of the concept. They float the idea out there probably hoping it'll pick up steam. No doubt they're probably already fantasizing about bulldozers coming in. I wonder when they'll want to posthumously impeach every slave-owning President and remove them from the history books. Probably only a matter time before more crazy ideas like this get floated. Should we include every President that said the word "nigger"? How far should we go in deleting those things that offend? How about the latinos?
Should we disassemble the United States and give them back the land we allegedly took? Right now this is all far fetched, but I don't trust this to end with just a Confederate flag.

You are exactly right American...It won't stop until we tear this country apart and disband as a country. This whole thing is furthered by people in this country that are either ashamed of being American, or they are the guilt consumed for being lucky enough to having been born American....
 
So you assumed incorrectly judging on slavery a cultural norm at the time and nothing else? Great system. :roll:

I added this back in since you dishonestly dumped it from my reply.
I'm not sure what you're point is since you're just repeating yourself. I guess we'll just agree to disagree about Jefferson. If you think I'm wrong, I'll live with it. You can have the last word.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps. We have the benefit of hindsight. Having seen how the colonies acted towards each other, and having seen recent European history they were completely justified in their concern.

And while you're right that they were concerned mostly about white people - white males for the most part - I can't imagine how an additional war or wars would have made slaves lives better.

Oh I'm no advocate of war, sorry to have misled you.
 
I suspect you have no idea what you are talking about.

In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them.

Read more history and do less "judging by actions" because it appears you are not a very good judge.
I posted a quote from a historian earlier in the thread that stated the exact opposite of this:

As Woodson put it in 1924's Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830, "The census records show that the majority of the Negro owners of slaves were such from the point of view of philanthropy. In many instances the husband purchased the wife or vice versa … Slaves of Negroes were in some cases the children of a free father who had purchased his wife. If he did not thereafter emancipate the mother, as so many such husbands failed to do, his own children were born his slaves and were thus reported to the numerators."

Moreover, Woodson explains, "Benevolent Negroes often purchased slaves to make their lot easier by granting them their freedom for a nominal sum, or by permitting them to work it out on liberal terms." In other words, these black slave-owners, the clear majority, cleverly used the system of slavery to protect their loved ones. That's the good news.


In other words, I am basing my opinion on a historian's words so not reading history is not the issue for me. Like I said in my last post to you, however, we can agree to disagree and if you think I'm wrong, I'll live. And, quite frankly, I've had discussions with several people in this thread and not one of them has been as personally rude as you have. And because I'm not in the mood for it, I'll let you have the last word.
 
You are exactly right American...It won't stop until we tear this country apart and disband as a country. This whole thing is furthered by people in this country that are either ashamed of being American, or they are the guilt consumed for being lucky enough to having been born American....

Lol. Glorification is not the exclusive means for the preservation of history, and "the ends justify the means" is a philosophy worthy of rejection.
 
I'm not sure what you're point is since you're just repeating yourself. I guess we'll just agree to disagree about Jefferson. If you think I'm wrong, I'll live with it. You can have the last word.

I am sure you know what my point is. You can however keep with the intellectual dishonesty if that works for ya.
 
I posted a quote from a historian earlier in the thread that stated the exact opposite of this:

As Woodson put it in 1924's Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830, "The census records show that the majority of the Negro owners of slaves were such from the point of view of philanthropy. In many instances the husband purchased the wife or vice versa … Slaves of Negroes were in some cases the children of a free father who had purchased his wife. If he did not thereafter emancipate the mother, as so many such husbands failed to do, his own children were born his slaves and were thus reported to the numerators."

Moreover, Woodson explains, "Benevolent Negroes often purchased slaves to make their lot easier by granting them their freedom for a nominal sum, or by permitting them to work it out on liberal terms." In other words, these black slave-owners, the clear majority, cleverly used the system of slavery to protect their loved ones. That's the good news.


In other words, I am basing my opinion on a historian's words so not reading history is not the issue for me. Like I said in my last post to you, however, we can agree to disagree and if you think I'm wrong, I'll live. And, quite frankly, I've had discussions with several people in this thread and not one of them has been as personally rude as you have. And because I'm not in the mood for it, I'll let you have the last word.

Funny how you try to use stats from 1830 and than cut out the FACT mine are from 1860. Much more relevant to what was happening at the time before the Civil War.

"According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

And again you chop out relevant facts in my quote to address just one small aspect.
 
1. Bulldoze and then melt Confederate Statues.

2. Keep and honor the Jefferson Memorial.
 
Lol. Glorification is not the exclusive means for the preservation of history, and "the ends justify the means" is a philosophy worthy of rejection.

Funny...Here's where I suppose you use wildly over stated terminology to make your point, because you can't justify trashing a large part of this nations history like it or not.
 
1. Bulldoze and then melt Confederate Statues.

Hmmm....Sounds like a sure way to piss off a lot of people....Think about it....What if, let's say that your family and my family knew each other for centuries. And let's say that your family has some pictures up on your walls of prior family members that my family can't stand....Should I be able to come into your home, rip them off the wall, smash them, then burn them up?
 
Funny...Here's where I suppose you use wildly over stated terminology to make your point, because you can't justify trashing a large part of this nations history like it or not.

Wrong, the engagement of human trafficking and slavery in fact is a trashy part of our history. Pity that you disagree.
 
Hmmm....Sounds like a sure way to piss off a lot of people....Think about it....What if, let's say that your family and my family knew each other for centuries. And let's say that your family has some pictures up on your walls of prior family members that my family can't stand....Should I be able to come into your home, rip them off the wall, smash them, then burn them up?

No, you shouldn't be able to.
 
Wrong, the engagement of human trafficking and slavery in fact is a trashy part of our history. Pity that you disagree.

Who said I disagree that it was a horrible part of our history, but it was that. PART OF OUR HISTORY! This attempt to whitewash it by doing away with the Confederate flag is futile, IMHO. This is where you make a mistake in attributing to me, the character you want to impose on me because it is easier for you to argue...
 
No, you shouldn't be able to.

Good glad we agree that outside agitators who forced this issue in the media, as well as those bused in to protest and deface statues in Charleston are in the wrong...
 
This is why you never let liberals win....you give them an inch and they want the whole 8.


Gun owners learned this a long time ago. No compromise.
 
This is why you never let liberals win....you give them an inch and they want the whole 8.


Gun owners learned this a long time ago. No compromise.

Lets be clear. Conservatives are giving an inch on racism. That is where they've planted their ideological flag, so to speak.

Am I reading you correctly?
 
Lets be clear. Conservatives are giving an inch on racism. That is where they've planted their ideological flag, so to speak.

Am I reading you correctly?

Nope..
 
Back
Top Bottom