• 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!

Kamala Harris's family were plantation and slave owners.

Fishking said:
The examples for police officers and such are due to them acting in an official capacity for the government. In this case, we're talking about the actions of private citizens or private holdings.
Click to expand...

But only because it was sanctioned by the government. Hell, the White House and the Washington Monument were built, at least in part, by slaves.
 
Excon said:
At that point in time it was the slave owners being deprived of their property by a government who did not reimburse them. They have far more of a claim than those who were slaves and received freedom.
Click to expand...

Sure the slave owning thugs were reimbursed bud. In lead, after they launched a rebellion against the United States.

Of course, that didn't stop them from going on to create domestic terrorist organizations.

Crying about slave owners being "deprived" of their ability to own other human beings is sickening.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Sure the slave owning thugs were reimbursed bud.

In lead, after they launched a rebellion against the United States.
Click to expand...
Lead? A stupid reply and dishonesty in debate.
No there were not.
We are talking about compensation for the Government depriving people of their property, not about the 900 in the north that were paid to free their slaves.


Tigerace117 said:
Crying about slave owners being "deprived" of their ability to own other human beings is sickening.
Click to expand...
Your take is absurd as replying with "lead".
No one cried.

A fact was stated that they were deprived of their property without compensation.
That is factual information.
The point being is that they have a far greater claim against the Government than those who received their freedom from the the same Government. Those freed from slavery were freed from a legal institution.

You really need to learn the difference between someone stating factual information in relevance to the discussion, and someone who is crying and providing nothing of substance like you did in reply.
 
Excon said:
Lead? A stupid reply and dishonesty in debate.
No there were not.
We are talking about compensation for the Government depriving people of their property, not about the 900 in the north that were paid to free their slaves.


Your take is absurd as replying with "lead".
No one cried.

A fact was stated that they were deprived of their property without compensation.
That is factual information.
The point being is that they have a far greater claim against the Government than those who received their freedom from the the same Government. Those freed from slavery were freed from a legal institution.

You really need to learn the difference between someone stating factual information in relevance to the discussion, and someone who is crying and providing nothing of substance like you did in reply.
Click to expand...

iLol.

Their "property" were human beings.

They should not have been compensated, especially since they committed treason against the United States.

You cried about the slaveowners losing their "property". They had no claim whatsoever, especially given how the slaveowners continued to brutally oppress African Americans even after the US government crushed their treason.

Yes, you didn't provide any of substance.....just wailing about your heroes losing their "property".
 
Tigerace117 said:
Their "property" were human beings.
Click to expand...
And still their property.
That is the way it was then.
Things changed. Learn the difference.


Tigerace117 said:
They should not have been compensated, especially since they committed treason against the United States.
Click to expand...
iLOL Individuals are not responsible for what the State did.


Tigerace117 said:
You cried about the slaveowners losing their "property".
Click to expand...
Wrong.
There was no crying.
I stated factual information.
Just another thing in which you need to learn the difference.


Tigerace117 said:
They had no claim whatsoever, especially given how the slaveowners continued to brutally oppress African Americans even after the US government crushed their treason.
Click to expand...
A stupid argument that has no basis in law to deprive someone of reimbursement for property taken by the government.


Tigerace117 said:
Yes, you didn't provide any of substance.....just wailing about your heroes losing their "property".
Click to expand...
Wrong as usual you are, and more than one count. Not just wrong but lying and projecting as well. Figures.
 
Excon said:
And still their property.
That is the way it was then.
Things changed. Learn the difference.



iLOL Individuals are not responsible for what the State did.


Wrong.
There was no crying.
I stated factual information.
Just another thing in which you need to learn the difference.


A stupid argument that has no basis in law to deprive someone of reimbursement for property taken by the government.


Wrong as usual you are, and more than one count. Not just wrong but lying and projecting as well. Figures.
Click to expand...

iLol

No, they were not "properly".

And no, the United States government was not in any way obligated to reimburse slaver thugs, especially after they committed treason.

Even in 1860 slavery was seen as a vast evil. There's a reason no one recognized the Confederacy.

Deal with it.

iLol those individuals are the ones who fought for the Confederacy. And served in it's "government". Your excuse is weak at best.

You are still wailing about your slaver heroes. iLol.

Again, not property, and there was no reason why anyone should reimburse slavers.

Yes, you are a liar. Go back to crying about your slaver heroes. iLol.
 
Fishking said:
Sorry...you don't reimburse something so depraved as slavery. Full stop.
Click to expand...
You commentary does not even make sense for the following reason.

If a person enslaved you today, you most certainly would be deserving of compensation/reimbursement from them because it is illegal act.

But it wasn't illegal then, so regardless of the depraved way it is considered today, the act then it is not compensable.




Tigerace117 said:
No, they were not "properly".
Click to expand...
1. The word was property, and yes ,they were property.
Nothign you can say changes that.


Tigerace117 said:
And no, the United States government was not in any way obligated to reimburse slaver thugs, especially after they committed treason.
Click to expand...
iLOL That is not what the law says.



Tigerace117 said:
Even in 1860 slavery was seen as a vast evil.
Click to expand...
To a small minority, sure.
To most it was the norm and legal.

Tigerace117 said:
There's a reason no one recognized the Confederacy.

Deal with it.

iLol those individuals are the ones who fought for the Confederacy. And served in it's "government". Your excuse is weak at best.
Click to expand...
Silly commentary having not a damn thing to do with anything I said.


Tigerace117 said:
You are still wailing about your slaver heroes. iLol.
Click to expand...
Poor attempt at constructing strawmen.


Tigerace117 said:
Again, not property, and there was no reason why anyone should reimburse slavers.
Click to expand...
Wrong as usual and no valid argument.
Figures.

Tigerace117 said:
Yes, you are a liar. Go back to crying about your slaver heroes.
Click to expand...
Wrong as usual and projecting and lying to boot. Just a continuation of your prior bs. Figures.
Just what do you think the slavery we are talking about is? Huh? We are not talking about indentured servitude, but actual ownership.
And they were property just like cattle are and you can not show they were not.
 
Excon said:
You commentary does not even make sense for the following reason.

If a person enslaved you today, you most certainly would be deserving of compensation/reimbursement from them because it is illegal act.

But it wasn't illegal then, so regardless of the depraved way it is considered today, the act then it is not compensable.




1. The word was property, and yes ,they were property.
Nothign you can say changes that.


iLOL That is not what the law says.



To a small minority, sure.
To most it was the norm and legal.

Silly commentary having not a damn thing to do with anything I said.


Poor attempt at constructing strawmen.


Wrong as usual and no valid argument.
Figures.

Wrong as usual and projecting and lying to boot. Just a continuation of your prior bs. Figures.
Just what do you think the slavery we are talking about is? Huh? We are not talking about indentured servitude, but actual ownership.
And they were property just like cattle are and you can not show they were not.
Click to expand...

iLol.

Slavery was already considered depraved long before your heroes went to war to preserve it.

There’s a reason not a single country recognized the Confederacy.

iLol.

No, they were—-and are—-human beings, no matter what your whiskey tango thug heroes thought. And human beings are not property.

iLol Nazi Germany has plenty of laws disenfranchising the Jews. Just like the “laws” of your heroes those were not legitimate.

Utterly and totally false. Outside of Brazil and a few other semi legal spots in South America slavery had been eradicated in the rest of the West by 1860. The “small minority” were the people like you and your heroes.

Considering slavery was the reason no one recognized the Confederacy.....your handwaving is amusing,

iLol. You are throwing a tantrum again because you have been called out. What a surprise....not.
 
Tigerace117 said:
iLol.

Slavery was already considered depraved long before your heroes went to war to preserve it.
Click to expand...
iLOL You really like arguing delusional nonsense, don't you?
1. As I already recognized, a minority thought that (counting the world and specifically those in africa doing the enslaving who long after that point in time continued engaging in the act).
2. At no point in time have I ever claimed anyone was a hero for owning slaves. Your lie here is a delusional claim of the likes a person who has no valid argument makes.


Tigerace117 said:
There’s a reason not a single country recognized the Confederacy.
Click to expand...
:lamo Irrelevant to anything I said.


Tigerace117 said:
No, they were—-and are—-human beings, no matter what your whiskey tango thug heroes thought.

And human beings are not property.
Click to expand...
iLOL You really like arguing delusional nonsense, don't you? As slaves, they were property. Period. Slavery applied to human beings, and under slavery those human beings were property. Get over it and stop projecting your democrat hero worship onto others.


Tigerace117 said:
iLol Nazi Germany has plenty of laws disenfranchising the Jews. Just like the “laws” of your heroes those were not legitimate.
Click to expand...
Again with your delusional hero nonsense huh? Figures.

Get this straight. No person is a hero of mine for owning slaves or engaging in slavery. Capisce?

As for Nazi Germany? Irrelevant nonsense that occurred at a different time in history. If you want to discuss that topic I suggest you start the thread.



Tigerace117 said:
Utterly and totally false. Outside of Brazil and a few other semi legal spots in South America slavery had been eradicated in the rest of the West by 1860. The “small minority” were the people like you and your heroes.

Considering slavery was the reason no one recognized the Confederacy.....your handwaving is amusing,
Click to expand...
1. Whether or not anyone recognized the Confederacy as a nation or it's belligerent status is irrelevant to anything I said.
2. Your reply is as wrong as it it is wrong headed in reply to what I stated, and apparently you know that given that you restricted your commentary to the "West".

Slavery in the US was legal at the time. You do not give compensation for a legal act.


Tigerace117 said:
You are throwing a tantrum again because you have been called out. What a surprise....not.
Click to expand...
iLOL Laughing at your absurd emotional postings is not throwing a tantrum.

But since you have already displayed a lack of understanding on what a hero is, your lack of knowing what a tantrum is is understandable.
 
Excon said:
You commentary does not even make sense for the following reason.

If a person enslaved you today, you most certainly would be deserving of compensation/reimbursement from them because it is illegal act.

But it wasn't illegal then, so regardless of the depraved way it is considered today, the act then it is not compensable.
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense in that slavery was deeply immoral that deserves no compensation. If the law is the only premise in which you based morality and what is right then there is something very wrong.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Are you attempting to control the messaging for the entire left again?
Click to expand...

Entire left? There's not really any group that is monolithic in it's belief, though the left really tries. I'll say it's definitely mainstream left.
 
Fishking said:
It makes perfect sense in that slavery was deeply immoral that deserves no compensation. If the law is the only premise in which you based morality and what is right then there is something very wrong.
Click to expand...
So you are confused. :thumbs: Good to know.
You have no point.
There is an objective legal argument and a separate and distinct subjective morality argument.
I am engaged in a legal one, not the other.


Fishking said:
It makes perfect sense in that slavery was deeply immoral that deserves no compensation.
Click to expand...
And again, what you state makes no sense, especially to anything argued.

Good luck with that nonsense.
 
Fishking said:
Entire left? There's not really any group that is monolithic in it's belief, though the left really tries. I'll say it's definitely mainstream left.
Click to expand...

Reparations?
Nope, I don't agree.
I do not think that the mainstream liberal left has embraced reparations.
I think it is a matter which is going to be discussed in depth for a very long time and that mainstream liberals have yet to adopt any cohesive stance on the issue.
Some parts of the very far left may have.
 
Excon said:
So you are confused. :thumbs: Good to know.
You have no point.
There is an objective legal argument and a separate and distinct subjective morality argument.
I am engaged in a legal one, not the other.

And again, what you state makes no sense, especially to anything argued.

Good luck with that nonsense.
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense in that things that are legal can still be deeply unjust. It's not a complicated concept to understand, so I fail to see why you're struggling with it. Again, if the best premise you have is the law then you're building your argument on a false foundation. Laws have in the past, in the present, and will continue to in the future be objectively wrong.

Hell...may as well not even have the U.S or pay the UK money....seeing as our revolutionary war was illegal in your eyes so compensation must be applied.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Reparations?
Nope, I don't agree.
I do not think that the mainstream liberal left has embraced reparations.
I think it is a matter which is going to be discussed in depth for a very long time and that mainstream liberals have yet to adopt any cohesive stance on the issue.
Some parts of the very far left may have.
Click to expand...

If it's not mainstream then why are multiple front-runners supporting it?
 
Fishking said:
It makes perfect sense in that things that are legal can still be deeply unjust.
Click to expand...
No.
I do not disagree that it can be viewed as unjust. Though it certainly influenced the legal status of slavery later in time it has no relevance to whether or not it was legal at the time or in the fact the government did not following it ls own laws.


Fishking said:
It's not a complicated concept to understand, so I fail to see why you're struggling with it.
Click to expand...
:lamo
I have no struggle here.
Your nonsesical bs was called out for what it is. It was nothing more than a nonsensical comment made in an attempt to push an argument that doesn't fly.


Fishking said:
Again, if the best premise you have is the law then you're building your argument on a false foundation. Laws have in the past, in the present, and will continue to in the future be objectively wrong..
Click to expand...
You are confused.
Doesn't matter if law changes. It was legal at the time being discussed.
That is what matters to the argument here. Not the subjective morality of what some folks thought of it.
If you want to have a discussion of the morality of slavery in this day and age, go right on ahead and start the thread, I doubt you will find anyone that would argue in today's day and age that it is moral. Or if you wish you can start a thread to discuss how it was looked at in the past when some did think it was moral. Your choice.
But morality has not a damn thing to do with the actual legality of the act at the time.
It was legal. Learn from the past and get over it.


Fishking said:
Hell...may as well not even have the U.S or pay the UK money....seeing as our revolutionary war was illegal in your eyes so compensation must be applied.
Click to expand...
Oy vey!:doh
If you want to have such a discussion about the legalities, or the moralities of their actions, start the thread.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
I have no struggle here.
Your nonsesical bs was called out for what it is. It was nothing more than a nonsensical comment made in an attempt to push an argument that doesn't fly.

Oy vey!:doh
If you want to have such a discussion about the legalities, or the moralities of their actions, start the thread.
Click to expand...

It's not nonsensical at all. It's a very basic and easy to understand comment. Further, you said you had no struggle with understanding it but then say it's nonsensical. That's contradictory. As for my example, I see you dodged it, because I used the same premise you are using. So if you're right on this subject then it follows that we should pay the UK reparations for the Revolutionary War. I'm fine with keep that comparison here and letting it stand as valid and unchallenged.
 
Fishking said:
It's not nonsensical at all. It's a very basic and easy to understand comment.
Click to expand...
Being absurd as usual I see.


Fishking said:
Further, you said you had no struggle with understanding it but then say it's nonsensical. That's contradictory.
Click to expand...
No, not at all.
I understand the point you are trying to make by the nonsensical comment. You are playing a game and I am not participating.


Fishking said:
As for my example, I see you dodged it, because I used the same premise you are using.
Click to expand...
iLOL 1. I am not playing your game.
2. No relevance to the legality was stated.
How many times do you need it stated to understand the argument?



Fishking said:
So if you're right on this subject then it follows that we should pay the UK reparations for the Revolutionary War.
Click to expand...
Two different discussions.
If you want to have that discussion start the thread.


Fishking said:
I'm fine with keep that comparison here and letting it stand as valid and unchallenged.
Click to expand...
I am fine with everyone seeing you wont start a thread on the topic to discuss it.
 
Excon said:
Being absurd as usual I see.

No, not at all.
I understand the point you are trying to make by the nonsensical comment. You are playing a game and I am not participating.


iLOL 1. I am not playing your game.
2. No relevance to the legality was stated.
How many times do you need it stated to understand the argument?



Two different discussions.
If you want to have that discussion start the thread.


I am fine with everyone seeing you wont start a thread on the topic to discuss it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but "Nuh-uh" isn't a rebuttal. If you don't want to discuss anything then why are you here?
 
Parrish said:
My family owned slaves. Disgusting and makes me ashamed. As for David, he did, when he was on Finding Your Roots.
Click to expand...

One part of my family included some Kentucky slaveowners. The son of whom was the first union officer fired upon by the rebels at Fort Sumpter. He served the Union and recruited men to fight against slavery. The other side of that part of the family lived in Boston-were big time abolitionists and were backers of the black division of soldiers led by Robert Gould Shaw-made famous in the brilliant film "Glory". Now the other part of that side of the family didn't come to the USA until right after the civil war. My mother's side of the family included a mix of French Huguenots, Germans of Lutheran and Jewish blood, and presidents Fillmore and Harrison. Harrison's descendants fought for the North. Fillmore strongly denounced the confederacy., The German and French came after the Civil war. Sort of hard to see where reparations are a just debt for my family.
 
Fishking said:
Sorry, but "Nuh-uh" isn't a rebuttal. If you don't want to discuss anything then why are you here?
Click to expand...
iLOL It seems you are projecting.
I am the one willing to discuss things, you on the other hand want to engage in silliness and play games by making the nonsensical claim of: "Sorry...you don't reimburse something so depraved as slavery. Full stop."


Whether or not some considered it depraved has no relevance to the fact of it's actual legality at the time.
Like I already said, the morality of the institution may have influenced how it was thought about and therefore influenced it becoming unlawful, but that too is irrelevant to the fact that it was legal at the time and to the fact that the Government failed to provide it's citizens (for the most part) with compensation for depriving them of their property.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom