Should slave owners be removed from the dollar bill?

YES , it is on ! :wink:

chai wrote :

Quote:

hello....? (tapping on mike).....is this thing on?

obviously, a thing may be moral and illegal, or visa-versa.

the question is, because we at this precise time hold something immoral, does that mean it has always been so?

What, are we so enlightened today that we can be armchair morality police for all ages?

At the time of Washington, Jefferson, et al, they was no more consensus as to whether slavery was immoral, than the issue of abortion, or which coffee at starbucks tastes the best, or if they all suck, today.

i agree with you on this subject in general terms .
of course , someone who suffered under a certain system - even if it was "legal" at the time - , may have a somwhat different point of view
(or if his his/her ancestors suffered under such a system) .

one of the difficult problems is to define what might be considered "history" .
many of us - including me - may use the word "history" quite casually in describing something that may have happened just a few weeks or even days ago as "history" ; meaning usually that it is not really importatnt to us any more .
some other person , however , may view it differently if they were effected by the event .

i'm sure we'd have a very difficult time agreeing on when "the present ends" and "history starts" .
is whatever happened during my lifetime still "the present" or might part of it already be "history " ?
i bet many scholarly articles have been written on that subject and kept food on the table for the writers and their families .

kind of interesting to bat this around , i find .
does this qualify as a brain "exercise" or is at an exercise for the "brain dead" ? Shocked

:wink:
hbg

0 Replies

This issue of time seems to reappear.
Modern understanding applied to history and so forth.

Again, I ask is slavery only recently abominable?
Was slavery justified in times past simply because the majority
thought so. I think not.

Majority rules but not always correctly and our mental capacity was not so different at that time then it is now.

0 Replies

I haven't said anything about modern understanding of past events.
with that is a assumption we know best. that's not true.

doesn't have a thing to do with mental capacity, intelligence, etc.

throughout the ages, people haven't just gone along blindly following the majority.

if you are born into a certain set of beliefs, more than likely you will feel it in your heart to be the truth.

you're looking at it from where you are standing right now.

if you were born in another place, or another time, or both, you would not be the person you are right now.

0 Replies

There seems to be a huge cognitive dissonance on the part of Jason in this discussion. Slavery was not criminal in this country before the ratification of the XIIIth amendment in 1865. Therefore, regardless of what this poor sap whom Jason was tormenting at work said, slavery was not criminal before then, nor were slave owners criminals.

Now, if Jason wants to claim that it ought to have been criminal, and that the practice is immoral, and was just as immoral then as it is now, that would be a different case altogether. However, on page two of this discussion, Jason had this to say:

jasonrest wrote:

It suffices to say that these were great men and I would not dishonor such as these. Mind you, I have not expressed my stance.
I am also mindful of this country's marred past and unfortunately these "less than perfect" men participated in one of the most horrific crimes of American History; a crime having much to do with the success of this country.

Also, I asked the question only for discussion, not for arguing or slander, although some are inclined to do so anyway, I would ask all to avoid it if you can.

He states that he has not expressed his stance, and yet in the very next sentence speaks of men participating in "one of the most horrific crimes of American history," and that is both a tendentious and a judgmental statement--it certainly can't be taken as a neutral invitation to dispassionate discussion. (I have already disposed, at least to my satisfaction, of the nonsensical claim that slavery had anything to do with the success of the country.) None of the men whose portraits appear on the currency committed any crimes, for whatever condemnation one would like to make from the perspective of our era and the morality we hold dear.

I feel, therefore, that Jason has been and continues to be less than honest with us, and that he has come here with an ax to grind, but won't admit it.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

There seems to be a huge cognitive dissonance on the part of Jason in this discussion. Slavery was not criminal in this country before the ratification of the XIIIth amendment in 1865. Therefore, regardless of what this poor sap whom Jason was tormenting at work said, slavery was not criminal before then, nor were slave owners criminals.

Now, if Jason wants to claim that it ought to have been criminal, and that the practice is immoral, and was just as immoral then as it is now, that would be a different case altogether. However, on page two of this discussion, Jason had this to say:

jasonrest wrote:
It suffices to say that these were great men and I would not dishonor such as these. Mind you, I have not expressed my stance.
I am also mindful of this country's marred past and unfortunately these "less than perfect" men participated in one of the most horrific crimes of American History; a crime having much to do with the success of this country.

Also, I asked the question only for discussion, not for arguing or slander, although some are inclined to do so anyway, I would ask all to avoid it if you can.

He states that he has not expressed his stance, and yet in the very next sentence speaks of men participating in "one of the most horrific crimes of American history," and that is both a tendentious and a judgmental statement--it certainly can't be taken as a neutral invitation to dispassionate discussion. (I have already disposed, at least to my satisfaction, of the nonsensical claim that slavery had anything to do with the success of the country.) None of the men whose portraits appear on the currency committed any crimes, for whatever condemnation one would like to make from the perspective of our era and the morality we hold dear.

I feel, therefore, that Jason has been and continues to be less than honest with us, and that he has come here with an ax to grind, but won't admit it.

Setanta: There is no need to remind me of the amendment.
I am aware of it and once again, official documents are not needed to convict the hearts of just men. A law is not needed to understand that blatant evil deeds are just that.

I don't claim that it "ought" to be criminal.
I claim that it was and still is criminal, not according to an amendment but according to a moral understanding of what's right and wrong. I explained that earlier.

If all law ceased to exist today, it does not render carte blanche for me to do as I please. Murder. Rape. Theft.
Are these things excusable because they were not officially labeled as inexcusable?

0 Replies

No, but actions would be labled excusable if the society of that time found any particular practice as having merit.

You questioned before if adultery is in the same catagory as slavery. To you, it must not be.

However, ask a member of a particular native american tribe of years ago what they thought. They would slice off the nose of a woman caught in adultery. Other peoples of the earth have found murder acceptable under various circumstances.

Don't you think there are practices of yours, that you find moral and just, that would have been found damining in the past, or will be found loathesome in the future?

You keep trying to get people to say something is etched in stone, regardless of the culture or the time.

That just isn't so.

0 Replies

chai wrote :

Quote:

No, but actions would be labled excusable if the society of that time found any particular practice as having merit.

in some areas of afghanistan and pakistan (and a few others) , women are not exactly treated equal to men - i'm sure , i need not elaborate .
so that practice/custom is apparently one having MERIT in those parts of the world .
western nations are fighting in those countries not only to defeat the taliban but also to bring FREEDOM to many women - at least that's what our governments are telling us .
so i have to wonder what business the western nations have wanting to change those practices having MERIT with some of the tribes in these countries ?

if we are condemning the practices of suppressing women in some parts of the world - and it's been going on for a long time - , is it not equally acceptable - or even necessary - to condemn slavery that was practiced 200 or more years ago EVEN though it may have had merit/been acceptable at that time ?

i'm not talking about CRIMINAL LAW but MORAL LAW , which was touched upon i believe .
hbg

0 Replies

Hamburger: It seems that we simply disagree.
Such deeds have no merit in any situation, in my opinion.
I think most would agree.

I enjoyed your conversation.

0 Replies

Well, you've managed to miss the point completely, or perhaps you just wanted to dance around it.

jasonrest wrote:

Setanta: There is no need to remind me of the amendment.
I am aware of it and once again, official documents are not needed to convict the hearts of just men. A law is not needed to understand that blatant evil deeds are just that.

What the hell is "convict the hearts of just men" supposed to mean? Perhaps you meant "convince?" My point was that you had claimed not to have taken a stance, and that you were only interested in discussion. You also said you weren't interested in arguing, which strongly suggests that you invite everyone to agree with you or be damned.

Quote:

I don't claim that it "ought" to be criminal.

And i did not say that you had said that. I wrote, specifically: Now, if Jason wants to claim that it ought to have been criminal, and that the practice is immoral, and was just as immoral then as it is now, that would be a different case altogether. That was after having pointed out that their ownership of slaves was not a crime, and the slave owners were not criminals.

Quote:

I claim that it was and still is criminal, not according to an amendment but according to a moral understanding of what's right and wrong. I explained that earlier.

You are wrong as wrong can be: it was not a crime at the time that Washington, Jefferson and Jackson lived. A crime is an offense against society's laws--you don't get to re-define words for sake of your argument. And that is precisely what you are doing, arguing. As for what you explained earlier, that is ironic in light of your contention that you had not taken a stance. That is why i said that you appear to suffer from cognitive dissonance. You claimed not to have taken a stance, but you want to refer to the moral lessons with which you have graced our benighted understandings. You say that you don't want to argue, and yet that is precisely what you are doing.

Quote:

If all law ceased to exist today, it does not render carte blanche for me to do as I please. Murder. Rape. Theft.
Are these things excusable because they were not officially labeled as inexcusable?

Murder, rape and theft are criminal in the definition of society's laws, and at the time that Washington, Jefferson and Jackson lived, slavery was not defined as criminal. Your analogy fails, and all you are engaged in is a moralistic rant. Attempting to take the argument an hysterical extreme does not serve to change the facts which i have pointed out.

Slavery was not a crime in the time that Washington, Jefferson and Jackson lived. Therefore, it is not true that these men were criminal.

You claimed not to have taken a stance in the same post in which you referred to "one of the most horrific crimes in American history." Therefore, you were not telling the truth. You also said that you didn't want to argue (once again, i suspect we are invited to agree with you or be damned), but in retrospect, that appears to be a lie, also.

0 Replies

Setanta - just asking for an opinion -
Do you think that Jefferson and Washington might have had guilty consciences about owning slaves?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Well, you've managed to miss the point completely, or perhaps you just wanted to dance around it.

jasonrest wrote:
Setanta: There is no need to remind me of the amendment.
I am aware of it and once again, official documents are not needed to convict the hearts of just men. A law is not needed to understand that blatant evil deeds are just that.

What the hell is "convict the hearts of just men" supposed to mean? Perhaps you meant "convince?" My point was that you had claimed not to have taken a stance, and that you were only interested in discussion. You also said you weren't interested in arguing, which strongly suggests that you invite everyone to agree with you or be damned.

Quote:
I don't claim that it "ought" to be criminal.

And i did not say that you had said that. I wrote, specifically: Now, if Jason wants to claim that it ought to have been criminal, and that the practice is immoral, and was just as immoral then as it is now, that would be a different case altogether. That was after having pointed out that their ownership of slaves was not a crime, and the slave owners were not criminals.

Quote:
I claim that it was and still is criminal, not according to an amendment but according to a moral understanding of what's right and wrong. I explained that earlier.

You are wrong as wrong can be: it was not a crime at the time that Washington, Jefferson and Jackson lived. A crime is an offense against society's laws--you don't get to re-define words for sake of your argument. And that is precisely what you are doing, arguing. As for what you explained earlier, that is ironic in light of your contention that you had not taken a stance. That is why i said that you appear to suffer from cognitive dissonance. You claimed not to have taken a stance, but you want to refer to the moral lessons with which you have graced our benighted understandings. You say that you don't want to argue, and yet that is precisely what you are doing.

Quote:
If all law ceased to exist today, it does not render carte blanche for me to do as I please. Murder. Rape. Theft.
Are these things excusable because they were not officially labeled as inexcusable?

Murder, rape and theft are criminal in the definition of society's laws, and at the time that Washington, Jefferson and Jackson lived, slavery was not defined as criminal. Your analogy fails, and all you are engaged in is a moralistic rant. Attempting to take the argument an hysterical extreme does not serve to change the facts which i have pointed out.

Slavery was not a crime in the time that Washington, Jefferson and Jackson lived. Therefore, it is not true that these men were criminal.

You claimed not to have taken a stance in the same post in which you referred to "one of the most horrific crimes in American history." Therefore, you were not telling the truth. You also said that you didn't want to argue (once again, i suspect we are invited to agree with you or be damned), but in retrospect, that appears to be a lie, also.

Convict: to impress with a sense of guilt.
I have refuted your argument of legality based on official documents more than once but, you return with the same.

Can I ask one question requiring one answer from you and I promise, I will do the same in return?

0 Replies

jasonrest wrote:

Convict: to impress with a sense of guilt.

There are many people who are convicted who display no remorse, nor the least sense of guilt.

However, this still doesn't make your sentence any less nonsensical. Why should one attempt to impress a just man with a sense of guilt? Of what would you allege a just man to be guilty?

Quote:

I have refuted your argument of legality based on official documents more than once but, you return with the same.

You've refuted nothing. The truth remains that prior to 1865, slavery was not a crime in the United States, and those who owned slaves were not criminals, not at least for the simple condition of being slave owners. I suggest that you add to the lengthening list of words you need look up the verb "to refute." All you have done is offer moral arguments (after stating that you didn't want to argue), and failed analogies which were not descriptions of analogous situations (which is why they fail).

Quote:

Can I ask one question requiring one answer from you and I promise, I will do the same in return?

You can ask anything you like--you can't expect, however, that you can sucker me into attempting to answer any loaded questions, such as the "have you stopped beating your wife" type of question, or that i would in any way be obliged to accept an unestablished premise in order for me to answer your question.

0 Replies

Before the the 13th amendment, in your eyes was slavery wrong?

0 Replies

jasonrest wrote:

Such deeds have no merit in any situation, in my opinion.
I think most would agree.

1st you say something is your opinion.

Then you state you think most people would agree with your opinion.

That is laughable.

How would you have any idea if most people on this planet would agree with you?

As I said before, you can't even get a small group of people to agree about something simple like decide where to have dinner, and you expect them to agree with you on matters of morality?

0 Replies

snood wrote - several pages back :

Quote:

When I was stationed at Walter Reed AMC, I visited all the touristy places to go in DC. I visited Arlington Cemetery on one 4th of July. Among the thousands of tombs, graves, headstones, mausoleums and etc., they had sort of an exhibit of some of Robert E. Lee's home and memorabilia.

I was almost ill with resentment at the honor bestowed upon him. It just about crushed what little patriotism and pride in country I had been able to muster up that day.

So yes, I think about the schziphrenia that is inherent in our celebrations and honors for the founding fathers of our "freedom". It is just part and parcel with the nationwide cognitive dissonance that makes it possible for one to hear discussions about why we are or are not ready for a black president, on the same day one hears discussions about race no longer "being a factor" in everyday life. It's the same thing that causes our country to expect allegiance from women and people of color when somehow the country still can't pay them the same amount of money for the same work.

i have noticed that so far no one has responded to snood's somewhat "provacative" statements .
it hasn't resulted in any "stimulating" discussion yet - and i am rather surprised at that - not that i want to "inflame" the discussion .
it seems to me that his observations/statements are somewhat different from what many others have written .

those a2k'ers that where effected by slavery - either directly or indirectly - do not seem share the view of the majority of the posters .
hbg

0 Replies

I haven't followed everything on this thread that closely. The slave quarters at Monticello affected me, though maybe not with the slappo that Snood felt at Arlington Cemetary as I'm white, or beige. Which, by the way, my father wanted to be buried at. and no go.

I get the pov that I am not them., my historic progenitors. Especially since they weren't, my family is from off the boat later. But they, all the theys, and since I've read a lot, many many theys, proceeded me and are here, to some extent, for me to read.

Just this morning, I was reading Peter Robb's Death in Brazil, a non fiction book which traces, a few pages in, sugar plantation history in Brazil, which varied from history in the US american south. Not that I'm so smart on this, I'm a reader. Perhaps I'll read something that argues with him later.

I'm not my forebears, or supposed forebears, but I am a person, a reader, a decider, a voter, a person acting now.

And no, I don't have intent to scrape the Washington monument, or the Lincoln Monument. As a land architect who has liked, until recently, the Mall in Washington, I'd like to scrape some recent ideas - re how the space works. (Many wouldn't care about that at all, and too bad that is.)

0 Replies

jasonrest wrote:

Before the the 13th amendment, in your eyes was slavery wrong?

Don't be a jerk . . . of course i consider slavery to be wrong, and of course i consider that it was wrong before 1865. That does not alter the fact that it was not a crime before 1865, and that therefore Washington, Jefferson and Jackson were not criminals.

0 Replies

Good answer.

0 Replies

The "of course" in Setanta's answer holds some intrigue for me, in the context of this whole throwaway tangent about basic right and wrong. In that context, isn't the whole controversy that nothing moral can be taken for granted as a matter "of course"?

0 Replies

I think he was just making the distinction between moral right and wrong and what the law at the time established as acceptable (i.e. criminal or non-criminal). He was pretty clear that he believes that slavery was morally wrong then and always.

0 Replies

Should slave owners be removed from the dollar bill?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know