The Confederacy was About Slavery

Slaves are not referred to as "other people" in the Constitution. In fact, i'm fairly certain that "other people" as a locution does not appear in the document. Even if it does (and i'm not going to go read it now), it's not a reference to slaves. As for not mentioning slavery, i have already pointed out that the language was a fig leaf for those who opposed the institution but had to take the bitter with the sweet. Where would Anus be without straw man fallacies and outright lies? No one in this thread mentioned higher ideals, except Anus, in another example of his obsessive reliance on straw man fallacies. I didn't say that the British forced slavery on the American colonists, and "freedom loving" is just another of Anus' obsessive straw man fallacies. The system often forced the sea-borne merchants of the American colonies to accept slaves as payment, and that was as often or more often in Dutch and French colonies in the West Indies. I've already mentioned that from the earliest days, the North American colonists traded with those nations' colonies as well as the British colonies. Anus ignores that the status of the Africans after they reached Virginia was at issue, not their status while on board ship. It is worth noting that after Columbus' first voyage, he asked permission to make slaves of the aborigines, and was flatly turned down by Isabella, who later had him imprisoned when he enslaved the natives despite her ruling. At least technically, slavery was illegal in the Spanish colonies, so the ship had to have been smuggling slaves, and was probably bound for Brazil--the most common destination for Spanish slavers. Whether or not, once again, the question was the status of the Africans after they arrived in Virginia. Apparently Anus considers himself such an oracle that he is prepared to contradicted published historians commenting on the incident--at least two of them black Americans who have doctorates in African-American studies. Anus has a wildly over-inflated opinion of his own knowledge and education, when the evidence at this site is that he has little of either commodity. Nowhere does the text of the Constitution describe how slaves are to be dealt with. Anus has apparently still not availed himself of the simple expedient of actually reading the document.

At the end, we are regales with Anus' obsessive hatefulness for Americans, and, apparently, for homosexuals. There are few people i have ever encountered at this site who are more ignorant, yet marginally able to respond in a close approximation of the English language. I'll point out once again that he might profit in the discussion if he would simply read the Constitution rather than making idiotic statements about what it does and does not say.

5 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

There are few people i have ever encountered at this site who are more ignorant, yet marginally able to respond in a close approximation of the English language.

http://www.alien-earth.com/images/smileys/worshipme.gif

http://www.alien-earth.com/images/smileys/rofl.gif

What an ass.

0 Replies

Point of order please:

Why all of this talk about founding principles? Am I not correct is saying that Slavery has existed through all of history and the the minds of the Enlightenment approved, they saying that empirically some peoples are smarter and more developed than others and that the just result of not being mentally smart and tough is enslavement by your betters? Doing things poorly needs to carry costs, we need both the stick and the carrot, so do well or accept the cost of failure to learn and thrive.

Of course these days we barely even believe in either justice or standards, and so we cant enforce either. But the founders did not have this problem, they agreed with slavery just like the human race has for as far back as we can see. THey also believed that some groups are so backwards that they have no right to live with us, that their absence from the Earth should not be opposed, this being the justification for the treatment of the indians once they proved unable/unwilling to adapt to a far superior civilization.

Do I have this wrong, and if so how please.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Am I not correct is saying that Slavery has existed through all of history

yes but the Confederacy hasnt . See where the topic was going??

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

yes but the Confederacy hasnt . See where the topic was going??

I am hoping: so after all that if we as a nation working off of majority rule changed our minds on the subject of slavery then one of two things or both had to happen if we were to go about this in a civilized way.

1) the slave owners needed to get made whole after they were relieved of their property

2) the slave owners had to be convinced that their sacrifice of wealth was for the greater good, that they should make a sacrifice.

Obviously we took a much more ugly and brutal road. I have no doubt that you liberals want to feel all good about being of a mind that slavery sucks and that slave owners need to get their asses kicked, as well as the next 5 generations after slavery even though those people had nothing to do with it, as well as anyone who claims to not spit on the Confederacy and all of its symbols........but we pretty much fucked this one up, to include not doing much to help the freed slaves (but we sure gave them a lot of lessons on the bible and tried to teach them to read and ****, helping them to earn a living not so much), to include only grudgingly doing the bare minimum to repair the South. And now a lot of you want to burn confederate flags and bulldoze Confederate celebrating monuments and to cheer the ordering of the banning the sale of confederate flag knicknacks at park services civil war gift shops by the winner of the war because the flying of the flag is according to you a " direct threat of violence against niggers". Pretty much nothing associated with this war is something to be looked back on with any fondness. If people in the South want to fly the flag and feel a little bit like rebels then have the grace to leave them the **** alone. Let them do what they do, and you go do what ever it is you like to do, except polluting my personal space with your ignorance and lack of tolerance.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I stole your daughter and kept her as a cleaning lady (no pay but she got fed). We beat her when it suited and bred her (OH YEHm your a grandfather).
Then you come and beat the crap out of me and get yer daughter back.I feel that I should be compensated for the loss of my cleaning lady, and by your logic, so do you.

You been smokin some of Anus ' doobies?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Your whole argument is on the word slavery as though if the word is not used then the meaning is not there . I take it from your reply you think slavery is not in the Constitution because the word is not there ? How naive is that ? And you think slavery was condoned for Indians and black slave owners, and the vast majority of slave owners who were white just went along for the ride ? I repeat, if slavery is not mentioned by the term "other people" then who are these other people ? If slavery is not mentioned why does it need an amendment that says the word slavery in it ?

Are you so gullible and naive to think that if the actual word slavery is not used then it is not mentioned ? Dont sign a contract until you get someone to be your guardian .

men·tion (mĕn′shən)
tr.v. men·tioned, men·tion·ing, men·tions
To speak or write about, especially briefly or incidentally.

I hope you understand now .

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Lets just reply to the part about Colombus because it is so errant as to be laughable . **** for brains loves to throw around ad hominem, straw man, and all manner of terms he hopes will never be checked . He likes his readers stupid and gullible, and God knows he finds them .

Quote:

By the end of his third voyage, Columbus was physically and mentally exhausted: his body was wracked by arthritis and his eyes by ophthalmia. In October 1499, he sent two ships to Spain, asking the Court of Spain to appoint a royal commissioner to help him govern.

By this time, accusations of tyranny and incompetence on the part of Columbus had also reached the Court. Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand responded by removing Columbus from power and replacing him with Francisco de Bobadilla, a member of the Order of Calatrava.

Bobadilla, who ruled as governor from 1500 until his death in a storm in 1502, had also been tasked by the Court with investigating the accusations of brutality made against Columbus. Arriving in Santo Domingo while Columbus was away in the explorations of his Third voyage, Bobadilla was immediately met with complaints about all three Columbus brothers: Christopher, Bartolomé, and Diego. A recently discovered report by de Bobadilla alleges that Columbus regularly used torture and mutilation to govern Hispaniola. The 48-page report, found in 2006 in the state archive in the Spanish city of Valladolid, contains testimonies from 23 people, including both enemies and supporters of Columbus, about Columbus and his brothers' treatment of colonial subjects during his seven-year rule.[74]

According to the report, Columbus once punished a man found guilty of stealing corn by having his ears and nose cut off and then selling him into slavery. Testimony recorded in the report claims that Columbus congratulated his brother Bartolomé on "defending the family" when the latter ordered a woman paraded naked through the streets and then had her tongue cut out for suggesting that Columbus was of lowly birth.[74]

The document also describes how Columbus put down native unrest and revolt; he first ordered a brutal crackdown in which many natives were killed and then paraded their dismembered bodies through the streets in an attempt to discourage further rebellion.[75]

"Columbus's government was characterised by a form of tyranny," Consuelo Varela, a Spanish historian who has seen the document, told journalists.[74] "Even those who loved him [Columbus] had to admit the atrocities that had taken place."[74]

Because of their gross mismanagement of governance, Columbus and his brothers were arrested and imprisoned upon their return to Spain from the third voyage. They lingered in jail for six weeks before busy King Ferdinand ordered their release. Not long after, the king and queen summoned the Columbus brothers to the Alhambra palace in Granada. There the royal couple heard the brothers' pleas; restored their freedom and wealth; and, after much persuasion, agreed to fund Columbus' fourth voyage. But the door was firmly shut on Columbus' role as governor. Henceforth Nicolás de Ovando y Cáceres was to be the new governor of the West Indies.

There you are, a lovely man who obviously would never approve of something as brutal as slavery .

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I stole your daughter and kept her as a cleaning lady (no pay but she got fed). We beat her when it suited and bred her (OH YEHm your a grandfather).
Then you come and beat the crap out of me and get yer daughter back.I feel that I should be compensated for the loss of my cleaning lady, and by your logic, so do you.

You been smokin some of Anus ' doobies?

I can be insulting AND compile 50 thoughts in one post on an interesting subject.

Stop slacking.

Pick a few of my points and either agree or tell me that I am wrong and inform me of why. Please.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Nowhere does the text of the Constitution describe how slaves are to be dealt with.

Not only that, it doesnt say the sky is blue . What would **** for brains say here...I know ! Strawman !

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

we are regales with Anus' obsessive hatefulness for Americans

I think **** for brains is angry that the comments Gomer the turd and he made about Australians being inferior and Americans being superior was challenged . Nazis love that genetically superior stuff .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

are you that dumb as not to understand the simple declarative statements I made??
If you wish to engage in lies and /or the conflation of text, then youre on your own . Why not just crawl back under the woodwork here you belong .

This is why youve never prevailed in an argument here. If you cant lie your way out you try to change the statements made by others and then you try to ascribe things to people who never said em.
Argue with me, my argument. Argue with others theirs.

You are now denying the existence of Black or Indian slaveholders?? and that slaveholding was exclusive to white land owners

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

and that slaveholding was exclusive to white land owners

Are you seriously saying that people who owned houses only, or people who owned shops only, did not ever own slaves?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I just refuted your lead point from your penultimate post. You want to hve slaveholders to be compensated. Thats where I started laughing and thought that I should ,in all honesty, at least refute its thrust.

Maybe thats yer trouble, too many points poorly thought out , can be like "multi-tasking". research shows fairly conclusively that multi-taskers dont do either task well.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

where did I , or set say what you just stated?
I wonder whether lying comes so naturally to you that you dont even know that you are doing it

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Not all slaves were black. There were many white slaves( 1 and one quarter million)captured in Europe, by Muslims, and sold in Muslim lands.

In fact when it comes to slavery, Islam supplied the Europeans with Africans,
And those Europeans took them to America. Islam wrote the book on slavery and excels still in its practice.

Who knows, maybe that is what Obama is talking about when he says Islam helped build America.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/mar/10/20040310-115506-8528r/

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

the language was a fig leaf for those who opposed the institution but had to take the bitter with the sweet....The system often forced the sea-borne merchants of the American colonies to accept slaves as payment.....

Awwww....werent they lovely ? So modern in their thinking...almost half of the signatories to the Consitution owned slaves .

Quote:

Many Founding Fathers, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin owned slaves (Franklin later became an abolitionist).[27] Slaves and slavery are mentioned only indirectly in the 1787 Constitution. For example, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 prescribes that "three fifths of all other Persons" are to be counted for the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives and direct taxes. Additionally, in Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3, slaves are referred to as "persons held in service or labor"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Constitution_of_the_United_States Can you read English without your USA tinted glasses on ?

The Constitution of the United States :

Article I, Section 2, negotiated by James Madison of Virginia, designated "other persons" (slaves) to be added to the total of the state's free population, at the rate of three-fifths of their total number, to establish the state's official population for the purposes of apportionment of Congressional representation and federal taxation.

Article I, Section 9, forbade the Federal government from banning the "importation" of persons that an individual state's laws considered "proper to admit" until January 1, 1808 .

Article IV, Section 2 , As further protection for slavery, the delegates approved of this section which prohibited states from freeing slaves who fled to them from another state, and required the return of chattel property to owners.

Article V, prohibited amending those portions of Article I, Section 9 before 1808.

The effect of these laws concerning slavery was to increase the power of southern states in Congress for decades, affecting national policies and legislation. The planter elite dominated the southern Congressional delegations and the United States presidency for nearly 50 years. a tax of ten dollars each was allowed for each of these 'other persons" (and which was immediately imposed, after ratification). By prohibiting Federal banning of the slave trade for two decades, the constitution effectively protected the trade until 1808, giving the States 20 years to resolve this issue. During that time, planters in states of the Lower South imported tens of thousands of slaves, more than during any previous two decades in colonial history.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

You're an idiot .

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

You want to hve slaveholders to be compensated.

No, I am saying that it should have been on the table, that it was the right thing to do, and that we should consider whether the people of the North were dicks. And if the claims are right that about all they wanted to offer freed slaves was Bible lessons and learning them the alphabet maybe they did not like niggers much either. Which rolls into my already on the table claim that hostility towards the confederate flag is hostility towards Southern Whites. Full. Stop. It rolls into a lot of peoples claims that currently there is a hell of a lot more racism in other areas than there is in the South.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Surprise, surprise surprise ! Well, Gomer, it appears you and **** for brains both dont think an Australian can understand USA history because he wasnt born in the USA . Shall I copy and paste your words ? Very Happy

You are entertaining to a certain extent, but as you get drunker the fun wears off...I feel I am kicking an unconscious wino .

0 Replies

The Confederacy was About Slavery

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know