The point that you cannot grasp is at the time there was no law against slavery. It was perfectly legal. It was also covered many times in the Bible, both New Testament and Old and never was it prohibited but it concerned how one treated his or her slaves, not whether one owned slaves or not.
Lincoln, instead of preserving the union, in the long run, as evidenced by the status quo, destroyed the union.
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson
The point that you cannot grasp is at the time there was no law against slavery. It was perfectly legal. It was also covered many times in the Bible, both New Testament and Old and never was it prohibited but it concerned how one treated his or her slaves, not whether one owned slaves or not.
Lincoln, instead of preserving the union, in the long run, as evidenced by the status quo, destroyed the union.
The point that you cannot grasp is that while the original Constitution made concessions to slavery as a necessary evil; neither the Constitution or the Founders regarded slavery as a positive moral good. Indeed, the express principles of the Constitution were in conflict on the issue of slavery. Therefore, in interpreting the Constitution it became necessary to interpret and understand it in light of the intent and understanding of the Framers---in light of the Constitution's genuine principles, as opposed to its prudential compromises with those principles. The governing principle (the principle which birthed the Revolution) was "liberty" for all as in "we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal". Not some men, mind you, not merely those with land or property or title, or the lightest skin, but all men.
The Northwest Ordinance declared declared that slavery would not exist in the lands governed by that Ordinance. The Missouri Compromise was entirely consistent with the Northwest Ordinance and, had it survived, would have accomplished over time exactly what the Founders intended, the extinction of slavery. The repeal of the Missouri Compromise with the Kansas-Nebraska act and the emergence of the positive good school of pro-slavery thought were entirely unanticipated by the Founders. But the argument for slavery as a positive good is, at bottom an argument that "might makes right". This nation however was founded in express opposition to such principles. Jefferson taught that consent as such can never justify anything intrinsically immoral. The movement to entrench slavery as a positive moral good then, was, in actuality, a movement to transmute the Founding from one grounded in liberty and the natural and equal "right of every man to place in his own mouth the fruit of his own labor" to one of enslavement, the very opposite of liberty. At bottom it also meant the negation of any idea of "self-evident truths" and hence, of everything the Founders stood for. In fact, John Calhoun called the "self-evident truths" of the Declaration of Independence "self-evident lies". To Calhoun, it was not self-evident that a black man and a white men were each men (notwithstanding the several hundred thousand mulatto children in the ante-bellum South that testified to their equal humanity). Calhoun's denial (and that of the intelligentsia of the South generally) of the humanity of Negroes presaged Hitler's denial of the humanity of Jews and Stalin's denial of the humanity of anyone "counter-revolutionary". (Incidentally, the homosexual rights movement, which also denies any moral authority to the "laws of nature and of nature's God" is merely the most current and popular iteration of the self-same legal and logical positivism that underlay the argument for chattel slavery as a positive moral good. Calhoun would have loved the sodomy rights movement!)
As far as the Bible and slavery, I could be less interested in debating that issue because this nation is not a theocracy. That said however, the New Testament teaches us to "do unto others as we would have them do to us". The Golden Rule, properly understood, is sufficient Biblical condemnation of slavery for me. In any event, however, I am relatively certain that nowhere does the Bible extol slavery as a positive moral good.
Jordan
Last edited by RobJordan; 04/11/15.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
Stalin never denied anyone's humanity. The communists merely thought that what they wanted to accomplish was a greater good, and therefore, if they had to kill millions, it was worth it. In that respect, they were exactly like Abraham Lincoln. He broke the law, abrogated the law, was a tyrant and despot simply because he thought his end was worth it. He was the forerunner of and the archetype for the 20th century despot.
It ain't my job to enable your passive aggression I guess <shrug>
This is why I ignored your previous similar statements. Post 'em yerself you lazy twerp.
Oh, someone as erudite at history as you claim to be should know it. But, of course, you do. You just choose to ignore it.
However, I must note that in the interest of historical accuracy, before you go to any more Texas history enactments, you should probably lose about fifty or maybe even sixty pounds. Frontiersmen were almost universally lean.
Stalin never denied anyone's humanity. The communists merely thought that what they wanted to accomplish was a greater good, and therefore, if they had to kill millions, it was worth it. In that respect, they were exactly like Abraham Lincoln. He broke the law, abrogated the law, was a tyrant and despot simply because he thought his end was worth it. He was the forerunner of and the archetype for the 20th century despot.
Stalin absolutely denied the humanity of anyone who was counter-revolutionary as shown by his slaughtering them as if they were hogs and cattle. Hitler and Nazism were very clear that anything "dysgenic" could be exterminated with no more thought than if they were plague-bearing bacilli.
The Founders intended the Union to be perpetual. Lincoln saved the Union and the Constitution because he saved them from a rebellion which sought to re-cast the Founding from one grounded in liberty to one grounded in slavery and to re-cast the Constitution as an enactment of positive law justifying enslavement, while proclaiming "liberty". In vindicating the principle of self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence, in re-grounding government in the equal right of every man to place into his own mouth the fruit of his own labor, in refuting the Southern argument that there was no difference between men and hogs and hence in refuting the justification of the South for treating other men as if they were hogs (and horses and oxen) Lincoln vindicated the the laws of nature and of nature's God upon which this nation was founded free and independent.
Communists: I still hate them even after they changed their name to "liberals". ____________________
My boss asked why I wasn't working. I told him I was being a democrat for Halloween.
Much of what Alexander Stephens speech addresses in concern to slavery is based on politics vs nature..
"I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal."
Do educate yourself and read the entire speech. Afterwards your next dissertation should be much more connected with reality.
Lastly, check the Ten Commandments, written by the finger of God Almighty himself. Mentions but does not cast slavery in a bad light.
I have no use for kudzu either..
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson
Oh, someone as erudite at history as you claim to be should know it
Where did I ever claim to be erudite in history? I read a lot, generally remember what I've read is all.
And dude, I have no idea where you are from, to be honest I haven't cared enough to try and find out.
Quote
However, I must note that in the interest of historical accuracy, before you go to any more Texas history enactments, you should probably lose about fifty or maybe even sixty pounds. Frontiersmen were almost universally lean.
Ya a puzzle that. I don't eat much, I'm on my feet all day long, constantly active, ride twenty miles round trip to work, even rode that bicycle 2,000 miles to New York last summer, didn't seem to make much difference. Prob'ly I should worry about it more than you do.
Some guys back then were stout, maybe I woulda been one I dunno.
Birdwatcher
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
The point that you cannot grasp is at the time there was no law against slavery. It was perfectly legal. It was also covered many times in the Bible, both New Testament and Old and never was it prohibited but it concerned how one treated his or her slaves, not whether one owned slaves or not.
Lincoln, instead of preserving the union, in the long run, as evidenced by the status quo, destroyed the union.
The point that you cannot grasp is that while the original Constitution made concessions to slavery as a necessary evil; neither the Constitution or the Founders regarded slavery as a positive moral good. Indeed, the express principles of the Constitution were in conflict on the issue of slavery. Therefore, in interpreting the Constitution it became necessary to interpret and understand it in light of the intent and understanding of the Framers---in light of the Constitution's genuine principles, as opposed to its prudential compromises with those principles. The governing principle (the principle which birthed the Revolution) was "liberty" for all as in "we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal". Not some men, mind you, not merely those with land or property or title, or the lightest skin, but all men.
The Northwest Ordinance declared declared that slavery would not exist in the lands governed by that Ordinance. The Missouri Compromise was entirely consistent with the Northwest Ordinance and, had it survived, would have accomplished over time exactly what the Founders intended, the extinction of slavery. The repeal of the Missouri Compromise with the Kansas-Nebraska act and the emergence of the positive good school of pro-slavery thought were entirely unanticipated by the Founders. But the argument for slavery as a positive good is, at bottom an argument that "might makes right". This nation however was founded in express opposition to such principles. Jefferson taught that consent as such can never justify anything intrinsically immoral. The movement to entrench slavery as a positive moral good then, was, in actuality, a movement to transmute the Founding from one grounded in liberty and the natural and equal "right of every man to place in his own mouth the fruit of his own labor" to one of enslavement, the very opposite of liberty. At bottom it also meant the negation of any idea of "self-evident truths" and hence, of everything the Founders stood for. In fact, John Calhoun called the "self-evident truths" of the Declaration of Independence "self-evident lies". To Calhoun, it was not self-evident that a black man and a white men were each men (notwithstanding the several hundred thousand mulatto children in the ante-bellum South that testified to their equal humanity). Calhoun's denial (and that of the intelligentsia of the South generally) of the humanity of Negroes presaged Hitler's denial of the humanity of Jews and Stalin's denial of the humanity of anyone "counter-revolutionary". (Incidentally, the homosexual rights movement, which also denies any moral authority to the "laws of nature and of nature's God" is merely the most current and popular iteration of the self-same legal and logical positivism that underlay the argument for chattel slavery as a positive moral good. Calhoun would have loved the sodomy rights movement!)
As far as the Bible and slavery, I could be less interested in debating that issue because this nation is not a theocracy. That said however, the New Testament teaches us to "do unto others as we would have them do to us". The Golden Rule, properly understood, is sufficient Biblical condemnation of slavery for me. In any event, however, I am relatively certain that nowhere does the Bible extol slavery as a positive moral good.
Jordan
The Founders never saw fit to make penalties to be imposed on themselves when they broke the suggestions they scribbled in the Constitution either. Just a ploy to get their subjects to co-operate.
"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it." - Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn
As far as the Bible and slavery, I could be less interested in debating that issue because this nation is not a theocracy.
ARTICLE 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it." - Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn
The "Cornerstone" referred is is the very foundation of the original United States Constitution. That is explained thoroughly by the speaker.
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.
Oh.
I thought he said that the Cornerstone of the NEW Confederate Constitution rested on the "great truth" that the natural condition of Black folks was to be owned as slaves by White people i.e. the Confederate Constitution ergo the whole system of Confederate government rested upon the rock of eternal enslavement of Black folks.
And of course making the perpetuation of slavery the very foundation of their whole Constitution had absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that chattel slavery was perceived to be a necessary prerequisite to cotton cultivation on a large scale, so physically unpleasant was the cultivation of that crop.
In fact they felt so strongly about how Black folks needed to be enslaved JUST ON PRINCIPLE that they devoted enormous energies for DECADES attempting to politically guarantee its perpetuation against an anticipated abolition by a growing Northern majority.
OK.
Birdwatcher
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
...you should probably lose about fifty or maybe even sixty pounds.
laffin'
Classic example of 'When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.'
It was all over but the bleeding out at that point anyhow, but Birdwatcher's "2,000 miles to New York last summer" was an enjoyable sledgehammer coup de grâce nonetheless.
Forgive me my nonsense, as I also forgive the nonsense of those that think they talk sense. Robert Frost
Interesting how we all support the end of private slavery along with an exponential increase in governmental oversight of daily life here in the USA AND also support returning Africa to a 19th Century standard where the same basic blacks we want free here were getting their hands cut off when production didn't meet expected levels.
"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it." - Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn
JOG my old friend! Always a great day when you stop in
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
The "Cornerstone" referred is is the very foundation of the original United States Constitution. That is explained thoroughly by the speaker.
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition.
Oh.
I thought he said that the Cornerstone of the NEW Confederate Constitution rested on the "great truth" that the natural condition of Black folks was to owned as slaves by White people i.e. the Confederate Constitution ergo the whole system of Confederate government rested upon the rock of eternal chattel slavery.
And of course making the perpetuation of slavery the very foundation of their whole Constitution had absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that chattel slavery was perceived to be a necessary prerequisite to cotton cultivation on a large scale, so physically unpleasant was the cultivation of that crop.
In fact they felt so strongly about how Black folks needed to be enslaved JUST ON PRINCIPLE that they devoted enormous energies for DECADES attempting to politically guarantee its perpetuation against an anticipated abolition by a growing Northern majority.
OK.
Birdwatcher
Taken out of context again.. Here read from where your snippet was taken.
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
What was added to the Confederate Constitution is what had been conveniently omitted from the original document. We addressed that, you know the part where Jefferson objected? The part that placed the original Constitution on a sandy foundation..
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson
The prevailing ideas entertained by [Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away.
This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day.
Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
The only "sandy foundation" Stephens refers to was the premise that all races were equal. Clearly this concept was an anathema to people who had made slavery the rock upon which their whole form of government stood (Stephen's words not mine).
Birdwatcher
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
If the Constitution had addressed the slavery issue originally there would have been no need to back peddle and cast aspersions upon the South, regardless.
Perhaps Stephens felt that all races were not equal.. Guess he was not as intelligent as we are today
Getting tired. Feel like a dog having had spent the evening chasing his tail... having not caught it yet
Good back-n-forth.
Geo
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson
The point that you cannot grasp is at the time there was no law against slavery. It was perfectly legal. It was also covered many times in the Bible, both New Testament and Old and never was it prohibited but it concerned how one treated his or her slaves, not whether one owned slaves or not.
Lincoln, instead of preserving the union, in the long run, as evidenced by the status quo, destroyed the union.
Such a nice Christian, justifying his chattel slavery with the Bible.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
The point that you cannot grasp is at the time there was no law against slavery. It was perfectly legal. It was also covered many times in the Bible, both New Testament and Old and never was it prohibited but it concerned how one treated his or her slaves, not whether one owned slaves or not.
Lincoln, instead of preserving the union, in the long run, as evidenced by the status quo, destroyed the union.
Such a nice Christian, justifying his chattel slavery with the Bible.
If there is something in the Bible that is prohibitive of slavery, By all means, post it up.
Never owned a slave... Don't think I'd want one.
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson
