E
exnihilo
Guest
I’d be happy to answer your questions if you were kind enough to answer mine.
Michele Bachmann signed marriage pact suggesting black families were better off during slavery
- Status
R
ringil
Guest
Oh my.
E
exnihilo
Guest
No, slaves did not lack freedom entirely. That is simply not true. I dont expect to convince you of that because people refuse to hear the evidence. Slaves were obligated to work and did have their freedom restricted to a greater degree than most other people (but no less than anyone in the military then or now).
You have asserted that the majority were tortured by their masters. What is your proof?
Finally in your last sentence you somewhat concede the lack of evidence for your position when you say ‘probably’. Your assertions are all ‘probably’.
I’ve only said that some were happy, not all, not even most. Many other folks have proclaimed that to be impossible. I guess according to them St. Paul himself sent a slave back to be tortured and miserable for the remainder of his terrible life. That seems like a rather dangerous position to take regarding an Apostle.
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
Which is rather little, except tours in the army are voluntary, have monetary compensation, lat only 6 years I believe, rather than being a life sentence; desertion is not consistently punished with death; your children and spouses are not the mercy of your CO, being injured often merits honorable discharge for soldiers, while for slaves it just means the next day’s work is more painful; and when they died, they were often buried in anonymity. So yeah, other than those, slavery and serving in the military are a lot alike.
exniholo:
Seriously? Do you consider being whipped until most of the skin on your back is gone a form of torture? Especially when it is a punishment for something as mild as taking a break? Have you ever picked cotton by hand for an entire day, for no wages? These are of course things slaves are commonly known to have experienced, and I’d say they were quite torturous. Maybe you disagree.
Edit: overseers, rather than masters, did most of the torture/inhumane punishment
G
gilliam
Guest
Not true for the following reasons:
Those in the military enter into the agreement voluntarily, not so with chattel slavery. When the draft is in effect, it is for a set period of time, and the men are freed after that period. Not true with chattel slavery.
My son is in the military. He is under contract. At the end of the term of his contract he can freely leave. Not so with chattel slavery, it was for life.
The children of military men then and now are not considered under contract. The children of chattel slaves were considered property as well and under servatude.
Usually someone in the military can get out of his commitment by paying a fine of some sort. Not true with chattel slaves.
It was not unusual to break slave families apart. This never happens in the miliatary.
Slaves were routinely put into “families” and given names by their masters. This doesn’t happen in the military.
I could go on and on, but you get the idea.
The two are not the same at all.
I will agree that it is hard to determine if the majority were physically tortured or not, but from what I can gather by reading history, that is not true. However, for the most part, the threat was always there.
Some were definately content with their situation…or were afraid of leaving it.
C
Christopher68
Guest
The whole idea of a candidate signing a pledge like this is silly. I prefer to hear from the candidates in their own words. I don’t need to hear the words of a fringe organization that wants to be a king-maker of the nomination process.
T
Tabooo
Guest
And so I’m right in thinking Conservatives would go to war if any state dared secede over giving guns to everyone, including these with criminal records?
P.S. It works both ways.
T
Tabooo
Guest
I honestly don’t comprehend how a decent person could vote for either party sometimes. The creation of parties has seemed to undermine the democratic process to me.We should all think of ourselves as Americans, and we should all learn the common language, English. Multiculturalism is a catastrophic failure everywhere it’s been tried. Ever hear of “Balkanization”? We are no longer a nation, but a cacophony of enclaves, tribes. We have a party determined to preside over the decline, the Democrats. The other party, at least the more honorable souls among them, believes in individual freedom and rights.
It is so obvious that Democrat “multicultural” policies have led to decay and despair, I honestly don’t comprehend how a decent person could vote to allow the continuation of the onslaught.uch: Rob
A
antonivs
Guest
Amen!I honestly don’t comprehend how a decent person could vote for either party sometimes. The creation of parties has seemed to undermine the democratic process to me.
E
exnihilo
Guest
The army uses conscription (even if not active at the moment in the US [it is used on Europe] they assert the right to enslave you). Military desertion can be punished with execution (and you’ll have to back up your ‘consistently’ claim). But that is besides the point which is that the military limits your freedom just as much as slavery did. They are very alike but somewhat different. And in fact one key difference is the slave master would try to not get his slave killed whereas the military officer is not as motivated and given the nature of the work less successful. If the problem is lack of freedom then you condemn the military. You can always ignore the principle by just saying, well they are not exactly the same. And you’d be right. But that is not addressing the point that they are alike in the exact places where you condemn slavery.Which is rather little, except tours in the army are voluntary, have monetary compensation, lat only 6 years I believe, rather than being a life sentence; desertion is not consistently punished with death; your children and spouses are not the mercy of your CO, being injured often merits honorable discharge for soldiers, while for slaves it just means the next day’s work is more painful; and when they died, they were often buried in anonymity. So yeah, other than those, slavery and serving in the military are a lot alike.
Do you know that the military continued to whip servicemen long after slavery ended?Seriously? Do you consider being whipped until most of the skin on your back is gone a form of torture? Especially when it is a punishment for something as mild as taking a break? Have you ever picked cotton by hand for an entire day, for no wages? These are of course things slaves are commonly known to have experienced, and I’d say they were quite torturous. Maybe you disagree.
Edit: overseers, rather than masters, did most of the torture/inhumane punishment
But you misunderstand the question. You assert that most were subject to torture. What is your proof that most were. I am well aware that some were. But you cant assume most because some were.
E
exnihilo
Guest
Thanks for a reasonable contribution to the discussion!
I should make it clear that I am saying the lack of freedom when in the military is what is comparable to slavery. The institutions are not exactly the same. But it is the lack of freedom that is the chief complaint about slavery.
When the draft is in effect, or even when it is not but it is asserted that the state has the right to conscript, then the state is claiming that it can deprive you of your freedom, and force you into a deadly situation. That the state typically limits the time you serve is more a product of wanting, and having available, younger men and wars not lasting a lifetime.
I’d say the institutions are very similar in principle but in practice are different due to the difference in power. The state can conscript anyone at anytime into the military and since it still gets work from those outside of the military (through taxes) is more than happy to move men out of the more severe form of servitude into the less severe. For the state it is the difference in having a field slave and a house slave.
I’d also point out that the military can call you up after your contract.
My concern with the topic is that people approach it with such sweeping statements that the truth gets lost. Most people dont realize that the US represented a minority of the slave trade. Brazil, which only ended slavery in 1880, took 60% of the slaves at the end of the trade largely because conditions there were so brutal they died in much greater numbers. Slavery prospered in the South in part because of better treatment. That is not an endorsement of slavery but an endorsement of truth and honesty.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Fine, 3 Americas. My point is the great American experiment of civility and liberty has failed.That’s nice, but what about the other 80% of us?
R
RACJ
Guest
I honestly don’t comprehend how a decent person could vote for either party sometimes. The creation of parties has seemed to undermine the democratic process to me.
I voted third party in the Tom Ridge and Arlen Specter races in Pa. BTW, I support Sarah Palin 100%, but I will be voting against the Pathological Liar who scares older folks no matter the nominee. :o Rob
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
Ummm, who is talking about “giving guns to everyone”?And so I’m right in thinking Conservatives would go to war if any state dared secede over giving guns to everyone, including these with criminal records?
P.S. It works both ways.
G
gilliam
Guest
I would say that there is so much different between the institutions of slavery and the military you can’t compare them at all. Even when you look only at punishment. The military works under a code of laws that are written by civilians (the US congress) that dictate how servicemen and women are to be treated. This has been true since the days of the founding of the country. Officers who violated these laws and were too harsh on their soldiers were and are liable to be punished.
Under the system of chattel slavery, the fate of each individual slave was left up to the whims of the masters. They were not considered citizens of the United States and did not have any rights under the Constitution. It was not unherd of for a slave owner to kill a slave (all though it would terminate a considerable investment and would not be done lightly for economic reasons.)
Under the system of chattel slavery, the fate of each individual slave was left up to the whims of the masters. They were not considered citizens of the United States and did not have any rights under the Constitution. It was not unherd of for a slave owner to kill a slave (all though it would terminate a considerable investment and would not be done lightly for economic reasons.)
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
The only difference between chattel slavery and conscripted military duty is the owner. Chattel slaves are privately owned, military conscripts are owned by the state.
G
gilliam
Guest
Treatment is different
Getting out of the situation is different
Ownership of the offspring is different
Ownership of your own name is different
Right to worship is different
Right to marry and have children is different
Right to choosing your own wife is different
Retention of many rights is different
Payment for services rendered is different
Right ot habeas corpus is different
I can go on and on and on. There are many differences
E
exnihilo
Guest
Well not exactly. Slaves did have some rights including the right to self defense. There was a case in NC where a slave killed his master. The slave was found not guilty of murder because the master was beating him excessively. The slave was tried in the courts of a society that is claimed to have been constantly about abusing slaves and refusing them any humane treatment and yet the slave was found not guilty.
Slaves could also contest claims that they were a slave if they were apprehended by someone claiming them to be an escaped slave. The slave even was offered free counsel and not charged court costs.
Furthermore in American slavery the master did not have a right to kill his slave. Killing a slave would be murder. This was different from Roman slavery where you could kill not only your slave but your children. The Roman literally owned the life of his children and slave whereas in America you owned a right to work from the slave.
Yes, to a large extent the slave was under the master’s control much as children of the same period were under the control of parents.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
The owner has the incentive for preserving the life of chattel slaves, namely for profit. The state specifically conscripts military for the purpose of sending them into fatal situations. How’s that for a difference?
- Status