E
estesbob
Guest
The government doesn’t have the right to rape your wife at will or self your children to another government. . The idea that conscription and slavery are in any way similar is utter nonsense.
Michele Bachmann signed marriage pact suggesting black families were better off during slavery
- Status
G
gilliam
Guest
That sir, as you may know, is a very rare case indeed.
Some right that is!
The fact that many slaves did die by the hands of thier masters in the south and their masters were never brought before a judge means the masters had the de facto right. The slaves were property to be dealt with as the masters saw fit.
To a total extent… and a child could run away, a slave could not. Are you really saying being a slave was equvalent to being a child under a mother’s care???
E
exnihilo
Guest
Treatment was not different at that point in history.
Getting out was not different - it is just that the state typically will release you from combat duty when you are injured or too old and send you back to house duy.
Your name is given you by your parents. You have to get court approval to change it. So even today you do not own your name.
Slaves were generally allowed to worship. Stonewall Jackson taught a slave Sunday School.
Right to choosing your own wife is different - I agree. And the evil masters wouldn’t even let the slaves marry someone of the same sex!
Yes, the military does tend to pay you. But they dont have to. That is just what they do in practice. And the same authority also takes back some of that money. Slaves could often make money on their own after they had provided work for the master. Additionally the master was obliged to provide basic care for the slave.
G
gilliam
Guest
Or to say you can’t read under penalty of the lash
- Alabama, 1833, section 31 - “Any person or persons who attempt to teach any free person of color, or slave, to spell, read, or write, shall, upon conviction thereof by indictment, be fined in a sum not less than two hundred and fifty dollars, nor more than five hundred dollars.”
- Alabama, 1833, section 32 - “Any free person of color who shall write for any slave a pass or free paper, on conviction thereof, shall receive for every such offense, thirty-nine lashes on the bare back, and leave the state of Alabama within thirty days thereafter…”
- Alabama, 1833, section 33 - “Any slave who shall write for any other slave, any pass or free-paper, upon conviction, shall receive, on his or her back, fifty lashes for the first offence, and one hundred lashes for every offence thereafter…”
T
Tabooo
Guest
Umm, who is talking about “the great ‘compassion’ of their abortion policies”?
ANYWAY, my point is both sides seem unwilling to come together much.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
Conscription in general is no a permanent status either. It doesn’t last a lifetime, nor is it handed down to your children and your children’s children.
Like fighting forest fires, it is simply a recogniztion that especially in times of great crisis, ciizens have a responsibility not just to themselves, but to their communities.
Above all, soldiers are honored for their service. They are looked up to as heroes.
Nobody calls them ‘boy’. (Even the left tends to honor soldiers, and Vietnam is proving to be the exception in that regard).
Even free people require a strong defense.
Defense of libertarianism is beginning to sound more and more like defense of anarchism.
Really, it ought not.
Like fighting forest fires, it is simply a recogniztion that especially in times of great crisis, ciizens have a responsibility not just to themselves, but to their communities.
Above all, soldiers are honored for their service. They are looked up to as heroes.
Nobody calls them ‘boy’. (Even the left tends to honor soldiers, and Vietnam is proving to be the exception in that regard).
Even free people require a strong defense.
Defense of libertarianism is beginning to sound more and more like defense of anarchism.
Really, it ought not.
E
exnihilo
Guest
I believe that is a different case. The case I recall was for a master attempting to prevent his slave from dancing.
It might not be that much of a right but it is a right and disproves the claim of no rights.Some right that is!
I am quite sure some masters got away with killing their slaves. But you’d need more than mere assertion to claim it was a de facto right.
A child could run away and be brought back to a parent by the law the same as a slave. What happens to a child who runs away today? The law finds the child and returns it to the parent.To a total extent… and a child could run away, a slave could not. Are you really saying being a slave was equvalent to being a child under a mother’s care???
I am saying that the power of the parent to control the child is the same as a master to control the slave. If you do even a cursory study of those times you’ll find many kids were made to work in harsh conditions, beaten etc. In fact in the sanctified North young children were sent into factories to work for the family. Many were seriously maimed or killed in the unsafe working conditions.
R
RACJ
Guest
One side believes in an all-powerful federal government, and the other believes that the people are sovereign. Not much to discuss. Esp. since the former side lies about its intentions. :o Rob
E
exnihilo
Guest
I’m not going to defend that law but the fact that it was only passed in 1833 should be of interest. These laws did not exists in the early days of slavery and were a result of Nat Turner’s Rebellion of 1831.
G
gilliam
Guest
South Carolina passed the first laws prohibiting slave education in 1740. “Be it therefore Enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all and every Person and Persons whatsoever, who shall hereafter teach or cause any Slave to be taught to write, or shall use or employ any slave as a Scribe in any Manner of Writing whatsoever, hereafter taught to write, every such offense forfeit the Sum of One Hundred Pounds current Money.”
In 1755, Georgia modeled its own ban on teaching slaves to write after South Carolina’s earlier legislation.
G
gilliam
Guest
How’s this: State v. Mann, (as it would have been identified within North Carolina), is a decision in which the Supreme Court of North Carolina ruled that slaveowners had absolute authority over their slaves and could not be found guilty of committing violence against them.
13 N.C. 263 (1829)
That there may be particular instances of cruelty and deliberate barbarity, where, in conscience the law might properly interfere, is most probable. The difficulty is to determine, where a Court may properly begin. Merely in the abstract it may well be asked, which power of the master accords with right. The answer will probably sweep away all of them. But we cannot look at the matter in that light. The truth is, that we are for-bidden to enter upon a train of general reasoning on the subject. We cannot allow the right of the master to be brought into discussion in the Courts of Justice. The slave, to remain a slave, must be made sensible, that there is no appeal from his master; that his power is in no instance, usurped; but is conferred by the laws of man at least, if not by the law of God. The danger would be great indeed, if the tribunals of justice should be called on to graduate the punishment appropriate to every temper, and every dereliction **8]� of menial duty. No man can anticipate the many and aggravated provocations of the master, which the slave would be constantly stimulated by his own passions, or the instigation of others to give; or the consequent wrath of the master, prompting him to bloody vengeance, upon the turbulent traitor–a vengeance generally practised with impunity, by reason of its privacy. The Court therefore disclaims the power of changing the relation, in which these parts of our people stand to each other.
We are happy to see, that there is daily less and less occasion for the interposition of the Courts. The protection already afforded by several statutes, that all-powerful motive, the private interest of the owner, the benevolences towards each other, seated in the hearts of those who have been born and bred together, the frowns and deep execrations of the community upon the barbarian, who is guilty of excessive and brutal cruelty to his� *268]� unprotected slave, all combined, have produced a mildness of treatment, and attention to the comforts of the unfortunate class of slaves, greatly mitigating the rigors of servitude, and ameliorating the condition of the slaves. The same causes are operating,� **9]� and will continue to operate with increased action, until the disparity in numbers between the whites and blacks, shall have rendered the latter in no degree dangerous to the former, when the police now existing may be further relaxed. This result, greatly to be desired, may be much more rationally expected from the events above alluded to, and now in progress, than from any rash expositions of abstract truths, by a Judiciary tainted with a false and fanatical philanthropy, seeking to redress an acknowledged evil, by means still more wicked and appalling than even that evil.
I repeat, that I would gladly have avoided this ungrateful question. But being brought to it, the Court is compelled to declare, that while slavery exists amongst us in its present state, or until it shall seem fit to the Legislature to interpose express enactments to the contrary, it will be the imperative duty of the Judges to recognize the full dominion of the owner over the slave, except where the exercise of it is forbidden by statute. And this we do upon the ground, that this dominion is essential to the value of slaves as property, to the security of the master, and the public tranquillity, greatly dependent **10]� upon their subordination; and in fine, as most effectually securing the general protection and comfort of the slaves themselves.
plaza.ufl.edu/edale/The%20State%20v%20Mann.htm
E
exnihilo
Guest
Every person born into any country is under conscription even if it is not active. So yes, it does inherit.
Maybe folks do a have a responsibility. But I’ve yet to hear a good argument for how conscription can be good but slavery not. Forcing someone to work, especially work that leads to death, goes against the modern understanding of freedom. Personally I think that modern understanding is what is wrong.
Yes, soldiers are generally honored, by their own side. Since each side honors its own, always, one side must be wrongly honored since both sides cant be right and war, for its own sake, cant be good.
T
Tabooo
Guest
What has that have to do with them coming together and actually working together?One side believes in an all-powerful federal government, and the other believes that the people are sovereign. Not much to discuss. Esp. since the former side lies about its intentions.
Yes one side believes in a large federal government. But the other believes in big business, which then (usually, some play it clean) leads to big business ‘contributing’ funds to get a MUCH larger voice in our democratic republic. And I have yet to see either side tell the truth, sigh politics.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
Leftist demagogues here smear the right as lacking compassion. POTUS demagoguery describes the right as hating their own grannies. Democratic Party demoguery has conservative politicians shoving old people in wheelt chairs over cliffs.
It is fair to remind Catholics here that the left’s ‘compassion’ that they support so fervently OVERTLY supports policies that have led to the legal slaughter of 50 million in America alone.
Nobody with an ounce of compassion can afford to be remain above it all either.
When 50 million die, and you still haven’t got a dog in the fight, where’s the compassion in that?
And I don’t want to come together with the demagogue who run with the Party of Death.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
The moral of the story:
Don’t try to compare an apple pie to a pizza to people unless you can list every single difference they have before listing any similarities, because if you don’t, they will.
Don’t try to compare an apple pie to a pizza to people unless you can list every single difference they have before listing any similarities, because if you don’t, they will.
E
exnihilo
Guest
If you are going to quote Wikipedia then keep going:
And lets look at some Northern States too:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Pennsylvania#Laws
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_in_the_USA#Expansion:_1830.E2.80.931860
T
Tabooo
Guest
Trust me, I don’t agree with abortion one bit, so I’m not approving of Democrats who approve of it.Leftist demagogues here smear the right as lacking compassion. POTUS demagoguery describes the right as hating their own grannies. Democratic Party demoguery has conservative politicians shoving old people in wheelt chairs over cliffs.
It is fair to remind Catholics here that the left’s ‘compassion’ that they support so fervently OVERTLY supports policies that have led to the legal slaughter of 50 million in America alone.
Nobody with an ounce of compassion can afford to be remain above it all either.
When 50 million die, and you still haven’t got a dog in the fight, where’s the compassion in that?
And I don’t want to come together with the demagogue who run with the Party of Death.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
I’ll just add to the fun of this conversation by stating the fact that chattel slavery in the United States was created by a black man.
ready…GO!
E
estesbob
Guest
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Let me guess, you just approve of the Democrats who disapprove of it, who turn around and agree with Democrats who do approve of it?
- Status