'Bama crackers and the Constitution.

Actually it was moved at 9:00am. And I don't believe a rock can be stupid. That's for people to be or not. I believe in the monument and what's written there. Words that if followed more would make this a better world. Now I also believe it's location was a flaw in the man who had it placed there.

 

Ok... You may have a point there with a "Very Small" percentage of the slaves both in the North and the South... but the majority of slave owners treated thier slaves as if they were indeed "family". They were taught to read, when they were ill a doctor was called, they were provided with shelter, food, clothing, etc... I imagine I could even dig up some pics from my father's childhood that document this, as I do remember seeing some...

My father (who passed away 2 weeks ago last Sunday) was born in 1928. He remembered growing up with the children of slaves and thier children, that had stayed on after the war. They were taught thier ABC's and 123's right beside him. He also worked the farm just as hard as they did right beside his father and got whipped in just the same manner as them. The whole idea that the plantation owners didn't work in the fields is total B.S. As my father grew up and prohibition came to be, they even ran Moonshine together, as crops were not as profitable as Bootlegging.

That is not to say that a few bad apples didn't ruin the whole crop though. Yes... There was a very small percentage of slave owners who mistreated thier slaves, but the vast majority of slave owners treated them as part of the family.

Oh... just for the record... I am what is referred to in the South as a "Damn Yankee" being that I was born in Indiana... but I am now quite proud to call myself a "Barefoot Alabama Redneck Bitch"... Does that make me what you call a "Hill Billy" ?!?

 

Geeze ?!? :wow: You are so concerned that you might offend some Northerners, but why is it that you aren't concerned with offending Southerners ?!? Do you think us to be lesser people ?!?

 

Jessica..

First and foremost, sorry about the passing of your father. But if he worked as hard and was whipped just as often as the people he worked along side, then your grandfather has issues. Born in 1928 slavery had been abolished for about 50 years. So if your grandfather was whipping his children and the help, I find it hard to believe he came from a line of people that were compassionate and would treat slaves well.

I just said you sounded like a hillbilly, not that you were one. Heck, I've got squirrel eatin' roots, but that doesn't mean I'll try to sound like it.

You, and others, who say how well your family, or ancestors treated thier slaves forget one thing. THESE PEOPLE OWNED HUMANS...NOT EMPLOYED, THEY OWNED THEM. No matter how well you treat a human, if you claim ownership of a person, you have removed all dignity and self worth from them. How many mothers seperated form children took comfort in a meal and shoes at the end of the day?

Of course they fed them,clothed them, gave them shelter and tended to them when they were sick. They were an investment vital to the success of the farm. Just like you give cattle thier shots, and make sure they have water.

I don't doubt that there were owners who treated thier slaves humanely. And like you said, some taught them to write. These educated slaves were at an advantage at the war's end, but still they were not equals or close to it.

 

Ok, I was born in Virginia, my mother's family were farmers in Mississippi and Alabama. In-laws and wife are from Arkansas, Tenneseee, and Georgia. I am not anti south by any means. I am however anti ignorace. I have yet to speak to anyone who's family owned slaves that says their family didn't treat them well, and that they were happy. Do you think the family stories of beating them and making them work 16 hour days are going to be shared?

I will gladly offend anyone who believes they come from a line of people who treated slaves humanely....it never happened. Slaves might have not always been beaten, but they were owned, just like the family dog. (but the dog got to sleep in the big house when it rained)

My comment to not offend Northerners revolved around the notion people have that the north did no wrong, and they were all opposed to slaves. It was meant to be tounge in cheek.

Mark

 

I need to mention that while I don't condone slavery, those who took part in it so long ago were doing what they knew based on what was acceptable at the time.

It doesn't make it right, but it is easier to understand why they wouldn't think it was wrong at that point in history.

I also think that decendants of slave owners should feel no shame, remorse, or guilt regarding what happened long before they were born. It is nothing more than family history, and is not a reflection of who you are today.

 

geeee. didn't seperate bathrooms exist up north in the 50's?


tex, all people are saying is that the stereotype of slavery is wrong.

you can get all sensational with the "owning people is wrong" rhetoric if you want. but it is a waste of time.no one is disputing that.

pay attention now.

 

You pay attention yourself mister!!

Jessica was disputing it. She said slaves stayed in the south because they liked it so much.

We all know that isn't the truth. I was dropping the whole deal until I was told my history came from cliff notes, that I was babbling, and that I sounded "stewpid"

 

History is always written by the victor

Arguments about the causes for the Civil War always tend to revolve around slavery v. abolitionism or the taxation of agricultural products being shipped to Europe, and tarrifs on the textiles returning from Europe.

That all played a part; however, the Soverignty of Statehood was debated even during the constitutional convention. The question was whether the State's participation in the Union was a voluntary association, or a soverign commitment. The fight finally erupted into a war. The central issue was preservation of the Union. All of the other issues were secondary, or popular justifications for actions taken by both sides.

If you think the North fought to "free the slaves," go back and study the draft riots in New York. If you don't like to read history, rent The Gangs of New York. The central event in that movie was the draft riots.

Several historic facts:

Robert E. Lee emancipated his slaves prior to the war.
Grant did not. He owned slaves even during the war.

All slave owners were not white. Slaves were owned by freemen (blacks who had either been able to purchase their freedom, were freed by their owners, or arrived in the United States as freemen), and native americans (Creek Indians in Alabama owned cotten plantations . . . and had slaves who worked the fields).

Slavery as an institution was on the wane in the mid 1800's. Two things were influencing this. First, slaves were incredibly expensive to keep. Housing, food and medical care was not cheap. Because slaves were an expensive investment, they had to be "maintained". Second, the industrial revolution was gearing up. It would only be a matter of time before mechanization would take command of agriculture.

An oft debated issue during that time was, "What will be the plight of the negro if left on his own." Righ or wrong, it was widely percieved that "the negro, left to his own devices, would self-destruct." Emancipation would mean releasing a huge capital investment. It would also mean removing real people from a system that took care of them.

Lincoln believed that emancipation would provide an instant fighting force for the North, spread throughout the South. It didn't happen. Instead, the newly freed slaves pretty much stayed right where they were until the end of the war. Reconstruction basically stripped the wealth out of the south, and dissipated it. The animus in the South today results more from Reconstruction than the Civil War itself.

All complex issues that affect us even today.

RE: Roy Moore and the Ten Commandments. It seems to me that Roy picked the wrong battleground to fight his fight. The Ten Commandments are a laconic presentation of western morality, and they certainly have played an important role in American law; however, Judge Moore got a taste of heady politics when he fought over the plaque in his courtroom before being elected to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama, and decided on his own to move the huge monument into the Rotunda of the Courthouse in the middle of the night.

This was sort of like sticking his chin out, and daring anyone to hit him. His actions were more about drawing attention to himself than to honor God by using the Ten Commandments as a foundation for his orientation toward justice.

Had Judge Moore put a plaque on the wall of his courtroom, and served as a respectable, thoughtful judge . . . a hundred years from now, the plaque might still remain. People might come into the courtroom, and a tour guide tell them that it was the courtoom of Judge Roy Moore, a great jurist who left a legacy of justice, etc. etc. But instead, Judge Moore will be rememberd as a buffoon who used the Ten Commandments to draw attention to himself.

It really isn't an argument about the Constitution or States Rights. It is about a little man in a big postion, trying to draw attention to himself.

Sad thing is, I think the monument should have been left where it was.

As it is, the victors will write the history.

 

Jessica,

Does your romantic notion of slavery belie a more sinister notion of the inferiority of Africans? Probably not, but your line of propaganda has KKK written all over it.

Slavery could not have existed without the threat of violence. Regardless of how 'nice" a slaveowner was, he simply could not tolerate his "property" walking off the plantation/farm. If that happened, a posse would be rounded up and the runaway would be tracked down and whipped or worse. Without posses and whippin's, how could slaves even exist.

So what is your point about "nice" slaveowners? the term is actually oxymoronic!

Rodger

 

Taxation a form of Slavery

Rodger,

What is the difference between the way slave owners treated their slaves, and the government treats the tax payer? Same principles apply. Slave runs off, gets chased down, punished and returned to the plantation.

Taxpayer refuses to pay taxes, property is confiscated, etc., etc., etc.

So . . . why do we condemn slavery, yet tolerate taxation?

 

oh come now........... you can't be serious?

 

I'm as serious as a heart attack

I am dead serious about this. Right now, I am preparing a tax valuation challenge on property taxes for my company. The county has arbitrarily raised the value of my property, totally ignoring the real estate transactions that have taken place around me.

As I thought about relative values, etc. I realized that property taxes are no different from the land rent demanded by Nobles of the serfs. If they didn't cough it up, they were removed from the land. Property taxes are the same. If I can't cough them up, I will be removed from MY PROPERTY!

Income taxes, etc. are a form of slavery in that the fruit of a man's labor is confiscated and spent according to the dictates of another man's conscience.

How much of your productive time is confiscated through taxes . . .direct and indirect? What's the difference between choppin' cotten and not getting paid, and working a job, and haveing a large part of what YOU create in value, confiscated before you have a chance to decide what should be done with it? To the extent that the value I create is confiscated against my will, I am "owned" by the confiscator.

Think about it!

Taxes are revolting . . . so why aren't you?

 

Re: I'm as serious as a heart attack

Serious? Probably.
Frustrated? Definately!!!
Correct in your analogy? Absofuckinglutely NOT!!!

Seriously, Brom, there is simply no comparision. The mere fact that you are appealing a property assessment (and probably could do so all the way up to the highest court in your state) renders you vastly different from a piece of property, doesn't it?

Come on! do you think a slave had the right to appeal being sold off away from his/her family, or appeal a beating?

there are plenty of partially rational arguments against taxation in general, but comparing it to slavery is not one of them.

And if your business is in New York, send me a PM and I will hook you up with our real property assessment gurus who know this stuff inside out.

Rodger

 

I think the point that needs to be made regarding taxes is that when collected, they pay for

YOUR roads
YOUR schools
YOUR public services
police to help YOU
firefighters to put out YOUR fires
and the list goes on.

one person is not making a financial gain based on your taxes, they are monies being used to better the community you live in. That alone negates any correlation to slavery, since slave owners did it for fiscal gain, not community enrichment.

 

Paying taxes is for suckers. See I got this system.....

 

And you call yourself Tex?


David

 

Analogy holds

Roger,

What ultimately happens when one refuses to pay taxes? When it comes to property taxes, if you believe you own your property, and are willing to defend it to the last resort . . . you will die. If you believe that the fruit of your labor is yours first, and refuse to turn over the tribute demanded by the government, they will ultimately take it by force. This is the harsh reality.

We all benefit from taxes, just as slaves had food, medical care and a place to sleep (this is an oft used argument to mitigate the inhumane aspects of slavery). It is all a matter of degree.

By the way, slaves did have legal rights . . . but just as with taxes, those rights were subjugated to the authority and power of the owners.

Sure, I can appeal until I am blue in the face, but ultimately, those in power will set the rate and demand that the tribute be paid.

Roads, schools, etc. . . . sure we all benefit, but what is wrong with reducing taxes, and shifting some of these so called benefits to a fee for use system?

BTY . . . my property tax issue is pretty direct. The county assessment is not congruent with real transactions that have taken place in the area. Over the past ten years, there is not one example of a property being sold for more than it cost the owner, yet the county has increased the value of my property from as little as 10% to as much as 240% of the previously assessed value. What irks me is that they can pull the valuation out of the air, then I have to dissipate my own resources to prove them wrong. Then, after I prove my point, they roll back the values until the next round of assessments. Then the cycle starts over again. It costs them nothing to put a number on a worksheet, but it takes hours of transaction research to refute the valuation.

So . . . it is a process of attrition. I have to make product, so they figure that after a while, I will give up. Perhaps they are right.

But hey . . . you folks up in New York have it a lot worse than I do.

 

hmmm, and i thought this bromberg guy was with it.

sorry dude, your anolgy in no way works.

 

Bromberg said: What ultimately happens when one refuses to pay taxes? When it comes to property taxes, if you believe you own your property, and are willing to defend it to the last resort . . . you will die. If you believe that the fruit of your labor is yours first, and refuse to turn over the tribute demanded by the government, they will ultimately take it by force. This is the harsh reality.

Doyle the all-knowing replies: If that is harsh, think about being totally subjugated to the will of your master. If the master wanted to screw your daughters, you would be helpless. Sort of pales in comparision to having to pay a portion of your income to the gov doesn't it?

Bromberg said: "We all benefit from taxes, just as slaves had food, medical care and a place to sleep (this is an oft used argument to mitigate the inhumane aspects of slavery). It is all a matter of degree."

Doyle the all-knowing replies: Apples with oranges. Slaves had no ability to effect their destiny - taxpayers do. (But what about the death and taxes certainties?)

Bromberg said: "By the way, slaves did have legal rights . . . but just as with taxes, those rights were subjugated to the authority and power of the owners. "

Doyle the all-knowing replies: So really, they had no rights, but the owner did have rights re the slaves that could or could not be excercized soley at the owners discretion.

Bromberg said:"Sure, I can appeal until I am blue in the face, but ultimately, those in power will set the rate and demand that the tribute be paid. "

Doyle the all-knowing replies: As along as you are willing to appeal, it will be a hearing board and/or a court that decides, not the gov.

And isn't WERA a form of slavery? The master (Evelyn), gives orders to the overseer (Mongo) who issues orders to the slaves (WERA members) that must be obeyed. You are whipped (sanctioned via loss of points, loss of contingency) if you disobey (cheat).

And last but not worst, isn't work sort of slavery? Every morning I must get up to serve the master (boss) who dictates the hours i work, my pay, my working conditions. . .


Oh the humanity!!!!!!!

Rodger