U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Walter E. Williams --- What's Gone Wrong With Democracy
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 23, 2015
Author: Walter E. Williams
Post Date: 2015-03-23 14:35:49 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 16783
Comments: 96
Walter E. Williams What's Gone Wrong With Democracy? The Economist magazine recently published "What's gone wrong with Democracy ... and what can be done to revive it?" The suggestion is that democracy is some kind of ideal for organizing human conduct. That's a popular misconception. The ideal way to organize human conduct is to create a system that maximizes personal liberty for all. Liberty and democracy are not synonymous and most often are opposites. In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison explained, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." Democracy and majority rule confer an aura of legitimacy and respectability on acts that would otherwise be deemed tyrannical. Let's look at majority rule, as a decision-making tool, and ask ourselves how many of our life choices we would like settled by majority rule. Would you want the kind of car you own to be decided through a democratic process, or would you prefer purchasing any car you please? Ask that same question about decisions such as where you shall live, what clothes you purchase, what food you eat, what entertainment you enjoy and what wines you drink. I'm sure that if anyone suggested that these choices be subject to a democratic process, we would deem it tyranny. Our Founders saw democracy as a variant of tyranny. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, "...that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Alexander Hamilton said, "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship." By the way, the word democracy appears in none of our founding documents. The Founders of our nation recognized that we need government, but because the essence of government is force, and force is evil, government should be as small as possible. The Founders intended for us to have a limited republican form of government where human rights precede government and there is rule of law. Citizens, as well as government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government intervenes in civil society only to protect its citizens against force and fraud, but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange. By contrast, in a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. The law is whatever the government deems it to be. Rights may be granted or taken away. Alert to the dangers of majority rule, the Constitution's framers inserted several anti-majority rules. In order to amend the Constitution, it requires a two-thirds vote of both houses, or two-thirds of state legislatures to propose an amendment, and it requires three-fourths of state legislatures for ratification. Election of the president is not done by a majority popular vote, but by the Electoral College. Part of the reason for having two houses of Congress is that it places an obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The Constitution gives the president a veto to thwart the power of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override the president's veto. If you don't have time to examine our founding documents, just ask yourself: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag read to the democracy, or to the republic, for which it stands? Or, did Julia Ward Howe make a mistake in titling her Civil War song "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"? Should it have been "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy"? Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All you majoritarians, misterwhite, vicomte, etc... (#0)
Yes, let's ask some of the 'majoritarians' here at LF...
The only thing wrong with Democracy... ...is the Tyranny of the Majority?
My apologies Willy, - I plumb forgot you..
Walter Williams???
Here's another article on the same subject.. Enjoy!
A new study from Princeton spells bad news for American democracy—namely, that it no longer exists.. Neither democracy or oligarchy have ever existed in the USA, but the willygreens of this country have sure tried to subvert our constitutional republic, -- As you've made more than evident.
The abuse and manipulation of it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_Tragedy Bread, Circuses, Viagra... rinse, wash, repeat. The Fabian Socialist Judas Goats have got the act together.
Barnett --- given the ultimate sovereignty of the people, majorities and super- majorities are not the solutions to the problem of constitutional legitimacy; in a republican form of government, they are the problem to be solved. James Madison explained this quite clearly: "But I confess that I do conceive, that in a government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the Legislative body. The prescriptions in favor of liberty ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power. But this is not found in either the Executive or Legislative departments of Government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority." In The Federalist No. 10, Madison famously contended that the rights retained by the people are at risk from factions, be they a minority or majority of the whole. “By a faction,” he wrote, “I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The _Birth_of_TragedyLet's look at majority rule, as a decision-making tool, and ask ourselves how many of our life choices we would like settled by majority rule.
#2. To: tpaine (#1)
(Edited)
http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/young-hitler-cheers-start-world-war-one-august-1914/
#3. To: tpaine (#0)
Well said!
#4. To: All, willie green (#1)
#5. To: tpaine (#0)
I wasn't aware that the old coot was still alive.
#6. To: VxH (#2)
The only thing wrong with Democracy is the Tyranny of the Majority?
#7. To: Willie Green (#5)
RL Source: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi ... rts-say-us-no-longer-democracy Published: Apr 18, 2014 Author: Brendan James Post Date: 2015-03-18 08:20:27 by Willie Green Keywords: None Views: 95 Comments: 9
#8. To: tpaine (#6)
(Edited)
the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community
#9. To: VxH (#8)
"the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community" --- The abuse and manipulation of it.
Bread, Circuses, Viagra... rinse, wash, repeat. ---- The Fabian Socialist Judas Goats have got the act together.Fabian Socialist Judas Goats? --- I like it....
#10. To: tpaine (#0) (Edited)
Ok. So, Walter Williams has written an article against democracy. He spends a lot of time telling us how much the Founders detested democracy. That's swell. They created a restricted-franchise republic that preserved special rights for a certain class (which completely erased the rights of a quarter of the population). Their system lasted for 72 years, then exploded in an orgy of blood. The Founders' model was not a success, because they did not create a free country. The model that came out of the "reset" of the 1860s was a more centralized oligarchy. And it doesn't work either. So, the Founder's hated democracy and monarchy. They liked republics, so they founded one. It failed within a decade and was replaced by another one, which failed in three generations. We're in the fourth or fifth generation since the Civil War, and our current republic is falling apart as well. What can we take from this all? Democracy doesn't work. Monarchy doesn't work. Republics don't work. Nothing works for very long.
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
Yep, the theory that men could be enslaved in a republic prevailed, -- but provisions were made in the constitution, for the peaceful death of slavery. - They didn't work.. No, the founders model was subverted by majority rule maniacs, in the slave states. Again, not true. The former slave states were gradually forced to give up their majoritarian tactics, while the rest of the republic prospered until the rise of 'progressive democracy'. Our republic is in trouble because progressive democratic 'rules' have subverted the constitution. -- We are in the process of restoring the Constitution. Thanks for your pessimism..
Ok. So, Walter Williams has written an article against democracy. He spends a lot of time telling us how much the Founders detested democracy. That's swell. ----- They created a restricted-franchise republic that preserved special rights for a certain class (which completely erased the rights of a quarter of the population).
Their system lasted for 72 years, then exploded in an orgy of blood. --- The Founders' model was not a success, because they did not create a free country.
The model that came out of the "reset" of the 1860s was a more centralized oligarchy. And it doesn't work either.
So, the Founder's hated democracy and monarchy. They liked republics, so they founded one. It failed within a decade and was replaced by another one, which failed in three generations. We're in the fourth or fifth generation since the Civil War, and our current republic is falling apart as well.
What can we take from this all? Democracy doesn't work. Monarchy doesn't work. Republics don't work. Nothing works for very long.
#12. To: tpaine (#9)
The perception and articulation of self-evident Truth can be an unhealthy thing when it contradicts the dogmatic opinion of the indoctrinated mob. ===================but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority
"Opposition from the Church led Copernicus to shelve his theory, but Church opposition did not kill the idea. A student of astronomy mentioned the idea to a young Protestant German named Johann Kepler, who in the late 1500s and into the early 1600s was trying to figure out the changing distances between planets. Kepler discovered that Mars was moving about the sun not in a perfect circle but in an ellipse – contradicting Plato's belief about perfection and the heavens. Kepler proposed that laws about materiality that applied to things on earth applied also to the heavens."
#13. To: tpaine (#9) (Edited)
In today's edition of the Newspeak Dictionary they like to call themselves "progressives". They are the vanguard elite of Transhumanist/Postgenderist doctrine, and an abomination to the nature of every domain they manage to inflict themselves upon.
Fabian Socialist Judas Goats? --- I like it....
#14. To: tpaine (#0)
Democracy is the worst form of government.
Except for all of the others.
#15. To: Chuck_Wagon (#14)
Our Republic, under our Constitution, is the best form of government. Democracy is the worst form of government. ----- Except for all of the others.
#16. To: tpaine (#15)
Except it's not really Ours anymore, since the Oligarch's stole it.
Our Republic, under our Constitution, is the best form of government.
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
"Population" refers to people. Slaves weren't people. They were property. Just sayin' how it was. Full rights were extended to those with the most to lose -- wealthy, adult, white males with property. Who in their right mind would allow women, the poor, and the uneducated to vote? The Founders were wrong? Look around your "enlightened" society where everyone votes and tell me it's working.
"They created a restricted-franchise republic that preserved special rights for a certain class (which completely erased the rights of a quarter of the population)."
#18. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
Yeah. The Founders would be spinning in their graves to see how public referendums are being used to write statewide criminal laws (eg., marijuana).
"He spends a lot of time telling us how much the Founders detested democracy."
#19. To: tpaine (#0)
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49." - THOMAS J
Our Founders saw democracy as a variant of tyranny.
#20. To: misterwhite (#18) (Edited)
Your fanatical obsession is truly unbelievable. The FACT is that the framers left the states to govern themselves. And that is what they have done. The framers would be truly spinning in their graves at the notion the federal government should be dictating how the states run their own affairs.
The Founders would be spinning in their graves to see how public referendums are being used to write statewide criminal laws (eg., marijuana).
#21. To: misterwhite (#17)
Where everyone votes for those who the Oligarchs allow the sheeple to vote for? America today is no more a democracy (or a Republic) than what existed in the context of Rome's bread and circus act.
Look around your "enlightened" society where everyone votes and tell me it's working.
#22. To: misterwhite (#18) (Edited)
In some cases maybe, but not in others... Got TABOR? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dou...xpayer.27s_Bill_of_Rights TABOR sure got the progressatards worked up. They have to get voter permission before levying new taxes. It's been quite educational to watch the big-spending progressive (D) rats quack about "power of the people"... and then dance on democracy's grave when the "people" aren't them. They worship their shiny trains and buses - but don't you dare ask them how they plan to pay for the infrastructure.
The Founders would be spinning in their graves to see how public referendums are being used
#23. To: tpaine (#0)
Isn't that a lot like asking "What's gone wrong with cancer?".
What's Gone Wrong With Democracy
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#24. To: tpaine (#7)
Really? Have you ever tried to explain that to the Bushes,the Kennedys,the Gores,the Roosevelts,etc,etc,etc?
Neither democracy or oligarchy have ever existed in the USA,
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#25. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
Of course they did. Anybody that bought property and paid taxes was allowed to vote.
The Founders' model was not a success, because they did not create a free country.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#26. To: VxH (#13)
They would call themselves "steamships" if they thought they could get away with it,and it would hide their true nature and goals.
In today's edition of the Newspeak Dictionary they like to call themselves "progressives".
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#27. To: misterwhite (#17)
Educate yourself,fool. There were free blacks,browns,and yellows that owned property and had voting rights in the 1700's.
Full rights were extended to those with the most to lose -- wealthy, adult, white males with property.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#28. To: sneakypete (#26)
And lock the rest of us below their decks if TSHTF. Iceberg? Those are soooo 1890s!
They would call themselves "steamships"
#29. To: misterwhite, spinning his approval of majority rule (#18)
Yeah. The Founders would be spinning in their graves to see how public referendums are being used to write statewide criminal laws (eg., marijuana). --- misterwhite Yeah, it's even more 'really strange' to see misterwhite/robertpaulsen pretending to disapprove of public referendum/majority rule being used to write statewide anti-gun laws.
Vicomte13 (#10) -- "He spends a lot of time telling us how much the Founders detested democracy."
#30. To: sneakypete (#24)
Neither democracy or oligarchy have ever existed in the USA, Why bother? -- They're all convinced of their oligarchy type powers, -- when in reality, if they ever seriously tried to exercise them, they would be (figuratively speaking) shot down. -- Ahem....
Really? Have you ever tried to explain that to the Bushes,the Kennedys,the Gores,the Roosevelts,etc,etc,etc?
#31. To: tpaine (#30) (Edited)
Proud sponsors of the American Dream. Last I heard none of the above have been bound in stocks for tomato pasting in response to their colorful SOX violations.
They're all convinced of their oligarchy type powers, -- when in reality...
#32. To: Vicomte13 (#10) (Edited)
Meanwhile, collective human nature does what it has been doing throughout its collectively organized and indoctrinated history: ================================ Afghan woman Farkhunda lynched in Kabul 'for speaking out' Farkhunda, 28, was beaten, hit by bats, stamped on, driven over, and her body dragged by a car before being set on fire. A policeman who witnessed the incident on Thursday told AP news agency that Farkhunda was arguing with a local mullah. Her father said she had complained about women being encouraged to waste money on the amulets peddled by the mullahs at the shrine. "Based on their lies, people decided Farkhunda was not a Muslim and beat her to death," ================================ Ain't the organized religious (soon to be state-established, AGAIN) mob just awesome? TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS governments are ins... err... umm --- I forget, how does that go again?
Nothing works for very long.
#33. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13 (#17)
Art. 1, Sec. 2, Cl. 3: The slaves were considered persons. The interest held in a slave was legaly considered a property interest, but that did not transform slaves into non-persons. They were each counted as one complete person in the census. By unanimous agreement of the States, for representation purposes in the Congress, only 60% of the aggregate of such persons was counted.
"Population" refers to people. Slaves weren't people.
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
#34. To: sneakypete (#27)
And women.
There were free blacks,browns,and yellows that owned property and had voting rights in the 1700's.
#35. To: tpaine (#30) (Edited)
Well,a few of them were shot down,but it had nothing to do with a free America. BTW,just because something isn't official that doesn't mean it isn't real.
Why bother? -- They're all convinced of their oligarchy type powers, -- when in reality, if they ever seriously tried to exercise them, they would be (figuratively speaking) shot down. -- Ahem....
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#36. To: nolu chan (#34)
And women. Thanks. I didn't know that. Do you have any links? I don't doubt your accuracy,but would like to be able to refer others to links when I repeat that and they start demanding proof.
There were free blacks,browns,and yellows that owned property and had voting rights in the 1700's.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#37. To: sneakypete, nolu chan (#36) (Edited)
http://www.kon.org/urc/v4/tikhomirova.html There was an effort after the War of Independence was won to disenfranchise Blacks and Indians. You had blacks and Indians that were free men owning slaves and plantations and then the laws changed and attitudes changed.
he number of free black slaveholders would start to rise again only after legislation in 1782 allowed emancipation by deed or will. According to Schwarz (1987), legal and political conditions changed dramatically by 1806, making it necessary for many free blacks to hold slaves to assure their own continued residence in Virginia. Anxious over the increasing presence of unenslaved and harder to control blacks, legislators decided that future beneficiaries of emancipation would have to leave the commonwealth within twelve months of their change of status or else be reenslaved and sold for the benefit of the poor whites. This forced the former slaves to acquire new skills for doing business on their own, which obliged some of them to buy a work force in the form of slaves (Schwarz, 1987). After 1832, blacks could acquire no more slaves except spouses, children or those gained by descent. The Code of 1849 added parents to these exceptions, but in 1858, "acting in an atmosphere of sectional crisis and perhaps emboldened by the United States Supreme Court's pronouncement against black citizenship in Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), the legislature took away what little security free blacks might hope to give to relatives in the future" (Schwarz, 1987, p. 332). Thus black Virginians could no longer buy family members. These changes occurred throughout the United States with some differences by state.
#38. To: sneakypete (#35)
They're all convinced of their oligarchy type powers, -- when in reality, if they ever seriously tried to exercise them, they would be (figuratively speaking) shot down. -- Ahem.... Yep, that's the Warren Commission line, but I'm not so sure.. You're telling me?
Well,a few of them were shot down,but it had nothing to do with a free America.
BTW,just because something isn't official that doesn't mean it isn't real.
#39. To: sneakypete (#36)
http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=36575&Disp=11#C11 In general, see this thread where "the people" and suffrage were extensively discussed. As regards a constitutional textbook definition of "the people," see: [Italics in original, boldface and underline added.] Thomas M Cooley, LL.D.; The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America; Boston; Little Brown, and Company; 1880; pages 267-268. The Constitution did not guarantee anyone the right to vote. That is up to the states. States constitutionally created statutes restricting who could vote, and they constitutionally restricted women after the Constitution was adopted and after women had already voted. Also, the Constitution affirmatively stated the requirements to be President. It did not prohibit women from running for President. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belva_Ann_Lockwood Lockwood graduated from law school in Washington, D.C. and became one of the first female lawyers in the United States. In 1879, she successfully petitioned Congress to be allowed to practice before the United States Supreme Court, becoming the first woman attorney given this privilege. Lockwood ran for president in 1884 and 1888 on the ticket of the National Equal Rights Party and was the first woman to appear on official ballots.[2] http://www.greatwomen.org/women-of-the-hall/search-the-hall/details/2/98-Lockwood http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=36575&Disp=43#C43 I started to quote the original constitutions of the states regarding who were citizens. http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=36575&Disp=46#C46 Documenting the early voting of women in New Jersey. Their vote in NJ was revoked in the 1800's. For example: http://www.ushistoryscene.com/uncategorized/njsuffrage/ [...] Female voters in New Jersey celebrated their political rights. Federalist pamphleteer William Griffith estimated the number of unmarried women and widows to be greater than 10,000, a substantial figure, and those eligible voted in great numbers. ((Klinghoffer and Elkins, 177.)) [...] Female voters echoed Wollstonecraft’s sentiments in the 1800 presidential race between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, when nearly every woman eligible to vote, no matter her race or class, participated in the New Jersey election. ((Bushnell, Horace. “The Report of History.” In Women’s Suffrage; Reform Against Nature. New York: Charles Scribner and Company, 1869. 111)) http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=36575&Disp=78#C78 Any inhabitant of full age with fifty pounds proclamation money, resident twelve months, had the right to vote per the state constitution. As noted previously, women voted there for over thirty years, including before, during, and after 1792. http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=36575&Disp=83#C83 [...] VIII. That all freemen, of the age of twenty-one years, who have been inhabitants of any one county within the State twelve months immediately preceeding the day of any election, and shall have paid public taxes, shall be entitled to vote for members of the House of Commons for the county in which he resides. State v Manuel, 4 Devereux and Battle 20, 25 (1838), Gaston, J. [...] The Constitution extended the elective franchise to every freeman who had arrived at the age of twenty-one and paid a public tax, and it is a matter of universal notoriety that, under it, free persons, without regard to color, claimed and exercised the franchise until it was taken from free men of color a few years since by our amended Constitution." More state constitutions follow.
Do you have any links? I don't doubt your accuracy,but would like to be able to refer others to links when I repeat that and they start demanding proof.
The People. — When the term the people is made use of in constitutional law or discussions, it is often the case that those only are intended who have a share in the government through being clothed with the elective franchise. Thus, the people elect delegates to a constitutional convention, and determine by their votes whether the completed work of the convention shall or shall not be adopted; the people choose the officers under the constitution, and so on. For these and similar purposes the electors, though constituting but a small minority of the whole body of the community, nevertheless act for all, and, as being for the time the representatives of sovereignty, they are considered and spoken of as the sovereign people. But in all the enumerations and guaranties of rights the whole people are intended, because the rights of all are equal, and are meant to be equally protected. In this case, therefore, the right to assemble is preserved to all the people, and not merely to the electors, or to any other class or classes of the people.
Belva Ann Bennett Lockwood (October 24, 1830 – May 19, 1917) was an American attorney, politician, educator, and author. She was active in working for women's rights. The press of her day referred to her as a "suffragist," someone who believed in women's suffrage or voting rights. Lockwood overcame many social and personal obstacles related to gender restrictions. After college, she became a teacher and principal, working to equalize pay for women in education.[1] She supported the movement for world peace, and was a proponent of temperance.
In 1884 she accepted the nomination of the National Equal Rights Party and ran for president. Although suffrage leaders opposed her candidacy, Lockwood saw it as an entering wedge for women. She polled over 4,000 votes and ran again in 1888.
American women did not receive the right to vote until 1920, right? This is a common misconception. A century and a half before the constitutional amendment granting all U.S. women the right to vote, women in New Jersey participated in elections for over thirty-one years. In 1776, the New Jersey Constitution ruled, “all inhabitants of this colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds…and have resided in the county, in which they claim a vote for twelve months…shall be entitled to vote.” ((Laws of the State of New Jersey. 1821. Reprint, Trenton: The Authority of the Legislature, 1776))
New Jersey Constitution of 1776 (in effect in 1792 and until 1844)
IV. That all inhabitants of this Colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote for Representatives in Council and Assembly; and also for all other public officers, that shall be elected by the people of the county at large.
North Carolina Constitution, 1776
The Constitution or Form of Government
Slaves, manumitted here, became freemen, and therefore, if born within North Carolina, are citizens of North Carolina, and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State.
#40. To: misterwhite (#17)
Today's society is better than the society of the Founders. Yes, I'll tell you that. Oh, and the Founders recognized that the slaves were people and property. That's why they included them in the census. They were not blind. They were evil, raging hypocrites.
#41. To: sneakypete (#25)
When a quarter of your population are slaves, you are not a free country. Words mean things, and the word "free" doesn't include slavery. Redefining people as not people doesn't help the case. It's just pathetic and dishonest. The slavers among the Founding Fathers were evil, hypocritical, murderous, traitorous bastards. Revolting to establish the principle that "All men are created equal" and really DOING IT may, MAY justify killing the King]s officers and renouncing allegiance to your country. But proclaiming it, murdering your countrymen, and then simply gaining the power for yourself, and leaving a quarter of the population in chains makes you a murderous treasonous hypocrite, a viper. Nothing more. Nothing good. Nothing I'm going to praise. John Adams. HE was praiseworthy. He was also the minority position. The power and wealth was elsewhere, and they became the leaders. They murdered the officers, replaced the King with themselves, and kept a quarter of the population in chains. Vile hypocrites, murderous villains and traitors. They deserved to swing on a rope, not win. But the Almighty has his own purposes.
#42. To: Vicomte13 (#41)
Don't tell me,tell the Pope.
Words mean things, and the word "free" doesn't include slavery.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#43. To: sneakypete (#42)
What does the Pope have to do with the Founding Fathers?
Don't tell me,tell the Pope.
#44. To: Vicomte13 (#43)
What does the Pope have to do with the Founding Fathers? Nothing,but Popes have had a lot to do with slavery.
Don't tell me,tell the Pope.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#45. To: sneakypete (#44)
They sure did. Also war and torture. We face it squarely, acknowledge the evil, and fix it. Would that Americans were as honest with themselves as Catholics are.
Nothing,but Popes have had a lot to do with slavery.
#46. To: Vicomte13 (#45)
Thank you for admitting that Catholics aren't Americans.
Would that Americans were as honest with themselves as Catholics are.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#47. To: Vicomte13 (#40)
It wasn't for the census. It was for the determination of the number of representatives sent to Congress. Each state was allowed one representative for 30,000 citizens. The south, with a large number of slaves, wanted larger representation. So they were allowed to count each slave as 3/5 of a free person.
"Oh, and the Founders recognized that the slaves were people and property. That's why they included them in the census."
#48. To: Vicomte13 (#40)
I was only referring to the voting process. That when voters were limited to those with the most to lose, it was a fairer system. Today's average voter is ignorant of the issues, easily fooled by propaganda, is voting on a single issue, and is heavily influenced by political correctness. 47% of them pay no federal income tax, yet vote in the federal election for people who promise them all kinds of goodies paid for by someone else. I'd like to see voting in the federal election limited to those who a) could answer the questions in the U.S. Citizenship Test and b) pay federal income taxes. State office and local elections -- that's up to each state. I don't care.
"Today's society is better than the society of the Founders. Yes, I'll tell you that."
#49. To: nolu chan (#33)
Only for the apportionment of representatives and direct taxes. And, technically, they were "other persons". They had no more rights than a table or chair.
"The slaves were considered persons."
#50. To: sneakypete (#46)
Oh, but we are. And we're winning.
Thank you for admitting that Catholics aren't Americans.
#51. To: misterwhite (#48) (Edited)
Nope. It concentrates political power in the hands of people who already have money and property. But men who don't have property are still subject to the law in their bodies, lives and limbs. They have as important a stake as anybody else. One adult, one vote is the only acceptable way. Most people merely want security: stable housing, food, clothing, medical care if they need it, and education for their children. Most are content with that. If they cannot get that, then they will vote to use the power of the state to get it from those who are concentrating so much money that it prevents those things. That's the way it is, and that's the way it ought to be. The problem with democracy is that people will vote themselves sexual license that will end up destroying the birth rate and killing off the society.
That when voters were limited to those with the most to lose, it was a fairer system.
#52. To: misterwhite (#49)
Which is why that system and its culture had to be destroyed. If it would not peaceful cede it power and stop committing evil, it had to be uprooted by force. And it was.
And, technically, they were "other persons". They had no more rights than a table or chair.
#53. To: Vicomte13 (#52)
The plan was to free the slaves and deport them to Liberia, an idea Lincoln supported. He died before he had a chance to implement it.
"Which is why that system and its culture had to be destroyed."
#54. To: Vicomte13, misterwhite, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#52) (Edited)
misterwhite ---- And, technically, they were "other persons". They had no more rights than a table or chair. Vicomte13 --- Which is why that system and its culture had to be destroyed. If it would not peaceful cede it power and stop committing evil, it had to be uprooted by force. And it was. To reiterate, Walter Williams points remain unrefuted: ---- -- "Our Founders saw democracy as a variant of tyranny. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, "...that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Alexander Hamilton said, "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."
Nolu Chan --- "The slaves were considered persons."
#55. To: misterwhite (#49)
And, technically, they were "other persons". They had no more rights than a table or chair. According the the U.S. Constitution, the slaves were counted as people. In the census, each was counted as 100% of a person. Representation was provided to the slave states based on 60% of the slave persons counted in the census. Technically, they were persons. Free persons were persons. Women were persons. Poor persons were persons. Indentured servants were persons. Indians not taxed were persons. All other persons were persons. That latter persons were slaves but the Framers artfully dodged using the word slave. Art. 1, Sec. 2. Cl. 3: Art. 1, Sec. 9, Cl. 1: [protected from high taxation on slave persons] Art. 1, Sec. 9, Cl. 4: [each slave person counted as one person] Art. 4, Sec. 2, Cl. 3: [Fugitive slave clause re enslaved persons] The misterwhite defense: "But your Honor, the clause does not apply to me. It only applies to persons and I am not a person." Art. 5: Only for the apportionment of representatives and direct taxes.
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
#56. To: tpaine (#54)
-- "Our Founders saw democracy as a variant of tyranny. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, "...that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Alexander Hamilton said, "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship." Refuted? No. However, what the Founders set up, their Republic, WAS a horrendous tyranny. When a quarter of the population of a country are chained slaves, that country is a monstrous joke of a nation, hideously evil and worthy of destruction, not something to be PROUD of.
To reiterate, Walter Williams points remain unrefuted: ----
#57. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13 (#53)
Deportation to Liberia was physically impossible as was explained to Lincoln. The plan was Central and South America and the islands.
The plan was to free the slaves and deport them to Liberia, an idea Lincoln supported. He died before he had a chance to implement it.
#58. To: Vicomte13 (#56)
--- What the Founders set up, our Republic, IS a tremendous success. despite the fact that a quarter of the population of a country were chained slaves, freed after nearly 80 years of a 'war on slavery'... Our country is something to be PROUD of. Your attitude towards our country is disgraceful.
--- what the Founders set up, their Republic, WAS a horrendous tyranny. When a quarter of the population of a country are chained slaves, that country is a monstrous joke of a nation, hideously evil and worthy of destruction, not something to be PROUD of.
#59. To: nolu chan (#57)
Deportation to Liberia was physically impossible as was explained to Lincoln. The plan was Central and South America and the islands. The plan was wicked. Civil war was a better option.
#60. To: nolu chan (#57)
Deportation to Liberia was the initial plan. Many changes to that plan were made. The POINT is, deportation was part of emancipation.
"Deportation to Liberia was physically impossible as was explained to Lincoln."
#61. To: Vicomte13 (#50)
Winning what? I realize the Holy Mother Church is an administrative arm of "Worldwide Government,Inc",but I would hardly call that winning.
Oh, but we are. And we're winning.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#62. To: tpaine (#54)
-- "Our Founders saw democracy as a variant of tyranny. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, "...that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Alexander Hamilton said, "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship." Excellent distillation of the Founders' concerns of a pure "Democracy."
To reiterate, Walter Williams points remain unrefuted: ----
#63. To: nolu chan (#55)
So when the U.S. Constitution stated, "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen", they were including slaves?
"Technically, they were persons. Free persons were persons. Women were persons. Poor persons were persons. Indentured servants were persons. Indians not taxed were persons. All other persons were persons."
#64. To: tpaine, Vicomte13 (#58)
He's steamed because they didn't allow the Catholic Church to be a co-governing branch of government,with the right to hold trials and punish non-believers.
Your attitude towards our country is disgraceful.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#65. To: tpaine (#58)
My attitude is just. The country's history is what is disgraceful. The Catholic Church also has a disgraceful past. But guess what? Catholics man up about it, are honest about it, admit the sins, and have fixed it. We don't DEFEND the evils of the past, we call them evil, and we call the men who committed them erroneous and sinful. What is disgraceful is to look at a treasonous asshat like George Washington, standing there priggishly "for liberty", shooting down his own British countrymen to obtain this liberty, whingeing that slaves the British freed had to be RETURNED at the end of the war, and then holding slaves until the day he died, thereby making a joke out of any claim he fought for human liberty. He committed murder and treason in his own quest for personal power. He attained it: he died the wealthiest man in America, with a plantation still full of slaves. Flaming hypocrite. Were we speaking of a Pope, the execrations would be hurled, and rightly too. It is no different when we speak of a man who went out and killed thousands of people for "The proposition that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty..." I hold Washington to the same standard that people (including me) hold the Popes of old. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. What those Popes and Washington did was disgraceful. It is not disgraceful to call them out on it. We had to have a Civil War and a million dead BECAUSE the Founders were greedy, weak men with feet of clay, hypocrites, who were willing to commit treason and kill their own countrymen in order to gain power, but who were not willing to strip down some of their own personal wealth in order to live up to what they declared. And as a direct result of their fecklessness and the crappy and incomplete system they erected, it all fell into civil war two generations later with a million dead, and then apartheid for a century after that. We're STILL dealing with the overhang of their hypocrisy. The Revolution, given its justification, was THE moment to wipe the slate of slavery clean and do it right. The French, after all, freed THEIR slaves (and their Jews) in THEIR Revolution. We could have also, but the slavers who commanded the Revolution here did not. They betrayed their own principles and left us a freakish Frankenstein of a system, towering in its evil and hypocrisy, that could not survive scrutiny on its own principles, and that DID NOT. I am not disgraceful for telling the truth. Washington was disgraceful for having fought a revolution for freedom but then being a petty, greedy little asshole of a man - the wealthiest man in America could not bring himself to part with ownership of his slaves BECAUSE HE WAS A SMALL SPIRITED GREEDY LITTLE MAN. The system that he and his comparably hobbled and morally crippled co- conspirators, Jefferson and the Rutledge and the other rich Southern slavers who won the revolution and were the nations leaders after the war - this system collapsed of its own illogic. An "empire of freedom" with a quarter of the population chained slaves? What a joke! What a FOUL DISGRACE OF A LAND. IT NEEDED to be destroyed, and it WAS, in Civil War. Civil War was not necessary. Had the greedy little killers Washington and Jefferson and Rutledge been big men - had they been as BIG as hero-worshipping Americans make them out to be, then these shitstains of men would have taken the hit in their personal wealth and FREED THEIR OWN SLAVES in order to LIVE UP TO the principles for which they DECLARED THE RIGHT TO KILL MEN! BUT THEY DID NOT! Which means they were, IN FACT, the petty little men that I call them. The country they ripped away, so they could rule it themselves, like local Mafiosi holding men in chains, was such a ramshackle, crappy structure, so riddled with the incongruities that THEY LEFT THERE (because they were GREEDY and SMALL and would not free their slaves), that it fell apart "Four score and five" years later. Nobody spares the corrupt, evil, contemptible Renaissance popes. They did great evil when they were SUPPOSED to be stewards of Good, stewards of God. Nobody gives them any quarter, and they don't deserve any. The Declaration of Independence is a great document that declares lofty morals, indeed, perhaps the ONLY moral principles on which murderous rebellion CAN be justified. But then the drafters and ratifiers of the document DID NOT DO THAT. ALL they did was manage, with the help of the Kingdoms of France, Spain and Holland, to replace British rule with home rule. They didn't treat men as equal, ever, even during the Revolution. They didn't MEAN it. They merely SAID it as a pretext to cover over what was simply treason and insurrection. The slaves remained chained. America wasn't a free country, even colorably, until 1865. And 1865 happened because of another war, not because the SYSTEM that the Founders made worked. It didn't work. The central corruption was there for the world to see, and could not be hidden. The American Republic, with slavery, was a public disgrace from its declaration UNTIL the slaves were freed in 1865. THEN it had at least a CHANCE of being something worthy of praise. Before that? Pfffft. You say my attitude is disgraceful. But I say the country itself was disgraceful until slavery ended, and the Founders were a disgrace. And I'm right. Now you're going to bellow like idolators whose sacred cows have been gored. I'm burning idols that need to be burnt. Americans do not spare their criticism of the Popes of old, or the cardinals of the present, for the monstrous sins of the past or the pedophilia of the present. And they SHOULDN'T! For those men are goddamned disgraces in the Church of God, sullying that which was founded by Christ. I don't apologize for them. I criticize them too. And I apply the same unsparing truth and clarity to the United States, a far lesser thing of lesser importance than the Church of God and Jesus Christ.
Your attitude towards our country is disgraceful.
#66. To: sneakypete (#61)
We are winning control of the United States, its laws and institutions. You say we're not Americans. We are. And since our arrival in force, we've been changing America for the better in countless ways. We will continue to do so.
Winning what?
#67. To: Vicomte13 (#59)
The deportation plan did not work well but Lincoln worked on it throughout the Civil War. Lincoln's goal, repeated over and over in his own words, was to produce an all White America. The time Lincoln met with the first delegation of Blacks invited to the White House is oft mentioned. Less often mentioned is what Lincoln said to the delegation. They were not wildly enthusiastic. Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865.: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 5, pp. 370-71 Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes [1] This afternoon the President of the United States gave audience to a Committee of colored men at the White House. They were introduced [371] by the Rev. J. Mitchell, Commissioner of Emigration. * * * The President—Perhaps you have long been free, or all your lives. Your race are suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong [372] inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. You are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoy. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you. I do not propose to discuss this, but to present it as a fact with which we have to deal. I cannot alter it if I would. It is a fact, about which we all think and feel alike, I and you. We look to our condition, owing to the existence of the two races on this continent. I need not recount to you the effects upon white men, growing out of the institution of Slavery. I believe in its general evil effects on the white race. See our present condition—the country engaged in war!—our white men cutting one another's throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of Slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence. It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated. I know that there are free men among you, who even if they could better their condition are not as much inclined to go out of the country as those, who being slaves could obtain their freedom on this condition. I suppose one of the principal difficulties in the way of colonization is that the free colored man cannot see that his comfort would be advanced by it. You may believe you can live in Washington or elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life [as easily], perhaps more so than you can in any foreign country, and hence you may come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country. This is (I speak in no unkind sense) an extremely selfish view of the case. * * * The first group of Blacks to visit the White House were shown in by the Rev. James Mitchell who provided his own sales pitch in addition to having Lincoln telling them that their belief that they could live anywhere in the U.S. was an extremely selfish view. Mitchell was a longtime friend of Lincoln from the American Colonization Society, of which Lincoln had been an official in Illinois. Mitchell wrote a long letter to Lincoln and was hired as Lincoln's Commissioner of Emigration. Black Emigration. The letter written by Mitchell was provided to the Government Printing Office and published as a pamphlet (at taxpayer expense). Mitchell makes David Duke look like a moderate.
The plan was wicked. Civil war was a better option.
August 14, 1862
#68. To: misterwhite (#63)
They were not including anybody. They were excluding certain classes of people. Who was included was a matter of STATE law. Slaves were persons.
"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen", they were including slaves?
#69. To: nolu chan (#67)
Lincoln had some bad ideas. And he didn't get to implement them so they're moot. The Blacks were right: they had the right to live as free men, with full voting and property rights, anywhere in the USA. The freed blacks also had the right to full compensation for a lifetime of slavery, to be paid primarily by expropriation of the slaveholder and overseer class, but also out of the treasury, for the US government itself aided and abetted slavery and maintained its legitimacy - and enforced the Fugitive Slave Act. White crapweasels kept trying to find ways to weasel out of having to live with blacks, having to share power, and have to pay compensation. They have failed in this regard again and again, and will continue to. The overhang of segregation remains: there are still tens of millions of people alive who directly experienced it, and millions more who have been very deeply affected by its noxious effects. The restructuring of the country to end the differential has continued apace and will continue to for a generation or two more. Then it will be done. It's like the reparations to Jews for World War II atrocities. That still continues, to an extent. Two generations hence, maximum, it will be done, for there will be no living memory. The oppression of the Blacks did not end in 1865. It did not formally, legally end until the late 1960s.
#70. To: Vicomte13 (#69)
Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 5, pp. 518, 529-30, 535-36. Annual Message to Congress December 1, 1862 Fellow-citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives: * * * [529] In this view, I recommend the adoption of the following resolution and articles amendatory to the Constitution of the United States: [530] “Every State, wherein slavery now exists, which shall abolish the same therein, at any time, or times, before the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand and nine hundred, shall receive compensation from the United States as follows, to wit: “The President of the United States shall deliver to every such State, bonds of the United States, bearing interest at the rate of — per cent, per annum, to an amount equal to the aggregate sum of for each slave shown to have been therein, by the eig[h]th census of the United States, said bonds to be delivered to such State by instalments, or in one parcel, at the completion of the abolishment, accordingly as the same shall have been gradual, or at one time, within such State; and interest shall begin to run upon any such bond, only from the proper time of its delivery as aforesaid. Any State having received bonds as aforesaid, and afterwards reintroducing or tolerating slavery therein, shall refund to the United States the bonds so received, or the value thereof, and all interest paid thereon. “All slaves who shall have enjoyed actual freedom by the chances of the war, at any time before the end of the rebellion, shall be forever free; but all owners of such, who shall not have been disloyal, shall be compensated for them, at the same rates as is provided for States adopting abolishment of slavery, but in such way, that no slave shall be twice accounted for. “Congress may appropriate money, and otherwise provide, for colonizing free colored persons, with their own consent, at any place or places without the United States.” * * * [535] But it is dreaded that the freed people will swarm forth, and cover the whole land? [536] And, in any event, cannot the north decide for itself, whether to receive them? * * * The plan is proposed as permanent constitutional law. It cannot become such without the concurrence of, first, two-thirds of Congress, and, afterwards, three-fourths of the States. The requisite three-fourths of the States will necessarily include seven of the Slave states. Their concurrence, if obtained, will give assurance of their severally adopting emancipation, at no very distant day, upon the new constitutional terms. This assurance would end the struggle now, and save the Union forever. White crapweasels kept trying to find ways to weasel out of having to live with blacks, having to share power, and have to pay compensation.
[518]
“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two thirds of both houses concurring,) That the following articles be proposed to the legislatures (or conventions) of the several States as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which articles when ratified by three-fourths of the said legislatures (or conventions) to be valid as part or parts of the said Constitution, viz:
#71. To: nolu chan (#70)
Thank God THAT never passed. To impose debt upon the people of the United States in order to COMPENSATE some people for depriving other people of their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? No. No right to hold slavery ever existed in truth. It existed only as a fact of American law and brute force. The proper way to end slavery was by bloodshed and destruction, without compensation, by the physical death of the slaveowners and all who would stand in their defense of such "property". Remember: the punishment under the Law of God for kidnapping a man and selling him was death. Slaveholders and their overseers all deserved death. Those who escaped with their lives should count it a blessing. Obviously the entirety of all property derived from slavery was property acquired by theft, and the proper restitution was complete expropriation, the stripping from slaveholders and overseers of the entirety of their real and personal wealth and the handing over of 100% of it to their former slaves as restitution. Just as obviously, the expropriation of the master class and the handing over of a lifetime of capital to the slaves whose property it was by right (as their stolen labor had produced the entirety of it) never occurred. This is why the old slaveowning class was able to hold onto political authority, while the freed blacks remained in destitution. The full measure of justice was never carried out. Still, seeing that wholly unjust constitutional amendment proposal makes one thankful that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh and provoked him to rebel, so that the slaves could be freed immediately, in an ocean of blood, with the tearing up of the laws and the social order and the harsh forced acceptance of a new one, rather than allowing the despicable American project of slavery to continue under color of law, and allowing the Americans to say "they worked it out lawfully". Slavery was unlawful before God. It was very important that the American structure of law and governance catastrophically fail, with a million dead, rather than the Americans be left with any sort of fig leaf of respectability in their institutions. It is important that justice - which was the freedom on the slaves - be achieved in 1865 at the cost of a million American dead, rather than two more generations' lives be sacrificed to the slavers so that the Americans could get around to doing it in comfort. All of the agony and death and loss and grief and destroyed white lives to uproot slavery ALL AT ONCE was the price God imposed on America for the evil of slavery. The Americans were not allowed to escape with their money, their order, their dignity or their lives intact. They were not allowed to steal the lives of two more generations of blacks. They were brought to their knees in blood and fire, and forced to accept what they found unacceptable. The judgments of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether. Hateful people got what was coming to them, and were only spared the FULL measure of justice they deserved by the mercy of the Lord.
#72. To: Vicomte13 (#65)
No, I'd say you're quite demented about this subject. Rave on, if you must.
You say my attitude is disgraceful. But I say the country itself was disgraceful until slavery ended, and the Founders were a disgrace. And I'm right.
#73. To: nolu chan (#70)
No, the "North" cannot decide any such thing. All men are created equal, and all Americans have the right to live ANYWHERE without their neighbors permission or by-your-leave. And if some neighbors decide to put on sheets and ride horses and brandish torches by night to enforce a bogus claim of the right to decide who their neighbors shall be, then that is why we have an army and cavalry: to put such violent insurrectionists, murders and deprivers of the rights of other men to the sword and to the bullet, and to continue to do so until the remainder submit and cease to commit such crimes, or until they are all dead and no such minds continue to draw breath. No quarter for oppression. No mercy for slavers. No refuge for those who would refuse to recognize equal rights. Those who insist that they have the right to oppress others because of their skin color will never be happy. Somebody must be oppressed, either the blacks, to please them, or them, to stand for the principle of equality. The principle of equality is just and true, and therefore those who stand against it must be forced to submit to it. If they submit with quiet grumbling but do nothing, they shall be left in peace to answer to God. But if they raise a sword, they must be put down by the sword. Do that enough, and the rest will submit. Or they will all die. Either way, we will be rid of them. Equality before the law is not optional. Those who refuse to accept it have no place in this society other than as sullen defeated minorities. If they rebel in force, they die. There is no other way.
And, in any event, cannot the north decide for itself, whether to receive them?
#74. To: tpaine (#72)
Rave on, if you must. Oh, I shall. For mine is the voice of VICTORY. We won. My ideas won. Those with the opposite ideas were never persuaded, and are not persuadable. You know that sign that VxH posts, about "permanent hostility". Well, that's me: I am a deadly enemy of slavers, segregationists, and those who attempt to impose or justify the imposition of those standards in society. Because of the evil that has done in our past, it had to be cut off in blood, and it WAS. And that was a good thing. However, the original lesson was not learned fully. And so once again, a century later, the forces were arrayed a second time. THIS time, the segregationists had the good sense to realize that they were outnumbered, outgunned and could not win, so they surrendered and did not fight. They murdered a few people, and rotted in prison or were executed for it. The rest sullenly submitted and still are in that state. Occasionally on chat boards they poke up their faces. And I put the heel of my egalitarian boot right between their eyes every time they do it. You're damned right I will rave on. The fundamental equality of all men before the law is not negotiable in any way. Those who seek it, urge it, or seek to defend it, at ANY point in the history of our republic, are my mortal enemies, and I will wage war on them in the present, and on their memory. They gave no quarter to their slaves, and I will give no quarter to them. And my side won all the wars and battles. My principles are the law now, not Washington's, with his divided mind about slavery. And not Lincoln's either, with his earnest desire for a White America. No. America always was, and always will be, a place of all people, all of them equal. That's where we've come out, and that's where we SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALL ALONG. France got there with their Revolution. WE didn't. Why? Because of the moral weakness of our Founders, their greedy narrow self-interest. We had to get there by killing their grandchildren in great numbers. That's their fault. They should have dealt with their own sins and not propagated them further. They were willing to MURDER the British soldiers over principle, but they refused to put the restraints upon themselves. Unacceptable.
No, I'd say you're quite demented about this subject.
#75. To: Vicomte13 (#73)
The could and they did. It is not as if it was done is some secret codicil known only to Dean Wormer. For example, Lincoln’s Illinois did it in their Constitution. Illinois Constitution of 1848 Superseded by Constitution of 1870, ratified July 2, 1870 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS. That the general, great, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and unalterably established, we declare: Section 1. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, and of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness. Sec. 2. That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness. Sec. 3. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship. Sec. 4. That no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under this State. Sec. 5. That all elections shall be free and equal. BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. - - - - - ARTICLE XIV. PERSONS OF COLOR The general assembly shall, at its first session under the amended constitution, pass such laws as will effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this State; and to effectually prevent the owners of slaves from bringing them into this State, for the purpose of setting them free. [...] No, the "North" cannot decide any such thing.
ARTICLE XIII.
#76. To: nolu chan (#75)
For awhile. But they lost. They were overwhelmed by people who have my view of it. Evil white crapweasels tried their best to maintain their system of inequality. They put their back into it. And they lost. But they're still out there, and still trying to come back. One way they do it is by trying to justify the past. Catholics don't justify burning people at the stake for witchcraft or the lechery of the Borgia Popes, but many white Americans continue to try to justify the evil of their system before its reform, and spare moral judgment of their respected leaders. I will have none of it. This makes me unpopular among those whose idols include the Founders and the Constitution. But I apply the same severe standard of justice to those men and things as I do to the Borgia Popes. Evil is evil, and you call it out. They were redlining real estate transactions in Illinois to keep out blacks right down into the 1970s. There is corruption all over the place. And there's a stubborn will not to assent to COMPLETE equality. This will expresses itself by an unwillingness to see black slaves in the same light as one would see, say, British colonists forced to pay taxes without representation or quarter troops. We believe that these lesser offenses gave Washington the right to put a bullet through the head of a British colonel, but we do not think that the worse offense of maintaining slavery gave Washington's slave the right to put a bullet through the head of that hypocritical greedy sack of shit. Well, it did.
The could and they did. It is not as if it was done is some secret codicil known only to Dean Wormer. For example, Lincoln’s Illinois did it in their Constitution.
#77. To: Vicomte13 (#71)
No. Yes. Compensated emancipation. How did you think the slaves in Washington, D.C. were freed? You did not expect the North to just up and free its slaves without getting paid. That might have opened up a new war front. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln5/1:428.1?rgn=div2;view=fulltext Fellow citizens of the Senate, and House of Representatives. The Act entitled “An Act for the release of certain persons held to service, or labor in the District of Columbia” has this day been approved, and signed. I have never doubted the constitutional authority of congress to abolish slavery in this District; and I have ever desired to see the national capital freed from the institution in some satisfactory way. Hence there has never been, in my mind, any question upon the subject, except the one of expediency, arising in view of all the circumstances. If there be matters within and about this act, which might have taken a course or shape, more satisfactory to my jud[g]ment, I do not attempt to specify them. I am gratified that the two principles of compensation, and colonization, are both recognized, and practically applied in the act. In the matter of compensation, it is provided that claims may be presented within ninety days from the passage of the act “but not thereafter”; and there is no saving for minors, femes-covert, insane, or absent persons. I presume this is an omission by mere over-sight, and I recommened that it be supplied by an amendatory or supplemental act. ABRAHAM LINCOLN http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/dc_emancipation_act/transcription.html An Act for the Release of certain Persons held to Service or Labor in the District of Columbia Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons held to service or labor within the District of Columbia by reason of African descent are hereby discharged and freed of and from all claim to such service or labor; and from and after the passage of this act neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for crime, whereof the party shall be duly convicted, shall hereafter exist in said District. Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all persons loyal to the United States, holding claims to service or labor against persons discharged therefrom by this act, may, within ninety days from the passage thereof, but not thereafter, present to the commissioners hereinafter mentioned their respective statements or petitions in writing, verified by oath or affirmation, setting forth the names, ages, and personal description of such persons, the manner in which said petitioners acquired such claim, and any facts touching the value thereof, and declaring his allegiance to the Government of the United States, and that he has not borne arms against the United States during the present rebellion, nor in any way given aid or comfort thereto: Provided, That the oath of the party to the petition shall not be evidence of the facts therein stated. Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint three commissioners, residents of the District of Columbia, any two of whom shall have power to act, who shall receive the petitions above mentioned, and who shall investigate and determine the validity and value of the claims therein presented, as aforesaid, and appraise and apportion, under the proviso hereto annexed, the value in money of the several claims by them found to be valid: Provided, however, That the entire sum so appraised and apportioned shall not exceed in the aggregate an amount equal to three hundred dollars for each person shown to have been so held by lawful claim: And provided, further, That no claim shall be allowed for any slave or slaves brought into said District after the passage of this act, nor for any slave claimed by any person who has borne arms against the Government of the United States in the present rebellion, or in any way given aid or comfort thereto, or which originates in or by virtue of any transfer heretofore made, or which shall hereafter be made by any person who has in any manner aided or sustained the rebellion against the Government of the United States. Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That said commissioners shall, within nine months from the passage of this act, make a full and final report of their proceedings, findings, and appraisement, and shall deliver the same to the Secretary of the Treasury, which report shall be deemed and taken to be conclusive in all respects, except as hereinafter provided; and the Secretary of the Treasury shall, with like exception, cause the amounts so apportioned to said claims to be paid from the Treasury of the United States to the parties found by said report to be entitled thereto as aforesaid, and the same shall be received in full and complete compensation: Provided, That in cases where petitions may be filed presenting conflicting claims, or setting up liens, said commissioners shall so specify in said report, and payment shall not be made according to the award of said commissioners until a period of sixty days shall have elapsed, during which time any petitioner claiming an interest in the particular amount may file a bill in equity in the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, making all other claimants defendants thereto, setting forth the proceedings in such case before said commissioners and their actions therein, and praying that the party to whom payment has been awarded may be enjoined form receiving the same; and if said court shall grant such provisional order, a copy thereof may, on motion of said complainant, be served upon the Secretary of the Treasury, who shall thereupon cause the said amount of money to be paid into said court, subject to its orders and final decree, which payment shall be in full and complete compensation, as in other cases. Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That said commissioners shall hold their sessions in the city of Washington, at such place and times as the President of the United States may direct, of which they shall give due and public notice. They shall have power to subpoena and compel the attendance of witnesses, and to receive testimony and enforce its production, as in civil cases before courts of justice, without the exclusion of any witness on account of color; and they may summon before them the persons making claim to service or labor, and examine them under oath; and they may also, for purposes of identification and appraisement, call before them the persons so claimed. Said commissioners shall appoint a clerk, who shall keep files and [a] complete record of all proceedings before them, who shall have power to administer oaths and affirmations in said proceedings, and who shall issue all lawful process by them ordered. The Marshal of the District of Columbia shall personally, or by deputy, attend upon the sessions of said commissioners, and shall execute the process issued by said clerk. Sec.6. And be it further enacted, That said commissioners shall receive in compensation for their services the sum of two thousand dollars each, to be paid upon the filing of their report; that said clerk shall receive for his services the sum of two hundred dollars per month; that said marshal shall receive such fees as are allowed by law for similar services performed by him in the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia; that the Secretary of the Treasury shall cause all other reasonable expenses of said commission to be audited and allowed, and that said compensation, fees, and expenses shall be paid from the Treasury of the United States. Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That for the purpose of carrying this act into effect there is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, a sum not exceeding one million of dollars. Sec. 8. And be it further enacted, That any person or persons who shall kidnap, or in any manner transport or procure to be taken out of said District, any person or persons discharged and freed by the provisions of this act, or any free person or persons with intent to re-enslave or sell such person or person into slavery, or shall re-enslave any of said freed persons, the person of persons so offending shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and on conviction thereof in any court of competent jurisdiction in said District, shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary not less than five nor more that twenty years. Sec. 9. And be it further enacted, That within twenty days, or within such further time as the commissioners herein provided for shall limit, after the passage of this act, a statement in writing or schedule shall be filed with the clerk of the Circuit court for the District of Columbia, by the several owners or claimants to the services of the persons made free or manumitted by this act, setting forth the names, ages, sex, and particular description of such persons, severally; and the said clerk shall receive and record, in a book by him to be provided and kept for that purpose, the said statements or schedules on receiving fifty cents each therefor, and no claim shall be allowed to any claimant or owner who shall neglect this requirement. Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That the said clerk and his successors in office shall, from time to time, on demand, and on receiving twenty-five cents therefor, prepare, sign, and deliver to each person made free or manumitted by this act, a certificate under the seal of said court, setting out the name, age, and description of such person, and stating that such person was duly manumitted and set free by this act. Sec. 11. And be it further enacted, That the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, is hereby appropriated, to be expended under the direction of the President of the United States, to aid in the colonization and settlement of such free persons of African descent now residing in said District, including those to be liberated by this act, as may desire to emigrate to the Republics of Hayti or Liberia, or such other country beyond the limits of the United States as the President may determine: Provided, The expenditure for this purpose shall not exceed one hundred dollars for each emigrant. Sec. 12. And be it further enacted, That all acts of Congress and all laws of the State of Maryland in force in said District, and all ordinances of the cities of Washington and Georgetown, inconsistent with the provisions of this act, are hereby repealed. Approved, April 16, 1862. Thank God THAT never passed. To impose debt upon the people of the United States in order to COMPENSATE some people for depriving other people of their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
April 16, 1862.
April 16, 1862. Transcription
#78. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#74)
So, the Founder's hated democracy and monarchy. They liked republics, so they founded one. It failed within a decade and was replaced by another one, which failed in three generations. We're in the fourth or fifth generation since the Civil War, and our current republic is falling apart as well. What can we take from this all? Democracy doesn't work. Monarchy doesn't work. Republics don't work. Nothing works for very long. Vicomte13 posted at #10 You posted the above yesterday.. --- Today: --- The fundamental equality of all men before the law is not negotiable in any way. Those who seek it, urge it, or seek to defend it, at ANY point in the history of our republic, are my mortal enemies, and I will wage war on them in the present, and on their memory. They gave no quarter to their slaves, and I will give no quarter to them. ---- And my side won all the wars and battles. -- - My principles are the law now, not Washington's, with his divided mind about slavery. And not Lincoln's either, with his earnest desire for a White America. No. America always was, and always will be, a place of all people, all of them equal.
Dementia anyone?
#79. To: nolu chan (#77)
Exigency of war. Of course such a project could not have been undertaken nationwide: there were far too many slaves in the South. It would have been better had they all been freed without compensation. It would have been best of all had they been freed and then themselves compensated, to give them the capital to begin. Do you happen to know if any of the manumissions in Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri were accompanied by government payment?
Yes. Compensated emancipation. How did you think the slaves in Washington, D.C. were freed? You did not expect the North to just up and free its slaves without getting paid. That might have opened up a new war front.
#80. To: tpaine (#78)
"I HAVE SWORN UPON THE ALTAR OF GOD ETERNAL HOSTILITY TO EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY OVER THE MIND OF MAN" - Jefferson. HE was a hypocrite about this. I'm not. I don't go as far as he does. I merely observe that God made each of us free and equal, that we're all cousins, and that he imposed death for kidnapping men, pay for work, and restitution for theft. I don't make exceptions for men like Washington and Jefferson.
Dementia anyone?
#81. To: Vicomte13 (#76)
Evil white crapweasels tried their best to maintain their system of inequality. They put their back into it. And they lost. Can you estmate when and where this overwhelming event took place? Separate but equal was the law of the land until 1954. I thought it was a gradual struggle over a long time. In 1876, the GOP got to select, rather than elect, Harrison in return for ending reconstruction. Love for their brother man only went just so far. The Blacks have been peeved about having been thrown to the wolves ever since. The Latinos might get peeved at another Lincoln observation if our history books ever published what was said in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. CW 3:235 For awhile. But they lost. They were overwhelmed by people who have my view of it.
If Judge Douglas' policy upon this question succeeds, and gets fairly settled down, until all opposition is crushed out, the next thing will be a grab for the territory of poor Mexico, an invasion of the rich lands of South America, then the adjoining islands will follow, each one of which promises additional slave fields. And this question is to be left to the people of those countries for settlement. When we shall get Mexico, I don't know whether the Judge will be in favor of the Mexican people that we get with it settling that question for themselves and all others; because we know the Judge has a great horror for mongrels, [laughter,] and I understand that the people of Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels. [Renewed laughter.]
#82. To: tpaine, Vicomte13 (#78)
That is an ideal and a political sales pitch. No such place has existed in the recorded history of man.
[Vicomte13] America always was, and always will be, a place of all people, all of them equal.
#83. To: Vicomte13 (#79)
Great rationalization. Lincoln opposed the Act and even delayed the announcement so his slavemaster friend could remove his slaves from D.C. The cost of the war exceeded reasonable compensation. 5 million slaves, at $300 a head as in D.C., works out to $1.5B. Even better would have been freed with compensation and no war. Yes. The government could have given them your 40 acres and my unicorn. The Northern states had few slaves or free blacks due to gradual emancipation which essentially emancipated nobody. It acted as an economic incentive to sell slaves and move them out of the state. The were fewer free blacks in the free states than in the slave states at the time of the 1860 census. In Illinois, slavery was replaced by 99-year indentured servitude. The few slaves left in the North by the time the 13th Amendment went into effect did not result in compensation. Slavery was abolished earlier in the South by the U.S. Army and the slaves manumitting themselves via fast feet.
Exigency of war.
Of course such a project could not have been undertaken nationwide: there were far too many slaves in the South.
It would have been better had they all been freed without compensation.
It would have been best of all had they been freed and then themselves compensated, to give them the capital to begin.
Do you happen to know if any of the manumissions in Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri were accompanied by government payment?
#84. To: nolu chan (#82)
It is. What is not an ideal is this: You shall not kill. THAT is a commandment, from God, the one and only. For a land such as America to gain its independence, a war must be fought against the established legal order. Wars mean killing, lots and lots of it. They mean breaking the law of God. If you're going to initiate war, which is to say, if you're going to upset the peaceful order and start killing people to have your way, you had better have a justification strong enough to justify the killings you will inevitably commit. You do not have to justify them to other men - men are always ready to kill other men for advantage. No, you have to justify the killing before God. God is your judge, jury and executioner. What, then, justifies killing on such a large scale before God? The desire to have local government? Nowhere does God suggest that a form of government is worth any bloodshed. Because of taxes? God said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars." What then? To prevent killing? Yes. If the government that rules you is murderous and marauding, you have the right before God to kill its agents and overthrow it to stop the murder. However, the British government was not marauding the colonists. There were taxes, and there were impositions, but even the so called Boston Massacre involved a riot scene, not a case of cold-blooded imperial murder (and the death toll was low). What about to end slavery? To break people free of their chains of servitude? Well, yes. Under God's law, to kidnap a man and sell him was a death penalty offense. In 1775, the Bostonians staged a revolt over nothing that could justify killing. The war spread. There was no particular justification for it that would stand up before God. The Americans didn't want to pay taxes, some members of a mob got shot in a standoff situation. The government was repressing guns. None of these things justifies killing under the laws of God. But then the delegates met in Philadelphia and made their case to the world: "We hold these truths to be self-evident," they wrote, "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Well, now, those are fine pretty words, but contained in two of them are genuine rights before God that would justify rebellion and bloodshed: the right to live, and the right to be free. By this point, the British had responded to the theretofore unjustifiable rebellion with excessive force of their own, particularly the unleashing of Indian tribes on the frontiers against American colonists. To protect yourself and others from death justifies violence, and to throw off the chains of slavery: these things justify a war, and killing. However, for those justifications to truly exist, you have to actually mean them. You have to DO the things you claimed as the basis for your right to kill. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite. God excoriated hypocrites. The Americans killed their own countrymen, by the thousands, over a claimed right to liberty as equal men before God. But they clamped down the chains of slavery on a quarter of the population, and kept them there. Suddenly, their justification is gone. Now they're just killers again, killers seeking their own fortune, seeking their own power. The "freedom" they claimed was not the right to live as free, equal men. It was, rather, the right to live without taxes they didn't control, the right to run their own show, and the right to continue to grind their boots into the backs of other men. A quarter of the population were slaves. They were kept in chains throughout the war. Washington demanded the return of all slaves liberated by the British. "All men are created equal?": "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? For the whites only. The justification dissolves into farce, into rank hypocrisy, and those who rebelled and killed, and those who led them, reduce themselves thereby to the role of rank murderers and oppressors, nothing more. So yes, that notion of a place of all people, all equal, was indeed an ideal And it is the only ideal that justifies the existence of the country in the first place. Without THAT ideal, Washington and his ilk were simply murderers, America was a rebellious province, and the just outcome would have been for the United States to have been destroyed like the Confederacy was, and its leaders hanged as murders and traitors, which they were. Those ideals are everything. Without ideals that are true and just, there is never a justification for using violence. America proclaimed a just ideal, but didn't even try to live up to it. This doesn't seem to perturb you. Once upon a time, when I was a young man I joined the military to defend this country. The Cold War was on, the Soviets were a menace to liberty everywhere: so we perceived them, not unjustly. People like me will serve an ideal. Take away an ideal, though, or render it a sham (as the Republican Party has done with their repeated campaigning on a set of ideals which they then swiftly betray once in office), and you will get mercenaries, but you will not get men like me. I'll risk my life and fight for an ideal. I won't do either for an abstract "form of government" that serves no ideal but power and money, nor for a "flag". A flag is a piece of cloth. What matters is the ideals that move the men who carry it. Have the wrong ideals, and you can go hang yourself in your pretty flag.
That is an ideal
#85. To: Vicomte13 (#66) (Edited)
I thought that was the Muslims doing that? Then again,they are your old-time dance partners,and sometimes it's hard to tell you apart.
We are winning control of the United States, its laws and institutions.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#86. To: Vicomte13 (#74)
I picture you cackling like Jack Nicholson in "One Flew Over the Coo Coo's Nest" when I read that.
For mine is the voice of VICTORY. We won. My ideas won.
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
#87. To: Vicomte13 (#84)
Show me where God said the fruits of your labor are Caesars. Jesus was being clever. He wasn't saying Give to Caesar. He said give to Caesar what is Caesars. He never once ever said give unto Caesar.
God said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars."
#88. To: Vicomte13 (#84)
What is not an ideal is this: You shall not kill. THAT is a commandment, from God, the one and only. That isn't his only commandment. Now just for arguments sake. If thou shall not kill is a commandment. and the Bible tells you how to treat slaves. Never mentions fighting a war to free them. Then the Civil War was disobedience to God. If your side won. Did the winning side keep the one commandment you mentioned? Did they act in accordance with the way slaves were to be treated?
It is.
#89. To: A K A Stone (#88) (Edited)
and the Bible tells you how to treat slaves. Never mentions fighting a war to free them. Careful. Be very, very careful when speaking of the commandments of God. For God is real, and his commandments were and are real, not a game. Heaven, and Hell, are always watching and always listening, and God will not be mocked. There is slavery in the Bible, yes, but let's bore straight into what the commandments of God on the subject actually SAY. First, almost all of those commandments about slavery appear in the Torah, and were given to the Jews. Jesus has some things to say on the subject as well...and what he has to say is EVEN WORSE for the slaveholder than what God said to Moses. Let's go through the slavery provisions in order of their revelation. As each plank of God's law is laid down, you will see that what is being erected is the scaffold on which the American slaveholder hanged himself. First, in Genesis, there is no mention of slavery in the time of Adam or before the Flood. God does not give rules for the handling of slaves, or give any suggestion that men are permitted to enslave other men. He DOES make clear, in his dialogue with Cain, that if a man does well, other men will turn to him and follow him, and he will "regulate in them", meaning he will set the rules over them. But this is only because a man does well. Cain, of course, does NOT do well. He kills instead, and God curses him from the land and sets him to wandering on account of it. After the Flood, as Noah and his family are leaving the Ark, God gives a definitive commandment: men are not to shed men's blood, and that if they do, by man their blood is to be shed. There is no law of slavery given. Next, we see the life of Abraham. We see a slave woman, Hagar, badly abused by Sarah after being commanded to bear a child for Abraham. We see Abraham, at Sarah's demand, drive the woman with her child out into the desert twice, to die. And we see God make a covenant with Sarah and her son, Ishmael, twice, and in that covenant God promising Ishmael lands, prosperity, a very great seed, and to be right there alongside of, and in the face of, Isaac and his seed, for the ages. This, of course, is precisely what has happened. For the Jews are Isaac, but the Arabs are Ishmael, and God made covenants with BOTH. And most particularly, because of the treatment of Hagar the slave, and Ishmael, the first son of Abraham, by Abraham and by Isaac's mother, God promises that the Ishmaelites will be a problem for the (later) Jews though the ages. Whoever expects the Jews to beat the Arabs for good, or for there to be a long and happy peace between them, fails to read his Scriptures. Because of Abraham's mistreatment of one slave woman and her boy, God has promised that the Ishamelites will vex the Israelites until the end. The Jews don't get to win. Both sides have a promise to live in that land, and both lands will, uneasily and unhappily, all because of those oppressive actions of Abraham and Sarah long ago. God set the pattern: people who mistreat slaves can expect that their descendants will be vexed by the descendants of those slaves until the end of time...or until something changes. The change comes with Christ, but only if the slaver and the slave both embrace the concept that they are brothers, and repent and forgive the past. If they don't, if EITHER SIDE doesn't, then the descendants of slavers can expect misery for themselves and their descendants until the end of the world, or until the descendants of the slaves forgive them. God set that pattern with Isaac and Ishmael. Essentially, God set the Arabs at the throats and heels of the Jews until the end of the world, with the Jews NEVER getting to win or be completely in peace, BECAUSE Abraham and Sarah drove Hagar and Ishamel into the desert to die. The only way out of God's covenant with Ishmael and Hager for EITHER Ishamel OR Isaac, for the Arabs OR the Jews, is for the Ishmaelites to relinquish THEIR covenant and the Israelites to relinquish THEIRS, and both follow the NEW covenant of Jesus, the Christ, who taught that the slave and the master are brothers, when they are in Christ, and who commanded the master to treat his slave as he would himself want to be treated, and vice versa. The Arabs and Israelites are at each other's throats until they convert to Christ, because God MADE IT THAT WAY, because Abraham and Sarah imposed a child on a slave woman, and then drove her and the child into the desert to die twice. The cruelty of Sarah and Abraham resulted in God making a covenant with the slave woman and the slave boy that is every bit as powerful as the covenant he made with Abraham, Isaac and Israel. He promised that the Ishmaelite would also be in the land, and that his hand would be against his brother Isaac, and that he would make of Ishmael many great nations...that would be vexations to Isaac. And that is what happened. When you see Arab and Israelite fight, recognize that God has ordained that the Arab will not win and destroy the Israelite, but ALSO that the Israelite will never win and drive out the Arab. Rather, he has ordained, by parallel covenants with two sons of the same father, that they will be at each others throats FOREVER, without the ability to resolve it. THAT is the legacy of pain for his own people that God left as the result of the mistreatment of an Egyptian slave woman and her boy. It's a somber story. And the only way out of that covenant of perpetual duelling without victory is for BOTH to leave that old covenant and flock to the new covenant in Christ, in which the slave and the the master are brothers, and everybody does to everybody else as he would have done unto himself, and in which there is no domination. And that's just the FIRST example of slavery. Thanks to the rigors of Abraham's and Sarah's slavery of Hagar, Israel will suffer torment from the Arabs until the end of time - or until they convert to Christ. Very bitter legacy of slavery, that, and it is a COVENANT OF GOD that it be so, not an accident. If Americans think they will EVER be free of the legacy of slavery, they should look at what God did to Isaac and his descendants, because of what Abraham and Sarah did to Hagar and Ishmael. The only way out for Arab and Jew, or for American, is to be submissive Christians and repent of the sin - admit that one is without excuse - and then behave as Christ taught. Anything short of that, and you can expect that the children of Ishmael will have their hands against you until the end of time, and you can expect that God will never let you win, just has he doomed the Israelites to never be able to free themselves of being harrassed by the Ishmaelites. Slavery bears bitter fruit forever, because God has ordained it to be so, and he did so by COVENANT. We read the convenant of Abraham. We seem to glance over God's covenant with Hagar and Ishmael. Look back at it, and you realize the bitter fruit and PERPETUAL unease that God has set out for the slaver and his heirs. Moving forward, we come to the sons of Jacob. And what do we find? We find that the one who would become greatest of them all, Joseph, was sold into slavery by his own brothers. Ignominious. And note well who BUYS this great Israelite Patriarch: passing Ishmaelites. And look where they sell him: Egypt, the Egypt of Hagar's origins and the Egypt of Ishmael's wife's origins. But note too the HOPE that is in this story. Joseph is a slave in Egypt, and he never escapes that function. Even as Grand Vizier, he is nevertheless the slave of Pharaoh...but his slavery DOESN'T MATTER, because Pharaoh sees his ability and elevates him above all others except himself. This prefigures the way that Ishmaelite and Isaacite, Egyptian and Hebrew, slave and master can one day be: it won't matter anymore. But for that to happen, Pharaoh must be great and visionary. The Pharaoh of Joseph was, and the Israelite people survived on account of him. But the Pharaohs of later days were more in the traditional slave master line. This did not work out well for them. Of course we know what happened to Egypt and to Pharaoh in the days of Moses: the terrible plagues, afflictions, calamities and death that God inflicted on the Egyptians. We should remember well that Pharaoh, left to his own devices, might very well have relented early on, but that God did not let him. It was GOD who hardened Pharaoh's heart, over and over again, SO THAT God could slaughter Egyptians, destroy their country, ruin them and wreck them and lay them low, rendering them a horror. It was not enough for God to bring his people out of Israel. It was not enough to defeat the Egyptians. God kept hardening Pharaoh's heart so that God could MAKE AN EXAMPLE of the Egyptians, grind them like flour, beat them into the mud, break their gods, slaughter their livestock. And then, finally, when the grieving Egyptians let the Israelites go, indeed demanded they leave, God softened their hearts and heads so that they piled their gold and gems and finery on their slaves. "Please leave us, here is all of our money." When God brought the slaves out of Egypt, he brought them out of a land that he had devastated by plague, pestilence, locusts, hail, boils, darkness, and upon whom he'd inflicted the death of the firstborn on every family. And THEN he had them hand over their gold and gems and silver and brass and fine herbs to the slaves as the slaves left, as PAYMENT for all of that theretofore unrequited labor. So, up to the end of Genesis, we have had only three examples of slavery: In the first, the greatest moral failings of Abraham and Sarah come through their harsh mistreatment of a slave woman and her son. And for this, God does not revoke his covenant with Abraham, but he makes ANOTHER covenant, with the slave woman and her son, to make it such that Abraham's descendants will NEVER be completely at peace in the land of the covenant, that they will always be vexed and have to face the descendants of Ishmael. In the second, a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob becomes a slave of Pharaoh, and through him, the Israelites come into Egypt, and the whole of Egypt is reduced by Joseph to service to Pharaoh. In the third, God hardens Pharaoh's hearts and makes an example of Egypt for all time, leading the Israelites out with the wealth of Egypt in their hands. There is no good news for slavers in Genesis. If the Bible ended there, one would say that not only does God never endorse slavery, but in fact he slaughters one slaving society and pillages it for the slaves, and he choses slaves as his own people. But he even punishes his own people, going forward forever, by forever putting a brake on their security in the form of the descendants of a slave woman and slave boy that the great Abraham abused. It's not an appetizing prospect to be in the role of Sarah and the Israelites, faced forever with Ishmaelites in the land with their hands against you. And it's not an appetizing prospect to be Pharaoh or the Egyptians possessing Israelite slaves. God makes covenants with slaves to punish the descendents of the masters forever, and God makes a new people out of slaves, calls them his own, and slaughters, ruins and impoverishes the slavers. And that's just Genesis. Maybe the plantation owners can find more hope in what comes next. Next, the Chosen People - the ones God made his own - were slaves. He CHOSE them as slaves, and so much of what he teaches them is BECAUSE they were slaves. He makes the point of taking a non-nation and making it HIS People. For it wasn't just the descendants of the body of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who were the Israelites who came out of Egypt, but ALSO the many, many other slaves and people who came out with them: ALL of these people became the Hebrews, through the Mosaic covenant, circumcision, and the occupation of the land of Israel. The only people that God ever chose as his own, and gave a country, and ruled directly, were not even an ethnic entity until they were unified by the Exodus and Sinai. There was a leavening of linear descendants of Abraham in their midst, but huge numbers of others. What they had in common was that they were Egyptian slaves, that God had killed and destroyed Egypt and pillaged Egypt of its wealth and given it to these slaves. He took the lowest of people, in the eyes of men, and made them HIS people - and he killed and pillaged and beat down their slavers into the mud, even opening the ocean to let the slaves cross and then closing it in to drown the entire army. Slavers should look at Exodus and TREMBLE. They have set themselves in the role of the Egyptians and Pharaoh. And how did that work out for the Egyptians? And by WHOSE HAND were the Egyptians destroyed. Even when the Egyptians might have saved themselves by relenting early, GOD DIDN'T LET THEM. He kept on hardening Pharaoh's heart. He kept FORCING Pharaoh, against Pharaoh's will, to take a hard position SO THAT he could openly slaughter more Egyptians, and torture them more, and pillage them more, and leave them an utter ruin. And even at the end, he hardened the hearts of Pharaoh and his army one last time, so that he could drown them all in horror in the ocean, and leave a monumental story for all time that it's a really bad idea to be the slavers. Remember, too, that simple commandment against killing. It's stern and direct and simple. How does one man enslave another? By threatening to kill him if he does not submit. Every act of submitting a man to slavery is predicated on the threat of committing the crime of murder. Slavery is maintained by the permanent threat of murder. Slavers, EVERY slaver, is a man who threatens to commit one of the worst and most persistent of all crimes that God condemns in order to maintain a sort of control that he could not maintain without the threat of murder. Slavery can only be maintained by murder. Every slave ever killed by a master was murdered - and the master is a murderer. Every master who ever had a slave killed is very likely roasting in hell. It is a perilous thing to be involved in an enterprise that can only exist because you are willing to commit the crime of Cain and of Pharaoh and the Egyptian overseers. To maintain slavery, you have to have murder in your heart and be willing to use it. And that will get you thrown into Hell. There is no refuge for the slaver, really, and note that God didn't LET the Egyptians repent. He didn't LET Pharaoh back down. He kept hardening Pharaoh's heart. GOD DID NOT ALLOW THE SLAVERS TO REPENT. He forced them to continue their slavery, and then he tortured them, and killed their first born, and drowned their whole army. God does not always let men repent and turn back to him. And the largest class of people that he didn't LET repent were the Egyptians under Pharaoh, and the SUBJECT MATTER of God's hardening of the heart was the maintenance of slavery. God forced the Egyptians to maintain slavery past the point of pain SO THAT he could slaughter them in horrible ways and torment them and destroy them by his naked power SO THAT anybody who would dare be a slaver could look at Egypt for all time and know what to expect from God as punishment for the crime. Remember: the slaver is Pharaoh and the Egyptians. The Chosen People were the slaves. How did that turn out for the slavers? ANd remember, GOd has also tortured his Chosen People for all time with the Ishmaelites, the Arabs, never letting the Jews win, BECAUSE the mistreatment of a slave woman and his mother, Ishmael and Hagar, caused God to make a covenant with THEM every bit as permanent as the one he made with Abraham. Think on those things WELL, you who would dare to try to defend slavery based on the Bible. Think of these things BEFORE we get to the laws that God gave the Hebrews at Sinai regarding slaves in Israel. Remember what God did to Abraham and Sarah and their descendants, the Jews, for all time: vexing them with the Arabs. Remember what God did to Pharaoh and the Egyptians. Remember that God CHOSE SLAVES as his people. And remember that God will not be mocked. Remember all of those things and think REALLY HARD if you want to try to defend slavery and slavers. Remember, too, how God hardened everybody's hearts in America in the 1850s and 1860s. Remember how very devastating the Civil War was. Also remember that, to prolong it so that it could not simply be about secession or preserving the Union, God gave some early victories to the slavery power, SO THAT that would FULLY resist, everywhere. And remember how bitter the destruction and breakup and disaster was when the end came. Remember how God's Terrible Swift Sword of justice came down, and remember how badly the slavery power was destroyed. Think back to Sarah and Hagar, to Egypt and the Hebrews, and to the Confederacy, and note well the side that God has taken in each case. Note who won, and note how awful the slavers were brought law. Remember that in discussing this, we are speaking of the living God who did these things and gave the rules we will look at next. And remember, if you defend slavery, you are not doing so in the abstract: you are defending Egypt and Pharaoh. Remember what God did to them and ask yourself what you can possibly GAIN by taking the side of evil and defending it. Slavery is evil. It has always been imposed and maintained by murder and the threat of murder, which is evil. All slavers are evil. And all men who defend slaves and slavery are evil, for they are defending murderers and the threat of murder. Slavers are Pharaoh and Egypt. Slavers are the people in path of Sherman's March. Look what God did to all of them and THINK AGAIN before trying to defend murderous evil slavers. Even if their names are Jefferson and Washington. They were slavers. They were Pharaoh. And that is Not Good. Now let's look at what God actually said to the Hebrews about slavery, the actual LAW of slavery. Many people have said that Old Testament supports slavery. Everybody who says that is either a liar or an ignoramus. To be an ignoramus means just that: to be ignorant, to not know what is actually written. Ignorance can be dispelled with knowledge. I have laid out what the Bible says regarding the slavery of Hagar and Pharaoh and Egypt, above. Also what the Bible says about murder. You're not ignorant of what God did to the slavers. Now I'm going to lay out the Law of Sinai on slavery. After you read it, you will realize that God did not condone slavery at all: he made it quite hard and expensive, actually. And then Jesus comes along and essentially makes it impossible: you can't keep slaves and keep the commandment to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and to not kill, and to not dominate. It can't be done. So, once you read and think you will no longer be ignorant. But consider the case of those men who were NOT ignorant, who DID know what the Scriptures said, what God said and did. And who, nevertheless maintained slavery anyway, and who maintained a "Scriptural" argument FOR slavery. THOSE men were liars. They were deceivers, agents of Satan sent to try to deceive the ignoramuses into following them into darkness. No, the Bible does NOT condone slavery. It limits it in painful and expensive ways in the Old Testament, and makes it impossible to maintain as true slavery in the New. And anyone who tells you otherwise is an agent of Satan trying to deceive you. Starting with the fact that slavery can only be imposed through murder and the threat of murder, and that God damns murderers and has commanded against it since Cain and Abel; and then proceeding through the Covenants that God made with slaves (Hagar and Ishmael), the lofty role that God gave to a slave, Joseph, and the utter torment and destruction of a slaving nation, while chosing His People, His Chosen and most precious, specifically from a people who were slaves he freed, we have have the grounds to see what he said at Sinai. At Sinai, God reiterated: Do not kill. He imposed the death penalty for murder, including for murder of a slave. He also forbade kidnapping, stealing men and selling them. He imposed the death penalty for this as well. If you cannot kill or kidnap, how can you make slaves? There were only three ways to make slaves under God's law: (1) People sold for crimes, because they could not pay their judgments; (2) Prisoners of War; and (3) People who were already slaves, who were purchased from others. There was no other way to make a slave under God's law. Satan will leap forward and say "See, God justified slavery in the Scripture!" No, God did not. These are the BEGINNINGS of the bounds on slavery. There is MUCH more to follow. But let's look at those three cases: in the first case, to be reduced to slavery for non-payment after judgment, is a process of being reduced through courts, for financial reason. This is not debtors prison, it's debtors' labor. The conditions on this are very thick in the Law of God. One rule that stands above all others is that Hebrews can NEVER be reduced to slavery, not even for debts. Never. No Hebrew slaves. Hebrews become indentured servants instead, only until retirement of the debt or the seventh year, whichever comes first. And then the Hebrew indentured servant is not only released, but his master MUST PAY HIM for his services. He cannot send him away empty handed. So, there is no Hebrew slavery in the Bible, and the "master" has to provide for his servant, and has to pay him, and has to let him go. The servant may be compelled by law to BE a servant, to pay a debt, until the next sabbatical year. Note that this means that the MAXIMUM term of Hebrew indentured servitude for debt is 6 years, but it could be as little as a month, if the sabbatical year comes in a month. It is not a "rolling six year period" - it is only until the next fixed sabbatical year, 6 years in the worst case. Note all of the conditions and restrictions here. Debts can be redeemed, and even if the full six years have to be worked, the master must feed and clothe and house and not mistreat, not treat as a slave, and PAY at the end. And the Hebrew is still a Hebrew, and still has full legal rights. This is akin to a military indenture. It's certainly not slavery. What happens if you force a Hebrew into actual slavery? Death. And, since to force a man into slavery you have to threaten murder, you're already in the hazard. If you actually kill him: death. Kidnapping: death. Sale: death. Make him work on the sabbath: death to the "owner". And the Israelite judges won't ENFORCE slavery on Hebrews, so if a man claims a Hebrew a slave, and the Hebrew defies him and walks away, there is no slavery. If the would be master beats him, then he is guilty of assault and is himself beaten. No slavery of Hebrews. Oh, and the other two classes? Prisoners of War and Foreign slaves purchased? They could always BECOME Hebrews by conversion, and conversion to God was NOT something that the owner of a slave could prohibit. God is more important than slaveowners property. Which means that every OTHER slave in Israel: Prisoner of War OR Foreigner purchased, always had freedom at his option, if he were to choose to convert. Now consider American slavery: Most black slaves were Christians. Under the Law of God, believers could not be kept as slaves. If they were, the putative owners were to be put to death. Under the law of God in the Torah, the Bible, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were to be put to death: they held believers as slaves. Any black slave who converted had to be instantly manumitted to the status of indentured servant, at worst, or freed outright. He could never be held as a slave at all after his conversion. And even if indentured, the indenture must end no later than 7 years later. Such is what the Bible actually SAYS. And those who claim otherwise are liars and agents of Satan, seeking to justify what God renders quite impossible. Now let's move to the other cases: the foreign slave purchased by money, and the Prisoner of War. These were indeed slaves, and could be kept as such. However, note what slavery MEANT. The slaveowner was under the following laws: (1) If he killed his slave, he was a murderer and was to be put to death. (2) Complete rest on the Sabbath for slaves. Make a slave work on the sabbath, be put to death. (3) No sexual rights to slaves. The sexual laws applied to slaves and masters. A man could have sexual relations with a slave woman, but thereby she became his wife, was no longer a slave, and had conjugal rights, inheritance rights, rights to support. And a woman captured in war had to be allowed 30 days to grieve before she could be married. Sexual relations meant marriage. (4) No prostitution in Israel. The slaver who prostituted a woman was guilty of abomination. So, sexual relations with slaves converted them to wives. Sodomite relations with slaves got the Hebrew executed. (5) Maim a slave, the slave is freed: poke out an eye or knock out a tooth, the slave is freed. (6) Instant freedom if the slave converts: Hebrews can never be kept as slaves (and slaves cannot be prevented from coming to God). The slave, under the law, always had the key to liberty in his hands: he need turn only to God. (Did the Jews always respect this law? Who knows. Those who didn't were guilty of enslaving a Hebrew, and God's law imposed death upon them. If the law was not enforced, that was because the Jews were evil and corrupt and disregarding God's law, not because of the Scriptures). (7) Manumission of slaves in the 50th year Jubilee. Again, this doesn't grant fifty years of slavery. The Jubilee happens on fixed years. For example: this year, 2015, is a 49th year. Next year is the 50th year Jubilee. Were this Israel, Prisoners of War enslaved this year MUST be released next year on the Jubilee. So, now, let's compare God's law of slavery - OLD TESTAMENT slavery, to American slavery. (1) American slaves were Christian. All slaveholders of Christians were to be put to death under God's law, and the slaves were automatically free. So, all American slavers were damned to death by the Scripture, if the Scripture is basis for slavery. (2) American slaves, being Christians, were really indentured servants. They had to be PAID for their work at the end of their service. It is a violation of God's law to send them away empty handed. Theft deserves double restitution. The American masters owed their slaves restitution. (3) Hebrews are not to be sold. If sold, death. All slave marketeers and their transporters and bidders in the American slave system were all to be put to death under God's law. Everybody who sold a Christian faced execution under the law. (4) American slaves were killed by their masters. The masters must be put to death as murderers. (5) American slaves were maimed by their masters. They must be set free. (6) Even pagan slaves were to be set free under the Jubilee, and simply become foreigners in the land. There was no American sabbatical. Slaves were for life, and slavery was inherited. This broke God's law. (7) If you have sexual relations with a slave, you have married her and she has rights. Sally Hemmings and her daughters were rightful heirs, under God's law, of Jefferson's estate. They could not be excluded. (8) No prostitution. The exploitation of black women in American slave brothels is punished by the execution of the operators, under God's law. The men who used the slaves married them and were liable to pay the rape price, to them. (9) You shall not oppress a foreigner. Once freed, the black American had identical rights to any other American, under God's law. In short, God's law did not condone slavery - it severely limited it. And under God's law of slavery, all of the Black slaves were free because they were Christian, and everybody holding them anyway was to be put to death, and all of those men who screwed black women were in fact married to them in the eyes of God, and their descendants by the body have legal rights to inherit their property. Nothing like American slavery at all. American slavery was utterly pagan, and American slavers were damned by God either UNDER the Law of God, or OUTSIDE of it. For outside of it, there was the standard command to not kill, and American slavery was maintained by murder. So, what can save the soul of those damned American slavers? Well, they could say "That's the OLD TESTAMENT, but WE are subject to Christ!" Uh oh. Christ. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" Christ. "As you measure, so it shall be measured out to you" Christ. "Do not dominate one another"...that Christ. There is nowhere to go and nowhere to hide under God's law or certainly Christ's law. Slavery was utterly evil, everybody who practiced it, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, were despicable pieces of shit who have no defense before God for what they did in EITHER testament. Everybody who defends American slavery in any way is a servant of Satan. It was totally evil, and did not respect any of God's laws concerning slavery. God's laws severely restricted slavery and made it essentially optional: any man that submitted to the one true God by conversion was immediately freed of slavery. Thus could any foreign slave or POW become a Hebrew, by conversion. God's law of slavery did not CONDONE slavery. It PROHIBITED it against God's people, and punished anybody who enslaved a Jew by death, and it led foreigners to God by giving them freedom and equal status as one of God's people. God USED slavery as a vehicle to bring people to him individually, and free them. THAT is the Biblical law of slavery. AMERICAN slavery was a hellishly evil institution that respected NOT ONE of God's laws of slavery in either Testament. Every man who preached that it did was a servant of Satan, pure and simple, because there's no word for it. Paul and Onesimus and Philemon? The slave returns to you, and he is your BROTHER. Can a man of God enslave his brother? Can he? It's not a juridical question. There is nowhere to hide from God on this. His word is clear, and strict. American slavery was an abomination. Everybody who practiced it will be very lucky to not end up in hell. Anybody who still defends it, in any way, is an evil fool and a servant of Satan. Don't be a servant of Satan. It doesn't end well. It didn't end well for the slavers in America either. They lost most of what they had, were destroyed, lost family members in a war for Satan. Then they died and probably went to Hell. Damned and doomed for their evil. Indefensible. Unjustifiable. And their preachers who gave them religious arguments in FAVOR of slavery over against the actual obvious written words of Scripture: servants of Satan and agents of hell, doomed and damned. American slavery was an abomination before God. It was totally evil and indefensible.
If thou shall not kill is a commandment.
#90. To: A K A Stone (#88)
Under the law of God, there WERE NO SLAVES IN AMERICA. You cannot enslave believers. There were millions of kidnapped people who were abused and brutalized by killers and torturers. And the killers and torturers very probably all went to hell.
Did they act in accordance with the way slaves were to be treated?
#91. To: A K A Stone (#87)
Jesus himself paid the Temple Tax.
Show me where God said the fruits of your labor are Caesars. Jesus was being clever. He wasn't saying Give to Caesar. He said give to Caesar what is Caesars. He never once ever said give unto Caesar.
#92. To: Vicomte13 (#91) (Edited)
It looks like Jesus only paid the tax because he didn't want to stir up trouble at the time. Kind of like you pay a stop sign ticket because you dont'want the hassle of going to court. 24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? 25 He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? 26 Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. 27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.
Jesus himself paid the Temple Tax.
#93. To: Vicomte13 (#91)
#94. To: redleghunter (#89)
Bitter herbs.
#95. To: A K A Stone (#92)
Might it be that, given God's love for people and his desire to not see them destroy themselves, and given Jesus' pointed denigration of the importance of wealth and the desire to accumulate it, that he was telling the Jews to pay their taxes to Caesar for the same reason: money is not an important thing, and you should not throw your life away trying to avoid handing some bit of this unimportant thing over to some ruler. Spirit is important. God is important. Money and property and Caesar are not. So store up treasures for yourself in heaven and stop getting exercised (and risking your lives) over taxes and petty human politics. Pay the tax because it doesn't matter. Your staying alive and advancing the Kingdom in the world: THAT matters. So don't get yourself killed over a triviality. Christians don't revolt over taxes, because God said not to kill, and revolts kill, but also because Jesus said that money is just not that important. Don't die over it. Die for God, and God doesn't care about money.
It looks like Jesus only paid the tax because he didn't want to stir up trouble at the time.
#96. To: Vicomte13 (#89)
Good run down. The quoted above is the crux of the point for Chrisitians.
Can a man of God enslave his brother? Can he? It's not a juridical question
"For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]