Say Anything Blog

Remember the Alamo!

"Americans also rebelled against equally repugnant treatment by Mexican lords who gave not a whit about the natural rights of men."

"The Constitution of the Republic of Texasqv (1836) provided that slaves would remain the property of their owners, that the Texas Congress could not prohibit the immigration of slaveholders bringing their property, and that slaves could be imported from the United States (although not from Africa). Given those protections, slavery expanded rapidly during the period of the republic."

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/SS/yps1.html 

Are you saying that slavery wasn’t legal in Mexico. 

The fact that the US kept slavery when we broke off from the colonial powers that brought Slavery to our shores.

What is remarkeable is that we ended it so soon. 

Heh, WOOF are you just trying to be contrarian, or are you saying that Texan secession from Mexico was a bad thing? 

You mean the second American Revolution?

"Abolition of the Slave Trade bill was passed in the House of Lords by 41 votes to 20. In the House of Commons it was carried by 114 to 15 and it become law on 25th March, 1807.

British captains who were caught continuing the trade were fined £100 for every slave found on board. However, this law did not stop the British slave trade. If slave-ships were in danger of being captured by the British navy, captains often reduced the fines they had to pay by ordering the slaves to be thrown into the sea.

  Parliament passed the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833. This act gave all slaves in the British Empire their freedom. The British government paid compensation to the slave owners. The amount that the plantation owners received depended on the number of slaves that they had. For example, the Bishop of Exeter’s 665 slaves resulted in him receiving £12,700."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Lslavery33.htm

Ken , I am just saying that "Mexican lords who gave not a whit about the natural rights of men.’ is BS.

Annexing Texas had nothing to do with human rights. 

The northern colonies also did great work early on in making slavery legal.  Unfortunately the economies of the Southern colonies were so dependent upon slavery that it took quie a bit more effort to end slavery there.  Still over the thousands of generations that slavery was common, the American Republic ended slavery in 3.

Texas wasn’t ‘annexed’. Texas fought for independence and became a sovereign nation in it’s own right then requested and was granted entry into the union. WOOF is right about slavery though, Mexican law banned slavery. It was one of the reasons for the revolution. But if you ever want to see a mexican laugh really hard ask him what Texas would be like if it was a Mexicn state…

That’s right....Sorry, Mexico banned slavery but it still was there in Texas.  I suppose the Texans were tired of bribing the authorities?  Did I get it right now?

The.Whistler,

The fact that the US kept slavery when we broke off from the colonial powers that brought Slavery to our shores.

We, Americans, brought slaves to these shores.  How?  Major portions of the shipping were run by Americans.  Americans also demanded slaves.  Arguing that slaves were "forced" on Americans is just weird.  Indeed, the early history of Georgia is indicative of the reverse - there the British founders forbade the use of slaves in the colonies, but the local population demanded their import and use. 

More complicated than that Whistler.

"And what are their excuses, their apologies, their reasons—for they always give reasons for what they do? One of them is, that Mexico is unable to defend her territory, and that therefore they have a right to take it!

Mankind thinks that whatever is prosperous is right.

http://www.yale.edu/glc/archive/1063.htm 

WOOF,

Note that it was the Southern slavocracy which most promoted the war against Mexico; a war of aggression which expanded the reach of the slavocracy geographically.

We, Americans, brought slaves to these shores.  How?  Major portions of the shipping were run by Americans.  Americans also demanded slaves.  Arguing that slaves were "forced" on Americans is just weird.

I’m saying that slavery existed on this ground before we were our own country.  Once we founded the US of A; we ended it within a very short time (historically speaking that is.)

Slavery was a colonial institution.  We ended it. 

WOOF,

The concept of liberty and freedom have been problematic historically because they haven’t been exclusive (indeed, Winthrop Jordan and many other scholars argue that freedom until modern times required an unfree population to compare it to - thus the example of Athens and its slave population).  So its not surprising that Texans would make a lot of noise about liberty while denying it to others.  Or as Samuel Johnson said of the American Revolution:

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"

The.Whistler,

I’m saying that slavery existed on this ground before we were our own country. 

That’s what you are writing now.  Its not what you wrote before. 

Once we founded the US of A; we ended it within a very short time (historically speaking that is.)

After a bloody civil war that cost the lives of nearly 700,000 combatants.

Slavery was a colonial institution.   

And from 1776-1865 it was an American institution, one we consciously chose to keep following the Revolution.  Indeed, one we wrote into and thus approved of in our founding document - the Constitution.

WOOF,

To see how freedom grew out of slavery in the West see:

Orlando Patterson, Freedom, Vol. 1: Freedom in the Making of the Modern World 

WOOF,

Also you might want to check out David Brion Davis’ The Problem of Slavery in the… series.  And Winthrop Jordan’s White Over Black. 

I guess I’ll also pimp Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia too.

Ep… Slavery was a deep-rooted institution when this country was founded.  It couldn’t be just wiped out.  The country never would have formed.

AS you pont out, it was very difficult to eradicate.  The civil war with all of those horrible casualties.

The character of a nation cannot be determined by the character of a group within that nation.  Would one think that the old Iraq was a good country because a lot of people didn’t like Saddam. 

We had this discussion about the French.  I took some heat because I ascribed the character of the French to be what the majority and the government are doing.  Certainly there are fine folks in France that don’t like what’s going on.

The Whistler,

Slavery was a deep-rooted institution when this country was founded.  It couldn’t be just wiped out.  The country never would have formed.

No, the country could have been formed, but not as it was after 1789.  People make choices.  Here I thought conservatives were all about "taking responsibility."

As to the "character" of the nation, well, clearly that character included a tolerance of slavery amongst a large portion of the population, and an outright embrace amongst other portions..

Comeon ep give me a little bit.  The free states of New England and New York and Pennsylvania would have formed it’s own country.  I think it’s character would have been different than the US. 

The Southern states may have formed a confederacy against the North.  Maybe or Maybe not.  It’s also possible that they’d leave it up to Virginia to keep the North from interfering with them.

Either way it’s almost impossible to imagine the current USA coming about starting out like that. 

The Whistler,

Either way it’s almost impossible to imagine the current USA coming about starting out like that. 

Why?  The formation of the U.S. as it was in 1789 wasn’t written in the stars.  Numerous endpoints following the success of the Revolution were possible.  History is contingent in other words. 

Wow, Jesse"The Poverty Pimp"Jackson must be proud of you! Not an original thought in any of your posts in this thread, either of you. A hint. Black men continue to practice slavery. White men abolished slavery. Islamic counties were, and are, the major practioners of slavery. Now please to explain how all this is the fault of white men, keeping in mind that Black Islamic Men are, and have always been, the majority practioners of slavery. Worldwide, not just in Sudan.

TwoHotel9,

Wow, Jesse"The Poverty Pimp"Jackson must be proud of you! Not an original thought in any of your posts in this thread, either of you.

Right.  Sure. 

A hint. Black men continue to practice slavery. White men abolished slavery.

And black men.  After all, it was black men in St. Domingue who ended slavery there, and it was the large force of escaped slaves in the U.S. that helped to end slavery here (we might as well call the U.S. Civil War a servile revolt as much as it was a civil war - which is not surprising, since slaves have historically taken advantage of such internal strife to win their freedom going back to the time of Spartacus).   

Islamic counties were, and are, the major practioners of slavery.

Actually, the major practitioners for several centuries were Caribbean and Brazilian slaveowners.  The U.S. received a pittance of the slave trade to the New World after all, and even when 4/5ths of the slave states were made of slaves they were always dwarfed by the 9 to 1 ratio found in places like Jamaica, Barbados and various states in Brazil.  Anyway who was the major player in the slave trade (be it from Africa, Europe, Asia, etc.) has changed over time; depending on the region in question clearly for many centuries it was the Romans, for others it was various colonial entities in the New World, for a short period of time it was the Vikings, etc.

Now please to explain how all this is the fault of white men, keeping in mind that Black Islamic Men are, and have always been, the majority practioners of slavery.

Ahh, given that slavery was and has been practiced by every society on the planet (something which I’ve already stated) this seems to be a rather strange accusation to make.  No one is blaming white people exclusively for the existance of slavery, be it of Africans or of Irishmen (there was a large trade of Irish slaves in the middle ages). 

White men abolished slavery.

How thoughtful of them! That has inspired me to stop kicking people in the balls.

The Whistler says:

What is remarkeable is that we ended it so soon. 

What’s really remarkable is that we kept doing it even when this was on the books:

July 4, 1776

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men were created equal....certain unalienable rights.....life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness."

And all that there good stuff.  Then, of course, we had to decide that women were also created equal and that didn’t happen until, well, it still hasn’t if you compare pay scales.

Islamic counties were, and are, the major practioners of slavery.

As a Dhimi slut, I’d like to ask for verifiable references and links  to back that up, please.

"How thoughtful of them! That has inspired me to stop kicking people in the balls."

Dave,

Shouldn’t that be "...kicking men in the balls" instead? 

Muslims seem to be the only ones cutting people’s heads off, too.  At least since the French retired the guillotine.  And as I recall, there are a number of videos floating about the internet that establish that fact rather graphically.

diane,

Islamic nations have a long history of being involved in the African and European slave trades (keep in mind that lots of East Europeans ended up in slavery in the middle east).  The idea that they have always have been the major practitioners is just bizarre though.

Bat One,

Its a common practice amongst the AUC and the FARC in Colombia.  I don’t know if they post the activities on the internet though.

Bat One,

Though the AUC and the FARC perfer chain saws to swords.