Understanding Slavery

A sense of superiority seemed to prevail in the thinking of our ancestors. I wonder if it can be traced out wherever Britain extended its empire?

 

I can't see the concept not being carried to the colonies.

Might I add, however, Brits often display an air of superiority, but it is more the use of the English language rather than our thinking. When English is properly spoken it tends to give off this air, especially with our accents.

I have been told that people thought I had my nose in the air until they actually met me. I am standoffish, and this doesn't help the situation, I suppose.

We grew up thinking that the Blacks were victims of their lot rather than inferior folk. We did not try to lord over them, but they were "different" if I am being clear on this. I would not wish anyone to think I felt superior to anyone.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Certainly didn't mean to imply anything about you. I mean all of us "Anglo-Saxons" in a general sense. I guess there has to be some sense of "superiority" to have a desire to rule the world, which Britain exhibited at one time. Having a sense of superiority of ideas helped spread many good ideas over the world, but often it was attended with some idea of "racial" (possibly not the best word) superiority as well. Trying to relate back to the topic, I think this is seen in some who opposed slavery and desired to see the black man freed, but didn't want to live next door to him, so to speak. Repatriation of slaves to Africa and colonization in other countries (such as South America) were popular ideas among anti-slavery advocates.

 

It is an interesting study, once we get beyond our own guilt trip, or at least see beyond our own preferences.

I never saw that many Backs where I lived, and when I went to Pennsylvania, I sat on a bunk and found myself staring at this young Black lad. He then turned to me and said, "Mr. Jim, don't worry. Before the summer is out you will be black like me." We laughed and that was the end of my bewilderment with colour.

Cheers, time to shove off to bed. Take care, Robert. Always enjoy your thoughtful posts.

Jim

 

Karen, I respect your opinion and know that probably most of the board would agree with your point of view. But I also note that while your statements on God & Israel are correct, they must be considered with the understanding that also on several occasions He delivered Israel into bondage because of their disobedience. I am not sure either would rise to the level of informing us on the morality or immorality of slavery. My strongest point of reference would be the way the Apostle Paul dealt with the issue. Nevertheless, I will leave off and make no further reference to the moral aspect as relates to the Bible, lest we should go in a direction where Hardsheller did not intend his thread to go.

 

I have read quite a few of the posts on this thread and one thing seems to be floating in the air.

Some people are saying that the war was over slavery. some say it was over states' rights. I find myself in between. Many years of northern "overruling" in the Congress had continually caused the southerners to be wary of them. The northerners wanted more free states in the union to give them a strategic advantage in Congress. The south wanted more slave states for the same reason. I am of the opinion that most people invovled were just normal politicians who wanted more votes, so they pushed these issues.

Anyway, that's not the point I want to make. My point is this, many southerners at the time of the war were afraid of the federal government becoming too powerful and being able to completely control the states, leaving the states with little or no authority. I would say, especially with the events today in Alabama, that our southern fathers were right on the money.

Since the war, just look at how the U.S. has become increasingly more federalized. every year, the national government takes more and more power away from state and local governments.

So my position is, regardless of their reasoning for going to war, be it slavery or whatever, the southerners were right in wanting to prevent this from happening to our country. Unfortunately, since the south lost, all of their fears have become realities. By this I don't mean slavery, but the complete control of every state by the federal government.

Here's my question. Why even have states? What good are they anymore? They can not make their own laws because the federal government will no doubt find some reason or another to overturn them. What's the point in keeping separate states if they're all going to be governed the exact same way?

It's really sad that more people back then could not see what was happening to America.

 

On April 12th 1861, the Confederate States opened fire on Fort Sumter (South Carolina). The South shot first. </font>[/QUOTE]Aah! And such a beautiful sound it made!! </font>[/QUOTE]About as beautiful as, oh, the last breath of 600,000 people?

What a waste.

 

Amen...

The ONLY good outcome of the Civil War was the end of slavery. The effects on our Constitutional form of government are tragic.

 

If we didn't have states, who would administer the lottery? Where would the Washington pols get their training?

I guess the President could appoint district governors like the British monarchs or Soviet politburo once did.

 

http://www.civilwarhome.com/CMHsumter.htm

The South, did, indeed, shoot first. No amount of historical revisionism either way will make this otherwise.

 

Only after the shots were fired - not before.

 

If the pre-civil war south existed now like it did then, they would be considered terrorists.

The Army, which protects the citizens of the U.S. against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, had every right to absolutely and completely with as must force as necessary, squelch that uprising, even it included weeding out the cell groups in other states.

Lincoln was not only a war hero, but an incredibly wise man. I would have picked up my gun, went North, and fired some shots on the way.

I am opposed to the chaos theory of government.

 

I would liken the South's actions more to the Palestinians who attack the Israelis, but to each their own.