Posted on 10/24/2012 8:07:45 AM PDT by Perseverando
True origins of institution had little to do with racism
Jon Hubbard, a Republican member of the Arkansas House of Representatives, has a book, titled “Letters to the Editor: Confessions of a Frustrated Conservative.” Among its statements for which Hubbard has been criticized and disavowed by the Republican Party is, “The institution of slavery that the black race has long believed to be an abomination upon its people may actually have been a blessing in disguise. The blacks who could endure those conditions and circumstances would someday be rewarded with citizenship in the greatest nation ever established upon the face of the Earth.”
Hubbard’s observation reminded me of my 1972 job interview at the University of Massachusetts. During a reception, one of the Marxist professors asked me what I thought about the relationship between capitalism and slavery. My response was that slavery has existed everywhere in the world, under every political and economic system, and was by no means unique to capitalism or the United States. Perturbed by my response, he asked me what my feelings were about the enslavement of my ancestors. I answered that slavery is a despicable violation of human rights but that the enslavement of my ancestors is history, and one of the immutable facts of history is that nothing can be done to change it.
The matter could have been left there, but I volunteered that today’s American blacks have benefited enormously from the horrible suffering of our ancestors. Why? I said the standard of living and personal liberty of black Americans are better than what blacks living anywhere in Africa have. I then asked the professor what it was that explained how tens of millions of blacks came to be born in the U.S. instead of Africa. He wouldn’t answer, but an answer other
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I would argue that Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society progrms have inflicted far more damage and harm to the United States than the Civil War ever did.
"The rampant discrimination of the past is long gone."
Hardly. The Welfare and Entitlement programs LBJ passed are more egregious and harmful to blacks today than the Civil War ever was.
I think the average American Slave owner was probably more of a paternalistic kind of overlord and a good businessman.
Probably this is connected in some way with the curious concept of being a Christian and a slave holder.
Well cared for slaves not only live longer and produce more, they also reproduce.
One of my favorite questions to libs is: “Do you know your history on that?” History - REAL history - is something they tend to be sorely inept about.
Yes, but those words were spoken by the character of Satan.
As to the rest of your argument: I don't think that any Conservatives are arguing that the subsequent felicitous circumstance of American citizenship in any way justifies the evil of erstwhile American slavery.
Regards,
That's an interesting story but unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your point of view, it isn't true. The first known case of court ordered indenture for life, aka slavery, occurred some time before that. And the owner was white.
"Whereas Hugh Gwyn hath . . . brought back from Maryland three servants formerly run away . . . the court doth . . . order [that] the first serve out their times with their master according to their indentures, . . . and that [the] third being a negro named John Punch shall serve his said master or his assigns for the time of his natural life here or elsewhere." - A Virginia Court Decision (1640) from Virginia Magazine of History and Biography (January 1898), vol. 5, no. 3, p. 236.
“Another great fact about slavery: 1 million white folk were put into slavery by the Barbary pirates (Africans).”
Oliver Cromwell contributed numerous red-headed slaves to Virginia and the Caribbean. Female mixed race slaves were highly prized for their beauty. And anyone can read the runaway slave reports describing slaves as “lily white” - the U of VA system has these notices in its archives.
"I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil. Everything we do is to improve it, if it happens in our day; if not, let us transmit to our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for the unhappy lot and an abhorrence of slavery. If we cannot reduce this wished-for reformation to practice, let us treat the unhappy victims with lenity. It is a debt we owe to the purity of our religion, to show that it is at variance with that law which warrants slavery.I know not when to stop. I could say many things of the subject, a serious view of which gives a gloomy perspective to future times."
-- Patrick Henry
Well then how about this one? "Whenever I hear any one arguing for slavery I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." - Abraham Lincoln, March 1865.
As to the rest of your argument: I don't think that any Conservatives are arguing that the subsequent felicitous circumstance of American citizenship in any way justifies the evil of erstwhile American slavery.
You mean other than John Hubbard, Walter Williams, and most of the posters on this thread? Or would you agree that anyone who believes there were benefits to slavery aren't really conservatives?
Probably not, though not for lack of trying.
Julius Caesar took 10 years to conquer the Gauls, a population of 3M.
When he was done he had killed 1M, 1M were now subjects of the Romans, and he had sold 1M into slavery for his personal profit.
I seriously doubt any Muslim slaver in history ever succeeded in selling 1M people.
You are quite correct, for the Founders. One can accept slavery as an evil while still recognizing that it is impossible to do away with at the moment for practical reasons. That was the position of most, though perhaps not all, of the Founders.
The problem arose later, when southern fire-eaters starting with Calhoun began declaring slavery to be a positive good. At that point one cannot believe simultaneously in slavery and in the principles of the Declaration without demoting the slave, and by implication the black man, from being a full man.
I don’t know why you would want to try to argue this point. Taney was extraordinarily clear on the point in his Dred Scott decision.
“They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could be made by it.”
If that isn’t racism being used to justify slavery, I don’t know what would be.
You are quite correct, for the Founders. One can accept slavery as an evil while still recognizing that it is impossible to do away with at the moment for practical reasons. That was the position of most, though perhaps not all, of the Founders.
The problem arose later, when southern fire-eaters starting with Calhoun began declaring slavery to be a positive good. At that point one cannot believe simultaneously in slavery and in the principles of the Declaration without demoting the slave, and by implication the black man, from being a full man.
I don’t know why you would want to try to argue this point. Taney was extraordinarily clear on the point in his Dred Scott decision.
“They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could be made by it.”
If that isn’t racism being used to justify slavery, I don’t know what would be.
I agree with you on most aspects of this issue, but I think you are carrying your argument too far here.
Sometimes good can come from evil. That doesn't make the evil any less evil, but recognizing the fact doesn't mean one is accepting the evil.
The classic example for Christians is the murder of Christ. He was innocent and undeserving of death, so his murder was intrinsically evil. Yet as a result of this evil act we believe all humanity was offered the opportunity to be saved.
Slavery is the ultimate human evil. It reduces human beings, made in the image of God, to merchandise, thereby insulting God himself.
It is a lifelong kidnapping and rests on a basis of assault, torture and rape.
But even from such extreme evil some good can come.
I agree with you on most aspects of this issue, but I think you are carrying your argument too far here.
Sometimes good can come from evil. That doesn't make the evil any less evil, but recognizing the fact doesn't mean one is accepting the evil.
The classic example for Christians is the murder of Christ. He was innocent and undeserving of death, so his murder was intrinsically evil. Yet as a result of this evil act we believe all humanity was offered the opportunity to be saved.
Slavery is the ultimate human evil. It reduces human beings, made in the image of God, to merchandise, thereby insulting God himself.
It is a lifelong kidnapping and rests on a basis of assault, torture and rape.
But even from such extreme evil some good can come.
There is some dispute back and forth on that. Punch was sentenced to servitude for life for the crime of running away during his period of indentured servitude. Casor was declared slave for life, but not as punishment for any offense. Thus Casor more closely fits the definition of slave. As far as servitude as a sentence handed down for a crime, including servitude for life -- there were a large number of such up until recently, before chain gangs and prison farms fell out of fashion. We no longer sentence people to "hard labor".
So let me ask you. If you could be assured that in exchange for a lifetime spent in slavery, your descendents 3 generations into the future would no longer be slaves but would have a lifetime of second-class citizenship, and that your descendents 6 generations into the future would have a lifetime of prosperity and wealth then would you do it?
Apologies for the multiple multiple posts.
FR is being very weird today.
or perhaps "historically mute", in that without writing and the press, their words had no permanence or reach.
Also, when you're surrounded by hundreds of slaves, it's just not healthy to have them too angry with you. Despite the tales, I have a feeling that the life of an average slave was not much harder than the life of a free sharecropper.
The democrats would bring it back through the back door by allowing sharia law to be established here and there like in Britain that now holds sharia courts as equal to British common law. Sharia in Dearborn? It's there.
Sharia legalizes slavery and murder - honor killings and sex slavery abound everywhere sharia rules.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GH0Mk-ZroM
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.