Posted on 08/23/2013 7:55:15 AM PDT by chessplayer
As our dear friends at Twitchy observed, Neblett on Wednesday had some things to say about the black unemployment rate both nationally and in specific parts of the country.
Follower MojoMoe retweeted one saying "Blame slavery."
Neblett - who's actually a co-host of a nationally televised, weekday program on a so-called cable "news" network! - retweeted MojoMoe's pathetic comment and added, "That's obviously part of it."
Never mind that the 13th Amendment abolished slavery on December 6, 1865 almost 150 years ago.
Did I mention that this genius is a host on a nationally televised cable "news" network?
Part of the litany of excuses that the ex-slaves, their descendants, and their left/liberal fellow travellers/enablers like to lay at the feet of white America as its allegedly unending, perpetual liability.
I simply note that, even after open defiance and sin while receiving the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai, God required the Jews to wander in the Wilderness for only 40 years to excise their sin. (That is, they were made to wander until the sinful generation was dead.)
Just when does the “It’s Because of Slavery” gerneral excuse card expire?
Or it imposed as the highest law of the land that some people were not people. That you take the most positive view is nice but it is not the only view.
Don’t know you from Adam hoss
And you tossed out a bunch of strawmen of which I said none
I agree with 20 percent...maybe more
You wanna play then be more forthcoming
I never say 90 percent that neoyankees here attribute to me
Exactly like you just did
No one ever asks what ireally believe
They just throw up floating straw men to swat away to then be self righteous over
Yes as I said Morally Conflicted at best.
Geo. Washington Owned slaves till the day he died.
Adams was against it from the start, but did vote against a law in Ma. to end it thinking the time not right and the issue too decisive but only 3 years later wrote in the Ma. Declaration of Rights.
Franklin much like Washington owned slaves but LATE (1770)in life freed his slaves but was still on both sides of the fence in 1789
Hamilton as often the case is the hardest for or against anything, no fence sitter he. His opposition was both moral and practical and there is no firm evidence that he ever owned a slave but that he MAY have aided others at times to keep or buy them leaves a grayness to his position
Madison while supporting freeing slaves (and sending them back to Africa) did not end his use of the practice during his lifetime.
I would need to here your definition of a Straw Man argument, as I do not think any of mystatemtns fit the classical definition.
Straw Man
N.
2. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.
American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000
Blaming the founders for slavery in what is now the United States is ludicrous. They did not invent the institution.
I understand that the practice predated the US of course.
Your argument would be (I think) analogous to the fact that IF I came went across the border into Mexico with Live ammo I would NOT be breaking the law because where I had come from it was legal. Fallacious of course as each time you cross a border the laws of that nation and no other are then imposed on you.
Thus when a person any person entered the US there status of free or slave would ONLY be determined by the law of the US what they had been before in time or place is not relevant.
as a corollary, would a person now legally a slave in say Saudi that landed at Hobby Int. Airport be by law still a slave ? Its the same thing really. They are NOT a slave here Period because of the LAWS HERE.
I am not trying to say that the Founders were evil incarnate but only pointing that on this issue there was a lot of room for improvement. esp as “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal.....”
Slavery was permitted here, as it was permitted elsewhere, and had been long before the founders had any stroke governmentally.
The institution on these shores did not originate with them, but rather at the Jamestown colony well over a century before the American Revolution (provided one ignores the thousands of years of the indigenous residents keeping captives as slaves).
Thus, the Founders could not have imposed the institution of slavery on anyone.
I believe what you are trying to say is that they failed to eliminate the institution--not the same thing as imposing it.
There were concessions made in order to get the colonies to agree on a mutual government, whether under the Articles of Confederation or later the Constitution, and the slavery issue was one seen then as an issue which would further impasse. To do so would have left the newly independent colonies open to invasion and other influence, only their union was believed to be sufficiently strong to stave off those who might have designs on the resources there.
SO while they did not resolve the issue except to leave the institution as it was, they did not impose it; it did not begin with them.
I undestand it was a horse trade, and maybe a necessary evil, that being said it was still the US law that imposed the state of slavery just as it was US law that imposed a state of freedom later.
The laws of the US are the only ones that IMPOSE anything on persons in the US. ergo only those laws could impose the state of slavery on a person in the US.
What the law in Japan, China,France, or any where else had no bearing on the status of any person in the US. The legal imposition of the state of slavery in the US could only be enforced (thus imposed) by the laws of the US.
But involuntary servitude is unConstitutional.
The slaves of the era were already slaves when they arrived. Slavery was imposed on them elsewhere, they just were not freed here, that state of bondage was not automatically lifted.
Their status was acknowledged here, not imposed here.
Similar with Indentured Servants, whose term of service was supposed to be limited by contract.
One could be sold into slavery, or sell one's self into bondage here, but that imposition wasn't done by the law, only permitted by it. There was no law at the time of the founding of this country forcing anyone to be a slave, only permitting that status to continue.
So my status as a lawful firearms carrier would be valid in say Jamaica ?
It was imposed by law as of 1789 as PROVED DE FACTO by the owner ship of slaves in the US.
Laws are imposed intra national
and if one changed your mind, and decided to no longer be a slave, what course did the “owner” take. A LEGAL course. IF the status of slavery would then be IMPOSED by law and force of law on the person.
Don’t be silly.
If you think you know something about me and don’t like it
Spit it out
I won’t bite
I don’t know your issue....you’re using me to pontificate
Do you think I’m like George Wallace.... or Ross Barnett...lol
I don’t know you so fire away by all means....specifically about what you think I must believe that you don’t
Will that move this along?
And unlike my other foes here...say more about who you are
I’m on my profile page....one can easily determine exactly who I am or I can ping a dozen folks here who know me
Don’t fight hiding....that is what nearly all race baiters and neoyankees here do
BTW....I will never possess the arrogance to think myself morally superior to my ancestry
That is detestable....and cheap.....cost the preener nothing but honor
I do not know you.
I do note that you do not show any examples I may have used that would be a Straw Man as you claimed I did. You do not give you definition of the term as I asked.
Your use the term neoyanky does seem to say a lot though.
It was that term that elucidated my comments.
As far s being more moral than ancestry, each person is either more or less moral than any other living or dead.
If I erred my apologies good day sir.
Lincoln had no legal or constitutional way of doing that.
Maybe the war would have been avoided if the Confederacy had not fired on A Federal military post.
I took your recommendation and read your profile.
A lot of stars and bars. A LOT OF ALL CAPS
a stout defense of the CSA.
As a Texan I am often proud that my state sent as many men to the Union as to the CSA, I am a Federalist meaning that The States have Powers and Rights under the Constitution.
The CSA was a grand dream standing on the bedrock of a night mare. that of servitude with out reward. We as a nation rebelled due to taxation with out representation compared to slavery that was a light burden indeed.
What states rights was the federal government violating so badly that secession and civil war were the only logical
answer.
Per Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, Congress had the authority to outlaw the importation of slaves into the United States no earlier than 1808. In 1807 Congress passed a law to outlaw the importation of slaves into the United States. The law took effect in 1808. Any importation of slaves into the U.S. after 1808 was illegal.
And those born of slaves ? your case is based on preexisting condition of servitude, as such no person could be BORN a slave in the US true ?
As for the 1808 law, was in enforced ?
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.