The Source of Rights

[Kenny]

Absolutely.. they never even considered that men and women could be equal nor that black could equal white.
If they thought of religions all being equal, They did not even think that other than Christian religions might one day be included or even significant in the USA. It did not come into their thinking.

IMO that's a stretch - at least according to history

 

[Truth in love]

Sadly, with some if you give an inch they will take a mile. Those who favor all or nothing either want a total ban or unrestricted access. Neither one of those are where the answers lie. The moderate way isn't as abhorrent to the majority as the extremes are. The majority want it legal with certain restrictions. That is the moderate view. But why the extremists are running the show is crazy. But when you have 9 people ruling on our society, it will rarely be fair.

Extremism rarely works. By kicking the issues to the sates (I hope this happens often). The states can decide. We likely will see 3-4 sets of rules that get adopted widely. A person can then move to the state that fits their views and we don’t have 9 unelected people deciding much of anything.

 

[metis]

Hope you had a meaningful weekend.

I did, and we went to a memorial service for one of our sisters-in-law on Saturday, and it was so moving.

I just believe that when they penned "All men are created equal" - they were blind to the reality of equality (in Christ their is neither male or female) - but God was using that moment to open the door for His will to be done.

Again, I can't buy into that because of a lack of evidence. OTOH, I do believe that God's Spirit can indeed inspire us, so who's to say in the final analysis who was inspired and when?

It is unfortunate, imo, that there was only one Christian denomination that was opposed to slavery back then, and that was the Society of Friends ["Quakers"]. And slavery was most popular in the South, which was a bastion of Protestantism then, and we still see many of these states trying to suppress black voting in what I call "Jim Crow II".

BTW, my wife has me as a slave, so I can really relate to this.

 

[Kenny]

So glad you had a great mass and although the departure of a loved one can be a bitter taste, the knowledge of seeing them again makes it sweet.

Again, I can't buy into that because of a lack of evidence. OTOH, I do believe that God's Spirit can indeed inspire us, so who's to say in the final analysis who was inspired and when?

Yes... it is an opinion of mine... I guess since it has happened to me more than once, I believe in the possibility. Can I be wrong? obviously. But I also could be right.

It is unfortunate, imo, that there was only one Christian denomination that was opposed to slavery back then, and that was the Society of Friends ["Quakers"]. And slavery was most popular in the South, which was a bastion of Protestantism then, and we still see many of these states trying to suppress black voting in what I call "Jim Crow II".

That has some truth... but I tend to follow this philosophy:

The Declaration of Independence -- The Original Abolitionist Document | History News Network

"For instance, an author writing under the rubric “Crito” in 1787 asserted that the Declaration of Independence was an indictment against the hypocrisy of slavery:

It was repeatedly declared in Congress, as language and sentiment of all these States, and by other public bodies of men, “that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal: That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights: That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”: . . . . The Africans, and the blacks in servitude among us, were really as much included in these assertions as ourselves; and their right, unalienable right to liberty, and to procure and possess property, is as much asserted as ours. . . . And if we have not allowed them to enjoy these unalienable rights . . . we are guilty of a ridiculous, wicked contradiction and inconsistence."

Edited:

Not detracting from the truth that many were slave holders.

 

[metis]

Can I be wrong? obviously. But I also could be right.

Hey, even a blind chicken gets a worm once in a while.

That has some truth... but I tend to follow this philosophy:

The Declaration of Independence -- The Original Abolitionist Document | History News Network

But "that ship didn't sail". [want any more cliches?] What was the driving force to keep the slave trade was "capitalism", namely that the plantation owners in the South wanted their work force because of economics. Thus, those who could harvest the cotton and tobacco at a lower cost had a completive advantage over those that had no slaves and who thus had to hire wage earners.

Now, it wasn't that all in the country wanted it this way, and at least some historians feel that Jefferson didn't want to have slaves [except sexually] but that he may have felt he had no choice because of competition.

BTW, did you ever go to Montecello? Whatta place!

 

[Kenny]

Hey, even a blind chicken gets a worm once in a while.

But "that ship didn't sail". [want any more cliches?] What was the driving force to keep the slave trade was "capitalism", namely that the plantation owners in the South wanted their work force because of economics. Thus, those who could harvest the cotton and tobacco at a lower cost had a completive advantage over those that had no slaves and who thus had to hire wage earners.

Now, it wasn't that all in the country wanted it this way, and at least some historians feel that Jefferson didn't want to have slaves [except sexually] but that he may have felt he had no choice because of competition.

BTW, did you ever go to Montecello? Whatta place!

I can't dispute the "capitalism" position. It was the love of money that kept it going... but "hold your horses"... ( I had to think of something to add MY cliche)

OK... a broken clock is right twice - so here goes BUT )remember, I completely agree that there was slavery, some wanted slavery and some thrived on it.)

There was already an anti-slavery position growing in all of England's territory. The signers weren't the average people, they were the intellectual elite, so they knew what was happening.

So let's think political.

With over half the states wanting slavery, trying to unite the 13 colonies to overthrow the English government, it would never happen.

What would be the chances of it passing if it was in bold letters, "there will be no more slavery"? none

but I believe that ADAMS, John, BASSETT, Richard, BOUDINOT, Elias, BURR, Aaron, ARROLL, Charles, CHASE, Samuel, CUSHING, William, DICKINSON, John, ELLERY, William, ELLSWORTH, Oliver,
FEW, William, FRANKLIN, Benjamin, GERRY, Elbridge, HAMILTON, Alexander, HENRY, Patrick, HOPKINS, Stephen, JAY, John, KING, Rufus, LAURENS, Henry, MADISON, James, MARTIN, Luther, MASON, George, MORRIS, Gouverneur, OTIS, James, PAYNE, Thomas, RANDOLPH, Edmund Jennings, RUSH, Dr. Benjamin, SHERMAN, Roger, TUCKER, St. George, SHERMAN, Roger, WILSON, James, were abolitionish.

So, what is the next step if you are an abolitionist? Word it in a legal way that you didn't say "no slavery" but you opened to door to eventually eradicate it even as Wilbur was working on it. A wise person would say "all men are crated equal". The slave owners would read that as "all European decent people are equal" - we will sign it. The abolitionist knew - We can take care of that issue later.

That's my take and I am sticking to my guns... oops... is that an acceptable politically correct cliche?

 

[fantome profane]

Extremism rarely works. By kicking the issues to the sates (I hope this happens often). The states can decide. We likely will see 3-4 sets of rules that get adopted widely. A person can then move to the state that fits their views and we don’t have 9 unelected people deciding much of anything.

Does this mean that if in the future a federal law or another Supreme Court ruling comes that imposes a nation wide ban you would object?

Will you say now that there should never be a nation wide ban?

 

[metis]

OK... a broken clock is right twice - so here goes BUT )

Not if the hands fell off.

So, what is the next step if you are an abolitionist? Word it in a legal way that you didn't say "no slavery" but you opened to door to eventually eradicate it even as Wilbur was working on it. A wise person would say "all men are crated equal". The slave owners would read that as "all European decent people are equal" - we will sign it. The abolitionist knew - We can take care of that issue later.

So, "all men are crated equal"? I didn't come that way, but that's me.

I think that it's likely that so many saw slavery as being morally repugnant but let money be more of their driving source. As one businessman I personally know told me, he strongly disliked Trump but felt he would be better for business. Or, as the Clinton campaign sign said to remind himself of where the priorities with most were and are, "It's the economy, stupid!".

That's my take and I am sticking to my guns... oops... is that an acceptable politically correct cliche?

You don't have to have a gun as you can record one of your sermons on your phone, and if someone pulls a gun on you just play the sermon and watch them fall asleep.

 

[Truth in love]

Does this mean that if in the future a federal law or another Supreme Court ruling comes that imposes a nation wide ban you would object?

Will you say now that there should never be a nation wide ban?

I would object to a national supreme court ban.

If and only if we define by constitutional amendment that a pre born person is a person with all the rights and privileges would it be proper for the federal government to ban abortions. Anything short of this would be on shaky legal grounds. With a duly passed amendment I would support it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

IMO that's a stretch - at least according to history

Is it?

Even many of the abolitionists didn't want to actually live in a mixed-race society. There was a big push to get freed slaves to emigrate to Africa - by force, if necessary.

Back-to-Africa movement - Wikipedia

 

[Kenny]

Is it?

Even many of the abolitionists didn't want to actually live in a mixed-race society. There was a big push to get freed slaves to emigrate to Africa - by force, if necessary.

Back-to-Africa movement - Wikipedia

Yes, of course there was a section of every type. But what does that have to do with what we are talking about?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, of course there was a section of every type. But what does that have to do with what we are talking about?

It's indicative of how many people even in the abolitionist movement didn't see black people as their equals, and weren't pursuing a society of equality.

They may have wanted black people freed from slavery, but they didn't respect black people's autonomy on basic things like where to live.

The anti-abolitionists certainly opposed equality, but back in the day, many abolitionists opposed equality, too.

... and so did Thomas Jefferson, despite the words he wrote. Don't forget that he not only owned many slaves himself, but raped his slaves and then enslaved his own children.

 

[Kenny]

It's indicative of how many people even in the abolitionist movement didn't see black people as their equals, and weren't pursuing a society of equality.

They may have wanted black people freed from slavery, but they didn't respect black people's autonomy on basic things like where to live.

The anti-abolitionists certainly opposed equality, but back in the day, many abolitionists opposed equality, too.

... and so did Thomas Jefferson, despite the words he wrote. Don't forget that he not only owned many slaves himself, but raped his slaves and then enslaved his own children.

I think you have successfully changed the subject.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you have successfully changed the subject.

This is the subject I was speaking to:

Absolutely.. they never even considered that men and women could be equal nor that black could equal white.
If they thought of religions all being equal, They did not even think that other than Christian religions might one day be included or even significant in the USA. It did not come into their thinking.

IMO that's a stretch - at least according to history

What about you?

 

[Kenny]

This is the subject I was speaking to:





What about you?

I rest in the statement "all men are created equal..." whether one person doesn't believe it, has inter-racial issues, or didn't live it out.. it remains steadfast and immovable.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

So glad you had a great mass and although the departure of a loved one can be a bitter taste, the knowledge of seeing them again makes it sweet.



Yes... it is an opinion of mine... I guess since it has happened to me more than once, I believe in the possibility. Can I be wrong? obviously. But I also could be right.



That has some truth... but I tend to follow this philosophy:

The Declaration of Independence -- The Original Abolitionist Document | History News Network

"For instance, an author writing under the rubric “Crito” in 1787 asserted that the Declaration of Independence was an indictment against the hypocrisy of slavery:

It was repeatedly declared in Congress, as language and sentiment of all these States, and by other public bodies of men, “that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal: That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights: That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”: . . . . The Africans, and the blacks in servitude among us, were really as much included in these assertions as ourselves; and their right, unalienable right to liberty, and to procure and possess property, is as much asserted as ours. . . . And if we have not allowed them to enjoy these unalienable rights . . . we are guilty of a ridiculous, wicked contradiction and inconsistence."

Edited:

Not detracting from the truth that many were slave holders.

For that to be so they would have had to believe that the black slaves were fully human..
Very few of them did.

Even after the civil war blacks were separated in many states, and were certainly considered a lesser species by many people.

 

[Kenny]

For that to be so they would have had to believe that the black slaves were fully human..
Very few of them did.

Even after the civil war blacks were separated in many states, and were certainly considered a lesser species by many people.

Can't argue that point. But that isn't what I was saying.