Re: Confederations
Posted: Fri May 06, 2016 5:07 pm
Im super tempted to watch that but holy crap. That will take over 27 hours to get through.
https://www.well-of-souls.com/forums/
https://www.well-of-souls.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1138
SITUATION OF THE BLACK POPULATION IN THE UNITED STATES,30 AND DANGERS WITH WHICH ITS PRESENCE THREATENS THE WHITES
Why it is more difficult to abolish slavery, and to efface all vestiges of it among the moderns than it was among the ancients --In the United States the prejudices of the whites against the seem to increase in proportion as slavery is abolished-Situation of the Negroes in the Northern and Southern states --Why the Americans abolish slavery--Servitude, which debases the slave, impoverishes the master--Contrast between the left and the right bank of the Ohio--To what attributable-The black race, as well as slavery, recedes towards the South --Explanation of this f act--Difficulties attendant upon the abolition of slavery in the South--Dangers to come--General anxiety--Foundation of a black colony in Africa--Why the Americans of the South increase the hardships of slavery while they are distressed at its continuance.
The Indians will perish in the same isolated condition in which they have lived, but the destiny of the Negroes is in some measure interwoven with that of the Europeans. These two races are fastened to each other without intermingling; and they are alike unable to separate entirely or to combine. The most formidable of all the ills that threaten the future of the Union arises from the presence of a black population upon its territory; and in contemplating the cause of the present embarrassments, or the future dangers of the United States, the observer is invariably led to this as a primary fact.
Generally speaking, men must make great and unceasing ef- forts before permanent evils are created; but there is one calamity which penetrated furtively into the world, and which was at first scarcely distinguishable amid the ordinary abuses of power: it originated with an individual whose name history has not pre- served; it was wafted like some accursed germ upon a portion of the soil; but it afterwards nurtured itself, grew without effort, and spread naturally with the society to which it belonged. This calamity is slavery. Christianity suppressed slavery, but the Christians of the sixteenth century re-established it, as an exception, indeed, to their social system, and restricted to one of the races of mankind; but the wound thus inflicted upon humanity, though less extensive, was far more difficult to cure.
In truth, both are correct. Slavery was doomed for economic reasons: it had already almost died, and only persisted due to the cotton gin (which both sped the separation of the seed from the cotton, and apparently allowed different species to be economically processed), but was still expected to go under due to economic forces. At the same time, it was accepted as part of Southern culture, and technically probably would have continued for decades after both the war, as well as any predominate downfall. If the war hadn't happened then sooner or later it would have been abolished, but it probably wouldn't have happened until either slavery had become much less common, or had even been relegated to the realm of personal slaves only.Nemo wrote:discord wrote:nemo: as i understood it the south was well on it's way to get rid of slavery
I'd definitely have to disagree with that. The powers that be were trying to expand slavery into the new states in the west to protect it as an institution. Virtually any effort in the South to push for emancipation died with the Nat Turner rebellion.
If Aristotle, a democracy; though obviously you get the point across easier if you turn "Tyrant", "Dictator", or the equivalent into the plural.Nemo wrote:If its a king you call him a tyrant, if its a democracy you call it a ______?
It would be perfect material for an elementary school poli-sci class, too bad that's not going to be mandatory for the foreseeable future.Nemo wrote:I do appreciate they included the "mystery document" from Giddings. Exposes some of sentiment of period abolitionists. Its natural to defensively reject and recoil from that kind of language. For some reason, "Youre bad. Youre all bad and should die. And you will die. And Ill be watching, and Ill hail it!" just never seems to sway people. Especially when theres a real fear it will come to pass. And people say politics these days is too partisan, hah!
Absalom wrote:In truth, both are correct.
It is evident that the most southern states of the Union cannot abolish slavery without incurring great dangers, which the North had no reason to apprehend when it emancipated its black population. I have already shown how the Northern states made the transition from slavery to freedom, by keeping the present generation in chains and setting their descendants free; by this means the Negroes are only gradually introduced into society; and while the men who might abuse their freedom are kept in servitude, those who are emancipated may learn the art of being free before they become their own masters. But it would be difficult to apply this method in the South. To declare that all the Negroes born after a certain period shall be free is to introduce the principle and the notion of liberty into the heart of slavery; the blacks whom the law thus maintains in a state of slavery from which their children are delivered are astonished at so unequal a fate, and their astonishment is only the prelude to their impatience and irritation. Thenceforward slavery loses, in their eyes, that kind of moral power which it derived from time and habit; it is reduced to a mere palpable abuse of force. The Northern states had nothing to fear from the contrast, because in them the blacks were few in number, and the white population was very considerable. But if this faint dawn of freedom were to show two millions of men their true position, the oppressors would have reason to tremble.
This is quite true, and explains a lot of their actions. They went through a "Century of humiliation" and wish to never see that again.Krulle wrote:That graph also shows clearly why the Chinese diplomats have difficulty taking the US-view: the US diplomats see China as a newcomer on the platform of political strong nations. The Chinese see the low influence they had after their lost wars versus the British Empire as an exception in their history, and they are now returning to their rightful place the barbaric British took from them by military power. In their view, "we westerners" are the newcomers.