Slavery was the economic that either government couldn't tax. Yes, as Clinton said, "it's the economy stupid"....
Printable View
Slavery was the economic that either government couldn't tax. Yes, as Clinton said, "it's the economy stupid"....
Agreed. Always has been about the economy, always will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof
It was then, it is now. It's just hard for people to think of slavery as an economic system, and think in terms of history that people could agree the institution was morally wrong but not know how to do anything about it due to the economic implications.
The Founders hoped it would just die out or that future generations would finish the work of ending it, but the economics of slavery kept it alive. It was profitable, and that is what kept it alive. that and the cotton gin.
Taney and Lincoln are not similar at all. One hated slavery and the other considered slavery doing blacks, whom he believed to be lesser human beings, a favor. One deserves memorial for both his thoughts and actions...the other deserves no public memorial other than a grave marker.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
Taney penned the majority opinion in the infamous Dred Scott case.. One of the worst Supreme court decisions in history.
Taney was also a slave owner and the language he used in the opinion were truly his feelings and upsetting even for his day..
Abraham Lincoln called the decision “erroneous.” That alone explains the difference.
On March 15, 1857, he delivered the majority opinion in the case, stating that African Americans, free or slave, could not be citizens of any state, that they were "of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race." This decision and its inflammatory language aggravated the political crisis and met with furious opposition among Republicans. Taney remained defiant. Writing to Franklin Pierce in 1857, he declared that he believed with "abiding confidence that this act of my judicial life will stand the test of time and the sober judgment of the country."
When Abraham Lincoln became president, he treated Taney as an enemy and defied a Taney decision forbidding him to suspend habeas corpus in portions of Maryland after the outbreak of the Civil War..
When Taney died in Washington in 1864, the prestige of the Supreme Court was at a low ebb and Taney himself was widely vilified.
Eli Whtney is part of history courses taught throughout the country, and in those texts he is lauded for his great invention which allowed for automation of part of the cotton industry. I guess folks have just ignored this fact as he has never been defamed for his part in the growth of slavery in the south.Quote:
The thing that changed it all was Eli Whitney's cotton gin. The gin allowed the South to produce vastly more cotton for export, and slavery that had been waning suddenly boomed.
Interesting and honest article about Whitney.
I cant get the link to work Dan I did read an excerpt from a children's history course.
This is the only reference to slavery.
Impact on Slavery
Although Whitney didn't become rich over his patent, many plantation owners in the South did. They were now able to make a lot of money off cotton crops using the cotton gin. This had the unintended consequence that more slaves were needed to pick cotton from the fields. Over the next several years, slaves became even more important and valuable to plantation owners. Some historians point to the cotton gin's impact on slavery as an eventual cause to the Civil War.
Thanks for letting me know. I think it is now fixed
That settles it. I'm officially against taxes. All taxes should be abolished and anybody supporting taxation should be shunned. Any monuments to those folks, or any built with tax money should be destroyedQuote:
Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof
Considering those tariffs were about 70-80% of the federal budget and nearly none of the money was spent it the states that originated the Tariff, they had the same opinion as you Doc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
Kingcat, I'm not comparing Taney and Lincoln directly, but I am pointing out that what you today consider to be a good record on slavery will not be in the future, probably before you and I are gone. There was a time Taney was held up as an accomplished Chief Justice, thus his statue.
Taney was no doubt far more negative on blacks and more pro slavery than Lincoln ever was, but Lincoln does have some very disconcerting beliefs that would never pass muster today. Heck some, including his support for colonization, weren't even passable at the time.
Here's a popularly cited quote:
I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality ... I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.
Then there was the issue of his being a "colonization" supporter, basically rounding up blacks and sending them somewhere else. he wanted it b/c he thought we'd never really get along. He may be right apparently.
Look, I think Lincoln was a true hero, one of the great men of American history, but I think that of Washington and Jefferson as well.
I'm just pointing out that he will, in the end, be damned b/c the way people are now judging the past is to take current norms and values and mores and snatching a person from long ago and measuring them by those tests. it's absurd, but it's what we're seeing.
There are few people alive today who have ancestors that were never subjugated by others.
None. Not one.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
BTW, a quick google search will find that many in academia are already attacking Lincoln and the others. Colleges are already prepared to grab their little red books and go a'marching. it's coming.
Part of the problem as I see it from quite a few these days is imposing 2017 morality on 1861 situations. Different times, different results. Another reason why the history should remain, purely to allow learning of what occurred back then, and in the haste to fit today's agenda in it, the same mistakes aren't made again.
Charlie Daniels compares taking down Confederate statues to ISIS: 'Where does it stop?'Quote:
How is what we are doing so different from what ISIS is doing in Syria, destroying "pagan" temples and idols b/c they offend their faith?
I don't like the idea of steamrolling history when things are no longer popular or accepted by a certain group.
OTOH, I can easily see why a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, for example, would offend many and should have no place of honor in a public square.
I think I'd prefer to see the approach taken in Budapest with Communist statues. The statues aren't destroyed and are on display where the public can still view them.