US, not africans, responsible for slavery

[The Mad Viking]

False logic.

All people are not equally involved. All acts are not equal. All motivations are not equal. The slaves are involved, and they went along with it, right? So they're equally culpable?

Is the prime mover of a action not more responsible than an intermediary?

Of course they are.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
False logic.

All people are not equally involved. All acts are not equal. All motivations are not equal. The slaves are involved, and they went along with it, right? So they're equally culpable?

Is the prime mover of a action not more responsible than an intermediary?

Of course they are.

You missed the point.

It doesn't matter if they are equally culpable. Your argument was that the US, not Africans, was responsible for slavery. Your words, not mine. How much culpability each side has is irrelevant to proving your premise incorrect.

[Tuberski]

Cyclotron is 100% correct.

Your original title was either:

a) Inaccurate, since the us was not 100% responsible for slavery.

or

b) A simple anti-US troll.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and saying it's a.

ACK!

[Cyclotron]

And besides, when you talk about the "prime mover" of slavery, you're stepping outside the realm of your own premise:

Most of you read at least the whole thread title, and understood that my premise was that the US and not Africans bore the responsibility for the slave trade between the US and Africa.

The US was not the first participant in the Atlantic slave trade; it started before the US existed. To say that the US was the "prime mover" of slavery is preposterous - to find such a "prime mover," we'd have to go back to the first importers of slaves to the Americas - but your premise specifically says we're to be discussing the slave trade between the US and Africa.

The fact is that both sides wanted it: the Americans wanted slaves and the Africans wanted guns (or whatever other trade goods were provided). As both sides engaged in the slave trade (note: it is called the slave trade for a reason), it cannot be said that one side had all culpability and the other none. I would argue that "levels" of responsibility aren't easily defined anyways - but like I said, I don't need to in order to demonstrate your premise for this thread as false.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
False logic.

All people are not equally involved. All acts are not equal. All motivations are not equal. The slaves are involved, and they went along with it, right? So they're equally culpable?

Is the prime mover of a action not more responsible than an intermediary?

Of course they are.

What does logis tell us about your arguments?.

You say that the buyer of slaves is acting amoraly when he undertakes a legal action, and that the seller is less morally cupable for selling to him.

When a individual acts he either acts morally or not, legally or not, the law determines one and the individuals determines the other.

So where is your logical evoidence that any person involved in the slave trade was acting for or aginst his own moral convictions?.

All i have seen from your is false premise, and a desire to place your own 21 century morailty onto a large numbers of others from adifferent time frame and understanding of morailty.

Morality and what is legal is where your confused, some will not do the legal thing on moral grounds that to do so is against their moral code, others will do ilegal thinngs because their moral code allows them to do so as Gods law is higher than mans law. Slavery coming directly from God to Mosses and preached by St Paul to Christans as both proper and right, Negros acording to the Bible before we knew better where the decedents of those of Nohas son and family who turned from God and went away into the dessert and was burnt black, as was all his kind, the Negros therfore had to re taught christainity and could return to a state of grace through time spent as slaves and would be forgiven in the year of Jubale.

So only in the past couple of centuries is it not moraly aceptable to hold persons in slavery, but for milenia before then it has been moraly aceptable to do so.

Morality is a point of view, not a constant in respect of all men or all men in any time. Many men opposed on moral grounds were involved in the slave trade, circamstances however dicatated that there morals were not enough to prevent them from so doing.

lastly degress of morality for culpability is where you ended up, its not moral to wage war, but just war theory tells ius in some circamstances it is, so if you bropadedn your moral right or wrong to degress of moral right or wrong, your just not making fruitfull argument for us.

Yes slavery is amoral, but in some circamstances its ok, 50,000 Southern males went to jail post WBTS for unpaid taxes, they were used to do public works and other internal improvements along with other convictedfelons, the death rate for them was higher than UK Boer War camps and close to transit camps for ther Nazi concentration camps, all for unpaid hard labour work, their crime was that they could not pay a tax introduced and levied 50% higher on them than other states who were not in Rebelion and that they as citizens were legally obliged to serve in those sates armies, had no vote in the introduction of that tax and so on. If the state can tell you your a convict and work you to death because your didnt pay your taxes, you can be sure its a matter of what is legal, not what is moral.

[Cyclotron]

Do you mean "amoral" or "immoral"? I'm hoping it's the latter.

Oh, and moral relativism

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Do you mean "amoral" or "immoral"? I'm hoping it's the latter.

Oh, and moral relativism

He he my bad, me type to quicky...of course if i could type as quick as i think id be a happy bunny!.

[Nickiow]

double post

[Berzerker]

US, not africans, responsible for slavery

Slavery did not start in 1776, Europeans were bringing slaves to the new world long before the US existed. Notice all the black folk south of the US border?

I remain incredulous that so many people try to mitigate the responsibility for slavery by making assertions like, "Most slaves were captured and sold by their countrymen."

When responsibility is shared, why are you incredulous when guilty parties you've overlooked are identified?

The act of buying and keeping a slave demonstrates a belief in the justification of slavery.

Not really, Thomas Jefferson acknowledged the immorality of slavery but he just couldn't afford to free his slaves.

The moral responsibility remains, unmitigated, with the people who bought and kept slaves.

Selling people into slavery is immoral.

There would not have been a slave trade if not for the demand created by the US.

The demand was created long before the US existed.

It's not like some Africans captured others, and went door to door in the US convincing people to try their great new product.

Wanna bet alot of those Africans had slaves when Europeans showed up? Slavery still exists in Africa...

The US had a Constitution, prepared by educated people, which they duly ignored.

Huh?

In Africa, some tribes captured members of other tribes, usually ancestral enemies, and sold them to slave traders. They were stone age people living by a stone age creed. They were not selling their "countrymen", they were eliminating their ancestral rivals, in a manner consistent with what virtually all ancient and most Medieval peoples practiced during times of conflict.

Talk about mitigating immorality.

It is sad that it is so hard for Americans to say, "This was an era of our history that we are not proud of."

I hear it all the time

Every nation has done things they are not proud of.

Canada has had many shameful dealings with its aboriginal populations, and interred innocent Canadian citizens of Japanese descent during WW II, stealing their assets in the process.

So whats your point?

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Nickiow

TABLE 2
Population of the South 1790-1860 by type
Year
White
Free Nonwhite
Slave


1790
1,240,454
32,523
654,121

1800
1,691,892
61,575
851,532

1810
2,118,144
97,284
1,103,700

1820
2,867,454
130,487
1,509,904

1830
3,614,600
175,074
1,983,860

1840
4,601,873
207,214
2,481,390

1850
6,184,477
235,821
3,200,364

1860
8,036,700
253,082
3,950,511

Source: Historical Statistics of the U.S. (1970).


Hope that helps, i can post more data if you require it.

The growth rates look pretty similar to me, both segments (excluding "free non-white") grew by approximately 180% from 1790 to 1810. "Free non-white" could include Native Americans and Hispanics.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Nickiow


What does logis tell us about your arguments?.

You say that the buyer of slaves is acting amoraly when he undertakes a legal action, and that the seller is less morally cupable for selling to him.

When a individual acts he either acts morally or not, legally or not, the law determines one and the individuals determines the other.

So where is your logical evoidence that any person involved in the slave trade was acting for or aginst his own moral convictions?.

Morally and legally are your words. I used "responsible".

All i have seen from your is false premise, and a desire to place your own 21 century morailty onto a large numbers of others from adifferent time frame and understanding of morailty.

Rubbish. The historical point is that the USA was the slowest of all western nations to abolish a practice that was clearly inconsistent with its founding principles of freedom and equality.
The current point is the inability of people today to admit this.

Morality and what is legal is where your confused,

Your words again - and your confusion. In my premise, neither morality nor legality are relevant.

I am comparing only the US actions with the US founding principles.

Anyone can play games of rhetoric and sophistry, and use such language to paper over flaws in reasoning with bandaid legislation.

So only in the past couple of centuries is it not moraly aceptable to hold persons in slavery, but for milenia before then it has been moraly aceptable to do so.

Morality is a point of view, not a constant in respect of all men or all men in any time.

This is entirely true, but not germane to my premise.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Berzerker

When responsibility is shared, why are you incredulous when guilty parties you've overlooked are identified?

Yes. It is childish. Its what a kid on the schoolyard does when they are caught doing something wrong.

Not really, Thomas Jefferson acknowledged the immorality of slavery but he just couldn't afford to free his slaves.

Couldn't afford? Total absolute hypocrisy. Rationalization of unjustifiable behavior for your personal convenience.

My point is that you are responsible for your own actions, and the fact that others may behave reprehensibly in no way absolves you, at all, for that responsibility.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

The growth rates look pretty similar to me, both segments (excluding "free non-white") grew by approximately 180% from 1790 to 1810. "Free non-white" could include Native Americans and Hispanics.

Well thats where the extra data sets would help, note ive just given the smaller southern states white population, the much larger Northern states are almost excusivly white and of a much larger poulation than the Southern set, for instance white population growth and white immigrants are not the same as negro import levels, infant mortality for negro and white are about the same, suicide is vastly higher for whites and so on.


Free non whites is the same as per the constitional meaning in the methodology, so that increase was very intresting Creole women were the most productive sub set of negros/non whites in terms of infants produced.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking

Morally and legally are your words. I used "responsible".

Nonsense, responsible at what level?, legally the US had slavery imposed on it by the UK crown, it acepted new states into the Union on the ex-press conditoin from spain and france that slavery was to remian in them as part of the purchase.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
The moral responsibility remains, unmitigated, with the people who bought and kept slaves.".

You did also use moral here from your initial post.





Now you say responsible and i meerly try and fathom some actual meaning to it, are they legally responsible or moraly responsible?, and now you evade the issue by use of word games...

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Rubbish. The historical point is that the USA was the slowest of all western nations to abolish a practice that was clearly inconsistent with its founding principles of freedom and equality.
The current point is the inability of people today to admit this.

But the USA was not responsble for the practice of slavery existing in its books as law, and no other nation in the world had the scale of the problem to deal with, its not that they did not findamemntaly not want to do something about it, they (seperate states)simply differed on what and timescale.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Your words again - and your confusion. In my premise, neither morality nor legality are relevant.

Which is why your premise is false as responsble is almost meangless. Now if you chose responsobilty on legal or moral principle, you have an actual premise that can be verified and tested.

I am comparing only the US actions with the US founding principles.
[/QUOTE]

In which case i again direct you the almost exclusive FF words and their oposistion to slavery in law, and moral principle, expressed by M Luther in Maryl;nad secesion fromk the Uk crown along with P Henrys similar exposition of oposistion to slavery and commitment to its end., and remind you i have already posted the DOP section that expressed this concept.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Anyone can play games of rhetoric and sophistry, and use such language to paper over flaws in reasoning with bandaid legislation.

True, as you have just demonstarted.

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
This is entirely true, but not germane to my premise.

But your useing some undifined "responsible" as oposed to a more specific legal or moral term to test your contention, now which is better and more fruitfull?.

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


Couldn't afford? Total absolute hypocrisy. Rationalization of unjustifiable behavior for your personal convenience.

My point is that you are responsible for your own actions, and the fact that others may behave reprehensibly in no way absolves you, at all, for that responsibility.

Jefferson was responsible for his own actions as you say and acording to the law he acted legally, acording to his moral principles he acted how? as he thought the best he could under the circamstances, he purchased land in the NWT and wanted on his death to free all his slaves and had provided them the finacial means to traval and become citizens of the new state, the problem was that new state passed its constition and forbid free negros citizenship of the state, this ment no protectionin law as only citizens were protected in law.

Randolph his grandson had the same problem in later years, he bought land and farm implements for his 300 odd slaves, bought land in Ohio for a settlement for them, wrote his will giving them freedom and the settlement, the Gov of Ohio threatned to call outthe militiua and kill every freed negro that crossed into Ohio.

Now whats a Southern abolitonst to do in the face of such circamstances?.

Now Jefferson did what circamstances allowed him to do as he thought best in those circamstances, you otoh now claim that not only are you repsonsible for your own actions, but make all collectivly responsible for an actions not unlawfull and not in Jefferson time even the norm in moral terms.

You do know Republican part policy for 1856 was to free all slaves, hire every merchant ship in the country and take every negro to africa with 3 months supplies and wash their hands of them right?.

This is the kind of issues abolition faced in the US, not an easy lets just free the slaves because thats the responsble thing to do, that would be the most irespoble abhorant act of the century, as the consequences of such an act would have been horrific.

i think your responsible premise is really bad, and the consequences for freeing all the slaves irespective of the consequeces is whose responsobility? now that law and morals are not to be included.