Those *dangerous* Korean War relics

[Kingfish]

Saw this clip today about a derelict 1950's era AA gun sitting in some
guy's yard near DFW airport. "Concerned individuals" (i.e. dimwits)
called the news station worried about the gun being pointed toward the
airport, and being used to target aircraft(!) Fer Christ's sake, did
they notice the tall grass growing all around the thing? Don't most
public libraries and VFW halls have an old howitzer sitting outside?
Sheeesh...

http://www.nbc5i.com/video/9304340/index.html

[Jim Macklin]

This was a free country before 1968, then they passed a new
law which required all "destructive devices" to be
registered and deactivated. Historical cannons outside of
court houses had the barrels cut and the breech welded, the
barrel filled with concrete. Those AA guns probably have
had similar treatment with a torch and welding rod.

But Texas, like many states does allow ownership of real
machine guns IF the federal laws on background checks and
taxes/registration are followed. So maybe the owner of the
AA is the most trustworthy and honest fellow in the county.

Or maybe he is just a Jane Fonda fan and wants her to come
visit.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
| Saw this clip today about a derelict 1950's era AA gun
sitting in some
| guy's yard near DFW airport. "Concerned individuals" (i.e.
dimwits)
| called the news station worried about the gun being
pointed toward the
| airport, and being used to target aircraft(!) Fer Christ's
sake, did
| they notice the tall grass growing all around the thing?
Don't most
| public libraries and VFW halls have an old howitzer
sitting outside?
| Sheeesh...
|
| http://www.nbc5i.com/video/9304340/index.html
|

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:LQZfg.25291$ZW3.19897@dukeread04...
>
> This was a free country before 1968, then they passed a new
> law which required all "destructive devices" to be
> registered and deactivated.
>

The US ceased to be a free country long before 1968.

[Jim Macklin]

Income tax? Prohibition? Joined United Nations?


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
in message
.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:LQZfg.25291$ZW3.19897@dukeread04...
| >
| > This was a free country before 1968, then they passed a
new
| > law which required all "destructive devices" to be
| > registered and deactivated.
| >
|
| The US ceased to be a free country long before 1968.
|
|

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:2Regg.25779$ZW3.13140@dukeread04...
>
> Income tax? Prohibition? Joined United Nations?
>

Prohibition, yes, but we repealed that. The Civil War, military draft,
Social Security, the dole, Social Security, minimum wage, etc., etc., etc.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> news:2Regg.25779$ZW3.13140@dukeread04...
>
>>Income tax? Prohibition? Joined United Nations?
>>
>
>
> Prohibition, yes, but we repealed that. The Civil War, military draft,
> Social Security, the dole, Social Security, minimum wage, etc., etc., etc.

Civil war???

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> Civil war???
>

Yup. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a state from
leaving a union that it freely joined. The southern states were forced to
rejoin the union.

[Matt Whiting]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Civil war???
>>
>
>
> Yup. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a state from
> leaving a union that it freely joined. The southern states were forced to
> rejoin the union.
>
>

OK, from a state perspective I see your point. However, to me a free
country means that individuals have freedom, not just states. The
slaves in the southern states certainly wouldn't have considered
themselves to be living in a free country.


Matt

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> OK, from a state perspective I see your point. However, to me a free
> country means that individuals have freedom, not just states. The slaves
> in the southern states certainly wouldn't have considered themselves to be
> living in a free country.
>

Agreed. Slavery was wrong, no question about that. But it was not
unconstitutional and it would have eventually ended here without a war just
as it did in the rest of the Americas, except Haiti, I believe. Lincoln is
revered today for preserving the Union, but he did so in only a geographical
sense. The relationship of the federal government to the states was
significantly different after the war. While slaves gained freedom via the
war, every other American was less free.

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Agreed. Slavery was wrong, no question about that.

That's very progressive of you, Steven. But it doesn't quite jibe with your
earlier post today, in which you listed the Civil War as the first point at
which the US "ceased to be a free country"--which would only be possible if
it had been a free country *until* then.

--Gary

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> That's very progressive of you, Steven. But it doesn't quite jibe with
> your earlier post today, in which you listed the Civil War as the first
> point at which the US "ceased to be a free country"--which would only be
> possible if it had been a free country *until* then.
>

I didn't say the Civil War was the first point at which the US "ceased to
be a free country".

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> That's very progressive of you, Steven. But it doesn't quite jibe with
>> your earlier post today, in which you listed the Civil War as the first
>> point at which the US "ceased to be a free country"--which would only be
>> possible if it had been a free country *until* then.
>
> I didn't say the Civil War was the first point at which the US "ceased to
> be a free country".

It was the first point you listed when you were asked to explain your remark
that the US had "ceased to be a free country".

When did the US cease to be a free country, in your opinion?

--Gary

[Doug]

National Security Act of 1947.

[Jim Macklin]

How about 9/12, when we couldn't fly and all had to start
wearing name badges with pictures? TFR that aren't
temporary?

Income tax even though the 16th Amendment was not properly
ratified?

Eminent domain as approved by the SCOUS to take your
business or home because it is worth more tax money to the
government if somebody else owns it for a while?

Campaign finance reform that doesn't allow free speech 60
days before an election?

Zero tolerance at school so your kid is suspended because he
has a 1" solid plastic gun with the GI Joe doll?


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
| "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote in message
| k.net...
| >
| > "Gary Drescher" > wrote in
message
| > . ..
| >>
| >> That's very progressive of you, Steven. But it doesn't
quite jibe with
| >> your earlier post today, in which you listed the Civil
War as the first
| >> point at which the US "ceased to be a free
country"--which would only be
| >> possible if it had been a free country *until* then.
| >
| > I didn't say the Civil War was the first point at which
the US "ceased to
| > be a free country".
|
| It was the first point you listed when you were asked to
explain your remark
| that the US had "ceased to be a free country".
|
| When did the US cease to be a free country, in your
opinion?
|
| --Gary
|
|

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Civil war???
> >
>
> Yup. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents a state from
> leaving a union that it freely joined. The southern states were forced to
> rejoin the union.

Aside from the language prohibiting individual states from enterring
into a confederation.

Seceding first, and enterring into a confederation later is an
intellectually dishonest shell game, not an action that is
permissible under the Constitution.

And the states that seceded absolutely were not seceding to
preserve freedom. They seceded because the states that had
already abolished slavery within their borders, or had never
permitted it in the first place, had become united in their
dedication to prohibit the expansion of slavery into the
Western Territories. That made emancipation inevitable.
The slave states saw the hand writing on the wall,
turned tail and ran.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> How about 9/12, when we couldn't fly and all had to start
> wearing name badges with pictures? TFR that aren't
> temporary?
>
> Income tax even though the 16th Amendment was not properly
> ratified?

You mean like the way the Bill of Rights was not properly
ratified?

>
> Eminent domain as approved by the SCOUS to take your
> business or home because it is worth more tax money to the
> government if somebody else owns it for a while?

Eminent domain has been (ab)used for that purpose
since before the Constitution was adopted. I've been
opposed to the practice since first becoming aware of
in the early 1970s. But I am not so dishonest as to
argue that it is unConstitutional, or something new.
Indeed, I am astonished that a case disputed centuries
old settled law got to the USSC

It is pretty hard to see how an arugment can be made that
a prohibiton of confiscation of property WITHOUT just compensation
does not implicitly permit confiscation WITH just compensation.

>
> Campaign finance reform that doesn't allow free speech 60
> days before an election?

THAT is unconstitutional no matter what the Damn Republican-
dominated Federal Courts say.

"The Congress shall make no law" doesn' tleave much
weasel room.

--

FF

[Jim Macklin]

Traditional slavery would have ended when Briggs & Stratton
built their small engines. But, the sex slave trade goes on.
Slavery is rampant in other parts of the world today,
primarily Africa, Asia and the Middle East. The UN and the
Muslim religion support slavery.

Importation of slaves was illegal in the USA after 1807, but
ownership was still legal. The South's economy was based on
hand labor agriculture, cotton. A lot of white people
fought and died to free the slaves. A lot of Southerners
fought and died to preserve their life-style. Both were
honorable. But slavery was still wrong and it ceased to be
the same after 1865. But there was still economic "slavery"
for many people working for low wages in company towns,
buying food and clothes at the company store on credit.

Laws change, society changes, hopefully for the better. We
should remember the past, so we don't continue to make the
same mistakes, but we must get over the anger and personal
feelings about what happened 50, 100, 150, 500, 2000 years
ago.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


> wrote in message
ps.com...
|
| Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
| > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
| > ...
| > >
| > > Civil war???
| > >
| >
| > Yup. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents
a state from
| > leaving a union that it freely joined. The southern
states were forced to
| > rejoin the union.
|
| Aside from the language prohibiting individual states from
enterring
| into a confederation.
|
| Seceding first, and enterring into a confederation later
is an
| intellectually dishonest shell game, not an action that is
| permissible under the Constitution.
|
| And the states that seceded absolutely were not seceding
to
| preserve freedom. They seceded because the states that
had
| already abolished slavery within their borders, or had
never
| permitted it in the first place, had become united in
their
| dedication to prohibit the expansion of slavery into the
| Western Territories. That made emancipation inevitable.
| The slave states saw the hand writing on the wall,
| turned tail and ran.
|
| --
|
| FF
|

[Skywise]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in
news:UEpgg.26071$ZW3.17560@dukeread04:

<Snipola>
> Laws change, society changes, hopefully for the better. We
> should remember the past, so we don't continue to make the
> same mistakes, but we must get over the anger and personal
> feelings about what happened 50, 100, 150, 500, 2000 years
> ago.

I'll second that. I'm sick and tired of the descendents of
the slaves demanding recompense (in whatever form) from the
descendents of the slave owners. Were you personally enslaved?
Were you personally a slave owner? I thought not. Remember the
past, yes, but get over it.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Jim Macklin]

I can't think of his name right now, but there is a black
reporter for the Wall Street Journal who wrote a book about
how glad his ancestors were slaves in America, so he doesn't
have to live in Africa.



"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in
| news:UEpgg.26071$ZW3.17560@dukeread04:
|
| <Snipola>
| > Laws change, society changes, hopefully for the better.
We
| > should remember the past, so we don't continue to make
the
| > same mistakes, but we must get over the anger and
personal
| > feelings about what happened 50, 100, 150, 500, 2000
years
| > ago.
|
| I'll second that. I'm sick and tired of the descendents of
| the slaves demanding recompense (in whatever form) from
the
| descendents of the slave owners. Were you personally
enslaved?
| Were you personally a slave owner? I thought not. Remember
the
| past, yes, but get over it.
|
| Brian
| --
| http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy,
Skepticism
| Seismic FAQ:
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
| Quake "predictions":
http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
| Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Matt Barrow]

"Doug" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> National Security Act of 1947.
>
You're at least 15 years too late.

More like 50-60 years

[Matt Barrow]

> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> . ..
> | "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> | >>
> | >> That's very progressive of you, Steven. But it doesn't
> quite jibe with
> | >> your earlier post today, in which you listed the Civil
> War as the first
> | >> point at which the US "ceased to be a free
> country"--which would only be
> | >> possible if it had been a free country *until* then.
> | >
> | > I didn't say the Civil War was the first point at which
> the US "ceased to
> | > be a free country".
> |
> | It was the first point you listed when you were asked to
> explain your remark
> | that the US had "ceased to be a free country".
> |
> | When did the US cease to be a free country, in your
> opinion?

The first military draft in 1864.

[Gary Drescher]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> I'll second that. I'm sick and tired of the descendents of
> the slaves demanding recompense (in whatever form) from the
> descendents of the slave owners. Were you personally enslaved?
> Were you personally a slave owner? I thought not.

Have you directly or indirectly inherited some of the wealth that the slave
owners stole from the black population? Thought so.

>Remember the past, yes, but get over it.

Ironically, the point of this subthread is that the right-wing
slavery-apologists here on r.a.p. haven't gotten over losing the Civil War.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:tcqgg.26072$ZW3.9062@dukeread04...
> I can't think of his name right now, but there is a black
> reporter for the Wall Street Journal who wrote a book about
> how glad his ancestors were slaves in America, so he doesn't
> have to live in Africa.

You are presumably thinking of Thomas Sowell, a columnist (not reporter) for
the Wall Street Journal who has argued against reparations.

But while Sowell does mention that (of course) he is better off in America
than in Africa, he certainly does *not* express gratitude about his
ancestors' captivity; on the contrary, he condemns that atrocity in the
strongest terms.

The idea that even the most conservative black scholar could be "glad" his
ancestors were enslaved is purely a product of your own twisted, racist,
slavery-rationalizing imagination.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
>>
>> When did the US cease to be a free country, in your opinion?
>
> The first military draft in 1864.

So you, too, believe the US was a free country until 1864, but not after?

[Jim Macklin]

Not Sowell and the "glad" statement was his direct thought
in the book and when I saw him on C-SPAN.


"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:tcqgg.26072$ZW3.9062@dukeread04...
| > I can't think of his name right now, but there is a
black
| > reporter for the Wall Street Journal who wrote a book
about
| > how glad his ancestors were slaves in America, so he
doesn't
| > have to live in Africa.
|
| You are presumably thinking of Thomas Sowell, a columnist
(not reporter) for
| the Wall Street Journal who has argued against
reparations.
|
| But while Sowell does mention that (of course) he is
better off in America
| than in Africa, he certainly does *not* express gratitude
about his
| ancestors' captivity; on the contrary, he condemns that
atrocity in the
| strongest terms.
|
| The idea that even the most conservative black scholar
could be "glad" his
| ancestors were enslaved is purely a product of your own
twisted, racist,
| slavery-rationalizing imagination.
|
| --Gary
|
|

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Gary Drescher" > wrote:

> Have you directly or indirectly inherited some of the wealth that the slave
> owners stole from the black population? Thought so.

The son must pay for the sins of the father. Of course.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Gary Drescher]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote:
>
>> Have you directly or indirectly inherited some of the wealth that the
>> slave
>> owners stole from the black population? Thought so.
>
> The son must pay for the sins of the father. Of course.

Nope. But if your father stole my father's car and you inherited it, I could
reasonably sue you for it (even though the theft wasn't your fault).

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:Aprgg.26077$ZW3.7447@dukeread04...
> Not Sowell and the "glad" statement was his direct thought
> in the book and when I saw him on C-SPAN.

Human memory distorts recollections in the direction of our expectations. So
if you harbor the disgusting expectation that African Americans are (or
should be) "glad" their ancestors were enslaved, then your memory of what
you think you read will be influenced in that direction.

If the book passage you believe you read (and cited approvingly) were really
to exist, then you or someone else here would be able to find it. It would
be such an outrageous sentiment that a Google search would easily uncover
copious discussion of it.

--Gary

> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> . ..
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | news:tcqgg.26072$ZW3.9062@dukeread04...
> | > I can't think of his name right now, but there is a
> black
> | > reporter for the Wall Street Journal who wrote a book
> about
> | > how glad his ancestors were slaves in America, so he
> doesn't
> | > have to live in Africa.
> |
> | You are presumably thinking of Thomas Sowell, a columnist
> (not reporter) for
> | the Wall Street Journal who has argued against
> reparations.
> |
> | But while Sowell does mention that (of course) he is
> better off in America
> | than in Africa, he certainly does *not* express gratitude
> about his
> | ancestors' captivity; on the contrary, he condemns that
> atrocity in the
> | strongest terms.
> |
> | The idea that even the most conservative black scholar
> could be "glad" his
> | ancestors were enslaved is purely a product of your own
> twisted, racist,
> | slavery-rationalizing imagination.
> |
> | --Gary
> |
> |
>
>

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Gary Drescher" > wrote:

> > The son must pay for the sins of the father. Of course.
>
> Nope. But if your father stole my father's car and you inherited it, I could
> reasonably sue you for it (even though the theft wasn't your fault).

When does the chain break?

btw - of course you can sue. Whether there would be justise in you
winning is a different matter.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Gary Drescher]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> btw - of course you can sue. Whether there would be justise in you
> winning is a different matter.

If your father had stolen my father's car and you inherited it, wouldn't it
be just for me to recover it from you?

> When does the chain break?

When the car is returned to its rightful owners.

--Gary

[Jim Macklin]

Gee, I'm sorry that I didn't write out all the details, but
my memory is accurate. I have no guilt or expectations.
The reporter had been on assignment in Africa and was very
glad he didn't have to live there.
He was interviewed by Brian Lamb, this would have been
before 9/11/2001, could have been several years earlier. I
don't remember his name and don't care to spend a lot of
time on Google looking for the results. As you say,
somebody will remember the name of the book or the author
and then you can apologize to me.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:Aprgg.26077$ZW3.7447@dukeread04...
| > Not Sowell and the "glad" statement was his direct
thought
| > in the book and when I saw him on C-SPAN.
|
| Human memory distorts recollections in the direction of
our expectations. So
| if you harbor the disgusting expectation that African
Americans are (or
| should be) "glad" their ancestors were enslaved, then your
memory of what
| you think you read will be influenced in that direction.
|
| If the book passage you believe you read (and cited
approvingly) were really
| to exist, then you or someone else here would be able to
find it. It would
| be such an outrageous sentiment that a Google search would
easily uncover
| copious discussion of it.
|
| --Gary
|
| > "Gary Drescher" > wrote in
message
| > . ..
| > | "Jim Macklin" >
wrote
| > in message
| > | news:tcqgg.26072$ZW3.9062@dukeread04...
| > | > I can't think of his name right now, but there is a
| > black
| > | > reporter for the Wall Street Journal who wrote a
book
| > about
| > | > how glad his ancestors were slaves in America, so he
| > doesn't
| > | > have to live in Africa.
| > |
| > | You are presumably thinking of Thomas Sowell, a
columnist
| > (not reporter) for
| > | the Wall Street Journal who has argued against
| > reparations.
| > |
| > | But while Sowell does mention that (of course) he is
| > better off in America
| > | than in Africa, he certainly does *not* express
gratitude
| > about his
| > | ancestors' captivity; on the contrary, he condemns
that
| > atrocity in the
| > | strongest terms.
| > |
| > | The idea that even the most conservative black scholar
| > could be "glad" his
| > | ancestors were enslaved is purely a product of your
own
| > twisted, racist,
| > | slavery-rationalizing imagination.
| > |
| > | --Gary
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

[Gary Drescher]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:rXrgg.26079$ZW3.1474@dukeread04...
> Gee, I'm sorry that I didn't write out all the details, but
> my memory is accurate. I have no guilt or expectations.
> The reporter had been on assignment in Africa and was very
> glad he didn't have to live there.

Being glad to live in America rather than Africa is completely different
from the obscene idea of being glad that one's ancestors were enslaved. By
analogy, a Jewish American whose ancestors came here to escape the Nazi
Holocaust can certainly be glad to be living in America, but it would be
obscene for him to be glad that the Holocaust occurred.

A responsible person would not publicly ascribe such a horrific sentiment to
an African American author without bothering to verify and document that his
recollection is correct. But you apparently fail to appreciate how horrific
the sentiment really is (perhaps because you still have a warm, fuzzy
Confederate impression of slavery).

Anyone not blinded by right-wing ideology would find it immediately apparent
that if a respected black author had written a book saying what you think
you remember reading, the resulting outcry would have been enormous, and
memorable to all of us. It didn't happen.

--Gary

[Dave Stadt]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> btw - of course you can sue. Whether there would be justise in you
>> winning is a different matter.
>
> If your father had stolen my father's car and you inherited it, wouldn't
> it be just for me to recover it from you?

That car is at least 140 years old. Get over it.

>> When does the chain break?
>
> When the car is returned to its rightful owners.
>
> --Gary
>
>

[Skywise]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in
:

> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'll second that. I'm sick and tired of the descendents of
>> the slaves demanding recompense (in whatever form) from the
>> descendents of the slave owners. Were you personally enslaved?
>> Were you personally a slave owner? I thought not.
>
> Have you directly or indirectly inherited some of the wealth that the slave
> owners stole from the black population? Thought so.

Oh! This logic is just incredible!

Somewhere along the line in the past one of our ancesters
probably killed someone in cold blood. So, since you, me,
and anyone else probably benefitted from this murder, then
we should report to the nearest gallows to await our hanging.
Or, if you'd prefer, we can mutually blow each others brains
out in a suicide pact to repay for the murder commited by our
ancestors.

I did not enslave anyone. For that matter, none of my recent
ancesters did either, for they didn't even arrive in America
until after slavery was abolished. So how can I possibly be
responsible for the slavery of blacks in America?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Gary Drescher]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> Somewhere along the line in the past one of our ancesters
> probably killed someone in cold blood. So, since you, me,
> and anyone else probably benefitted from this murder, then
> we should report to the nearest gallows to await our hanging.

You apparently fail to grasp the distinction between punishment (which no
one in this debate advocates) and civil reparation (returning something to
its rightful owner).

> ...So how can I possibly be
> responsible for the slavery of blacks in America?

No one ever suggested you were. (See the above distinction.)

--Gary

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Gary Drescher" > wrote:

> If your father had stolen my father's car and you inherited it, wouldn't it
> be just for me to recover it from you?

If I am innocent, why would it be just to punish me?

The harm was done to your father by my father. You have no
right to punish me.


>
> > When does the chain break?
>
> When the car is returned to its rightful owners.

see above.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Jim Macklin]

Gee, I do remember exactly what the author said, in context.
I just didn't bother to "document" his name, age, place of
birth and DNA.

Since did not make up what he said and this is neither a
court of law or a college manuscript, my word is all that I
need. If you question my memory, you're certainly free to
research the matter and print your results. However, so far
your comments are just YOUR paranoid guilt ridden feelings
and interpretation.



--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:rXrgg.26079$ZW3.1474@dukeread04...
| > Gee, I'm sorry that I didn't write out all the details,
but
| > my memory is accurate. I have no guilt or expectations.
| > The reporter had been on assignment in Africa and was
very
| > glad he didn't have to live there.
|
| Being glad to live in America rather than Africa is
completely different
| from the obscene idea of being glad that one's ancestors
were enslaved. By
| analogy, a Jewish American whose ancestors came here to
escape the Nazi
| Holocaust can certainly be glad to be living in America,
but it would be
| obscene for him to be glad that the Holocaust occurred.
|
| A responsible person would not publicly ascribe such a
horrific sentiment to
| an African American author without bothering to verify and
document that his
| recollection is correct. But you apparently fail to
appreciate how horrific
| the sentiment really is (perhaps because you still have a
warm, fuzzy
| Confederate impression of slavery).
|
| Anyone not blinded by right-wing ideology would find it
immediately apparent
| that if a respected black author had written a book saying
what you think
| you remember reading, the resulting outcry would have been
enormous, and
| memorable to all of us. It didn't happen.
|
| --Gary
|
|

[Gary Drescher]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote:
>
>> If your father had stolen my father's car and you inherited it, wouldn't
>> it
>> be just for me to recover it from you?
>
> If I am innocent, why would it be just to punish me?

It would not. That's why I didn't suggest it. (For example, I did not
suggest that you be imprisoned for the theft; *that* would be an appropriate
punishment for whoever is guilty of the theft.)

Seeking to return stolen property to its rightful owner is not legally or
morally the same as seeking to punish whoever had received the stolen
property, innocently or not. (Of course, if you knew or had reason to know
that it was stolen, then you're not so innocent at all.)

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:DAtgg.26330$ZW3.14292@dukeread04...
> Gee, I do remember exactly what the author said, in context.
> Since did not make up what he said and this is neither a
> court of law or a college manuscript, my word is all that I
> need.

Intellectual integrity should not be restricted to courts and colleges. It
is deeply slanderous to claim that a respected black author had written "a
book about how glad he is his ancestors were slaves", and deeply
irresponsible to make such a defamatory claim without even trying to verify
it. (Of course, a sufficiently racist person might not even realize that the
claim is defamatory, and thus might not realize that special care is
warranted before making the claim.)

> If you question my memory, you're certainly free to
> research the matter and print your results.

That's ludicrous. It's impossible to prove that an alleged passage did *not*
appear in some unnamed book by some unnamed author. The burden of proof is
obviously on the person who claims it *did* appear.

But your worldview is so impervious to reality that you are able to continue
to believe that your recollection is accurate even if neither you nor anyone
else is ever able to find the outrageous book you claim to have read. Thus,
in your imaginary world, there are respectable African American authors who
are grateful for slavery, and your inability to actually find such an author
does nothing to undermine your self-serving belief.

--Gary

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jim Macklin > posted:

> Importation of slaves was illegal in the USA after 1807, but
> ownership was still legal. The South's economy was based on
> hand labor agriculture, cotton. A lot of white people
> fought and died to free the slaves. A lot of Southerners
> fought and died to preserve their life-style. Both were
> honorable.
>
So, you believe it is honorable to fight and die to preserve the ability
to own people as property?

> But slavery was still wrong and it ceased to be
> the same after 1865. But there was still economic "slavery"
> for many people working for low wages in company towns,
> buying food and clothes at the company store on credit.
>
There is no similarity between the slavery of blacks and the "economic
slavery" that you describe. Those working for low wages in company towns
are not deemed the property of the company, with no individual rights.
They could not be hunted and killed for leaving town for better
circumstances.

> Laws change, society changes, hopefully for the better. We
> should remember the past, so we don't continue to make the
> same mistakes, but we must get over the anger and personal
> feelings about what happened 50, 100, 150, 500, 2000 years
> ago.
>
The problem is that many of those mistakes -- particularly the mindset of
priviledge -- are still being made today, and that is what angers people
in the present.

Neil

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:rXrgg.26079$ZW3.1474@dukeread04...
> Gee, I'm sorry that I didn't write out all the details, but
> my memory is accurate. I have no guilt or expectations.
> The reporter had been on assignment in Africa and was very
> glad he didn't have to live there.

Keith Richburg
http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=799

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0156005832/thewwwcapitalsit/104-7067579-4302305
(Out of Africa: A Black Man Confronts Africa).

> He was interviewed by Brian Lamb, this would have been
> before 9/11/2001, could have been several years earlier. I
> don't remember his name and don't care to spend a lot of
> time on Google looking for the results. As you say,
> somebody will remember the name of the book or the author
> and then you can apologize to me.

Drescher? Ha, you're funny!

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO (MTJ)

[Matt Barrow]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
om...
> Recently, Jim Macklin > posted:
>
>> Importation of slaves was illegal in the USA after 1807, but
>> ownership was still legal. The South's economy was based on
>> hand labor agriculture, cotton. A lot of white people
>> fought and died to free the slaves. A lot of Southerners
>> fought and died to preserve their life-style. Both were
>> honorable.

The petitions issued from the south prior to 1861 all regarded TARIFFS that
were deliberatley put in place to favor the industrial north.

>>
> So, you believe it is honorable to fight and die to preserve the ability
> to own people as property?

Gee...isn't hindsight beautiful? Wanna bet a months pay which side you'd
have been on IN REAL TIME? Bet that145 years ago, you'd been "Massa".

[Ted Stanson]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> news:DAtgg.26330$ZW3.14292@dukeread04...
>
>>Gee, I do remember exactly what the author said, in context.
>>Since did not make up what he said and this is neither a
>>court of law or a college manuscript, my word is all that I
>>need.
>
>
> Intellectual integrity should not be restricted to courts and colleges. It
> is deeply slanderous to claim that a respected black author had written "a
> book about how glad he is his ancestors were slaves", and deeply
> irresponsible to make such a defamatory claim without even trying to verify
> it. (Of course, a sufficiently racist person might not even realize that the
> claim is defamatory, and thus might not realize that special care is
> warranted before making the claim.)
>
>
>>If you question my memory, you're certainly free to
>>research the matter and print your results.
>
>
> That's ludicrous. It's impossible to prove that an alleged passage did *not*
> appear in some unnamed book by some unnamed author. The burden of proof is
> obviously on the person who claims it *did* appear.
>
> But your worldview is so impervious to reality that you are able to continue
> to believe that your recollection is accurate even if neither you nor anyone
> else is ever able to find the outrageous book you claim to have read. Thus,
> in your imaginary world, there are respectable African American authors who
> are grateful for slavery, and your inability to actually find such an author
> does nothing to undermine your self-serving belief.
>
> --Gary

I saw the same interview on C-SPAN several years ago. Mr. Macklin's
recollection is not inaccurate. I don't remember the exact words,
phrases, and punctuation used, but Mr. Macklin correctly posted the gist
of it here. Before challenging one's "worldview" and making remarks
questioning "intellectual integrity," it's surely best to know what you
are talking about.

[Jim Macklin]

You're so full of crap, YOU make assumptions and condemn
others without anything but your opinion and guilt. FO.


"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:DAtgg.26330$ZW3.14292@dukeread04...
| > Gee, I do remember exactly what the author said, in
context.
| > Since did not make up what he said and this is neither a
| > court of law or a college manuscript, my word is all
that I
| > need.
|
| Intellectual integrity should not be restricted to courts
and colleges. It
| is deeply slanderous to claim that a respected black
author had written "a
| book about how glad he is his ancestors were slaves", and
deeply
| irresponsible to make such a defamatory claim without even
trying to verify
| it. (Of course, a sufficiently racist person might not
even realize that the
| claim is defamatory, and thus might not realize that
special care is
| warranted before making the claim.)
|
| > If you question my memory, you're certainly free to
| > research the matter and print your results.
|
| That's ludicrous. It's impossible to prove that an alleged
passage did *not*
| appear in some unnamed book by some unnamed author. The
burden of proof is
| obviously on the person who claims it *did* appear.
|
| But your worldview is so impervious to reality that you
are able to continue
| to believe that your recollection is accurate even if
neither you nor anyone
| else is ever able to find the outrageous book you claim to
have read. Thus,
| in your imaginary world, there are respectable African
American authors who
| are grateful for slavery, and your inability to actually
find such an author
| does nothing to undermine your self-serving belief.
|
| --Gary
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

Thank you, do you remember the author's name or the title of
the book?

Take that, Gary.


"Ted Stanson" > wrote in message
...
| Gary Drescher wrote:
|
| > "Jim Macklin" >
wrote in message
| > news:DAtgg.26330$ZW3.14292@dukeread04...
| >
| >>Gee, I do remember exactly what the author said, in
context.
| >>Since did not make up what he said and this is neither a
| >>court of law or a college manuscript, my word is all
that I
| >>need.
| >
| >
| > Intellectual integrity should not be restricted to
courts and colleges. It
| > is deeply slanderous to claim that a respected black
author had written "a
| > book about how glad he is his ancestors were slaves",
and deeply
| > irresponsible to make such a defamatory claim without
even trying to verify
| > it. (Of course, a sufficiently racist person might not
even realize that the
| > claim is defamatory, and thus might not realize that
special care is
| > warranted before making the claim.)
| >
| >
| >>If you question my memory, you're certainly free to
| >>research the matter and print your results.
| >
| >
| > That's ludicrous. It's impossible to prove that an
alleged passage did *not*
| > appear in some unnamed book by some unnamed author. The
burden of proof is
| > obviously on the person who claims it *did* appear.
| >
| > But your worldview is so impervious to reality that you
are able to continue
| > to believe that your recollection is accurate even if
neither you nor anyone
| > else is ever able to find the outrageous book you claim
to have read. Thus,
| > in your imaginary world, there are respectable African
American authors who
| > are grateful for slavery, and your inability to actually
find such an author
| > does nothing to undermine your self-serving belief.
| >
| > --Gary
|
| I saw the same interview on C-SPAN several years ago. Mr.
Macklin's
| recollection is not inaccurate. I don't remember the
exact words,
| phrases, and punctuation used, but Mr. Macklin correctly
posted the gist
| of it here. Before challenging one's "worldview" and
making remarks
| questioning "intellectual integrity," it's surely best to
know what you
| are talking about.

[Jim Macklin]

I said the people who fought on both sides of the Civil War
were honorable people. Some blacks fought for the South.
I've never been a "redneck with a Confederate flag" on my
car. I do not have any desire to own slaves, but I don't
have any false ideas about why slavery existed either.


--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
om...
| Recently, Jim Macklin
> posted:
|
| > Importation of slaves was illegal in the USA after 1807,
but
| > ownership was still legal. The South's economy was
based on
| > hand labor agriculture, cotton. A lot of white people
| > fought and died to free the slaves. A lot of
Southerners
| > fought and died to preserve their life-style. Both were
| > honorable.
| >
| So, you believe it is honorable to fight and die to
preserve the ability
| to own people as property?
|
| > But slavery was still wrong and it ceased to be
| > the same after 1865. But there was still economic
"slavery"
| > for many people working for low wages in company towns,
| > buying food and clothes at the company store on credit.
| >
| There is no similarity between the slavery of blacks and
the "economic
| slavery" that you describe. Those working for low wages in
company towns
| are not deemed the property of the company, with no
individual rights.
| They could not be hunted and killed for leaving town for
better
| circumstances.
|
| > Laws change, society changes, hopefully for the better.
We
| > should remember the past, so we don't continue to make
the
| > same mistakes, but we must get over the anger and
personal
| > feelings about what happened 50, 100, 150, 500, 2000
years
| > ago.
| >
| The problem is that many of those mistakes -- particularly
the mindset of
| priviledge -- are still being made today, and that is what
angers people
| in the present.
|
| Neil
|
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

Thanks.




--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:rXrgg.26079$ZW3.1474@dukeread04...
| > Gee, I'm sorry that I didn't write out all the details,
but
| > my memory is accurate. I have no guilt or expectations.
| > The reporter had been on assignment in Africa and was
very
| > glad he didn't have to live there.
|
| Keith Richburg
| http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=799
|
|
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0156005832/thewwwcapitalsit/104-7067579-4302305
| (Out of Africa: A Black Man Confronts Africa).
|
| > He was interviewed by Brian Lamb, this would have been
| > before 9/11/2001, could have been several years earlier.
I
| > don't remember his name and don't care to spend a lot of
| > time on Google looking for the results. As you say,
| > somebody will remember the name of the book or the
author
| > and then you can apologize to me.
|
| Drescher? Ha, you're funny!
|
| --
| Matt
| ---------------------
| Matthew W. Barrow
| Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
| Montrose, CO (MTJ)
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

I see it was the Washington Post and not the WSJ.


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:rXrgg.26079$ZW3.1474@dukeread04...
| > Gee, I'm sorry that I didn't write out all the details,
but
| > my memory is accurate. I have no guilt or expectations.
| > The reporter had been on assignment in Africa and was
very
| > glad he didn't have to live there.
|
| Keith Richburg
| http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=799
|
|
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0156005832/thewwwcapitalsit/104-7067579-4302305
| (Out of Africa: A Black Man Confronts Africa).
|
| > He was interviewed by Brian Lamb, this would have been
| > before 9/11/2001, could have been several years earlier.
I
| > don't remember his name and don't care to spend a lot of
| > time on Google looking for the results. As you say,
| > somebody will remember the name of the book or the
author
| > and then you can apologize to me.
|
| Drescher? Ha, you're funny!
|
| --
| Matt
| ---------------------
| Matthew W. Barrow
| Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
| Montrose, CO (MTJ)
|
|

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> news:rXrgg.26079$ZW3.1474@dukeread04...
>> Gee, I'm sorry that I didn't write out all the details, but
>> my memory is accurate. I have no guilt or expectations.
>> The reporter had been on assignment in Africa and was very
>> glad he didn't have to live there.
>
> Keith Richburg
> http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=799
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0156005832/thewwwcapitalsit/104-7067579-4302305

Yes, Richburg says he is glad his ancestors came to America. But that is not
the same as his being glad they were enslaved (even if that is in fact how
they got here).

As I pointed out earlier, a Jewish person might similarly be glad his
ancestors ended up in America, but without thereby being grateful for the
holocaust that forced their migration. There's a *huge* difference.

It would be monstrous for a person to be glad that a massive atrocity
occurred just because, as a side effect, it left him personally better off
than he believes he otherwise would have been (not to mention that the
comparison is nonsensical--if history had gone differently than it actually
did, then no one would exist who actually exists now; there'd be an entirely
different set of people).

Above all, what's astonishing is for someone here to *approvingly* cite that
inaccurately-recalled monstrous sentiment while trying to defend the
extremist right-wing position that America was a "free country" until 1864
but not afterward.

--Gary

[Jim Macklin]

I stated that freedom was lost in 1968. Also, I was not
defending any "right-wing extremist" position. I did
recount the interview and the answer that the author made, I
was not characterizing his answer to a question, The
author, Keith Richburg said he was thankful his ancestors
had been brought to this country so he never had to live in
Africa. I would say that "brought to" is slavery.

I'm sure that if I had the money and time to waste, I could
get a transcript or even the tape of the interview. But I
will just drop the issue since it isn't worth my time to
argue about what you think.



--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
| "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > "Jim Macklin" >
wrote in message
| > news:rXrgg.26079$ZW3.1474@dukeread04...
| >> Gee, I'm sorry that I didn't write out all the details,
but
| >> my memory is accurate. I have no guilt or
expectations.
| >> The reporter had been on assignment in Africa and was
very
| >> glad he didn't have to live there.
| >
| > Keith Richburg
| > http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=799
| >
| >
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0156005832/thewwwcapitalsit/104-7067579-4302305
|
| Yes, Richburg says he is glad his ancestors came to
America. But that is not
| the same as his being glad they were enslaved (even if
that is in fact how
| they got here).
|
| As I pointed out earlier, a Jewish person might similarly
be glad his
| ancestors ended up in America, but without thereby being
grateful for the
| holocaust that forced their migration. There's a *huge*
difference.
|
| It would be monstrous for a person to be glad that a
massive atrocity
| occurred just because, as a side effect, it left him
personally better off
| than he believes he otherwise would have been (not to
mention that the
| comparison is nonsensical--if history had gone differently
than it actually
| did, then no one would exist who actually exists now;
there'd be an entirely
| different set of people).
|
| Above all, what's astonishing is for someone here to
*approvingly* cite that
| inaccurately-recalled monstrous sentiment while trying to
defend the
| extremist right-wing position that America was a "free
country" until 1864
| but not afterward.
|
| --Gary
|
|

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:WKCgg.26391$ZW3.12835@dukeread04...
>I stated that freedom was lost in 1968.

More like 1868 as the aftermath of the War of Northern Aggression ... :~)

> Also, I was not
> defending any "right-wing extremist" position. I did
> recount the interview and the answer that the author made, I
> was not characterizing his answer to a question, The
> author, Keith Richburg said he was thankful his ancestors
> had been brought to this country so he never had to live in
> Africa. I would say that "brought to" is slavery.

Oddly, there have been several times more immigrants in the past 50 years
from Africa than were brought as slaves in the early 19th century.

> I'm sure that if I had the money and time to waste, I could
> get a transcript or even the tape of the interview. But I
> will just drop the issue since it isn't worth my time to
> argue about what you think.

I'll leave that last word alone as his typical hysterics and symantics belie
the word "think" (I can just imagine him ripping the arms off his chair).

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:owCgg.26386$ZW3.16305@dukeread04...
> You're so full of crap, YOU make assumptions and condemn
> others without anything but your opinion and guilt. FO.

He's been listening to Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Major Owens,
birds-of-a-feather with GD in the middle of the moonbat nest.

[Gary Drescher]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:WKCgg.26391$ZW3.12835@dukeread04...
> I stated that freedom was lost in 1968.

Yes, my post was in reply to Matt, who said the US ceased to be a free
country in 1864. (Similarly, the Civil War was the earliest event Steven
listed when asked to explain his remark that the US had ceased to be a free
country.)

> Also, I was not
> defending any "right-wing extremist" position. I did
> recount the interview and the answer that the author made, I
> was not characterizing his answer to a question,

You cited his extremist position (as you remembered it) in support of an
argument against reparations, and you cited it without any expressed
reservations. That context makes it an "approving citation", as that term is
ordinarily used. (But yes, merely arguing against reparations is by no means
an extremist or inherently racist position.)

--Gary

[[email protected]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Traditional slavery would have ended when Briggs & Stratton
> built their small engines.

That's what they said about the cotton gin. Didn't happen.
Small engines can be assembled by slaves cheaper than
by free labor, just like slaves could operate cotton gins
cheaper than free labor. Frederick Douglass worked in
Baltimore as a shipwright, alongside free men.

Aside from which, there was a moral imperative to end slavery,
period, instead of hoping and waiting for it to die out on its own.

Those states that voluntarily abolished slavery all did so prior
to 1820. From that time forwad slavery became increasing
more entrenched, even in Virginia which in the House of Burgesses,
came within one vote in the House of Burgesses of abolishing
slavery in the 18th century.

> But, the sex slave trade goes on.

This, despite the ubiquitous availability of a cheap alternative--
what does that tell you about the Briggs and Stratton argument?

> Slavery is rampant in other parts of the world today,
> primarily Africa, Asia and the Middle East. The UN and the
> Muslim religion support slavery.

Please elaborate on how each does. But let's change the
newsgroup to one where this is on-topic.

For perspective, damn near every slave in the US and every
slave owner was 'Christian.' Douglass had a bit to say
about this.

>
> Importation of slaves was illegal in the USA after 1807, but
> ownership was still legal. The South's economy was based on
> hand labor agriculture, cotton.

And slavery had the effect of devaluing labor putting a ceiling
on the economic opportunity to free laborers. It was an institution
the ultimately demeaned the free man as well.

> A lot of white people
> fought and died to free the slaves. A lot of Southerners
> fought and died to preserve their life-style. Both were
> honorable. But slavery was still wrong and it ceased to be
> the same after 1865. But there was still economic "slavery"
> for many people working for low wages in company towns,
> buying food and clothes at the company store on credit.

And sharecropping which was America's version of serfdom.

>
> Laws change, society changes, hopefully for the better. We
> should remember the past, so we don't continue to make the
> same mistakes, but we must get over the anger and personal
> feelings about what happened 50, 100, 150, 500, 2000 years
> ago.
>

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > OK, from a state perspective I see your point. However, to me a free
> > country means that individuals have freedom, not just states. The slaves
> > in the southern states certainly wouldn't have considered themselves to be
> > living in a free country.
> >
>
> Agreed. Slavery was wrong, no question about that. But it was not
> unconstitutional and it would have eventually ended here without a war just
> as it did in the rest of the Americas, except Haiti, I believe.

Ending slavery without a war was tried in the US and it failed.

Escaped slaves and Native Americans in Brazil banded together
and formed their own nation (DAGS maroons) internal to Brazil that
fought for freedom for most of its ~75 year history.

Interestingly, some of the the leaders of the Haitian slave
rebellion were veterans of the American Revolutionary War,
e.g. commony referred to in our history books as 'French
troops.'

> Lincoln is
> revered today for preserving the Union, but he did so in only a geographical
> sense. The relationship of the federal government to the states was
> significantly different after the war. While slaves gained freedom via the
> war, every other American was less free.

"If one man is not free, no man is free." There's more truth to
that than meets the eye. Slavery devalued labor, depriving
all laborers of freedom of economic opportunity. De Maupassant
wrote about the societal differences along the Ohio River. On
the North bank hard workers were respected and they could
advance their lot in society via the fruits of their labors. Not
so on the South Bank, where men who worked for a living
were deemed to be hardly better than slaves.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Recently, Jim Macklin > posted:
> >
> >> Importation of slaves was illegal in the USA after 1807, but
> >> ownership was still legal. The South's economy was based on
> >> hand labor agriculture, cotton. A lot of white people
> >> fought and died to free the slaves. A lot of Southerners
> >> fought and died to preserve their life-style. Both were
> >> honorable.
>
> The petitions issued from the south prior to 1861 all regarded TARIFFS that
> were deliberatley put in place to favor the industrial north.

Nobody killed anyone in bloody Kansas over tariffs.

How about petitions issued from the North, calling for the aboltion
of slavery?

Do you think any southern politician would have agreed to a compromise
abolishing both? Pretty much every abolitionist would have jumped
at that opportunity.

>
> >>
> > So, you believe it is honorable to fight and die to preserve the ability
> > to own people as property?
>
> Gee...isn't hindsight beautiful? Wanna bet a months pay which side you'd
> have been on IN REAL TIME? Bet that145 years ago, you'd been "Massa".

Dunno about him, but 145 years ago my great-great gandfather, an
Irish immigrant, enlisted with the Ohio 41st volunteer infantry.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> I stated that freedom was lost in 1968. Also, I was not
> defending any "right-wing extremist" position. I did
> recount the interview and the answer that the author made, I
> was not characterizing his answer to a question, The
> author, Keith Richburg said he was thankful his ancestors
> had been brought to this country so he never had to live in
> Africa. I would say that "brought to" is slavery.
>
> I'm sure that if I had the money and time to waste, I could
> get a transcript or even the tape of the interview. But I
> will just drop the issue since it isn't worth my time to
> argue about what you think.
>

More to the point, the transcript does not support
what you said.

I'm glad my ancestors were brought to this country, and
that has nothing to do wiht them being enslaved.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> news:WKCgg.26391$ZW3.12835@dukeread04...
> >I stated that freedom was lost in 1968.
>
> More like 1868 as the aftermath of the War of Northern Aggression ... :~)
>
> > Also, I was not
> > defending any "right-wing extremist" position. I did
> > recount the interview and the answer that the author made, I
> > was not characterizing his answer to a question, The
> > author, Keith Richburg said he was thankful his ancestors
> > had been brought to this country so he never had to live in
> > Africa. I would say that "brought to" is slavery.
>
> Oddly, there have been several times more immigrants in the past 50 years
> from Africa than were brought as slaves in the early 19th century.

Not odd at all when you consider the importation of slaves into the
US was abolished early in the 19th century, or when one compares
world populations. I'll bet more people died in the 20th century than
had lived beofor the 20th centrury.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> news:WKCgg.26391$ZW3.12835@dukeread04...
> >I stated that freedom was lost in 1968.
>
> More like 1868 as the aftermath of the War of Northern Aggression ... :~)
>

Is this a good time to point out that more than half of the adult
citizens
of the United States were prohibited from voting (the flaming liberal
state of Wyoming excepted) until well into the 20th Century?

I suppose for a socialist or a fascist the loss of power by state
governments might be considered a loss of freedom. For the
rest of of, it is a personal matter. I'll agree also that the minority
who previously enjoyed freedom became less free. The Nazis and
Baathists became less free when they lost power too.

--

FF

[Jonathan]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> So you, too, believe the US was a free country until 1864, but not after?

Define "free country" and what makes a country "free" or not.

[Gary Drescher]

"Jonathan" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>> So you, too, believe the US was a free country until 1864, but not after?
>
> Define "free country" and what makes a country "free" or not.

It's obviously an overall judgment that weighs many different factors. The
point is that in Matt's surreal opinion, having a legally imposed
institution of slavery is not a significant enough violation of inalienable
rights to disqualify a country from being free. Moreover, the nation's
freedom, in Matt's opinion, decreased precipitously at around the time of
the Civil War--to the point that, on the whole, he judges the US to have
been a free country before then, but not after. Such are Matt's values.

--Gary

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Matt Barrow > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> Recently, Jim Macklin > posted:
>>
>>> Importation of slaves was illegal in the USA after 1807, but
>>> ownership was still legal. The South's economy was based on
>>> hand labor agriculture, cotton. A lot of white people
>>> fought and died to free the slaves. A lot of Southerners
>>> fought and died to preserve their life-style. Both were
>>> honorable.
>> So, you believe it is honorable to fight and die to preserve the
>> ability to own people as property?
>
> Gee...isn't hindsight beautiful? Wanna bet a months pay which side
> you'd have been on IN REAL TIME? Bet that145 years ago, you'd been
> "Massa".
>
As a matter of historical fact, my ancestors were not "Massa" as far back
as the early 1700s, which is about as far back as I've been able to trace
them.

We can make arrangements for you to send your month's pay to me later.

Neil

[Jim Macklin]

I just had to get it off my chest.


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:owCgg.26386$ZW3.16305@dukeread04...
| > You're so full of crap, YOU make assumptions and condemn
| > others without anything but your opinion and guilt. FO.
|
| He's been listening to Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and
Major Owens,
| birds-of-a-feather with GD in the middle of the moonbat
nest.
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

I never mention any such thing.


"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:WKCgg.26391$ZW3.12835@dukeread04...
| > I stated that freedom was lost in 1968.
|
| Yes, my post was in reply to Matt, who said the US ceased
to be a free
| country in 1864. (Similarly, the Civil War was the
earliest event Steven
| listed when asked to explain his remark that the US had
ceased to be a free
| country.)
|
| > Also, I was not
| > defending any "right-wing extremist" position. I did
| > recount the interview and the answer that the author
made, I
| > was not characterizing his answer to a question,
|
| You cited his extremist position (as you remembered it) in
support of an
| argument against reparations, and you cited it without any
expressed
| reservations. That context makes it an "approving
citation", as that term is
| ordinarily used. (But yes, merely arguing against
reparations is by no means
| an extremist or inherently racist position.)
|
| --Gary
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

People were killed in "Bloody Kansas" for lots or reasons
that make little sense today.



> wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Matt Barrow wrote:
| > "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
| > om...
| > > Recently, Jim Macklin
> posted:
| > >
| > >> Importation of slaves was illegal in the USA after
1807, but
| > >> ownership was still legal. The South's economy was
based on
| > >> hand labor agriculture, cotton. A lot of white
people
| > >> fought and died to free the slaves. A lot of
Southerners
| > >> fought and died to preserve their life-style. Both
were
| > >> honorable.
| >
| > The petitions issued from the south prior to 1861 all
regarded TARIFFS that
| > were deliberatley put in place to favor the industrial
north.
|
| Nobody killed anyone in bloody Kansas over tariffs.
|
| How about petitions issued from the North, calling for the
aboltion
| of slavery?
|
| Do you think any southern politician would have agreed to
a compromise
| abolishing both? Pretty much every abolitionist would
have jumped
| at that opportunity.
|
| >
| > >>
| > > So, you believe it is honorable to fight and die to
preserve the ability
| > > to own people as property?
| >
| > Gee...isn't hindsight beautiful? Wanna bet a months pay
which side you'd
| > have been on IN REAL TIME? Bet that145 years ago, you'd
been "Massa".
|
| Dunno about him, but 145 years ago my great-great
gandfather, an
| Irish immigrant, enlisted with the Ohio 41st volunteer
infantry.
|
| --
|
| FF
|

[Jim Macklin]

Do you have the transcript? I don't, but I remember what I
heard. I have not read the book, what I heard was in an
interview on C-SPAN.



> wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > I stated that freedom was lost in 1968. Also, I was not
| > defending any "right-wing extremist" position. I did
| > recount the interview and the answer that the author
made, I
| > was not characterizing his answer to a question, The
| > author, Keith Richburg said he was thankful his
ancestors
| > had been brought to this country so he never had to live
in
| > Africa. I would say that "brought to" is slavery.
| >
| > I'm sure that if I had the money and time to waste, I
could
| > get a transcript or even the tape of the interview. But
I
| > will just drop the issue since it isn't worth my time to
| > argue about what you think.
| >
|
| More to the point, the transcript does not support
| what you said.
|
| I'm glad my ancestors were brought to this country, and
| that has nothing to do wiht them being enslaved.
|
| --
|
| FF
|

[Gary Drescher]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:0%Hgg.26414$ZW3.10802@dukeread04...
>I never mention any such thing.

Any such thing as what?

--Gary


> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | news:WKCgg.26391$ZW3.12835@dukeread04...
> | > I stated that freedom was lost in 1968.
> |
> | Yes, my post was in reply to Matt, who said the US ceased
> to be a free
> | country in 1864. (Similarly, the Civil War was the
> earliest event Steven
> | listed when asked to explain his remark that the US had
> ceased to be a free
> | country.)
> |
> | > Also, I was not
> | > defending any "right-wing extremist" position. I did
> | > recount the interview and the answer that the author
> made, I
> | > was not characterizing his answer to a question,
> |
> | You cited his extremist position (as you remembered it) in
> support of an
> | argument against reparations, and you cited it without any
> expressed
> | reservations. That context makes it an "approving
> citation", as that term is
> | ordinarily used. (But yes, merely arguing against
> reparations is by no means
> | an extremist or inherently racist position.)
> |
> | --Gary
> |
> |
>
>

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jim Macklin > posted:

> I said the people who fought on both sides of the Civil War
> were honorable people.
>
You've also said that slavery was wrong. How can one be "honorable" if one
is fighting to preserve something that is wrong?

> I've never been a "redneck with a Confederate flag" on my
> car. I do not have any desire to own slaves, but I don't
> have any false ideas about why slavery existed either.
>
I didn't accuse you of being a redneck, etc... I'm just curious about how
you're framing your notions of honor and equating real slavery to a lack
of vision about one's options, as in the example you gave about low wage
earners in company towns.

Neil

[Jim Logajan]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote:
> The UN and the Muslim religion support slavery.

While Islam appears to at least tolerate slavery, the United Nations
technically does not support slavery:

"Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10
December 1948
....
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade
shall be prohibited in all their forms.
...."
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

The UN has of course been somewhat impotent in doing much about slavery,
but it has been impotent in addressing many other matters also. Hard to see
how impotence becomes "support". My local police are impotent against lots
of robberies - I'd hardly translate that impotence into a statement
claiming the police support robbery.

For other material from the UN that indicates it at least tracks and
understands the extent of slavery, see also:
http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/slavery/index.html

[Jim Logajan]

Jonathan > wrote:
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>> So you, too, believe the US was a free country until 1864, but not
>> after?
>
> Define "free country" and what makes a country "free" or not.

A fee country is one where you have to pay for everything.
That'll be $10 please.

[Matt Whiting]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I'll second that. I'm sick and tired of the descendents of
>>the slaves demanding recompense (in whatever form) from the
>>descendents of the slave owners. Were you personally enslaved?
>>Were you personally a slave owner? I thought not.
>
>
> Have you directly or indirectly inherited some of the wealth that the slave
> owners stole from the black population? Thought so.

And both the blacks and the whites stole it from the native Americans,
so if anyone is owed compensation.... :-)


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Somewhere along the line in the past one of our ancesters
>>probably killed someone in cold blood. So, since you, me,
>>and anyone else probably benefitted from this murder, then
>>we should report to the nearest gallows to await our hanging.
>
>
> You apparently fail to grasp the distinction between punishment (which no
> one in this debate advocates) and civil reparation (returning something to
> its rightful owner).

And who determines the rightful owner?

Matt

[Skywise]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in
:

> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Somewhere along the line in the past one of our ancesters
>> probably killed someone in cold blood. So, since you, me,
>> and anyone else probably benefitted from this murder, then
>> we should report to the nearest gallows to await our hanging.
>
> You apparently fail to grasp the distinction between punishment (which no
> one in this debate advocates) and civil reparation (returning something to
> its rightful owner).

Ahhh...ok...then that means we have to give all the black people
back to their African home nations?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Skywise]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in
:

> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Gary Drescher" > wrote:
>>
>>> If your father had stolen my father's car and you inherited it,
>>> wouldn't it
>>> be just for me to recover it from you?
>>
>> If I am innocent, why would it be just to punish me?
>
> It would not. That's why I didn't suggest it. (For example, I did not
> suggest that you be imprisoned for the theft; *that* would be an
> appropriate punishment for whoever is guilty of the theft.)
>
> Seeking to return stolen property to its rightful owner is not legally
> or morally the same as seeking to punish whoever had received the stolen
> property, innocently or not. (Of course, if you knew or had reason to
> know that it was stolen, then you're not so innocent at all.)
>
> --Gary

Returning stolen property to it's rightful owner is one thing. But
we are talking about you and me today paying blacks of today some
sort of punitive reparations for what happened over a hundred years
ago by people and to people who are long dead.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Skywise]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in
news:DAtgg.26330$ZW3.14292@dukeread04:

> If you question my memory, you're certainly free to
> research the matter and print your results.

Actually, Jim, the burden of proof is upon the claimant.

For example, if I claim to have seen a leprechaun, the
burden is on me to provide evidence of said observation.
Your statement would be like me asking for everyone else
to prove that I did not see it, which is impossible.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[BucFan]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Saw this clip today about a derelict 1950's era AA gun sitting in some
> guy's yard near DFW airport. "Concerned individuals" (i.e. dimwits)
> called the news station worried about the gun being pointed toward the
> airport, and being used to target aircraft(!) Fer Christ's sake, did
> they notice the tall grass growing all around the thing? Don't most
> public libraries and VFW halls have an old howitzer sitting outside?
> Sheeesh...
>
> http://www.nbc5i.com/video/9304340/index.html

I lurk a lot post a little. I had to comment on this one.

Incredible. Are people really this stupid, and is the local news in Dallas
really hurting for stories this bad.

The rest of this thread was interesting. The idea of reparations, while an
interesting topic for debate, is unworkable in many ways. The first and
most obvious, who will pay and who will be paid? How are you going to
determine this? You would have to do family trees for every person in
America, and every person who has lived in America. Every black person, or
person of black heritage, in America is not a descendant of a former slave.
Nor is every white person, or person of white heritage, a descendant of a
former slave owner.

[Jay Beckman]

"BucFan" > wrote in message
...
> "Kingfish" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Saw this clip today about a derelict 1950's era AA gun sitting in some
>> guy's yard near DFW airport. "Concerned individuals" (i.e. dimwits)
>> called the news station worried about the gun being pointed toward the
>> airport, and being used to target aircraft(!) Fer Christ's sake, did
>> they notice the tall grass growing all around the thing? Don't most
>> public libraries and VFW halls have an old howitzer sitting outside?
>> Sheeesh...
>>
>> http://www.nbc5i.com/video/9304340/index.html
>
> I lurk a lot post a little. I had to comment on this one.
>
> Incredible. Are people really this stupid, and is the local news in
> Dallas really hurting for stories this bad.
>
> The rest of this thread was interesting. The idea of reparations, while
> an interesting topic for debate, is unworkable in many ways. The first
> and most obvious, who will pay and who will be paid? How are you going to
> determine this? You would have to do family trees for every person in
> America, and every person who has lived in America. Every black person,
> or person of black heritage, in America is not a descendant of a former
> slave. Nor is every white person, or person of white heritage, a
> descendant of a former slave owner.

And you'll find that you also have white people with black slaves in their
family history and black people with white slave owners in their family
trees as well.

eg: Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings...

Jay B

[Jim Macklin]

Others, with better memories, have posted the verification.
The author of the book worked for the Washington Post, Ted
Stanson posted this...
"
I saw the same interview on C-SPAN several years ago. Mr.
Macklin's
recollection is not inaccurate. I don't remember the exact
words,
phrases, and punctuation used, but Mr. Macklin correctly
posted the gist
of it here. Before challenging one's "worldview" and making
remarks
questioning "intellectual integrity," it's surely best to
know what you
are talking about."

And Matt Barrow posted this...
"Keith Richburg
http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=799

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0156005832/thewwwcapitalsit/104-7067579-4302305
(Out of Africa: A Black Man Confronts Africa)."


"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in
| news:DAtgg.26330$ZW3.14292@dukeread04:
|
| > If you question my memory, you're certainly free to
| > research the matter and print your results.
|
| Actually, Jim, the burden of proof is upon the claimant.
|
| For example, if I claim to have seen a leprechaun, the
| burden is on me to provide evidence of said observation.
| Your statement would be like me asking for everyone else
| to prove that I did not see it, which is impossible.
|
| Brian
| --
| http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy,
Skepticism
| Seismic FAQ:
http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
| Quake "predictions":
http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
| Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Gary Drescher]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> Returning stolen property to it's rightful owner is one thing. But
> we are talking about you and me today paying blacks of today some
> sort of punitive reparations for what happened over a hundred years
> ago by people and to people who are long dead.

Who is talking about *punitive* reparations?

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Skywise" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Somewhere along the line in the past one of our ancesters
>>> probably killed someone in cold blood. So, since you, me,
>>> and anyone else probably benefitted from this murder, then
>>> we should report to the nearest gallows to await our hanging.
>>
>> You apparently fail to grasp the distinction between punishment (which no
>> one in this debate advocates) and civil reparation (returning something
>> to
>> its rightful owner).
>
> Ahhh...ok...then that means we have to give all the black people
> back to their African home nations?

That only follows if you regard black people as property (and your comment
suggests you do).

--Gary

[Matt Barrow]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
.com...
> Recently, Matt Barrow > posted:
>
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>>> Recently, Jim Macklin > posted:
>>>
>>>> Importation of slaves was illegal in the USA after 1807, but
>>>> ownership was still legal. The South's economy was based on
>>>> hand labor agriculture, cotton. A lot of white people
>>>> fought and died to free the slaves. A lot of Southerners
>>>> fought and died to preserve their life-style. Both were
>>>> honorable.
>>> So, you believe it is honorable to fight and die to preserve the
>>> ability to own people as property?
>>
>> Gee...isn't hindsight beautiful? Wanna bet a months pay which side
>> you'd have been on IN REAL TIME? Bet that145 years ago, you'd been
>> "Massa".
>>
> As a matter of historical fact, my ancestors were not "Massa" as far back
> as the early 1700s, which is about as far back as I've been able to trace
> them.

I didn't say your ancestors, I said YOU!

> We can make arrangements for you to send your month's pay to me later.

When you learn to differentiate between yourself and other people...unless
you have multiple personalities.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:b3Igg.26415$ZW3.20228@dukeread04...
> People were killed in "Bloody Kansas" for lots or reasons
> that make little sense today.

And it was not considered a fight against slavery until after 1863. Lincoln
added that to bolster support when the war was going badly. That had a
reverse effect, manifesting in the anti-draft riots.

>
>
>
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> |
> | Matt Barrow wrote:
> | > "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> | > om...
> | > > Recently, Jim Macklin
> > posted:
> | > >
> | > >> Importation of slaves was illegal in the USA after
> 1807, but
> | > >> ownership was still legal. The South's economy was
> based on
> | > >> hand labor agriculture, cotton. A lot of white
> people
> | > >> fought and died to free the slaves. A lot of
> Southerners
> | > >> fought and died to preserve their life-style. Both
> were
> | > >> honorable.
> | >
> | > The petitions issued from the south prior to 1861 all
> regarded TARIFFS that
> | > were deliberatley put in place to favor the industrial
> north.
> |
> | Nobody killed anyone in bloody Kansas over tariffs.
> |
> | How about petitions issued from the North, calling for the
> aboltion
> | of slavery?
> |
> | Do you think any southern politician would have agreed to
> a compromise
> | abolishing both? Pretty much every abolitionist would
> have jumped
> | at that opportunity.
> |
> | >
> | > >>
> | > > So, you believe it is honorable to fight and die to
> preserve the ability
> | > > to own people as property?
> | >
> | > Gee...isn't hindsight beautiful? Wanna bet a months pay
> which side you'd
> | > have been on IN REAL TIME? Bet that145 years ago, you'd
> been "Massa".
> |
> | Dunno about him, but 145 years ago my great-great
> gandfather, an
> | Irish immigrant, enlisted with the Ohio 41st volunteer
> infantry.
> |
> | --
> |
> | FF
> |
>
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Jonathan" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>> So you, too, believe the US was a free country until 1864, but not after?
>
> Define "free country" and what makes a country "free" or not.

And it didn't just go On-Off, it was gradual over the course of many years.

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>> "Skywise" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>I'll second that. I'm sick and tired of the descendents of
>>>the slaves demanding recompense (in whatever form) from the
>>>descendents of the slave owners. Were you personally enslaved?
>>>Were you personally a slave owner? I thought not.
>>
>>
>> Have you directly or indirectly inherited some of the wealth that the
>> slave owners stole from the black population? Thought so.
>
> And both the blacks and the whites stole it from the native Americans, so
> if anyone is owed compensation.... :-)

And they stole it from...

[Matt Barrow]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in
> :
>
> Returning stolen property to it's rightful owner is one thing. But
> we are talking about you and me today paying blacks of today some
> sort of punitive reparations for what happened over a hundred years
> ago by people and to people who are long dead.
>

Don't try using rationality on an irrational dupe.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:k8Pgg.11128$KB.6148@fed1read08...
>
> And you'll find that you also have white people with black slaves in their
> family history and black people with white slave owners in their family
> trees as well.
>
> eg: Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings...

You may want to reinvestigate that: at best they can find it was one of the
Jefferson family and, IIRC, Tom Jefferson was in Europe when Hemings became
pregnant.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Here's the title of the book in question: Out of America: A Black Man
Confronts Africa

And the author: Keith Richburg (He was Washington Post Reporter stationed
in Africa)

And how to buy it:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0156005832/102-1284111-2036950?v=glance&n=283155

And the Google Search String I used:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-30,GGLD:en&q=Author+Black+Africa+Reporter

A quote that sums up his feelings:

"Mr Richburg, who is now working for the Washington Post in Hong Kong, says
he is not condoning the evil of slavery, but insists that condemning it
should not blind blacks to the fact that good has emerged from it..."

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Skywise wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in
> I'll second that. I'm sick and tired of the descendents of
> the slaves demanding recompense (in whatever form) from the
> descendents of the slave owners. Were you personally enslaved?
> Were you personally a slave owner? I thought not. Remember the
> past, yes, but get over it.



None of the above. My maternal ancestors came over during the Potato Famine to
Massachusetts. It's safe to assume they didn't own anybody. My paternal
grandparents came here from Austria in 1920. hey didn't own anyone either.
Given those facts, I don't believe I owe anyone ****.

The Poles abused my grandfather; he hated them. Do I hate Poles? Hell, no.
What have they ever done to *me*? Nothing. What's in the past is in the past.
If it were a part of my own life experience, I might hold a grudge. But it
isn't... so I don't.

People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson latch onto issues like this to cover
their personal lack of achievement.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[[email protected]]

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> news:b3Igg.26415$ZW3.20228@dukeread04...
> > People were killed in "Bloody Kansas" for lots or reasons
> > that make little sense today.
>
> And it was not considered a fight against slavery until after 1863. Lincoln
> added that to bolster support when the war was going badly. That had a
> reverse effect, manifesting in the anti-draft riots.
>

What was the motive for the murders at Pottawatomie Creek, tariffs?

What do you consider to be the issues that divided Kansans?

Don't you think we should move this to a newsgroup where it is
on-topic like soc.history.war.us-civil-war or alt.war.civil.usa.

--

FF

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Matt Barrow > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> Recently, Matt Barrow > posted:
>>
>>>
>>> Gee...isn't hindsight beautiful? Wanna bet a months pay which side
>>> you'd have been on IN REAL TIME? Bet that145 years ago, you'd been
>>> "Massa".
>>>
>> As a matter of historical fact, my ancestors were not "Massa" as far
>> back as the early 1700s, which is about as far back as I've been
>> able to trace them.
>
> I didn't say your ancestors, I said YOU!
>
In which case, this is even more unlikely. I am completely against the
idea that people can be "owned" by another person.

>> We can make arrangements for you to send your month's pay to me
>> later.
>
> When you learn to differentiate between yourself and other
> people...unless you have multiple personalities.
>
What "other people" might you be referring to, Matt? I thought you were
referring to something that could be empirically determined but was
obviously mistaken, as your "clarification" suggests. None the less, your
"clarification" only makes things easier, since I am quite clear about my
attitudes toward slavery, and they are completely incongruous with any
possibility of being "Massa". Get your check ready.

Neil

[Matt Barrow]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
y.com...
> Recently, Matt Barrow > posted:
>
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>>> Recently, Matt Barrow > posted:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gee...isn't hindsight beautiful? Wanna bet a months pay which side
>>>> you'd have been on IN REAL TIME? Bet that145 years ago, you'd been
>>>> "Massa".
>>>>
>>> As a matter of historical fact, my ancestors were not "Massa" as far
>>> back as the early 1700s, which is about as far back as I've been
>>> able to trace them.
>>
>> I didn't say your ancestors, I said YOU!
>>
> In which case, this is even more unlikely. I am completely against the
> idea that people can be "owned" by another person.

Like I said, hindsight is easy.

>> When you learn to differentiate between yourself and other
>> people...unless you have multiple personalities.
>>
> What "other people" might you be referring to, Matt? I thought you were
> referring to something that could be empirically determined but was
> obviously mistaken, as your "clarification" suggests.

Well, if you're that anal...

> None the less, your
> "clarification" only makes things easier, since I am quite clear about my
> attitudes toward slavery, and they are completely incongruous with any
> possibility of being "Massa".

See hindsight remarks above.

Here's a question for you to see how firm your position is:

Is health care a right?

At the very least should it be provided in some cases by government?



>Get your check ready.

[Jim Macklin]

I did NOT say this...
| > "Jim Macklin" >
wrote in
| > I'll second that. I'm sick and tired of the descendents
of
| > the slaves demanding recompense (in whatever form) from
the
| > descendents of the slave owners. Were you personally
enslaved?
| > Were you personally a slave owner? I thought not.
Remember the
| > past, yes, but get over it.
|
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" >
wrote in message
. ..
| Skywise wrote:
| > "Jim Macklin" >
wrote in
| > I'll second that. I'm sick and tired of the descendents
of
| > the slaves demanding recompense (in whatever form) from
the
| > descendents of the slave owners. Were you personally
enslaved?
| > Were you personally a slave owner? I thought not.
Remember the
| > past, yes, but get over it.
|
|
|
| None of the above. My maternal ancestors came over during
the Potato Famine to
| Massachusetts. It's safe to assume they didn't own
anybody. My paternal
| grandparents came here from Austria in 1920. hey didn't
own anyone either.
| Given those facts, I don't believe I owe anyone ****.
|
| The Poles abused my grandfather; he hated them. Do I hate
Poles? Hell, no.
| What have they ever done to *me*? Nothing. What's in the
past is in the past.
| If it were a part of my own life experience, I might hold
a grudge. But it
| isn't... so I don't.
|
| People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson latch onto
issues like this to cover
| their personal lack of achievement.
|
|
|
| --
| Mortimer Schnerd, RN
|
|
|
|

[Jules]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>
> I didn't say your ancestors, I said YOU!
>


Oh, I think that is a cheap out. Not that I didn't expect it.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Matt Barrow > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> Recently, Matt Barrow > posted:
>>
>>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>>>> Recently, Matt Barrow > posted:
>>>>
>>>>> Gee...isn't hindsight beautiful? Wanna bet a months pay which side
>>>>> you'd have been on IN REAL TIME? Bet that145 years ago, you'd been
>>>>> "Massa".
>>>>>
>>>> As a matter of historical fact, my ancestors were not "Massa" as
>>>> far back as the early 1700s, which is about as far back as I've
>>>> been able to trace them.
>>>
>>> I didn't say your ancestors, I said YOU!
>>>
>> In which case, this is even more unlikely. I am completely against
>> the idea that people can be "owned" by another person.
>
> Like I said, hindsight is easy.
>
And, in my case, completely unnecessary to determine the issue you
presented.

> Here's a question for you to see how firm your position is:
>
> Is health care a right?
>
Not in the USA.

> At the very least should it be provided in some cases by government?
>
That depends on the type of society that US citizens want to have. I play
the cards in my hand, not the ones that might have been dealt under some
imaginary circumstances. YMMV.

Neil

[Matt Barrow]

"Jules" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>
>> I didn't say your ancestors, I said YOU!
>>
>
>
> Oh, I think that is a cheap out. Not that I didn't expect it.

The statement was obvious, but I guess I should have expected an adolescent
evasion/spin in response.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jules" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>
>> I didn't say your ancestors, I said YOU!
>>
>
>
> Oh, I think that is a cheap out. Not that I didn't expect it.

If I wanted his family history, I would have asked for family history.

Are you MPD too?

[Skywise]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in
:

> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "Skywise" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Somewhere along the line in the past one of our ancesters
>>>> probably killed someone in cold blood. So, since you, me,
>>>> and anyone else probably benefitted from this murder, then
>>>> we should report to the nearest gallows to await our hanging.
>>>
>>> You apparently fail to grasp the distinction between punishment (which no
>>> one in this debate advocates) and civil reparation (returning something
>>> to
>>> its rightful owner).
>>
>> Ahhh...ok...then that means we have to give all the black people
>> back to their African home nations?
>
> That only follows if you regard black people as property (and your comment
> suggests you do).

I see I forgot to add a :) to my comment. I was being rhetorical.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Skywise]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in
:

> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Returning stolen property to it's rightful owner is one thing. But
>> we are talking about you and me today paying blacks of today some
>> sort of punitive reparations for what happened over a hundred years
>> ago by people and to people who are long dead.
>
> Who is talking about *punitive* reparations?

I was, from the very first post I made in this thread. It
now appears our whole argument is based on your misreading
of my post. Or is this one of those arguments where one
side keeps changing the subject of what's being argued
over? The ol' "moving the goalposts" problem. I rather
suspect it is and have no further desire to continue the
discussion.

For your reference, here's the text of the post I made in
response to a comment made by Jim Macklin,

>"Jim Macklin" > wrote in
>news:UEpgg.26071$ZW3.17560@dukeread04:
>
><Snipola>
>> Laws change, society changes, hopefully for the better. We
>> should remember the past, so we don't continue to make the
>> same mistakes, but we must get over the anger and personal
>> feelings about what happened 50, 100, 150, 500, 2000 years
>> ago.
>
>I'll second that. I'm sick and tired of the descendents of
>the slaves demanding recompense (in whatever form) from the
>descendents of the slave owners. Were you personally enslaved?
>Were you personally a slave owner? I thought not. Remember the
>past, yes, but get over it.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Skywise]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in news:OGWgg.8$yy2.2877
@news.uswest.net:

>
> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> Returning stolen property to it's rightful owner is one thing. But
>> we are talking about you and me today paying blacks of today some
>> sort of punitive reparations for what happened over a hundred years
>> ago by people and to people who are long dead.
>>
>
> Don't try using rationality on an irrational dupe.

Yes, that's becoming clear to me in this case.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[[email protected]]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Do you have the transcript? I don't, but I remember what I
> heard. I have not read the book, what I heard was in an
> interview on C-SPAN.
>

Someone else posted a link elsewhere in the thread.

It may not have been to a transcript of what you heard.

Even if he literally said something like, "I'm glad my ancestors
were brought here as slaves so I'm living here today instead
of in Africa." by NO sgtretch of the imagination could that be
interpretted as though he preferred that to his ancestors coming
to the US as free immigrants, or that his ancestors who
were slaves were _themselves_ better off because of it.

Not that anyone said that, but some folks might be
thinking it was said.

E.g. being the descendant of a slave in the most of the US
may well bebetter than being the descendant of free people
in much of Africa. That's because in both cases it matters
little whom your ancestors were, so long as they were African.

--

FF

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Gary Drescher wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'll second that. I'm sick and tired of the descendents of
>>>>the slaves demanding recompense (in whatever form) from the
>>>>descendents of the slave owners. Were you personally enslaved?
>>>>Were you personally a slave owner? I thought not.
>>>
>>>
>>>Have you directly or indirectly inherited some of the wealth that the
>>>slave owners stole from the black population? Thought so.
>>
>>And both the blacks and the whites stole it from the native Americans, so
>>if anyone is owed compensation.... :-)
>
>
> And they stole it from...

The neat thing is that most native Americans didn't consider land
something to be owned. They consider themselves essentially stewards of
the land. Personally, I think there is a lot to be said for their way
of thinking vs. the European way.

So, I don't think the native Americans stole anything, they were simply
caretakers and users of the natural resources. The Europeans stole this
from the native Americans, just as they stole Africans to use as slaves.


Matt

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...



> just as they stole Africans to use as slaves.
>
>
> Matt

Actually the Americans bought the slaves. In many cases from Africans.

[Matt Whiting]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>
>
>>just as they stole Africans to use as slaves.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Actually the Americans bought the slaves. In many cases from Africans.

I said Europeans, not Americans. The Americans may have bought them,
but they were still buying stolen (kidnapped) "goods."

I believe most of the slave traders were European, but I'm sure some
enterprising Africans got into the action as well.


Matt

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Matt Whiting > writes:

> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>just as they stole Africans to use as slaves.
> >>
> >>
> >>Matt
> > Actually the Americans bought the slaves. In many cases from
> > Africans.
>
> I said Europeans, not Americans. The Americans may have bought them,
> but they were still buying stolen (kidnapped) "goods."
>
> I believe most of the slave traders were European, but I'm sure some
> enterprising Africans got into the action as well.

You need to read up on the history of the slave trade more. My
understanding is that the Europeans simply became a new market for a
well-established trade, run by various African tribes and quite a lot
of Arabs.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Dave Stadt]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
. ..
> Skywise wrote:
>> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in
>> I'll second that. I'm sick and tired of the descendents of
>> the slaves demanding recompense (in whatever form) from the
>> descendents of the slave owners. Were you personally enslaved?
>> Were you personally a slave owner? I thought not. Remember the
>> past, yes, but get over it.
>
>
>
> None of the above. My maternal ancestors came over during the Potato
> Famine to Massachusetts. It's safe to assume they didn't own anybody. My
> paternal grandparents came here from Austria in 1920. hey didn't own
> anyone either. Given those facts, I don't believe I owe anyone ****.
>
> The Poles abused my grandfather; he hated them. Do I hate Poles? Hell,
> no. What have they ever done to *me*? Nothing. What's in the past is in
> the past. If it were a part of my own life experience, I might hold a
> grudge. But it isn't... so I don't.
>
> People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson latch onto issues like this to
> cover their personal lack of achievement.

They latch onto issues such as this to keep the race card alive and well.
If the race issues go away they are out of a job. Their goal is to make
things worse not better.

> --
> Mortimer Schnerd, RN
>
>
>
>

[Jim Macklin]

Jim Macklin did not write ANY of what is printed below.


"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...
|
| "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> wrote in message
| . ..
| > Skywise wrote:
| >> "Jim Macklin" >
wrote in
| >> I'll second that. I'm sick and tired of the descendents
of
| >> the slaves demanding recompense (in whatever form) from
the
| >> descendents of the slave owners. Were you personally
enslaved?
| >> Were you personally a slave owner? I thought not.
Remember the
| >> past, yes, but get over it.
| >
| >
| >
| > None of the above. My maternal ancestors came over
during the Potato
| > Famine to Massachusetts. It's safe to assume they
didn't own anybody. My
| > paternal grandparents came here from Austria in 1920.
hey didn't own
| > anyone either. Given those facts, I don't believe I owe
anyone ****.
| >
| > The Poles abused my grandfather; he hated them. Do I
hate Poles? Hell,
| > no. What have they ever done to *me*? Nothing. What's
in the past is in
| > the past. If it were a part of my own life experience, I
might hold a
| > grudge. But it isn't... so I don't.
| >
| > People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson latch onto
issues like this to
| > cover their personal lack of achievement.
|
| They latch onto issues such as this to keep the race card
alive and well.
| If the race issues go away they are out of a job. Their
goal is to make
| things worse not better.
|
| > --
| > Mortimer Schnerd, RN
| >
| >
| >
| >
|
|

[Matt Whiting]

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Matt Whiting > writes:
>
>
>>Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>just as they stole Africans to use as slaves.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Matt
>>>
>>>Actually the Americans bought the slaves. In many cases from
>>>Africans.
>>
>>I said Europeans, not Americans. The Americans may have bought them,
>>but they were still buying stolen (kidnapped) "goods."
>>
>>I believe most of the slave traders were European, but I'm sure some
>>enterprising Africans got into the action as well.
>
>
> You need to read up on the history of the slave trade more. My
> understanding is that the Europeans simply became a new market for a
> well-established trade, run by various African tribes and quite a lot
> of Arabs.

Probably should, but I'm not planning on it. I just don't care that
much about what happened 100-300 years ago. I'm more concerned about
what will happen in the next 100 years.


Matt

[Gary Drescher]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in
> :
>>
>> Who is talking about *punitive* reparations?
>
> I was, from the very first post I made in this thread. It
> now appears our whole argument is based on your misreading
> of my post.

No, it's apparently based on your own misreading of your own post. Nothing
in your original post referred to *punitive* reparations.

More importantly, no significant participant in the national debate (to my
knowledge) has ever advocated *punitive* reparations, so if would make no
sense for you to be "sick and tired" of such "demands". (And by the way,
since no one here had been advocating any sort of reparation until you
brought it up, it was a peculiar complaint for you to issue here in the
first place.)

For your reference, here's the text of your orginal post:

>>I'll second that. I'm sick and tired of the descendents of
>>the slaves demanding recompense (in whatever form) from the
>>descendents of the slave owners. Were you personally enslaved?
>>Were you personally a slave owner? I thought not. Remember the
>>past, yes, but get over it.

See? No mention of *punitive* recompense, just "recompense". There is a
clear legal and moral distinction between compensation and "punitive
damages", with entirely different criteria for when each is warranted.

--Gary

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Matt Whiting > writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> > Matt Whiting > writes:
> >
> >>Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>just as they stole Africans to use as slaves.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Matt
> >>>
> >>>Actually the Americans bought the slaves. In many cases from
> >>>Africans.
> >>
> >>I said Europeans, not Americans. The Americans may have bought them,
> >>but they were still buying stolen (kidnapped) "goods."
> >>
> >>I believe most of the slave traders were European, but I'm sure some
> >>enterprising Africans got into the action as well.
> > You need to read up on the history of the slave trade more. My
> > understanding is that the Europeans simply became a new market for a
> > well-established trade, run by various African tribes and quite a lot
> > of Arabs.
>
> Probably should, but I'm not planning on it. I just don't care that
> much about what happened 100-300 years ago. I'm more concerned about
> what will happen in the next 100 years.

"My interest is in the future, because I'm going to spend the rest of
my life there." Reasonable enough.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Skywise]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in
:

> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in
>> :
>>>
>>> Who is talking about *punitive* reparations?
>>
>> I was, from the very first post I made in this thread. It
>> now appears our whole argument is based on your misreading
>> of my post.
>
> No, it's apparently based on your own misreading of your own post. Nothing
> in your original post referred to *punitive* reparations.

Why the **** else would there be reparations if not to punish?
Specific to this issue, slavery in America pre Civil War, what
tangible property is to be returned? What other reason would
there be (re slavery) for white people alive today to give
*anything* to black people alive today? The only thing taken
away from the blacks was their freedom. That has already been
returned to them. Anything more is punative.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Montblack]

("Skywise" wrote)
> Why the [#%&*] else would there be reparations if not to punish?


There are two regular posters who (sometimes) use the F'enheimer.

Maybe that number is now three?

Enjoyed the 'heck' out of your post, otherwise.


Montblack-not-blue

[Gary Drescher]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in
> :
>> No, it's apparently based on your own misreading of your own post.
>> Nothing
>> in your original post referred to *punitive* reparations.
>
> Why the **** else would there be reparations if not to punish?
> Specific to this issue, slavery in America pre Civil War, what
> tangible property is to be returned? What other reason would
> there be (re slavery) for white people alive today to give
> *anything* to black people alive today? The only thing taken
> away from the blacks was their freedom. That has already been
> returned to them. Anything more is punative.

You're being intentionally obtuse. One thing that was stolen from the slaves
(and thereby from their descendents' inheritance) was the massive value of
the slaves' forced labor; that was, after all, the whole point of slavery.
And advocates of reparations explicitly make that argument.

So even if you had some basis for disagreeing with that argument for making
nonpunitive reparations, it *still* would not vindicate your assertion that
anyone has been arguing that *punitive* reparations would be warranted
against individuals alive today.

The question of reparations is complex, and others in this thread have
mentioned some factors that legitimately detract from the case for
reparations. But your "punitive" misconstrual is not among those factors;
rather, it is just a red herring.

--Gary

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Gary Drescher" > wrote:

>One thing that was stolen from the slaves
> (and thereby from their descendents' inheritance) [snip]

The *potential* inheritance. Nobody's inheritance is guarenteed.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Kingfish]

>From derelict AA guns to Confederate rednecks? Wow, this has to be a
record <G>


Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Jim Macklin > posted:
>
> > I said the people who fought on both sides of the Civil War
> > were honorable people.
> >
> You've also said that slavery was wrong. How can one be "honorable" if one
> is fighting to preserve something that is wrong?
>
> > I've never been a "redneck with a Confederate flag" on my
> > car. I do not have any desire to own slaves, but I don't
> > have any false ideas about why slavery existed either.
> >
> I didn't accuse you of being a redneck, etc... I'm just curious about how
> you're framing your notions of honor and equating real slavery to a lack
> of vision about one's options, as in the example you gave about low wage
> earners in company towns.
>
> Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Kingfish > posted:

>> From derelict AA guns to Confederate rednecks? Wow, this has to be a
>> record <G>
>
Not really... both can neatly fall under the category of "Those
'Dangerous' Korean War relics". ;-)

Neil

[Montblack]

("Neil Gould" wrote)
> Not really... both can neatly fall under the category of "Those
> 'Dangerous' Korean War relics". ;-)


I believe the Yanks fought on The South's side in that one. <g>


Montblack

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> You mean like the way the Bill of Rights was not properly
> ratified?
>

In what way was the Bill of Rights not properly ratified?


>
> Eminent domain has been (ab)used for that purpose
> since before the Constitution was adopted. I've been
> opposed to the practice since first becoming aware of
> in the early 1970s. But I am not so dishonest as to
> argue that it is unConstitutional, or something new.
> Indeed, I am astonished that a case disputed centuries
> old settled law got to the USSC
>
> It is pretty hard to see how an arugment can be made that
> a prohibiton of confiscation of property WITHOUT just compensation
> does not implicitly permit confiscation WITH just compensation.
>

"Just compensation" is not enough. The Fifth Amendment says private
property shall not be taken FOR PUBLIC USE without just compensation.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Aside from the language prohibiting individual states from enterring
> into a confederation.
>

That applies to states within the union, not to former states that had
seceded from it.


>
> Seceding first, and enterring into a confederation later is an
> intellectually dishonest shell game, not an action that is
> permissible under the Constitution.
>

Nonsense.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'll second that. I'm sick and tired of the descendents of
> the slaves demanding recompense (in whatever form) from the
> descendents of the slave owners. Were you personally enslaved?
> Were you personally a slave owner? I thought not. Remember the
> past, yes, but get over it.
>

Are the descendents of the slaves demanding recompense from only the
descendents of the slave owners? I thought the reparations effort was to
gain compensation from the federal government, which would presumably obtain
it from general revenue. That would have all taxpayers paying reparations,
not just those that are descended from slave owners.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:tcqgg.26072$ZW3.9062@dukeread04...
>
> I can't think of his name right now, but there is a black
> reporter for the Wall Street Journal who wrote a book about
> how glad his ancestors were slaves in America, so he doesn't
> have to live in Africa.
>

I'm not aware of any book like that, but Walter Williams has often pointed
out that the descendants of slaves in the US today benefited from the slave
trade because their ancestors were removed from Africa and brought to what
is now the US.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> More like 1868 as the aftermath of the War of Northern Aggression ... :~)
>

An odd name for a war in which the South fired the first shots.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Have you directly or indirectly inherited some of the wealth that the
> slave owners stole from the black population? Thought so.
>

What wealth was stolen from the black population by the slave owners?


>
> Ironically, the point of this subthread is that the right-wing
> slavery-apologists here on r.a.p. haven't gotten over losing the Civil
> War.
>

Right-wing slavery-apologists here on r.a.p. haven't gotten over losing the
Civil War? The Civil War ended 141 years ago. Nobody here on r.a.p. lost
it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> You apparently fail to grasp the distinction between punishment (which no
> one in this debate advocates) and civil reparation (returning something to
> its rightful owner).
>

In the case of reparations for slavery, assuming the "rightful owners" were
not all dead, what is it that would be returned to them?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Ending slavery without a war was tried in the US and it failed.
>

It worked elsewhere, it would have worked here eventually.

[Skywise]

"Montblack" > wrote in
:

> ("Skywise" wrote)
>> Why the [#%&*] else would there be reparations if not to punish?
>
>
> There are two regular posters who (sometimes) use the F'enheimer.
>
> Maybe that number is now three?
>
> Enjoyed the 'heck' out of your post, otherwise.

I may talk that way at times in real life (depending on who's
listening), but in written text I try to refrain from it's use.

However, there are times when I feel it necessary to indulge in
such language in order to bring focus to the point.

Have you ever heard George Carlin's little piece on the F word?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Skywise]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in news:q7KdnUu0VvPW-
:

<Snipola>
> You're being intentionally obtuse.
<Snipola>

No. I am trying to focus on one specific point but you keep
going off on everything else. Since you can't even stay on the
same page as I, there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Skywise]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
nk.net:

>
> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I'll second that. I'm sick and tired of the descendents of
>> the slaves demanding recompense (in whatever form) from the
>> descendents of the slave owners. Were you personally enslaved?
>> Were you personally a slave owner? I thought not. Remember the
>> past, yes, but get over it.
>>
>
> Are the descendents of the slaves demanding recompense from only the
> descendents of the slave owners? I thought the reparations effort was
> to gain compensation from the federal government, which would presumably
> obtain it from general revenue. That would have all taxpayers paying
> reparations, not just those that are descended from slave owners.

Which just makes it even more 'unfair'. Why should my tax monies
go to pay for something that I nor my ancestors are guilty of?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
>
> Which just makes it even more 'unfair'. Why should my tax monies
> go to pay for something that I nor my ancestors are guilty of?
>

They shouldn't.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Steven P. McNicoll > posted:

> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I'll second that. I'm sick and tired of the descendents of
>> the slaves demanding recompense (in whatever form) from the
>> descendents of the slave owners. Were you personally enslaved?
>> Were you personally a slave owner? I thought not. Remember the
>> past, yes, but get over it.
>>
>
> Are the descendents of the slaves demanding recompense from only the
> descendents of the slave owners? I thought the reparations effort
> was to gain compensation from the federal government, which would
> presumably obtain it from general revenue. That would have all
> taxpayers paying reparations, not just those that are descended from
> slave owners.
>
Which is just one of many reasons why this won't fly. Consider, too, that
the decendents of slaves are tax payers!

Neil

[Gary Drescher]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> No. I am trying to focus on one specific point but you keep
> going off on everything else.

Here I'm honestly puzzled. What "specific point" are you "focusing on"? That
*punitive* reparations are not warranted? Who has ever disagreed with you
about that?

My point is that when you hear advocacy of compensatory reparations
(compensation for the lost inheritance of the value of the stolen labor),
you respond as though you had just heard an advocacy of punitive
reparations, even though that's not in fact what's being argued for. If you
want to rebut the argument for compensatory reparations, that's fine; but
please engage the argument that's actually presented, not a straw one that
you substitute for it.

When I point out your misconstrual of the standard pro-reparations argument,
you reply that I'm thereby somehow shifting from your "focus" to "everything
else". In reality, you did not mention the idea of *punitive* reparations
until midway through the discussion, at which point you declared that it's
what you'd been talking about all along.

--Gary

[Skywise]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in
:

> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>> No. I am trying to focus on one specific point but you keep
>> going off on everything else.
>
> Here I'm honestly puzzled. What "specific point" are you "focusing on"?
> <Snipola>

Let's just drop it, shall we? :)

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Gary Drescher]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> Let's just drop it, shall we? :)

At last, something we can agree on. :)

[Montblack]

("Skywise" wrote)
> Have you ever heard George Carlin's little piece on the F word?


<http://www.erenkrantz.com/Humor/SevenDirtyWords.shtml>

<http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/filthywords.html>

2nd grade - 1968:
"I know a word that starts with "F" and ends in "UCK" - Firetruck" ...and I
still got my mouth washed out with soap!

I should have known better. Shouting "COX ...trainer" and "COX ...airplane
gas" in the backyard, at the top of my lungs, garnered the same results the
year before. :-o


Montblack

[Matt Barrow]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "Montblack" > wrote in
> :
>
>> ("Skywise" wrote)
>>> Why the [#%&*] else would there be reparations if not to punish?
>>
>>
>> There are two regular posters who (sometimes) use the F'enheimer.
>>
>> Maybe that number is now three?
>>
>> Enjoyed the 'heck' out of your post, otherwise.
>
> I may talk that way at times in real life (depending on who's
> listening), but in written text I try to refrain from it's use.
>
> However, there are times when I feel it necessary to indulge in
> such language in order to bring focus to the point.
>
> Have you ever heard George Carlin's little piece on the F word?
>
"We're gonna f*&k you, sheriff...!!"

[Montblack]

("Matt Barrow" wrote)
>> Have you ever heard George Carlin's little piece on the F word?

> "We're gonna f*&k you, sheriff...!!"


:-)


Montblack

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Ending slavery without a war was tried in the US and it failed.
> >
>
> It worked elsewhere, it would have worked here eventually.

Achieving Independence from Great Britain without War would
have happened eventually too.

Eventually wasn't soon enough--for either.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>just as they stole Africans to use as slaves.
> >>
> >>
> >>Matt
> >
> >
> > Actually the Americans bought the slaves. In many cases from Africans.
>
> I said Europeans, not Americans. The Americans may have bought them,
> but they were still buying stolen (kidnapped) "goods."
>
> I believe most of the slave traders were European, but I'm sure some
> enterprising Africans got into the action as well.
>

In Africa the traders were mostly African. A number of Americans
sailed the 'slave triangle'. They would take slaves from Africa to
the Southern US or (maybe) the Carribean, take cotton, tobacco
or mollases to New England, and then take manufactured goods
to Africa.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Probably should, but I'm not planning on it. I just don't care that
> much about what happened 100-300 years ago. I'm more concerned about
> what will happen in the next 100 years.
>

Remember what the Singer Carlos Santana said:

"Those who do not learn from hsitory are doomed to repeat it."

Or was that the philospoher George Santayana?

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Skywise wrote:
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in
> :
>
> > "Skywise" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in
> >> :
> >>>
> >>> Who is talking about *punitive* reparations?
> >>
> >> I was, from the very first post I made in this thread. It
> >> now appears our whole argument is based on your misreading
> >> of my post.
> >
> > No, it's apparently based on your own misreading of your own post. Nothing
> > in your original post referred to *punitive* reparations.
>
> Why the **** else would there be reparations if not to punish?

To compensate.

> Specific to this issue, slavery in America pre Civil War, what
> tangible property is to be returned? What other reason would
> there be (re slavery) for white people alive today to give
> *anything* to black people alive today? The only thing taken
> away from the blacks was their freedom.

Frederick Douglass had most of his wages taken aeway from him
when he was a slave. His descendants could probably establish
a sound estimate of just how much money that was.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > You mean like the way the Bill of Rights was not properly
> > ratified?
> >
>
> In what way was the Bill of Rights not properly ratified?
>

The "Sixteenth amendment was not properly ratified" argument
mostly revolves around differences in punctuation and wording
betweenthe extant written records of the Congress and various
state legislatures. There are also allegations that some states
the US Secretary of State credted with ratification , have no record
of having ratified the 16th amendment and/or other irregularities.
at the state level, including a failure of the governor to sign the
bill for one or more states.

Have I got that right?

I dscount the 'no evidence argument' as I have no idea how good
the record keeping was. The absence of an extant record does
not prove the measure did not pass and you would suppose that
if a particular state did not pass it, some legislators would have
raised the issue. There are no records of THAT, either, are there?
Not so much as a persoanl diary entry

The 'governor failed to sign argument' is specious because the
Constitution of the United States of America (CUSA) specifies
that amendments are to be ratified by the state legislatures with
no mention of the state governors.
The individual States cannot impose additional requirements for
amending he Constitution any more than they can change
the term of office or impose additional eligibility requiirements
for their Senators and Congresmen.

So this leaves us with the inconsistant wording and punctuation
argument, right?

In the case of the Sixteenth amenment, those inconsistencies
were so trivial as to not allow for any inconsistency in
interpretation,
indeed, we have no way of telling how precisely the words spoken
on the floor of those legislative bodies agreed with the words recorded
and enterred into the records by the clerks. It is a safe bet that
pretty much all legislation of that era, and all previous amendments
as well as the various copies of the original Constitution had similar
inconsistencies particularly when you consider that the promulgation
and acceptance of unifrom standards for English spelling, punctuation
and grammar in legal and academic circles post-date the Constitution
itself.

However, even accepting that, the Bill of Rights was exceptional.

The Bill of Rights passed by the Congress and submitted to the
States for ratification was not a bill of ten amendments, it was
one (1) amendment with twelve (12) articles. That amendment
was never ratified by the requisite number of states. Some
states ratified a shorter version, with only ten articles. That
shorter version was accepted and became part of the CUSA.

That Bill of Rights, with ten articles was not passed by the
Congress, and then ratified requisite number of states.
The alleged errors that supposedly invalidate the passage of the
SIxteenth Amendment pale by comparison.

The people who argue the sixteenth amendment was invalid,
(and I note that you are not he person who introduced that
notion into this thread) by and large, refuse to discuss this
as they are not honest people.

Later when more amendments passed the enumeration was
changed so that the ten articles of the first amendment became
the first ten amendments. That change was also made without
ratification by the states, and although it plainly has no bearing
on the validity of those or subsequent amendments that change
still looms large when compared with the arguments advanced
against the validity of the sixteenth amendment.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > Have you directly or indirectly inherited some of the wealth that the
> > slave owners stole from the black population? Thought so.
> >
>
> What wealth was stolen from the black population by the slave owners?
>
>
> >
> > Ironically, the point of this subthread is that the right-wing
> > slavery-apologists here on r.a.p. haven't gotten over losing the Civil
> > War.
> >
>
> Right-wing slavery-apologists here on r.a.p. haven't gotten over losing the
> Civil War? The Civil War ended 141 years ago. Nobody here on r.a.p. lost
> it.

That's why it's ironic.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Skywise" wrote)
> > Have you ever heard George Carlin's little piece on the F word?
>
>
> <http://www.erenkrantz.com/Humor/SevenDirtyWords.shtml>

That's bogus man, 'tits' doesn't even belong on the list!

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > You apparently fail to grasp the distinction between punishment (which no
> > one in this debate advocates) and civil reparation (returning something to
> > its rightful owner).
> >
>
> In the case of reparations for slavery, assuming the "rightful owners" were
> not all dead, what is it that would be returned to them?

Money.

In a civil action if the wronged party has lost a limb, a family
member,
or property that is now unrecoverable, they receive monetary
compensation instead.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> ...
> >
> > Eminent domain has been (ab)used for that purpose
> > since before the Constitution was adopted. I've been
> > opposed to the practice since first becoming aware of
> > in the early 1970s. But I am not so dishonest as to
> > argue that it is unConstitutional, or something new.
> > Indeed, I am astonished that a case disputed centuries
> > old settled law got to the USSC
> >
> > It is pretty hard to see how an arugment can be made that
> > a prohibiton of confiscation of property WITHOUT just compensation
> > does not implicitly permit confiscation WITH just compensation.
> >
>
> "Just compensation" is not enough. The Fifth Amendment says private
> property shall not be taken FOR PUBLIC USE without just compensation.

That's a good point. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the
confiscation of property for tranfer of ownership to another private
party. Indeed, if that is distinct from confiscation for public use
then it doesn't even require just compensation for forced private
party to private party transactions.

Historically property that was not being developed, what we now call
'greenspace' was often condemned, and confiscated then sold (perhaps
typically at public auction, but certainly not always ) to developers.
While the legal argument was that this was done for the pubic good,
to increase the tax base or employment the real reason usually was
that some infuential developer wante dthe property bur the owner didn't

want to sell, at least not for what the developer was willing to pay.

Right or wrong (personally, I deplore the practice and would
like to see it outlawed) it has been going on for as long as there
has been formal ownership of real estate. If it was the intent
of the founding fathers to outlaw the practice they should
have been more specific. I wish they had.

--

FF

[Gig 601XL Builder]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>>
>> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>just as they stole Africans to use as slaves.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>Matt
>> >
>> >
>> > Actually the Americans bought the slaves. In many cases from Africans.
>>
>> I said Europeans, not Americans. The Americans may have bought them,
>> but they were still buying stolen (kidnapped) "goods."
>>
>> I believe most of the slave traders were European, but I'm sure some
>> enterprising Africans got into the action as well.
>>
>
> In Africa the traders were mostly African. A number of Americans
> sailed the 'slave triangle'. They would take slaves from Africa to
> the Southern US or (maybe) the Carribean, take cotton, tobacco
> or mollases to New England, and then take manufactured goods
> to Africa.
>

So the Americans were basically the customers and the UPS of the day.

And to the parent post that said, "they were still buying stolen (kidnapped)
"goods." "Stolen" is a legal term. At the time there wasn't a law against
the slave trade so they weren't stolen they were bought and sold in
accordance with the law of the time.

[Gary Drescher]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
> And to the parent post that said, "they were still buying stolen
> (kidnapped) "goods." "Stolen" is a legal term. At the time there wasn't a
> law against the slave trade so they weren't stolen they were bought and
> sold in accordance with the law of the time.

"Stolen" is a moral as well as legal term. Legalized theft can still
constitute stealing, in the moral sense.

--Gary

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>> And to the parent post that said, "they were still buying stolen
>> (kidnapped) "goods." "Stolen" is a legal term. At the time there wasn't a
>> law against the slave trade so they weren't stolen they were bought and
>> sold in accordance with the law of the time.
>
> "Stolen" is a moral as well as legal term. Legalized theft can still
> constitute stealing, in the moral sense.
>

But this thread is suggesting a legal remedy. If we are going to get money
and lawyers involved we have to stick to the legal use of the term.

If we are talking about the moral issues a heart felt apology should be
enough.

[Gary Drescher]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
>> ...
>>> And to the parent post that said, "they were still buying stolen
>>> (kidnapped) "goods." "Stolen" is a legal term. At the time there wasn't
>>> a law against the slave trade so they weren't stolen they were bought
>>> and sold in accordance with the law of the time.
>>
>> "Stolen" is a moral as well as legal term. Legalized theft can still
>> constitute stealing, in the moral sense.
>
> But this thread is suggesting a legal remedy. If we are going to get money
> and lawyers involved we have to stick to the legal use of the term.

Why? That seems like an arbitrary and unmotivated rule restricting a
discussion that involves both moral and legal issues. We should be able to
use any sense of any term we want, as long as it's clear what sense we're
using (as long as it's clear that we are not referring to a violation of the
then-current property laws).

If you prefer to use another term instead, such as "immorally taken", that's
fine. No substantive question is affected by the choice of terminology.

--Gary

[Skywise]

wrote in news:1149696178.572144.60190
@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

>
> Montblack wrote:
>> ("Skywise" wrote)
>> > Have you ever heard George Carlin's little piece on the F word?
>>
>>
>> <http://www.erenkrantz.com/Humor/SevenDirtyWords.shtml>
>
> That's bogus man, 'tits' doesn't even belong on the list!

How about the five words that can't be said on the floor
of Congress?

nipple
****
****
****
damn

Interestingly, I had a problem with a web forum a few months
back wherein I discovered that the message I was posting was
blocked because it "contains words that Congress may find
offensive". When I questioned the censorship and it was
confirmed by the board op, I then proceed to make a most
colorful post questioning the usefulness of filtering only
those five words. Of course, the message got deleted.

Truthfully, I was trying to open up the issue for discussion
and since the board op simply deleted the post, that told
me they were not interested in discussing the stupidity of
their filter system. Needless to say, I no longer post there.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> Frederick Douglass had most of his wages taken aeway from him
> when he was a slave. His descendants could probably establish
> a sound estimate of just how much money that was.

But how do you give it back to Frederick? His descendants didn't work
for it and don't deserve it.

Matt

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>> Frederick Douglass had most of his wages taken aeway from him
>> when he was a slave. His descendants could probably establish
>> a sound estimate of just how much money that was.
>
> But how do you give it back to Frederick? His descendants didn't work for
> it and don't deserve it.

Do you believe categorically that people do not deserve inheritances? If
that's not your belief, then why don't you believe that Douglass's
descendants deserve to inherit the wealth that Douglass was morally entitled
to have and to bequeath?

--Gary

[Matt Whiting]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Frederick Douglass had most of his wages taken aeway from him
>>>when he was a slave. His descendants could probably establish
>>>a sound estimate of just how much money that was.
>>
>>But how do you give it back to Frederick? His descendants didn't work for
>>it and don't deserve it.
>
>
> Do you believe categorically that people do not deserve inheritances? If
> that's not your belief, then why don't you believe that Douglass's
> descendants deserve to inherit the wealth that Douglass was morally entitled
> to have and to bequeath?

I'm not at all against inheritances. The problem here is that you
simply have no way to know what his estate would have been. He may well
have spent his kids inheritance while he was still alive (that is my
plan!). And you probably can't be be assured at this point who all of
his ancestors are. This whole issue of trying to correct 150 year old
wrongs is simply stupid. I can think of a whole lot of other wrongs
commited over the years against probably every group and faction
currently in the USA. Trying to right all of those wrongs would tie up
the courts for decades and only further transfer wealth to the lawyers.

It is simply a stupid idea being put forth for purely political reasons.
THAT is why I am opposed to it.


Matt

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
wrote:
>>>>Frederick Douglass had most of his wages taken aeway from him
>>>>when he was a slave. His descendants could probably establish
>>>>a sound estimate of just how much money that was.
>>>
>>>But how do you give it back to Frederick? His descendants didn't work
>>>for it and don't deserve it.
>>
>> Do you believe categorically that people do not deserve inheritances? If
>> that's not your belief, then why don't you believe that Douglass's
>> descendants deserve to inherit the wealth that Douglass was morally
>> entitled to have and to bequeath?
>
> I'm not at all against inheritances. The problem here is that you simply
> have no way to know what his estate would have been.

That's quite different from the statement you made above: the only reason
you gave for his descendents not to deserve the inheritance is that they
didn't work for it. *That* rationale, if valid, would apply to *all*
inheritances.

But now you're saying that that *doesn't* disqualify them from being
entitled to the stolen inheritance wealth--instead, you're now saying the
problem is that the amount is hard to calculate. Do you agree that *if* the
amount could be readily calculated, his descendents would be morally
entitled to it? (If not, why not?)

I agree that there are practical difficulties in estimating the amount of
stolen wealth, and in identifying those who would have stood to inherit it.
Possibly, those difficulties make the whole idea unfeasible. That's not
clear to me (in part because I think we can, at the very least, come up with
a much better estimate than $0, which is effectively the estimate that's
being used now).

So my point is not necessarily to advocate reparations, but rather just to
point out that the issue is more complex than is acknowledged by those who
pretend that it's about punishment or who say that "they didn't work for
their inheritance" is a decisive consideration.

> He may well have spent his kids inheritance while he was still alive

Legally and morally, that's *completely* irrelevant to his descendants'
deservedness of the inheritance. Since he did not in fact spend the wealth
otherwise (because it was wrongfully withheld from him), the wealth belongs
to his estate and thus to his descendants, *regardless* of what he might
have done with it if given the opportunity.

Analogously, if your parents were deceased and you were suing to recover
some money that someone stiffed them for or stole from them, the
(all-but-unanswerable) hypothetical question of whether they'd have spent it
(instead of having it to bequeath) would have *no bearing whatsoever* on the
case. If your parents had been entitled to recover the money, then *you* are
now entitled to recover it after their death (unless perhaps they explicitly
disinherited you or something; but whether they might have spent it makes no
difference at all).

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> You need to learn how to read English. I said they didn't work for it AND
> they didn't deserve it. I didn't say they didn't deserve it BECAUSE they
> hadn't worked for it. And does not imply either connection or causality.
> I can say you are ugly and stupid, but that doesn't mean you are ugly
> because your are stupid or are stupid because you are ugly.

Sure, but people don't ordinarily recite strings of random facts that have
no intended connection to one another or to the overall point being made. In
the "stupid and ugly" example, both observations would be part of the
overall compliment you were trying to pay me. :)

"The descendants didn't work for it" has no evident connection to your
overall point *unless* you were implying that that's a reason they don't
deserve it. By comparison, notice how odd it would be if you'd said instead
"They're from the planet Earth AND they didn't deserve it". Even though the
first clause is obviously true, it would be a nonsensical thing to say in
this context, precisely because of its unconnectedness to the discussion. So
if the only way to construe your actual remark as non-nonsensical is to
assume that you were suggesting a connection, then that becomes the most
reasonable way to interpret your remark.

But as much as I enjoy trading English lessons, it really doesn't matter
because (regardless of what you may have been implying initially) we're now
in agreement that not working for it has no bearing on the deservedness of
inheritance here.

> I don't think it is morally right to burden people TODAY for the sins of
> their ancestors. If it is discovered that your grandfather murdered
> someone, should be put you in jail for it?
>
>> So my point is not necessarily to advocate reparations, but rather just
>> to point out that the issue is more complex than is acknowledged by those
>> who pretend that it's about punishment or who say that "they didn't work
>> for their inheritance" is a decisive consideration.
>
> Well, I didn't say either of the above.

Actually, you just did. You made an analogy with *punishment* (jail) for
your grandfather's crime, whereas no one in the reparations debate is saying
that punishment is a valid rationale for reparations. Crucially, punishment
is something that's imposed on someone *for the purpose of* disadvantaging
that person (which may in turn be a sub-goal of some other purpose, such as
deterrence or vengeance).

>> Analogously, if your parents were deceased and you were suing to recover
>> some money that someone stiffed them for or stole from them, the
>> (all-but-unanswerable) hypothetical question of whether they'd have spent
>> it (instead of having it to bequeath) would have *no bearing whatsoever*
>> on the case. If your parents had been entitled to recover the money, then
>> *you* are now entitled to recover it after their death (unless perhaps
>> they explicitly disinherited you or something; but whether they might
>> have spent it makes no difference at all).
>
> Sorry, I don't believe in this either, even though I know it happens in
> todays legal system.

Ok, but even if you disagree with the principle of inheritance as our legal
system actually applies it, do you acknowledge that if that actual legal
standard were applied in the same way to slave-descendants' inheritance,
then the question of how their ancestors might otherwise have spent the
stolen wealth would be considered irrelevant?

--Gary

[Matt Whiting]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> But as much as I enjoy trading English lessons, it really doesn't matter
> because (regardless of what you may have been implying initially) we're now
> in agreement that not working for it has no bearing on the deservedness of
> inheritance here.

Right, because inheritance isn't the issue. The issue most raise is
"compensation for the sins of the fathers." I'm simply against that
concept for a number of reasons. This is what is fundamentally behind
the problems in the middle east. I think bringing that concept to
America is simply stupid and will cause untold harm to race relations
going forward.



> Actually, you just did. You made an analogy with *punishment* (jail) for
> your grandfather's crime, whereas no one in the reparations debate is saying
> that punishment is a valid rationale for reparations. Crucially, punishment
> is something that's imposed on someone *for the purpose of* disadvantaging
> that person (which may in turn be a sub-goal of some other purpose, such as
> deterrence or vengeance).

Punishment is almost entirely the rationale for reparations, whether it
is stated explicitly or not. The honest folks admit this, the
disingenuous don't.

I say, crap happened and crap will happen. Get over it and stop trying
to find someone to blame or someone to punish. That is a good part of
what is wrong with our country and our legal system today. Nothing is
anyone's fault and every bad thing that happens must be blamed on
someone and someone made to pay. It is ridiculous.


Matt

[Gary Drescher]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Punishment is almost entirely the rationale for reparations, whether it is
> stated explicitly or not. The honest folks admit this, the disingenuous
> don't.

That's both ad hominen (it's about the merits of the speakers rather than
about the merits of their stated ideas) and entirely unsupported by any
evidence that you've offered.

You're proclaiming (without offering any evidence) that "Hey, they say X
(nonpunitive rationale) but they must really mean Y (punitive
rationale)"--where (conveniently enough for your position) it just so
happens that Y is totally silly (as both sides in fact agree), and thus much
easier to refute than X.

--Gary

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Frederick Douglass had most of his wages taken aeway from him
> > when he was a slave. His descendants could probably establish
> > a sound estimate of just how much money that was.
>
> But how do you give it back to Frederick? His descendants didn't work
> for it and don't deserve it.
>

THAT, is another question entirely.

ISTR reading back in the 1970s of a family who proved an anscestor
did not receive his full pay from his service in the Continental Army
during the Revolutionary War. HIs family received back pay with
interest.

Now, that is not the same thing, but it does show that it is possible
for
a persons to receive payment for debts owed to their ancestors.
Adjudicating a tort retroactively is another matter. Torts usually
have a statute of limitations, but the clock doesn't always
start ticking when the tort was comitted.

I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions
but mostly becuase they are impractical, not because they are
unjust.

Another Poster brought up the issue Native American claims. It
is close to thirty years now (I think) that the Lakota Sioux won
a case against the US government and were awarded an enormous
sum for the land taken in violation of a treaty.

However, they had not sued for money, they sued for ownership
of the wrongfully converted real estate. To take that property
from the current private owners to recomsate the Lakot Sioux
would have done an injustice to the current owneres who bought
it in good faith.

Regardless, the plaintiffs refused on principle to take the money.
IMHO, this was a mistake, they could have used that money for
seed money for real estate speculation and by now would
probably have bought back most of their land.

--

FF

[Allen]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> ISTR reading back in the 1970s of a family who proved an anscestor
> did not receive his full pay from his service in the Continental Army
> during the Revolutionary War. HIs family received back pay with
> interest.
>
> Now, that is not the same thing, but it does show that it is possible
> for
> a persons to receive payment for debts owed to their ancestors.
> Adjudicating a tort retroactively is another matter. Torts usually
> have a statute of limitations, but the clock doesn't always
> start ticking when the tort was comitted.
>
> I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions
> but mostly becuase they are impractical, not because they are
> unjust.
>
> Another Poster brought up the issue Native American claims. It
> is close to thirty years now (I think) that the Lakota Sioux won
> a case against the US government and were awarded an enormous
> sum for the land taken in violation of a treaty.
>
> However, they had not sued for money, they sued for ownership
> of the wrongfully converted real estate. To take that property
> from the current private owners to recomsate the Lakot Sioux
> would have done an injustice to the current owneres who bought
> it in good faith.

Who would pay the reparations? All your examples include awards from a
governing body (backpay from the army, violating a government treaty). I
don't believe the U.S. Government ever owned any slaves.

Allen

[Gary Drescher]

"Allen" > wrote in message
.net...
> Who would pay the reparations? All your examples include awards from a
> governing body (backpay from the army, violating a government treaty). I
> don't believe the U.S. Government ever owned any slaves.

Whether it did or not, it erected the legal framework that made such
"ownership" possible, and is thus morally responsible.

--Gary

[Allen]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Allen" > wrote in message
> .net...
>> Who would pay the reparations? All your examples include awards from a
>> governing body (backpay from the army, violating a government treaty). I
>> don't believe the U.S. Government ever owned any slaves.
>
> Whether it did or not, it erected the legal framework that made such
> "ownership" possible, and is thus morally responsible.
>
> --Gary

How do you and I (we are the "it" you are referring to and are thus morally
responsible) pay then? How is the pay determined? To whom is the payment
made?

Allen

[Dave Stadt]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>> But as much as I enjoy trading English lessons, it really doesn't matter
>> because (regardless of what you may have been implying initially) we're
>> now in agreement that not working for it has no bearing on the
>> deservedness of inheritance here.
>
> Right, because inheritance isn't the issue. The issue most raise is
> "compensation for the sins of the fathers." I'm simply against that
> concept for a number of reasons. This is what is fundamentally behind the
> problems in the middle east.

>I think bringing that concept to America is simply stupid and will cause
>untold harm to race relations going forward.

That might be one of the goals of those asking for the reparations. For
some, keeping the pot stirred has benefits.

[[email protected]]

Allen wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > ISTR reading back in the 1970s of a family who proved an ancestor
> > did not receive his full pay from his service in the Continental Army
> > during the Revolutionary War. HIs family received back pay with
> > interest.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions
> > but mostly becuase they are impractical, not because they are
> > unjust.
> >
> > Another Poster brought up the issue Native American claims. ...
>
> Who would pay the reparations?

Recall that I wrote:

I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions
but mostly because they are impractical, not because they are
unjust.

> All your examples include awards from a
> governing body (backpay from the army, violating a government treaty). I
> don't believe the U.S. Government ever owned any slaves.

The US Goverment permitted ownership of slaves and even arrested
freed slaves and returned them to slavery. That's roughly analogous

to allowing settlers to violate the treaty boundaries and then
sending
the calvary in to protect them.

The legality of slavery makes it impractical to sue for those
injustices,
this differentiates it from the treaty issue. It does not make such a

suit unjust.

--

FF

[Allen]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Allen wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> > ISTR reading back in the 1970s of a family who proved an ancestor
>> > did not receive his full pay from his service in the Continental Army
>> > during the Revolutionary War. HIs family received back pay with
>> > interest.
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions
>> > but mostly becuase they are impractical, not because they are
>> > unjust.
>> >
>> > Another Poster brought up the issue Native American claims. ...
>>
>> Who would pay the reparations?
>
> Recall that I wrote:
>
> I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions
> but mostly because they are impractical, not because they are
> unjust.

Yet you continue to champion the cause.

>> All your examples include awards from a
>> governing body (backpay from the army, violating a government treaty). I
>> don't believe the U.S. Government ever owned any slaves.
>
> The US Goverment permitted ownership of slaves and even arrested
> freed slaves and returned them to slavery. That's roughly analogous
>
> to allowing settlers to violate the treaty boundaries and then
> sending the calvary in to protect them.
>
> The legality of slavery makes it impractical to sue for those
> injustices, this differentiates it from the treaty issue. It does not
> make such a
> suit unjust.

So if it were not impractical you are in favor of having your tax dollars go
to some group of yet to be identified persons in some yet to be determined
amount? My ancestors came to the United States after he Civil War. Are we
included in the payor group?

I don't understand what you are trying to achieve by your stance.

Allen

[Matt Whiting]

Dave Stadt wrote:

> That might be one of the goals of those asking for the reparations. For
> some, keeping the pot stirred has benefits.

Yes, I believe that is the real reason. This perpetual liability idea
is just too stupid to even talk about further.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> One of the biggest problems facing the Civil Rights movement is its
> success. Having dealt a death blow to the worse of the injustices
> it fought, the movement is has now lost focus and needs a new
> cause.
>
> After emancipation, Douglass championed women's suffrage.

There are a lot of good causes remaining that make a lot more sense than
trying to determine reparations for 100+ year old sins.

Matt

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > One of the biggest problems facing the Civil Rights movement is its
> > success. Having dealt a death blow to the worse of the injustices
> > it fought, the movement is has now lost focus and needs a new
> > cause.
> >
> > After emancipation, Douglass championed women's suffrage.
>
> There are a lot of good causes remaining that make a lot more sense than
> trying to determine reparations for 100+ year old sins.
>

Yes, that's a very big part fo the problem there are too many causes
to agree on a core few. That, and reparations involve MONEY.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Frederick Douglass had most of his wages taken aeway from him
> > when he was a slave. His descendants could probably establish
> > a sound estimate of just how much money that was.
>
> But how do you give it back to Frederick? His descendants didn't work
> for it and don't deserve it.
>

As to your "His descendants didn't work for it and don't deserve it."
argument, did the descendants of those who TOOK it from him
earn it, do they deserve it more?

--

FF

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Frederick Douglass had most of his wages taken aeway from him
>>>when he was a slave. His descendants could probably establish
>>>a sound estimate of just how much money that was.
>>
>>But how do you give it back to Frederick? His descendants didn't work
>>for it and don't deserve it.
>>
>
>
> As to your "His descendants didn't work for it and don't deserve it."
> argument, did the descendants of those who TOOK it from him
> earn it, do they deserve it more?

No. Few families have a traceable inheritance for 8 or so generations,
so trying to track this down is just dumb. Life isn't fair. Crap
happens. Get over it.

Matt

[[email protected]]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > Matt Whiting wrote:
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Frederick Douglass had most of his wages taken aeway from him
> >>>when he was a slave. His descendants could probably establish
> >>>a sound estimate of just how much money that was.
> >>
> >>But how do you give it back to Frederick? His descendants didn't work
> >>for it and don't deserve it.
> >>
> >
> >
> > As to your "His descendants didn't work for it and don't deserve it."
> > argument, did the descendants of those who TOOK it from him
> > earn it, do they deserve it more?
>
> No.

So do we agree that is not a good argument?

> Few families have a traceable inheritance for 8 or so generations,
> so trying to track this down is just dumb.

Impractical was my choice of words, as youy may recall.

> Life isn't fair. Crap
> happens. Get over it.

Cliche's are no substitute for rational arguement, and in this
case, the practical argunments against reparations are pretty
good.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Allen wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Allen wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ups.com...
> >> > ISTR reading back in the 1970s of a family who proved an ancestor
> >> > did not receive his full pay from his service in the Continental Army
> >> > during the Revolutionary War. HIs family received back pay with
> >> > interest.
> >> >
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> > I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions
> >> > but mostly becuase they are impractical, not because they are
> >> > unjust.
> >> >
> >> > Another Poster brought up the issue Native American claims. ...
> >>
> >> Who would pay the reparations?
> >
> > Recall that I wrote:
> >
> > I'm personally not in favor of reparations for long-dead actions
> > but mostly because they are impractical, not because they are
> > unjust.
>
> Yet you continue to champion the cause.
>
> >> All your examples include awards from a
> >> governing body (backpay from the army, violating a government treaty). I
> >> don't believe the U.S. Government ever owned any slaves.
> >
> > The US Goverment permitted ownership of slaves and even arrested
> > freed slaves and returned them to slavery. That's roughly analogous
> >
> > to allowing settlers to violate the treaty boundaries and then
> > sending the calvary in to protect them.
> >
> > The legality of slavery makes it impractical to sue for those
> > injustices, this differentiates it from the treaty issue. It does not
> > make such a
> > suit unjust.
>
> So if it were not impractical you are in favor of having your tax dollars go
> to some group of yet to be identified persons in some yet to be determined
> amount?

Compensating the descendants of slaves for the value of the labor
stolen from them would be just. Compensating Native Americans
for the land stolen from their ancestors would be just. Compensating
the descendants of the New Christians for the property confiscated
from them in Spain would be just. And so on, marching on back
to the dawn of civilization. But there is no practical way to do
that while maintaining any semblance of justice. **** rolls
downhill and it sucks to be at the bottom of that hill.

The best we can do is promise to fair in the future, and offer
compassion and assitance but most importantly opportunity
for those in need regardless of how they got there.

> My ancestors came to the United States after he Civil War. Are we
> included in the payor group?

Did our ancestors come to this country voluntarily? Did they
implicitly agree to take responsibility for the nation's debts
as then determined and as yet to be determined, when they
became citizens?

>
> I don't understand what you are trying to achieve by your stance.
>

It is a great tragedy that so many 'take a stance' because
they want to achieve something. While commonplace, that's
putting the cart before the horse. A 'stance' by whcih I presume
you mean a statment of putative facts and premises, should
always be what the taker honestly believes to be historical
reality and moral principle. Then, and only then should
the taker decide upon what, if anything they should try to
achieve.

There are many reasons why people 'take a stance' based
on what they want ot achieve, rather then vice-versa, all
of them bad. In some cases, they want to achieve
unjust enrichment for themselves or have other illegal, or
immoral goals. After all, vice shares one characteristic with
virtue, each is its own reward. Some people delude them-
elves into thinking that what they want to achieve is a
good thing despite being unable to find a factual stance to
support that. So they invent one. Others have learned that
their stance is unpopular and so adopt one they do not
truly believe in, but which they hope will be more persuasive.
Others simply want to avoid uncomfortable truths that
objectivity makes evident.

That last applies here. Reparations would be just for
a lot of people, but they are getting none notwithstanding.
That's my stance.

As to what I'm trying to achieve in this thread,
I'm simply trying to answer your questions.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Another Poster brought up the issue Native American claims. It
> is close to thirty years now (I think) that the Lakota Sioux won
> a case against the US government and were awarded an enormous
> sum for the land taken in violation of a treaty.
>
> However, they had not sued for money, they sued for ownership
> of the wrongfully converted real estate. To take that property
> from the current private owners to recomsate the Lakot Sioux
> would have done an injustice to the current owneres who bought
> it in good faith.

Personally, I don't agree with that precedent, since if I buy
stolen merchandise, I'm held liable. But at this point, Indian
law consists of the courts scrambling to think of a legal
reason Indian claims are in the wrong; the Oneida were tied up
in the legal system for decades, and when they finally got
their day in court, the Supreme Court invoked the laches
defense. It doesn't help much that Rehnquist never saw a case
of Indian law where he couldn't rule in an insane way.
According to the Oliphant and Duro decisions, for all practical
purposes any interracial crime on a reservation basically has
to be taken before an all-white jury.

As far as slavery reparations go, it won't help anyone.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Achieving Independence from Great Britain without War would
> have happened eventually too.
>

Not necessarily.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> The "Sixteenth amendment was not properly ratified" argument
> mostly revolves around differences in punctuation and wording
> betweenthe extant written records of the Congress and various
> state legislatures. There are also allegations that some states
> the US Secretary of State credted with ratification , have no record
> of having ratified the 16th amendment and/or other irregularities.
> at the state level, including a failure of the governor to sign the
> bill for one or more states.
>
> Have I got that right?
>
> I dscount the 'no evidence argument' as I have no idea how good
> the record keeping was. The absence of an extant record does
> not prove the measure did not pass and you would suppose that
> if a particular state did not pass it, some legislators would have
> raised the issue. There are no records of THAT, either, are there?
> Not so much as a persoanl diary entry
>
> The 'governor failed to sign argument' is specious because the
> Constitution of the United States of America (CUSA) specifies
> that amendments are to be ratified by the state legislatures with
> no mention of the state governors.
> The individual States cannot impose additional requirements for
> amending he Constitution any more than they can change
> the term of office or impose additional eligibility requiirements
> for their Senators and Congresmen.
>
> So this leaves us with the inconsistant wording and punctuation
> argument, right?
>
> In the case of the Sixteenth amenment, those inconsistencies
> were so trivial as to not allow for any inconsistency in
> interpretation,
> indeed, we have no way of telling how precisely the words spoken
> on the floor of those legislative bodies agreed with the words recorded
> and enterred into the records by the clerks. It is a safe bet that
> pretty much all legislation of that era, and all previous amendments
> as well as the various copies of the original Constitution had similar
> inconsistencies particularly when you consider that the promulgation
> and acceptance of unifrom standards for English spelling, punctuation
> and grammar in legal and academic circles post-date the Constitution
> itself.
>

The Sixteenth Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights.


>
> However, even accepting that, the Bill of Rights was exceptional.
>
> The Bill of Rights passed by the Congress and submitted to the
> States for ratification was not a bill of ten amendments, it was
> one (1) amendment with twelve (12) articles. That amendment
> was never ratified by the requisite number of states. Some
> states ratified a shorter version, with only ten articles. That
> shorter version was accepted and became part of the CUSA.
>
> That Bill of Rights, with ten articles was not passed by the
> Congress, and then ratified requisite number of states.
> The alleged errors that supposedly invalidate the passage of the
> SIxteenth Amendment pale by comparison.
>
> The people who argue the sixteenth amendment was invalid,
> (and I note that you are not he person who introduced that
> notion into this thread) by and large, refuse to discuss this
> as they are not honest people.
>
> Later when more amendments passed the enumeration was
> changed so that the ten articles of the first amendment became
> the first ten amendments. That change was also made without
> ratification by the states, and although it plainly has no bearing
> on the validity of those or subsequent amendments that change
> still looms large when compared with the arguments advanced
> against the validity of the sixteenth amendment.
>

Twelve articles of amendment were sent to the states, ten were ratified in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Money.
>

What money did the slaves have?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> That's a good point. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the
> confiscation of property for tranfer of ownership to another private
> party.
>

The federal government does not have the powers that are not denied it by
the Constitution, it has only the powers given by the Constitution.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Whether it did or not, it erected the legal framework that made such
> "ownership" possible, and is thus morally responsible.
>

That's not correct. Slavery preceded the establishment of the US.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Achieving Independence from Great Britain without War would
> > have happened eventually too.
> >
>
> Not necessarily.

The US might instead have gone the route of Canada or
Australia, New Zealand, or, hmm...

The eventual, peaceful independence of the US would seem to have
been at least as inevitable as the eventual, peaceful end of slavery,
but neither would have come soon enough without war.

--

FF

[Gig 601XL Builder]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Achieving Independence from Great Britain without War would
>> > have happened eventually too.
>> >
>>
>> Not necessarily.
>
> The US might instead have gone the route of Canada or
> Australia, New Zealand, or, hmm...
>
> The eventual, peaceful independence of the US would seem to have
> been at least as inevitable as the eventual, peaceful end of slavery,
> but neither would have come soon enough without war.
>

If the US had not have achieved independence when and as it did the Queen of
England might, by now, rule the entire planet.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> >
> > The "Sixteenth amendment was not properly ratified" argument
> > mostly revolves around differences in punctuation and wording
> ...
> >
> > In the case of the Sixteenth amenment, those inconsistencies
> > were so trivial as to not allow for any inconsistency in
> > interpretation,
> > indeed, we have no way of telling how precisely the words spoken
> > on the floor of those legislative bodies agreed...
>
> The Sixteenth Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights.

Nor is it part of the Magna Carta. So?

As you wil recall, my point is that if one accepts the "Sixteenth
Amendment was not properly ratified" argument then consistency
demands that you also accept that the Bill of Rights was not
properly ratified.

>
>
> >
> > However, even accepting that, the Bill of Rights was exceptional.
> >
> > The Bill of Rights passed by the Congress and submitted to the
> > States for ratification was not a bill of ten amendments, it was
> > one (1) amendment with twelve (12) articles. That amendment
> > was never ratified by the requisite number of states. Some
> > states ratified a shorter version, with only ten articles. That
> > shorter version was accepted and became part of the CUSA.
> >
> > That Bill of Rights, with ten articles was not passed by the
> > Congress, and then ratified requisite number of states.
> > The alleged errors that supposedly invalidate the passage of the
> > SIxteenth Amendment pale by comparison.
> >
> > The people who argue the sixteenth amendment was invalid,
> > (and I note that you are not he person who introduced that
> > notion into this thread) by and large, refuse to discuss this
> > as they are not honest people.
> >
> > Later when more amendments passed the enumeration was
> > changed so that the ten articles of the first amendment became
> > the first ten amendments. That change was also made without
> > ratification by the states, and although it plainly has no bearing
> > on the validity of those or subsequent amendments that change
> > still looms large when compared with the arguments advanced
> > against the validity of the sixteenth amendment.
> >
>
> Twelve articles of amendment were sent to the states, ten were ratified in
> accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

Not quite true, the twelve articlees were all part of ONE amendment.
They were not passed separatly and sent to the states as separate
amendments.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Money.
> >
>
> What money did the slaves have?

Frederick Douglass and other slaves who worked for wages
had the money they earned, which was turned over to their
owners.

Those who worked for their owners and were not paid wages
would be compensated for the market value of their labor.

Perhaps you are hung up on pedantry turning on the use
of 'returned'. What was taken from them was labor, what
ostensibly would be returned would be money equivalent to
the market value of that labor.

An alternative proposal (from the TV show _The West Wing_)
is to 'return' the value of their labor via income tax credits, also
impractical, IMHO.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > Whether it did or not, it erected the legal framework that made such
> > "ownership" possible, and is thus morally responsible.
> >
>
> That's not correct. Slavery preceded the establishment of the US.

Yes, it would be more correct to say that it preserved and protected
the legal framework of slavery.

--

FF

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> . ..
>>
>> Whether it did or not, it erected the legal framework that made such
>> "ownership" possible, and is thus morally responsible.
>
> That's not correct. Slavery preceded the establishment of the US.

To be more pedant-resistant, I would have to have said "The US erected the
legal framework that made such 'ownership' possible in the US".

--Gary

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
wrote:

> An alternative proposal (from the TV show _The West Wing_)
> is to 'return' the value of their labor via income tax credits, also
> impractical, IMHO.

note that in that episode, the Josh (a staunch liberal) told the nominee
to bring him someone who was an actual slave and Josh'd be happy to
give him reparations.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[[email protected]]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article om>,
> wrote:
>
> > An alternative proposal (from the TV show _The West Wing_)
> > is to 'return' the value of their labor via income tax credits, also
> > impractical, IMHO.
>
> note that in that episode, the Josh (a staunch liberal) told the nominee
> to bring him someone who was an actual slave and Josh'd be happy to
> give him reparations.
>

Yep.

I particulalyl like the exchange:

Josh: Well you know, when they let my father out of Dachau
the guard forgot to give him his wallet back.

Guest: Your beef is with the Germans, my beef is with you.

LOL!

--

FF

[Montblack]

wrote)
> Josh: Well you know, when they let my father out of Dachau the guard
> forgot to give him his wallet back.
>
> Guest: Your beef is with the Germans, my beef is with you.


Let's not forget the indentured servants!!

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/D/1601-1650/mittelberger/servan.htm

http://eh.net/Clio/Publications/indentured.shtml

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/slavery.html


Montblack

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> The US might instead have gone the route of Canada or
> Australia, New Zealand, or, hmm...
>
> The eventual, peaceful independence of the US would seem to have
> been at least as inevitable as the eventual, peaceful end of slavery,
> but neither would have come soon enough without war.
>

Not to students of history.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Nor is it part of the Magna Carta. So?
>

So your response does not answer the question.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Frederick Douglass and other slaves who worked for wages
> had the money they earned, which was turned over to their
> owners.
>

Because they were slaves, the money was not their own.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>
> To be more pedant-resistant, I would have to have said "The US erected the
> legal framework that made such 'ownership' possible in the US".
>

That's not correct. The legal framework that made such 'ownership' possible
in the US was erected prior to the establishment of the US.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > The US might instead have gone the route of Canada or
> > Australia, New Zealand, or, hmm...
> >
> > The eventual, peaceful independence of the US would seem to have
> > been at least as inevitable as the eventual, peaceful end of slavery,
> > but neither would have come soon enough without war.
> >
>
> Not to students of history.

Not to some perhaps.

Some students of history have soem pretty wacky ideas.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > To be more pedant-resistant, I would have to have said "The US erected the
> > legal framework that made such 'ownership' possible in the US".
> >
>
> That's not correct. The legal framework that made such 'ownership' possible
> in the US was erected prior to the establishment of the US.

Depends on what you mean by 'legal framework'. The founding fathers
chose what to include in the legal framework of their new country.

They CHOSE to include slavery, and not without considerable
controversy.

--

FF

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Your objection, that the 16th Amendment was not part of the
> Bill of Rights, does not address the issue of whether or not
> its adoption was as proper as the adoption of the Bill of
> Rights.
>
> E.g. your objection was as irrelevant as if you had
> objected that the 16th amendment was not part of
> the Magna Carta.
>

The question was, "In what way was the Bill of Rights not properly
ratified?" Your response, a dissertation on the Sixteenth Amendment, did
not answer the question but did suggest you believed the Sixteenth Amendment
was part of the Bill of Rights.


>
> Of course, this was obvious all along.
>

What is obvious is you don't know what you're talking about.

[[email protected]]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Your objection, that the 16th Amendment was not part of the
> > Bill of Rights, does not address the issue of whether or not
> > its adoption was as proper as the adoption of the Bill of
> > Rights.
> >
> > E.g. your objection was as irrelevant as if you had
> > objected that the 16th amendment was not part of
> > the Magna Carta.
> >
>
> The question was, "In what way was the Bill of Rights not properly
> ratified?" Your response, a dissertation on the Sixteenth Amendment, did
> not answer the question but did suggest you believed the Sixteenth Amendment
> was part of the Bill of Rights.

Wrong.

My dissertaion on the irregularities involved in the passage
of the Bill of RIghts addressed the irregularities in the passage
of the Bill of rights.

Your response, a statement that the Sixteenth Amendment was
not a part of the Bill of Rights , suggested that you are an idiot.

--

FF