Those *dangerous* Korean War relics

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

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news

"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

In article . com,
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

Bob Noel wrote:
In article . com,
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

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/1601-165...ger/servan.htm

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

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


Montblack

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.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Nor is it part of the Magna Carta. So?


So your response does not answer the question.

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.

"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.

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