Does Ownership of Slaves Define a Historical Figure?

DGS49

Diamond Member
Apr 12, 2012
15,818
13,321
2,415
Pittsburgh
We are all born into circumstances over which we have no control. There are genetics, financial resources, family assets, a prevailing culture and legal system, a religious theme in the household (or not). It is often called "The Birth Lottery." Some win, some lose, but most get a mixed bag.

Many of the Founding Fathers were born into a culture where chattel slaves were an economic and personal fact. Neither they nor their parents nor their relatives and friends considered ownership and exploitation of slaves to be "evil." Indeed, I have no doubt that from birth they were all uniformly taught that the slaves were inferior human beings (maybe less than human) whose lives would be much, much worse had they not been removed from their ancestral homes in Africa, and to take proper care of one's slaves was a virtuous thing. Their ministers and preachers reinforced this message continually, and they collectively had no doubt of the truth of it.

To reject slavery for moral reasons would have bankrupted each and every one of them who freed his slaves, and would have made the Emancipator a pariah among his peers. None of the plantations generated sufficient revenue to compensate paid farmhands, even if a sufficient supply of them could be found - which they manifestly could not.

To sit here comfortably, three hundred years later and condemn these men for not having freed their slaves is irrational, unfair, and preposterous. Slave owning did not define them, just as an adulterous relationship does not define a contemporary married person. We are the sum of all of our actions and influences. Take off a few points if you like for the slave owners, but to deny their greatness is arrogant and vacuous.

Nobody is without faults, either today or in the past. Which is worse, owning and keeping slaves, or fathering children and abandoning them? What about seeing this going on all around and doing nothing to stop it?

Your virtue is bullshit.
 
Silly, Mohammad owned slaves.
I wonder if BLM or ANTIFA will have a negative word about him?
I wonder if they will storm a mosque?
Spray paint anything on the outer walls?

pfffft...lol!
 
In the entire history of the trans-Atlantic slave trade (1525-1866), 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World...

Slavery, by the Numbers

And yet the estimates of the number of slaves today range from around 21 million to 46 million...

Slavery in the 21st century - Wikipedia

So why aren't the social justice warriors raising a stink about the fact that twice to four times as many people exist in slavery today?
 
We are all born into circumstances over which we have no control. There are genetics, financial resources, family assets, a prevailing culture and legal system, a religious theme in the household (or not). It is often called "The Birth Lottery." Some win, some lose, but most get a mixed bag.

Many of the Founding Fathers were born into a culture where chattel slaves were an economic and personal fact. Neither they nor their parents nor their relatives and friends considered ownership and exploitation of slaves to be "evil." Indeed, I have no doubt that from birth they were all uniformly taught that the slaves were inferior human beings (maybe less than human) whose lives would be much, much worse had they not been removed from their ancestral homes in Africa, and to take proper care of one's slaves was a virtuous thing. Their ministers and preachers reinforced this message continually, and they collectively had no doubt of the truth of it.

To reject slavery for moral reasons would have bankrupted each and every one of them who freed his slaves, and would have made the Emancipator a pariah among his peers. None of the plantations generated sufficient revenue to compensate paid farmhands, even if a sufficient supply of them could be found - which they manifestly could not.

To sit here comfortably, three hundred years later and condemn these men for not having freed their slaves is irrational, unfair, and preposterous. Slave owning did not define them, just as an adulterous relationship does not define a contemporary married person. We are the sum of all of our actions and influences. Take off a few points if you like for the slave owners, but to deny their greatness is arrogant and vacuous.

Nobody is without faults, either today or in the past. Which is worse, owning and keeping slaves, or fathering children and abandoning them? What about seeing this going on all around and doing nothing to stop it?

Your virtue is bullshit.
What are you talking about the Bible discusses how God doesn't want men enslaving men..
 
We are all born into circumstances over which we have no control. There are genetics, financial resources, family assets, a prevailing culture and legal system, a religious theme in the household (or not). It is often called "The Birth Lottery." Some win, some lose, but most get a mixed bag.

Many of the Founding Fathers were born into a culture where chattel slaves were an economic and personal fact. Neither they nor their parents nor their relatives and friends considered ownership and exploitation of slaves to be "evil." Indeed, I have no doubt that from birth they were all uniformly taught that the slaves were inferior human beings (maybe less than human) whose lives would be much, much worse had they not been removed from their ancestral homes in Africa, and to take proper care of one's slaves was a virtuous thing. Their ministers and preachers reinforced this message continually, and they collectively had no doubt of the truth of it.

To reject slavery for moral reasons would have bankrupted each and every one of them who freed his slaves, and would have made the Emancipator a pariah among his peers. None of the plantations generated sufficient revenue to compensate paid farmhands, even if a sufficient supply of them could be found - which they manifestly could not.

To sit here comfortably, three hundred years later and condemn these men for not having freed their slaves is irrational, unfair, and preposterous. Slave owning did not define them, just as an adulterous relationship does not define a contemporary married person. We are the sum of all of our actions and influences. Take off a few points if you like for the slave owners, but to deny their greatness is arrogant and vacuous.

Nobody is without faults, either today or in the past. Which is worse, owning and keeping slaves, or fathering children and abandoning them? What about seeing this going on all around and doing nothing to stop it?

Your virtue is bullshit.

Actually your OP is bullshit.

Here's why.

005281391_1-dbd7f6fc19eeb2f02f3f5fdc76be4bdc.png
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2
Still it begs the question if they put it in the Constitution that all men are created equal. it begs the question. Are they hypocrites or planning for a future with no slaves Long after living a good life before they die. It is a fault because if they believe it then they should stand up for their principles. It may cost them their live. It does Indicating a weak moral center which to this day still exists. It does take guts to go against the majority. When Lincoln freed the slaves, it was gusty but at the same time just created a 2nd class citizens. Still men fought and died over it. He was eventually assassinated. Johnson who carried on the will of Kennedy did something gutsy, that many disapproved of. He died of a heart attack but Kennedy paid the price. MLK and Ghandi promoted non violent protest as a way to achieve their dream. At the hands of an assassin.
 
Still it begs the question if they put it in the Constitution that all men are created equal. it begs the question. Are they hypocrites or planning for a future with no slaves Long after living a good life before they die. It is a fault because if they believe it then they should stand up for their principles. It may cost them their live. It does Indicating a weak moral center which to this day still exists. It does take guts to go against the majority. When Lincoln freed the slaves, it was gusty but at the same time just created a 2nd class citizens. Still men fought and died over it. He was eventually assassinated. Johnson who carried on the will of Kennedy did something gutsy, that many disapproved of. He died of a heart attack but Kennedy paid the price. MLK and Ghandi promoted non violent protest as a way to achieve their dream. At the hands of an assassin.
"All men are created equal" is not in the Constitution.
 
We are all born into circumstances over which we have no control. There are genetics, financial resources, family assets, a prevailing culture and legal system, a religious theme in the household (or not). It is often called "The Birth Lottery." Some win, some lose, but most get a mixed bag.

Many of the Founding Fathers were born into a culture where chattel slaves were an economic and personal fact. Neither they nor their parents nor their relatives and friends considered ownership and exploitation of slaves to be "evil." Indeed, I have no doubt that from birth they were all uniformly taught that the slaves were inferior human beings (maybe less than human) whose lives would be much, much worse had they not been removed from their ancestral homes in Africa, and to take proper care of one's slaves was a virtuous thing. Their ministers and preachers reinforced this message continually, and they collectively had no doubt of the truth of it.

To reject slavery for moral reasons would have bankrupted each and every one of them who freed his slaves, and would have made the Emancipator a pariah among his peers. None of the plantations generated sufficient revenue to compensate paid farmhands, even if a sufficient supply of them could be found - which they manifestly could not.

To sit here comfortably, three hundred years later and condemn these men for not having freed their slaves is irrational, unfair, and preposterous. Slave owning did not define them, just as an adulterous relationship does not define a contemporary married person. We are the sum of all of our actions and influences. Take off a few points if you like for the slave owners, but to deny their greatness is arrogant and vacuous.

Nobody is without faults, either today or in the past. Which is worse, owning and keeping slaves, or fathering children and abandoning them? What about seeing this going on all around and doing nothing to stop it?

Your virtue is bullshit.
What are you talking about the Bible discusses how God doesn't want men enslaving men..

Apparently someone has never read the bible. :auiqs.jpg:

Jesus used the institution of slavery in his teaching, drawing a contrast between those in bondage and those free ( John 8:35 ). Jesus didn’t repudiate slavery. Paul told slaves to obey their masters, and he told masters how to manage slaves ( Eph. 6:5–11; Col. 3:22–4:1 )."

How and Why Did Some Christians Defend Slavery?.
 
Silly, Mohammad owned slaves.
I wonder if BLM or ANTIFA will have a negative word about him?
I wonder if they will storm a mosque?
Spray paint anything on the outer walls?

Well, since the Muslim faith prohibits graven images, you don't have to worry about any statues.
If they only restricted their destruction to graven images.
 
We are all born into circumstances over which we have no control. There are genetics, financial resources, family assets, a prevailing culture and legal system, a religious theme in the household (or not). It is often called "The Birth Lottery." Some win, some lose, but most get a mixed bag.

Many of the Founding Fathers were born into a culture where chattel slaves were an economic and personal fact. Neither they nor their parents nor their relatives and friends considered ownership and exploitation of slaves to be "evil." Indeed, I have no doubt that from birth they were all uniformly taught that the slaves were inferior human beings (maybe less than human) whose lives would be much, much worse had they not been removed from their ancestral homes in Africa, and to take proper care of one's slaves was a virtuous thing. Their ministers and preachers reinforced this message continually, and they collectively had no doubt of the truth of it.

To reject slavery for moral reasons would have bankrupted each and every one of them who freed his slaves, and would have made the Emancipator a pariah among his peers. None of the plantations generated sufficient revenue to compensate paid farmhands, even if a sufficient supply of them could be found - which they manifestly could not.

To sit here comfortably, three hundred years later and condemn these men for not having freed their slaves is irrational, unfair, and preposterous. Slave owning did not define them, just as an adulterous relationship does not define a contemporary married person. We are the sum of all of our actions and influences. Take off a few points if you like for the slave owners, but to deny their greatness is arrogant and vacuous.

Nobody is without faults, either today or in the past. Which is worse, owning and keeping slaves, or fathering children and abandoning them? What about seeing this going on all around and doing nothing to stop it?

Your virtue is bullshit.

Actually your OP is bullshit.

Here's why.

005281391_1-dbd7f6fc19eeb2f02f3f5fdc76be4bdc.png

How so? The current SJW mantra is that if someone did something bad against a protected class hundreds of years ago their entire legacy is tainted. It's why they are gunning for Washington and Jefferson monuments. it's why they are gunning for Columbus.
 
How so? The current SJW mantra is that if someone did something bad against a protected class hundreds of years ago their entire legacy is tainted. It's why they are gunning for Washington and Jefferson monuments. it's why they are gunning for Columbus.

Actually, it's called re-evaluating our history.

Columbus was a disaster for Native Americans and Africans. Actually, it wasn't a sweet deal for a lot of the white people who got sent here to penal colonies or as indentured servants.

Actually, Columbus was the first Republican. He didn't know where he was going when he left, he didn't know where he was when he got here, he didn't know where he had been when he got back and he did it all on borrowed money.

(Waiting for Marty to go spastic as he has no sense of humor.)

Washington. He owned slaves. He ripped the teeth out of slaves to make dentures for himself. He spent years trying to force a runaway slave, Oney Judge, back into slavery after she escaped. Yes, we really should discuss those things as well as the good stuff he did.

Same With Jefferson... He wrote all this stuff about freedom and equality, but at the end of the day, he lived well off the labor of slaves.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2
How so? The current SJW mantra is that if someone did something bad against a protected class hundreds of years ago their entire legacy is tainted. It's why they are gunning for Washington and Jefferson monuments. it's why they are gunning for Columbus.

Actually, it's called re-evaluating our history.

Columbus was a disaster for Native Americans and Africans. Actually, it wasn't a sweet deal for a lot of the white people who got sent here to penal colonies or as indentured servants.

Actually, Columbus was the first Republican. He didn't know where he was going when he left, he didn't know where he was when he got here, he didn't know where he had been when he got back and he did it all on borrowed money.

(Waiting for Marty to go spastic as he has no sense of humor.)

Washington. He owned slaves. He ripped the teeth out of slaves to make dentures for himself. He spent years trying to force a runaway slave, Oney Judge, back into slavery after she escaped. Yes, we really should discuss those things as well as the good stuff he did.

Same With Jefferson... He wrote all this stuff about freedom and equality, but at the end of the day, he lived well off the labor of slaves.

Lol, trying to tie someone from another country and another era to Republicans.

It's called revisionist history, and that puts you up with the morons who try to ignore the Holocaust.
 
Lol, trying to tie someone from another country and another era to Republicans.

It's called revisionist history, and that puts you up with the morons who try to ignore the Holocaust.

See, I knew you wouldn't get the joke... must be sad to go through life with no sense of humor.

View attachment 361333

The worst people in the world are unfunny people who think they are funny.

Want funny?

JoeBlow takes it up the ass doo-dah doo-dah
JoeBlow takes it up the ass, oh dee do-dah day.
 
The worst people in the world are unfunny people who think they are funny.

Want funny?

JoeBlow takes it up the ass doo-dah doo-dah
JoeBlow takes it up the ass, oh dee do-dah day.

Dude, I realize you are a latent homosexual, but your fantasies are kind of weird.

Nah, I'm a rack man, that precludes dudes, and the ones that get the surgery to pretend to be otherwise don't count.
 

Forum List

Back
Top