Tea Party Group Demand Textbooks Say Nice Things About Slave Owners
- Thread starter Lakhota
- Start date
The slaves were not brought here by choice. The indentured servants were. They got passage in exchange for labor. Slavery was permanent. Indentured servants were for a pre-agreed upon term. In what way is that the same?
It's funny how liberals call themselves the "pro-choice" party. But the only choice they recognize is the right to chose an abortion. The idea of economic choice is completely incomprehensible to you.
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
Because it was a penal colony, hello. So you're comparing black slaves to white people who were convicted of crimes and saying it's the same? That's even dumber then edthelemur's point.
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
Thats not entirel;y true, either.
A lot of endentured servants were minor prisoners or wards of the state who were shoved on a boat and sold into endenture when they reached America.
And in cases where people were choosing between starving to death in Europe or taking a chance in the new world, calling that a CHOICE is a bit of a stretch
No they weren't the SAME. Yes they could both be quite bad.
For instance, the children of endentured servants themselves became indentured servants.
And in cases where the parents died? The KIDS were often endentured with their PARENTS contracts such that they'd end up serving our endentures they never signed onto.
POh for gods sakes.
The whole universe isn't an liberal v conservative issue, lad.
Grow up.
That's just funny. Talk about a meandering point based on a C level knowledge of a high school history course. That's just too funny. I always like the liberal polar extreme choices. I can either say that English justice system was a perfect system which dispensed nothing but completely fair justice, or it was no more fair then African tribal leaders selling people to European slave traders, those are my choices. Here's a choice for you. Are you a moron or... Sorry, only choice I came up with...
BTW, the Declaration of Independence didn't even mention the English "judicial system." Go figure.
Exactly. You said a lot of words when "I agree" would have covered it. Two things being "bad" doesn't mean they are the "same." Though indentured servants were more of a mixed bag. Would you rather sit in prison or get passage to Georgia and after a period of time be a free man with a fresh start? Would you like to escape hunger and starvation in Europe for being an indentured servant for several years? People being sold by tribal leaders to slave traders for permanent and completely forced slavery for the rest of your life isn't the same even.
The irony. I'm a libertarian, but you demonstrate that YOU think your own point as all you can think of are liberals and conservatives. You don't even get it do you?
What's even funnier is that you didn't get what indentured servants have to with economics. Hmmm....why do you suppose they wanted indentured servants, ed the lemur? Was it environmental? Religious? What did money have to do with not paying people? It's a very confusing world to an intellectual child like you, isn't it ed?
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
Liberal history is political science, not history. It really should be more seminary as history is only used to justify the liberal religion. It's like the right and creationism.
Up for a game of semantics are you? OK, I'm in, game on. The Declaration of Independence referred to what the English military did in the US, not what the English courts did in England. That's pertanent here as we were specifically discussing the courts and their sending indentured servents to the US. The English military didn't do that, they were here. I mean duh.
You seriously thought it was the English judicial system they were referring to, not the English Military in the US? Wow, I'd demand your money for your history degree back.
Last edited:
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
Here's what you said.
What I posted earlier came from the Declaration of Independence, it was talking about how the King used to courts against the people, therefore that's the English justice I was talking about.
Really It'still talking about how the king used the court system against the people.
CARE TO CONCEDED NOW?
DECLARATION OF TAKING UP ARMS:
RESOLUTIONS OF THE SECOND CONTINENTAL CONGRESS
JULY 6, 1775 1
A declaration by the representatives of the United Colonies of North America, now met in general Congress at Philadelphia, setting forth the causes and necessity of their taking up arms.
If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason, to believe, that the Divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might at least require from the Parliament of Great Britain some evidence that this dreadful authority over them has been granted to that body. But a reverence for our great Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense must convince all those who reflect upon the subject that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end. The legislature of Great Britain, however, stimulated by an inordinate passion for a power, not only unjustifiable, but which they know to be peculiarly reprobated by the very constitution of that kingdom, and desperate of success in any mode of contest, where regard should be had to truth, law, or right, have at length, deserting those, attempted to effect their cruel and impolitic purpose of enslaving these colonies by violence, and have thereby rendered it necessary for us to close with their last appeal from reason to arms.
Yet, however blinded that assembly may be, by their intemperate rage for unlimited domination, so to slight justice and the opinion of mankind, we esteem ourselves bound, by obligations of respect to the rest of the world, to make known the justice of our cause.
Declaration of Taking Up Arms, July 6, 1775
RESOLUTIONS OF THE SECOND CONTINENTAL CONGRESS
JULY 6, 1775 1
A declaration by the representatives of the United Colonies of North America, now met in general Congress at Philadelphia, setting forth the causes and necessity of their taking up arms.
If it was possible for men, who exercise their reason, to believe, that the Divine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite goodness and wisdom, as the objects of a legal domination never rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these colonies might at least require from the Parliament of Great Britain some evidence that this dreadful authority over them has been granted to that body. But a reverence for our great Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of common sense must convince all those who reflect upon the subject that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end. The legislature of Great Britain, however, stimulated by an inordinate passion for a power, not only unjustifiable, but which they know to be peculiarly reprobated by the very constitution of that kingdom, and desperate of success in any mode of contest, where regard should be had to truth, law, or right, have at length, deserting those, attempted to effect their cruel and impolitic purpose of enslaving these colonies by violence, and have thereby rendered it necessary for us to close with their last appeal from reason to arms.
Yet, however blinded that assembly may be, by their intemperate rage for unlimited domination, so to slight justice and the opinion of mankind, we esteem ourselves bound, by obligations of respect to the rest of the world, to make known the justice of our cause.
Declaration of Taking Up Arms, July 6, 1775
As I said, you're playing semantics. You said the English Judicial system. I said the English judicial system. You quoted the Declaration of Independence, which referred to the English MILITARY did, not their judicial system. Now you change to ..English Justice...
Liberalism, a game wrapped in stupidity. Here's your quote again.
The Declaration of Independence wasn't referring to the English courts that "populated" Georgia, it was referring to their military in the US.
Let me ask you this, maybe you'll recognize where you're going wrong. Do you know the difference between the American Judicial System and the American Military?
When the US dispensed "American Justice" in Iraq, did our courts do that? Or our troops?
The court system? Answer the questions above. Also, since the topic was the English Courts sending indentured servants to the US, your point of what the English MILITARY did in the US isn't just semantics, it's irrelevant. The military didn't sentence People to Georgia, the English Courts did.
Last edited:
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
Declaration and Resolves on Colonial rights of the First Continental Congress
October 14, 1774 1
[Following the Boston Tea Party and the adoption of the Intolerable Acts, delegates gathered on September 5, 1774, at Philadelphia, in what was to become the First Continental Congress. Every colony but Georgia was represented. They voted on September 6 to appoint a committee "to state the rights of the Colonies in general, the several instances in which these rights are violated or infringed, and the means most proper to be pursued for obtaining a restoration of them" (Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, Washington, 1904, I, 26).
Joseph Galloway (173l -1803), a Philadelphia merchant and lawyer, led a conservative attempt to unite the colonies within the Empire. He had served as speaker of the Pennsylvania Assembly from 1776 to 1774. In the war Galloway supported the British cause and after 1778 became spokesman for the Loyalists in England. In the First Continental Congress the more radical delegates thrust aside Galloway's proposal and on October 14 adopted instead, by unanimous action, the Declaration of Colonial Rights reproduced here. The first draft of these resolutions was written by Major John Sullivan (1740-95 ), delegate from New Hampshire, lawyer, major of the New Hampshire militia, major general in the Continental Army, judge, and eventually governor of his state.
Before they dissolved, on October 26, the members voted to meet again in the same city on May 10, 1775, "unless the redress of grievances ... be obtained before that time" (ibid., p. 102).]
The Congress met according to adjournment, and resuming the consideration of the subject under debate -- came into the following resolutions:
SULLIVAN'S DRAUGHT
... Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British Parliament, claiming a power of right to bind the people of America, by statute in all cases whatsoever, hath in some acts expressly imposed taxes on them, and in others, under various pretenses, but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies, established a board of commissioners, with unconstitutional powers, and extended the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty, not only for collecting the said duties, but for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a county.
And whereas, in consequence of other statutes, judges, who before held only estates at will in their offices, have been made dependent upon the crown alone for their salaries, and standing armies kept in times of peace:
And it has lately been resolved in Parliament, that by force of a statute, made in the thirty-fifth year of the reign of King Henry the Eighth, colonists may be transported to England, and tried there upon accusations for treasons, and misprisions, or concealments of treasons committed in the colonies; and by a late statute, such trials have been directed in cases therein mentioned.
And whereas, in the last session of Parliament, three statutes were made; one, entitled "An act to discontinue, in such manner and for such time as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading, or shipping of goods, wares and merchandise, at the town, and within the harbor of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, in North America"; another, entitled "An act for the better regulating the government of the province of the Massachusetts Bay in New England"; and another, entitled "An act for the impartial administration of justice, in the cases of persons questioned for any act done by them in the execution of the law, or for the suppression of riots and tumults, in the province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England." And another statute was then made, "for making more effectual provision for the government of the province of Quebec, etc." All which statutes are impolitic, unjust, and cruel, as well as unconstitutional, and most dangerous and destructive of American rights.
And whereas, assemblies have been frequently dissolved, contrary to the rights of the people, when they attempted to deliberate on grievances; and their dutiful, humble, loyal, and reasonable petitions to the crown for redress have been repeatedly treated with contempt by His Majesty's ministers of state:
Declaration of Colonial Rights, October 14, 1774
October 14, 1774 1
[Following the Boston Tea Party and the adoption of the Intolerable Acts, delegates gathered on September 5, 1774, at Philadelphia, in what was to become the First Continental Congress. Every colony but Georgia was represented. They voted on September 6 to appoint a committee "to state the rights of the Colonies in general, the several instances in which these rights are violated or infringed, and the means most proper to be pursued for obtaining a restoration of them" (Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, Washington, 1904, I, 26).
Joseph Galloway (173l -1803), a Philadelphia merchant and lawyer, led a conservative attempt to unite the colonies within the Empire. He had served as speaker of the Pennsylvania Assembly from 1776 to 1774. In the war Galloway supported the British cause and after 1778 became spokesman for the Loyalists in England. In the First Continental Congress the more radical delegates thrust aside Galloway's proposal and on October 14 adopted instead, by unanimous action, the Declaration of Colonial Rights reproduced here. The first draft of these resolutions was written by Major John Sullivan (1740-95 ), delegate from New Hampshire, lawyer, major of the New Hampshire militia, major general in the Continental Army, judge, and eventually governor of his state.
Before they dissolved, on October 26, the members voted to meet again in the same city on May 10, 1775, "unless the redress of grievances ... be obtained before that time" (ibid., p. 102).]
The Congress met according to adjournment, and resuming the consideration of the subject under debate -- came into the following resolutions:
SULLIVAN'S DRAUGHT
... Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British Parliament, claiming a power of right to bind the people of America, by statute in all cases whatsoever, hath in some acts expressly imposed taxes on them, and in others, under various pretenses, but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies, established a board of commissioners, with unconstitutional powers, and extended the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty, not only for collecting the said duties, but for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a county.
And whereas, in consequence of other statutes, judges, who before held only estates at will in their offices, have been made dependent upon the crown alone for their salaries, and standing armies kept in times of peace:
And it has lately been resolved in Parliament, that by force of a statute, made in the thirty-fifth year of the reign of King Henry the Eighth, colonists may be transported to England, and tried there upon accusations for treasons, and misprisions, or concealments of treasons committed in the colonies; and by a late statute, such trials have been directed in cases therein mentioned.
And whereas, in the last session of Parliament, three statutes were made; one, entitled "An act to discontinue, in such manner and for such time as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading, or shipping of goods, wares and merchandise, at the town, and within the harbor of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, in North America"; another, entitled "An act for the better regulating the government of the province of the Massachusetts Bay in New England"; and another, entitled "An act for the impartial administration of justice, in the cases of persons questioned for any act done by them in the execution of the law, or for the suppression of riots and tumults, in the province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England." And another statute was then made, "for making more effectual provision for the government of the province of Quebec, etc." All which statutes are impolitic, unjust, and cruel, as well as unconstitutional, and most dangerous and destructive of American rights.
And whereas, assemblies have been frequently dissolved, contrary to the rights of the people, when they attempted to deliberate on grievances; and their dutiful, humble, loyal, and reasonable petitions to the crown for redress have been repeatedly treated with contempt by His Majesty's ministers of state:
Declaration of Colonial Rights, October 14, 1774
Dot Com
Nullius in verba
So you don't think that the Americans were focused on what the English were doing here in America, they were worried about what the English were doing in England and everywhere else, and you don't think "I" have a clue? Can you give me any reference or demonstration that they did to protest English actions outside the Colonies?
Note these are all military related crimes.
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
No you don't have a clue. You don't think the king appointed judges in America?
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
And what reason is it that those judges didn't hold court in America?
Yes and no. These were Issues about Equal Right, Equal Representation, Natural Rights, and the means to vent frustrations, verbally and Physically. Was the Military a part of the Equation? Yes. Were the Courts? The Legislatures? The King? Yes. The Churches? Yes. What wasn't a part of the equation?
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Canada and Denmark are now enemies of the United States- Started by Anarchy666
- Replies: 2
-
Pete Hegseth's Pastor "I pray that God kills him (James Talarico)"- Started by citygator
- Replies: 9
-
California Sheriff Seizes Half Million Ballots in Voter Fraud Investigation
- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 2
-
Husband and wife experience Delores park in San Francisco... wow- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 0
