pageok
pageok
pageok
What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?
Elevate your Independence Day by reading this moving 1852 oration by Frederick Douglass in its entirety. There is so much to appreciate in this speech, it is difficult to select excerpts. But here is one passage I particularly like:
But, your fathers, who had not adopted the fashionable idea of this day, of the infallibility of government, and the absolute character of its acts, presumed to differ from the home government in respect to the wisdom and the justice of some of those burdens and restraints. They went so far in their excitement as to pronounce the measures of government unjust, unreasonable, and oppressive, and altogether such as ought not to be quietly submitted to. I scarcely need say, fellow-citizens, that my opinion of those measures fully accords with that of your fathers.
Or this:
Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man? That point is conceded already. . . . It is admitted in the fact that Southern statute books are covered with enactments forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read or to write. When you can point to any such laws, in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. When the dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, there will I argue with you that the slave is a man!
Or this:
What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour. Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival.
But later he turns to the Constitution:
But it is answered in reply to all this, that precisely what I have now denounced is, in fact, guaranteed and sanctioned by the Constitution of the United States; that the right to hold and to hunt slaves is a part of that Constitution framed by the illustrious Fathers of this Republic.
Then, I dare to affirm, notwithstanding all I have said before, your fathers stooped, basely stooped
"To palter with us in a double sense:
And keep the word of promise to the ear,
But break it to the heart."
And instead of being the honest men I have before declared them to be, they were the veriest imposters that ever practised on mankind. This is the inevitable conclusion, and from it there is no escape. But I differ from those who charge this baseness on the framers of the Constitution of the United States. It is a slander upon their memory, at least, so I believe. There is not time now to argue the constitutional question at length — nor have I the ability to discuss it as it ought to be discussed. The subject has been handled with masterly power by Lysander Spooner, Esq., by William Goodell, by Samuel E. Sewall, Esq., and last, though not least, by Gerritt Smith, Esq. These gentlemen have, as I think, fully and clearly vindicated the Constitution from any design to support slavery for an hour.
"[L]et me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it."

Fellow-citizens! there is no matter in respect to which, the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon, as that of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution. In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but, interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? It is neither. While I do not intend to argue this question on the present occasion, let me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it. What would be thought of an instrument, drawn up, legally drawn up, for the purpose of entitling the city of Rochester to a tract of land, in which no mention of land was made? Now, there are certain rules of interpretation, for the proper understanding of all legal instruments. These rules are well established. They are plain, common-sense rules, such as you and I, and all of us, can understand and apply, without having passed years in the study of law. I scout the idea that the question of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of slavery is not a question for the people. I hold that every American citizen has a right to form an opinion of the constitution, and to propagate that opinion, and to use all honorable means to make his opinion the prevailing one. Without this right, the liberty of an American citizen would be as insecure as that of a Frenchman. . . .

Now, take the constitution according to its plain reading, and I defy the presentation of a single pro-slavery clause in it. On the other hand it will be found to contain principles and purposes, entirely hostile to the existence of slavery.

I have detained my audience entirely too long already. At some future period I will gladly avail myself of an opportunity to give this subject a full and fair discussion. [Which he does in his 1860 Speech in Glasgow that borrows much from the writers he cites above but with substantial additional argumentation of his own. If someone has a good link, please post it in comments.]
He then concludes with what could have been a paean to the Internet and other liberating technologies:
Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation, which must inevitably work The downfall of slavery. "The arm of the Lord is not shortened," and the doom of slavery is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with hope. While drawing encouragement from the Declaration of Independence, the great principles it contains, and the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by the obvious tendencies of the age. Nations do not now stand in the same relation to each other that they did ages ago. No nation can now shut itself up from the surrounding world, and trot round in the same old path of its fathers without interference. The time was when such could be done. Long established customs of hurtful character could formerly fence themselves in, and do their evil work with social impunity. Knowledge was then confined and enjoyed by the privileged few, and the multitude walked on in mental darkness. But a change has now come over the affairs of mankind. Walled cities and empires have become unfashionable. The arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe. It makes its pathway over and under the sea, as well as on the earth. Wind, steam, and lightning are its chartered agents. Oceans no longer divide, but link nations together. From Boston to London is now a holiday excursion. Space is comparatively annihilated. Thoughts expressed on one side of the Atlantic are, distinctly heard on the other. The far off and almost fabulous Pacific rolls in grandeur at our feet. The Celestial Empire, the mystery of ages, is being solved. The fiat of the Almighty, "Let there be Light," has not yet spent its force. No abuse, no outrage whether in taste, sport or avarice, can now hide itself from the all-pervading light. The iron shoe, and crippled foot of China must be seen, in contrast with nature. Africa must rise and put on her yet unwoven garment. "Ethiopia shall stretch out her hand unto God." In the fervent aspirations of William Lloyd Garrison, I say, and let every heart join in saying it:
God speed the year of jubilee
The wide world o'er!
When from their galling chains set free,
Th' oppress'd shall vilely bend the knee,
And wear the yoke of tyranny
Like brutes no more.
That year will come, and freedom's reign,
To man his plundered rights again
Restore. . . .
For more on Douglass and this speech see. Frederick Douglass and the Fourth of July (Hardcover)
by James A. Colaiaco

For more on Spooner and Douglass's version of orginalism you can look at Was Slavery Unconstitutional Before the Thirteenth Amendment? Lysander Spooner's Theory of Interpretation

(Civil comments only.)
Jim Leitzel (mail) (www):
Bravo. And as a champion of liberty, do you share the opinion expressed by some others, that drug prohibition is the worst abuse of freedom in the US since slavery and the treatment of Native Americans?
7.4.2006 2:37am
Kevin L. Connors (mail) (www):
This from Jefferson's original rough draft of the Declaration of Independence is also enlightening:

he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life &liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating &carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought &sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, &murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
7.4.2006 3:57am
Krish:
Kevin Connors,
Jefferson would have been more believable if he did not condone the same things he has condemned in the above draft. Many of the founders showed a curious and schizophrenic personality on the question of slavery. However, as far as the constitution goes, they left most of this schizophrenic personality behind, and showed true wisdom and a measure of greatness. And to the credit of the British, they got rid of slavery a fair bit before the Americans did.

I do remember, however, a certain episode in the West Wing which referred to one of the amendments to the constitution counting a black person to be 3/5'ths of a white person.
7.4.2006 5:26am
Questioner:
The phrase is not "black persons," which does not appear in the Constitution, but "Other Persons". Spooner's brilliant analysis begins by providing an interpretation of "other persons," consistent with history and compatible with theories of legal and constitutional interpretation, that does NOT refer to chattel slaves, and then arguing the principle that, in choosing between differing interpretations, one must always go with the interpretation that preserves liberty unless the other interpretation is clearly intended. It was a proto "Presumption of Liberty" argument.

It is quite telling, in terms of what the Founders recognized regarding the implications of their principles, that "slavery" and "slave" do NOT appear in the Constitution. Neither does the 14th amendment mention slavery.

Bottom line: best not to get lessons in constitutional interpretation from The West Wing...
7.4.2006 7:04am
Hank:
To address the question asked in the first comment above -- is drug prohibition the worst abuse of freedom in the US since slavery and the treatment of Native Americans? --I'd note that drug prohibition is a continuation of slavery. Just as the Jim Crow laws replaced slavery, drug prohibition has replaced the Jim Crow laws. Drug prohibition's major function in the US is to keep black people in their place -- to prevent them from learning to read, so to speak, or from entering the workforce in a meaningful way. It does this by breaking up families, giving criminal records to people who could be productive members of society, and causing most of the nation's crime, which has its greatest impact in black neighborhoods.
7.4.2006 7:21am
markm (mail):
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

"Other persons" aren't free persons, bondservants, or Indians, so the only group it can refer to is slaves. It does not mean "black persons"; there were free blacks in every state in the Revolutionary War period, and "free persons" obviously included them. Slavery was a reality, and at that time the economic basis of several states, but the writers preferred to use a complex circumlocution rather than directly recognizing it in the Constitution.


This clause in section 9 affected the slave trade among other issues:
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
IIRC, Congress forbade the importation of slaves in 1808, as soon as this clause allowed.
7.4.2006 8:30am
markm (mail):
Hank: The first marijuana laws (at least) were certainly inspired by racism, but aimed mainly at Mexicans rather than blacks. However, drug law enforcement did not become a national issue and draconian sentences didn't become common until white middle-class kids started turning up dead of heroin overdoses in the 1960's. The insane logic of Prohibitionism has applied ever since:
-Throw the kids in jail to protect them.
-If it doesn't work, try the same thing, harder.
-They're disrepecting authority! Throw them in prison forever!
7.4.2006 8:39am
RKV (mail):
"There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour. Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through South America, search out every abuse, and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me, that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival."

Gross overgeneralization. Given Douglass's life experience, education, etc. he was in no position to make this statement with accuracy. To say that being a slave in a country supposedly designed to protect human liberty is bad and hypocritical is nothing less than the truth, but to make it the worst in the world, no, I don't think so. I daresay that place would have been his families' continent of origin, in Africa, where slaves were still being taken by their neighbors and sold by Arab traders.
7.4.2006 10:16am
FlimFlam:
It's not the drug war; it is the arrogated power to wage the drug war.

Wickard v. Filburn

How, exactly, can you be free when the government can make growing food illegal?
With the exception of a few things (writing utensils, religious icons, etc.) the govt can make anything that is bought and sold, or anything that may be bought and sold, illegal.
Still think you are free?
Enjoy your license, lament your lost freedon.
7.4.2006 10:45am
Hank:
Wickard v. Filburn addresses only federal power. The problem is that Griswold has not been extended to apply to all attempts by any level of government to control a person's body, including the plants that he puts into it.
7.4.2006 11:03am
SKlein:
By what standard is drug prohibition "the worst abuse of freedom in the US since slavery and the treatment of Native Americans?" It is certainly illibertarian (if I may coin a phrase), but so too are hundreds of other laws. Enforcement has significant negative consequences, and it is enforced through extremely harsh punishments. It is probably unwise on utilitarian grounds. But is that sufficient to put it at the top of the list, above, for example, the post-slavery wrongs of Jim Crow?
7.4.2006 11:20am
Randy R. (mail):
Thanks for the quote from Douglass. It's also apparent that when it comes to freedeom and liberty for women, minorities and gay people, it took more than a civil war, and in many case, we still have a long way to go.

I need only remind people that it just a few years ago, it was illegal to for gay people do what straight people do -- engage in consensual sexual relations. And we still don't have the same rights to job protection that straights do.
7.4.2006 11:44am
Kevin L. Connors (mail) (www):
SKlien: "Illibertarian" has been in circulation for some time. In fact, Eugene used it recently here.

Krish: The schizophrenia of Southern thought relative to Slavery is evident in many writings leading up to the Civil War, and even beyond. I cited Jefferson's DoI draft as one of the most prominent. This dovetails with Douglass' citation of "bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy."

RKV: I would agree that Douglass was engaging in a flight of demagoguery in equating slavery in the US to the rest of the world. I don't know about Africa (although Thomas Sowell has opined that, for all the injustice heaped upon them in the US, blacks here have still had it better than their cousins in their native continent), but in general, the plight of the slave in the Caribbean and South America was far worse than even the Deep South.
7.4.2006 12:34pm
Glenn W Bowen (mail):
The subject matter has been commented on; what remains is we live amidst the greatest experiment ever undertaken. Unique. Flawed. A fool would not do everything in his power to retain it.

My thoughts today are for that man who stands in the path of a bullet intended for me.
7.4.2006 1:24pm
Wild Pegasus (mail) (www):
...interpreted as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT.

He was doing well until he got to this part. The Constitution is a lot of things, but a glorious liberty document it is not.

- Josh
7.4.2006 1:37pm
ReaderY:
The 13th Amendment astudiously avoided using the term "person", intending to be applicable not merely to human beings of that distinction, but even to "beings of an inferior order", beings "altogether unfit to associate with the White man", so long as they were members of the "whole human family". It was not until the 14th Amendment that questions of citizenship, full legal rights, and legal equality were decided.

The Supreme Court has twice since Dred Scott reaffirmed its power to pronounce which subclasses of human beings fall within and without the capacity personhood and for having legal rights. It do so half a century agor, in Johnson v. Eisentrager, when it declared that the Bill of Rights lacks "extraterritorial application", and again two decades later, in Roe v. Wade, when it declared it to lack "prenatal application."

The 13th Amendment, however, represents an intentional if very partial check on the power of the Supreme Court to declare whole classes of human beings to be entirely beyond the powere of law. It was specifically and intentionally designed to apply to precisely those classes of human beings to which the Supreme Court had specifically declared the Bill of Rights otherwise did not apply. Exactly and precisely those classes. If it did not apply to such classes, it would never have had any application.

The 13th Amendment holds that so long as it is in our "jurisdiction", a human being -- any human being, whether or not a "person" -- has some modicum of rights, including a penumbra of Congresionally determinable and enforcable rights under the Enforcement Clause -- that the Supreme Court was under instructions not to take away. And it does not matter that the Supreme Court might have found that citizens constitutional rights require denying such recognition. The Supreme Court had precisely so held in Dred Scott. And the very purpose of the 13th Amendmnent was to overturn that holding and restrain the Supreme Court from repeating it.
7.4.2006 2:52pm
Public_Defender (mail):
I am amazed by the patriotism of many black Americans before the 1970's. For many black people, especially in the South, the U.S. didn't really become a democracy until the 1960's or 1970's.

But people like Frederick Douglas, Martin Luther King, and Thurgood Marshall had the vision to see the potential greatness in this country despite the evil of their times. They were patriots when being a patriot was hard.
7.4.2006 3:35pm
RKV (mail):
"They were patriots when being a patriot was hard." The same could be said of our founding fathers, and indeed of many other Americans. Today, I particularly remember men like my brother, who served in Vietnam, and came home to a country where many discounted and denigrated his service.
7.4.2006 4:32pm
mdael5966:
In this vein, I've always been moved by Sojourner Truth's speech, Ain't I a Woman.


Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that 'twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what's all this here talking about?

That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?

Then they talk about this thing in the head; what's this they call it? [member of audience whispers, "intellect"] That's it, honey. What's that got to do with women's rights or negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?

Then that little man in black there, he says women can't have as much rights as men, 'cause Christ wasn't a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him.

If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back , and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.

Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain't got nothing more to say.


7.4.2006 4:48pm
JDNYU:
Don't quite see the equivalence, RKV. Also note, many people discount and denigrate the service (as president) of the current president.
7.4.2006 4:52pm
RKV (mail):
Wasn't talking about Douglass speech, was referring to what Public Defender said. For instance the founders would have been just as dead if they had lost the war as would a rebellious slave. Bottom line, plenty of people have had it hard, here in the US and elsewhere. With respect to Douglass' unsupported gross overgeneralization it was over the top when he said it, and remains so today (IMHO).
7.4.2006 5:08pm
Toby:

I do remember, however, a certain episode in the West Wing which referred to one of the amendments to the constitution counting a black person to be 3/5'ths of a white person.

I am constantly amzed at the misinterpretation of the historical basis for this rule. THe positions of the two sides were as follows:

Slave States We deserve proportional representation in COngress based upon all the humans in our state

Free States If they aren't free you can't count them.

The no-weight for slaves position, then, was to limit the legislative power of the slave states. The compromise of 3/5ths did not leave either side happy. But it was anti-slavery forces who were arguing for less than 100%...
7.4.2006 6:10pm
Duncan Frissell (mail):
Randy,

Do you also agree with Spooner's argument in "No Treason - The Constitution of No Authority" that the Federal Government is illegal and immoral?

Take the leap into anarcho-capitalism!
7.4.2006 7:01pm
Waldensian (mail):

And as a champion of liberty, do you share the opinion expressed by some others, that drug prohibition is the worst abuse of freedom in the US since slavery and the treatment of Native Americans?


You weren't asking me, of course, but I think the answer is quite clearly "no." I'm no fan of drug prohibition, but I think you would have to put (1) decades of Jim Crow/segregation/institutional racism and, of course, (2) the WWII imprisonment of Japanese Americans well ahead of drug prohibition.
7.4.2006 7:03pm
John Marshall Robinson:
Duncan,

Considering that Professor Barnett owns and operates LysanderSpooner.org, I am sure he is at least sympathetic.
7.4.2006 7:13pm
Duncan Frissell (mail):
The 16th Amendment was much worse than any other Federal Action since slavery.

In any case, you should note that slavery was mostly a state and not a federal responsibility.
7.4.2006 7:14pm
Frank Drackmann (mail):
I always thought it was interesting that Congress was prohibited from enacting any restriction of Slave inportation for the first 19 years of the Republic. Even the great founding fathers weren't above procastinating.
7.4.2006 8:49pm
SLS 1L (mail):
He then concludes with what could have been a paean to the Internet and other liberating technologies:
Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark picture I have this day presented of the state of the nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in operation, which must inevitably work The downfall of slavery.
If this could be a pean to the Internet or other "liberating technologies," it would be a grossly misguided one. Technology did not end chattel slavery in the U.S., and it is not ending slavery across the world today. This kind of attitude is a dangerous complacency.
7.4.2006 9:23pm
ReaderY:
I never understood why a person under sentence of death or life imprisonment for a crime isn't counted 3/5. Such an individual is neither a free person, nor a person subject to a term of years. Since the 13th Amendment explicitly excluded individuals under sentence for crime, why shouldn't they stay at 3/5?
7.4.2006 9:41pm
Kevin L. Connors (mail) (www):
SLS 1L: As the vast majority of modern day slavery is for the purposes of sex, until we have the capability to create Daryl Hannah replicants, I doubt technology will supplant it.
7.4.2006 10:51pm
glangston (mail):

Bravo. And as a champion of liberty, do you share the opinion expressed by some others, that drug prohibition is the worst abuse of freedom in the US since slavery and the treatment of Native Americans?




Drug laws and firearm restrictions most certainly have damaged liberties. Firearm restrictions were nearly all related to fears about freed slaves and came in advance of drug prohibitions, which were not prohibitions at all in the beginning but taxes, a fairly obvious admission that government had no right to prohibit them constitutionally.
7.5.2006 1:18am
cxmmc (mail):
mp3铃音 mp3手机铃声 mp3铃声下载 诺基亚铃音 搞笑图片 诺基亚免费铃声 诺基亚下载铃声 下载铃声 诺基亚手机铃声 诺基亚铃声下载 三星乐园手机铃声 三星mp3铃声下载 三星论坛 三星手机 三星铃声下载 三星铃声 铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声免费下载 免费铃声 江苏移动铃声 下载铃声 浙江移动铃声 北京移动铃声 深圳移动铃声 移动铃声 移动免费铃声 移动下载铃声 下载铃声 搞笑铃声下载 搞笑手机铃声 搞笑图片 搞笑动画铃声 搞笑歌曲铃声 搞笑图片铃声 搞笑免费铃声 搞笑下载铃声 有情人终成眷属铃声 手机铃声下载 移动彩铃下载 小灵通铃声下载 酸酸甜甜就是我铃声 免费铃声下载 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 小灵通铃声下载 MP3铃声下载 免费铃声下载 三星铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 手机铃声 手机铃声下载 免费铃声下载 牛皮癣治疗 脂溢性皮炎 斑秃脱发炎 白癜风,外阴白斑 鱼鳞病 脂溢性脱发 阴虱病 治疗疱疹 各类皮癣 湿疹,皮炎 青春痘,痤疮 螨虫性皮炎,酒渣鼻 烧伤烫伤 中国文秘网 治疗牛皮癣,阴虱特效药 癌症肿瘤新药 工作总结 工作汇报 八荣八耻 开业开幕讲话 竞聘演讲稿 就职演讲 心得体会 工作汇报 2006年入党申请书 思想汇报 鼻咽癌治疗 乳腺癌治疗 肺癌治疗 肝癌治疗 结肠癌治疗 直肠癌治疗 胃癌治疗 食管癌治疗 恶性黑色素瘤治疗 皮肤癌治疗 恶性淋巴瘤治疗 胆管癌治疗 胆囊癌治疗 甲状腺癌治疗 脑瘤治疗 白血病治疗 宫颈癌治疗 肝复乐 天蟾胶囊 健脾益肾颗粒 破壁灵芝孢子粉 复方斑蝥胶囊 慈丹胶囊 参丹散结胶囊 珍香胶囊 抗癌平丸 金复康口服液 清肺散结丸
7.5.2006 4:43am
Karl:

Technology did not end chattel slavery in the U.S., and it is not ending slavery across the world today. This kind of attitude is a dangerous complacency.


Technology did not directly end slavery, however change in technology is a significant driving force in social change, often in ways that may not be immediately apparent. Advances in agriculural technology have over time rendered the slave laborer obsolete. The end of slavery was sparked by a dramatic event (the civil war), but the social factors relating to changing technology played a role in the change coming to pass at all.

A similar example is the rise of the female workforce. Similarly, it was driven by a dramatic event (WWII), but it was made possible by technology-driven changes in the nature of labor and child-rearing. Namely, in modern societies not dependant upon farming, there is considerably less of an economic benefit to having children. Thus, women of the society spent much less time pregnant, and had more time to engage in other activities. Additionally, with machines slowly taking over the physical aspects of labor, it became easier for women to take over jobs traditionally reserved for men. The war provided an impetus for the change to take place, but technology made the change viable in the first place.

I'd agree that taking a view that new technology will automatically solve all problems rather than proactively trying to solve them is foolish. However, don't discount technology's role completely.
7.5.2006 11:27am
Kevin L. Connors (mail) (www):
Karl: "I'd agree that taking a view that new technology will automatically solve all problems rather than proactively trying to solve them is foolish."

Even when that "proactivity" costs almost 620,000 lives, and the destruction of an entire society?
7.5.2006 12:24pm
A.C.:
Back to counting slaves as 3/5 of free persons -- didn't that start with taxation under the Articles of Confederation? I recall that all the states had equal representation under that system, but that there was a question about how to count slaves for purposes of raising revenue. The NORTHERNERS in that case wanted to count slaves the same as everybody else in order to impose more taxes on the slave states. And the slaveowners didn't want to count slaves at all in order to reduce their tax burden.

It's the same problem as representation, but with the interests reversed because a penalty is involved rather than a benefit.
7.5.2006 12:39pm
SeaLawyer:
And we still don't have the same rights to job protection that straights do.


Randy R,

Gay people have all the same rights that everyone else does, including job protection. In fact gay people have more job protection then straights do.
7.5.2006 12:47pm
Wild Pegasus (mail) (www):
Randy,

Do you also agree with Spooner's argument in "No Treason - The Constitution of No Authority" that the Federal Government is illegal and immoral?


He did for many years, but he recently repudiated that view in Reclaiming the Lost Constitution (for very spurious reasons, IMHO). If you were more familiar with anarchism, you would know that Prof. Barnett wrote one of the seminal works on anarcho-capitalism: The Structure of Liberty.

- Josh
7.5.2006 2:05pm
Public_Defender (mail):

Don't quite see the equivalence, RKV. Also note, many people discount and denigrate the service (as president) of the current president.


RKV’s point logically followed from mine--it’s hard to be a patriot when your country treats you like dirt. People like Frederick Douglas, MLK, and Thurgood Marshall had to be visionary to see the greatness of this country through the smog of slavery and Jim Crow.

I won’t re-fight the swift boat/draft dodging wars here, but as to "denigrating" the service of our current president, he chose to run for the highest office in this county. People have the right to judge his record. That’s a lot different than spitting on someone who just came back from a combat tour.
7.5.2006 5:29pm
Toby:
A.C - I think you have it backwards, and I would like you to enlighten me as to which pre-civil war taxes werebased on head count...
7.5.2006 10:12pm
Karl:

Karl: "I'd agree that taking a view that new technology will automatically solve all problems rather than proactively trying to solve them is foolish."

Even when that "proactivity" costs almost 620,000 lives, and the destruction of an entire society?


You'll have to enlighten me about which "proactive" solution you're talking about. The civil war was certainly about much more than slavery. Similarly, I don't think the aim of declaring war on Germany was to encourage women to join the workplace. Also, neither of those wars destroyed any societies that I'm aware of.
7.6.2006 4:26pm
Howard Nelson (mail):
A link to FD's Glasgow speech, and a lot of background info is at http://medicolegal.tripod.com/douglassuos.htm
7.8.2006 12:53am
Howard Nelson (mail):
A later variant of FD's view of Lincoln and slavery and the Constitution, in the context the Revolutionary times, is FD's eulogy of Lincoln on 4-14-1876:
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/dougorat.htm

Where, in public life today, are such men and women of honor with the integrity of honesty, compassion, courage,and justice? Perhaps only on the battlefields, defending the most innocent and helpless.
7.8.2006 1:21am