Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Polite Political Discussion- is it Possible? An Experiment. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KonKilo who wrote (464)	8/3/2006 1:28:28 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1695

..slaves remained in Northern states under the grandfather clause, while others were classified as "permanent servants". By the time of the Civil War, its unlikely there were any "grandfather clause" slaves left around - slavery died out in the north many decades before. Grant already owned the slave when he moved to St. Louis. In fact, it was there that he freed him, since he was not needed in an urban environment. Grant lived on a farm west of St Louis. Its an historical site owned by Anheuser-Busch now. And Missouri as I said was a slave state. He is also on record as saying he was determined to preserve the Union, whether it meant freeing the slaves or not. Yes, he's also on record saying slavery was wrong and had to go, that it was the will of God for it to go. To this day I have encountered virulent racism in the North, as well as in the South, although mercifully it appears to be on the wane everywhere. Absolutely, there has always been as much racism in the north and on the west coast as in the south. Yes, it is on the wane everywhere. Many Americans saw the civil war as the judgment of God on America for the sin of slavery. And some Americans thought that 911 and Katrina were indicative of God's wrath for our sinful ways. Yes, but they are a small number. For good reason, slavery was an evil which was easy to assign blame for. If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came... This also supposes that God is in the wrath and retribution business, a notion that I and many folks reject. Yes, lots of folks reject it and reject any idea of God at all. Belief that God is in the wrath and retribution business follows naturally from believing that God is just as Jefferson wrote. At the time of the civil war, most accepted it. People believed and said that while God could punish sinners after death, nations having no immortal soul, had to be punished in this world. No one is unhappy that slavery passed as an institution in this nation, but trying to assign blame to just one subset of people ignores the much larger reality. And you will note that Lincoln depicted both the south and north as being punished. Though the south was punished more, which was morally fitting as it was the home of slavery. Our sainted founding fathers also thought slavery was a pretty good idea, if you'll recall. Which ones thought it was a good idea? Jefferson thought it was an evil and he wrote that he feared for divine wrath being brought on America for the sin of slavery. Washington thought slavery was evil and set his own slaves free in his will - some had already been set free. Franklin, Hamilton, and many others were anti-slavery. In general, the attitude seems to have been that it was an evil that would be very difficult to get rid of.