Federalism and state's rights

[piscator]

The mills in Britain had no problem using all that slave picked Southern cotton, until the Union's blockade forced them to Egypt and the East Indies. So there's the Royal Navy, being all humanitarian and stopping the barbaric slave trade, while the merchant ships carried millions of bales of Southern cotton to the mills. Can you say "hypocrisy"?

I can say you need cane sugar to make rum gun rations, hemp to rig ships of the line, cotton and flax to make sails, and Burley leaf tobacco if you expected to have a Royal Navy back in them days..



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ki ... _Civil_War

[Seth]

That's right. Shifting the responsibility for the systematic economic exploitation Aftrican's in the New World to the English can only take one so far. The English had a part to play, but they did not found a whole economic and social system on person theft and transportation - instead the economic driver of the English industrial revolution, both at hope and in The Empire, was the exploitation of the indigenous poor!

Of course England was responsible for both the introduction of slavery and for oppression of the indigenous people in America. It was the Congress of the United States that passed both the Emancipation Act and laws regulating relations with the Indians. The US has a long history of trying, at the government level, to protect the sovereignty of the indigenous people. It was fairly often unsuccessful in doing so however because of the vast distances involved and the difficulties with communications. In many instances, for example the Black Hills of South Dakota, when gold was discovered there, the place was overrun with gold seekers and the US Army was simply not able to control the influx, so it had to back off and try to keep the peace rather than ejecting the gold-seekers from Indian lands.

One of the most notorious episodes in early American history is the Sand Creek massacre here in Colorado, where Col. John Chivington of the Colorado Militia, took it upon himself to massacre mostly women and children in revenge for killings and torture of settlers by Indians not part of the tribe that was killed.

That action was not sanctioned, approved or even known of by the federal government, or, for that matter, the state legislature. With some collusion from the Governor, he took the action himself, without authority.

If one actually reviews the policies and treaties of the US government from the beginning, one sees a serious attempt to respect the "domestic dependent nations" and honor their sovereignty, at an official level. Plenty of abuse happened, that's certain, but it was NEVER the policy of the United States to commit genocide on the Indians, unlike the suggestion by ENGLISH military officer, [urlhttp://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html]Lord Jeffery Amhurst[/url], to use blankets infected with the smallpox virus as a biological weapon of war against them during Pontiac's Rebellion of 1763.

So yes, the English started both slavery and oppression (well, technically the Spanish started it) in North America, and the United States spent more than a hundred years trying to put things right.

[Seth]

Tyrannical

You are creating a false dichotomy.

It was not a choice between benign or vicious slavery. It was a choice between slavery or freedom. Most of the slaves sent to the USA (or other overseas destinations), were taken as free men and women in their home tribal setting to become slaves.

While it is true that the slave trade had been going on for a long time before that, it was not on the same scale. New markets for slaves result in more people being taken as slaves. All slavery is barbaric and wrong.

Of course it is. What we're arguing about here is your asinine assertion that the United States is somehow alone in the issue of slavery, and that this somehow fatally poisons our entire system of ideals. We're pointing out that pretty much every other nation on earth did pretty much the same thing at one time or another. And all of them, including the US, abolished slavery and factually ended it as quickly as possible given the conditions present at the time. It's one thing to sign the Emancipation Proclamation and another thing entirely to enforce it, which cost us more than 600,000 lives to even begin to achieve.

The United States is no more tainted by slavery, and is in fact far LESS tainted by slavery, than England and many other nations who did exactly the same kind of things, often for thousands of years longer than the US did.

[piscator]

It's one thing to sign the Emancipation Proclamation and another thing entirely to enforce it...

And Lincoln, the attorney (and surveyor), knew the Emancipation Proclamation wouldn't stand an honest legal challenge after the cessation of hostilities. The plot of Spielberg's Lincoln is centered around Abe's efforts to get the 13th Amendment out of Congress and to the States to nail slavery's coffin shut in the US.

[Blind groper]

Seth

I have never stated that the USA was solely responsible for slavery. What I have said is that the early US government was not some kind of moral champion. It was a bunch of politicians, aka assholes, who were setting things up in the same self serving and corrupt manner as all politicians have since.

You can add hypocrisy to their list of crimes, since they claimed to stand for liberty, but accepted and promoted slavery.

Frequently Americans think they have some glorious history, in which heroes fought and achieved liberty from the English. The truth is different. A bunch of asshole politicians lied to the people of America to get them to become cannon fodder. It was never about liberty. It was always about gaining power and money for the nasty bastards.

Those nasty bastards were cunning, cowardly and sly enough to open hostilities with the English at a time when England faced possible war from any of four separate European nations, and could not send the troops required to kick American ass.

[Brian Peacock]

That's right. Shifting the responsibility for the systematic economic exploitation Aftrican's in the New World to the English can only take one so far. The English had a part to play, but they did not found a whole economic and social system on person theft and transportation - instead the economic driver of the English industrial revolution, both at hope and in The Empire, was the exploitation of the indigenous poor!

Of course England was responsible for both the introduction of slavery and for oppression of the indigenous people in America. It was the Congress of the United States that passed both the Emancipation Act and laws regulating relations with the Indians. The US has a long history of trying, at the government level, to protect the sovereignty of the indigenous people. It was fairly often unsuccessful in doing so however because of the vast distances involved and the difficulties with communications. In many instances, for example the Black Hills of South Dakota, when gold was discovered there, the place was overrun with gold seekers and the US Army was simply not able to control the influx, so it had to back off and try to keep the peace rather than ejecting the gold-seekers from Indian lands.

One of the most notorious episodes in early American history is the Sand Creek massacre here in Colorado, where Col. John Chivington of the Colorado Militia, took it upon himself to massacre mostly women and children in revenge for killings and torture of settlers by Indians not part of the tribe that was killed.

That action was not sanctioned, approved or even known of by the federal government, or, for that matter, the state legislature. With some collusion from the Governor, he took the action himself, without authority.

If one actually reviews the policies and treaties of the US government from the beginning, one sees a serious attempt to respect the "domestic dependent nations" and honor their sovereignty, at an official level. Plenty of abuse happened, that's certain, but it was NEVER the policy of the United States to commit genocide on the Indians, unlike the suggestion by ENGLISH military officer, [urlhttp://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html]Lord Jeffery Amhurst[/url], to use blankets infected with the smallpox virus as a biological weapon of war against them during Pontiac's Rebellion of 1763.

So yes, the English started both slavery and oppression (well, technically the Spanish started it) in North America, and the United States spent more than a hundred years trying to put things right.

You missed the point, and America history is nothing special you know. I wasn't looking to play a game of who were the nicest oppressors and exploiters. Slavery, as an institution, not merely as a business, was not needed in The Empire. While the New World badly needed man-power and came to rely on a system of forced importation, Britain simply conquered and put the populous to work abroad while indenturing the poor at home. From my point of view neither is better than the other and neither lay the foundations of a better or worse form of government - even as these historical resonances still play out in our respective societies and public lives.

[piscator]

That's right. Shifting the responsibility for the systematic economic exploitation Aftrican's in the New World to the English can only take one so far. The English had a part to play, but they did not found a whole economic and social system on person theft and transportation - instead the economic driver of the English industrial revolution, both at hope and in The Empire, was the exploitation of the indigenous poor!

Of course England was responsible for both the introduction of slavery and for oppression of the indigenous people in America. It was the Congress of the United States that passed both the Emancipation Act and laws regulating relations with the Indians. The US has a long history of trying, at the government level, to protect the sovereignty of the indigenous people. It was fairly often unsuccessful in doing so however because of the vast distances involved and the difficulties with communications. In many instances, for example the Black Hills of South Dakota, when gold was discovered there, the place was overrun with gold seekers and the US Army was simply not able to control the influx, so it had to back off and try to keep the peace rather than ejecting the gold-seekers from Indian lands.

One of the most notorious episodes in early American history is the Sand Creek massacre here in Colorado, where Col. John Chivington of the Colorado Militia, took it upon himself to massacre mostly women and children in revenge for killings and torture of settlers by Indians not part of the tribe that was killed.

That action was not sanctioned, approved or even known of by the federal government, or, for that matter, the state legislature. With some collusion from the Governor, he took the action himself, without authority.

If one actually reviews the policies and treaties of the US government from the beginning, one sees a serious attempt to respect the "domestic dependent nations" and honor their sovereignty, at an official level. Plenty of abuse happened, that's certain, but it was NEVER the policy of the United States to commit genocide on the Indians, unlike the suggestion by ENGLISH military officer, [urlhttp://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html]Lord Jeffery Amhurst[/url], to use blankets infected with the smallpox virus as a biological weapon of war against them during Pontiac's Rebellion of 1763.

So yes, the English started both slavery and oppression (well, technically the Spanish started it) in North America, and the United States spent more than a hundred years trying to put things right.

You missed the point, and America history is nothing special you know. I wasn't looking to play a game of who were the nicest oppressors and exploiters. Slavery, as an institution, not merely as a business, was not needed in The Empire. While the New World badly needed man-power and came to rely on a system of forced importation, Britain simply conquered and put the populous to work abroad while indenturing the poor at home. From my point of view neither is better than the other and neither lay the foundations of a better or worse form of government - even as these historical resonances still play out in our respective societies and public lives.

Well, the fact remains that American slavery was English slavery until whatever date you wish to recognize for American independence. American slavery was inherited from Perfidious Albion.

[JimC]

And the Americans kept it going on a massive scale long after the rest of the civilised world had abandoned it...

[Rum]

Seth

I have never stated that the USA was solely responsible for slavery. What I have said is that the early US government was not some kind of moral champion. It was a bunch of politicians, aka assholes, who were setting things up in the same self serving and corrupt manner as all politicians have since.

You can add hypocrisy to their list of crimes, since they claimed to stand for liberty, but accepted and promoted slavery.

Frequently Americans think they have some glorious history, in which heroes fought and achieved liberty from the English. The truth is different. A bunch of asshole politicians lied to the people of America to get them to become cannon fodder. It was never about liberty. It was always about gaining power and money for the nasty bastards.

Those nasty bastards were cunning, cowardly and sly enough to open hostilities with the English at a time when England faced possible war from any of four separate European nations, and could not send the troops required to kick American ass.

I think you are mistaken to a great extent. A number of those who led the struggle for independence were idealistic thinkers - and some of them were great thinkers. Sure they had vested interests - many were rich and powerful. But I think the American Constitution as it was originally composed is one of the truly great ideas in human history.

[Brian Peacock]

I'd agree with Rum there - even if the US constitution was somewhat feathered by the merchant class it embodied a grand idea and a noble aim.

Though those without an eye to history are said to be doomed to repeat it, and those with an eye to history are said to be doomed to expect it, I'm more concerned with current issues than past ones. As a system of government a constitutional and, to some extent, federalised republic seems to me to be the best of the bunch if it works, or can be made to work, to balance national, regional, and local concerns without turning to the kind of bitching between the levels that can run to decadent political, administrative, and social stagnation.

It's interesting that while the UK seems to be embracing federalism in all but name through devolving power to the regions there is a significant resistance to embracing it in the context of the wider European community. I guess that parochialism is a problem at every level of government.

[piscator]

And the Americans kept it going on a massive scale long after the rest of the civilised world had abandoned it...

That 30 years differential (20 in the case of the Raj) is a blip compared to the two hundred previous.

[Blind groper]

I think you are mistaken to a great extent. A number of those who led the struggle for independence were idealistic thinkers - and some of them were great thinkers. Sure they had vested interests - many were rich and powerful. But I think the American Constitution as it was originally composed is one of the truly great ideas in human history.

History is full of great ideas. Every nation that ever existed had great thinkers and great ideas. Even the utterly vicious Roman Empire had great thinkers and great ideas. The early Americans had great ideas, sure. Just like all the rest.

It is only when great ideas are put into practice that any nation can claim merit. The early USA government did not. Their behaviour was consistently reprehensible, from genocide against natives, to slavery, to wars of conquest, to application of torture, death penalty and other crimes against human rights.

[piscator]

At least the Brits were consistent. If they bought a Melanasian for 12 sticks of tobacco and a comb and told him they'd knock seven bells out of him if he didn't cut a cord of wood every day, they'd knock seven bells out of him every day he didn't cut a cord of wood.