Unluckiest Generation
#321
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 762
Besides, I was now getting—as I have said—a dollar and fifty cents per day. I contracted for it, worked for it, earned it, collected it; it was paid to me, and it was rightfully my own; and yet, upon every returning Saturday night, this money—my own hard earnings, every cent of it—was demanded of me, and taken from me by Master Hugh. He did not earn it; he had no hand in earning it; why, then, should he have it? I owed him nothing. He had given me no schooling, and I had received from him only my food and raiment; and for these, my services were supposed to pay, from the first. The right to take my earnings, was the right of the robber. He had the power to compel me to give him the fruits of my labor, and this power was his only right in the case. I became more and more dissatisfied with this state of things; and, in so becoming, I only gave proof of the same human nature which every reader of this chapter in my life—slaveholder, or nonslaveholder—is conscious of possessing.To make a contented slave, you must make a thoughtless one. It is necessary to darken his moral and mental vision, and, as far as possible, to annihilate his power of reason. He must be able to detect no inconsistencies in slavery. The man that takes his earnings, must be able to convince him that he has a perfect right to do so. It must not depend upon mere force; the slave must know no Higher Law than his master’s will. The whole relationship must not only demonstrate, to his mind, its necessity, but its absolute rightfulness. If there be one crevice through which a single drop can fall, it will certainly rust off the slave’s chain.
The practice, from week to week, of openly robbing me of all my earnings, kept the nature and character of slavery constantly before me. I could be robbed by indirection, but this was too open and barefaced to be endured. I could see no reason why I should, at the end of each week, pour the reward of my honest toil into the purse of any man.
Draining me of the last cent of my hard earnings, he would, however, occasionally—when I brought home an extra large sum—dole out to me a sixpence or a shilling, with a view, perhaps, of kindling up my gratitude; but this practice had the opposite effect—it was an admission of my right to the whole sum. The fact, that he gave me any part of my wages, was proof that he suspected that I had a right to the whole of them. I always felt uncomfortable, after having received anything in this way, for I feared that the giving me a few cents, might, possibly, ease his conscience, and make him feel himself a pretty honorable robber, after all!
My Bondage and My Freedom by Frederick Douglass.
Last edited by NE_Pilot; 07-11-2020 at 07:58 AM.
#323
It's revisionist history to say the war was over taxes, or the "right to secede" etc. The Slavery issue was a "can" that had been kicked down the road since the founding of the country. Slavery, according to southern leaders, was the primary reason for war. Which the South started by the way, South Carolina specifically, when they attacked the U.S. Army at Ft. Sumter.
Last edited by AirbusPTC; 07-21-2020 at 07:10 PM.
#324
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 762
So what you're saying is that you don't believe the Southern leaders own speeches for their reasons for war? The reasons they listed in their speeches to their state houses. They said slavery was the reason...the Southern leaders said so while discussing secession... many speeches. Do a little research, they're easy to find.
It's revisionist history to say the war was over taxes, or the "right to secede" etc. The Slavery issue was a "can" that had been kicked down the road since the founding of the country. Slavery, according to southern leaders, was the primary reason for war. Which the South started by the way, South Carolina specifically, when they attacked the U.S. Army at Ft. Sumter.
It's revisionist history to say the war was over taxes, or the "right to secede" etc. The Slavery issue was a "can" that had been kicked down the road since the founding of the country. Slavery, according to southern leaders, was the primary reason for war. Which the South started by the way, South Carolina specifically, when they attacked the U.S. Army at Ft. Sumter.
They only attacked Sumter after the US Navy entered the territorial waters of the then independent South Carolina. Many would see an uninvited foreign warship in their waters as an act of war.
#325
Was it the primary reason for war or secession? Or do you believe secession is an act of war?
They only attacked Sumter after the US Navy entered the territorial waters of the then independent South Carolina. Many would see an uninvited foreign warship in their waters as an act of war.
They only attacked Sumter after the US Navy entered the territorial waters of the then independent South Carolina. Many would see an uninvited foreign warship in their waters as an act of war.
Again, I'll ask. Do you NOT believe the words of the Southern leaders when giving reasons for seceding? They said it was to preserve slavery. Their words period. Each state legislature has records of those speeches. Slavery was the primary reason period.
#326
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 762
Actually, it was NOT a U.S. Navy ship right? It was the Star of the West (an unarmed merchant vessel) sent by Pres. Buchanan to resupply Ft. Sumter.
Again, I'll ask. Do you NOT believe the words of the Southern leaders when giving reasons for seceding? They said it was to preserve slavery. Their words period. Each state legislature has records of those speeches. Slavery was the primary reason period.
Again, I'll ask. Do you NOT believe the words of the Southern leaders when giving reasons for seceding? They said it was to preserve slavery. Their words period. Each state legislature has records of those speeches. Slavery was the primary reason period.
You keep conflating secession and war. They may have seceded over slavery, but that was not the cause of the war. Do you believe secession is an act of war?
#327
But the cause of the war had nothing to do with slavery.
#328
Ok, now I see where you're coming from. To me this is all semantics right? Whether the war was fought because they seceded or they seceded because the Southern states wanted to assert their authority over the federal government. So they could then abolish federal laws they didn't support, especially laws interfering with the South's right to keep slaves and take them wherever they wished. The bottom line was IF it wasn't for slavery, trying to preserve slavery, trying to expand slavery westward...there would have been no votes to secede and no civil war. Everything else is just a bs exercise in semantics.
#329
Instead of the Southern political opinion, read Lincoln’s on the event of his inauguration.
https://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
https://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html
#330
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2011
Position: A320 FO
Posts: 1,049
I’m confused by this thread title. Have we decided those that came of age around 1860 are the unluckiest generation? It does sound like they had it a little rougher than we do, even us ‘lost decade’ pilots getting ready for furlough #3.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post