The only opposition that will matter to today’s lock down fascism will be opposition expressed in the ballot box


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


 

If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

In the past week or so there have been numerous stories in the press suggesting that Americans have finally lost patience with the unreasonable Wuhan flu lock downs that have been arbitrarily imposed in the past two months by elected officials, sometimes indefinitely, for no justifiably rational reasons.

In Michigan there were armed protests, and then barbers began publicly defying the lock down orders of their fascist governor.

In New Jersey a health club defied the order of that state’s fascist governor and reopened to cheers from its customers.

In Baltimore a pastor stood at the pulpit and ripped apart the shut down order by that city’s health department.

In Minnesota the Catholic church announced it was reopening for church services, in direct defiance of the orders of that state’s governor.

I could cite many other examples, across the country, in both conservative and liberal states.

Are these push backs necessary? Certainly. These fascist governors and mayors, most of whom have been Democrats, have imposed unreasonable and blatantly illegal arbitrary restrictions on the freedoms of Americans, which must be resisted at all costs.

Are these push backs real? Forgive me if I must sadly remain skeptical. For fifty years I have watched as politicians, mostly from the Democratic Party but with more than ample support from large numbers of Republican Party hacks, have slowly but steadily worked to erode the freedoms of Americans.

For fifty years I, like many other conservative supporters of liberty, have written and spoken about this corrosive process, calling on Americans to fight back, to demand it stop, to fire these corrupt politicians and replace them with those that at least publicly mouth a support for freedom.

All to no avail. The authoritarians and lovers of big government, almost all Democrats, have kept winning elections. Even when they have lost, such as the landslide Congressional elections in 2010 and 2014, the victories were Pyrrhic. Obamacare was not repealed, the federal government and its regulatory state kept growing, and the rights and freedoms of Americans were continually squelched.

The 2018 congressional elections illustrated this well. Despite a slander campaign just before the election by Democratic politicians in Washington against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that would have made Goebbels proud, the Democrats in that subsequent election were rewarded by the voters, able to limit Republican wins in the Senate, while solidly retaking the House of Representatives.

Even Trump’s election victory in 2016 has been somewhat hollow, so far. While he has clearly shown a willingness to push back against the Washington power-brokers, causing them to even attempt a coup against him, he has also shown a fearful unwillingness to fire many of these same unelected bureaucrats who helped institute that coup attempt. In this sense Trump has so far been a paper tiger.

Thus, my skepticism at the strength or sincerity of the public push back against big government and the corruption in Washington in the past month. It might be real, but I have doubts about how serious it is. My skepticism is further fueled by the extremes that the these power-hungry thugs have gone to in the past two months to nullify the Bill of Rights, and the remarkable willingness of too many Americans to meekly obey, without protest.

Not only have these modern dictators insisted they have the right, by edict not law, to imprison people for arbitrary reasons and to arbitrarily shut down businesses and bankrupt them, with no compensation, they have now begun mandating the use of masks in public, when the science behind such a demand is murky, uncertain, and even suggests that masks when indiscriminately used actually increases the health risk.

They have freed large numbers of criminals from jail, even as they arrest and jailed housewives, mothers, fathers, ordinary businessmen who were simply trying to get along with their lives.

They have arrested beach-goers, simply because they are on the beach.

They have gone after the children and life savings of salon owners, merely because those salon owners want to make a living to feed their children.

They have arrested church-goers and religious leaders, merely because they want to pray together in public.

They have outlawed civil protests, in direct violation of the First Amendment.

They have demanded citizens snitch and spy on their neighbors, so that they will have the power to arrest and punish more violators.

In my own recent experience I have found that while many friends and acquaintances have expressed private support for my public positions, almost none of them have been willing to publicly support me and face the wrath of the petty dictators who want to run out lives. Doing so publicly might cause them trouble, something they’d rather avoid. So they stay quiet, and thus help prop up the cultural and social rule of these petty dictators.

So, forgive me if I remain pessimistic. Until I actually see a change in the corridors of power, with incumbents and most especially Democrats thrown out of office during elections because of their unconstitutional and illegal abuses of power, I will look at these recent gestures of resistance as exactly that, mere gestures soon to be overruled by the thugs in power, still in power because American voters were unwilling to vote them out, when the chance came.

I hope I am wrong. I hope that come November, the free American people, from both political parties, will rise up gloriously to loudly tell the storm troopers (mostly Democrats but including more than a few Republican thugs) in Congress and in statehouses across the country that we do not consent to your rule and we are firing you. Go get a real job, and leave the rest of us free to pursuit our lives, our liberty, and our happiness, without hindrance.

Share

64 comments

  • MJMJ

    Trump needs to speak clearly on the matter, with conviction to open up but reassurance to the great panicked masses. I don’t think he’s up to the task, unfortunately.

  • Cotour

    These Democrat governors and mayors that still insist on keeping their people under lock and key, not working and broke, fining and arresting them, in the name of public “Safety” and concern for a reemergence of the virus, and treating them like children are now IMO or soon will be in a severe non productive, even poisonous negative feed back loop.

    And this non productive poisonous negative feed back loop will express itself with more and more support for the Trump administration as the Democrat machine of control “P” people off more and more and the rejection of the Democrat boot on the throat style.

    I listened to a talk show host today who had a sit down with the president recently, and he mentioned that Trump intimated in no uncertain terms, but would not be specific, that there are things that will be being revealed in the not too distant future that will be significant and of great consequence. I have to assume that the interviewer was being truthful, and I have to assume that Trump has access to information being the president that he might not be able to speak directly about, but it is significant.

    I would just make a guess here and assume that it might refer to serious indictments from the Durham investigation, because that is certainly the feeling you get from listening to Barr and his statements of late.

    Let political chaos and destruction reign, and from the political chaos and destruction will come much needed political order. This is the medicine that our country very much needs.

  • wayne

    “Mississippi Church that Refused to Obey Lockdown Orders Burned Down by Arsonist Who Leaves Message”
    May 21, 2020
    https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2020/05/21/mississippi-church-that-refused-to-closed-burned-down-by-arsonist-who-leaves-message/

  • LocalFluff

    The lock down should be the main strength of Vermin Supreme, running strong for the Libertarian Party nomination. But I haven’t heard him say anything about it. (Nor does he ever talk about Austrian economics, that will become The big issue during the coming years). I still hope he can wake up some (youth) to the dangers of government abuse.

  • LocalFluff

    *) …wake up…

  • Mark Matis

    We are at the point where vote fraud is so prevalent that the bullet box is coming into play!!!

  • LocalFluff

    This “mail in voting” thing. In the US, does it really mean that anyone can just put their vote in an envelope and onto the ordinary mail distribution?

    I’ve been a voluntary election worker in over half a dozen elections in Sweden. Our voting system is pretty water tight. It is all paper based and distributed. Here mail in voting means going to the post office, or to the embassy if in a foreign country, and do exactly the same thing as during ordinary voting. Every voter is physically present and identifies him/herself. The votes are put in a sealed ballot box and guarded overnight for the two weeks or so that mail in voting is possible.

    Then a couple of days before election day, the mail in ballot boxes are opened publicly and the mail in votes are sorted by the area where the voter lives. Because each ordinary voting envelope has been put in an external envelope that identifies the voter. So that it can be accounted for who has voted where and when, without compromising the secret inner ballot envelope which looks just like all the others. Then the mail in votes are sorted by the area where the voter lives and are sent to the very voting location he or she must vote in person.

    In the physical voting locale, the same voter who has a few days earlier given a mail in vote, can regret it and vote in person instead. Thus, if anyone managed to fool the mail in voting identification system, that is undone by anyone who comes in person, because then the mail in vote of the same person is discarded.

    As soon as physical voting ens, the mail in votes’ outer envelopes are opened and the anonymous inner envelope’s are put in the “live” ballot box together with all live votes. The outer envelopes are stored and registered ( as potential proof against any cheater). Then as usually the ballot box is emptied, all in pubic of course, and all votes counted.

    The potential of cheating is only in the case of proxy voting, as there have been cases of fraudsters cheating elderly in nursing homes that they will vote for them. But then the mandated guy has to physically bring the very ID card of the voter to the voting locale during voting day and his and the alleged voter’s IDs are both registered. And every voter is recorded as having voted or not, so every non-voter can check it afterwards. Also there’s the informal trick to tick a box on the ballot in a way that one can recognize, because every ballot is put on public display for weeks after voting day, so people can go check that their ballot has actually been counted.

    The system is water tight and has been in use for 100 years at least. A power outage wouldn’t affect it the slightest. A safe election is not a difficult thing to arrange! Just do distributed and in person and simultaneous. One can’t just put a ballot in the ordinary mail, that’s NOT voting!

  • MJ P

    “They have demanded citizens snitch and spy on their neighbors, so that they will have the power to arrest and punish more violators.”
    The worst part is that most of the public is blissfully unaware that they are being turned against each other. Part of this is because today’s education system fails to really get into the history of the two parties. The common core (at least in New York) only really talks about the first political parties (Antifederalists, Federalists, and Democratic Rebublicans as the main ones) and after that picks and chooses who they talk about based on their horrific social opinions (Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears) or glorifying those who shaped modern social opinions (Lincoln and FDR). After Lincoln, Republicans became synonymous with racism, while Democrats became the better party. Although the public school system isn’t supposed to sway students’ opinions, I had a teacher my senior year of high school fail a close friend because she wrote a research paper from a conservative viewpoint. It took months before she could actually convince the school board to make the teacher regrade her paper for the course so she wouldn’t have an F in a college credit bearing course. I have nothing against opposing opinions, but political positions should have nothing to do with how we view each other.

  • pzatchok

    Sorry Localfluff, the US has no security to it.

    To get a ballot you have to get your name on the voter registry.
    1: Its rather common that the dead still have their names on the ballot registry years after they pass.
    2: In huge areas of the US you do not need a valid ID to get on the voter registries. Just a local utility bill in your name as proof of residency. Residents get to vote for local issues but not federal issues. But no one separates the ballots and or checks. So they can illegally cast a vote for president.
    3: In a few states they are now giving out drivers licenses to illegals, these are used as proof of id in most places. And there are no identifiers on the licenses to signify the person is NOT a legal resident.
    4: We also have a problem with people voting in multiple states. Using vacation homes to get a second mail in ballot.

    As a check you are supposed to show your legal id in order to vote. If you show up without it you only get the local ballot.
    With the mail in system just who checks your ID?
    In the US they almost never check the mail in vote to the in person votes.

    We need to start connecting our federal Social Security number to or vote. That way ALL votes can be instantly checked and verified. Whether by mail in ballot or in person vote.
    If some one steels your SS number and uses it to vote they instantly get flagged and the vote is tossed. They also get to be tracked down and arrested then.

  • Cotour

    “Are these push backs real? Forgive me if I must sadly remain skeptical.”

    Only in the era of Trump are these potentials realizable and attainable. Trump is the catalyst and the manifestor of this potential. Everything in its time, be patient.

    On voting: I just today received a mail in “Absentee” ballot. (Remember, I am a DINO here in NYC). At the #1 position on the form it says:

    #1 I am requesting, in good faith, an absentee ballot due to (Check one reason)

    * Absence from country or NYC on election day
    * Temporary illness or physical disability (Including affected / potential COVID19) (This is suppose to legally allow this lie?)
    * Permanent illness or physical disability
    *Duties related to primary care of one or more individuals who are ill or physically disabled

    If you remember just few weeks ago I posted a message from a local Democrat politico who in writing directed everyone who received this document to lie about whether they were ill or disabled. And of course in the document it states that you are not making a false material statement before you sign it.

    So really, there should be no concern about the Democrats drive to have a mail in election, none what so ever.

  • Cotour

    And PS, the legislature and governor Cuomo agree to give the governor a $75, 000.00 per year raise for all of the good work he has done in being prepared for this virus contagion.

    https://nypost.com/2019/04/02/andrew-cuomo-defends-his-huge-pay-raise/

    Good work and forethought and preparedness should be rewarded, no?

  • Cotour: Concering mail voter fraud in New York, read this article: So New York just basically invited me to commit voter fraud.

    The odds of the results of any future elections in New York being accurate and not fraudulent is practically nil.

  • Max

    https://www.inquirer.com/news/voter-fraud-philadelphia-ward-leader-judge-of-elections-domenick-demuro-guilty-plea-20200521.html

    If you pay enough money, the people in charge will stuff the ballot box. Elections for sale to the highest bidder.
    Do a search for voter fraud, their are current stories for Los Angeles, Oregon, Washington, and others besides the Philadelphia story.
    More stories found here;
    http://www.truthinvoting.org/News.htm

    Obviously, voter fraud is a big business and will resist change… Especially when it favors the most unethical among us who have considerable assets and like to take shortcuts to remake society in their own image. I’m sure they have good intentions…

  • Cotour

    Yes, if you remember I recently posted a similar letter that I received forwarded from a friend, and the local politician: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriano_Espaillat: plainly instructed the voter to lie, to commit fraud.

    But its NYC so its OK.

    Blatant fraud and this virus event only further justifies these little legal “accommodations”. You know, if there is no one that will prosecute I.E. Attorneys general with a D in front of their names, then there essentially is no law. Right up the Lefts alley, they get to pick and choose.

    Its coming. Maybe not here in NYC, but it is coming.

    The anti DeBlasio NYC mayor? Curtis Slewa.

  • pzatchok

    One of the first voter frauds in the US was the 3 5ths compromise in 1787.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

    “The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached among state delegates during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. Whether and, if so, how slaves would be counted when determining a state’s total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The compromise solution was to count three out of every five slaves as people for this purpose. Its effect was to give the Southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored, but fewer than if slaves and free people had been counted equally. The compromise was proposed by delegate James Wilson and seconded by Charles Pinckney on June 11, 1787.”

    Proposed and voted for by members of the Democratic-Republican Party.
    The Democratic-Republican Party split into the Democratic and Republican party in 1824 over slavery.

  • Edward

    Robert commented to Cotour: “The odds of the results of any future elections in New York being accurate and not fraudulent is practically nil.

    California went this same way earlier this year. Our primary was essentially mail-in, with very few in-person collection places. Plus, ballot collection begins weeks early and continues a week after the election day, allowing time for additional ballots to be generated with “the right” votes. No more need to “find” ballots such as in the trunk of someone’s car, as happened in some state, one year.

    So, why do the blue states want so desperately to have all this voter fraud? Because they learned from the 2016 election that it is difficult to win elections even with their previous forms of voter fraud. Hillary Clinton lost her turn as president even though the news media said nothing bad about her and had nothing good to say about Trump. Clearly, the country is not as left leaning as the Democrats want, but what can they do after indoctrinating students for the past four decades?

    California’s previous solution was to put only two candidates on the election ballot (not the primary), allowing both to be of the same party. The idea is that both will be Democrats. However, this may not be sufficient, so they have gone with the mail-in version of balloting, allowing for even more fraud in the future.

  • Andrew _W

    Over here voting security isn’t very tight, they send you a card with your name and details on it in the post a week or two before polling day and you take it with you to vote.
    Fortunately here our evil people can’t be bothered to vote on their own behalf, let alone on behalf of someone else.

  • Cotour

    When you choose to sleep with the best there is no need for voter fraud?

    How civilized.

  • Andrew _W

    “The best”
    Why thank you cotour. It’s good to live in the least corrupt country in the world.

  • Cotour

    Oops, that’s “Beast” :)

    NZ IMO is a fine country, very beautiful, very nice people, lots of sheep, some nervous?

  • Andi

    The Democratic-Republican Party split into the Democratic Party and the Whig Party. The Republican Party was founded in 1854, some 30 years later.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)

  • Andrew_W

    that’s “Beast”
    I know a typo, but no doubt a Freudian slip. ;-)
    Thank you for your kind words, but “some nervous”? Not sure what you mean.
    The boost that the covid problem has given to the Labour govt of Ardern is a nuisance, likely she would otherwise have been out come this September. She’s a darling to those that thing cute and cuddly in politics is a good thing, and despite numerous obvious mistakes in dealing with the epidemic and running the country over the last 2.5 years her party is now higher in the polls than it’s ever been (the same boost has been seen for governing parties globally).

  • Andi: And I must add that the Republican Party was specifically founded to oppose slavery and the racial oppression of blacks, an institution and policy that the Democratic Party supported before the Civil War, during the Civil War, and for more than hundred years after the Civil War. When the civil rights movement got going in the 1950s, the Democratic Party initially opposed it, and when they saw this was bad politics, they then switched to supporting racial rights, simply another way to see everyone under the bigoted guise of race and ethnicity.

  • sippin_bourbon

    pzatchok, for clarification, how is the 3/5the compromise considered voter fraud, exactly? Who was defrauded? The southerners? The northerners? the slaves?

    Also, the D-R party was founded in the 1790s, after the Constitution was adopted and ratified in 1788. So no role.was.played.

  • 370H55V

    One of the most important articles in The Weekly Standard (back when it still existed, and was still a real conservative publication) was a 1996 offering by Christopher Caldwell, “The Feminization of America”, featuring cover with Hillary in Uncle Sam “I Want You” pose.

    Well, everything Caldwell wrote has come to pass big time. We now live in a completely “chickified” (as Rush Limbaugh says–I use a stronger term) society based on an infantile girls’ belief that life must be all bliss, all the time, that no risk of any sort should ever be taken, and that life (except for those of the unborn) is priceless.

    Until men start taking the country back, I see this getting even worse. As you said, the Democrats keep winning because people want it this way.

  • Cotour

    370H55V

    100%.

    Besides having to lie about everything they are about the Democrat party indeed wants to feminize America. I suppose the one necessitates and goes hand in hand with the other.

  • sippin_bourbon

    pzatchok,

    I should also add the the issue of slavery was an issue long before 1824. It was issue before the USA was the USA. It was heavily debated throughout the framing. However, the the Nation never forms, the Constitution is never ratified, with out the compromises that allowed it to continue.

    I agree with those that say Slavery was our “original sin”. However, I also believe it washed away by blood.

  • Edward

    sippin_bourbon wrote: “I should also add the the issue of slavery was an issue long before 1824. It was issue before the USA was the USA.

    The abolitionist movement worldwide started in the northern American colonies. They saw how England’s policies had created such a terrible system in the southern colonies. Indeed, the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence is topped with King George’s unwillingness to allow any of the American colonies to abolish slavery.

    People claim slavery to be our original sin, but it was actually King George’s sin. If it hadn’t been for the abolitionist movement, would we really have been angry enough at King George to revolt? (Look at us today, we are mad as hell, but we still need more to push us over the edge.) Slavery may have been the brick that broke the camel’s back. That the Founding Fathers had to include an acknowledgement of slavery in order to keep the southern colonies in the union should not now be used against them or us. Had we not kept them, then we would not have had the chance to end slavery on the continent, and even though we kept them, it was a long and difficult road to freedom for the slaves.

    King George did a real job on his colonies, and despite all our efforts we still suffer for it.

  • Ian C.

    Edward,

    I belatedly replied to one of your posts and found the first part to be relevant. How do you (readers of BtB) keep track of older discussions here? The “Recent Comments” pushes posts out of sight pretty fast. I’ve some discussions as links in a file and check over a couple of days whether there’s a reply, but that feels not exactly sophisticated.

    https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/the-fascist-states-within-the-united-states/#comment-1081265

  • Edward

    Ian C.,
    You asked: “I belatedly replied to one of your posts and found the first part to be relevant. How do you (readers of BtB) keep track of older discussions here?

    I generally pay attention to the first page, unless I am aware of an ongoing discussion that moves to the second page.

  • sippin_bourbon

    Edward.
    In the final draft of the Declaration, there is no mention of slavery or abolition. There was a draft that included it, but it was removed as a concession to the Southern States

    If it was the King’s sin, then it would have been easily shrugged off following the Treaty of Paris (1783). But it was not. The “peculiar institution” was kept, as there was no way to get the Southern States to ratify the Constitution if they abolished it immediately. Also remember that it was 5 years after the Treaty that we did this.

    Would we have revolted if not for the nascent abolitionist movement? I think clearly yes. The economic tyranny was the primary driver.I

    The Founding Fathers did more than ” acknowledge” slavery. They preserved it, but out of necessity as stated, allowing States to decide. But I do not hold it against them. They knowingly kicked the can down the proverbial road. I don’t believe they knew how much it would come to dominate American politics for the next 80 years, though.

  • sippin_bourbon: Thomas Jefferson in 1784 on the subject of slavery: “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

    Slavery was very much on their minds, and because the Founding Fathers were well educated with a solid grounding in history and morality, they knew without doubt that the question of slavery would dominate American politics for decades, and they also feared it would be the sin that would end up destroying their great experiment in freedom and limited government.

    This thread tells me that my next book, soon to appear, will be of interest to my readers. The title: Conscious Choice: The origins of slavery in America and why it matters to future colonies in space.

    Stay tuned!

  • wayne

    Ian–
    Maybe we could suggest to Mr. Z., that the Recent Comments section, be expanded to 15?
    (It was 5 and he graciously expanded that to 10 a few years ago.)
    –As you have probably noticed, some posts generate a lot of commentary.
    Personally, I’m highly resistant to change; this site doesn’t break my browser, it loads fast, no adverts, no annoying fancy graphics, etc. That having been said, there is ample real estate in the right-hand column, to tweak the Recent Comment tally, without perceptible clutter-creep, in my humble opinion.

    Mr. Z.,
    New Book, eh? Sounds intriguing!

  • Cotour

    On the issue of slavery and the black man / woman in America, I thought that this comment from a black small business owner summed it all up for me on the subject:

    Desmond Grant, black American, owner of a trucking business in Houston TX:

    “Well, I mean I work here with a lot of racist people,” says Grant, who owns a small trucking company in Houston, Texas, where he has lived his entire life. “That’s America. You can’t help it, they’re everywhere. And you know, as long as they don’t disrespect me in my face, they ain’t gonna have no problems. But when we leave here, they can go raising the KKKs and do whatever they wanna do. But as long as we’re on the job, we’re gonna respect each other.”

    That quote sums up the real un politicized America for me, as long as their is respect, do what ever you want basically. Throw politics into the mix and you have the Democrat, and Republican psyops operators doing their best to divide and conquer. The Democrats in particular who believe that they own the vast majority of the black vote and they in truth have held the black community down and oppressed for those exact reasons, votes and power. The height of disrespect and manipulation.

    But Mr. Grant here says differently, and I, a fellow American, salute him for the clarity of his thought process.

  • sippin_bourbon

    Mr Z,
    I think they knew it would an issue. But it was involved in almost every major decision, and was the primary issue in every election until Reconstruction. It triggered a beating of one one man by another on the floor of the Federal legislature. It was the primary reason for secession (despite what revisionist have attempted to teach). I

    A few may have suspected it would reach that level, but most I think, assumed slavery would reach a natural death.I

    The topic of your book sounds intriguing. I consider my self a life long student of History, rather than a historian, because history never stops teaching, so I endeavour to keep learning.

    The Jefferson quote aligns with my statement of original sin.

  • Edward

    sippin_bourbon,
    Top, number one, highest grievance on the list: “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” What do you think they were talking about? Chewing gum on the sidewalk?

    as there was no way to get the Southern States to ratify the Constitution if they abolished it immediately.

    I’m the one who told you that. This is why “it was a long and difficult road to freedom for the slaves.

    The economic tyranny was the primary driver.

    Really? That topic isn’t raised until the 16th grievance in the Declaration of Independence. The first nine grievances have to do with the king’s interference with the colonies’s self governance, in which they wanted to abolish slavery. For instance, here is the fifth grievance:”He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.” The abolitionists believed that the slaves had a right to be free people, just like everyone else.

    The king’s interferences allowed for a great amount of power to the Southern states, which could not be overcome, Treaty of Paris notwithstanding.

    I consider my self a life long student of History, rather than a historian, because history never stops teaching, so I endeavour to keep learning.

    You have quite a bit of learning to do, when it comes to the founding of the United States. Maybe Robert’s book will help. The sin was not America’s but is one that was imposed upon us, visited upon us, you might say. The Founding Fathers did what they needed in order to abolish slavery, a tricky thing to do, since the king had so deeply ingrained it into the southern colonies. The king felt no guilt about his policy of slavery, but Americans wanted it abolished.

    It is interesting how many people consider as a sin the desire to end slavery.

    These days, even limiting the representation of the South, to make it easier to end slavery, is considered a sin.

    The worst sin of all, it seems, is keeping the Southern states in the union so that slavery has a chance of being ended.

  • Ian C.

    wayne,

    Maybe we could suggest to Mr. Z., that the Recent Comments section, be expanded to 15?

    Sounds like an easy solution.

    Bob,

    If you think it’s useful, easy to do, and doesn’t break your website or workflow, I looked into creating a separate page to display larger numbers of recent comments. (But don’t feel pressured please, I like your website as it is and I recognize the work it already generates for you to keep the show on the road.)

    Tested for version 5.4.1:

    https://wordpress.org/plugins/decent-comments/

    Customizing it:

    http://docs.itthinx.com/document/decent-comments/shortcodes/

    Some help if needed:

    https://www.wpbeginner.com/plugins/how-to-create-a-recent-comments-page-in-wordpress/

  • Ian C: The list of most recent comments is now expanded to 15.

  • Ian C.

    Thanks Bob, much appreciated. Immediately useful for me.

  • sippin_bourbon

    Edward.

    “I’m the one who told you that. This is why ‘it was a long and difficult road to freedom for the slaves.’”

    No you did not. I learned that one in grade school, so reign your horse in a bit and consider:

    The King did not give assent to several laws, including abolishing slave trade (not slavery itself). The King did so for economic reasons, of course, because not all of the colonies wanted to see it ended. Southern states appealed to the King to maintain it.

    He also did not assent to a colonial currency, or allow colonial assemblies to increase their size, or change laws regarding property, and grant certain pardons. There is a long list of laws from which Royal Assent was withheld. I did not see chewing gum listed, as I am sure these other issues were more important. Slave trade was one issue, but not all encompassing as you imply.

    BTW, King George ended slave trade in Britain in 1807. We ended importation 1/1/1808. It was losing its economic value for them. It was ended here as a compromise. But the institution remained in both places.

    The King dissolved houses of representation… If your saying that the House of Burgesses and South Carolina Assemblies were dissolved because they were trying to abolish slavery, you will be greatly mistaken.

    Those, and others, were dissolved because they were trying to find always to not pay taxes, or other forms of non-compliance with onerous laws and acts from England that were intended to limited self government or economic independence. I would add Taxation with out Representation sure sound like an economic slogan.

    Finally, we both know pre-existed the American Colonies. It’s presence was not because some King rammed it down our throats. The presence of the abolition movement does change the fact that large number of people in the colonies wanted and needed slaves for their chosen industry. The majority of the signers of the Declaration owned slaves.

    We did not revolt against England because the King was maintaining Slavery. We revolted for self government and excessive economic oppression. Yes, some did so because it would open the door to abolition. But it was not a prime cause.

    And as stated, the specific grievance the explicitly stated slave trade was deleted. Considered, yes, debated, sure. But also, dropped.

    As much as it was discussed and considered then and during the convention a few years later, slavery was kept after we gave George the boot. That makes it our sin, which we paid dearly for. Blaming the ejected monarch cannot absolve what I see as the one major failure of our founding. Thank God we survived it.

  • sippin_bourbon

    “These days, even limiting the representation of the South, to make it easier to end slavery, is considered a sin. ”

    This is because of a complete misunderstanding, and often deliberately erroneous teaching of the 3/5the compromise.

  • wayne

    Jordan B Peterson:
    “12 conservative principles in 12 minutes”
    https://youtu.be/_MyduTaCh18
    12:29

  • Edward

    sippin_bourbon,
    You wrote: “No you did not. I learned that one in grade school …

    I may not have been first, but you repeat back to me what I say as though I never said it. Do you pay attention or is discussion with you futile?

    The King did not give assent to several laws, including abolishing slave trade (not slavery itself).

    See? You did it again!

    BTW, King George ended slave trade in Britain in 1807.

    Well, I’m glad you are learning something, as you look up your facts. Did you also learn that slavery barely existed in Britain? In a similar way as the Northern colonists, Britains would not have stood for the slavery that the king had imposed upon the Southern colonies. Did you also notice that King George slipped it in so that it happened before the Constitution abolished slave trade? To paraphrase what I said, King George did a real job on his ex-colonies, So, now you think that the U.S. has the original sin, not Britain.

    The majority of the signers of the Declaration owned slaves.

    Well, there you have it, then. They were definitely bad people. Of course, the king had imposed laws that made it very difficult to free slaves, too. But let’s please ignore that little fact that hurts your case and just go with America bad, Britain the greatest ever. Which explains why it is called Great Britain.

    We did not revolt against England because the King was maintaining Slavery. We revolted for self government and excessive economic oppression.

    I’ve already covered this. You don’t pay attention after all.

  • Andrew_W

    The Founding Fathers did what they needed in order to abolish slavery, a tricky thing to do, since the king had so deeply ingrained it into the southern colonies. The king felt no guilt about his policy of slavery, but Americans wanted it abolished.
    . . .
    The first nine grievances have to do with the king’s interference with the colonies’s self governance, in which they wanted to abolish slavery.

    Follow the money. The people making money out of slavery were foremost Southern slave owners, other Southern Whites also certainly did well from the economic benefits of slavery.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/dirty-little-secret-115579444/

  • Andrew_W

    Perhaps some people base their knowledge of slavery at about the time of the American revolution on the movie The Patriot.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkYzLqjjZO4

  • sippin_bourbon

    ““The majority of the signers of the Declaration owned slaves.”
    Well, there you have it, then. They were definitely bad people. ”
    “.. America bad, Britain the greatest ever..”

    Wow. This really takes the conversation off the deep end.
    Do not make assumptions or put words in my mouth.
    Calm down, Francis.

    I never implied either. I am a realist and accept that men, even the Founding Father types, are imperfect and flawed. I accept the flaws of my Country, and and the mending made along the way.

    At this point, it may be best to just agree to disagree.

    —————-
    Andrew W. Regarding the film “The Patriot”, I do not like the film. The real stories are FAR more interesting. I am always appalled when Hollywood takes a good thing and tries to sell it. Truth and history get buried. The real participants who’s actions and sacrifices get pushed aside. The bad guys do not always get a sword in the gut. The only accurate thing I found regarding the slaves was the villains offer of freedom to those that served the Crown, which was true. It was a quick way to raise troops to suppress rebellion.
    However, the exposition of loving and loyal slaves was an awful display to avoid complicating the protagonist. There are betters ways to tell the stories.

  • sippin_bourbon

    My bad.. its “lighten up”.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN-aXzpQUdw

  • wayne

    The good, the bad, and the ugly…

    Steppenwolf
    “Monster”
    https://youtu.be/CXP4tRUuqUY
    9:17

  • Edward

    sippin_bourbon,
    You wrote: “Wow. This really takes the conversation off the deep end.

    You’re the one who said, “I consider my self a life long student of History, rather than a historian, because history never stops teaching, so I endeavour to keep learning.” But now you have all the answers.

    I never implied either.

    So, original sin is a good thing now?

    At this point, it may be best to just agree to disagree.

    So much for your “endeavour to keep learning.

  • Andrew_W

    Britains would not have stood for the slavery that the king had imposed upon the Southern colonies.

    How did that work? Did the King have soldiers appointed to each slave owner to ensure the continuation of slavery? Were slave owners, all desperate to free their slaves, whipped into submission when they advocated abolition?

    If the Northern states were so keen on abolition why were there still hundreds of slaves in Pennsylvania as late as 1850.
    The abolitionist laws passes in the late eighteenth century in Northern States did not, in most cases, immediately abolish slavery, they began the process of abolishing slavery.

    Right up until 1861 slaves escaping to Northern States were, if captured, returned to their Southern owners.

    https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/slavery/experience/freedom/history.html

  • sippin_bourbon

    Edward,

    Debate and discussion on points of merit is one thing. I enjoy elevated debate

    But when you assign judgments to me (that the Founding Fathers “were bad”, something I did not say) and malign me(“America bad”, Britain good” something I did not imply) based on assumptions (because you know precisely jack about me), we are no longer having a discussion.

    Your tone is one that talks down to and insults people. I tolerated it. I will no longer, without change.

    Discussion with you is futile, because you argue like a liberal: insulting, degrading, and assigning malignant values to raise your own standing. Point to a source, a document, a persons statements, something. All I hear from you is “No its not, because you don’t listen”.

    I stand by my premise, that slavery is America’s Original Sin, and I am in good company.
    All good students of History know, go to the source:

    “All these perplexities develope more & more, the dreadful fruitfulness of the original sin of the African trade.” -James Madison in a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, 1820.
    https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/04-02-02-0137

  • Edward

    sippin_bourbon,

    All good students of History know

    “All” is by your definition of “good students”. Only bad students disagree with you. Who is talking down now? Once again, so much for your “endeavour to keep learning.

  • sippin_bourbon

    Now your making me laugh.

  • Edward

    The problem with the original sin argument is that slavery was universally accepted throughout the world, with the sole exception of the northern colonies. The supposed sin is that these colonies were unable to end a practice that everyone else thought was not a sin.

    Viewed from today’s morality, the history you think you want to learn is of evil human beings.

    Viewed from the future, not criminalizing smoking could be a sin of today. As viewed from any other timeframe, any time in history can be full of evilness. Do you really want to be condemned for things that you tried but failed to correct?

    I didn’t think so.

    Still laughing?

  • Andrew_W

    . . . slavery was universally accepted throughout the world, with the sole exception of the northern colonies.

    That’s false, plenty of countries around the world did not have slavery long before it was abolished in the Northern States.

    Viewed from the future, not criminalizing smoking could be a sin of today.

    Careful there Edward, you’re stepping into the realms of moral relativism, a place fanatics do not stray.

  • sippin_bourbon

    Yes, I am.

  • sippin_bourbon

    I know better than judge history by today’s standards. Please do not assume (again) I do not.
    My quote above was from a contemporary, James Madison.

    “The problem with the original sin argument is that slavery was universally accepted throughout the world”
    Wrong.
    It was banned within France in the 1300s, although it was permitted in its colonies.
    It was condemned by several Popes via Papal Bull in 1435, 1591, 1639, 1741.
    Russia did not have slaves after 1723 , but serfs. I will grant that this is a fine line. They could still be bought and sold, but as part of the land, not individually. It happened anyway, outside the law.

    So your claim from several posts above that the Colonies led the world in abolition has no foundation in fact.

    “…with the sole exception of the northern colonies”
    Wrong.
    The first anti-slavery law was in GA, in 1735. But they reversed it for economic reasons.

    But wait, theres more:
    “The clause too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who ON THE CONTRARY [emphasis mine] still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for tho’ their people have very few slaves themselves yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.”
    -Thomas Jefferson in his account of the Declaration and its debates
    Or as Andrew W said “Follow the Money!”

    Edward, are you going to argue that first-hand primary sources are NOT the best place to go to learn history? This is a serious question.

    The only History teachers that I had that did NOT make this push were liberal anti-american (I suspect socialist) professors. They got very upset when I used sources that they did meet their approval.

  • sippin_bourbon

    Maybe I should try a different approach. Understand that calling it “Original Sin” is, after all, an analogy.

    Sin is a misdeed willfully committed. There is a larger ecclesiastic definition that I shall pass on for the sake of this discussion.
    Original Sin, on the other hand, is not a deed/misdeed committed. It is contracted upon birth.
    In religious dogma, you are born with it.
    (Please to any all viewing, I am not here to argue faith and religion. If you do not share this dogma, that is fine, that is not the point in discussing the analogy).

    We broke away from England, but in doing so, we CHOSE to allow the institution of slavery to remain in place. Why? As we BOTH agreed above, some parties would not have accepted Union otherwise.

    How it got there at that point, is irrelevant. We chose to keep it.
    Yes, there were abolitionists. (never said there wasn’t, and they existed in every colony, not just the north).
    Many had said they wanted end slavery, and yet kept slaves because they could not imagine how to manage without them.
    Examples such as Thomas Jefferson, who later even sold two slaves because he needed money.
    Also Patrick Henry, who said “I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living without them. I will not—I cannot justify it, however culpable my conduct.”
    (Anti-slavery sentiment from slave holders. Such dichotomy makes them a puzzle by today’s standards, but acceptable in the 18th century.)

    They could have made the sacrifice then and there to push harder to end it, but did not. The King no longer had any sway in the decision making. Hence the Nation is founded with the institution in place. The Sin is contracted upon birth.

    As we know, it would tear us apart.

    Here is the part I think you missed in my earlier comments. We paid for it in blood in war.

    Following the analogy of Original Sin, which is washed away in Baptism, the Original Sin of slavery was washed away by the blood of Americans in war 80 years later. As a nation we PAID FOR and ATONED for this sin. We amended our selves and our Constitution.

  • I must please note that it is incorrect to think that slavery was not generally considered acceptable moral practice worldwide before the abolition movement that began in the northern American colonies prior to the American Revolution.

    You need to read David Brion Davis seminal work, The problem of Slavery in Western Culture.

    Winner of several national awards including the 1967 Pulitzer Prize, this classic study by David Brion Davis has given new direction to the historical and sociological research of society’s attitude towards slavery.

    Davis depicts the various ways different societies have responded to the intrinsic contradictions of slavery from antiquity to the early 1770’s in order to establish the uniqueness of the abolitionists’ response. While slavery has always caused considerable social and psychological tension, Western culture has associated it with certain religious and philosophical doctrines that gave it the highest sanction. The contradiction of slavery grew more profound when it became closely linked with American colonization, which had as its basic foundation the desire and opportunity to create a more perfect society. Davis provides a comparative analysis of slave systems in the Old World, a discussion of the early attitudes towards American slavery, and a detailed exploration of the early protests against Negro bondage, as well as the religious, literary, and philosophical developments that contributed to both sides in the controversies of the late eighteenth century. This exemplary introduction to the history of slavery in Western culture presents the traditions in thought and value that gave rise to the attitudes of both abolitionists and defenders of slavery in the late eighteenth century as well as the nineteenth century.

    The bottom line that Davis reveals is that generally past cultures saw slavery not as an evil but as the morally right thing to do. This might seem strange to us, but the roots of their view was based on a quandary: What do we do with prisoners of war? To kill them all was wrong. Keeping them imprisoned was impractical. Slavery was the just solution they came up with, for their time.

    Many cultures in the western Christian Europe however rejected slavery, led most of all by the nations of the Protestant revolution and most of all in British culture. It is that rejection from which the abolition movement grew, started mostly by the Quakers in the northern British colonies of North America.

  • I must also add that you are all discussing this from a certain lack of information. I have no intention of spending a lot of time correcting everyone. I merely suggest you read my next book, Conscious Choice: The origins of slavery in America and why it matters to future colonies in space, when it arrives later this year. It covers this topic directly, in great detail.

  • sippin_bourbon

    “generally considered acceptable moral practice” yes. Of course.
    Universally, as was argued, however, I would disagree.

    The Papal Bulls I mentioned above (the first published before Martin Luther, I would add) and the Quakers as you mentioned, and other religious groups were certainly on the forefront.

    I will add the Davis book on my (embarrassingly long) “to read” list.

  • Andrew_W

    I agree with sippin bourbon, my objection is to Edward’s fairy tale-ish, attribution of slavery being “imposed” by the British king on the colonies, rather than a practice supported by many of those living in America at the time, and Edward’s claim that it was the Northern States that led the world in abolishing slavery when there were many countries that had large factions pushing for abolition in the late 18th century and earlier.

  • Max

    Slavery has been part history for as long as history has been written. It’s still part of our culture today in different forms.
    In Parts of Africa and the Middle East, it’s larger now than the slave trade of America’s founding.
    China treats large segments of its population as subhuman, simply a biological resource for consumption.
    India still has a caste system forcing those born to it to be untouchables.
    Some Muslim countries do not allow women to have rights. They are property to be bought and sold.
    There was even an argument recently whether the queen of England would allow her Great grandchild to leave the country because it’s her property and domain as sovereign. Indeed, if you’re not royalty or a lord… Then you are a surf, a slave.
    When the people throughout England Commonwealth countries were given their freedom, the crown still holds title on the land on which they live.
    Just as Romans would raid Greece for the working population/slaves, American Indian tribes would raid neighboring tribes for food and wives. (Spaniards adding horses to the culture made the balance uneven/unfair) Indian tribes owned slaves even after the Civil War claiming independence and self rule.
    Some of my ancestors came to America as indentured servant’s, white slaves in the “north” working 16 hour days in poor conditions until their debt was paid. Most did not live that long. They were told that “the streets in America were paved with gold”. Not only were the streets not paved, but the indentured white immigrants were expected to pave them.
    One side of my family came from Iceland, Viking captured slaves and animals who had only one purpose, whatever was asked of them.
    If you over throw your slave masters, you are treated harshly by the rest of the world. Haiti was one of the first to do so and is still punished to this day.
    When Mexico rebelled against Spain and its other slave master, the church of Rome, it vowed never to to be or allow slavery again because of the harsh lives they all lived.
    When the independent territory of Texas petition to join the United States, it would have done so becoming a slave state. This was unthinkable to Mexico who also had a claim on Texas so they marched northward to stop slavery at the Alamo.
    In 1848, Sam Houston marched on Mexico defeating and capturing the entire country. Mexico had a choice to be slaves again, or give up all of the northern territories in the treaty of Guadalupe. Mexico became the “United States of Mexico” without the right to own guns as penalty and conditions.
    This put the Mormons in a bind as they just left the United States because of the “Mormon extermination order” to live in the Mexican territories in 1847. Their world was tipped upside down again with the discovery of gold in California in 1849 leading to 2 million pioneers crossing into the new American territory for land and gold. Slaves came with them until the issue was settled in the 1860s Civil War.
    The Southern states fought for “States Right” to decide themselves. (mechanized machinery like the cotton gin would make slavery obsolete) dirt farmers lived in mansions, wealth unseen in the north. Times were changing but their comfort caused resistance so they were not in a hurry.
    The north on the other hand willingly gave up their individual sovereignty to unite under one supreme leader. (The south embargo was selling products of tobacco and cotton directly to Europe bypassing the industrial north)
    Although slavery was the rallying cry, all wars usually are founded on economics.
    Although that great leader was good, he died in office before he could restore the nation to what founders intended. His giant image sits upon his throne rivaling the greatest statues of emperors of the distant past. His symbolism is intentional. The north gave up it’s sovereignty, and the south is a conquered nation with no legal standing other than what the north allowed it.
    The western territories was also taken by the right of conquest.
    Where the people in America was once free, we all pay taxes in homage to the “District of Columbia” from which flows rights, privileges, laws, penalties for noncompliance.
    Freedom is an illusion, that until recently, was carefully maintained.
    A state of emergency is declared by every president when he enters office. In this way the federal government can control much more than the constitution allows. Most of the west, especially Nevada and Utah, is still owned by the BLM.
    Because Texas was captured during the Civil War, they forfeited the right to withdraw from the union.
    You see, slavery for the most part is just a frame of reference. The best and most productive slaves are the ones who don’t know that they are slaves…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *