atomikmom Loc: Burien, Washington

S***ery
Walter E. Williams
Walter E. Williams
|
Posted: Jul 26, 2017 12:01 AM
S***ery
Trending

Evan Sayet
He Fights
Walter E. Williams
S***ery
Michelle Malkin
Manufacturing H**e for 'Made in America'

Too many people believe that s***ery is a "peculiar institution." That's what Kenneth Stampp called s***ery in his book, "Peculiar Institution: S***ery in the Ante-Bellum South." But s***ery is by no means peculiar, odd or unusual. It was common among ancient peoples such as the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Hittites, Greeks, Persians, Armenians and many others. Large numbers of Christians were ens***ed during the Ottoman wars in Europe. White s***es were common in Europe from the Dark Ages to the Middle Ages. It was only after A.D. 1600 that Europeans joined with Arabs and Africans and started the Atlantic s***e trade. As David P. Forsythe wrote in his book, "The G*******t," "The fact remained that at the beginning of the nineteenth century an estimated three-quarters of all people alive were trapped in bondage against their will either in some form of s***ery or serfdom."

While s***ery constitutes one of the grossest encroachments on human liberty, it is by no means unique or restricted to the Western world or United States, as many liberal academics would have us believe. Much of their indoctrination of our young people, at all levels of education, paints our nation's founders as r****t adherents to s***ery, but the story is not so simple.

At the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, s***es were about 40 percent of the population of the Southern colonies. Apportionment in the House of Representatives and the number of e*******l v**es each state would have in p**********l e******ns would be based upon population. Southern delegates to the convention wanted s***es to be counted as one person. Northern delegates to the convention, and those opposed to s***ery, wanted only free persons of each state to be counted for the purposes of apportionment in the House of Representatives and the E*******l College. The compromise reached was that each s***e would be counted as only three-fifths of a person.
CARTOONS | Gary Varvel
View Cartoon

Many criticize this compromise as proof of r****m. My question to these grossly uninformed critics is whether they would have found it more preferable for s***es to be counted as whole persons. S***es counted as whole persons would have given s***e holding Southern states much more political power. Or, would the critics of the founders prefer that the Northern delegates not compromise and not allow s***es to be counted at all. If they did, it is likely that the Constitution would have not been ratified. Thus, the question emerges is whether b****s would be better off with Northern states having gone their way and Southern states having gone theirs, resulting in no U.S. Constitution and no Union? Unlike today's pseudointellectuals, black abolitionist Frederick Douglass understood the compromise, saying that the three-fifths clause was "a downright disability laid upon the s***e holding states" that deprived them of "two-fifths of their natural basis of representation."

Douglass' vision was shared by Patrick Henry and others. Henry said, expressing the reality of the three-fifths compromise, "As much as I deplore s***ery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition." With this union, Congress at least had the power to abolish s***e trade by 1808. According to delegate James Wilson, many believed the anti-s***e-trade clause laid "the foundation for banishing s***ery out of this country." Many of the founders abhorred s***ery. Their statements can be read on my website, walterewilliams.com.

The most unique aspect of s***ery in the Western world was the moral outrage against it, which began to emerge in the 18th century and led to massive elimination efforts. It was Britain's military sea power that put an end to the s***e trade. And our country fought a costly war that brought an end to s***ery. Unfortunately, these facts about s***ery are not in the lessons taught in our schools and colleges. Instead, there is gross misrepresentation and suggestion that s***ery was a uniquely American practice.

http://www.townhall.com



I h**e S***ery!!! even tho i was born a bred in the Deep South, of Louisiana,South Central, i do not believe in keep somebody in bondage and run their lives. My breed is Cajun, Indian, Black and White. I am a tossed Salad. And stand by my beliefs. SET THEM FREE!!!!

pickmeup Loc: Mid Michigan

S***ery still exists today, human trafficking. Some African and Arab peoples still believe and practice it.

Homestead

Yeah, because Islam sanctions it.

Homestead

The other thing that no one thinks about is that in the Dred Scot decision, it was determined that the s***e was property and that property had no right to sue for freedom any more than a chair or table could.

But, the constitution always referred to contracts, contract labor and contractual obligations when talking about s***ery.

The only place that the Constitution talked directly of s***ery was in a mathematical formula for determining representation.

That formula referred to people, not property and it was about their representation, in congress, even if that representation was by proxy through the plantation owners.

atomikmom Loc: Burien, Washington

That is Sinful!!!!!.