From You to George Washington

[ultimate777]

If you could go back in time to the start of the Constitutional Convention and give George Washington any one volume history of the USA, ever published so far, which would you give him?

[RickD]

This book.

[Hortator]

His biography just to see the look on his face. "How dare you reprint my private letters to Martha!"

Of course he was like 6'6 so maybe not a good idea

[ultimate777]

This book.

Let me restate the question, suppose you could give him a book that covers the whole of American history from 1775 to 1975 and beyond, what would it be? I want to put a bee in his bonnet as to how destructive maintaining slavery and allowing both sides to claim the Constitution was on their side in the Civil War would be.

[edwardmurphy]

I'm not sure he could have done anything about slavery even if he'd wanted to, which I'm not sure he did.

[ultimate777]

I'm not sure he could have done anything about slavery even if he'd wanted to, which I'm not sure he did.

If he believes the book he'll know what he wants isn't that important and he damn well better try.
And consider having the Constitution specify unambiguously whether a state can leave the Union
without permission. That might be easier to get agreement on than abolition.

[Philip]

edwardmurphy wrote:
I'm not sure he (G. Washington) could have done anything about slavery even if he'd wanted to, which I'm not sure he did.

Slavery is hard to understand looking back, certainly with our modern sensibilities. It's evils should have been extremely troubling to all who truly cared about their fellow human beings. But if you were born into a world that had long had slaves - your father and grandfather, they all had slaves - well, it's easy for us to say what we would have done. Many likely just thought slavery was just the way things were. Of course, a Christian view sees it a terrible practice. But to be clear, the slavery practiced in ancient Israel, as mentioned in the Bible, was not even remotely what was practiced in the 18th and 19th centuries in the Americas. In Israel, these were people under a voluntary contract of servitude, but ONLY for a contracted period, and were free thereafter, so the contract was not forced upon anyone.

As for Washington - and in great contrast to Jefferson - his will ordered the release of his slaves upon the death of his wife Martha. Jefferson clung to his slaves as they were his only means of living like a king as a country gentleman, at Monticello. Actually, I've visited both of their houses, twice - which are really interesting and worth seeing. But when one reads the flowery words of Jefferson, we see great hypocrisy: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," and then realize he had owned over 600 slaves during his lifetime - many from new births. He had inherited about 175 of them. His will only freed five of them. TJ died in great debt, despite all those he used to maintain his lifestyle.

[RickD]

Philip wrote about slavery:
It's evils should have been extremely troubling to all who truly cared about their fellow human beings.

African Slaves weren't considered human beings, in the same sense that whites were human beings. They were less than human, therefore property to do with what their owners wished.

Not unlike the unborn are less than human to some who feel like they have the right to do whatever they want with what's theirs.

Let's pray that as Americans realized the atrocity of chattel slavery, that we realize the atrocity of murdering the unborn.

[edwardmurphy]

That was a truly excremental point.

[RickD]

That was a truly excremental point.

"Excremental" sounds like a fancy word used as a compliment. So, thank you!


But seriously, what was wrong with what I said?

[edwardmurphy]

From your perspective there's nothing wrong with it. You believe that a fertilized egg is a person, or at least you appear to believe that. For those of us who draw a distinction between a baby and a fetus your comments are abhorrent for a variety of reasons.

[RickD]

From your perspective there's nothing wrong with it. You believe that a fertilized egg is a person, or at least you appear to believe that. For those of us who draw a distinction between a baby and a fetus your comments are abhorrent for a variety of reasons.

Like I said, I hope and pray that Americans will come to realize that the unborn is just as much of a person as the born. Just like Americans realized that African slaves are fully human, just like white Europeans.

But I understand. Some people are a little slower than others to catch on.

[Kurieuo]

From your perspective there's nothing wrong with it. You believe that a fertilized egg is a person, or at least you appear to believe that. For those of us who draw a distinction between a baby and a fetus your comments are abhorrent for a variety of reasons.

You're a fertilised egg, such is what all "human beings" are.

And, fwiw, I think you should look up the Latin meaning of "fetus".

[edwardmurphy]

I was a fertilized egg. A lot has happened since then. In any case, this is a conversational dead end. I don't accept your premise and if you had an argument that would convince me you'd have made it by now. Time to move on.

Perhaps you can explain something that has always baffled me about the anti-abortion movement. It's run almost exclusively by Christian social conservatives. The aforementioned people are overwhelmingly opposed to sex education (apart from the disastrously ineffective abstinence-only version). They're also generally the people looking to eradicate Planned Parenthood. And finally, they tend to vote for conservatives who campaign on things like eliminating social programs that would benefit young mother's and poor children. So my question is this:

Are these people [love] retarded?

Do they not grasp that effective sex education, combined with the education and contraception provided by Planned Parenthood have been shown to lower the rate of unplanned pregnancies and, consequently, the number of abortions? Do they not understand that babies raised by young, poor, uneducated mother's are likely to become young, poor, uneducated parents?

Are they so wrapped up in their ideals that they're incapable of thinking pragmatically?

[Kurieuo]

Only you won't see to irony in maintaining your not a fertilised egg. You need to educate yourself some more, because you're no less a fertilised egg than a fetus.

And a discussion is open for as long as people respond. Unless the thread is locked, but it's not. So... sorry if you'd prefer no response. You can just choose NOT to respond.