- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Glory (1989)
Posted on 2/28/15 at 12:59 pm to mizzoukills
Posted on 2/28/15 at 12:59 pm to mizzoukills
Have you just realized that TD has some bigoted and racist members? HA! You need to start paying better attention!
Anonymous down vote? Who fricking cares? I don't...
Back to your comment about blacks (slaves, in particular) being viewed as something less than human. This view was accepted nationwide, going back to the Articles of Confederation in the 1770s or '80s. When assigning delegates by population to represent the 13 states (and for federal taxation purposes), enslaved blacks were counted as 3/5ths of a person. This practice continued until 1865 when the 13th Amendment abolished slavery.
Anonymous down vote? Who fricking cares? I don't...
Back to your comment about blacks (slaves, in particular) being viewed as something less than human. This view was accepted nationwide, going back to the Articles of Confederation in the 1770s or '80s. When assigning delegates by population to represent the 13 states (and for federal taxation purposes), enslaved blacks were counted as 3/5ths of a person. This practice continued until 1865 when the 13th Amendment abolished slavery.
1
Posted on 2/28/15 at 1:01 pm to Ace Midnight
Have a not very anonymous up vote!
Posted on 2/28/15 at 1:04 pm to White Roach
quote:
Back to your comment about blacks (slaves, in particular) being viewed as something less than human. This view was accepted nationwide, going back to the Articles of Confederation in the 1770s or '80s. When assigning delegates by population to represent the 13 states (and for federal taxation purposes), enslaved blacks were counted as 3/5ths of a person. This practice continued until 1865 when the 13th Amendment abolished slavery.
I'm glad you mentioned this - I love to combat this liberal claptrap.
The 3/5 compromise is wholly misunderstood by people like yourself trying to make this point.
The Southern states wanted to count slaves as FULL PERSONS for apportionment of representatives and presidential electors - to increase their voting power and maintain southern friendly policies, among them, continuing slavery.
The Northern states wanted to count slaves as ZERO - for apportionment of representatives and presidential electors - in order to make it easier to abolish slavery later.
SO, please for the love of G-d - stop perpetuating this ignorant and illogical argument. It is far more complex than the African American Ferguson "protestor" berating an African American police officer by saying, "You're 3/5 of a person."
(Sorry if I made you rethink the upvote - it's nothing personal.)
This post was edited on 2/28/15 at 1:06 pm
Posted on 2/28/15 at 1:33 pm to Ace Midnight
Weren't women and children, who were not eligible to vote, counted towards the population totals from Massachusetts down to Georgia? Whether 0% or 60% apportionment, the conventional wisdom nationwide was that blacks were inferior to whites. It wasn't just a bunch of Southern plantation owners who thought blacks were inferior.
Posted on 2/28/15 at 1:45 pm to White Roach
quote:
Whether 0% or 60% apportionment, the conventional wisdom nationwide was that blacks were inferior to whites. It wasn't just a bunch of Southern plantation owners who thought blacks were inferior.
Founders - from Virginia - who owned slaves - were conflicted on this issue.
Madison (the father of the constitution):
quote:
Madison struggled over how best to eradicate slavery from his plantation and from the rest of the country. A visitor to Montpelier in 1835 noted that “with regard to slavery [Madison] owned himself almost to be in despair,” that he “talked more on the subject of slavery than on any other, acknowledging, without limitation or hesitation, all the evils with which it has ever been charged.” On the one hand Madison felt that “the magnitude of this evil among us is so deeply felt, and so universally acknowledged: that no merit could be greater than that of devising a satisfactory remedy for it.”
Jefferson (the father of the Declaration of Independence):
quote:
Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery his whole life. Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation. Jefferson also thought that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty.
Was there a tinge of white supremacy, and even a parochial attitude among the Virginians? Certainly. Was it downright barbaric in the cotton belt? Absolutely.
But it was far more complicated than pointing to the 3/5 compromise (in the 1787 Constitution, not the Articles of Confederation) - which was about representative apportionment, taxes, a whole slew of complexity that cannot be distilled to "blacks were not valued as people" PARTICULARLY in light of their slave owners wanting to count them the same as free men.
And Indians not taxed weren't counted at all - the 0/5 compromise.
The stain is there - but lets not pretend it was cut and dried or that they were not considered "men" by the founders:
Hamilton (the underrated founding father - along with Franklin, one of the 2 non-Presidents on U.S. currency):
Hamilton argued that blacks' natural faculties were as good as those of free whites, and he warned that the British would arm the slaves if the patriots did not. In his 21st-century biography, Chernow cites this incident as evidence that Hamilton and Laurens saw the Revolution and the struggle against slavery as inseparable. Hamilton attacked his political opponents as demanding freedom for themselves and refusing to allow it to blacks.
Posted on 2/28/15 at 1:56 pm to mizzoukills
quote:
Why would this thread receive 8 down votes??? Apparently there are some racist people on this board. Down voting the movie Glory of all things is quite telling.
It must be a white guilt movie
Posted on 2/28/15 at 3:40 pm to White Roach
quote:
I've read that the bodies of all the white officers, except for Col. Shaw, were returned to Union forces for proper burial.
Not until after the war. When South Carolina asked the Shaw family if they'd like their son's body back, his mother declined and said that he would have wanted to remain buried with his men. He was only 25 years old when he led that assault on Fort Wagner. So young.
Also...here's something the movie glossed over. While his parents were ardent abolitionists, Shaw himself was a full-blown racist. While he never saw his men as equal to whites like his parents did, he came to respect them because they trained and fought harder than the 2nd Massachusetts - the regiment he was a part of before he took command of the 54th.
This post was edited on 2/28/15 at 3:47 pm
Posted on 2/28/15 at 4:53 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
The 3/5 compromise is wholly misunderstood by people like yourself trying to make this point.
Good stuff. I just read the wiki on this to learn myself a little more history. Of course everyone is trying to work a deal in their own best interests, but you have to roll your eyes at how the southern states wanted slaves to count as people for representation (even though they couldn't vote), but they wanted them to count as property for tax purposes (even though they were used for economic gain).
And yeah I see how the whole "you're 3/5 of a person" thing is completely misunderstood by those trying to use that phrase to make the point that black lives are valued less.
Posted on 2/28/15 at 6:15 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Founders - from Virginia - who owned slaves - were conflicted on this issue.
True. Even Washington did a lot of hand wringing about the issue. He came to see the practice as a blot on the ideals of the revolution. But he could not bring himself to free his slaves outright. And he didn't want to break up families which made it hard to sell them and get out of being a slave owner that way. (All of this was complicated by the fact that a lot of the slaves Washington had on his estate were actually dowery (or is it dowager? Not sure) property of his wife through her inheritance and he didn't think he had a right to deal with them as he might have wished). Then again, Washington was very much a realist and knew that people and countries were governed by self interest above ideals.
It's all a very complex business and it took a long time and a lot of lives for the country to do the right thing. But I'm pretty sure views of people at the time were much more in dept than a view that everyone or most people viewed African Americans as sub human.
Posted on 2/28/15 at 6:23 pm to mizzoukills
Historical Nitpick: They cheer Huzzah. It was spelled Huzzah then, but it was pronounced Hurrah, just like today.
Posted on 2/28/15 at 7:02 pm to RollTide1987
I am glad that my GF sent the portion of Shaw's personal effects that he possessed back to Shaw's widow. It was the right thing to do.
Another act of honor, long after the Civil War, is also noted here. Alan Wesley Muckenfuss was a defender at Fort Wagner. He had left his wife, children, and job as a teacher, to enlist in the army just after South Carolina's Secession. Due to distinguished service, Muckenfuss was promoted to Lieutenant prior to the important battle at Fort Wagner. Years after the war, Muckenfuss was First Officer of the United Confederate Veterans Chapter in Charleston. According to A Brave Black Regiment, by Luis F. Emilio, the highest ranking officer in the Mass 54th after the attack on Fort Wagner: "[Shaw's] silk sash was purchased in Battery Wagner from a private soldier, by A.W. Muckenfuss, a Confederate Officer, who, many years after, generously sent it North to Mr. S.C. Gilbert of Boston, for restoration to the Shaw family." The sash was presumably returned to Robert Gould Shaw's widow, whom never re-married.
The author only erred on his first name. It was spelled Allen.... Not Alan. He also had his sword and scabbard but that was not mentioned in the book. Only know that because he noted it in some personal papers that have been passed down to me through my mother who possessed them, his family Bible, etc. while she was alive.
Another act of honor, long after the Civil War, is also noted here. Alan Wesley Muckenfuss was a defender at Fort Wagner. He had left his wife, children, and job as a teacher, to enlist in the army just after South Carolina's Secession. Due to distinguished service, Muckenfuss was promoted to Lieutenant prior to the important battle at Fort Wagner. Years after the war, Muckenfuss was First Officer of the United Confederate Veterans Chapter in Charleston. According to A Brave Black Regiment, by Luis F. Emilio, the highest ranking officer in the Mass 54th after the attack on Fort Wagner: "[Shaw's] silk sash was purchased in Battery Wagner from a private soldier, by A.W. Muckenfuss, a Confederate Officer, who, many years after, generously sent it North to Mr. S.C. Gilbert of Boston, for restoration to the Shaw family." The sash was presumably returned to Robert Gould Shaw's widow, whom never re-married.
The author only erred on his first name. It was spelled Allen.... Not Alan. He also had his sword and scabbard but that was not mentioned in the book. Only know that because he noted it in some personal papers that have been passed down to me through my mother who possessed them, his family Bible, etc. while she was alive.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News