So the convictions of will to abide by conscience need to be stronger than the convictions of the will desiring the advancement of an agenda.

Sure looks like a philosophical question argued against recently…..

It’s interesting with regards to the slavery issue that the US was in fact rather late in doing so (well behind several European countries), yet so many Americans feel as though they were the first. Also interesting is that there was a very significant proportion of slaves in the North as well (although the economy was more diverse, so it wasn’t as much of an ordeal banning slavery).

It is all very well to note that people’s motives and decisions are governed by agenda rather than conscience, but what to do?
Most anyone will be quite happy to sacrifice some of their ideals of conscience to get ahead.

george washington had lots and lots of slave (couldnt tell you the exact amount) and upon his death, in his will those slaves were all to be freed upon the death of his wife Martha… (whether or not it actualy happened, i am not sure)

By the time of the Civil War, all slaves were owned by just 5% of the population. Possible Democratic VP nominee Jim Webb further explains:

Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, and Kentucky were allowed to keep their slaves when the war began. The Lincoln administration’s policy was that slave owners could keep their slaves as long as their state remained in the union and continued to collect federal taxes. When the seven states of the lower South initially seceded, Lincoln was more than happy to preside over the slave states of Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee, which only seceded after Lincoln commenced his invasion of their sister states. At the time of Fort Sumter there were more slave states in the union than out of it.

Consequently, writes Webb, “in virtually every major battle of the Civil War, Confederate soldiers who did not own slaves fought against a proportion of Union Army soldiers who had not been asked to give up theirs.” This fact spoke volumes to the Confederate soldier about the true purpose of the war, and about the character of Lincoln himself.

Understanding this culture, which was pervasive in the Confederate ranks, Webb concludes that “It is impossible to believe that such men would have continued to fight against unnatural odds and take casualties beyond the level of virtually any other modern army [70%] –simply so that 5 percent of their population who owned slaves could keep them . . . . Something deeper was motivating them, something that appealed to their self-interest as well.”

Quoting indie:

george washington had lots and lots of slave (couldnt tell you the exact amount) and upon his death, in his will those slaves were all to be freed upon the death of his wife Martha… (whether or not it actualy happened, i am not sure)

Anyone else find it funny that Washington, and Jefferson as Matt mentioned, only bothered to make sure that their slaves would be free after they died? Couldn’t have bothered to free them while they were still alive, that may have caused financial problems for them!

I keep reading the word conscience over and over again. The thing that keeps popping up in my head is the fact that in this world today to have a conscience is to be sane. Example, to kill someone and to have no remorse over it, to not understand that you did something wrong, it would be taken as you do not have a conscience, therefore, you would be considered insane, charged with murder and committed. Oh, I think I just called the government of the United States insane. Sorry, that’s how I see it.

There were always americans who hated slavery and worked to end it any way they could, The town I live in, was settled in 1620 and incorporated as a town in 1701. Peace was made with the natives and very little friction occurred between the colonists and the natives. Most of the warfare occurred between the Merrimack and Mohawk tribes. And the French-Canadians. GULP. There were a large contingent of black people living in town as farmers. All were free men. Some were the offspring of blacks who settled in Cape Cod, right off of the Mayflower.

causes and reasons for the Civil war amany and complicated and not easily explained in an online blog. The reasons why individual soldiers fought are varied, too. Or you could just suggest reason to them that meet your agenda.

I recently went to see a local exhibition titled “happiness - what happiness?”
There I learned about the constitution of the united states of america being the only one in the world declaring a general right to “happiness”.
If one recalls that at the time the constitution was established the american society was carefully fragmented into different classes ranging from full-civil-right citizens (whites) over such with officially limited rights (women, illegals, political opponents) to those who had absolutely no rights to rely on such as black people and natives… one has to come to the conclusion that Jefferson deliberately excluded specific groups of the population from what he called “men”. I think this is truly a tremendously ignorant basis to build up a nation on.
But the real tragic thing about that is in fact that if one takes a closer look on US society today you will see the same old system of class-separation carefully saved and repacked in a more righteous fashion.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/90379/?ses=05d0af5ddbdd6ce1a8b2a9f8656a64a2

US history with regards to slavery is indeed complex. But the examples that you have sited are nowhere near as relevant as those that had a major impact at the Constitutional Convention or that permeated the tensions between the northern states and those of the south that were massively dependant on an agrarian economic reality and therefore the need for slave labour.

Stepping back, while those in your area might have peacefully coexisted with Native American communities upon their arrival, the reality remains that over time they were diminished and, ultimately, succumbed to the same fate as every other American aboriginal group. Of course, while your ancestors were having dinner parties with the locals, outright aboriginal genocide was taking place up and down the southern coast of the United States. I would suggest that you spend some time, starting with Howard Zinn’s ‘A People’s History Of The United States’, and actually allow yourself to become open to a version of history that isn’t replete with rainbows and unicorns.

Your assertion that everyone involved at the Constitutional Convention was opposed to slavery is incorrect. In truth, had the matter seriously been addressed on the floor, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and even Virginia may very well have opted out of the Convention altogether. Their economies relied on the existence of it - we are, at the end of the day, talking about rich men that had their own interests in mind as well as revolutionary wants. In truth, one of the securities provided by the disassociation between the colonies and the Empire was the securing of the continuation of slave practices. Those that represented the Northern States were not in a position to seriously broach the subject without plummeting the entire Convention into turmoil and thus decided against even tabling the subject.

There is no question that the abolitionist movement existed for many years prior to the adoption of the 13th Amendment, and even long after it was adopted. But that is not to say that it was at all a significant movement during the decades between independence and the 1850’s. Even then, and despite the social implications of the actions of the likes of John Brown and the impact that it had on creating tensions in the South, the impetus of the Civil War had to do with State’s rights, though one could argue that one of those ‘rights’ included the continued acceptance of the practice of slavery.

After Antietam, Lincoln was given the perceived victory he needed to exploit the slavery issue, making abolitionism a Union objective, despite the fact that many who fought for the Union were enraged by the Emancipation Proclamation. Of course, Lincoln himself had always been an abolitionist at heart, but his correspondence with Horace Greeley clearly demonstrates that his primary objective was securing the Union and that if he could do it without freeing a single slave that he would. Lincoln used the Emancipation Proclamation to ennoble the war and, in one fell swoop, ended the possibility of foreign recognition of the Confederacy as an independent entity.

Of course, while individuals such as Greeley, Douglas, and others saw the Emancipation Proclamation as a temporary victory, the realities of the Jim Crow South would result in the continuation of massive inequalities between whites and African Americans, ones that would not be confronted and amended for over another century.

Say what you will about growth and time and the eventuality of equality, but the reality remains that African Americans in the Southern States still had to use segregated toilets, water fountains, and areas of restaurants. They attended segregated schools, and rarely received anywhere near the same level of legal status as whites. That, whether you like it or not, is an American reality, and a blight on all those lofty principles on which the nation was supposedly founded.

Sure, there are examples to the contrary, but they, in no way, remotely equal the massive inequalities faced by millions of African Americans prior to, and following, the adoption of the 13th Amendment.

During both major world conflicts fought by the United States in the 20th Century, the role of African Americans in the US Armed forces was massively limited. It would not be until Korea and Vietnam that African Americans would begin to serve in truly mixed race units. The reason? Because given the nature of those conflicts, and the much smaller scale of the military resources used to fight them, the draft was aimed more at exploiting economically disparaged segments of the population. It would not be until the draft was extended during Vietnam that white middle and upper class kids were targeted, an occurrence that played a significant role in helping turn the tide of public support against the war.

The colonial exploitation of North America, not to mention Africa and Asia, produced unspeakable results. Even today, outside of major urban centers (and even within them), xenophobia is alive and well in the United States, just as it is to a degree in Canada. If someone of Middle Eastern descent walks into a Super Market in some small American or Canadian town, the looks that they will automatically receive will be the same. There is a reason for that, one that is historically engrained within us, one that exists because of a deep seeded sense of moral entitlement and superiority, whether we recognize it, or are willing to admit it, or not.

For centuries, immigrants have come to North America seeking a better life, one of opportunity. And, with the exception of the Irish in some cases, most that are non-whites have had to struggle to attain even the appearance of that ‘promised’ dream. Pointing to social diversity is all well and good. But the fact remains that while such social diversity amongst Caucasians from various parts of the world is viewed as proof positive that the dream itself exists and has been successful, those from other parts of the world are commonly left out of the lofty promotion of that achievement. In fact, if anything, they have been promoted as an unwelcome weight on societies that bask in the fact that their existences are ones of cultural diversity and cooperation.

Well said, Matt. But the sarcasm of the “dinner parties” and the “unicorns and rainbows” was not appreciated. I have read Mr. Zin’s work of fiction and found it amusing. Your piece would have been better served if you just stuck to the point, but I guess it’s just in your nature to be mean spirited.

Could you please list a source for the slaves building the White House? I need to look into that more.

Quoting Robert R:

Not true. The Constitution guarantees the “right to pursue happiness”, it does not guarantee Happiness.

It’s the same for me actually. I did not mean to alledge a constitutional guarantee of a certain happiness for everyone. I just wanted to turn attention to the point that the american consitution as the only one in the world mentions a “unalienable right” of being happy to everyone.
That’s in so far questionable as there are much more imaginations of personal happiness than a social community can take without collapsing inevitably.

Quoting Robert R:

Could you please list a source for the slaves building the White House? I need to look into that more.

Robert, there was even a memorial for them in discussion in the congress some years prior.
http://www.whitehousehistory.org/04/subs/04_a02_e03.html

Slaves having helped to built up the White House and Capitol is consensus among historians.

MPallazzo- I was not referring to you “shouting incohently”. And my speaking of compromise was not aimed at compromising values. MY point was, to achieve some sort of peace and respect, it was counterproductive to resort to name-calling, and sarcasm. That people who were serious about Peace, Love and Understanding , were more apt to be open to compromise in their political ideas. After all politics is sometimes refered to as “The art of compromise.”.

As an American, I congratulated my fellow North Americans on Canada Day. Perhaps I was being childish to think it would be reciprocated. Instead we get the same anti=american screed as if American citizens have never done anything good in this world. It’s always the negative here.

Until we learn to sit and listen instead of hectoring, we’ll never get anywhere.

Nothingman; what a wonderful post.

Yeah, I hope that the sarcasm in my first paragraph translated well to text, Tuuli22. I certainly don’t think this is an Anti-American site, hence the rest of my comment. Seeing my first paragraph out of context makes me wonder how clear I was on that. I’m also unsure if your comment was intended to agree or disagree with me (if my sarcasm didn’t come out clearly then you might have understandably gotten the impression that you and I disagreed on this).

Nah, my fault. I should have been more careful. I’ve been told many times that communication is 60% nonverbal (although that seems like such an arbitrary numerical decision), and that really shows in an online context. I’m terrible for forgetting that when someone reads what I type, it’s not the same as if I said it to them.

In retrospect, I probably shouldn’t have used sarcasm at all; it just takes away from the sincerity of the rest of the post.

Quoting Robert R:

MPallazzo- I was not referring to you “shouting incohently”. And my speaking of compromise was not aimed at compromising values. MY point was, to achieve some sort of peace and respect, it was counterproductive to resort to name-calling, and sarcasm. That people who were serious about Peace, Love and Understanding , were more apt to be open to compromise in their political ideas. After all politics is sometimes refered to as “The art of compromise.”.

As an American, I congratulated my fellow North Americans on Canada Day. Perhaps I was being childish to think it would be reciprocated. Instead we get the same anti=american screed as if American citizens have never done anything good in this world. It’s always the negative here.

Until we learn to sit and listen instead of hectoring, we’ll never get anywhere.

Robert, I agree with you that respect is paramount to having a healthy debate about important issues. Sarcasm gets flung around as an expression of peoples frustration. It’s all over this site and in no short supply in your own posts. So… I take it for what it is, frustration. Nothing personal.

Putting all Americans in the same package and calling them bad is wrong, the same as it would be wrong to classify anyone into a common group and make assumptions about all of them based on the actions of some.
This site deals with a lot of negative issues. They are important and need to be discussed. Since the US government holds the power to make decisions for the whole world then the decisions they do make are bound to be a huge part of these discussions.

The actions of a nations government often get interpreted as the ideas of the common people in that nation. I believe that your average person is reaching for the same goals, as you said. But, I don’t agree that the government is reaching for the same goals as the average person. That is why it is important to have sites like this no matter how negative it may seem. There will always be posts from people who are simply out to bash someone else. That shouldn’t happen so I say to you sincerely Happy (belated) Independence Day.