Is Conservative Walter Williams A Porch Monkey?

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
Walter_Williams_GS_49-287x300.jpg



source: Sun Herald


WALTER WILLIAMS: Slavery isn't black and white


Jon Hubbard, a Republican member of the Arkansas House of Representatives, has a book, titled "Letters to the Editor: Confessions of a Frustrated Conservative." Among its statements for which Hubbard has been criticized and disavowed by the Republican Party is, "The institution of slavery that the black race has long believed to be an abomination upon its people may actually have been a blessing in disguise.

"The blacks who could endure those conditions and circumstances would someday be rewarded with citizenship in the greatest nation ever established upon the face of the Earth."

Hubbard's observation reminded me of my 1972 job interview at the University of Massachusetts.

During a reception, one of the Marxist professors asked me what I thought about the relationship between capitalism and slavery.

Slavery all over world

My response was that slavery has existed everywhere in the world, under every political and economic system, and was by no means unique to capitalism or the United States. Perturbed by my response, he asked me what my feelings were about the enslavement of my ancestors.

I answered that slavery is a despicable violation of human rights but that the enslavement of my ancestors is history, and one of the immutable facts of history is that nothing can be done to change it. The matter could have been left there, but I volunteered that today's American blacks have benefited enormously from the horrible suffering of our ancestors. Why?

Better here than Africa

I said the standard of living and personal liberty of black Americans are better than what blacks living anywhere in Africa have.

I then asked the professor what it was that explained how tens of millions of blacks came to be born in the U.S. instead of Africa. He wouldn't answer, but an answer other than slavery would have been sheer idiocy.

I attempted to assuage the professor's and his colleagues' shock by explaining to them that to morally condemn a practice such as slavery does not require one to also deny its effects.

My yet-to-be-learned lesson -- and perhaps that of Rep. Hubbard -- is that there are certain topics or arguments that one should not bring up in the presence of children or those with little understanding. Both might see that explaining a phenomenon is the same as giving it moral sanction or justification.

It's as if one's explanation that the independent influence of gravity on a falling object is to cause it to accelerate at 32 feet per second per second could be interpreted as giving moral sanction and justification to gravity.

Slavery is widely misunderstood, and as such has been a tool for hustlers and demagogues. Slavery has been part of the human condition throughout recorded history and everywhere on the globe. Romans enslaved other Europeans; Greeks enslaved other Greeks; Asians enslaved Asians; Africans enslaved Africans; and in the New World, Aztecs enslaved Aztecs and other native groups. Even the word slave is derived from the fact that Slavic people were among the early European slaves.

Though racism has been used to justify slavery, the origins of slavery had little to do with racism. In recent history, the major slave traders and slave owners have been Arabs, who enslaved Europeans, black Africans and Asians.

Moral outrage is unique

A unique aspect of slavery in the Western world was the moral outrage against it, which began to emerge in the 18th century and led to massive efforts to eliminate it. It was Britain's military might and the sight of the Union Jack on the high seas that ultimately put an end to the slave trade.

Unfortunately, the facts about slavery are not the lessons taught in our schools and colleges. The gross misrepresentation and suggestion in textbooks and lectures is that slavery was a uniquely American practice done by racist white people to black people. Despite abundant historical evidence, youngsters are taught nothing about how the Founding Fathers quarreled, debated and agonized over the slave issue.

Walter E. Williams, a professor of economics, at Department of Economics,
 
there are certain topics or arguments that one should not bring up in the presence of children or those with little understanding. Both might see that explaining a phenomenon is the same as giving it moral sanction or justification.
Seems pretty simple child.
 
youngsters are taught nothing about how the Founding Fathers quarreled

And ultimately did nothing about it, including freeing their own slaves while they lived.
Another Black "Conservative" that tries to hard to keep impressing certain White folks.
 
Child, is that what he said?

Funny how a post about a lunatic congressman wasting government money on an investigation about President Obama being accused of a cover-up, leads you to all types of speculation, but a negrocoon writing an article about how Black folk were better off having their history riped from them so they can live as whites escapes your analysis.

How convenient!
 
I still find it amazing how so many of us will easily throw out images of our own that we would be ready to assault others for doing with a quickness !

Who's the "coon" ?


Well when you have republican Blacks that refuse to speak out against the suppression of voter rights that their own political party is implementing, for the sole purpose of getting republicans elected, the rights in which your ancestors fought and died for (even Republicans of old), the only conclusion that can be made is that they are coons.

You stick your nose on this board when convenient. Where is your denunciation of theses voting at attacks?
 
More Coonishness From A Glorified Lawn Jockey. Walter Williams

Nothing in this diatribe about the rights, subjugation and terror that was forced on people of African descentfrom this Porch Monkey. So much for individual's rights and self determination.


source: Reflector.com

Williams: Secession 'for the people’

WilliamsmugNew_38.jpg


For decades, it has been obvious that there are irreconcilable differences between Americans who want to control the lives of others and those who wish to be left alone. Which is the more peaceful solution: Americans using the brute force of government to beat liberty-minded people into submission or simply parting company? In a marriage, where vows are ignored and broken, divorce is the most peaceful solution. Similarly, our constitutional and human rights have been increasingly violated by a government instituted to protect them. Americans who support constitutional abrogation have no intention of mending their ways.

Since President Barack Obama’s re-election, hundreds of thousands of petitions for secession have reached the White House. Some people have argued that secession is unconstitutional, but there’s absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits it. What stops secession is the prospect of brute force by a mighty federal government, as witnessed by the costly War of 1861. Let’s look at the secession issue.

At the 1787 constitutional convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, rejected it, saying: “A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”

On March 2, 1861, after seven states had seceded and two days before Lincoln’s inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that said, “No State or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the Union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.”

Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here’s my no-brainer question: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional?

On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. Rep. Jacob M. Kunkel of Maryland said, “Any attempt to preserve the Union between the States of this Confederacy by force would be impractical, and destructive of republican liberty.”

The Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every major Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South’s right to secede. New York Tribune (Feb. 5, 1860): “If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861.” Detroit Free Press (Feb. 19, 1861): “An attempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil — evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content.” The New York Times (March 21, 1861): “There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go.”

There’s more evidence seen at the time our Constitution was ratified. The ratification documents of Virginia, New York and Rhode Island explicitly said that they held the right to resume powers delegated, should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution would have never been ratified if states thought that they could not maintain their sovereignty.

The War of 1861 settled the issue of secession through brute force that cost 600,000 American lives. Americans celebrate Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, but H.L. Mencken correctly evaluated the speech, “It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense.” Lincoln said that the soldiers sacrificed their lives “to the cause of self-determination — that government of the people, by the people, for the people should not perish from the earth.” Mencken says: “It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of people to govern themselves.

Walter Williams is an economics professor at George Mason University and a columnist for Creators Syndicate.
 
Re: More Coonishness From A Glorified Lawn Jockey. Walter Williams

Despite your ignorance this is interesting.

Would the North had went to war if Fort Sumter was never attacked? It would be interesting to see the editorials after the attacks just two months later than the editorials quoted in this articles.

Would more than seven states had seceded had the conflict not escalated to war, since four states left after Sumter?

What would the state of slavery be in both nations? How much longer would they have lasted?

And in general, why not just let states leave now. There was an article about how it would unambiguously bad for the departing state, so just let them go. Why force anyone to stay?

http://news.yahoo.com/happen-texas-actually-seceded-114000495.html
 
Re: More Coonishness From A Glorified Lawn Jockey. Walter Williams

Despite your ignorance this is interesting.

Would the North had went to war if Fort Sumter was never attacked? It would be interesting to see the editorials after the attacks just two months later than the editorials quoted in this articles.

Would more than seven states had seceded had the conflict not escalated to war, since four states left after Sumter?

What would the state of slavery be in both nations? How much longer would they have lasted?

And in general, why not just let states leave now. There was an article about how it would unambiguously bad for the departing state, so just let them go. Why force anyone to stay?

http://news.yahoo.com/happen-texas-actually-seceded-114000495.html


No Slavery, No Civil War!
 
Re: More Coonishness From A Glorified Lawn Jockey. Walter Williams

No secession, no Civil War.

Lincoln wasn't going to end slavery by force until secession, and now your article brings up the thought that he may have let slavery exist until Sumter happened.
 
Re: More Coonishness From A Glorified Lawn Jockey. Walter Williams

No secession, no Civil War.

Lincoln wasn't going to end slavery by force until secession, and now your article brings up the thought that he may have let slavery exist until Sumter happened.

States rights over human rights.

Like I said, coonish, porch monkey, Uncle Tom!
 
Re: More Coonishness From A Glorified Lawn Jockey. Walter Williams

You keep pointing out how I didn't vote because I hate all of you, but you think I'm patriotic as well?
 
Re: More Coonishness From A Glorified Lawn Jockey. Walter Williams

Oh, I'm not from the south so I didn't know what stars and bars were.

You could definitely benefit from comprehending that everyone doesn't live in your world.
 
Re: More Coonishness From A Glorified Lawn Jockey. Walter Williams

Oh, I'm not from the south so I didn't know what stars and bars were.

You could definitely benefit from comprehending that everyone doesn't live in your world.


Since when do you have to be from the south to have confederate ideals. Did you read the original post?
 
Re: More Coonishness From A Glorified Lawn Jockey. Walter Williams

If me see if I can remember how it was explained on a documentary that I had seen.
The civil war was fought over a couple of things, mainly money. North wanted to move the country to a capitalist economy with factories but the south wanted their free labor. Can't build a capitalist economy with half the country using free labor. Who is going to buy the products produced in the factories.
Another reason is the North was close to losing and needed the chaos created by freeing them. He had no power to free them because the states had left the union, so the slave were never freed in a way.

It is true that the North’s factories and industry grew at a faster rate than the South’s, but urbanization and this competition with the North did sprinkle factories throughout the South. Many white Southerners refused to do this manual labor-that work was for the slave population that made up a large part of the labor force.

The agricultural South was dependent on cotton production and the economic and political elite there feared that as more new states entered the union they would choose to be free-states, shift the balance of power in Washington, and ultimately lead to higher tariffs for the South as well as threats to the institution of slavery.
Also the cotton gin. Don't forget that invention.
 
Re: More Coonishness From A Glorified Lawn Jockey. Walter Williams

No secession, no Civil War.

Lincoln wasn't going to end slavery by force until secession, and now your article brings up the thought that he may have let slavery exist until Sumter happened.

LOL!

No slavery, no secession.
 
Back
Top