Slavery: Get Over It, Already

By
September 28, 2007

Michael Medved has a piece that basically re-states the obvious when it comes to slavery. Any current political discussion of American slavery has nothing to do with what happened in America’s past. It’s simply fodder for a primarily Democrat liberal agenda that keeps minorities, especially Blacks, as captive today as some were in the early days of America. Get over it already.



AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
Comments:
  1. LOL says:

    pretty misinformed article to link to. Medved argues that slavery was pretty common back in the day, which is true, but there was a big difference between greek/roman slavery and even slavery in Europe and the kind of awful chattel slavery of the new world. Ours was a much worse kind of slavery. ROFL and, like some kind of lawyer, he tries to argue that it was only in the United States for 89 years or something absurd like that. Somehow the colonial days don’t count, and also he ignores that once the slaves were freed, blacks were still often treated like slaves in many parts of the country until around 1960-1970.

  2. Dan Riehl says:

    “blacks were still often treated like slaves in many parts of the country until around 1960-1970″
    Yeah, those damned southern Democrats, racist through and through.

  3. Dan Riehl says:

    I should add – instead of owning them, the Dems simply found a way to co-opt them, allowing them to continue to own them when it comes to the polls. How special.

  4. LOL says:

    OH I see, so when we can pin slavery and oppression on the democrats it’s NEVER FORGET! But if we can possibly blame it on conservatives then we should GET OVER IT ALREADY
    got it
    why you are just shameless in your shrill shillery

  5. Fred Beloit says:

    Will the NAACP support Alveda King in her efforts to be heard? Let’s watch the nothing that happens on this score. Or will they pleasantly surprise me?

  6. dumbblonde says:

    Past slavery in the U.S. can be blamed on neither the Democrats nor the Republicans, nor is there a purpose served by seeking to lay blame. It existed in this country. Now it does not. We should be proud of this, as not all countries, even today, can make this claim.

  7. bloodrage bob says:

    we should also NEVER FORGET that each and every member of the hated KKK was a *democrat*. each and every one. back then, you see, the were pretty much NO republicans in the south – which is why it was such a bastion of poverty, racism, and backwardness. the south didn’t start to rise until republicans came along with sunshine and disinfectant and hope. arkansas schools weren’t integrated until the ***republican*** president eisenhower made it happen. always remember what party “former” KKK grand kleagle robert byrd belongs to, and was a senior leader of.
    liberals do not like this to be pointed out. watch & see.

  8. rwilymz says:

    “Ours was a much worse kind of slavery.”
    How do you figure? Not that you’re necessarily wrong, but explain it. Bald assertions should never go unchallenged.
    “Somehow the colonial days don’t count”
    The colonial days are the responsibility of the British and/or Spanish.
    “he ignores that once the slaves were freed, blacks were still often treated like slaves in many parts of the country until around 1960-1970.”
    And how do you figure *that*? “Like” slaves requires forced labor for no wages, and that was hardly the case. “Like second-class citizens” on the other hand, is far more supportible.
    Heck, I’d even allow you to support an argument that black, until 1970, were treated as indentured servants and grant you that this would be “like slaves”, since indentured servitude is slavery-once-removed.
    But the only people I know of who are close to being indentured servants in this country are child support obligors — those who are forced to work to pay a non-dischargeable debt, and imprisoned if they refuse to work.

  9. Dennis D says:

    Slaves were treated better in the past by others? Slavery is Slavery. Colonial Slavery just as bad as others.

  10. DANEgerus says:

    •Democrats opposed the Abolitionist
    •Democrats supported slavery and fought and gave their lives to expand it
    •Democrats supported and passed the Fugitive Slave Laws of 1793 & 1854
    •Democrats supported and passed the Missouri Compromise to protect slavery
    •Democrats supported and passed the Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery
    •Democrats supported and backed the Dred Scott Decision
    •Democrats supported and passed Jim Crow Laws
    •Democrats supported and passed Black Codes
    •Democrats opposed educating blacks and murdered our teachers
    •Democrats opposed the Reconstruction Act of 1867
    •Democrats opposed the Freedman’s Bureau as it pertained to blacks
    •Democrats opposed the Emancipation Proclamation
    •Democrats opposed the 13th , 14th, and 15th Amendments to end slavery, make black citizens and give blacks the right to vote
    •Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866
    •Democrats opposed the Civil Right Act of 1875 and had it overturned by U.S. Supreme Court
    •Various Democrats opposed the 1957 Civil Rights Acts
    •Various Democrats argued against the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts
    •Various Democrats argued against the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Acts
    •Various Democrats voted against the 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act
    •Democrats supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy v Ferguson
    •Democrats supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.
    •Southern Democrats opposed desegregation and integration
    •Democrats started and supported several terrorist organizations including the Ku Klux Klan, an organization dedicated to use any means possible to terrorize African Americans and those who supported African Americans.”

  11. IslamoLlama says:

    I can almost wrap my head around Dan’s “Let’s let slavery bygones be bygones” arguement – from an old-money, white, racist, good ole’ boy perspective. But how do you handle modern day slavery?
    ”There have been allegations that the contractor First Kuwaiti used forced labor building the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. So Krongard looked into it.
    Only he had a peculiar method, according to Waxman’s investigation. First, he insisted on doing the report entirely by himself and shut out his staff. And instead of seeking out the source of the allegations, he allowed the contractor to choose the employees that he’d interview. He ultimately interviewed six employees.
    The result? Krongard declared that he found no evidence of human trafficking.
    But when Waxman sought the investigative materials that Krongard had generated in the course of his probing investigation, Krongard only turned over 20 pages total (after a subpoena from Waxman). Of those 20 pages, only six of them were Krongard’s own work product — sketchy handwritten notes from his interviews with the contractor’s handpicked witnesses.”
    http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004223.php
    I’m just wondering how long until Dan will be singing this song about our contractors abroad. Better yet, how does he plan to pin it on the Democrats?

  12. IslamoLlama says:

    I’m also tickled pink to see how every conservative on these boards has completely forgotten about White Flight in the 70s and 80s, right after LBJ (Democrat) signed the Civil Rights Act. Man, those were the days.
    And, for the record, lets recall the 5-4 decision just last June, striking down school integration plans in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle.
    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/06/28/national/w072013D85.DTL
    This is so laughably dishonest, but we’ll play the game, just because it is so easy to win. Who were the five justices to vote down integration? Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy. Flaming liberals all, right?
    Which party has been defending the Jena 6? Cause I remember Barak Obama being for it. Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo? Not so much.
    It’s always fun to see wingnuts butcher US History, like this. The truly uneducated being played like fools by the country’s most shameless liars. And all so they can give themselves a little more wiggle room to gawk at upscale restaurants in Harlem or sing “The Magic Negro” without feeling quite so guilty. I mean, liberals do that all the time. Cause they’re racist.

  13. bloodrage bob says:

    awwwww, look, a liberal wants to play “history”.
    naturally, being a liberal, his effort is full of lies – the 5 supremes voted “against integration”? in what liberal parallel universe did THAT happen, moron? the “jena 6″ bravely went 6-on-1, boldly attacking the *one* kid from behind. THESE are what you wanna defend?
    now, islamoweenie, here’s a (non-lie) history fact for YOU. in all of american history, there’s has been only one senator who was 1)a senior leader of the KKK *and* 2) the only man to vote against the confirmation of both thurgood marshall AND clarence thomas. that “man” is robert byrd. hmmmm. what is it that both flaming liberal marshall and rockribbed conservative thomas have in common? think … think ….
    what party does byrd belong to? what actions has that party taken against byrd to punish him for his blatant racism? answers: “democrat”; and “they elevated him to a leadership job”. care to comment? preferably something more substantive than the usual “that doesn’t count” or “get off byrd’s case”?

  14. Ken says:

    Uh, DANEgerous?
    •Conservatives opposed the Abolitionist
    •Conservatives supported slavery and fought and gave their lives to expand it
    •Conservatives supported and passed the Fugitive Slave Laws of 1793 & 1854
    •Conservatives supported and passed the Missouri Compromise to protect slavery
    •Conservatives supported and passed the Kansas Nebraska Act to expand slavery
    •Conservatives supported and backed the Dred Scott Decision
    •Conservatives supported and passed Jim Crow Laws
    •Conservatives supported and passed Black Codes
    •Conservatives opposed educating blacks and murdered our teachers
    •Conservatives opposed the Reconstruction Act of 1867
    •Conservatives opposed the Freedman’s Bureau as it pertained to blacks
    •Conservatives opposed the Emancipation Proclamation
    •Conservatives opposed the 13th , 14th, and 15th Amendments to end slavery, make black citizens and give blacks the right to vote
    •Conservatives opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1866
    •Conservatives opposed the Civil Right Act of 1875 and had it overturned by U.S. Supreme Court
    •Conservatives opposed the 1957 Civil Rights Acts
    •Conservatives argued against the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts
    •Conservatives argued against the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Acts
    •Conservatives voted against the 1972 Equal Employment Opportunity Act
    •Conservatives supported and backed Judge John Ferguson in the case of Plessy v Ferguson
    •Conservatives supported the School Board of Topeka Kansas in the case of Brown v The Board of Education of Topeka Kansas.
    •Southern Conservatives opposed desegregation and integration
    •Conservatives started and supported several terrorist organizations including the Ku Klux Klan, an organization dedicated to use any means possible to terrorize African Americans and those who supported African Americans.”
    What’s more, when the Democrats became more enlightened in the 1960’s, you saw a mass exodus of conservatives from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. People like Reagan, Thurmond, etc.
    Republicans bought conservativism; they own its legacy.

  15. bloodrage bob says:

    fascinating. like reading ‘alice in wonderland’. the liberals inform us that “yes, democrats were entirely responsible for the racist jim crow situation down south; and yes, the ones who fought integration the hardest were democrats, but – (and here they speak real real fast) – but thenamiracleoccurred and, uh, all the bad democrats became republicans and anyways democrats just aren’t racist. never mind i can’t prove this. don’t bother to ask. and that’s that.”
    “and never mind the fact that all southern integration achieved at gunpoint in the 1950’s was **entirely** due to the republicans making it happen over VEHEMENT democrat objections. that doesn’t count.”
    “…and the red queen said to alice, ‘a thing is just what i say it is. whatever word i use is correct, because i am the one who said it’. alice, not being a complete frickin’ democrat idiot, remained skeptical.”

  16. templar knight says:

    You boys had just better give it up, bb owns you on this subject. He has historical fact on his side, and you have…well…nothing but…invective. Something you liberals have plenty of, just comes with being a hater, I guess.

  17. Pierson W. W. Dilliwithers-Mathers III, Major, Confederate States Army (Retired) says:

    I do declare…!
    My 30-odd slaves were always well treated on my plantation at Magnolia Manor. Even after that wretched Lincoln forcibly manumitted my property – we though first of the welfare of our nigras. And let me tell you damnyankees a thing or two: that a good quality, well-heeled, teachable young house negro was not at all easy to come by.
    Lucius, for example, cost me 1800 Confederate Dollars back in 1859 when I bought him from a N’Orleans trading house that specialized in acquiring and training quality domestic nigras. That’s about the price of a solid McFallon Carriage, and nearly 20% of a year’s cotton profits. And a price well paid, for he was as good a butler as any Englishman. He stuck with us through thick and thin, even in those dark years of the War of Damnyankee Agression, and the Bluebelly Carpetbagger Occupation that followed it. Even I could not hold back tears the day he went to be with the Lord, and I’m well over my biblical three score and ten years.
    And my plantation workers, though certainly duller than Lucius or ol’ Auntie Deborah (she was a charming old Negress who helped Mrs. Dilliwithers-Mathers keep watch over my boys when I was a-fielded against that devil McClellan) … well, those field nigras were as hard working and loyal, as they and their fathers had served our household since the Colonial times. That’s because like my pappy and grandpappy before me, I learned that the better we treated our nigras, the better they were bound take of us.
    Even after the manumission (and the wreck of the nation y’all damnyankees made)… many plantation nigras didn’t no what to do with their “freedom”, and a good many of my nigras wanted to stay on at Magnolia Manor. Unfortunately, I, along with most plantations owners in the great State of Alabammy, saw our patronage burnt root and branch and to the ground by that vile beast Sherman (may boll weevils forever infest his farms and those of his descendants) on his march to the Sea.
    Y’all damnyankees did a fantastic job of ruining our Confederacy’s economy, destroyed the bond of trust we had with our nigras, and by that, I mean that it made it near impossible for us to planters to even help our nigras get settled out after the manumission. It bred bad feelings between the races all around, and now after the Great Migration, our problem has become y’all damnyankees’ problem too.
    While we had a few bad seeds among the planters of the old CSA, for the most part, a good many of us knew to treat our property right, in fact, we treated our nigras even better than a prize horse or boar hog. We may have had our vices and social blinders upon the folk wisdom of the Negro, and certainly many of us did not think it possible to completely cure the Negro of his jungle roots, but now we know differently: that we are all brothers and sisters be our great Master who is in Heaven, the Lord Jesus Christ.

  18. rwilymz says:

    “I’m also tickled pink to see how every conservative on these boards has completely forgotten about White Flight in the 70s and 80s”
    “White flight” started in 1946, at the end of WWII — only it wasn’t called “white flight” at that time, but suburbanization. No thought to leaving cities for racial reasons, but for economic ones. “White flight” continued throughout the 50s, and was in full swing when integration came up. The same increasingly-affluent folks left the cities for the neo-suburbs in the sixties, and the blacks started saying “whoa! where are they taking all the assessible land value?? How are we supposed to maintain academic infrastructure on the property taxes generated from declining property values in the cities?”
    The same phenomenon continued, and only at this point was it declared to be done for racial reasons. White people were now leaving the cities in the 70s because “blacks lived there”. Nope. It was because there was more room to sprawl in the suburbs. Same as 30 years before.
    You cannot assign motivation; assigning motivation is particularly dishonest when you latch onto the most convenient excuse you have for your particular ideology.
    “lets recall the 5-4 decision just last June, striking down school integration plans in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle”
    Let’s recall the net effect that the court-ordered integration plans have had.
    …mmm … bupkus, wadnit? Or was it less-than-bupkus?
    You’ll do well to remember that the court-ordered integration plans were for one purpose, and that purpose was *not* to acheive racial balance for the sake of racial balance. But racial balance for the sake of equalizing the $$-per-student spent on education in competing school districts in the belief [supportible through the limited information available at the time] that $$-per-student translated more/less directly to GPA. The purpose of court-ordered integration plans was to increase black students’ GPA.
    No other reason.
    Afters 25, 30, 40 years in some places of court-ordered integration plans, do you know what the cumulative effect on black students’ GPA has been?
    Bupkus.
    In some places, less-than-bupkus.
    Now, dimbulb, what do you do with a political policy [which isn't even the purview of the courts to define in the first damned place, by the way] which does not have the desired effect?
    Do you …
    1] keep doing that thing?
    2] stop doing that thing?
    What?
    How long is “long enough” when you continually fail to acheive the stated goals of a policy? If we’re going to use the considerable wisdom from your direction on Iraq, I’d guage, … two years at the outside. Maybe one.
    So. Were court-ordered school integration plans killed in 1968? ’66 was, if I remember my grad school course, the first deseg plan on the books. Did deseg end in the 60s? Or has it been going strong for the last nearly 40 years?
    You cannot just declare a policy to be axiomatically “good” and then howl and wail when it is declared brain-dead. That would be so … so … **New World Orderish** of you.
    “It’s always fun to see wingnuts butcher US History, like this”
    I take it you’re a “wingnut”?

  19. Steve says:

    Great site, keep it up please!!
    Would you like to do a Link Exchange with The Internet Radio Network?? At the IRN you can listen for free to over 30 of America’s top Talk Shows via FREE STREAMING AUDIO!
    http://netradionetwork.com

  20. Draegn says:

    Send all the blacks back to africa. Let them suffer from a lack of sanitation, medical facilities, starvation, privation, ethnic cleansing, civil war, and petty depotism. Maybe then they’ll drop this bullshit multicultural diversity view of being african american and simply be American.

  21. evett says:

    Okay, rwilymz , you are WAY to smart for these jackass “progessives” to argue, so stop it.
    Second point of order: WHY DO YOU NOT HAVE A BLOG!!!
    Even though lol, bob, et alia are amongst the lowest IQ folk you are like to meet it was still mad fun watching you disembowel them…
    Kudos to you

  22. Fred Beloit says:

    This must be one of the fascist arguments Islamo-moe objects to, from his link:
    “”The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” Roberts said.”

  23. tally says:

    on the 1840 federal census of south carolina there were 454 free black people who owned slaves (the black artisans in charleston being the easiest to trace). that doesn’t make it any less evil, but illustrates both races exploited slave labor for profit. while it’s a sad chapter in our history (and other countries as well), it’s just that, it’s history.

  24. Luke says:

    To the brilliant history students above:
    How is the fact that the party that the racist conservatives identified with was in the PAST — the Democratic Party — relevant to discrediting the Democratic Party NOW after all those racist conservatives joined the currently-racist Republican Party? You do know that the so-called “southern strategy” was to lure the racist Dixiecrats to the Republican party, right? Right?? The parties essentially switched positions on civil rights, and pretending that didn’t happen is quite disingenuous.

  25. bloodrage bob says:

    ….more of the same ‘alice/wonderland’ defense from the liberals. “yes, all the evil racists WERE democrats, but thenamiraclesomehowoccurred and all the bad people magically became republicans.”
    naaaah, son, you’re right: you’re not being “disingenuous” at all, now are ya?

  26. I love that this:
    more of the same ‘alice/wonderland’ defense from the liberals. “yes, all the evil racists WERE democrats, but thenamiraclesomehowoccurred and all the bad people magically became republicans.”
    Posted immediately below this:
    You do know that the so-called “southern strategy” was to lure the racist Dixiecrats to the Republican party, right?
    Do you even read the other comments, bloodrage bob? Luke is exactly right – the Democratic party has a shameful history of racism, but the Republicans recruited those racists in order to control the Southern states (and their votes). The Democratic party as it stands today would be unrecognizable to the Dixiecrats.

  27. What, HTML doesn’t work in these comments?
    Well, everything between “more of the same” and “republicans” was bloodrage bob, and everything from “you do know” to “right?” was Luke.

  28. bloodrage bob says:

    ahhhhh, more of the “racist dems magically morphed into republicans” fable.
    and we’re supposed to believe this why, chemmy? because a *liberal* – desperate to deflect the blame & shame of his party’s undeniable racist roots onto the other guy – says so? hmmm. you know, that story is *awfully* convenient for the democrats. **suspiciously** convenient, in fact.
    do you even read, chemmy? or do you just mouth this week’s dogma? “teacher said the bad racist dems ate some magic beans & turned into republicans, and that’s all i need to know! i’d NEVER question teacher! she might FAIL me if’n i did that!”

  29. rwilymz says:

    “You do know that the so-called “southern strategy” was to lure the racist Dixiecrats to the Republican party, right?”
    It was imperfectly concluded, Mr Wizard. His Honorableness from WVa still calls himself a loyal democrat and loyal democrats keep electing him.
    And don’t look now, Wizzy, but the Republicans have been winnowing those co-opted democrats slowly but surely. If you can find any still there he’s surely conspicuous in his lonesomeness.
    And don’t look again, but playing off race for political advantage does not require “traditional” racism.
    And you really should avert your eyes, because the democratic party in general and most of the remaining democrats in the the south where those “dixiecrats” were co-opted by republicans are livid, they are righteously indignant — STILL — 40 years after the fact, that a large bucket of their power bloc could defect; in short, wiz-bang, democrats want those racists back.