NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/soc/history/9523

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-18 | 2.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!sgigate!sgi!fido!solntze.wpd.sgi.com!livesey
From: [e-mail] (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Founding Fathers
Date: 18 Nov 1992 21:06:52 GMT
Organization: sgi
Lines: 50
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jim Mann) writes:
|> In article <[e-mail]>
|> [e-mail] (Jon Livesey) writes:
|> > In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] >
|> |> >Well, one recent example springs to mind.   When Spain, Portugal
|> > |> >and Greece applied for membership of the EC, they were told to
|> clean
|> > |> >up their acts and re-establish democracy first.
|> > |>
|> > |>     This wasn't a pre-existing federation accepting members.  If
|> > |>     Virginia (the most populous state at the time) hadn't joined,
|> > |>     it might have been the US of New England, and Great Britain
|> > |>     might have regained some errant children.
|> >
|> > That strikes me as a distinction without a difference.   What's so
|> > different between A, B and C deciding to welcome D into their fold,
|> > and A, B, C and D deciding to unite?
|> >
|>
|> But there is a very big difference.  The EC is not worried that
|> they'll collapse or be conquered by a foreign power if Spain
|> doesn't join.  The strongest economic powers in Europe are now
|> in the EC, and it'll do fine without those few countries are
|> not members.
|>
|> The US, at the time of the Constitution, was very worried about
|> the collapse of the country, and subsequent takeover by
|> European powers.

I see, so in fact you are saying that the continuation of
slavery was a cynical act of realpolitic?   "Agree to let A
enslave B, so that A will assist us."

Remember the sarcastic comment of Dr Johnson:  "How is it
that we hear the loudest yelps for Liberty from the drivers
of negroes?".

It sounds as though you are saying that remaining part of the
British Empire - which was soon to abolish slavery itself -
was such a hideous fate, that staying out, even at the cost
of perpetuating slavery in North America, was preferable.

Actually, if you look at it this way, the constant references
to membership of the British Empire as "slavery" begin to make
more sense.    If the Northern States were trading the continuation
of real slavery for Southern help, their own consciences would
be a little easier if they insisted that they were in a state of
slavery themselves.

jon.