What is your controversial historical opinion?

Status
Closed

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,646
Spain
You don't have the right to own another human being, another thinking, rational being. Your idea of freedom.deprives others of theirs. The free right of property is not absolute, you can't own people and torture them for your pleasure you insist is your right. The Constitution that Southern states all signed on allows the state to take private property for the public good with just compensation, to build a road for example. Sorry, your argument is fundamentally flawed.
.
Not in 2018 but yes in 1800 in world... and yes in 1861 in Alabama and yes in 1885 in the Spanish West Indies....the right depends on place...right?
About the right of property you can think is not absolute... I think it is absolute...i am against Leviathan can take private property to build a road... if the road it is necessary for the owners.. i am sure they will agree to do the road.. if they don´t want... not road at all.

You think it is a Marquis Sade´s novel...

Lots of ordinary people owned slaves
8% population had slaves according to Census. Missisiipi 49% families but only 7% free population.. the other 93% Free people in Mississippi had none slave...In South Carolina 6,6% Free people had slaves (93,4% no).. Census 1860

Slave-holders were a minority in South.. around 5 to 8%...free people... 90% free people in South hadn´t slaves. And if we talk about great owners... maybe 0,5%... So yes, it is true.. only a minority.
The major powers, which Spain, Portugal, and Belgium most certainly were not, had abolished slavery. The US was the only first tier country not to have abolished it. The peers of the US had all abolished slavery.
Spain and Portugal had more dominions than Germany or Austria for sure... in 1861 enough to land in Mexico... and in the areas were the slaves worked.. of course, yes, they were greater power than Germany.. sorry, in 1861 not Germany but Prussia...How many naval bases had Prussia in Caribbean in 1861? more or less than Spain? and in India? More or less than Portugal? Oceanie? Asia? Africa? in 1861.. Prussia not even had Schleswig- Holstein!!!

Your problem is you are watching the world as in 2018 not as 1861...After Great Britain and France.. Spain was the third Country the Confederacy wanted to be recognized...still more when Montgomery saw Spain as a Major Slave-Holding Power.

Prussia had not seaborne land in 1861... Spain and Portugal yes in every continent.

"The leaders of the Rebellion expected Great Britain, France and Spain immediately to extend recognition, welcome the Confederacy into the family of the nations"...

The South didn´t have too much hope about Prussian, Austria, Russia...
And the three out five European countries with dominions in America recognized the Belligerent rights of Both sides: Confederacy and Union. in 1861: Great Britain May 13th. France, June 10th and Spain June 17th.

I agree.. Spain was not the 1808 Spain... but for sure in 1861 was stronger than Prussia in America. And in Asia-Africa-Oceanie. Not in Europe. The Prussian Navy was almost nothing in 1861 and it was proved in 1864...and in 1871.

People aren't property. Cars aren't self aware, they are inanimate objects. And even if future AI give things like cars self awareness, they would have been created specifically for that purpose, while slaves weren't. Although with the idea of self aware AI does raise the issue of slavery and civil rights for self aware machines. Many science fiction writers have futures where artificial intelligences have rights as person's. For example, the artificial Android Data in Star Trek the Next Generation has rights of a person, and holds official rank in Star Fleet.
You are thinking as 2018 and I agree with you in 2018.

As I said, all these were minor powers. The major.leadinf countries of the world had abolished slavery. It is like justifying something because North Korea does it.
Not minor powers in 1861... you are thinking as in 2018... in 1861 not minor.. in fact.. it was the Second largest Seaborne Colonial Empire in world: 1st British 2nd Spanish (The French Empire in 1861 still only had some areas in Argelia). It is true was a second level.. but Prussia not even have "level" out of Europe!

In a democracy, you don't aways get your way all the time. The Amendments were democratically and legally passed as set down in the Constitution. You have asserted that slavery owners were only a minority of the population, so we should not be surprised at the outcome. It is part of any democratic government that the minority view has to accept the majority verdict, otherwise you don't have a government, but anarchy, where the strongest do whatever they like, a Mad Max type world.
Where were the Southern diputies and Senators? By other side a Democracy is not a Dictatorship of Majority.... I care a dam if 6 Billions people vote against my Propiety rights...I will defend it.
A Democracy is the system respects to their citizens...their opinions and their ways of life ..not the System says to their citizens what their must think, to opine or how they must live their lifes... that is not democracy.. not matter what majority say... I care nothing...If I want to smoke.. you can be sure I will smoke and care nothing if 5 billions people have voted to ban the tobacco...I don´t give them any rights on me. And not to Mr Lincoln, of course.

Only Lost Causers dispute the the fact that it was the South that started the war.
OK.. I won´t discuss because it is not my speciality...but by the same line of thought..with the same logic, India invaded Goa, Diu, Damao in 1961 stealing the Portuguese Propieties.. paid by Portuguese citizens for 500 years! and the same Nasser in Suez in 1956 (The Egyptian didn´t built the Channel but mostly the French). For not talking about the Serbian propieties stealing by NATO in Kosovo in 1999...The same morale and the same measure for everybody.. not only for Northern States.. ok?

A state does have the right to lock someone up for violating established laws
No way! if the situation is previus to the law... the State have not right to attack the the situations prior to the law... that the reason because the State is LEVIATHAN. An awful Monster mauled our money and our freedom.

A state does, by he simple that by chosing to live under the rule of the state or being a citizen, you have given the government that right.
That is a fallacy. The State was built with the slave-holders living there...in fact... the fathers of constitution were not few.. slaves-holders...
But in 2018.. not, nobody have chosen to live under any laws. .when those laws are vote by a minority to force a majority in profiting of a minority and breaking acquired rights.
In this Totalitarian Contemporanean societies we have the false "copyright"... I don´t accept them and I do not recognize them. Because they are not private propiety when they sell. If you sell me something to me.. I am My own king in my propiety...and i will do with the object I bought to you what I want... withouth any limit in my propiety.... you can sell or not.. it is your decision.. but if you sell... you know my condictions.

Finally still there are slaves.. but today is not so fashion.. because slavery is in Sahel and in Brazil... not in Cuba or in Alabama (and the moder Slave-holders are not elegant Spanish entrepeneurs as Bacardi or Xifré nor refined gentlemen of the South)...I hope in future the Pennsylvania´s boring old spinsters show the same interest that their ancestors showed in South Carolina.

Ok I put end this interesting controversy. Everybody here has freely expressed his views in this thread... we are agree according to 2018 views.. our only small difference it is if we were in 1861. In any case, a pleasure to have exchanged messages.

Regards.
 

JoanOfArc007

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
3,815
USA
I feel my most controversial view is that I challenge this view that Joe Stalin was some kind of devil. If it is true Stalin ordered one innocent to be harmed that would be a crime. One thing we all must consider is throughout WW2 and even after WW2 pro Third Reich folks were attempting to divide the allies and this includes painting the Soviets , Americans and Brits as barbaric but also trying to put the allies against each other trough propaganda efforts. Some folks are critical of Stalin...Yet, to this day in the USA I know personally one ex Soviet whom admired Stalin and Lenin for that matter...he challenged those who criticize Stalin.


And there is a massive difference between Soviet supporters and Third Reich supporters during WW2. Regardless of Stalin and Hitler, it is undeniable the Soviet people fought for a liberal cause, while the Reich sought to eliminate all Jews of the world a sinister plot of which the way the Reich went about it wrt the gassing, was never witnessed in human history. The Soviet people looked up to Stalin a man they thought was a liberal and maybe Stalin was a great man only God knows the truth there. The Soviet people read materials glorifying equality among man, while Pro Third Reich folk were inundated with bigoted material constantly.
 

martin76

Ad Honorem
Dec 2014
6,646
Spain
Martin, if I'm understanding you correctly, you fear that the State will impose morality upon its people. You argue that, while you don't agree with slavery, it was an overreach for the government to mandate that no one can own slaves, as it sets a precedent that will allow the State to do things like ban guns, alcohol, drugs, television etc.
Exactly, Dose you are right. I against the slavery... and not racist at all...a very black woman from Georgia would be able to say what "racist" I am...so very ridicolus..

I am not talking about slavery. about talking about the powers of the administration. Exactly Dose. I agree.. We began with Slavery and we finish saying people how they must to speak!!!! (Politically correct language).

Since you chose U.S. slavery as an example
Right again. For me it is only an example.. You can change Slavery by Tobacco, Pornography, Drugs, television, language.. what you like..

we can stick to the US government
Not US government.. Each government on Earth.. US in 1861 is only one example for me.

I can see your reasoning that the State imposing a morality on its people against their wishes is dangerous if the US were ruled by a dictator (which seems to be how you would like to paint Lincoln). But the US is democratic. Your concerns seem to be that a Leviathan will impose a morality on unwilling people-- but I see a society imposing a morality on itself. The US elected an abolitionist into office and what they got was...abolition.
I am not speacialist in USA LAWs.. but one american friend from New Hampshire (Not a Dixie fanatic).. told me US president lacked and lacks of competences to change Civil Institution as slavery, propety etc..
If tomorrow Trump decided to ban the propiety of the cars.. or the propiety of the ducks he has not competence.. Lincoln hadn´t competence.
Today we are living what is named Democratic Totalitarism.. I can explain how it is possible to intoxicate a Population and how to make laws against the Individual Freedom based on "popular vote"...

Is a representative democracy perfect? No. Are certain people going to disagree with the morals touted by the government? Yes. But this is how a society works (whether governed by a State, governor, or chief) Martin. There will always be those who disagree with popular morals, and they are subject to adhere to those morals anyway. Those morals might be imposed by the other members of your tribe or by a government-- what's the qualitative difference?
I understand to you but not agree.. I prefer a Liberal system... each people decide his own moral and system of life... for example.. why the State have right to steal your ownership to do a road? If you don´t want the road.. no way... if all the people are the owners of the soil.. want to do a road.. they can do it if they want.. if the society want the road.. they will help them (free and voluntarily with their own money and road will be done.. if people don´t want that means society is is not interested in the road.. so road is not good for society)...
I banned the State Police (only private police) and the Adminstration.. if society have a problem.. people joine and paid what they want... if others don´t want they don´t pay and they don´t use the service.

therwise, you can't have laws or an overarching sense of morality-- everyone can simply adhere to their own morality without penalty. Maybe that sounds OK to you, but consider this: There will always be people who believe that stealing, murdering, raping, etc. is OK. Surely you'd agree that the State (or whoever is in power in your ideal reality) is operating within ethical limits in stopping the few that steal, murder, and rape? Why doesn't the same apply when the majority of a society decides that the enslavement of humans is wrong? Why are slave owners entitled to special treatment?
Of course, if somebody kill, steal or rape must be out of the comunity...but not in jail...For example.. if somebody kills a man... and he is in jail for all his life... What did the family of victim win? I say... you victim choose: or he is going to be all his life working for Comunity... or he pays to you and he is free... Imagine..the victim is a husband 45 yo... earns 100.000 dollars a year...we can calculate: 100 x 40 (I gues the hope of life around 85 yo) = 400 and inflaction and penalty: 800.. if he paid to you 8 millions dollars.. he is free. to you.. not lawyers, not officels.. not state not adminitration.. only to you. It is your own decision:

a) He is going to be all his life working free for comunity (30, 40., 100 years).. and you will earn nothing.
b) He pays to you 8 millions dollars and he is free. You decide. It is your decision. Your will, your freedom.. Nobody decided. Only you.. only the real VICTIMS.

I think I am ultra liberal.. In any case, thank you. You understand about what I was talking.

Regards.
 
Jul 2018
67
United States
Of course, if somebody kill, steal or rape must be out of the comunity...but not in jail...For example.. if somebody kills a man... and he is in jail for all his life... What did the family of victim win?
In your opinion, why should they be kicked out the community? By your reasoning, isn't it their right to adhere to their own morality, undisturbed by the state? If a killer believes it's OK to kill, who is the State (or society) to tell him he can't do so?

It seems like you agree with me in that there's a line where the state can intervene. That line is (at least) where someone's morality is extremely harmful to others. Thus, it's OK to prohibit killing, raping, theft, and, yes, owning other people.


Also, "out of the community"= "in jail." Right? If a serial killer is caught, where does he go? No country or society wants him. Surely it's not a good idea to let a serial killer walk free because he can afford to pay his bail. We kick people out of the community in order to stop harm...so the family of the victim and the rest of society "wins" security
 

JoanOfArc007

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
3,815
USA
1860 Slaverey was generally accepted: USA, Spain, Portugal, China, Islamic Word, Zanzibar, Most of Africa, Brazil, Netherland,

Most of Earth Planet was slave-holder.. from Peking to Richmond.. from Rio de Janeiro to Kabul... from Khiva to Jartoum.. from Tangier to Bangkok.. from Seul to San Juan de Puerto Rico...

So only because a gang of snobs.. enemies of the individual freedom decided Slavery was not fashionable... it doesn´t mean they were right. Yes the illegal preventing slavery was the same than everything it is today: Who is the State to say what each individual can smoke or drink at what hour.. what they want to watch in internet or how they want to drive... No Way...
The Totalitarian Leviathan had in Lincoln and his fanatical friends... a great hero, really.

In ancient times to middle ages... there were cases of forced labor ie in Rome, in various Catholic and Islamic Kingdoms...but these forced laborers some whom were criminals or captured enemy combatants also had opportunity to redeem themselves and then rise to the greatest positions in society that is unlike the slavery we saw in the USA in the 19th century or in modern day times in ISIL controlled areas.



See the Janissary corps of the Ottoman Empire...while some may consider the Janissaries to have been slaves, they were certainly in a most sought after and prestigious position being able to attain wealth and power. Note how when the Catholics of the what was to be later known as the First Crusade set up a Kingdom in Jerusalem that was to be later glorified for its diversity by a Muslim scholar Ibn Jubair in the 12th century.



In Ancient India the Emperor Ashoka argued against slavery.


Various Catholic Kingdoms of the middle ages abolished slavery.





Slavery was different throughout history in how the slaves were treated. In the Ancient and middle times slaves could rise up, in some societies again though during the ancient times and middle ages slavery was illegal. In the slavery of the American south of the civil war era, and the slavery we see today in ISIL this is a slavery based on supremacy, one racial another religions, ISIL targeting Shia and CSA targeting black folks Muslims and even fellow Christian regardless of denomination. It may be argued that CSA and ISIL relate to the Third Reich, not so much even that of for example Isabelle I of Spain whom sought to help native people that Columbus encountered. Isabelle I wanted to convert everyone to Christianity and while this can be problematic it is not the same as outright exterminate or outright perpetual enslavement which the latter the perpetual enslavement and extermination is what the Reich, CSA, and ISIL engaged in.



That said it is difficult to outright claim that slavery was generally accepted at any point in human history. Yes you are right that history is filled with violence and brutal slavery. That said one can note numerous examples of opposition to slavery by prominent leaders in the Ancient to middle ages. More then this, most important it is shown that the Roman Empire included Africans and Arabs in the highest of ranks, Catholic Kingdoms and Islamic Kingdoms including black and white looking people, that diversity is distinct from the inequalty expressed by the likes of the CSA, Third Reich and ISIL.



As for the 19th century In the 19th century during the scramble for Africa The British Empire sought to end slavery in Africa, 19th century British heroes like David Livingstone(born a Scot btw) whom explored Africa providing a lasting legacy for influencing African people. To this day Livingstone a European Christian whom opposed slavery while Americans supported it during the US civil war...is honored with Statues in Zimbabwe a modern day African country that Livingstone once explored.



The French and British Empires played a large role in freeing millions of slaves in Africa during the Scramble for Africa. The British Empire ended slavery in their domain prior to the USA ending slavery in their domain.
 
Jul 2018
67
United States
Some folks are critical of Stalin...Yet, to this day in the USA I know personally one ex Soviet whom admired Stalin and Lenin for that matter...he challenged those who criticize Stalin.
:notrust: I've already got my hands full trying to explain why the abolition of slavery was a good thing. I don't have the energy to challenge someone who thinks Stalin wasn't a bad person, especially if his/her historical source is "one ex Soviet." Does someone else wanna take this one on?
 

JoanOfArc007

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
3,815
USA
:notrust: I've already got my hands full trying to explain why the abolition of slavery was a good thing. I don't have the energy to challenge someone who thinks Stalin wasn't a bad person, especially if his/her historical source is "one ex Soviet." Does someone else wanna take this one on?
Its no big deal friend we probably agree on most. Its not just one ex Soviet but millions of good family folks in Russia praise Stalin. And I for one am challenging the view that Stalin was some kind of demon.. I stated earlier that if Stalin committed one crime that the crime should be called out.


Either way main point I want to make wrt Stalin is more or less about his followers... The people of the USSR were motivated by liberal material. There is no comparing the Soviets to the Third Reich. Those educators in the Reich were providing reading material and education to youth based on the view that different races existed(a 1950 UN report shows race is a myth) and that some were inferior.



If Stalin was a criminal, even if...the Soviet People fought for a liberal ideology of equality among man. That is the point one can not deny, the Soviet people were like the Americans and British. Otoh those in the Reich like those in Italy and the EOJ profited sometimes incredibly from a ideology based on bigotry the ideology of supramcy. We all know that Hitler in public spoke against freedom. In public Stalin spoke for freedom, what happened in private in both Hitler and Stalins lives, as well as the other main leaders of WW2 like FDR and Churchill only God knows.
 

notgivenaway

Ad Honorem
Jun 2015
5,745
UK
I feel my most controversial view is that I challenge this view that Joe Stalin was some kind of devil. If it is true Stalin ordered one innocent to be harmed that would be a crime. One thing we all must consider is throughout WW2 and even after WW2 pro Third Reich folks were attempting to divide the allies and this includes painting the Soviets , Americans and Brits as barbaric but also trying to put the allies against each other trough propaganda efforts. Some folks are critical of Stalin...Yet, to this day in the USA I know personally one ex Soviet whom admired Stalin and Lenin for that matter...he challenged those who criticize Stalin.


And there is a massive difference between Soviet supporters and Third Reich supporters during WW2. Regardless of Stalin and Hitler, it is undeniable the Soviet people fought for a liberal cause, while the Reich sought to eliminate all Jews of the world a sinister plot of which the way the Reich went about it wrt the gassing, was never witnessed in human history. The Soviet people looked up to Stalin a man they thought was a liberal and maybe Stalin was a great man only God knows the truth there. The Soviet people read materials glorifying equality among man, while Pro Third Reich folk were inundated with bigoted material constantly.
Hitler was cared about his own people, but Stalin was more indisrciminate. It was safer to be a German in the Third Reich, than a Soviet in the USSR under Stalin. Hitler didn't purge people whom he thought were enemies, unless actually did oppose his regime or were proven threats to him.
 
Jun 2016
1,863
England, 200 yards from Wales
Right johnminit...

I have car from 30 year ago...18 years and 18 days. Never an accident. I drove around 1,5 millions kms... never an accident... ok...not even one traffic fine.... i have maximum points in my driving licence...
I say to you this.. because I drink and I drive... I don´t accept LEVIATHAN tell me how I must live my life... I don´t accept LEVIATHAN imposes its moral standards on my life ...

If by drinking and driving you mean drinking enough that you would be over the limit in, for instance, most European countries then I'm sorry but that is not freedom, that is sheer arrogance - "my will is so important I must be free to endanger other people by drinking and driving" (and whether you have had an accident yet or not, doing that does increase the risk of an accident).
So the state (as representative of the whole population) must not impose its moral standards on you, but you can impose your behaviour on others.


Rather like the slave owner whose freedom to own other people meant he stole even more fundamental freedoms from those people.
(Before you mention 2018 yet again, a great many people realised that contradiction in 1860 too).
And that is where your 'ultra-liberalism' would lead - dictatorship by those strong enough to impose their freedom on other people and restrict their freedom, if there is no state power to redress that balance.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2016
1,863
England, 200 yards from Wales
Hitler was cared about his own people, but Stalin was more indisrciminate. It was safer to be a German in the Third Reich, than a Soviet in the USSR under Stalin. Hitler didn't purge people whom he thought were enemies, unless actually did oppose his regime or were proven threats to him.

Or were Jewish or communist or gay or gypsies I seem to recall.
 
Status
Closed