Mormon America

[Moksha]

At the October 1987 general conference, President Ezra Taft Benson … spoke “about our divine Constitution, which the Lord said ‘belongs to all mankind’ (D&C 98:5) ‘and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles.’ (D&C 101:77.) “The Constitution of the United States has served as a model for many nations and is the oldest constitution in use today.

“‘I established the Constitution of this land,’ said the Lord, ‘by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose.’ (D&C 101:80.)

On the link, it there is a quote about the book the student is holding as being Cleon Skousen's The Five Thousand Year Leap.

http://www.getreligion.org/?p=19434

What sayest thou?

[hordak]

On the link, it there is a quote about the book the student is holding as being Cleon Skousen's The Five Thousand Year Leap.

http://www.getreligion.org/?p=19434

What sayest thou?

The Five Thousand Year Leap” by Cleon Skousen. It explains that if it had not been for the founding fathers and how they set up our Constitution we could not have created the environment to allow for the great advances of the modern world. We literally went from hoes and shovels to placing a man on the moon and we took a five thousand year leap in human development. Truly these men were inspired!

I think Cleon is oversimplifying. As an American it's easy to be proud of our accomplishments as a nation but it is necessity that breeds innovation not necessarily freedom. Some of the greatest advance of the modern world have come from from war and death. The rocket necessary to put man on the moon, was descended from the V-2, created in Hitlers Germany, hardly a bastion for freedom, and designed with the intent of killing.

[Just_A_Guy]

The artist is a guy named Jon McNaughton. The website where he explains each component of the painting is here.

I'm not particularly impressed.

[talisyn]

Bet it sells a lot. Reminds me of last Sunday when a woman gave the closing prayer, asking for blessings on the U.S. constitution. When did that become official scripture?

[sixpacktr]

We all ought to pray that somehow the Constitution is protected. What she did was appropriate.

When I was at BYU many, many years ago I attended the Asian ward with my wife. It was made up of Japanese, Chinese, Polynesians, Vietnamese, other Asians, etc., and their American husbands/wives. It was a great ward, but there was acrimony because of the war, etc., but I digress.

Once Sunday just before the 4th of July, our Bishop got up and told all of us that we should all celebrate this great national holiday even if the US wasn't the place of our birth or nationality because the US Constitution was set up by the hand of God and without the US and the freedoms enshrined within it the church could not have come forth.

So while it is SO cool to denigrate those of us that believe that the Constitution is being dismantled at an alarming rate, always, always remember--Joseph himself talked of the Constitution, talked of the founders of this country, and that those men appeared to either John Taylor or Wilford Woodruff so that their temple work would be done.

We have forgotten what it is to be American.

[Just_A_Guy]

FWIW, MormonWiki is dedicated to making the LDS Church look as weird as possible. I look to them for cherry-picked quotes, but not for balanced doctrinal expositions.

[talisyn]

I know exactly what an American is, Sixpacktr. Americans look and act amazingly like everyone around me, and I see one every time I look in the mirror. The US constitution is a great living document, and I do believe it's inspired. However, I also believe the Magna Carta is inspired as well, with the desired result the Restoration of the fullness of the gospel. Accomplishment achieved, let the latter-days roll!

[Moksha]

Talisyn, where do you stand on the Code of Hammurabi?

[Elphaba]

read this:White Horse prophecy - MormonWiki.org

The White Horse Prophecy has been denounced, or at least parts of it. From the White Horse Prophecy, by George Cobabe: pg. 6:

Finally, authorities of the Church have denounced portions of the account [the prophecy]. In General Conference in October 1918, Joseph Fielding Smith made the following comments:

I have discovered that people have copies of a purposed vision by the Prophet Joseph Smith given in Nauvoo, and some people are circulating this supposed vision, or revelation, or conversation which the prophet is reported to have held with a number of individuals in the city of Nauvoo.

I want to say to you, my brethren and sisters, that if you understand the Church articles and covenants, if you will read the scriptures and become familiar with those things which are recorded in the revelations from the Lord, it will not be necessary for you to ask any questions in regard to the authenticity or otherwise of any purported revelation, vision, or manifestation that proceeds out of darkness, concocted in some corner, surreptitiously present, and not coming through the proper channels of the Church.

Let me add that when a revelation comes for the guidance of this people, you may be sure that it will not be presented in some mysterious manner contrary to the order of the Church. It will go forth in such form that the people will understand that it comes from those who are in authority, for it will be sent either to the presidents of stakes and the bishops of the wars over the signatures of the presiding authorities.

Or it will be published in some of the regular papers or magazines under the control and direction of the Church or it will be presented before such gatherings as this, at a general conference. It will not spring up in some distance part of the Church and be in the hands of some obscure individual without authority, and thus be circulated among the Latter-day Saints. . . . (I added paragraph breaks to make it more readable.)

His father and President of the Church, Joseph F. Smith, followed immediately after his speech and said:

The ridiculous story about the “red horse” and the black horse,” and the “white horse,” and a lot of trash that has been circulated about and printed and sent around as a great revelation given by the Prophet Joseph Smith, is a matter that was gotten up, I understand, some ten years ago after the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith, by two of our brethren who put together some broken sentences from the Prophet that they may have heard from time to time, and formulated this so-called revelation out of it, and it was never spoken by the prophet in the manner in which they have put it forth. It is simply false; that is all there is to it.

Elphaba

Edited November 5, 2009 by Elphaba
changed "discreted" to "denounced."

[talisyn]

Talisyn, where do you stand on the Code of Hammurabi?

That set of laws was awesome too, and proved to me that people have an innate sense of justice no matter what time period. Of course this is depending on an accurate translation

[Elphaba]

Here you go - the link was not actually to the WHP - but to those parts which were discussed and agreed upon in GC's of the past:

I see that.

Next time you link to a site with a misleading title, you should let your readers know about it beforehand.

Elphaba

[bluedreams]

What sayest thou?

Excuse what is about to come. I'm an art person, love art, and do it myself. So I often have strong feelings towards the topic of art and its representation.

I hate, hate hate hate HATE this painting. This isn't much of an understatement, I litterally get a headache from the youtube video that was posted with it. The first time I saw this paint, it creeped me out. The second time I decidred to really look at it and figure out why this bothered me more than the usual painting. It's just ridiculously propagandic. Not specifically in the american constitution sense (which it is quite a bite), but an america conservative right leaning sense. I'm not a fan of overly emotive realism (kitch art) to begin with, but this is on my list of paintings that surely take the cake for me. It's up there with an old premortal existance painting, a swindle of christ's dead body, and another recent piece by Dewey.

Bet it sells a lot.

Eeyup, sure did. It was my job to help them pick out frames for it.

whew....well that's mostly out of my system. Ending rant now.

With luv,

BD

[Moksha]

I hate, hate hate hate HATE this painting. This isn't much of an understatement, I literally get a headache from the you tube video that was posted with it. The first time I saw this paint, it creeped me out. The second time I decided to really look at it and figure out why this bothered me more than the usual painting. It's just ridiculously propagandic.

BD

Hey Bluedreams, perhaps we will need to hold back in using it to sell ward bonds. We do not need ridiculous propaganda for that task!

After reading your response, it is easier to understand why the Supreme Court Justice in that painting is weeping. Did not mean to cause you distress.

Hey, did you see the Youtube video of Glen Beck analyzing the art and architecture at Rockefeller Center? Now that was really something. He knows the truth aout those capitalists since reading Cleon Skousen.

YouTube - Glenn Beck Finds "Communist" Art At NBC's Headquarters

.

[Elphaba]

I hate, hate hate hate HATE this painting.

BD, I'm curious as to what you think of this piece of "art." Oh, and don't forget to read the words while looking at the art.

Guess where that ghastly image comes from? Page 737 of Cleon Skousen's other book out there making waves, called The Making of America, and it is full of vile racism.

Other examples included in Skousen's book:

Abolitionists at fault for delaying emancipation. "Gradual emancipation by legislative action was talked about in the South for two generations after the Declaration of Independence. A fierce contest, waged over this issue in the legislature of Virginia as late as 1832, was lost by the emancipationists largely because of resentment against the interference of Northern abolitionists and terror over the Nat Turner insurrection of the preceding year.

"Had the result been different the effect upon the border states, where slavery at best was of questionable value, may well be imagined. By too militant action the abolitionists themselves did much to perpetuate slavery in the northern group of the Southern states." [The Making of America, page 730]

Newly sold slaves "usually a cheerful lot." "The tendency was to sell families as units, if for no other reason [than] to keep the slaves contented. The gangs in transit were usually a cheerful lot, though the presence of a number of the more vicious type sometimes made it necessary for them all to go in chains. At the other extreme, when the Central of Georgia railroad company in 1858 equipped a Negro sleeping car to assist in the slave trade it set a standard not always maintained in a later generation. When on the block, the slave was as likely to hinder as to help in his sale. Some, out of a vain conceit in bringing a high price, would boast of their physical prowess, in which case an unwary purchaser would likely be cheated. Others would malinger, because of a grudge against owners or traders or in order to bring a low price and be put at less tiring labor. Dealers, also, adopted the tricks of horse traders to make their merchants more attractive -- the greasiest Negro was generally considered the healthiest." [The Making of America, pages 731-732]

Slaves hampered efficiency of white labor. "In the management of slave labor the gang system predominated. The great majority of owners, having at the most only one or two families of Negroes, had to work alongside their slaves and set the pace for them. Slavery did not make white labor unrespectable, but merely inefficient. The slave had a deliberateness of motion which no amount of supervision could quicken. If the owner got ahead of the gang they all would shirk behind his back." [The Making of America, page 732]

White schoolchildren would "envy the freedom" of "colored playmates." "Slave food, even if monotonous, was plentiful. Corn bread and bacon were the mainstays, with plenty of fruit and vegetables in season. In hog-killing time, countenances were unusually greasy. Clothing also was on the par with that of the poorer white people and no less adequate in proportion to the climate than that of Northern laborers. If [negro children] ran naked it was generally from choice, and when the white boys had to put on shoes and go away to school they were likely to envy the freedom of their colored playmates. The color line began to appear at about that time." [The Making of America, pages 732-733]

Cruelty rare, slave owners "the worst victims." "Excessive toil occurred only where the masters or overseers were feeble witted as well as brutal. A persistent rumor among abolitionists was that sugar planters followed a policy of working slaves to death in seven years as a matter of economy. The persons spreading such reports were as ignorant of Negro nature as they were of conditions in the sugar mills. Furthermore, they overrated the ability of the masters to know how to kill a slave in the given time instead of leaving him a broken-down burden to the plantation. When they set out to prove the accusation they returned with no evidence, but convinced that the practice existed in some obscure region which they had not succeeded in ferreting out. Harriet Martineau, after watching slaves go through the motions of work without tiring themselves, considered the planters as models of patience and observed that new slave owners from Europe or the North were prone to be the most severe. Numerous observers, of various shades of opinion on slavery, agreed that brutality was no more common in the black belt than among free labor elsewhere, and that the slave owners were the worst victims of the system." [The Making of America, pages 733-734

Broken marriages "one the blessings of slavery." "Negro weddings were attended by white people who joined in the celebration. If the marriages were of a rather impermanent nature, that fact was frequently considered as 'one of the blessings of slavery.' At church and camp meetings the Negroes, in their own section of the building or tabernacle, enjoyed the experiences immensely. They could shout without restraint, while the masters, in order to preserve their dignity, had to repress their emotions. It made little difference if religion was thrown off soon after the camp meeting dissolved -- backsliding was pleasant, and there was always a chance to get intoxicatingly converted again." [The Making of America, page 734]

"Negro preachers" warranted surveillance. "The worst offenses of slaves against the white men's code were rebellion and running away. Drunkenness, stealing, hiding out from work, personal filthiness, carelessness of property, fighting, and general brutality had various positions in the scale of misdemeanors. Negro preachers often bred discontent by their unnecessary restraint upon pleasure, and, if itinerants, had to be watched closely for abolitionist or seditious doctrines." [The Making of America, page 734]

Southern life a "nightmare" of fear -- for white people. "The constant fear of slave rebellion made life in the South a nightmare, especially in regions where conspiracies were of frequent occurrence. The extermination of white civilization in Santo Domingo was followed in the nineteenth century by several other bloody outbursts in the West Indies, which never failed to cause ominous forebodings in America. [...]

"In the nineteenth century, conspiracies headed by George Boxley and Denmark Vessey in South Carolina (1816 and 1822), and the Nat Turner insurrection in Virginia in 1831 were the outstanding examples. Boxley, a Negro with a sort of John Brown intelligence, escaped while six of his followers were executed. The Vessey plot, prematurely revealed, resulted in 130 arrests which culminated in the hangings of 35, deportation fo nearly as many, and imprisonment of 4 white participants. Nat Turner, a mystic type of Baptist preacher, set out to annihilate white civilization, and succeeded to the extent of 10 men, 14 women, and 31 children. He was finally hanged with several of his followers, but the after-effects of the uprising were deplorable." [The Making of America, page 735]

Southern slavery better than Northern freedom. "The free Negro had rather more opportunity for economic advancement in the South than in the North. The Southerner was bothered by the race problem but knew how to handle the individual Negro, while the Northerner professed a benign interest in the race so long as its members were as remote as possible. Neither section was willing to grant equal rights in education, suffrage, or legal standing, while many states of all sections had laws prohibiting the immigration of free Negroes. Abraham Lincoln could not have maintained his standing in the Republican party had he not been a staunch supporter of the Illinois exclusion law and a firm opponent of political and social equality. It was most difficult for a Negro to get a job in the North, except at the most loathsome of tasks. Some Negroes, having been freed and sent to any Northern state which would receive them, became so miserable as to solicit a return to slavery." [The Making of America, pages 735-736]

Emancipated slaves hated because of Civil War and "carpetbag regime." "This seemingly hopeless situation was by 1860 approaching a solution which was not allowed to materialize. The limits of slavery expansion either by purchase or conquest had been reached. The natural increase of slave population in a few decades would have checked the opportunities for profitable sale. It seems futile to believe otherwise than that, before the end of the century, the diminishing returns from slave ownership would have driven slave prices so low that, in self-defense, owners would have made tenants of their laborers, thrown them upon their own resources, and placed dependence upon rentals for profits. It likewise seems reasonable to believe that by this solution the Negro might have escaped the revulsion of feeling against him that resulted from forcible emancipation and the carpetbag regime." [The Making of America, page 737]

The end picture-caption. At the end of Skousen's extensive quotation of Shannon, The Making of America features an illustration of two dark, manacled hands with the accompanying caption: "In some ways, the economic system of slavery chained the slave owners almost as much as the slaves." [The Making of America, page 737]

The Making of America is making the rounds now among the extreme far-right, and I'm sure it's doing very well hanging onto The Leap's and Beck's coattails.

Elphaba

　

[bytor2112]

I don't find the Skousen comments racist either or the illustration. The painting is.....odd, weird....I wouldn't buy it.

Edited November 5, 2009 by bytor2112

[talisyn]

What I find incredibly sad is that someone thought the lot of slave owners was at least equal to that of their human property.

[FunkyTown]

I agree - I think the lot of the slave owners were much worse off than (not equal to) that of the African Americans. I think it is harder to live with a guilty conscience, to live as a sinner, than to live as an innocent.

Wow. I came on here to tell Elphaba that just because someone says something stupid about one thing doesn't make them wrong about everything else, but I have to address this:

You're kidding, right, Changed? You recognize that many slave owners wouldn't have had a guilty conscience? Never once have I ever seen any show displaying the poor, downtrodden slave owners tyrannized by the people they owned.

[talisyn]

Still no sympathy for the slave owners. I would have to agree with the comments about the slaves making the best of a bad situation, be it comfort to those around them or passive-aggressive behavior, but that's all I agree with. The idea that abolitionists cause slavery to last longer? Absurd. What were they suppose to do when faced with inhumane treatment of fellow humans, wait until the slave owners said 'Gee this just isn't cost effective so we're gonna send all our slaves to Hawaii as reward for their labor'? It's an insulting theory, inaccurate at best. Advances in agriculture, making it cost effective to own vast amounts of land thus necessitating cheap labor, is what stopped slavery from dying a 'natural' death, not abolitionists.

Changed, most Southern slave owners were Christian. They knew full well what they were doing was wrong yet they did it anyways. I wouldn't want to be them either, but then I wouldn't have been like them at all, anyways!

Edited November 5, 2009 by talisyn

[hordak]

Excuse what is about to come. I'm an art person, love art, and do it myself. So I often have strong feelings towards the topic of art and its representation.

BD

Is it common to "steal" art when making a new work? First thing i thought of when i saw this was "hey my dad has this". I can't find a pic on line but my parents had one exactly like this but less modern. If you erased the capital, the paper in his hand and made the people in the back anonymous it would be the same pic. Even the sinners are in the same place

It's like taking the Mona Lisa and drawing sunglasses , a hat on her and calling it new.

Anyone know the pic i'm talking about?

[bytor2112]

What I find incredibly sad is that someone thought the lot of slave owners was at least equal to that of their human property.

I find it incredibly sad that some free blacks owned slaves????

Edited November 5, 2009 by bytor2112

[Just_A_Guy]

Wasn't a frequent abolitionist argument that slavery demeaned the owners as well as the owned?

Odd how Skousen's a racist for resurrecting a century-old abolitionist argument. I could agree with you, Elphaba, if Skousen's overall point was that the lot of the slaves was better than the lot of the owners. But to judge that in context, I'd have to read the book--which would entail buying the book--which would entail incurring your wrath, I'm sure . . .

Edited November 5, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[FunkyTown]

Wasn't a frequent abolitionist argument that slavery demeaned the owners as well as the owned?

Odd how Skousen's a racist for resurrecting a century-old abolitionist argument. I could agree with you, Elphaba, if Skousen's overall point was that the lot of the slaves was better than the lot of the owners. But to judge that in context, I'd have to read the book--which would entail buying the book--which would entail incurring your wrath, I'm sure . . .

Oh, there's no question it does, JAG. It does demean both.

However, if someone steals money from me, it demeans them by making them a thief. I still don't want someone to steal money from me.

His arguments are ridiculous. And stupid. And have nothing to do with his financial arguments.

[Just_A_Guy]

Oh, there's no question it does, JAG. It does demean both.

However, if someone steals money from me, it demeans them by making them a thief. I still don't want someone to steal money from me.

His arguments are ridiculous. And stupid. And have nothing to do with his financial arguments.

Aside from the general assertion that slavery had serious negative consequences for white southerners, what "argument" is he making, precisely? Taken in context, is the guy pro-slavery?

[bluedreams]

Hey Bluedreams, perhaps we will need to hold back in using it to sell ward bonds. We do not need ridiculous propaganda for that task!

Lol.

After reading your response, it is easier to understand why the Supreme Court Justice in that painting is weeping. Did not mean to cause you distress.

No that would be the realization that supreme court decisions about disputes of private/government property are a mar on his soul. At least he realizes his mistakes. The people he's in company with (journalists, a proffesor who believes in evolution, them greedy lawyers, smug hollywood, and blinded politicians) don't seem to have a clue that they're being led by Satan. I love that he states you can tell who people ID with by their reactions. It's like the finishing touches of judgment being made.

And I knew what I was getting when I decided to watch this. I once had to watch a documentary on kinkade and I left with stomach pains from the man. So it's not much of a surprise. I just have very strong feelings about art.

Hey, did you see the Youtube video of Glen Beck analyzing the art and architecture at Rockefeller Center? Now that was really something. He knows the truth aout those capitalists since reading Cleon Skousen.

That was hilariously bad. The art on the rockefeller building was propaganda. Most public art is. But he's missing half of it. He ignores the large part of symbolism shown within the art of NYC. And I'm surprised he didn't mention how communist Isaiah is. The symbols used by the USSR go long before the state as symbols and all of the work he criticizes were made prior to the absolute paranoia that would swallow Americans about communism, socialism, and fascism. It like pointing to the upside down stars on LDS temples and pointing to the obvious signs of satanism IMO.

On to man at the crossroads. Diego Rivera happens to be one of my favorite artists. He was a communist, but the meaning that Beck puts in his art is off, really off. And Rockefeller was never happy about this painting and considering that Rivera didn't like Rockefeller isn't much of a surprise. He tried to control his desires for the painting (artists are not fans of that) and he would later destroy it because of the Lenin bit that he always disliked. I completely disagree with his idea that Lenin is the savior in this painting. Man is the controller of his destiny, the man behind the machine. The world has brought out many evils, wars, and tyrannies but also the altering and grasping for new ideas. Not only ones based on marxism, but also shown are breakthroughs in social liberties, science, and technology. These are the things that are coming out of humanity, the ground a crop with all sorts of plants, in his day. And the man is at a cross roads where he must choose what he will utilize and propogate into the future. Communism isn't the basis of his message.

BD, I'm curious as to what you think of this piece of "art." Oh, and don't forget to read the words while looking at the art.

　

Actually, the painting, in and of itself doesn't bother me. I agree with it. In some ways the economic system did entrap the slaveowner in a system where they were dependent on bondage. Something about the bondage of sin comes to mind. The painting in and of itself doesn't bother me and I can't help but wonder if this picture was commissioned by Skousen or rather he found it and interpreted it to fit his ideas on slavery. Because the words that follow are a load of crap that flirts with racism.

Abolitionists at fault for delaying emancipation.

They weren't actually willing to do it....that was the delay to emancipation. That they talked for 2 decades without any real formative plans should speak volumes for their willingness. That the formers of the new government had to work around slavery in the first place to comfort their southern brother should speak a couple more encyclopedias. At every turn they found excuses to maintain the system that they already had because it worked for them. Turner was an excuse. The northern influence was an excuse. That the slaves were just peachy being slaves and that it was a natural state of being for the lesser folk was an excuse. The politcal startegy and Lincoln's initial desires was for this slow death. They were cutting off the practice to of slavery from spreading west. The south saw it as an afront to their lifestyle and fought back. For heaven's sake, in the letters of secession many specifaclly state that it was for their "right" to have slaves.

Gradual emancipation was a means to get people off their back about an immoral practice.

Newly sold slaves "usually a cheerful lot." "

Of course they were. What was the point of fighting? Any sign of dissent would lead to punishment. That they were usually cheerful means a) they knew better than to complain to their masters and overseers b) You find whatever happiness you can in a half-life c) on the off chance the people were documenting the three people who did like have their lives subjugated, controlled, and repressed by others.

That there were "vicious" types should state of the unhappiness and discontent that was truly lurking under the surface. What he states onwards from slow labor to slaves trying to drive down their own worth shows classic passive aggression

White schoolchildren would "envy the freedom" of "colored playmates."

Of course they did. What kid wouldn't want to run around naked and miss out on school all day. That children, who still have a weak grasp on social and economic disparities would envy this is of no value or surprise.

Cruelty rare, slave owners "the worst victims."

And now it's bordering racist

"Excessive toil occurred only where the masters or overseers were feeble witted as well as brutal. A persistent rumor among abolitionists was that sugar planters followed a policy of working slaves to death in seven years as a matter of economy.

No, there's a reason people in the they were important slaves to begin with. They could whether it. All the weak ones were killed off by a horrifying boat ride over, leaving an unnatural selection of hardier people.

In the caribbean they had started using black slaves because the native populations just kept dying from the work.

But the main reason they were brutal in excess was because slaves cost money and were apart of their livelihoods. They'd also built a system of behavior and culture around slavery that allowed for a more sustainable system that preferred implicit reminders of power than explicit.

Broken marriages "one the blessings of slavery." "Negro weddings were attended by white people who joined in the celebration. If the marriages were of a rather impermanent nature, that fact was frequently considered as 'one of the blessings of slavery.' At church and camp meetings the Negroes, in their own section of the building or tabernacle, enjoyed the experiences immensely. They could shout without restraint, while the masters, in order to preserve their dignity, had to repress their emotions. It made little difference if religion was thrown off soon after the camp meeting dissolved -- backsliding was pleasant, and there was always a chance to get intoxicatingly converted again."

And this would definitely be an example of flirting with racism.

"Negro preachers" warranted surveillance. "The worst offenses of slaves against the white men's code were rebellion and running away. Drunkenness, stealing, hiding out from work, personal filthiness, carelessness of property, fighting, and general brutality had various positions in the scale of misdemeanors. Negro preachers often bred discontent by their unnecessary restraint upon pleasure, and, if itinerants, had to be watched closely for abolitionist or seditious doctrines." [The Making of America, page 734]

:eek:

No, that's really all I have to say but the story of abinadi comes to mind while reading this.

Southern life a "nightmare" of fear -- for white people. "The constant fear of slave rebellion made life in the South a nightmare, especially in regions where conspiracies were of frequent occurrence. The extermination of white civilization in Santo Domingo was followed in the nineteenth century by several other bloody outbursts in the West Indies, which never failed to cause ominous forebodings in America. [...]

This I agree with. not necessarily his wording, but that the South was paranoid about slave rebellion and chaos breaking was very real. But I'm not given to much sympathy for it as skousen's writing sounds like. To me, their paranoia is no different than that of a murderer fear that he'll be caught by the cops. They had laid down a very dangerous system where something could unexpected blow up in their faces.

Southern slavery better than Northern freedom.

No. Northern freedom was not the best because the people in the north were marred by racism as much as the south was. But slavery was not better than freedom

Some Negroes, having been freed and sent to any Northern state which would receive them, became so miserable as to solicit a return to slavery." [The Making of America, pages 735-736]

Just like there are people who return to abusive spouses. That some preffered the life of a slave isn't a good indication of whether slavery was better. It only shows that the slaves were human. The ran from the terrors of slavery, into a life with no familial and little community support. They were, most likely, with few skills, illiterate, and with little idea of the northern state culture. Slavery wasn't better, but it was known. They had built the tools necessary to survive being a slave, which in turn handicapped them for any other life.

Emancipated slaves hated because of Civil War and "carpetbag regime." "This seemingly hopeless situation was by 1860 approaching a solution which was not allowed to materialize. The limits of slavery expansion either by purchase or conquest had been reached. The natural increase of slave population in a few decades would have checked the opportunities for profitable sale. It seems futile to believe otherwise than that, before the end of the century, the diminishing returns from slave ownership would have driven slave prices so low that, in self-defense, owners would have made tenants of their laborers, thrown them upon their own resources, and placed dependence upon rentals for profits. It likewise seems reasonable to believe that by this solution the Negro might have escaped the revulsion of feeling against him that resulted from forcible emancipation and the carpetbag regime."

oh so much better. From slavery to an american version of the feudal state. That is skousens best hypothetical solution of if things were to not end in civil war?!?

The Making of America is making the rounds now among the extreme far-right, and I'm sure it's doing very well hanging onto The Leap's and Beck's coattails.

Great:rolleyes:....it can join the ranks of The Bell Curve in further validating racist beliefs and easing the conscience of racist beliefs.

With luv,

BD

[bluedreams]

Is it common to "steal" art when making a new work? First thing i thought of when i saw this was "hey my dad has this". I can't find a pic on line but my parents had one exactly like this but less modern. If you erased the capital, the paper in his hand and made the people in the back anonymous it would be the same pic. Even the sinners are in the same place

Yes, in a sense. Though artist don't usually call it stealing. Art borrows and builds upon past art all the time. Sometimes this can cross the line, but in this case I probably say it hasn't....any more than doing a million landscapes that look practically the same to me is. As long as he painted it, did not immediately transfer the basic work onto the canvas, and still hold his own original touch to his painting, I'd consider it new art. Not the most original, but new.

It's like taking the Mona Lisa and drawing sunglasses , a hat on her and calling it

new.

Sounds like dadaism (an art movement) to me

Anyone know the pic i'm talking about?

I think I might. The one with the more heavenly looking seen with a darker corner. There's a broken column somewhere in there too...

with luv,

BD