Jump to content
Hunter Stern

Should commercial ventures and estates in SL be allowed to discriminate?

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Pamela Galli said:

I guess it took them eight years and 24,000 dead to figure out they were not really trying.

Unfortunately yes...

The commander of British forces in North America during the early stages of the insurrection, was, what we refer to technically as a "traitor", he had openly supported the insurrectonist movement, and deliberately mismanaged the campaign against Georgeama Bin Washington and his al'Republica Terrorists.

Eventually he was recalled in disgrace, and a new commander appointed, however there was reluctance to supply additional troops and materiel, since the majority of Britons didn't WANT a war with the colonies at all, and partly because of the costs.

We'd already run up considerable War Debt, fighting the 7 Years War (Wolfe's campaign against Quebec involved over 100 warships, thousands of troops, and just as an example over 1 MILLION pre made paper musket cartridges), and the need to repay that war debt was largely responsible for the imposition of increased taxes on the import of designer luxury goods into the colonies.

The Average New Englander was paying 1 shilling a year in tax, the Average Old Englander was paying 26 shillings a year.

So, taxes on designer furniture by that nice Mr. Chippendale, and designer crockery from that nice Mr. Wedgewood, and designer glassware from Waterford, and designer frocks from the fashion houses of London, Milan, and Paris.

The wife of one of the Inner Cabal of Al'Republica, wrote a letter to her friends, calling on them to support the "embargo on taxed designer goods", that was tried before the insurrection.

...

"Surely it must be possible to buy clothes made here in the Americas, even if only wool and cotton such as the common people wear..."

...

You can see what kind of people the 'insurrectionists' were.

Ben Franklin traveled to Britain and addressed Parliament in a last ditch bid to avoid war... Unfortunately his MAIN reason for visiting Britain was to find investors for a get rich quick scheme to hire mercs to clear the indian territories and found a privatised 14th colony "invest £1000 today and get £5000 in five years"

Then he adressed parliament (many of whome were investors in his scheme) dressed in a 3 piece suit of the FINEST FLEMISH VELVET, a suit that cost more than most peoples houses, and said..."Americans are too poor to pay tax...".

Parliament laughed at him, he went home, the insurrection happened...

Harsh realities, eventually, Britain decided that the colonies were NOT WORTH spending money to recover, So we didn't. Jamaica alone brought in 60 times more revenue than all 13 American Colonies added together.

Even then you colonial rebels couldn't win until the FRENCH lent you some warships to blockade Yorktown, and more importantly, knock down its walls so the rebel cannon fodder could storm the city.

Amerrica didn't win the rebellion... British Traitors, British Accountants and French Royalists won it for you ;) 
 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Hunter Stern said:

you don't know how many places I see in search alone that  tout gay , lesbian , furry, etc. when they don't cater to any of those things , but simply are gaming the search feature to draw in customers, most who leave in puzzlement and annoyance, I'm sure.

Believe me, as somebody who has used search to look for "lesbian friendly venues" in SL in the past I am WELL aware of the tag abuse.

And FYI, it's one of the many reasons WHY for example Lesbian places HAVE strict "No Male Avatar" rules.

We got sick of knuckle dragging crotch grabbers turning up and demanding to know when the next "get the guys hot" lessa floor show was starting, and where they could get some "gash" afterwards, and why were there no naked waitresses giving out free drinks and BJ's during the show.

So, I'm sorry if this OFFENDS your Politically Correct sense of Male Entitlement to walk into Women only places in Sl, in accordance with your constitutional rights but... 

Just stop being a whiny cont-stitutionalist... *cough*



 

Edited by Klytyna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hunter Stern said:

As you all can see, even bringing up anything withing context to the notion of policy that might wax or wane what some see as a convenience to themselves, whether understood or misunderstood obviously merits the a harsh and irrational reaction to help quite down any real life threat of whistle blowing. How I am a threat is beyond me. I am merely questioning some of the mechanics and pertinent turnstiles in place that make up our current experiences as directed and guided by none other than the ToS and CS and that ever so tricky, General Policy guide. Any retort against me is not going to quiet me nor make me sit down. I've been a member of SL over 13 years , and yes I do feel a bit 'entitled' to speak up once in a while.

It's interesting how some of the more loud voices against the concept of me even being offended by something are echos of a not so distant past in SL forums. Those voices were quieted too, though after we proved we have a bit more clout than just screaming and finger pointing and torch wielding at one another (Forums and policies did change).

It did occur to me that yes, I could bring my concerns before the Lab themselves, but to what end. And don't you think that regardless of what I think you do have a say and opinion on the matter? So I have brought it here for the wisdom of my fellow residents and we would know best I would think since it is our world to shape (or atleast I should hope). This isn't a protest at all, but merely a true question amongst peers. So carry on I suppose and , thanks for your insight.

I don't believe the vast majority of those replying are trying to "quiet you down"-for lack of better terminology on my part.

Still, there are two different discussions going on here in this thread, and I believe both have merit(and both sides within each of them, have merit as well). You want to speak of convenience, but you've yet to explain how your(general, really) convenience should trump over the convenience of others. In a couple of your posts, you discussed how preventing admission is, for all intents and purposes, a landowner/business owner simply cutting out their own potential profits by disallowing admission to their sim. I do agree a business/landowner may well be doing that. But I have to ask why you care, or rather, why they should not be allowed to-in a *virtual* world. I don't mean that to sound snarky, I'm just not sure how to better phrase it.  If a business wants to cut their own potential profits by choosing who can enter, or who can purchase...let them. It's not really for you, me, or anyone, other than LL to tell them they can't. It is, after all *their* profits being hurt, as you pointed out, and not you. You not being able to purchase something on land someone else pays for, doesn't harm you in the least. It, in fact, doesn't have to affect you at all. It seems as if you *want* it to affect you-though I do hope I am reading that entirely wrong. This thread is a bit discombobulated and difficult to follow with the two different discussions going on.

I think those of us that have mentioned the fact that it is PIXELS, virtual representations of "people"(and I use that term in the most loose form possible, since we know avatars aren't all presented as people/humans) which cannot BE a protected class, and not the human behind the pixels-which can be a protected class, being denied admission...also have merit, and shouldn't be silenced simply because you feel differently. I don't believe your opinion, mine, or any other person's, holds any more merit than the other(s). But you don't seem to want to pay attention to the other side, at all, or recognize any merit it may have, at all, either. It's not an attack on you, I'm just unsure as to whether or not you really want a discussion about the topic, more than you just want to be heard. I get that, actually, the desire to be heard. What I don't get is why you can't recognize any other opinion as having any merit, or why you won't actually engage in a discussion about the topic you brought up-a virtual world, versus the topic you want it to be-rl laws applied to virtual pixel entities. 

Why do you think rl laws, most especially anti-discrimination laws since that's what this is about- should apply to *avatars* which are not real, are not persons, and are not protected classes-for which said laws were created? I'm being serious when I ask that, and I'll also ask that before answering you take into account things others have said too. When avatars can be easily adapted to fit within the confines of "admission rules" for virtual land, in a virtual world, I happen to believe that little fact alone separates rl and sl so much that those rl comparisons simply cannot apply. By saying that you believe anyone should be able to go onto a sim that another is paying for, you are indeed saying that your desire to go wherever you want, whenever you want, should trump others' belief (including LL's ftr) that this should not be the case. So why does your position hold more merit than others'? Again, I'm not being snarky, I'm being sincere. I personally think that at least considering the other side of the fence is important if someone wants an actual discussion-I just don't see that taking place. I can recognize that, to you, your opinion holds a lot of merit. I can also recognize that you may have some good points-whether or not I fully agree with them. What I cannot do, however, is understand why the rl laws regarding discrimination can be applied to virtual entities, or even how such a thing could possibly be implemented, much less enforced. I also don't understand why you think "public" actually means "open to anyone and everyone-without restriction"-when LL has, quite clearly, declared that "public" actually means "server space that the entity paying for has declared to be open-with the option of caveats at their discretion". There is no such thing as an actual "public sim" in sl, there never has been, there never will be. It has always been up to the discretion of the one paying for said server space-whether that is LL, or another resident, matters not. You earlier mentioned business entities with rl tax obligations, but how can you, yourself, determine if the one(s) paying for said server space actually HAVE rl tax responsibilities related directly to that server space, and why are only they considered to be "public" in your mind? A huge population of the grid never cashes out at all, they are never taxed on their earnings in sl, they have no tax obligations in rl based off sl earnings-much less attached to the server space for which they pay LL, in any fashion. How do you know the mall owner of the place you could not enter, is obligated to pay rl taxes for said mall? Also, why do rl tax obligations automatically make one a public entity, and therefore unable to restrict access to virtual land holdings which they may pay for anyway? Even in rl that does not apply, it most certainly makes even less sense in a virtual world, where, again, protected classes simply do not exist.

I'm trying to understand your position, but it's actually quite difficult, and I still maintain it is due to the fact that you're mingling rl anti-discrimination laws with groups pf entities for which they cannot possibly ever apply...avatars. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Klytyna said:

Unfortunately yes...

The commander of British forces in North America during the early stages of the insurrection, was, what we refer to technically as a "traitor", he had openly supported the insurrectonist movement, and deliberately mismanaged the campaign against Georgeama Bin Washington and his al'Republica Terrorists.

Eventually he was recalled in disgrace, and a new commander appointed, however there was reluctance to supply additional troops and materiel, since the majority of Britons didn't WANT a war with the colonies at all, and partly because of the costs.

We'd already run up considerable War Debt, fighting the 7 Years War (Wolfe's campaign against Quebec involved over 100 warships, thousands of troops, and just as an example over 1 MILLION pre made paper musket cartridges), and the need to repay that war debt was largely responsible for the imposition of increased taxes on the import of designer luxury goods into the colonies.

The Average New Englander was paying 1 shilling a year in tax, the Average Old Englander was paying 26 shillings a year.

So, taxes on designer furniture by that nice Mr. Chippendale, and designer crockery from that nice Mr. Wedgewood, and designer glassware from Waterford, and designer frocks from the fashion houses of London, Milan, and Paris.

The wife of one of the Inner Cabal of Al'Republica, wrote a letter to her friends, calling on them to support the "embargo on taxed designer goods", that was tried before the insurrection.

...

"Surely it must be possible to buy clothes made here in the Americas, even if only wool and cotton such as the common people wear..."

...

You can see what kind of people the 'insurrectionists' were.

Ben Franklin traveled to Britain and addressed Parliament in a last ditch bid to avoid war... Unfortunately his MAIN reason for visiting Britain was to find investors for a get rich quick scheme to hire mercs to clear the indian territories and found a privatised 14th colony "invest £1000 today and get £5000 in five years"

Then he adressed parliament (many of whome were investors in his scheme) dressed in a 3 piece suit of the FINEST FLEMISH VELVET, a suit that cost more than most peoples houses, and said..."Americans are too poor to pay tax...".

Parliament laughed at him, he went home, the insurrection happened...

Harsh realities, eventually, Britain decided that the colonies were NOT WORTH spending money to recover, So we didn't. Jamaica alone brought in 60 times more revenue than all 13 American Colonies added together.

Even then you colonial rebels couldn't win until the FRENCH lent you some warships to blockade Yorktown, and more importantly, knock down its walls so the rebel cannon fodder could storm the city.

Amerrica didn't win the rebellion... British Traitors, British Accountants and French Royalists won it for you ;) 
 

I wish I had of had a history teacher like you in School, it would have been far less dry.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Callum Meriman said:

Harsh realities, eventually, Britain decided that the colonies were NOT WORTH spending money to recover, So we didn't. Jamaica alone brought in 60 times more revenue than all 13 American Colonies added together.

Even then you colonial rebels couldn't win until the FRENCH lent you some warships to blockade Yorktown, and more importantly, knock down its walls so the rebel cannon fodder could storm the city.

So much baloney,  amounts to “I meant to do that”.

I will just correct the above. The french did not lend ships, they manned them themselves. And supplied French troops. The British didn’t just decide after eight years that the colonies were “not worth it” — they were decisively and finally defeated, at Yorktown.

And the British had hired 25,000 foreign troops, including Hessians. Also, American loyalists fought for and with the British in the South* So both sides had help. 

Although British troops in America were inexperienced, and not as motivated as Americans, I have never seen any evidence that the British “just didn’t try very hard.” There were many points in the war that it looked inevitable that they would prevail. 

* A major reason the continental army (and Militia)won the war was their employment of innovative techniques, some learned from native Americans:

Francis Marion (c. 1732 – February 27, 1795)[1] was a military officer who served in the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783). Acting with the Continental Army and South Carolina militia commissions, he was a persistent adversary of the British in their occupation of South Carolina and Charleston in 1780 and 1781, even after the Continental Army was driven out of the state in the Battle of Camden.

Francis Marion
Francis Marion 001.jpg
Nickname(s) "Swamp Fox"
Born c. 1732
Berkeley County, South Carolina[1]
Died February 27, 1795
(aged c. 63)
Place of burial Belle Isle Plantation Cemetery
Saint Stephen, South Carolina
Allegiance 23px-Flag_of_Great_Britain_%281707-1800% Great Britain
23px-US_flag_13_stars_%E2%80%93_Betsy_Ro United States
Service/branch 23px-Flag_of_Great_Britain_%281707-1800% British Army
23px-Gadsden_flag.svg.png Continental Army
South Carolina South Carolina Militia
Years of service 1757–1782
Rank Lieutenant colonel,
brigadier general

Marion used irregular methods of warfare and is considered one of the fathers of modern guerrilla warfare and maneuver warfare, and is credited in the lineage of the United States Army Rangers and the other American military Special Forces such as the "Green Berets". He was known as The Swamp Fox.

 

Edited by Pamela Galli
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tari Landar said:

  If a business wants to cut their own potential profits by choosing who can enter, or who can purchase...let them. It's not really for you, me, or anyone, other than LL to tell them they can't. It is, after all *their* profits being hurt, as you pointed out, and not you. You not being able to purchase something on land someone else pays for, doesn't harm you in the least. It, in fact, doesn't have to affect you at all.

I periodically hear from people who think to coerce me into doing something they want, by pointing out that I would make more money if I did. Some go so far as to say it is unfair for me to run my business contrary to their preferences, the implication being that they are somehow forced to do business with me, and want to do so on their terms. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

I periodically hear from people who think to coerce me into doing something they want, by pointing out that I would make more money if I did. Some go so far as to say it is unfair for me to run my business contrary to their preferences, the implication being that they are somehow forced to do business with me, and want to do so on their terms. 

Over the years I've grown to hate those entitled IMs you mention, usually filled with someone being quite rude.

When people are polite, nice, friendly they almost always find I fill their reasonable requests and with cream on top. When people come in as if I owe them, well that just rubs me up the wrong way. Most get muted for it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Klytyna said:

Unfortunately yes...

The commander of British forces in North America during the early stages of the insurrection, was, what we refer to technically as a "traitor", he had openly supported the insurrectonist movement, and deliberately mismanaged the campaign against Georgeama Bin Washington and his al'Republica Terrorists.

Eventually he was recalled in disgrace, and a new commander appointed, however there was reluctance to supply additional troops and materiel, since the majority of Britons didn't WANT a war with the colonies at all, and partly because of the costs.

We'd already run up considerable War Debt, fighting the 7 Years War (Wolfe's campaign against Quebec involved over 100 warships, thousands of troops, and just as an example over 1 MILLION pre made paper musket cartridges), and the need to repay that war debt was largely responsible for the imposition of increased taxes on the import of designer luxury goods into the colonies.

The Average New Englander was paying 1 shilling a year in tax, the Average Old Englander was paying 26 shillings a year.

So, taxes on designer furniture by that nice Mr. Chippendale, and designer crockery from that nice Mr. Wedgewood, and designer glassware from Waterford, and designer frocks from the fashion houses of London, Milan, and Paris.

The wife of one of the Inner Cabal of Al'Republica, wrote a letter to her friends, calling on them to support the "embargo on taxed designer goods", that was tried before the insurrection.

...

"Surely it must be possible to buy clothes made here in the Americas, even if only wool and cotton such as the common people wear..."

...

You can see what kind of people the 'insurrectionists' were.

Ben Franklin traveled to Britain and addressed Parliament in a last ditch bid to avoid war... Unfortunately his MAIN reason for visiting Britain was to find investors for a get rich quick scheme to hire mercs to clear the indian territories and found a privatised 14th colony "invest £1000 today and get £5000 in five years"

Then he adressed parliament (many of whome were investors in his scheme) dressed in a 3 piece suit of the FINEST FLEMISH VELVET, a suit that cost more than most peoples houses, and said..."Americans are too poor to pay tax...".

Parliament laughed at him, he went home, the insurrection happened...

Harsh realities, eventually, Britain decided that the colonies were NOT WORTH spending money to recover, So we didn't. Jamaica alone brought in 60 times more revenue than all 13 American Colonies added together.

Even then you colonial rebels couldn't win until the FRENCH lent you some warships to blockade Yorktown, and more importantly, knock down its walls so the rebel cannon fodder could storm the city.

Amerrica didn't win the rebellion... British Traitors, British Accountants and French Royalists won it for you ;) 
 

Sounds like it's bothering you. You do know it's been a few days since it happened, right? No need to hold a grudge!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Pamela Galli said:

I periodically hear from people who think to coerce me into doing something they want, by pointing out that I would make more money if I did. Some go so far as to say it is unfair for me to run my business contrary to their preferences, the implication being that they are somehow forced to do business with me, and want to do so on their terms. 

Yeah I've gotten a lot of IMs like that, and sometimes they bum me right out(mostly because even if I wanted to do what they're asking, I can't), other times, they just come across so uppity, or like they're entitled to me doing(insert whatever it is). Ummm...how about, no. 

I almost always answer them(unless they're jerks right out the gate, then they just get a "Have a nice day" and I end the IM), it's rarely ever an answer they want, and at least half of them come back with some kind of snark..so the conversation ends right there. I don't even bother to further converse with them, its not worth it.

This is a level of odd entitlement I'll never understand. It applies quite well to this topic too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gadget Portal said:

Sounds like it's bothering you. You do know it's been a few days since it happened, right? No need to hold a grudge!

Oh the family doesn't hold a grudge about the death of a many times great uncle at the hands of an insurrgant with a sniper rifle, at Kings's Mountain, or over the rebels refusing to contribute to the military pension of another kinsman who lost a leg at Quebec...

We hold that a many times great grandfather evened the score in August 1814, when he sat in the "Redcoat Congress" and helped burn the Whitehouse to the ground, after making Jimmy "Warmonger" Madison, and his Incontinent Army run with their tails between their legs like whipped dogs, at Bladensburg...

;) 

 

Edited by Klytyna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

Oh the family doesn't hold a grudge about the death of a many times great uncle at the hands of an insurrgant with a sniper rifle, at Kings's Mountain, or over the rebels refusing to contribute to the military pension of another kinsman who lost a leg at Quebec...

We hold that a many times great grandfather evened the score in August 1814, when he sat in the "Redcoat Congress" and helped burn the Whitehouse to the ground, after making Jimmy "Warmonger" Madison, and his Incontinent Army run with their tails between their legs like whipped dogs, at Bladensburg...

;) 

 

...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know “Some people” love to believe nothing else in the world was going on during the American revolution and the whole world was watching. They really teach that in American schools! It’s really quite the opposite in reality outside of the ‘murkin bubble.

First like Klytana said the British were war weary after the Seven years war, the French and Indian war to Americans, even though it was also fought in Europe.

Second, nobody can name 5 major decisive victories won by the continental army. Yorktown, Saratoga...uh, uh.....uh....yeah exactly. Yorktown wasn’t even commanded by Washington it was commanded by Rochambeau, a French general and didn’t more French Soldiers fight at Yorktown than Americans? So is it really an American victory?

Third, the British were too busy in India with the Indian rebellions to really commit. They were more intent on holding onto India than the American colonies.

Fourth, the British never really committed to crushing the Continental army even though they had more than one opportunity to do so. They also held every major city at the time, including Philadelphia, America’s capital.

So yeah...they kinda weren’t trying.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Abe Lincoln doesn't ever get enough credit for being an awesome vamp hunter.

Whens the last time anyone has seen a real vamp?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, janetosilio said:

...they kinda weren’t trying.

 

So, yeah, like “I meant to do that.” And “I wasnt really trying.” xD

Seriously, if by "weren't trying" you mean "underestimated the resources and manpower needed to defeat the colonists", well that is pretty obvious. (I have acknowledged that the British soldiers were not as motivated, understandably/)  I think we all understand that if this and that happened or not happened, the great British Empire could have beaten little upstart America. This is not in fact news to anyone with a 5th grade education.

Edited by Pamela Galli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, janetosilio said:

So yeah...they kinda weren’t trying.

Wars are almost never fought without various weaknesses on one side or the other or alliances/help from other allies. You seem to be implying that if the British army could have been in some sort of 'pure' state reflecting their true superiority they would have won, and that the Colonists should not be given any credit in winning the war because they had help from other countries.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I was told,America had to Dodge the British A lot..

 

 

 

Edited by Ceka Cianci
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2017 at 10:07 PM, Hunter Stern said:

This is completely untrue and unfair in my opion infact it IS bordering attack on my account. I still went to said sim , and quite frankly , i NEVER stated on what gender I was assuming at that particular moment. It does not matter if it is a women's only venue, or a humans only store , or a furry only business, so please stop SJWing on here and stick to the topic.

Regardless, I personally feel that any company such as LL that touts inclusiveness and infact chides its own customers (yes you are a customer none the less to the service provided by LL) of the practice of exclusivity in one form or another does hold accountability  for the policy and path in which they chose to embark upon thus encouraging gray area pseudo policies on make believe land vs real life law and ethics.

The whole Black/White North/South Gay/Straight arguments are merely examples of outcomes that we are all somewhat familiar with, some of use more within than others either by choice or by force.

So again , and let me rephrase this, Should a company/business in SL with RL tax holdings and assets (whether they be virtual or tagible 3D printed accessories, or service) be allowed to practice exclusivity on what are protected categories such as race, gender, sexual orientation, political idiology etc., if said business is a real entity with the same rights and responsibilities as any other business in the real life world?

yes the should

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2017 at 10:24 PM, Hunter Stern said:

***** actually is covered under international law , iirc.

It's not so much about law either as it is policy brought to us in part by Linden Lab Research and some consistencies and some inconsistencies and we the residents are the only ones who are left to poke holes (as it were) in these inworld laws.

Also, not fully related but political entities or corporations can be recognized as a 'person'. I am curious , has the definition of an avatar from Second Life ever been deemed a non-entity? I will have to do more research on this , even though I do know the cases have arisen in the past.

I do think it's good for residents to have discource on topics regardless whether we all agree or not. Awareness and insight are not exactly bad things in virtual or real life instances.

no one knows what anyone in second life really is in real life so if your avatar is banned somewhere in second life how can you think you have any redress in real life for what happened to your cartoon?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BilliJo Aldrin said:

no one knows what anyone in second life really is in real life so if your avatar is banned somewhere in second life how can you think you have any redress in real life for what happened to your cartoon?

 

oh i know we can set up second life human rights commissions like they have in The Peoples Islamic Republic of Canada

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were the British really trying very hard? Who knows? None of us were around at the time so none of us know from personal experience, and I don't believe that the historical record tells us either way, though I may be wrong about that. What is known from history is that it took more than just the colonists to win the fight. It is also known, according to what I've read, that it wasn't really worthwhile hanging onto those colonies, because the colonists wanted the costly military protection from their government but didn't want to contribute very much towards the cost of it - not even as much as British people living in Britain were paying. They'd gone there to get away from Britain, so they didn't want taxing by Britain on a par with Brits in Britain, and yet they wanted the British military's protection because they were British subjects. My understanding, from historical readings, is that Britain came up with ways of getting money from the colonists, because it was only fair, and one of those measures, perhaps a tax on tea, was the straw that broke the camel's back, and sparked the rebellion.

Judging by history, on the whole, the colonies were more trouble, and more costly, than they were worth, so it wouldn''t be at all surprising if Britain wasn't really putting its best national efforts into it.

Edited by Phil Deakins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2018 at 8:19 AM, Luna Bliss said:

A Republican bigot from the South, Tennessee I believe.

back then republicans were the good guys. why didn't you share his name with the forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2018 at 10:07 AM, Theresa Tennyson said:

If the South really wanted to "decide for themselves", why did the Confederate constitution:

1) Forbid black people from coming to any state from outside the CSA?

[Article 2] Section 9 - Limits on Congress, Bill of Rights

1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

2) Forbid Congress (i.e. the representatives of the Confederate people) to pass any law interfering with slavery?

[Article 2 Section 9 still] 4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

and...

3) Prevent the people of a territory from outlawing slavery within it?

[Article 4, Section 3] 3. The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

https://usconstitution.net/csa.html

why don't you tell us about all the rights blacks had at the time in the enlightened northern states

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...