The war was necessary to preserve the Union. Lincoln was ready to continue to compromise on the slavery issue. “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”Southerners refused to compromise and started a war against the Union, so Lincoln responded, calling for 75,000 volunteers three days after Ft.Sumter. "WHEREAS the laws of the United States have been, for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by law."
The robber barons to be that ran the North share blame with the Southrons. Their factories needed the raw materials that the traitors to be could only provide cheaply through slavery.
I'm sure Ben firmly believes that, if his dream of America were to come through, with all liberals completely eradicated and Conservatives in complete control, Tucker Carlson himself would run up and pluck him from the boxcar line, exclaiming, "No! Ben's one of the good ones. He said all the right things about all the right people."
So...WTF was so important about including South Carolina and Georgia? Why wasn't it an option for the almighty Fathers to say "Nah, no slavery in this club, fuck off with that bullshit".
To paraphrase a common criticism of Republicans; "They may not directly practise slavery, but they all decided slavery wasn't a deal-breaker".
It's kind of like how Christians tend to try and give credit to their religion for being the first to oppose slavery....when neither Jesus nor any of the apostles or Paul spoke out against it or condemned it.
Jesus barely mentioned slavery and even when it was brought up it was in a form of an existing status quo with no further connotations attached.
Paul might even have outright spoken in support of slavery when he stated in one of his letters: "Slaves obey your masters". Not exactly a thing that someone who is against slavery would say.
Add in objective morality to the mix as part of the Christian worldview and we have a situation where Christians today mostly think that slavery is wrong and bad, and, via objective morality, should have always been so, yet they cannot explain why the founders of their religion and the predecessors of their religion not only did not oppose slavery as something bad and evil, but also spoke out in favor of it and (in the case of the Old Testament) even codified it into law.
Really if u recognize a wrong, that being slavery, and u concede to it, nothing good comes from evil. U eventually reap what u sow. It's like mccarthy who sold his soul sort of speak to concede with far right radicals to get what he wanted. The framers desire for a more perfect union was corrupted from the beginning when they made a deal with the devil. It took 84 years for their horrible decision to allow slavery to erupt with hundreds of thousands of people dying.
Ok. I think we all know what history and counterfactual history are. Point taken that slavery existed in the northern states well into the 19th century in some cases and at least until after 1788 in most, and in some form in all. But they were not slavery- based economies, and slavery and it's fate were I believe a central bone of contention during the process of forming a federal government?In any case, the comment I responded to (I think, I'm reading a mail with your comment not the original post with all comments) was about the size and viability of ex-colonial states. A northern league opposed in theory to slavery as practiced in the South, if constitutional negotiations had broken down, would have been a large territory, was my point, eventually a large nation.
I'm pretty sure guys like him don't consider themselves really part of those disadvantaged groups they belong to. Do'n't ask me how-- they compensate by becoming impossible in some way-- like the horrible guy in Romania for example.
Blocked. Have a nice life.
The war was necessary to preserve the Union. Lincoln was ready to continue to compromise on the slavery issue. “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”Southerners refused to compromise and started a war against the Union, so Lincoln responded, calling for 75,000 volunteers three days after Ft.Sumter. "WHEREAS the laws of the United States have been, for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by law."
Sort of like how Pharaoh generously encouraged Mo’ and his rag tag band of rebels to vakay in the desert for a spell, huh Shapi?
Disingenuous bint
So that's Ben's problem. He had to deal with an inferior person who was superior to him in every way possible.
Well, you would have to provide healthcare and food. Otherwise, you wouldn't get the full benefit of your investment.
I got to give Kirk credit for the "Terror at 20,000 Feet" Twilight Zone episode.
The robber barons to be that ran the North share blame with the Southrons. Their factories needed the raw materials that the traitors to be could only provide cheaply through slavery.
I'm sure Ben firmly believes that, if his dream of America were to come through, with all liberals completely eradicated and Conservatives in complete control, Tucker Carlson himself would run up and pluck him from the boxcar line, exclaiming, "No! Ben's one of the good ones. He said all the right things about all the right people."
Are we still talking about the founders?
I'll bet he's a master of the short-short.
So...WTF was so important about including South Carolina and Georgia? Why wasn't it an option for the almighty Fathers to say "Nah, no slavery in this club, fuck off with that bullshit".
To paraphrase a common criticism of Republicans; "They may not directly practise slavery, but they all decided slavery wasn't a deal-breaker".
It's kind of like how Christians tend to try and give credit to their religion for being the first to oppose slavery....when neither Jesus nor any of the apostles or Paul spoke out against it or condemned it.
Jesus barely mentioned slavery and even when it was brought up it was in a form of an existing status quo with no further connotations attached.
Paul might even have outright spoken in support of slavery when he stated in one of his letters: "Slaves obey your masters". Not exactly a thing that someone who is against slavery would say.
Add in objective morality to the mix as part of the Christian worldview and we have a situation where Christians today mostly think that slavery is wrong and bad, and, via objective morality, should have always been so, yet they cannot explain why the founders of their religion and the predecessors of their religion not only did not oppose slavery as something bad and evil, but also spoke out in favor of it and (in the case of the Old Testament) even codified it into law.
Really if u recognize a wrong, that being slavery, and u concede to it, nothing good comes from evil. U eventually reap what u sow. It's like mccarthy who sold his soul sort of speak to concede with far right radicals to get what he wanted. The framers desire for a more perfect union was corrupted from the beginning when they made a deal with the devil. It took 84 years for their horrible decision to allow slavery to erupt with hundreds of thousands of people dying.
Ok. I think we all know what history and counterfactual history are. Point taken that slavery existed in the northern states well into the 19th century in some cases and at least until after 1788 in most, and in some form in all. But they were not slavery- based economies, and slavery and it's fate were I believe a central bone of contention during the process of forming a federal government?In any case, the comment I responded to (I think, I'm reading a mail with your comment not the original post with all comments) was about the size and viability of ex-colonial states. A northern league opposed in theory to slavery as practiced in the South, if constitutional negotiations had broken down, would have been a large territory, was my point, eventually a large nation.
I'm pretty sure guys like him don't consider themselves really part of those disadvantaged groups they belong to. Do'n't ask me how-- they compensate by becoming impossible in some way-- like the horrible guy in Romania for example.
All his slaves learned trades and were prepared to support themselves. Imagine providing that training, and then keeping them hanging around!