Cops: No Snarky Nor Positive Title

[Handyman]

https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1289085039599329281

Terrorism analysts warn that far-right and anti-government agitators are either attacking protesters or trying to glom onto their cause to push their own agendas. And with street clashes already happening, they fear the worst is yet to come.

Reading the article is not good for if you have anxiety.

[Kepler]

DOJ and DHS are completely unwilling to concede this for obvious reasons.

If we regime change one of the first things we have to do is start taking white supremacist and other rightwing nut terrorism seriously. These lunatics can rot in prison.

[WeAreNDHockey]

DOJ and DHS are completely unwilling to concede this for obvious reasons.

If we regime change one of the first things we have to do is start taking white supremacist and other rightwing nut terrorism seriously. These lunatics can rot in prison.

Our original sin as a nation was slavery and institutionalized racism. Maybe our biggest mistake was not dealing with the issues properly following the Civil War. Lincoln was perhaps our greatest president, but he made a whopper of a boo-boo by running with Andrew Johnson (of course that is hindsight) and then that mistake has been repeated at various times when we had opportunities to do more/better. Racism is the blood that gives life to what the .01% need to keep us divided.

We will need a decades long concerted effort to raise the next generations correctly. And I give us about a .01% of a chance at doing it. We don't have the patience, imagination or perseverance to do anything that hard for that long. Maybe the youngsters will keep learning it on their own, as it seems younger people don't have the same tendency toward bigotry that my generation and ones that came before seemed to have.

[Handyman]

Grant did his best (the History Channel mini series on him is fantastic) and even took down the Klan. Problem is by that point even the North was tiring of racial fighting. Then he lest office and The South started to change the narrative of the war. That is why Robert E. Lee is a hero and Grant is a drunk and had a corrupt Presidency.

[burd]

our original sin as a nation was slavery and institutionalized racism. Maybe our biggest mistake was not dealing with the issues properly in 1787 during the constitutional convention.

fyp

[Fighting Sioux 23]

fyp

I understand your sentiment, and agree that it would have been best addressed then, but we'd still have the Articles of Confederation (or most likely, two separate countries) if a hardline stance on slavery had been adopted.

[Kepler]

or most likely, two separate countries

My god, if only.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

My god, if only.

Would you be okay if the slave states at the time of the Constitutional Convention (read: New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia (as well as modern day West Virginia and Kentucky), North Carolina (as well as modern day Tennessee), South Carolina, and Georgia (as well as most of modern day Alabama and Mississippi)) split into a separate country that still permitted slavery?

[Kepler]

Would you be okay if the slave states at the time of the Constitutional Convention (read: New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia (as well as modern day West Virginia and Kentucky), North Carolina (as well as modern day Tennessee), South Carolina, and Georgia (as well as most of modern day Alabama and Mississippi)) split into a separate country that still permitted slavery?

NY and NJ prove why your question is a false choice. If your theory was correct those states would have been slave states in 1861.

The North would be the US under a central government similar to the current one. The South would have started as an even looser Articles-like confederation and failed unless they diversified their economies (and ended slavery themselves) because they lacked the commercial and later industrial centers of the North.

Most likely the South would have fallen apart and the North would have state by state exploited, civilized, and then admitted those pipsqueak nation-statelets into the Union under our rules. By controlling who we admitted we could control the level of dumbf-ckery and made the US a paradise, not weighed down by carrying their dead weight for 2+ centuries. Without those fundy f-ckstains we would be another 75-100 years advanced in science and have enjoyed the most prosperous political affiliation in history as a democratic socialist state.

TX wouldn't exist; it would just be part of an independent Mexico along with the Southwest and Southern CA. No Hollywood; no great loss. The LA punk scene in the 80s would have been in Spanish!

A much better world for everyone but southern racists and, frankly, they can DIAF, alone and without representation.

We will fumigate the South but it will have taken a hundred years longer than necessary had we just left them to fail on their own first.

[burd]

I understand your sentiment, and agree that it would have been best addressed then, but we'd still have the Articles of Confederation (or most likely, two separate countries) if a hardline stance on slavery had been adopted.

And I understand that is why some pretty good minds felt there was no choice but to kick the can down the road. But they risked a worse failure by standing by the principles set forth in the Declaration, and those same principles should have controlled their decision in 1787.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

NY and NJ prove why your question is a false choice. If your theory was correct those states would have been slave states in 1861.

The North would be the US under a central government similar to the current one. The South would have started as an even looser Articles-like confederation and failed unless they diversified their economies (and ended slavery themselves) because they lacked the commercial and later industrial centers of the North.

Most likely the South would have fallen apart and the North would have state by state exploited, civilized, and then admitted those pipsqueak nation-statelets into the Union under our rules. By controlling who we admitted we could control the level of dumbf-ckery and made the US a paradise, not weighed down by carrying their dead weight for 2+ centuries. Without those fundy f-ckstains we would be another 75-100 years advanced in science and have enjoyed the most prosperous political affiliation in history as a democratic socialist state.

TX wouldn't exist; it would just be part of an independent Mexico along with the Southwest and Southern CA. No Hollywood; no great loss. The LA punk scene in the 80s would have been in Spanish!

A much better world for everyone but southern racists and, frankly, they can DIAF, alone and without representation.

We will fumigate the South but it will have taken a hundred years longer than necessary had we just left them to fail on their own first.

Just admit you were wrong. Unless you truly believe it would have been "a much better world" for the millions of slaves.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

And I understand that is why some pretty good minds felt there was no choice but to kick the can down the road. But they risked a worse failure by standing by the principles set forth in the Declaration, and those same principles should have controlled their decision in 1787.

Again, I don't necessarily disagree with you. However, had they stood by their principles, the Constitution would never have been adopted, and slavery likely would have existed much longer.

[Handyman]

The AoC was doomed to fail...sooner or later nations would have emerged. (most likely more than 2) Slavery would not have lasted much longer than it did though because IIRC England refused trade with any nation supporting slavery (otherwise they would have aided the South more in the Civil War to get their hands on that sweet cheap cotton) so the non-slave america nations would have had a huge advantage which would have ultimate killed slavery.

The Compromise of 1950 along with crap like the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act were when they should have held the South's feet to the fire.

[Fighting Sioux 23]

The AoC was doomed to fail...sooner or later nations would have emerged. (most likely more than 2) Slavery would not have lasted much longer than it did though because IIRC England refused trade with any nation supporting slavery (otherwise they would have aided the South more in the Civil War to get their hands on that sweet cheap cotton) so the non-slave america nations would have had a huge advantage which would have ultimate killed slavery.

I completely agree that the AoC would have failed. If not shortly after a failed Constitutional Convention, certainly by the War of 1812 (had the US survived). I also agree that at least 2 nations would have emerged; although, we have to remember that the Louisiana Purchase almost certainly would not have occurred under the AoC.

I don't recall a British policy refusing trade with any nation supporting slavery. It is my understanding that Britain refused to take sides in the war. In any event, it's not like the slave states were averse to using slaves in different capacities. Cotton was not "king" until around 1800. Pick your labor-intense occupations, and my guess is slaves would have been used to occupy those positions.

[Handyman]

Opinion in Britain was split...but they continued to trade with the Union (which the masses supported in Britain) and almost all trade with the South stopped. (the Rich tended to support the South's Independence) Britain outlawed slavery 30 years previous so it would have never been possible for them to outright help the South though they did create a few boats. The US threatened a war with Britain though if they actually intervened or recognized the CSA. (Britain needed US grain so a war would have been catastrophic) The Confederacy really needed the British to help and banked on it because of cotton but Britain offered to mediate a peace which the US rejected since that would require recognition of the CSA as a nation. After Lee lost at Antietam and The Emancipation Proclamation Britain and France were out completely from any help to the CSA.

Smart move too...if Britain recognizes the CSA the US cuts off all grain and then invades Canada. The British people wanted nothing to do with a war and the Parliament saw there was nothing to gain but loss of life and likely parts of Canada.