Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cops: No Snarky Nor Positive Title

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Handyman
    replied
    https://twitter.com/brianstelter/sta...89062937427971

    "The Department of Homeland Security official who oversaw the intelligence division at the department is being reassigned after it was revealed his office had gathered intelligence reports on two US journalists..."
    Translation...next time dont get caught.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fighting Sioux 23
    replied
    Originally posted by Handyman View Post
    Look I love studying history but can we take this to the Racism thread or something...

    (and yes I contributed so I am scolding myself as well)
    Good call. Sorry for the interruption, and back to your regularly scheduled programming...

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    Look I love studying history but can we take this to the Racism thread or something...

    (and yes I contributed so I am scolding myself as well)

    Leave a comment:


  • Fighting Sioux 23
    replied
    Originally posted by Kepler View Post

    That doesn't work either. You are playing games like Fish used to you. How'd that work out for him?
    Again, the personal attacks. Sigh...

    Originally posted by Kepler
    But we'll do it your way just this once:

    1. It is unclear that there would have been slavery in the South longer had we told the South to take a hike during the Constitutional Convention and gone our own way. In the event there was slavery for 70 more years. That's a pretty high bar for human misery. To quote your rhetorical tricks, surely you aren't minimizing all that suffering? My god, man, you're not saying you don't care about those years and all those millions? What is wrong with you are you a socipath?! See, that game is really easy.
    To start, you are using the wrong terminology. At the time of the Constitutional Convention, it was not the "South" (or at least, not as we use the term now). It was slave state vs free state. Assuming you mean "South" to mean the slave states, then you are not including slave states such as New York and New Jersey, which did not abolish slavery until about a decade after the Constitutional Convention, and had slave owners/slavery proponents at the Constitutional Convention. So, if there had been a firm ground taken on slavery at the Constitutional Convention (which again, if you had read my posts, I agree that such a position should have been taken--so I won't address your straw man arguments), and the states had formed separate countries, you would have had 2 (or, as Handy stated, and with which I agreed with, likely more than 2) countries: the slave states (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)) and the free states.

    I think we are all in agreement that slavery was not going to end in 1787. I also believe that we are in agreement that slavery should have been addressed at the Constitutional Convention. However, the issue is that by avoiding the slavery question, did the Constitution create a strong enough government that could effectively end slavery (as it did, via the Civil War)? It is an argument that is commonly discussed amongst historians. Some of the common questions revolving around the hypothetical event of the Constitution not existing that are often discussed are: would slavery had ended sooner or later; would the AoC fallen apart, and, if as almost universally agreed upon, what would the makeup of the country/countries had been; and would we have been "better off" by the Constitution (and/or the current iteration of the United States) not existing? My point in my post was to further this discussion, which it did.

    As I stated previously, I agree that slavery should have been addressed at the Constitutional Convention. However, I do believe that there is a significant (if not likely) chance that slavery would have lasted longer given that the slave state economy was so heavily dependent and tied to slavery. Further, given that slavery existed in other countries following the Civil War (and indeed, still exists in various forms today), and the United States continued to trade with such countries, there is a strong argument that the free state country would not have put pressure on the slave state country to end slavery prior to the 1860s (and perhaps not even prior to the Twentieth Century). My issue with your post was that I did not believe you were really considering this issue, but were focusing too much on the modern political implications.


    Originally posted by Kepler
    2. Indeed I posited 2 possible paths where slavery ends in the South even sooner if we excrete them:

    2a. Without the North the South may have had to develop an integrated industrial-commercial economy earlier, and slavery dies naturally, just as it did in the North and in Britain. It wasn't as if that was magic, or that the North was ethically superior. Slavery just didn't make business sense in a modern economy. By keeping the South we sheltered and subsidizes their slave holders allowing them to hold on longer.
    Possible path: maybe. Probable path: unlikely.

    The slave states like New York and New Jersey probably follow this path; however, the economies of New York and New Jersey were not based upon slave labor, such as the rest of the slave states. The rise of cotton in the remaining slave states by the end of the Eighteenth Century, coupled with the world's growing desire for cotton, would likely have meant the rest of the slave states would not have had to develop/rely upon an industrial/commercial economy for much longer than the free states (which were never terribly reliant upon slavery for their economies). Of course, had countries refused to do business with the rest of the slave states until they eliminated slavery, this possibly could alter this take; however, as discussed above, I believe such pressure would not have mounted for a long time (likely into the Twentieth Century). In any event, to assume slavery would have ended upon the development of an industrial/commercial economy is also unlikely. Given that slavery was engrained into the slave state business model, it would be natural to assume that slaves would have been "repurposed" for the other hard manual labor positions within the industrial/commercial economy.

    Originally posted by Kepler
    2b. As a loose confederation of nation states, without the central government ensured by the Constitution, the South may have fragmented into a chaos of failed states which the US then would mop up, eradicating slavery in each state as it does.
    Again, hypothetically possible, and perhaps more probable than your 2a. scenario. Although, it likely would have taken some sort of military pressure to effectively fragment the slave states. Again, the slave state economies were largely self-sufficient (which was the source of some of the big disagreements between Jefferson's and Hamilton's economic ideals and willingness to take on debt). They largely would have only needed central government for protection. I would concede that had the free state country (or another country) invaded one or more of the slave states, it could have caused such a government to fragment. I just don't believe such an invasion (presumably for the purpose of eradicating slavery) would have occurred prior to the 1860s.

    Originally posted by Kepler
    In conclusion, you'll never be a historian, an economist, or a debater, but the world needs ditch diggers too.
    Sigh...more personal attacks. You do realize that these types of arguments are the lowest of the low in terms of debate, correct? In any event, if you knew me, you would know your statement is about as 180 degrees from the truth as possible.

    Now, if we can just agree that we both hope the Islanders are able to win the Cup in glorious fashion, while the Rangers fail historically, then I think we might be able to make some ground on other issues.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by Fighting Sioux 23 View Post

    I asked you a question. You did not answer, which makes you seem like you are trying to avoid the question because you know you are wrong. Unless you truly believe it would have been "a much better world" for the millions of slaves. Based on your other posts, I would be a bit surprised if that were the case. Which is why I thought we could just short circuit this whole debate by you admitting you were wrong. You decided to double down on not answering the question and make Trumpian personal attacks, which I'm not going to engage.
    That doesn't work either. You are playing games like Fish used to you. How'd that work out for him?

    But we'll do it your way just this once:

    1. It is unclear that there would have been slavery in the South longer had we told the South to take a hike during the Constitutional Convention and gone our own way. In the event there was slavery for 70 more years. That's a pretty high bar for human misery. To quote your rhetorical tricks, surely you aren't minimizing all that suffering? My god, man, you're not saying you don't care about those years and all those millions? What is wrong with you; are you a sociopath?! ANSWER THE QUESTION OR YOU ARE ADMITTING YOU WERE WRONG!!!

    See? That childish game is really easy.

    2. Indeed I posited 2 possible paths where slavery ends in the South even sooner if we excrete them:

    2a. Without the North the South may have had to develop an integrated industrial-commercial economy earlier, and slavery dies naturally, just as it did in the North and in Britain. It wasn't as if that was magic, or that the North was ethically superior. Slavery just didn't make business sense in a modern economy. By keeping the South we sheltered and subsidized their slave holders allowing them to hold on longer.

    2b. As a loose confederation of nation states, without the central government ensured by the Constitution, the South may have fragmented into a chaos of failed states which the US then would mop up, eradicating slavery in each state as it did.

    In conclusion, you'll never be a historian, an economist, or a debater, but the world needs conservatives to ditch dig too.


    Last edited by Kepler; 08-01-2020, 11:33 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1289595777027698692

    After waiting for a stop in the firing, Jennings stood up and put his arms above his head so the law enforcementcould see his camera and realize that he was a journalist. He started to walk away, he said, following the dispersal order.
    "But as soon as I turned around just a little bit, they shot me in the face," Jennings said. He said he believes he was shot with a pepper ball. The Department of Homeland Security did not return CNN's request for comment regarding Jennings' injury.
    "I was surprised. I was there to do my job," he added. "I've done my job like this in a lot of different places and a lot of different protests by different countries, a lot of different places in the United States. And normally when you make it clear that you have a job to do, to document the protest and you're doing that, there's a degree of safety, and that was just not present on (Sunday) night."

    Leave a comment:


  • Fighting Sioux 23
    replied
    Originally posted by Kepler View Post

    That high school rhetoric approach doesn't make you seem smart. It just makes you seem like you either didn't or can't read. Freep tactics don't work here.

    It's been explained to you. If you don't get it that's your issue. We've moved on.
    I asked you a question. You did not answer, which makes you seem like you are trying to avoid the question because you know you are wrong. Unless you truly believe it would have been "a much better world" for the millions of slaves. Based on your other posts, I would be a bit surprised if that were the case. Which is why I thought we could just short circuit this whole debate by you admitting you were wrong. You decided to double down on not answering the question and make Trumpian personal attacks, which I'm not going to engage.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by burd View Post

    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.
    They wanted union above all else because they were scared the European powers would cut them up. "If we do not hang together..." They didn't bank on the Napoleonic Wars destroying Europe for long enough that we were able to get up on our feet.

    The worm they put into the US by compromising with the slavers almost destroyed the nation four score and seven years later. It was a high price to pay. Cutting the deadwood off right at the start and truly living up to our founding ideals would have made the US a far stronger, and ethically coherent nation.

    In the event we admitted traitors into our midst from the very start. That was a mistake we still haven't recovered from.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kepler
    replied
    Originally posted by Fighting Sioux 23 View Post

    Just admit you were wrong.
    That high school rhetoric approach doesn't make you seem smart. It just makes you seem like you either didn't or can't read. Freep tactics don't work here.

    It's been explained to you. If you don't get it that's your issue. We've moved on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fighting Sioux 23
    replied
    Originally posted by Handyman View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Handyman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fighting Sioux 23
    replied
    Originally posted by burd View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fighting Sioux 23
    replied
    Originally posted by Kepler View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • burd
    replied
    Originally posted by Fighting Sioux 23 View Post

    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X