Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1289085039599329281
Reading the article is not good for if you have anxiety.
Reading the article is not good for if you have anxiety.
Last edited:
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Cops: No Snarky Nor Positive Title
- Thread starter The Rube
- Start date
- Status
WeAreNDHockey
\../ \../
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
Hug someone you care about...
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.
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
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
Cornell Big Red
My god, if only.
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
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
Cornell Big Red
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.
Last edited:
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
New member
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
New member
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
Hug someone you care about...
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.
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
New member
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
Hug someone you care about...
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.
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.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
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.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
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.
Fighting Sioux 23
New member
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.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
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:
- Status