• ihavenopeopleskills@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I believe slavery is an inexcusable, horrible stain on our nation’s fabric, but it was the economic engine of the day down South. Not saying that doesn’t make it reprehensible: I am merely giving context. Dismantling it at the speed Washington demanded would have ground things to a halt. That’s a big reason the South fought. Another issue was gun control.

    No, I have never affiliated with any white supremacist or southern heritage group.

    • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      Let’s imagine for a second that there’s a big huge magical machine that generates anything that any American could want. Anything at all! Hunger is immediately eradicated. Health problems begin to vanish. Scarcity is a thing of the past.

      Now imagine that we discover that the machine is operated by stuffing hundreds of thousands of human babies into one side of it. They can never leave. Inside, they will be sucked of all their energy and discarded as husks. Parents who try to keep their babies from being thrown into the machine are killed.

      Should we take an incremental, slow approach to shutting down and dismantling this machine? Or should we blow it up?

      slavery is an inexcusable, horrible stain on our nation’s fabric

      You could’ve just stopped there.

    • PugJesus@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      I believe slavery is an inexcusable, horrible stain on our nation’s fabric, but

      Oh boy

      it was the economic engine of the day down South. Not saying that doesn’t make it reprehensible, just giving context.

      “We built our entire society on a system that 6/7 Founding Fathers recognized as evil.”

      Maybe they shouldn’t have built their entire society around an institution that was widely recognized as evil at the time?

      Dismantling it at the speed Washington demanded would have ground things to a halt. That’s a big reason the South fought.

      Yes, the speed of [checks notes]

      … not dismantling it at all.

      Another issue was gun control.

      Fucking what.

      • ihavenopeopleskills@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        The Bill of Rights included an abolitionist amendment, but they were not confident it would pass, hence its exclusion.

        Not defending it. Don’t shoot the messenger.

        • PugJesus@kbin.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          The Bill of Rights included an abolitionist amendment, but they were not confident it would pass, hence its exclusion.

          This the same Bill of Rights that was passed almost a hundred years before the Civil War?

          Not defending it.

          Pretty clearly making excuses for it.

          • ihavenopeopleskills@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago
            1. Yes.

            2. Providing context doesn’t magically make something morally correct. It illustrates the circumstances.

            There are all kinds of circumstances under which people commit grave wrongs in the face of adversity. If we’re going to punish everyone for every wrong committed regardless of surrounding circumstances, there’s far more punishment to dispense, regardless of political stripes.

            • Metal Zealot@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              You’re defending the circumstances of the time, unfortunately. You’re not even fully condemning it, or saying it shouldn’t have happened in the first place

            • PugJesus@kbin.socialOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Yes.

              So would you like to explain how a failed proposal to extinguish slavery almost a hundred years before the rebellion was a big reason why the South fought their slaver rebellion?

              Providing context doesn’t magically make something morally correct. It illustrates the circumstances.

              “But you have to understand the context!” brought up in response to a condemnation of the evil is a plea for sympathy. Don’t play coy.

              There are all kinds of circumstances under which people commit grave wrongs in the face of adversity. If we’re going to punish everyone for every wrong committed regardless of surrounding circumstances, there’s far more punishment to dispense, regardless of political stripes.

              Okay. I support only punishing people for serious wrongs committed. Like enforcing the bondage of one’s fellow man in one of the most cruel and vile systems of our nation’s history, treason, or murder of American citizens.

    • mommykink@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      On one hand, I appreciate that you’ve tried to defend me, but this is not the argument I’m making. Slavery was always a morally objectable practice. My comment was in defense of the poor, maniupulated proletariat soldiers who made up the bulk of the Confederate’s army and who were sacrificed en masse for a cause they never would have believed in without a lifetime of propaganda.