Call up the GA school board, they may have some word problems.

Warning: I'm not following this argument closely so I'm not sure what TC meant but there is a sense where his statement is correct. Although I would still agree that ending chattel slavery WAS a huge victory. Anyways, perhaps TC is referring to this history:

Source.

Source.

Wookie, thank you so much for extracting all this, so much gold here

hahaha wow

TC dropping some pretty big pressure bombs on them slaveowners to get them to give up their slaves!

No war was necessary as time would have worked it out and those southerners would have seen the errors in their ways, dropped slavery and given blacks total freedom. They clearly had these things in order by the time the CRA was enacted ~100 years later.

Blacks have murdered as many whites since 1950 as died in the civil war.

???

Hold over from the RP containment thread

I thought we just had to make some deal at some time and we could have avoided the whole Civil War and recused the North of this terrible aggression it's been perpetrating. Now the deal can't be stupid? I don't even know what this means. I thought we were weighing the suffering of the slaves in prolonged slavery vs the destruction of the Civil War in some kind of utilitarian scale, but now I guess we aren't or something. We now have justice and ( lack of ) stupidity to measure as well.

Later tonight, I'll write a libertarian response that encapulates your summerized beliefs that's positive, constructive, and makes for good PR instead of mindless libertarian/ paleo conservative wondering over the Civil War.

This isn't true.

I think he's trying to show how ungrateful those blacks are, or something? Nice white people spilled blood just for them, and what do the blacks do but go and spill more white people blood! Give em an inch and they take a mile. White people just can't catch a break. Thanks Civil Rights Act.

He isn't. You know how I know this? Because he made that argument about 1870, a very relevant fact noted in my original post on this matter as well.

You guys are just picking on him now imo.

Yeah, but I mean, even in TC's view, where the deaths of 600,000 is an unfathomable evil but the unimaginable suffering and premature deaths of over 4 million over the span of 50+ years is no big deal and something that the perpetrators should be paid for, it's hardly surprising.

You're right. Sorry bout the distraction. Carry on.

Misrepresent my positions more.

This is definitely the sort of piece of trivia that you can just discover on your own, by the way.

OK TomCollins, I surely don't want to misrepresent your positions... but lets take a similar real world situation. Say a Recovered Factory in Argentina. The workers have occupied it, and have successfully operated for a few years, with complete neighborhood support.

Do you think they should just be paid to vacate, instead of risking the lives of both the eviction goon squad and the workers, as well as possible damage to the capital?

You don't need pressure bombs,just offer them one dollar than the slaves are worth and the perfectly rational slave owner will fist pump snapcall. Then this unpleasant business would be out of the way and everyone can live happily ever after (SPOLIER ALERT: until the Fed RUINS EVERYTHING)

It may or may not be a smart decision to do evict the workers. I have no moral problems with using violence to evict them. To know if it's a smart decision, it depends a lot on the risks, the likely deaths, if you use enslaved people to fight them, the cultural norms of the area, and depends on what the other options are.

Paying them might be the smart choice. It might not be, depends on many variables, of course.

Dude, you literally said that you were down with the suffering of 4 million slaves (really more than that, as there will be many births and deaths) over a 50+ year span if that's what it will take to stave off a war. I don't know about you, man, but at some point the costs of 4 million people getting raped, murdered, beaten, and forced to work starts to approach the cost of 600k deaths, esp. if all other avenues have been tried and there had already been little change on the "social norms" of the South over a 50 year span from the time that slave importation was banned to the start of the Civil War. Fifty years is a long ass time for social attitudes to change. It didn't even take that long for Northern states to change their social norms, counting from the founding of the nation. But not the South. They were still literally willing to fight to the death to preserve the right to own people as property, even several generations later, and there were no signs of improvement. You have to be pretty damn callous to the plight of 4 million people to be willing to tell them that they have to endure 50 or more years of this, until finally the slave owners will let the US government make it rain greenbacks down upon them as their prize for inflicting this upon you.

This is what you said I claimed:

Absolutely false. You will not find any post where I consider that to be "no big deal".

You are reaching fly levels of a joke. At least argue against *real* positions being made. You certainly are capable of it.

The best part is that Tom is kinda undermining his own argument with his various posts along the lines of:


That lesser degree of freedom persisted for another CENTURY, until once again meddling Northerners engaged in TYRANNY by passing the CRA, which ruined property rights forever.

45 years after that, though, we had a black President. That ***** even won a handful of states that had been in the Confederacy!