Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Union still had slaves until after the end of the war (border states). Furthermore, the Union violated rights as well...starving POW's, arresting critics of Lincoln, raping, looting, pillaging, burning, etc.
I'm not arguing that the Union was perfect.
I'm arguing that our country today..with a federal government that stands for and protects human rights is much better than one that would allow its citizens to strip those rights from others.
So what you're saying is that in desperation when it was clear that they were going to lose the war..they promised to free slaves for British support.
What I'm saying is that when it REALLY MATTERED in 1861 when they were forming their government, they decided to codify slave ownership as a constitutionally protected right.
It had been tossed around earlier.
Of course the U.S. Constitution also protected slavery as a legal right so there was no real difference between the Union and South in 1861 on slavery.
I'm arguing that our country today..with a federal government that stands for and protects human rights is much better than one that would allow its citizens to strip those rights from others.
Our government today that massacres innocent people, engages in wars all over playing world's policeman, intrudes on every facet of our lives, etc.?
Never mind the fact too it took about a century for Blacks to even be treated as equals in the U.S.
Think with an 1861 mindset, leave your 2010 morals at the door, would that type of thinking even be considered abnormal at the time of the war?
I'm not justifying slavery in any way, but you have to judge these things on the context of the times.
Morality is a notion that is universal..what is wrong today..was wrong in 1861. Any government whether federal, state or local that would allow ownership of other human being is inferior to one which will not.
CNN is just one of many American media outlets pointing out how neo-confederates are anti-American criminals who need to be kept under careful surveillance by the FBI or encouraged to immigrate to Iran where they would feel right at home.
Morality is a notion that is universal..what is wrong today..was wrong in 1861. Any government whether federal, state or local that would allow ownership of other human being is inferior to one which will not.
Its really that simple.
Morality changes all the time, the last 140 years is perfect evidence of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by californio sur
CNN is just one of many American media outlets pointing out how neo-confederates are anti-American criminals who need to be kept under careful surveillance by the FBI or encouraged to immigrate to Iran where they would feel right at home.
From what I saw, CNN is a channel that has gone to Obama drone cranks, only with a few vestiges of centerism left. And your assertion, that we should all be kept under watch of the FBI? Leave them alone and let them track guns going to Mexico, and Iran, I wouldn't go there, it's hot enough in Arizona already and it's not like I'm going to commit anything.
No, society changes. What society accepts as moral (or immoral) or what atrocities a society may attempt to rationalize changes.
But there was never a time when the institution of slavery was okay or morally acceptable. Only a time when American society was less moral.
Slavery back then was considered moral, and NORMAL. But you cannot judge it, now, tommorrow or 20,000 years from now with the logic of now, you have to judge it in the context of the times, the year 1861.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.