Surely a bad decision?

[starkem]

I thought that is what I said in spite of the fact that I got the rule mixed up with the amendment. The point being that neither the north or south had any ethical considerations for ratifying or reforming the social ills of slavery -merely an economical advantage. This lack of moral motivation has plagued the the efforts of well meaning Americans under the guise of Union and Confederate and now Democrat and Republican.

A two party system or a political ideology (conservative or liberal) remains the distraction and exploitation of the people with impunity. The divide between rich and poor has perpetuated and grown exponentially -a disparity with no hope of making the descendants of slavery and discrimination truly understand such developments. It is a two-headed coin with corrupted value.

......well I'm off my soapbox LOL I am definitely wrong about a lot of things and have a hard time conveying thoughts without rambling on...but I am not surprised by the Supreme Courts decision...nor do I think the ethical consideration is of any inquisitive value given the historical context of uniting the states....so I yield the floor and thank you all for at least reading a different perspective.

You're all over the timeline, Starkem. Slavery, as a legal institution, was gone after the "civil war". Amendment XIII was ratified 8 months after Appomattox, in 1865. By 1868, Amendment XIV was ratified & did away with the 3/5 counting rule. When the industrial revolution came along, it didn't take long for industries to realize that there was more profit in increasing production per man-hour than in owning people. The antebellum south didn't get it, & was already in decline. They totally collapsed while getting the snot kicked out of them during the war, & since they still didn't get it & refused to be smart, they got stuck in the 19th century & stayed there for a hundred years. They cut off their nose to spite their face, & now a whole bunch of fools around the country want to do it again. Not a good idea to go out of your way to piss off large segments of the population. Strife is costly & counterproductive.

[trish]

Sorry to be brief, but I'm rather rushed over the next few days. But here's my take:

Neither “The South” nor “The North” is the sort of thing that can have an integrated motivation. The largely agrarian south and the industrial north certainly had economic differences. But it is not at all clear these would have led to succession and war without the increasing heated friction between Abolitionists and slavers. These heated controversies congealed around whether or not new States would enter the Union as slave states or free states. Whether or not a States can have motivations is a question of philosophy, but people certainly do. Many union soldiers fought to maintain the Union, but many fought to end slavery.


(I'm waiting for Stavros to weight in...He's our resident historian).

[starkem]

Yes..interesting. I am also interested in this input. Thanks.

Sorry to be brief, but I'm rather rushed over the next few days. But here's my take:

Neither “The South” nor “The North” is the sort of thing that can have an integrated motivation. The largely agrarian south and the industrial north certainly had economic differences. But it is not at all clear these would have led to succession and war without the increasing heated friction between Abolitionists and slavers. These heated controversies congealed around whether or not new States would enter the Union as slave states or free states. Whether or not a States can have motivations is a question of philosophy, but people certainly do. Many union soldiers fought to maintain the Union, but many fought to end slavery.


(I'm waiting for Stavros to weight in...He's our resident historian).

[hippifried]

Sorry to be brief...

Well I guess somebody needs to cum over there & pull those briefs off ya.

As for the topic: The main issue, as far as the non-rebel States were concerned, was preservation of the nation. They didn't need other reasons. The Confederacy itself was a gross violation of the US Constitution that the southern States were all signed on to (Article I section 10). Europe was lickin' their chops, & waiting to reclaim the continent upon collapse. Slavery was a real big deal, but this was bigger. The Calhounists just didn't want to change with the times. It's not like they were ever gonna get their slave investment back. Call it stubborn stupid. Seems familiar.

[starkem]

Cute on your first line (smiles)

For the rest: I concur.

thanks and I apologize again for the faulty timeline. I was too lazy to look it up and winged it. Trying to be brief.....

#accidentallydroppingsoap

Well I guess somebody needs to cum over there & pull those briefs off ya.

As for the topic: The main issue, as far as the non-rebel States were concerned, was preservation of the nation. They didn't need other reasons. The Confederacy itself was a gross violation of the US Constitution that the southern States were all signed on to (Article I section 10). Europe was lickin' their chops, & waiting to reclaim the continent upon collapse. Slavery was a real big deal, but this was bigger. The Calhounists just didn't want to change with the times. It's not like they were ever gonna get their slave investment back. Call it stubborn stupid. Seems familiar.

[hippifried]

I like to think of Trish as a pal on here. I got nothin' but love for somebody that smart, erudite, & seemingly without any sexual qualms whatsoever.

As for me: Never a need to apologize. A marble shrine in my honor will do fine.
I think Mom felt I was real smart, because she told me all the time. Her memory wasn't great though. She'd forget my name when paying the compliment.
What was it she called me again?

Oh yeah.


DAMN SMART ALEK!!

[starkem]

LOL. good show...