4 ms·

We should have given them all a free piece of rope in compensation. It's our failure to deal with tough issues like this definitively, that causes problems to

We should have given them all a free piece of rope in compensation. It's our failure to deal with tough issues like this definitively, that causes problems to linger for centuries.

danieltillett 10y ago
Well that way is the why the USA ended up in a civil war. As distasteful as it is to compensate slave owners or oil companies the alternative is worse.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  That's distinctly counter-factual. The USA never hung slave owners so that didn't cause the civil war. Logically, if they had it would have had to have been after the war. Causality mismatch. I also don't think you're even considering the suffering caused by the century of racial oppression after that, still continuing with racial motivated police shootings and race riots. This is what would have been avoided if we'd made some attempt at justice. You're not comparing alternatives if you ignore most of the facts.
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    I am suggesting that it would have been better for everyone if the slaveowners had been bought out and their slaves freed than to fight a civil war and a unleash a century of Jim Crow oppression on the back of a southern backlash. Oppression and injustice only breeds more injustice.
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      > Oppression and injustice only breeds more injustice. Yeah, like paying slavers for owning people. That's going to sit well with the ex-slaves. How are you supposed to ever come to peace with people who beat your father to death and got a government check for doing so? The Jim Crow, etc, is because we weren't half harsh enough with the slavers, not because we were too rough. > southern backlash. That's easily solved. Dead people don't have petulant concerns that they aren't as rich as they were, and they don't riot and foment rebellion. > I am suggesting that it would have been better for everyone The highest number? Over what time scale? Measured how? Because the century and a half of racial killings and injustice leaves a lot of headroom for "better".
      - danieltillett 10y ago
        Are you really suggesting that the North should have killed everyone in the South who was white? I think we have gone past the limits of rational discussion here. People in the south don’t call the US Civil War the War of Northern Aggression for no reason. Taking people’s property without just compensation and imposing your values on someone else at the end of a gun generates a backlash. It would have been much better to follow the English example and just buy out the slaveowners and end slavery that way.
        EdHominem 10y ago
        > killed everyone in the South who was white? Not every death penalty-applicable crime actually receives a death sentence. And children of a family who owned slaves shouldn't have been punished, of course. And how many people would we have had to try? Actually, not that many... """The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves). - http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm""" http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm""" > It would have been much better to follow the English example and just buy out the slaveowners and end slavery that way. That wouldn't have prevented the war. But, we essentially did buy them out by letting them keep the proceeds of their crimes. What would have been better was something that would heal the racial divide; punishment and restitution. And there was neither.
        danieltillett 10y ago
        Are you really claiming that the US civil war was not fought over the issue of slavery? What would have healed the issue of racial divide is for all sides to have approached the problem with good will and compromise. One side imposing their will at the point of a gun only creates further ill will.
        mark_edward 10y ago
        > One side imposing their will at the point of a gun only creates further ill will. Oh you mean like the slavedrivers did for centuries?

We should have given them all a free piece of rope in compensation. It's our failure to deal with tough issues like this definitively, that causes problems to linger for centuries.

danieltillett 10y ago

Well that way is the why the USA ended up in a civil war. As distasteful as it is to compensate slave owners or oil companies the alternative is worse.

EdHominem 10y ago
That's distinctly counter-factual. The USA never hung slave owners so that didn't cause the civil war. Logically, if they had it would have had to have been after the war. Causality mismatch. I also don't think you're even considering the suffering caused by the century of racial oppression after that, still continuing with racial motivated police shootings and race riots. This is what would have been avoided if we'd made some attempt at justice. You're not comparing alternatives if you ignore most of the facts.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  I am suggesting that it would have been better for everyone if the slaveowners had been bought out and their slaves freed than to fight a civil war and a unleash a century of Jim Crow oppression on the back of a southern backlash. Oppression and injustice only breeds more injustice.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    > Oppression and injustice only breeds more injustice. Yeah, like paying slavers for owning people. That's going to sit well with the ex-slaves. How are you supposed to ever come to peace with people who beat your father to death and got a government check for doing so? The Jim Crow, etc, is because we weren't half harsh enough with the slavers, not because we were too rough. > southern backlash. That's easily solved. Dead people don't have petulant concerns that they aren't as rich as they were, and they don't riot and foment rebellion. > I am suggesting that it would have been better for everyone The highest number? Over what time scale? Measured how? Because the century and a half of racial killings and injustice leaves a lot of headroom for "better".
    - danieltillett 10y ago
      Are you really suggesting that the North should have killed everyone in the South who was white? I think we have gone past the limits of rational discussion here. People in the south don’t call the US Civil War the War of Northern Aggression for no reason. Taking people’s property without just compensation and imposing your values on someone else at the end of a gun generates a backlash. It would have been much better to follow the English example and just buy out the slaveowners and end slavery that way.
      - EdHominem 10y ago
        > killed everyone in the South who was white? Not every death penalty-applicable crime actually receives a death sentence. And children of a family who owned slaves shouldn't have been punished, of course. And how many people would we have had to try? Actually, not that many... """The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves). - http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm""" http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm""" > It would have been much better to follow the English example and just buy out the slaveowners and end slavery that way. That wouldn't have prevented the war. But, we essentially did buy them out by letting them keep the proceeds of their crimes. What would have been better was something that would heal the racial divide; punishment and restitution. And there was neither.
        danieltillett 10y ago
        Are you really claiming that the US civil war was not fought over the issue of slavery? What would have healed the issue of racial divide is for all sides to have approached the problem with good will and compromise. One side imposing their will at the point of a gun only creates further ill will.
        mark_edward 10y ago
        > One side imposing their will at the point of a gun only creates further ill will. Oh you mean like the slavedrivers did for centuries?