8 ms·

> 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 s

> 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?
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    You do know two wrongs don’t make a right?
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      You do know that living next to the guy who beat your dad to death for his race isn't exactly conducive to peace. The proof is the fact that over a century later people still commit racial motivated murders because they despise the people their ancestors kept as cattle. If they didn't want to get hung they shouldn't have been, you know, slavers...
- EdHominem 10y ago
  Yes, I am 100% claiming the US Civil war was not fought over the issue of slavery. Lincoln said he would have dropped the issue entirely to keep the union together. Many whites were against slavery but not enough to pick up a gun and go to war. We don't worry about "further ill will" when we execute mass murderers. And slavers are worse than Charles Manson. But a country doesn't benefit from brutality. A fair compromise would be to execute them quickly, with no torture.
  - danieltillett 10y ago
    Yes Lincoln would have dropped the issue, but the southern slave states knew the writing was on the wall. The historical balance between free and slave states was breaking down in 1850s and the slave states knew that it was only a matter of time before the more populous free states imposed their will on the south. The south chose to break away from the USA because they feared being expropriated of their wealth (most of the capital in the southern states was tied up in slaves). If the united states had chosen a path of full compensation to slave owners the civil war may have been avoided. I am not supporting slavery, just suggesting that the solution to issues like ending slavery (and carbon emissions) is better solved peacefully and with compensation than by force and war.
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      > I am not supporting slavery, just suggesting that the solution to issues like ending slavery (and carbon emissions) is better solved peacefully and with compensation than by force and war. Not really, because then you're still left with slavers. And as soon as it's advantageous they'll just start slaving all over again. When someone thinks you're absolutely worthless there's no middle ground.

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?
- danieltillett 10y ago
  You do know two wrongs don’t make a right?
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    You do know that living next to the guy who beat your dad to death for his race isn't exactly conducive to peace. The proof is the fact that over a century later people still commit racial motivated murders because they despise the people their ancestors kept as cattle. If they didn't want to get hung they shouldn't have been, you know, slavers...
EdHominem 10y ago
Yes, I am 100% claiming the US Civil war was not fought over the issue of slavery. Lincoln said he would have dropped the issue entirely to keep the union together. Many whites were against slavery but not enough to pick up a gun and go to war. We don't worry about "further ill will" when we execute mass murderers. And slavers are worse than Charles Manson. But a country doesn't benefit from brutality. A fair compromise would be to execute them quickly, with no torture.
- danieltillett 10y ago
  Yes Lincoln would have dropped the issue, but the southern slave states knew the writing was on the wall. The historical balance between free and slave states was breaking down in 1850s and the slave states knew that it was only a matter of time before the more populous free states imposed their will on the south. The south chose to break away from the USA because they feared being expropriated of their wealth (most of the capital in the southern states was tied up in slaves). If the united states had chosen a path of full compensation to slave owners the civil war may have been avoided. I am not supporting slavery, just suggesting that the solution to issues like ending slavery (and carbon emissions) is better solved peacefully and with compensation than by force and war.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    > I am not supporting slavery, just suggesting that the solution to issues like ending slavery (and carbon emissions) is better solved peacefully and with compensation than by force and war. Not really, because then you're still left with slavers. And as soon as it's advantageous they'll just start slaving all over again. When someone thinks you're absolutely worthless there's no middle ground.