I don't. People like Pelosi, McConnell, Schumer, and the rest are why there are mute buttons on remote controls.

8trackdisco wrote:

I don't think slavery was considered evil back then. Up until that point, it was the norm throughout written human history.

* This statement is in no way meant to endorse, sympathize, or empathize with long dead English slave traders (notice I didn't say white... let's be real, it was the English... they were fked up back then... some would argue they still are;)

bgz wrote:

I'm just going by anecdotal evidence of surnames...

Washington, Jackson, Jefferson, Jones, Smith. etc....

Even if the homeland did away with it... doesn't mean they weren't responsible :D

You're right about those teeth though...

bgz wrote:

And seriously 8...
everything else being equal... you don't find it in the least bit disturbing that they would have made slavery legal across the entire nation if they had won. That isn't some wild claim. They put it in the constitution of the confederacy. Ignoring anything else, every single person in the confederate army was contributing towards an end goal which would have been to have slavery legal in every state they conquered.

We are not talking about a group that was misunderstood here. This is evil they were working to spread.

victor809 wrote:

No... you're right. It was the fashion of the time in america, just like wearing an onion on your belt.

But one group was actively trying to keep that fashion going (like the dude who kept wearing the mullet way after it was done being cool... incidentally, he probably also supports the confederacy way after it's stopped being cool). The other side appeared to be changing (not necessarily because of anything "good" possibly just expedience and a shift in economics).

Seems pretty clear that if the south had won we would have had slavery across the entirety of the union and it would have persisted for some unknown period of time beyond when it did end.

That's simply sh%tty. There isn't a justifiable rationalization for that. They were on the side of wrong.

victor809 wrote:

The south lost. We should have enslaved them. Yet the mamba pambys want to make sure they get to keep their little statues.

One of the cool things about us is we don't do that. The Marshall plan was brilliant and still effective although elements of the current admin sure hate it.

States rights was a slavery issue. And it went beyond status quo (Missouri Comprimise) to wanting expansion or at least potential for expansion (Kansas Nebraska act)

Again... it wasn't to free the the slaves but most certainly was about slavery.

teedubbya wrote:

It was like any other compromise governments make today. Trying to keep their people happy so they could get reelected and keep the country together. A civil war would be a mess. Look at Syria over seven years. Or Charlottesville over thirty minutes.

8trackdisco wrote:

You just have to look to today in order to see how outdated slavery would have ended up.

Most people 30 years ago what the country now says is fine. Gay marriage, Sanctuary Cities, the federal government telling local authorities not to ask, jail or prosecute illegals, free benefits for the illegals, including driver's licenses, having the tax payer pick up the tab on hormone treatments for transgender people in the military, while being 21 trillion dollars in debt?.... but smoke a cigar in a public place.

8trackdisco wrote:

I miss where that fits MACS. It's my stupidity or the medium but I don't get it. Not trying to be a deke although it may be unintentional

It seems like a bit of a subject change. But I agree to an extent. Medicare and Medicaid have always been welfare for medical providers to provide coin for what was free care or barter.

teedubbya wrote: