You are absolutely correct. It is problematic. Given that it was not at all clear whether the South would be successful in their attempt to leave the union, it was completely understandable and pragmatic for the North to support it.
The North did not go to war with the South to free slaves. The North went to war with the South to bring those naughty rebels back under Union jurisdiction. Northern abolitionists made it a holy war about freeing slaves, but it never started that way. In fact, how can anyone consider the Emancipation Proclamation seriously when it only freed southern slave and not Northern ones? That is because it was a political trick to get the southern slaves to turn on their masters and make it easier for the North to bring them back under the boot of Washington DC.
No, there was no real thought in the north that a slave was not educatable to at least do the sort of labor we are talking about. In fact, educating freed slaves was a common activity of abolitionists in the north. However it is the nature of slavery to keep slaves uneducated. For an educated slave was thought to be more likely to rebel against his master. So slave owners would keep their slaves uneducated. The common belief at the time was if you were going to educate a slave you were going to eventually free him.
Slaves were available for a price well after the Revolution. Historians have estimated that one million slaves were moved west and to the Deep South from the Old South between 1790 and 1860. Most of the slaves were sold or transported from Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas, where changes in agriculture decreased demand. Originally the points of destination were Kentucky and Tennessee, but after 1810 the states of the Deep South: Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas received the most, and the Border States joined in selling “excess” slaves. This corresponded to the massive expansion of cotton cultivation in that region, which needed labor.
Slavery was an evil practice. It was practiced at some time or another in just about every part of America (even by indigenous peoples). It was never justifiable.
Did I use statistics to challenge your argument? No. I countered with an argument from my personal experience of having benefited from the progressive policies and women’s rights movement that emerged during the 1960s. In all respects, my very existence is a challenge to your ideology. If that is the case, then there is something wrong with your model, because it cannot account for me.
“So there would be stories” is not a very convincing argument. Hearsay, propaganda, falsehoods make it easy to construct and distort reality.
I hope you know that is sloppy reasoningWell that was a fairly partisan statement.
But that is understandable. With all the advanced degrees how could you even have a different point of view than the leftist one? via
This criticism is too narrow and simplistic. Like all movements, the women’s movement continues to evolve over time. These extreme positions are caricatures do not represent what most women who insist on legal, social and economic equality believe. It does a disservice to women like Betty Ford, who like most of us was a real, courageous and imperfect.
Yes, Clinton got a shellacking in the mid-term elections as well. Voters have a tendency to divide government between the political parties in order to provide some sort of balance between the extreme elements of both the liberal and conservative wings. This only works if both sides are willing to compromise on the most radical aspects of their ideology. During the Clinton era, the two sides were able to work together to successfully reform the social welfare system in a way that benefited the poor.
Incompatible?The problem is that today’s radical wing of the Republican Party does NOT understand this lesson. They want revolution, not reform. They are incapable of governing, because they cannot understand the need to compromise. Like Paul Ryan, they are inspired by the “Gospel of Ayn Rand” which is philosophically incompatible with the “Gospel of Jesus Christ”.
Peace.
If you’re talking about the kind Feminism expounded by St. Edith Stein I would agree with you, but we are not. Unions, Feminism and the Democrat Party And then hijacked by radical progressivism and bear little resemblance to the institutions our parents supported.I took issue with a particular aspect of your post. Namely, the part in bold:
Did I use statistics to challenge your argument? No. I countered with an argument from my personal experience of having benefited from the progressive policies and women’s rights movement that emerged during the 1960s. In all respects, my very existence is a challenge to your ideology. If that is the case, then there is something wrong with your model, because it cannot account for me.
As for my confusion over your reference to men’s underwear. Your wrote:
“So there would be stories” is not a very convincing argument. Hearsay, propaganda, falsehoods make it easy to construct and distort reality.
The social welfare system was set up to benefit women like my mother - who became a single parent through no fault of her own. If it had not been for “women’s rights” and the “welfare state” she would have had to do what women have done throughout history to avoid poverty - remarry. My mother was quite adamant about NOT remarrying. She does not believe the small detail of my father’s death dissolved her marriage bond. The result of this is that all of her children take marriage quite seriously. When you grow up believing you only get one shot at it, you choose your partner carefully and do everything in your power to make it work. This attitude has strengthened all of our families.
This demonstrates that your model is missing some key moderating variables. From a social research perspective, conclusions that ignore significant interactions between two or more variables are fundamentally flawed.
I hope you know that is sloppy reasoning
I derive my point of view from what I believe are the social and economic principles of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. Therefore, I tend toward being economically progressive, socially conservative and generally pacifist. My education has given me some tools by which to examine the material world and the skills to critically evaluate a source of information. The problem with too many conservatives is that they don’t want to admit that reality sometimes leans left. The problem with too many liberals is that they don’t want to admit reality sometimes leans right.
This criticism is too narrow and simplistic. Like all movements, the women’s movement continues to evolve over time. These extreme positions are caricatures do not represent what most women who insist on legal, social and economic equality believe. It does a disservice to women like Betty Ford, who like most of us was a real, courageous and imperfect.
Yes, Clinton got a shellacking in the mid-term elections as well. Voters have a tendency to divide government between the political parties in order to provide some sort of balance between the extreme elements of both the liberal and conservative wings. This only works if both sides are willing to compromise on the most radical aspects of their ideology. During the Clinton era, the two sides were able to work together to successfully reform the social welfare system in a way that benefited the poor.
The problem is that today’s radical wing of the Republican Party does NOT understand this lesson. They want revolution, not reform. They are incapable of governing, because they cannot understand the need to compromise. Like Paul Ryan, they are inspired by the “Gospel of Ayn Rand” which is philosophically incompatible with the “Gospel of Jesus Christ”.
Peace.
The family as an institution can no longer fufill its primary task of building up the next generation. It is mainly about the sexual and personal fulfillment of gays and other eunuchs now, under progressive tutelage.
This is why multiculturalism doesn’t work. We need 2 Americas. One for the big-government, nanny-state progressives to regulate and tax themselves to death. One for us peaceful libertarians who just want to live and let live.
So now multiculturalism doesn’t work? I know some places on the net I’ve read this stuff but I didn’t expect to read it on a Catholic Forum.
No. Multiculturalism doesn’t work. What else do you want me to say. I can be perfectly Catholic and stand firmly against nanny-statism in good conscience.
SC gave away, by it’s own legislation, All claim, right and title to the land.
)No it doesn’t. Anytime you start treating people based on the color of their skin, it is doomed to failure. . Let us not confuse de-segregation with multiculturalism.
We should all think of ourselves as Americans, and we should all learn the common language, English. Multiculturalism is a catastrophic failure everywhere it's been tried. Ever hear of "Balkanization"? We are no longer a nation, but a cacophony of enclaves, tribes. We have a party determined to preside over the decline, the Democrats. The other party, at least the more honorable souls among them, believes in individual freedom and rights.
It is so obvious that Democrat "multicultural" policies have led to decay and despair, I honestly don't comprehend how a decent person could vote to allow the continuation of the onslaught. :ouch: RobMake not doubt.But 40 million aborted is not enough of a cause to justify a state in seceding to end it, right?
That’s nice, but what about the other 80% of us?
I’m sorry but I dont understand what you are saying. You seem to be saying that a US President is free to make war on citizens who want to follow the Declaration of Independence and form a new government and in that war liberate them of their property.
I’ve not described the South as being noble. The cause of secession was noble, if the American Revolution was noble.
Surely you can make a better more rational argument than that. I mean really, that is just terrible. I’ve actually linked to they story of George Washington Carver and how he was raised by his former master and educated by him. Did you bother to read it?
Nobody has utter freedom in a society governend by the rule of law. But what the laves had was not the lack of utter freedom, as you euphemize it, but the lack of freedom entirely.
The draft riots in NYC would be good evidence that the North was not very interested in freeing slaves.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots