427
Trump: Civil War didn't need to happen, could have been "negotiated"
(boingboing.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2024
427 points (93.7% liked)
News
23263 readers
3135 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
So I wonder what degree of slavery we'd have ended up with? A little? Almost as much? 50% slavery?
What a fucking idiot.
Slavery is already legal in US if you arrest a person first. That is an exception of the 13th amendment,
I assume that is why US has the biggest prison population in the World and is 6th country in the World by per capita incarceration rate (first western country). If China and India would incarcerate it's citizens as much as US, China would have 4 times and India 10 times it's current prison population. And of course white people are about 8 times less likely to be incarcerated then black people.
"Land of the free"
Jesus, I thought that back guy was wearing a Confederate flag hat for a second...
I agree with your overall point.
My only quibble is China (and other heavily authoritarian countries that aren't forthcoming with data). I don't know that we can trust numbers coming out of China, given that many subjects are heavily censored. For instance, are the Uyghurs counted as in prison if they're in focible "re-education" camps? Do people that simply disappear get counted in those figures?
I don't know, but you can say that for any state. Does Guantanamo Bay prisoners count in US, they are offbroad just so they can legally be tortured. It is all play with rules. Do 2 million civilans killed in US invasions in middle east count? Do Palestinians count to be imrpissioned by the US since Israel couln't do it without their support, to trap them in those regions. Either way, even if not inside the country, US definitely is more agressive overall and kills and imprissions more people. It is just that in the western world, their media propaganda is a lot stronger than Chinas.
Even if you counted them, it would have a negligible effect on statistics. Last time I checked, there were less than 10 people being held there from the GWOT.
No one can really know how many people are illegally improsioned, directly or indirectly, through puppet governments, by US or by China. We can either messure by the numbers we have, or we can make up our own numbers. There is no reason to believe that China lies about it's numbers any more then US, everybody uses some loopholes. US is funding many other governments, like Saudi Arabia and Israel to put people in prisons and kill people for them, all around the World. I don't see the point of questioning China numbers and not US numbers.
I always wonder how did this exception end up there. From what I checked it's not clear who proposed it. I just imagine that after fighting extremely bloody and devastating war over it they sat down to draft the amendments and someone went "Are we sure we want to ban all slavery?". It's crazy that they decided to keep it only giving courts authority over it.
People who write laws benefit from slavery and having lower economic classes. It was never their true intention to get rid of slavery, but only to calm the citizens that are rebeling against it. Overtime they figured smarter ways of slavery. Free slaves > but because of private property they now dont own anything still > they have to take any job under any working conditions > back to slaves again. If some escape this wage slavery, by not working or something, they make up a reason to arrest them, like vagrancy (illegal to be unemployed or homeless) or for not paying your debts or for some stupid reasons as drugs (planted by cops or not) or even dumber for resisting arrest even if there was nothing to be arrested for in the first place.
Cuba, wtf?
The funny thing is that Lincoln pretty much said they could keep their slaves for the sake of keeping the union together. He had made it clear he wanted to abolish slavery, but he wasn't going to risk the nation over it. He basically opened with an offer to let the south have everything.
The South, however, believed that the day would come where the US would abolish slavery, and they needed to get out before that happened.
Given the South were handed everything they wanted in the default position, no amount of negotiation would have worked.
So what you're saying is, Trump was Wrong? Holy shit someone needs to tell the Press! Word needs to get out that Trump was wrong about a thing! Nobody will believe it!
I suppose Trump was right... The south could have easily negotiated to get what they wanted. So while the free states could not have negotiated, the slave states absolutely could have. They were just pissy that too many new states were choosing to be free states and they were outnumbered and wanted a country where they weren't outnumbered on slavery.
Although I hate to attribute anything Trump says to having any sort of "deeper" meaning, I do wonder if there's a sort of implied threat here, he does tend to talk like a mob boss and tries not to explicitly get himself nailed for things, at least sometimes. Like he's really saying, "we're going to have another Civil War if I lose or if you keep coming after me in court, but it doesn't have to be like that, we can negotiate..." which I feel like others in his camp have floated that idea previously. They assume the multiple felonies that Trump has been indicted for is all political theater meant to put pressure on him and that all he has to do is just leave the race and that will make all his problems go away. He's trying to use his candidacy more as a bargaining chip, as a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card, while his supporters are ready to tear down American democracy in the name of that orange POS.
That was the thought that occurred to me when I originally said no negotiation. My amendment to the position that it was entirely within the power of the insurrectionists to negotiate was after reconsidering the situation at the time, and amused by extrapolating it to Trump's current position. Yes, negotiation is possible, so go ahead Trump and make concessions. Oh he didn't mean a negotiation where he/insurrectionists would have to make any concessions? Well that wouldn't have been a possibility for the 1860s, and I don't think it would work now.
They got spooked by John Brown taking Harpers Ferry.
Maybe 3/5ths.