I don't see it as hypocritical in the least let alone "epic level". Seems to me like an invented reason to spread the blame. No one ever through most of history wanted different race people around especially if they are indignant, that is not morally incongruous with the belief that human beings should not be chattel, forced to work for no wage and raped when ever massa gets horny, whipped or killed if they try to escape, give me a break.
I'm opposed to Syrians getting gassed or slaughtered by ISIS, that doesn't mean I would or need to welcome them all to Chicago or Peoria.
Pro-choicers are always slamming pro-lifers, saying that if they oppose massive social welfare for those "unwanted" children they are being hypocrites, it's a pantload. And I think the comparison is dead on.
Remember, most Southerners did not own slaves, and Lincoln badly miscalculated when he thought he could drive a wedge between the slaveholding class and non-slaveholders in getting their fellow Southerners to rise up against the former. Southerners overwhelming saw it as an invasion by a dictatorial and hypocritical North
Well, they were idiots who got manipulated, they got effed over and died for a bunch of rich a-holes who would rather use slave labor than pay a White man a decent wage for picking cotton, no different than those using cheap illegal labor today. I didn't hear that Lincoln tried to inspire non-slave owners to act in their own interest, sounds like a sound strategy that I would have tried. Too bad there wasn't mass communion, I think radio broadcasts could cut through the social programming.
Freeing slaves was never on the table till the rebellion, Corwin Amendment would have forever precluded federal abolition (depending how you feel about entrenched clauses). They rebelled cause they knew EXPANSION (and probably enforcement of fugitive slave laws that forced Northern states to play slave catcher) was off the table without a piece of garbage in White House and with a free state majority Senate and were unwilling to let their repugnant institution slowly die a natural death,
Historical analysis should be accurate. When one side is clearly wrong, that should be stated. People who put Lincoln on the "worst" list with the likes of Carter and Obama are deranged. But I understand where are coming from.
Understand where YOU are coming from, I meant to say.
As yes, I meant mass “communication” not “communion”, I doubt the Pope could have helped. ;p
I disagree. Remember, the North was content to go along with slavery and have it enshrined in the Constitution in order to get independence from Great Britain. If the issue of slavery was so repulsive and unacceptable to more "moral" Northerners, they'd have said, "No." Both sides benefitted from it.
"I'm opposed to Syrians getting gassed or slaughtered by ISIS, that doesn't mean I would or need to welcome them all to Chicago or Peoria."
But that is apples and oranges. Syria is not in the USA.
"Pro-choicers are always slamming pro-lifers, saying that if they oppose massive social welfare for those "unwanted" children they are being hypocrites, it's a pantload. And I think the comparison is dead on."
It's a curious argument, to be sure. But putting infanticide as a morally justifiable means to welfare spending rather hurts their argument.
"Well, they were idiots who got manipulated, they got effed over and died for a bunch of rich a-holes who would rather use slave labor than pay a White man a decent wage for picking cotton, no different than those using cheap illegal labor today."
These were loyal citizens, but loyal to their states. Remember, before the Civil War, most people considered their state to be their country. When you have armed invaders coming down to your "country" claiming (dubiously) to be on a moral high horse demanding you follow them, how do you think you'd react ? Take up arms against your neighbors, family, people you do business with, respected community leaders ? That's considered treasonous. You might say long after the fact that said people were courageous for standing up to an evil institution, that's fine, but what are you going to do when you're having to live that life at the time ? You're going to be a pariah, as will your family. Consider Robert E. Lee and the fateful decision he had to make and you begin to understand what it was like.
"I didn't hear that Lincoln tried to inspire non-slave owners to act in their own interest, sounds like a sound strategy that I would have tried. Too bad there wasn't mass communion, I think radio broadcasts could cut through the social programming."
They did have mass communications. Newspapers, letters, etc. They weren't in the dark unless they were at the distant frontier. Folks knew the score.
"Historical analysis should be accurate. When one side is clearly wrong, that should be stated. People who put Lincoln on the "worst" list with the likes of Carter and Obama are deranged. But I understand where are coming from."
Well, I like to think I do it right. :-P