Ideally, yes. But I can also imagine a cleaving of the union at its inception and the founding of two separate countries on this continent, one for which slavery was quickly abolished and in the other, an entrenchment of slavery that no war could undo. Could it have been better? Oh yes. Unquestionably so. And I hope that none of my comme…
Ideally, yes. But I can also imagine a cleaving of the union at its inception and the founding of two separate countries on this continent, one for which slavery was quickly abolished and in the other, an entrenchment of slavery that no war could undo. Could it have been better? Oh yes. Unquestionably so. And I hope that none of my comments suggested otherwise. Could it have been worse? I guess I'm just cautious in stating unequivocally that it couldn't have been, as hard as that position may be to defend.
" But I can also imagine a cleaving of the union at its inception and the founding of two separate countries on this continent"
Yeah, that's true, but it's worth pointing out that this is basically what happened anyway. The north became increasingly hostile to slavery, the south formed the confederacy so they they could maintain it, and to preserve the union, there was a civil war. Given the fact that the south *was* so entrenched regarding slavery, this was pretty much inevitable.
Perhaps the divide simply comes down to whether you believe the preservation of the union was more important than the abolition of slavery. Or, perhaps more accurately, whether you think the dissolution of the union could have been worse than 90 more years of slavery (and the 100+ years of oppression that followed). And I guess one's position on that is down to where their empathy lies.
So sure, there's no situation that couldn't conceivably be worse. I'm sure there are even worse options (if I took the time to dream them up) than continuing slavery right into the present day. But we'd be weighing imaginary harms against the very real, well-documented, still divisive harms that affected and affect black people in America.
As you say, this is a hard position to defend. Which makes me think you should consider why you're defending it. I'm all for being accurate. And also for being cautious about absolutism. But losing track of the humanity of these situations while doing so will inevitably make you come off in a way that I don't think you intend to.
Ideally, yes. But I can also imagine a cleaving of the union at its inception and the founding of two separate countries on this continent, one for which slavery was quickly abolished and in the other, an entrenchment of slavery that no war could undo. Could it have been better? Oh yes. Unquestionably so. And I hope that none of my comments suggested otherwise. Could it have been worse? I guess I'm just cautious in stating unequivocally that it couldn't have been, as hard as that position may be to defend.
" But I can also imagine a cleaving of the union at its inception and the founding of two separate countries on this continent"
Yeah, that's true, but it's worth pointing out that this is basically what happened anyway. The north became increasingly hostile to slavery, the south formed the confederacy so they they could maintain it, and to preserve the union, there was a civil war. Given the fact that the south *was* so entrenched regarding slavery, this was pretty much inevitable.
Perhaps the divide simply comes down to whether you believe the preservation of the union was more important than the abolition of slavery. Or, perhaps more accurately, whether you think the dissolution of the union could have been worse than 90 more years of slavery (and the 100+ years of oppression that followed). And I guess one's position on that is down to where their empathy lies.
So sure, there's no situation that couldn't conceivably be worse. I'm sure there are even worse options (if I took the time to dream them up) than continuing slavery right into the present day. But we'd be weighing imaginary harms against the very real, well-documented, still divisive harms that affected and affect black people in America.
As you say, this is a hard position to defend. Which makes me think you should consider why you're defending it. I'm all for being accurate. And also for being cautious about absolutism. But losing track of the humanity of these situations while doing so will inevitably make you come off in a way that I don't think you intend to.