On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 11:05:35 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 11/25/17 10:52 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 07:32:46 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 11/25/17 12:54 AM, wrote:

Further, you sort of put the cover on that pot when you posited several
times here that the black slaves would have been better off without
being emancipated for a few more generations. Unlike you, I don't expect
historical figures to be perfect in every way or to meet some set of
standards that you find acceptable.

That is not what I said at all. I said economic sanctions may have
been able to stop slavery without killing 3% of the population,
destroying the economy and creating a social divide born of war
that still exists today.
Do you really think the life a black man in Mississippi improved all
that much in "a few more generations"? Hell there are people who say
it is still not all that great.
It is hard to integrate when you are walking over a quarter of a
million dead relatives of the people you want to accept you.


I don't accept your rationalizations for the continuance of slavery.

No, you are a democrat, war is always the answer for you.


Oh, please. Every time you post on this subject, your posts get a little
more bizarre. The cause of the Civil War was slavery and its possible
expansion to the western territories, and preservation of the union. The
southern slave states seceded after Lincoln, a Republican, was elected.
Your southern slave-owning buddies fired the first shots.


The basis of slavery was based on an economic advantage and if the
market had removed that economic advantage, slavery would have
collapsed of it's own weight. The only question is whether your
northern ancestors and european heroes would have actually boycotted
slave produced cotton and other products. They were profiting from the
slaves too.