1) No, it was not. Whether you admit it or not the United States was one of the islands of freedom scattered about the globe. That is an important factor in the desire of so many to come here, still is.
2) “Southerners” are not being upbraided by me. They were terribly afflicted by their ruling class’ insane policies. Non-slave owners in the South were enslaved by the requirements of slavery, not the least of which was being dragooned into Slave Patrols. Nor was it possible for whites to speak against the Slaver system without great danger to their lives and livelihoods.
There is no question that there was more freedom for blacks and whites outside the Land of the Whip and the Lash. It is not even a debatable point. Any freedom Southerners had was easily available to Northerners but not vice-versa.
Most of the elements of non-freedom were the results of enforcing such abominations as the Fugitive Slave laws enacted, of course, by the Slaver politicians North and South.
Union armies were mostly disbanded after the war other than those necessary to prevent the wholesale slaughter of the Freedmen. The small armies sent West mainly occupied posts.
It was the Republican administrations which mostly treated the Indian properly while the Democrats proceeded in a questionable fashion.
The Indian Wars were not related to the Civil War in any important fashion unless one is trying to hide the facts about the Slaver Revolt. Additionally, it is undeniable that the conflict between Indian and American was primarily the result of irreconcilable cultures and pretty much inevitable. It isn’t as though white people treated other white people all that well in the 19th century to start with.
Your opportune ambiguity conceals whether you consider "the land of the whip and the lash" to be part of the United States for the purpose of the claim above, or if a separable North is the United States this time.
2) “Southerners” are not being upbraided by me. They were terribly afflicted by their ruling class’ insane policies. Non-slave owners in the South were enslaved by the requirements of slavery, not the least of which was being dragooned into Slave Patrols. Nor was it possible for whites to speak against the Slaver system without great danger to their lives and livelihoods. There is no question that there was more freedom for blacks and whites outside the Land of the Whip and the Lash.
You don't question it. Questioning prior beliefs is for critical thinkers, anyway.
It is not even a debatable point.
You don't debate it. You simply make declarations.
Any freedom Southerners had was easily available to Northerners but not vice-versa.
Because the land that gave America the Bill of Rights is somehow less libertine than the land that gave America the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Most of the elements of non-freedom were the results of enforcing such abominations as the Fugitive Slave laws enacted, of course, by the Slaver politicians North and South.
I'm going to surprise you by agreeing with the underlined portion. In the first half of the century, the government was such a non-factor in people's daily lives that it could not have greatly impacted the average citizen's personal freedom without some extraordinary legal interface. Engaging in interstate trafficking was one way of becoming entangled with the government.
Union armies were mostly disbanded after the war other than those necessary to prevent the wholesale slaughter of the Freedmen. The small armies sent West mainly occupied posts.
Maybe the Indians got lost and somebody else's army tried to wipe them out.
It was the Republican administrations which mostly treated the Indian properly while the Democrats proceeded in a questionable fashion.
Your ability to just make things up will always defeat my insistent reliance on the facts.
The Indian Wars were not related to the Civil War in any important fashion unless one is trying to hide the facts about the Slaver Revolt. Additionally, it is undeniable that the conflict between Indian and American was primarily the result of irreconcilable cultures and pretty much inevitable. It isn’t as though white people treated other white people all that well in the 19th century to start with.
What an extraordinary (and sociopathic) statement! Firstly, not only do you think that any reference to Northern human rights abuses only serves to deny any Southern crimes, but you believe that the undeniability of favored selections of truth invalidates the argumentative worth of any inconvenient facts. Normal people don't think that way. I assure you, no moral failing of the North undoes the sins of the South because it's actually possible for nonexclusive facts to coexist. But presenting an unbalanced set of claims as though they were balanced is functionally lying.
Secondly, I have to ask, did you mean to claim that cultural incompatibility with a different culture justifies it's extermination? Isn't that exactly the sort of view Northerners have been accused of having? Isn't that the sort of thing you'd want to deny?i