Recall, the 'neo-confederates' always excuse southern slavery since it was "legal".
Recall, the 'neo-confederates' always excuse southern slavery since it was "legal".
WELL? It was. You and your fellow Union (big government) totalitarians made sure it was legal. A. Lincoln made sure it was legal because he thought it would preserve the union and his power and his tariff. The lot of you cannot tell this forum with any ounce of conviction that the North made war preparations because of an aversion to slavery. But you will aver over and over again that the North was fighting the South over slavery. Uh, uh, no , didn't happen. The North was fighting to preserve the union and would have let slavery exist if that is what it took. So take your idiotic self-righteousness somewhere else, bub. You aren't any better than the slave owners were. If you want to make slavery the war issue then you have a lot of 'splainin' to do.
Let's get this straight.
Refusal to condemn, refusal to participate in, or sign off on, your rant (which is what it is), is not the same thing as endorsing, or excusing, or morally catering to whatever you're complaining about, capiche?
Just because I want Frank Nitti to have a fair trial, doesn't mean I'm in league with his rum-runners.
But you do that constantly, and I think you know better.
I agree with your overall policy aim, which is, no bond labor anywhere in North America -- it should be a free-labor zone and exempt from coolie labor (California -- we don't talk about that with moral rancor, do we?), peonage (New Mexico, in Spanish-speaking communities), or indenture (which Tata International tried to re-introduce to the Left Coast from India, 12 years ago, and promptly got sued by some Hewlett-Packard employees who found themselves competing with indentured bondmen from Bangalore).
That said, how you achieve your policy goals makes all the difference. You can't just take the community hostage and demand things be done your way when others disagree for substantial reasons having to do with their continuing to be able to get a living themselves. You will admit, won't you, it's a weak play to tender a moral demand that all roulette croupiers give up their careers so we can have a principle of roulette-free gaming?
Oh, and I'm not a "neo-Confederate", either. Let's get that straight, too, while we're at it. The only thing I've said like that is to suggest that southern New York and New England might profitably be kicked out of the Union and their blue voters cast adrift, to raft on a sea of misery with their socialist neighbors in Ontario and the Maritimes.
I've called your attention to the inappropriateness of that label a couple of times now.