I guess this is where we part company. It's the same old tune. If a person or institution isn't perfect, then it cannot be spoken of as any better than another that is completely corrupt or evil.
In Turkey, until recently, women had some minor disabilities under the law. Therefore, I guess they were no better than the taliban, since women were not absolutely equal to men.
I think this line of "reasoning" is just silly. It is highly relevant to compare societies and individuals. Even though none of them are perfect, some are much more imperfect than others. And that comparative imperfection is important.
This is all based on the theory that since all humans contain both good and evil, there is no relevant difference between them. So Hitler and Mother Theresa were morally equivalent, to use a little hyperbole, since both were composed of both good and bad.
Good grief...I never...ever, made this implication. I think the facts show that the North was not morally superior to the South. I believe the war was over economics, state rights, federal control and abuse of power, not just about slavery.
I think slavery was an issue, and that the North did not have clean hands in the matter.
I think slavery is wrong, so is killing off entire Native American populations, abusing children, or exploiting various minority groups.
To compare the North to Mother Teresa and the South to Hitler is obscene.
"If a person or institution isn't perfect, then it cannot be spoken of as any better than another that is completely corrupt or evil."
So that's your position then? That the South was completely corrupt and evil? Then you wonder why we can find no common ground?