Reply #59: the south should not have been admitted to the union while holding slaves

[QC]

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but at the time the Union was formed, most of the colonies practiced slavery. In fact, the first one to legislate slavery in its modern form (as opposed to indentured servitude) was Massachusetts (which is somewhat convenient, since that state and Rhode Island accounted for most of the slave trade). There were still slaves in New Jersey in 1860.

The 2/3 compromise was not a struggle over slavery so much as over the balance of political power.

the underground railroad helped blacks long before the federal govt did.

True, the Underground Railroad represents a glorious bit of goodness in a squalid time. But no one could seriously argue that they, alone, could have helped all of those 6,000,000 gain their freedom.

reconstruction didn't go far enough

Agreed.

the south, as a region, has been an embarrassment to democracy since the outset of this nation

It's more a mixed bag, actually, but that kind of grayness doesn't carry much weight on a discussion board that has become strongly tilted toward the kind of shrill, shouted, black-and-white, morality-play argument that you do so well.

But I quite agree that what I said above is agitprop. That's the proper response to the simpleminded "fuck the south" style of "argument" that has taken this place over. Why waste your time trying to have an honest discussion with those whose only interest is shouting and preening?