Republicans think slavery was a necessary evil???

According to GOP Senator Tom Cotton, slavery in the USA was a "necessary evil".

This is a stunning statement. Does he really believe this? Do other Republicans believe this?

Would the USA have failed if we had no slavery?

https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-senator-tom-cotton-slavery-necessary-evil-attacksnyt-2020-7

"We have to study the history of slavery and its role and impact on the development of our country because otherwise we can't understand our country. As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built, but the union was built in a way, as Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction."

 

Are you ready for a history course on what the Founders said and why? It completely obliterates the notion that the framers were for it. So okay, the original colonies were British Colonies. The British continued the slave trade well into the 19th century. So we inherited it, we didn't start it. At the time, as we rebelled from England, we faced a dilemma.

There most certainly was an anti-slave movement amongst the intellectuals who made up the framers. But there was the recognition that many States held slaves. Alot of whom in substantial numbers(this includes Northern States too. Since they want to wash their hands and always claim they were for the proclamation. No, no they weren't. The North essentially agreed once they saw it was to their advantage.)

Because all of the States held slaves, could the federal government seize them? Perhaps, but then the 1861-1864 conflict happens at the onset of the new nation, with Britain still waiting for such an opportunity(not to mention the Latin Americas)

There's no way the framers could obliterate it immediately. But they could progress towards it. As Cotton said: "the union was built in a way, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction". Does no one teach the Great Compromise anymore? Everyone knew instinctively that the 3/4ths thing was bad, yes but it was also A: A marked improvement and B: The signs of what was possible with continuing agreement by both sides.

The costs of importing African persons, pirating and the development of a new nation would have eventually overran the South. As technology was making automation easier and easier even back in the enlightenment era, we would have reached a place even without a civil war where the South would've been like 'F it, we'll do it on our own'.

The only thing the civil war did, was end slavery maybe 30-40 years earlier then it would have. But 600,000 Americans had to die for that to happen.

 

What is particularly stunning about it? More, when you have folks like Nancy and Chuck out there almost daily telling us that illegal immigration (today's actual slaves) is "necessary" you remain absent and quiet. So why does what Cotton wrote stun you? Do you mistakenly think that suddenly you have a republican supporter for your plantation?

 

Nancy and Chuck never said "illegal immigration is necessary".

meanwhile millions of these as you call "slaves" are working for Republican farmers.

 

It was necessary only if you wanted to form a republic of the whole Atlantic seaboard. Forming two separate countries would have been an option. Then where would the slaves have been, future freedomwise, in a country sovereign and separate from the Union?

 

Since your OP says 'REPUBLICANS think slavery was a necessary evil," and not just Cotton (ironic name, BTW) - it's clear that YOU think they do. But I have the AJ quote ready to go about assuming that one person equals ALL people just in case.

There's been quite a few sci-fi/what-if stories based on this. In fact, I know there's a thread here about this topic somewhere if I could be bothered to search for it. Considering slavery was not unique to the US, I'd say no - it really was par for the course back then. I'd guess that since the UK were the go-to guys for slavery wheeling and dealing, The Brutish Empire would have failed, or more accurately not been as successful, without slavery powering their engines. As for the US itself - had slavery never been introduced, maybe short-term the South would likely have been a lot more agrarian and the whole Antebellum culture would not have developed while the North would be relatively unchanged. Long term we would have been a helluva lot better without it. Either way we should never have done it, an opinion shared by everyone except Soulja Boy.

 

It's a strange thing to say. The union of the US States would surely have succeeded anyway, maybe not as fast, and some people might not have made so much money, but it would have gone ahead. Who is Cotton trying to appeal to?

 

I'm pretty sure he doesn't speak for ALL republicans. Of course it wasn't necessary, but I'm sure FREE labor definitely assists in speeding up the development of ANYTHING. and I mean how could they refuse such FREE labor when all the had to do was trade some bottles of rum to Africans for them. Africa should be held accountable for treating their OWN like merchandise.

 

It was a "necessary evil" even in Egypt and with the Ancient Egyptians and forced laborers.. Think about nomadic tribes and social hierarchy, community, structural advancements and the lack of labor before looking clueless is always a good practice Even the tribes of Africa took slaves by trade or defeating rival nomadic tribes, same is true of American Indians..

 

Shocking. Racist makes racist statement. Other racists agree with him. News at 11.

 

Go ask Sarah Palin to find the nonexistent "country" of Africa and talk at them about the slave trade.

 

And they get paid, unlike real slaves working for Democrats on southern plantations. But while we're on the topic, got proof the farmers are all Republicans, or even a majority of farmers?

 

Intelligent post wasted on ignorance and the unrealistic

 

Todays farmers are Conservative, hard working, dedicated country first folk.. But the lazy farmers from the southern slavery era were brutal Democrats that put profit above human life.. That's about it in a nut shell..

 

Oh you and your reality posts

 

And they get paid and are free to go back to Mexico or South America ANYTIME they feel oppressed

F'um!

 

I think the reference was in regard to west coast farming, where (unless I'm sorely mistaken) agribusiness has become a major force in that sector. The same for Michigan, northern Ohio and parts of northern Indiana. I would agree Midwest farmers fit your description but corporate people are profit-driven...again part of your post.

 

Those southern conservatives sure were lazy farmers during the southern slavery era who put profit above human life.

 

And yet we keep flinging our electronic messages-in-bottles into the ocean of internet, hoping for signs of intelligence. SETI oughta eat its heart out.

 

Try that in English. Earth English.

 

Agreed, but they/migrants are free to leave, work or whatever gloats their boat.. The west coast is clearly the leader in agri and in order to compete nationally the rest of the U.S. must profit the as the they do and follow slave labor tactics as the west coast practices

 

Awww....triggered? How cute

 

But you're wrong about what party they aligned with, it's ok, most people ignorant of history make that same mistake..

 

It's your froth and twitching. Just remarking on what's there to see.

 

Dem brutal democrats down in Louisiana, just about a mile from Texarkana, in dem old cotton fields backa home.