> On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:02:27 -0000 > xorc...@sigaint.org wrote: > >> Big picture: the harm they did led to a civil war which enabled their >> federal government in a power grab. > > Wrong as usual.
I knew you wouldn't be able to stay away from the sweet, sweet lovin' very long Juan. Some loves are meant to last. See? No tragedy. Breakups don't have to last forever. >> Small scale perspective? Yeah, they benefited. > > So, they benefited - slavery was good for them. Yeah. The Dumbfuck perspective. I murder you to get a watch. I benefit, in the sense I have a watch now. I don't benefit in the sense that I now have to watch my ass for cops, murder charges, and so on. Perspective. As I've said repeatedly on this topic: what you consider a positive or a negative is based largely on the perspective, point of view, and most importantly the ramifications that you're looking at. > >> Larger scale? No, they >> lost a great deal, > > Generations of slave owners didn't lose a thing. Well, if you're looking at it in a purely monetary fashion, you may be right. When one takes in the other facets it may not be so clear. Does abusing slaves daily make you the type of person likely to abuse their children? People say this of mistreatment of animals, for example. Seems likely. You might classify this as a lose of humanity, type of thing. That is certainly a type of damage to them. Then there is the long-term financial impact. Most wealthy types don't just wish to see themselves get wealthy, individually, they seek to establish a dynasty. They want to put their children, and grandchildren, into positions of power. This was certainly compromised. There are a lot of ways in which the slave owners were harmed. And, to be clear: I make, and have made, no claims that the harm will be equal, or proportional. It is certainly possible to harm someone more than one is harmed yourself. But there is harm. > > >> and the American south went from being wealthy to >> being poor. > > So 'the south' was wealth under slavery? And I guess the > wealthiest people were the million of slaves? Have you tried > thinking before typing? Oh c'mon .. you know what I meant, tiger. The only people able to vote, the only ones who legally counted in any respect, were the white, land-owning, males. They held a great deal of wealth, proportionally, across America as I understand it. That is no longer the case. > Back to your first sentence. Slavery was 'bad' because it led > to a 'power grab' - Amazing proof-by-circular-logic eh? And why > are 'power grabs' bad? Indeed. Too bad you lack the ability to see the use of so-called circular logic. Still struggling with 7+10=5, I take it? Take your time. As for the 'power grab' considering that a great deal of the schism was centered around state's rights, its obvious that the southerners, then - as now - considered that a type of harm. Which is another point, in itself. Harm is relative, in the sense that the same action applied to one may not be considered harm by another. BSDM being the obvious example, but it applies in other areas as well. Not that this has anything to do with slavery, but it does have to do with the perceptions of harm; vis-a-vis a "strong" vs. "weak" federal government.
