…or way too often but I agree and thank you.
Nonsense. The Government invested in RR (providing huge subsidies to RR companies) long before they invested in roads.
2 Likes
Another thread about arguing dogmas. Fun to read without any personal shift in politics and a lot of back slaps 
The famine was intentional.
It was forced Industrial Revolution. Imagine taking a country of millions of people and forcing it to experience Industrial Revolution in about a decade and a half
That’s the primary reason for the famine. That doesn’t actually change your point. It’s totalitarian but not because the government tried to plow fields. It tried to change human psyche after shooting or forcing out 90 percent of the intelegencia and changing the culture of the 90 percent who were all but enslaved just 60 years before that
2 Likes
We will starve as many people as it takes to improve morale comrades.
2 Likes
I am sorry but dude. No just no. You are relying on a very white washed history. Think about government corruption of the late 19th and early 20th century.
Andrew Carnegie … was a basically a monster.
It is entirely possible that his late life philanatropy and pacifism was an attempt to ensure the legacy that is now taught in schools instead of what he actually did before that
2 Likes
All those industrialists bought the government. That’s the first step in the way to robber baronhood. You buy the government officials so they pass laws that are good for your business plan.
1 Like
Not only that he was a violent strike buster, he was partially responsible for the breaking of a dam that killed like 2000 people etc etc etc
He used Pinkertons like his personal army.
He too like Jefferson was a product of his times and in no way an “independent capitalist”.
3 Likes
Which is why the solution is to get rid of the illegals, and force the agricultural industry to hire legal workers at whatever wage supply and demand supports.
Not to import the next class of brown people democrats want picking their crops.
1 Like
That’s a great idea. (Not sarcasm). But consider What is the present cost of government support for retail workers whose salaries put them at the line of govenrment benefits? What will it cost the government to provide welfare for those who are employed at the farms at the market rate but teeter at the poverty line?
Is it more or less than what the government currently shells out on the entirety of the illegal problem - lost taxes, crime, benefits etc etc
I honestly don’t know.
1 Like
The worst possible thing to happen to the republican party would be an oversized blue collar class that starts unionizing as they replace illegal workers and at farms, factories etc and to whom Dems can appeal again
Does anyone ever think of consequences?
1 Like
I realize that this concept is very difficult for your simplistic intellect to grasp, but the government didn’t make it legal. It was already a common legal practice in society, all across the planet. And had been for 1000s of years.
Is it possibly easier to enjoy its fruits in a society where the government makes it legal and enforces it through the judicial system rather than a society where the government simply turns a blind eye to it?
The government responded to the whims of the majority at the time. It was a long standing, recognized practice. The policies in the final period were more a reaction to the spreading decrease of societal acceptance of slavery. What was happening was state by state, and nation by nation, governments were moving to outlaw slavery. The act of declaring slavery illegal was the new thing under the law.
All correct. And historically it was actually a pretty short period of time over the entire existence of the unite states
That doesn’t change the fact that fortunes were made based on slavery that wasn’t simply not yet made illegal but enforced through government edict and government entities
1 Like
It was already legal and they were under no restrictions preventing the full enjoyment of the financial benefits by slave owners. The actions at the end didn’t change the legality, rather they affirmed the existing legality, with the intention to preserve that legality. It was a losing battle to prevent the coming declaration by government that it was no longer legal.
Affirming existing legality is the problem. The government enforcing property laws over slavery changes dynamic - it affects things like how freedom can be obtained for offspring of slaves. It creates the ability to enforce wills that give slaves as parts of those estates.
It being legal and having the backing of the government through legislation and court systems are two very different things.
Your will argument is defective. They were already considered property and could be inherited before hand. The legal actions at the end were vain attempts at preservation, not acts of establishment.
It’s not defective. They can be considered property without the government writing laws on how they would be treated in different aspects of law including their offspring or at the time of the death of the original owner or their return to the owner upon escape. Once the government wrote law or court decisions it created a new dynamic between master and slave.
Yes of course they were vain attempts at preservation. I am debating that. I am stating that but for the government the American system of slavery (not slavery in general) wouldn’t exist. It would fall apart faster and wouldn’t allow for generational wealth that it did
These aren’t criticisms. They are just statements of fact.
“Partially”?