Would You Dismantle the Underground Railroad?

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

So I suppose every time anyone has sacrificed anything or any amount of people to save vastly more people, they are evil too? Because that adds an awful lot of people to the evil category that you might not be expecting.

sacrificing others isn't sacrifice, dickjar.

this is the utilitarian elitist view, just a cunt hair from genocide.

[Minister of Truth]

Can shouting for silence make a room quieter?

Not some dirty trick or propaganda, just common sense.



650,000 preventable dead Americans and making us the only country that had to go to war to abolish slavery = "good."

Got it.



There is an argument for that, too. He killed a lot of communists, who were by far, the greater evil. In body count alone, their genocides were far worse than anything Hitler even aspired to.

What would have been the total human cost of delaying emancipation another 40 years so that it could be accomplished "peacefully?"

[artichoke]

sacrificing others isn't sacrifice, dickjar.

this is the utilitarian elitist view, just a cunt hair from genocide.

So when George Washington sacrificed everything the Revolutionaries fought for to grovel at the feet of Britain and betray our French allies in front of the whole world with the Jay treaty...because going to war with Britain again would have undone the miracle of 1776...and was consequently despised across all 13 colonies (one of the reasons he was so willing to step down after only two terms), that was unjustifiable to you, correct? He should have plunged us into national suicide because any sacrificing for the greater good is automatically wrong, right?



Or when Churchill sacrificed an entire city (Coventry) to Nazi bombers to avoid revealing his spy network, thus enabling the Allies to defeat Hitler...that was unacceptable right?

Same with Truman sacrificing our principle of not targeting civilians when he mass murdered Japanese people to end the war and save lives...unforgivable, right?

Getting the slaves liberated more quickly and effectively while saving 650k American lives makes more sense. Even if you're too busy hyperventilating over there in the absolutist corner to calm down and reason it out.

[artichoke]

What would have been the total human cost of delaying emancipation another 40 years so that it could be accomplished "peacefully?"

No idea for certain. But what IS certain is that slavery was already being phased out. Importation was already banned and the slave trade was being painted into a corner at every turn worldwide. Another possible time travel intervention might be preventing the Louisiana Purchase, which also forced slavery into the forefront...because now we had to determine which newly created states would have slavery, and tolerating old slavery is different than consenting to adding new slavery.

[Port Tack]

Just checking, because I routinely get hysterically vilified for suggesting that 650k Americans didn't need to die so Northern leftists could illegally invade, slaughter, and enslave half the republic...all to liberate the slaves (who were already being gradually freed) slightly more quickly. I think that's a pretty compelling reason to leave someone enslaved slightly longer, but leftists lose their minds when I say that. Just wanted to make sure I am understanding this correctly that I have a leftist now on the record saying they would leave them enslaved as well under the right circumstances.

Na, the south needed their asses kicked to show any revolutionaries that it ain't gonna work. Plus, the south was really racist much like today and a lot of them perishing was probably good.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

So when George Washington sacrificed everything the Revolutionaries fought for to grovel at the feet of Britain and betray our French allies in front of the whole world with the Jay treaty...because going to war with Britain again would have undone the miracle of 1776...and was consequently despised across all 13 colonies (one of the reasons he was so willing to step down after only two terms), that was unjustifiable to you, correct? He should have plunged us into national suicide because any sacrificing for the greater good is automatically wrong, right?



Or when Churchill sacrificed an entire city (Coventry) to Nazi bombers to avoid revealing his spy network, thus enabling the Allies to defeat Hitler...that was unacceptable right?

Same with Truman sacrificing our principle of not targeting civilians when he mass murdered Japanese people to end the war and save lives...unforgivable, right?

Getting the slaves liberated more quickly and effectively while saving 650k American lives makes more sense. Even if you're too busy hyperventilating over there in the absolutist corner to calm down and reason it out.

not a zinger.

[Minister of Truth]

No idea for certain. But what IS certain is that slavery was already being phased out. Importation was already banned and the slave trade was being painted into a corner at every turn worldwide. Another possible time travel intervention might be preventing the Louisiana Purchase, which also forced slavery into the forefront...because now we had to determine which newly created states would have slavery, and tolerating old slavery is different than consenting to adding new slavery.

The south took exception to the containment of slavery, but, it took even greater exception to abolition, because it refused to accept the station of blacks as anything but subservient whites.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

I question the premise that destroying the underground railroad would have caused slavery to end "more quickerer" as you put it.