Rocksolid Light - alt.usage.english - Re: Defeating the South meant Yankee rule for all US. Moneygrubbing outed aristocratic indolence. Who agrees?

Re: Defeating the South meant Yankee rule for all US. Moneygrubbing outed aristocratic indolence. Who agrees?

<tdegpi9ei8se07tvednp5f0iaquati7pui@4ax.com>

http://rslight.i2p/interests/article-flat.php?id=200454&group=alt.usage.english#200454

copy link Newsgroups: alt.usage.english

Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!newsfeed.endofthelinebbs.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr3.iad1.usenetexpress.com!69.80.99.22.MISMATCH!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2024 17:31:10 +0000
From: rich.ulrich@comcast.net (Rich Ulrich)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Defeating the South meant Yankee rule for all US. Moneygrubbing outed aristocratic indolence. Who agrees?
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2024 12:31:10 -0500
Message-ID: <tdegpi9ei8se07tvednp5f0iaquati7pui@4ax.com>
References: <d52983b5-9755-4f4a-9e30-8bdcdeb37006n@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 37
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-8Q2Ry500AHqsdgvUV1p+T7XQvaLECj7V2rAChoOxVqwbfcfhYg8KXqHal90CNlTggFkpro4nMboTZ5g!OUnkgftt2MKGGtLl2pcnIJkBZp0sIRPbrPwxRjHZBzFruH6L/ccoQU02mLkmxBgOe0/aMT0=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40

by: Rich Ulrich - Fri, 5 Jan 2024 17:31 UTC

On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 03:36:11 -0800 (PST), Arindam Banerjee
<banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> wrote:

>It was about money.
>The South would spread slavery to new territories to be stolen from the natives.
>Then they could get rich and industrialize, and thus, compete with the North.

Yes, factories manned by slaves. That was imagined in the
South, but I don't know if any were ever created.

>The North did not want that to happen,

> for then their domination would decrease.

I think that capitalist competition was a SMALL part of
the objection. Taney's Dred Scott decision asserted that
Blacks were not citizens under the Constition. IMO, the
decision represents a case where "good" originalist argument
supports the WRONG conclusion: It was rooted in anti-
equality, and in bad science claiming that Blacks were not
(really) human beings.

> They already had their industries and could command prices.

That makes some sense by the economic thinking of the
late 20th century but I've never seen anyone cite any pre-Civil
War Yankees make that argument.

>So both lots wanted to make money, one lot with slavery and the other without.
>Defeating the South meant Yankee rule for all US.
>Moneygrubbing outed aristocratic indolence.
>

--
Rich Ulrich

Subject	Author
Re: Defeating the South meant Yankee rule for all US. Moneygrubbing outed arist	Rich Ulrich

No matter where I go, the place is always called "here".

interests / alt.usage.english / Re: Defeating the South meant Yankee rule for all US. Moneygrubbing outed aristocratic indolence. Who agrees?

interests / alt.usage.english / Re: Defeating the South meant Yankee rule for all US. Moneygrubbing outed aristocratic indolence. Who agrees?