White America is nowhere near repentant for their sins of slavery, in fact, the fantasies linger. Scholars and historians in America (and this guy – Joshua Zeitz, a Politico Magazine contributing writer), are currently debating whether Lincoln made a mistake by freeing the slaves, and if he could have instead made a deal with the south.
The deal would have been; instead of going to war with the south and freeing the slaves, they would have extended slavery to certain states and leave other states as free, which would have averted the Civil War, thereby saving thousands of lives.
Some say many deaths could have been avoided if Lincoln had taken the deal although slavery would have extended well into the 20th century, as in up to the 1930s or 40s; or until someone yelled enough or other nations got involved. So, the dilemma is whether America could have saved lives and allowed slavery to go on, or did they do the right thing by sacrificing southern lives to free Black lives. They are actually reconsidering this.
These scholars and historians, first of all, are talking about this subject as if Blacks are not in the room, or not on this planet and not able to read the article posted on Politico about this debate. They decided to discuss this regardless of its irrelevance and stupidity. The callousness surrounding the discussion highlights the then and now mindset of whites in America. They think they have all the answers, whether right or wrong; and it always leads back to slavery.
The object of this psychopathological article is of course, to entice the broken minds of white voters salivating at the thought of Trump the sorcerer subliminal suggestions to resurrect slavery. In their bitterness toward Black advancement today, some whites can only dream of a day when they can legally be cruel to people without consequences like that of their ancestors, but behind selfies. There is no humanity left after the guilt has seared their consciences.
In a historical point of the article, “One proposal, offered by the Kentucky Sen. John Crittenden, would have extended the Missouri Compromise line across the continent and protected the institution of slavery in perpetuity through an irrevocable constitutional amendment; another would have required the Northern states to abrogate their “personal liberty laws,” meant to protect free Black Americans from capture under the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Act.
Or, if you will: What if Donald J. Trump had been president-elect in 1860 instead? What might that have looked like?
In all likelihood, chattel slavery in North America would have persisted, even grown, well into the 20th century. Republican doctrine held that if slavery were prevented from spreading, it would die of its own accord. But this idea was always grounded in wishful thinking, and the Crittenden compromise would have extended the institution almost to the Pacific Ocean.”
The problem with their thinking and their discussing the right thing to do, they never even considered the fact that neither was correct. They should have never had the slaves in the first place or should have released them on the principle of human decency. There should have neither been a war nor a compromise on an act of inhumanity against a people incapable of defending themselves against such wickedness. Furthermore, it is a shame that, to this day they still have not considered that as an option and repented of their sins.
It is like two brothers stealing a neighbor’s bike and afterward deciding whether to sell the bike to another neighbor or tearing it apart and trashing it to satisfy each brother. The thought of taking the bike back never crosses their minds. This is the moral failure of this country devoid of a moral base altogether. In all other areas of life and political policy, they think the same way. Speaking of immorality, the topic was breached by none other than the 45th president, who believes Lincoln should have read his book and made a deal.
“The world Donald Trump envisioned is both easy and awful to imagine: a world in which Lincoln and his cabinet agreed to the Crittenden compromise, slavery persisted into the 20th century — ending, perhaps, in violent revolution, or under global pressure — and the nation’s economic and political trajectory took a markedly different course. The U.S. would have remained an economic powerhouse, most likely, but much of the nation’s industrial development and urbanization would have been delayed by decades.”
To break the mental illness in the minds of this people is going to take an act of God or the conscience weight of an obelisk, which is definitely what has been happening for the past few hundred years. The pressure and guilt of their minds have slowly broken their ability to think clearly, problem solve, and understand the meaning of life.
They are a people without viable nor rational solutions but people who think only of themselves, money, and power. The audacity to ignore the minds of readers to the point you can debate whether or not continued cruelty was the best option as opposed to saving the lives of the very people who were perpetrating the cruelty.
Lord have mercy on these people, they know not what they do. Thank God some get it, except the guy writing the article says, “The awfulness in former President Donald Trump’s argument isn’t that it’s wrong. It’s that it might be right.”
DISCLAIMER: The content of Pro Liberation is firmly opinionated and is not meant to be interpreted as official news. We glean facts and quotes from mainstream news websites and abridge its meaning for readers to relate. We do not indulge in misinformation, conspiracy theories, or false doctrine but choose to express our right to free speech as citizens of this country and free born under God the Creator. We represent Nu Life Alliance Inc. a non-profit organization in the battle for social and economic justice. Donate to our cause at the following link. DONATE
