Sen. Tom Cotton Calls Slavery Nation's 'Necessary Evil' In Shocking Interview

[ch33zw1z]

Good news for you! He is likely to make a Presidential run in 2024.

No worries, I'm sure geek will have no problem voting for cancel culture, which is another new term that describes very well what conservatives have been engaging in for thousands of years.

 

[HomerJS]

So what if he does agree with it... Meh
It's historical fact.
Agree or disagree it won't change a thing.

No problem all with a sitting Senator who thinks slavery was necessary. No problem if you are white.

I see why you won't condemn it. Your kinda guy for 2024

 

[brycejones]

No problem all with a sitting Senator who thinks slavery was necessary. No problem if you are white.

I see why you won't condemn it. Your kinda guy for 2024

He did vote for the clearly racist Trump in 2016.

 

[Mandres]

I'm pretty liberal, and not a Tom Cotton supporter by any stretch, but what the fuck are you guys talking about here? He made a statement that the founders thought allowing slavery was a necessary evil for unifying the forming nation (which is a well documented fact), and somehow you're twisting that into him personally supporting slavery? Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense.
You sound like the radical left twitter mobs the talking heads on Fox are always railing against.

 

[Meghan54]

I'm pretty liberal, and not a Tom Cotton supporter by any stretch, but what the fuck are you guys talking about here? He made a statement that the founders thought allowing slavery was a necessary evil for unifying the forming nation (which is a well documented fact), and somehow you're twisting that into him personally supporting slavery? Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense.
You sound like the radical left twitter mobs the talking heads on Fox are always railing against.

Let me ask you...I get the evil part of slavery. What was it that made slavery necessary?

 

[soulcougher73]

I'm pretty liberal, and not a Tom Cotton supporter by any stretch, but what the fuck are you guys talking about here? He made a statement that the founders thought allowing slavery was a necessary evil for unifying the forming nation (which is a well documented fact), and somehow you're twisting that into him personally supporting slavery? Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense.
You sound like the radical left twitter mobs the talking heads on Fox are always railing against.

“As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built.”. Key word there is “as”, it signifies that he agrees with the founding fathers that it was necessary. Which it was not, it is just something that happened.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Just for reference, here's what cotton is trying to cancel

The 1619 Project (Published 2019)

American slavery began 400 years ago this month. This is referred to as the country’s original sin, but it is more than that: It is the country’s true origin.

www.nytimes.com

The 1619 Project is an ongoing initiative from The New York Times Magazine that began in August 2019, the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of our national narrative.

This is what conservatives want to cancel out. They think this will further jeopardize their "place in line"

 

[Fenixgoon]

“As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built.”. Key word there is “as”, it signifies that he agrees with the founding fathers that it was necessary. Which it was not, it is just something that happened.

i was a little on the fence when i first read this article. was it poor word choice, or did he intend to imply that slavery was necessary? absent context, i would err on poor choice - but his desire to not have the 1619 project taught clearly puts him in the latter camp, whether he realizes it or not.

 

[Mandres]

Do you know what the phrase "necessary evil" means? There would have been no nation without the membership of the slave states, who would not join if slavery was abolished in federal law. In terms of the negotiations around establishing this country allowing the states to decide the issue of slavery at the local level was absolutely a necessary evil. That's pretty much indisputable.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Do you know what the phrase "necessary evil" means? There would have been no nation without the membership of the slave states, who would not join if slavery was abolished in federal law. In terms of the negotiations around establishing this country allowing the states to decide the issue of slavery at the local level was absolutely a necessary evil. That's pretty much indisputable.

Then how come owning another human isn't necessary anymore? I mean, capitalism wouldn't mind one bit.

Also, I encourage you to read the 1619 essays.

I certainly would say it's evil, but our country didn't have to allow owning other humans, but the thought of not being a country was just too much for them, eh?

Not only that, when we finally broke from it, half the country worked to sabotage the equality anyways.

 

[nickqt]

I'm pretty liberal, and not a Tom Cotton supporter by any stretch, but what the fuck are you guys talking about here? He made a statement that the founders thought allowing slavery was a necessary evil for unifying the forming nation (which is a well documented fact), and somehow you're twisting that into him personally supporting slavery? Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense.
You sound like the radical left twitter mobs the talking heads on Fox are always railing against.

He agreed with the Founders that slavery was a necessary evil.

Words bro. Get some.

 

[ElFenix]

i, for one, appreciate a potential presidential candidate scoring own-goals such as this and stanning sending the military into New York as if it were Baghdad.

 

[soulcougher73]

Do you know what the phrase "necessary evil" means? There would have been no nation without the membership of the slave states, who would not join if slavery was abolished in federal law. In terms of the negotiations around establishing this country allowing the states to decide the issue of slavery at the local level was absolutely a necessary evil. That's pretty much indisputable.

Their would just be a different nation than your familiar with. We could have let those states leave and form their own slave nation as well if we wanted, or we could have never had slaves to begin with. Nothing in life is ever necessary, but plenty is evil.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Large parts of the country were settled and developed without slavery. So it seems like it was an "evil of choice". The southern states could have chosen to abolish slavery if they had wanted to; as other parts of the country started to do and some did. They chose to keep slavery not because it was "necessary" but because it was convenient for the slave owners. The argument that it was “a necessary evil” is based upon the idea that there would never have been a Union at all if the founders had not allowed slaveowners to keep their slaves. Those of us who disagree believe that a dedicated group could have nailed out a compromise turning it into something more like the indentured servitude common for white Europeans, where the servants had some human rights, and an end in sight, however far off. This would have greatly benefited everyone concerned.

In Washington and Jefferson’s time slavery was in decline due to economic reasons. Most people could foresee a point when every state would voluntarily abolish it. Then Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin in 1793 and cotton production started making big profits. Plantation agriculture was revitalized and slavery became profitable once again. Not only could you use slaves to grow cotton on your own land; you could also sell slaves to new settlements in places like Alabama and Mississippi and Texas so they could grow cotton on their land.

Then, it was "necessary" for large landowners to get stupidly rich. There was simply no other way to get the volume of labor they needed to fully exploit the land they suddenly had access to. And it goes without saying that if you can get filthy rich and the only obstacle is adopting brutal chattel slavery, well, they did that very thing. Cotton, By making that statement, he has built his entire philosophy of law and governance around the Constitution as a sacred (rather than a living) document, and the “Founding Fathers” as omniscient beings whose every intent is to be followed. So yeah, when he quotes that particular quote it is problematic.

 

[brycejones]

Tom Cotton is a racist POS. He claims there's no over-incarceration problem, nor a problem with systematic racism in the justice system. In fact, given a chance, he would have even stricter punishments and expand the prison system greatly. He also wants to crack down on protests with the full force of the military

Sounds like he wants Trump supporters in the 2024 primary.

 

[pcgeek11]

Nice edit. Who cares? Cotton cared enough to bring it up.

Because I edited to type in that they were long dead. LOL

So what?

 

[pcgeek11]

Good news for you! He is likely to make a Presidential run in 2024.

Why is that good for me?

 

[pcgeek11]

Just for reference, here's what cotton is trying to cancel

The 1619 Project (Published 2019)

American slavery began 400 years ago this month. This is referred to as the country’s original sin, but it is more than that: It is the country’s true origin.

www.nytimes.com

This is what conservatives want to cancel out. They think this will further jeopardize their "place in line"

And there have been complaints from Historians:

The 1619 Project - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The New York Times has said that the contributions were deeply researched and arguments verified by a team of fact-checkers in consultation with historians.[4] However, historians Gordon S. Wood, James M. McPherson, Richard Carwardine, and James Oakes have criticized the 1619 Project, demanding "corrections" for inaccurate claims.[5] Historian Leslie M. Harris, who served as a fact-checker for the project, contends that the authors ignored her corrections.[6] The Times replied, "We don't believe that the request for corrections to The 1619 Project is warranted."[4] Adam Serwer, reviewing the critiques, suggested that the bone of contention wasn't so much factual content as ideology--whether America was founded as a "slavocracy" or truly on principles of freedom.[5]

 

[ch33zw1z]

And there have been complaints from Historians:

The 1619 Project - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The New York Times has said that the contributions were deeply researched and arguments verified by a team of fact-checkers in consultation with historians.[4] However, historians Gordon S. Wood, James M. McPherson, Richard Carwardine, and James Oakes have criticized the 1619 Project, demanding "corrections" for inaccurate claims.[5] Historian Leslie M. Harris, who served as a fact-checker for the project, contends that the authors ignored her corrections.[6] The Times replied, "We don't believe that the request for corrections to The 1619 Project is warranted."[4] Adam Serwer, reviewing the critiques, suggested that the bone of contention wasn't so much factual content as ideology--whether America was founded as a "slavocracy" or truly on principles of freedom.[5]

Yea, and? That's not what Cotton's comment was about. It's obvious he hasn't read it, and you either.

Edit: I managed to find this article from last year.

The Fight Over the 1619 Project Is Not About the Facts

A dispute between a small group of scholars and the authors of The New York Times Magazine’s issue on slavery represents a fundamental disagreement over the trajectory of American society.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[ch33zw1z]

Because I edited to type in that they were long dead. LOL

So what?

Yea, it was a stupid edit. Extra words that didn't change anything.

Conservatives, the original cancel culture, for millennia

 

[pcgeek11]

Yea, and? That's not what Cotton's comment was about. It's obvious he hasn't read it, and you either.

If the historians disagree with the validity of this then it should be clarified. Not pushed like it was the sacred cow or something.

A historical accounting with an Ideological twist is what is driving the opposition.

 

[ch33zw1z]

If the historians disagree with the validity of this then it should be clarified. Not pushed like it was the sacred cow or something.

A historical accounting with an Ideological twist is what is driving the opposition.

How about you read it yourself. And see my edit, link added about the "critique". There the NYT reply as well.

Just saying that even your reply here indicates you haven't, but maybe not take Cottons word.on it, or the national review, or Washington times, obvious partisan outlets who often pass off op-eds as news.

 

[HomerJS]

If the historians disagree with the validity of this then it should be clarified. Not pushed like it was the sacred cow or something.

A historical accounting with an Ideological twist is what is driving the opposition.

I was taught in elementary school history class Columbus discovered America. Now all of a sudden they want accuracy?

BTW - I'm all for an accurate historical records.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Who gives a fuck what Tom Cotton thinks about slavery and the founding fathers. He made a statement that shows his support for his white voting block. Then he apologized for it the next day to cover his ass. But now he can talk to racist voters in Arkansas and say “You know how I feel” as he winks.

The notion that slavery was a “positive good” didn't come from the founding fathers and was more associated with a later generation – the term is usually associated with John C. Calhoun’s speech in 1837– and attitudes about slavery went from condemnation and however halfhearted and mealy-mouthed and ineffectual at the dawn of the republic, to more radically unapologetic defenses of slavery as something “beneficial” (allegedly even to the slaves) that should exist “in all future time” and as an institution which ought to serve as the “cornerstone” of a government .

 

[Meghan54]

Large parts of the country were settled and developed without slavery. So it seems like it was an "evil of choice". The southern states could have chosen to abolish slavery if they had wanted to; as other parts of the country started to do and some did. They chose to keep slavery not because it was "necessary" but because it was convenient for the slave owners. The argument that it was “a necessary evil” is based upon the idea that there would never have been a Union at all if the founders had not allowed slaveowners to keep their slaves. Those of us who disagree believe that a dedicated group could have nailed out a compromise turning it into something more like the indentured servitude common for white Europeans, where the servants had some human rights, and an end in sight, however far off. This would have greatly benefited everyone concerned.

In Washington and Jefferson’s time slavery was in decline due to economic reasons. Most people could foresee a point when every state would voluntarily abolish it. Then Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin in 1793 and cotton production started making big profits. Plantation agriculture was revitalized and slavery became profitable once again. Not only could you use slaves to grow cotton on your own land; you could also sell slaves to new settlements in places like Alabama and Mississippi and Texas so they could grow cotton on their land.

Then, it was "necessary" for large landowners to get stupidly rich. There was simply no other way to get the volume of labor they needed to fully exploit the land they suddenly had access to. And it goes without saying that if you can get filthy rich and the only obstacle is adopting brutal chattel slavery, well, they did that very thing. Cotton, By making that statement, he has built his entire philosophy of law and governance around the Constitution as a sacred (rather than a living) document, and the “Founding Fathers” as omniscient beings whose every intent is to be followed. So yeah, when he quotes that particular quote it is problematic.

Exactly this. Slavery was simply a pure economic choice to maximize profits.....nothing else. Tobacco was chosen as a cash crop because of demand in England and huge profit margins...once they figured out the labor costs, being that growing tobacco is damned labor intensive, much like cotton. Seems indentured servitude, the route first chosen to "solve" the labor shortage, was too costly. Voila...new labor pool that you don't have to pay or give freedom to...ever. Capitalist's wet dream.