Racist douchebag Tom Cotton calls slavery a “necessary evil”.
Quote from the article that sums it up: “If chattel slavery – heritable, generational, permanent, race-based slavery where it was legal to rape, torture, and sell human beings for profit – were a ‘necessary evil’ as Tom Cotton says, it’s hard to imagine what cannot be justified if it is a means to an end."
Jesus fucking Christ. Oddly enough, I am reminded of a line from a science fiction novel (one where enslavement is a major part of the protagonist’s backstory): “One stroke of the lash would change his slimy mind!”
Also, it’s not really anything new, but another depressing reminder of how the Party of Lincoln has become so grossly debased as to become the Party of Pro-Slavery Apologetics. They should really have to change their name.
He is such an embarrassment.
Unfortunate name, too.
We also have John Boozman.
Tom Cotton really is auditioning for a role in the American Nazi party isn’t he?
Remember, race and racism is no longer a problem in America!
CMC
If you read the full quote he was claiming that the founding fathers viewed slavery as a necessary evil:
He added: “We have to study the history of slavery and its role and impact on the development of our country because otherwise we can’t understand our country. As the Founding Fathers said, it was the necessary evil upon which the union was built, but the union was built in a way, as [Abraham] Lincoln said, to put slavery on the course to its ultimate extinction.”
He’s arguing that the founders held this view, not him personally.
I’d like to see a citation for that.
CMC
Tom Cotton may very well be wrong in that belief, he’ll have to provide his own cite I’m afraid I just think it’s disingenuous to claim that he said he personally believes slavery was a necessary evil, that isn’t what he said.
It appears to me that the founding fathers, at least most of them if not exactly ecstatic about slavery were at least ok with it. I know some of their writings on the topic are a little more nuanced, but their actions dont appear to genuinely attempt to stop the practice. Maybe there are some exceptions.
Nope.
“As X said, Y” is a statement of truth with an appeal to authority, and is 100% different than saying “X said Y.”
The first example from literature/culture that comes to mind is from Fiddler on the Roof, in which Tevye repeatedly says: “As the good book says [insert nonsense aphorism here]”.
Or just try this sentence on:
“As Benjamin Franklin said, there’s never a good war or a bad peace.”
That does not mean “Benjamin Franklin said this, but I disagree.” It means “I believe this thing that Benjamin Franklin said.”
I think he already has one.
No, in that quote, he’s agreeing with the (alleged) position of the Founding Fathers.
For example, let’s say you thought the sky was green. If I write, “As pool said, the sky is green”, I’m attributing the quote to you, and I’m agreeing with it.
If we allow that the south was never going to give up its claims to slavery, and there could never be a sustainable union or constitution without the south, then we can say slavery was… maybe not a necessary evil. An unavoidable evil.
The irony is that with that statement Cotton is bolstering the 1619 Project’s positions. But of course he would be entirely oblivious to that.
Faustian Bargain, I believe, is the phrase we’re looking for. You make a deal with the devil. And eventually he collects and you keep paying up forever.
He’s agreeing with that view. That’s what that idiom (as x says…) means.
I don’t think so because he says “As the founders said”… “BUT the union was built in a way as Lincoln said”. I don’t see that as an endorsement of what he thinks the founders’ views were regarding slavery but as a contrast to Lincoln.
Strawman: “that America is at root, a systemically racist country to the core and irredeemable”. The NYTimes is not saying the US is irredeemable. They’re saying it’s unredeemed.
I think that still gives too much credit to the Founders’ choices. I’d say “unavoided evil”. They kicked the can down the road so far it exploded.
Well, let me know when you finish your ESL course and we can continue this discussion.
Well he said AS before founding fathers and Lincoln so is your contention that he is agreeing with both of their views simultaneously while at the same time saying they held different views or wouldn’t it make more sense he is comparing two different viewpoints?