Change???

[Minister of Truth]

The North didn't oppose slavery, they were largely indifferent to it, and if any of them did favor abolition, it was only under the condition we move all blacks out of their society completely. By your own admission, politicians of the day would be committing political suicide to run on the issue of abolition. So, this tells us that the overwhelming public sentiment was either indifferent, or opposed to abolition.

The passive US policy of containment of slavery, is not emancipation. Allowing and accepting some slavery, would never lead to emancipation, it is illogical and foolish to reach such a conclusion. As we've already established, the institution of slavery was in decline, we had stopped importing slaves, Britain had banned slavery. But the US Supreme Court and US Congress, continued to condone and support the institution of human enslavement, right up to the Civil War, during the war, and in some cases, after the war.

What WAS the issue, was Federalist intervention in state affairs, which the Constitution forbids. This was the case regarding the debates over the Western Territories and whether to make them slave states or free states. It wasn't the issue of which one, it was the issue of the US government making that decision. The Confederate viewpoint was, our national government is a confederation of states, and the states hold the power. The individual states should be allowed to decide whether to be free or slave, it was their Constitutional right. Instead, the US Government intervened, and this was the root of the fundamental reason for the Civil War.

Slavery was a lesser issue of property rights and ownership, as previously determined by the SCOTUS. Southerner's didn't determine slaves were their property, the SCOTUS told them they were. Yet, here was the Federal Government threatening to unlawfully seize what the SCOTUS had defined as their property. Again, in contradiction of the Constitution. Had the SCOTUS or US Government, at any point in time before the war, renounced human enslavement and outlawed the practice in the US, and declared Africans to be humans and not property, this would not have been a legitimate issue for the South.

When you live in an area that has ABOLISHED slavery, you are--and have inherited a tradition--of abolition. You cannot call a people that has abolished slavery anything but abolitionists, even if they remain quite racist in general. You would not call the average racist today pro-slavery either. Furthermore, while very few blacks lived in the North until WWI and the Great Migration, you have to call bullshit on that argument, because so many blacks only lived in the South because of slavery. You can make Marxist arguments about the economies of the North/South all you want, but you cannot blame the North for having been smart enough to grow an industrial economy. Especially since the North had abolished slavery before rapid industrial growth ever began to occur.

As you have twice ignored already, I pointed out already that a radically anti-slavery candidate nearly won in 1856, and only lost due to the presence of a strong 3rd Party candidate. Perceived anti-slavery (and pro-Catholic) sentiment may have sunk Winfield Scot (Whig) in 1852, but then he represented a party that had just launched its very last campaign ever as a major party.

Your arguments demonstrate why democracy and populism are such failures, and why Southern politics ultimately ruined this country. If we claim a right to every action/activity/object under a category of some sort, then we deserve the fascism that will ultimately follow in the wake of our moral decay. A republic is based upon moral principle and virtue. Ours is also founded upon Natural Rights, meaning that a group of individuals described in our own Constitution as "persons" cannot be enslaved under the guise of localism.

Also, you keep talking about slavery after the war. Fucking prove it already.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

When you live in an area that has ABOLISHED slavery, you are--and have inherited a tradition--of abolition. You cannot call a people that has abolished slavery anything but abolitionists, even if they remain quite racist in general. You would not call the average racist today pro-slavery either. Furthermore, while very few blacks lived in the North until WWI and the Great Migration, you have to call bullshit on that argument, because so many blacks only lived in the South because of slavery. You can make Marxist arguments about the economies of the North/South all you want, but you cannot blame the North for having been smart enough to grow an industrial economy. Especially since the North had abolished slavery before rapid industrial growth ever began to occur.

As you have twice ignored already, I pointed out already that a radically anti-slavery candidate nearly won in 1856, and only lost due to the presence of a strong 3rd Party candidate. Perceived anti-slavery (and pro-Catholic) sentiment may have sunk Winfield Scot (Whig) in 1852, but then he represented a party that had just launched its very last campaign ever as a major party.

Your arguments demonstrate why democracy and populism are such failures, and why Southern politics ultimately ruined this country. If we claim a right to every action/activity/object under a category of some sort, then we deserve the fascism that will ultimately follow in the wake of our moral decay. A republic is based upon moral principle and virtue. Ours is also founded upon Natural Rights, meaning that a group of individuals described in our own Constitution as "persons" cannot be enslaved under the guise of localism.

Also, you keep talking about slavery after the war. Fucking prove it already.

The lack of slaves in the north had nothing to do with "smartness" or morality, it had to do with the climate. The south's "failure" to grow an industrial economy is due to the fact that the climate was suitable for agriculture. You can slam the south with all kinds of ignorant pejoratives, but the fact was, agriculture WAS their industry. From this, the North benefited greatly, and to my knowledge, never once boycotted Southern goods produced by slave labor.

The only "rights" the South claimed, were rights they had been granted by the US Constitution, US Congress, and the US Supreme Court. Lincoln himself realized the Constitutional issue at hand, which is precisely why he maintained the Civil War was not about slavery. He knew, as a lawyer, the issue of slavery was to be determined and dealt with by each individual state, as had been the practice up until that time. A Pennsylvania newspaper was literally ransacked after publishing an op-ed in 1861, suggesting the war was about slavery, that is how outrageous your idea was at the time.

I don't have a link on the Internet to back up what I have read in the many books I own about the history of slavery, I wish I could simply give you a link to an html page and prove what I have said. The slaves were not freed until June 19, 1865. Up until that time, the US government had used slave labor in the last years of the war, to rebuild government buildings destroyed in the fighting. In the first years of the war, the North confiscated slaves and held them in what amounts to internment camps, where many of them died of malnourishment and neglect.

Democracy and populism are not failures, your comments are starting to sound like Assclown's here. Let's stick to the topic at hand, shall we?

Slavery had been abolished in some Northern states by the state legislatures, which is in compliance with the US Constitution and within their states rights to do so. The South did not secede over this, did they? No, they accepted the fact that states could determine this issue themselves, without government intervention. Your contention is, they "feared a threat to slavery" when the federal government outlawed it in the Western territories, but had that been the issue, they would have revolted much sooner, when the Northern states started abolishing slavery. The complaint from the South was never the issue of human enslavement, it was the issue of federal encroachment on states rights.

You continue to insist the North had "abolished slavery" and that is not the case, several Northern border states still had quite a few slaves, and West Virgina was accepted as a slave state in 1863. So slavery was not universally abolished in the North, as much as you may believe that shit. Your position in this debate is amazing, you make some bold unfounded statement, like claiming the North was opposed to slavery, then when faced with the fact that they clearly weren't opposed to slavery or in favor of abolition, you attack democracy! It's absolutely unbelievable.

Here are the facts... The US condoned slavery up until, during, and in some cases, after the Civil War. The North had several slave-holding states, and accepted a slave state in 1863. The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave in the North. Delaware and Rhode Island abolished slavery only after the US government agreed to compensate slave owners for their "property" as defined by the US Supreme Court. The abolitionist movement had little to do with giving black people rights, and grew in popularity over fears of increased black population, more than anything else. Most of those who supported abolition, did so under the condition the slaves would essentially be deported from this country entirely. Lincoln even hoped the free blacks would join them!

You want to prop up this myth based on current political correctness, and have us believe the North was full of these compassionate people who were all fighting for the freedom of the black man against the oppressive South, and that just wasn't the case in 1860 America. We have Lincoln's own words, as well as resolutions passed by Congress of that time, which state unequivocally, the war was not about slavery or freeing the slaves. Up until the Emancipation Proclamation (which didn't free Northern slaves) the official US policy was that of "containment" and continued endorsement and support of the the practice where it already existed.

If you wish to live in a bigoted fantasy land, that is up to you. I know the history of the US, and I fully understand the responsibility for slavery in America lies with the US government, and not the CSA.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Missouri and Kentucky are Southern states, and Maryland and Delaware held relatively few. DC also had slavery because the South would not consent to have slavery made an example of in the capital (the same would later hold true for Jim Crow). I have already explained why W. Virginia was allowed into the Union.

Also, prior to the 1850's the West was split along the Mason-Dixon line. Come the 1850's, not only had the balance of power been upset by California, but the advocacy of free land beyond earlier compromises and Douglas' concession that Popular Sovereignty was more democractic made it obvious that Lincoln's election would lead to the abolition of slavery in the territories. That was the smoking gun which constituted a threat.

Democracy and populism have proven to be failures, as America falls even more into failure itself. We would be a much better and more virtuous nation today if the Federalist approach of Washington, Hamilton, Adams, et. al. had been continued after 1800 (btw AHZ is a self-admitted populist).

Who's fault is abortion today, the Left or every single American? You know perfectly well that slavery would have been expunged if the South had not supported it. It is entirely the fault of the South that it continued after the Revolutionary period.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Missouri and Kentucky are Southern states, and Maryland and Delaware held relatively few. DC also had slavery because the South would not consent to have slavery made an example of in the capital (the same would later hold true for Jim Crow). I have already explained why W. Virginia was allowed into the Union.

Also, prior to the 1850's the West was split along the Mason-Dixon line. Come the 1850's, not only had the balance of power been upset by California, but the advocacy of free land beyond earlier compromises and Douglas' concession that Popular Sovereignty was more democractic made it obvious that Lincoln's election would lead to the abolition of slavery in the territories. That was the smoking gun which constituted a threat.

Democracy and populism have proven to be failures, as America falls even more into failure itself. We would be a much better and more virtuous nation today if the Federalist approach of Washington, Hamilton, Adams, et. al. had been continued after 1800 (btw AHZ is a self-admitted populist).

Who's fault is abortion today, the Left or every single American? You know perfectly well that slavery would have been expunged if the South had not supported it. It is entirely the fault of the South that it continued after the Revolutionary period.

Missouri and Kentucky were part of the Union during the war. Why do you keep trying to 'disown' them? That's typical for you in this debate, remember when you tried to argue the government couldn't do anything about slavery because the South had a gag order on them? It seems that every time you are boxed in on your failing arguments, you resort to finding a way to blame it on the South. West Virginia became a state because they had the choice of keeping their slaves if they sided with the Union. DC eventually saw abolition, because they weren't a state, and the federal government could technically dictate this for them. Maryland and Delaware had a few slaves, but that is a far fucking cry from being abolitionist stalwarts. They abandoned slavery only after the Feds promised to pay them for their property!

The South has NEVER dictated US policy, so how was slavery their fault after the Revolution? If the US Government and US Supreme Court had taken a moral stand against slavery after the Revolution, and the South balked and seceded, you would have a point, but that isn't what the record shows at all. You keep wanting to pin it on The South, but it was America who condoned and accepted the practice from the start. Had your beloved Federalists taken a moral stand against it, and outlawed it like Britain did in 1807, maybe there wouldn't have been a war.... or maybe the South would have fought the war over Slavery, but that is not what happened, and it is insidious to deny blame for slavery based on this.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Missouri and Kentucky were part of the Union during the war. Why do you keep trying to 'disown' them? That's typical for you in this debate, remember when you tried to argue the government couldn't do anything about slavery because the South had a gag order on them? It seems that every time you are boxed in on your failing arguments, you resort to finding a way to blame it on the South. West Virginia became a state because they had the choice of keeping their slaves if they sided with the Union. DC eventually saw abolition, because they weren't a state, and the federal government could technically dictate this for them. Maryland and Delaware had a few slaves, but that is a far fucking cry from being abolitionist stalwarts. They abandoned slavery only after the Feds promised to pay them for their property!

The South has NEVER dictated US policy, so how was slavery their fault after the Revolution? If the US Government and US Supreme Court had taken a moral stand against slavery after the Revolution, and the South balked and seceded, you would have a point, but that isn't what the record shows at all. You keep wanting to pin it on The South, but it was America who condoned and accepted the practice from the start. Had your beloved Federalists taken a moral stand against it, and outlawed it like Britain did in 1807, maybe there wouldn't have been a war.... or maybe the South would have fought the war over Slavery, but that is not what happened, and it is insidious to deny blame for slavery based on this.

The South dictated both foreign and domestic policy for the six decades leading up to the Civil War. Naturally I disown Missouri, Kentucky, and West Virginia, not because they sided with the Union but because they were Southern states and had long been part of the problem. Kentucky at east had produced the stalwart Whig, Henry Clay, whom I admire greatly, and W. Virginia had not been a separate state earlier on.

As I have pointed out, I am disapointed in Northerners for believing that they had anything in common with the South, and for valuing a Union that is worthless to this very day. I suppose it is a question that will always be relevant - do we support order while endorcing the human crimes of the day, or do we fight for what is right and risk chaos? This was the dilemma faced by Northern abolitionists. The Federalists lived in a more precarious time than the Whigs, but they produced stronger characters such as Hamilton and Adams, both of which opposed slavery. Ben Franklin is difficult to place, having usually been seen as more liberal, but he died in 1790 before the parties formed. He actually brought a resolution to abolish slavery to the floor of the House and argued nobly and passionately till his dying day. The Whigs produced some great men also, and John Quincy Adams went to Congress in 1830 and championed abolition until his death in 1848, but the party was basically an accomodating force that had been created for the sole purpose of combating the excesses of the Democratic Party.

Whether accomodation in the face of great evil is wrong or not, or whether the extreme actions of men like John Brown are excusable, the one fact that cannot be obscurred is that the people who's wicked ways are being accomodated for the sake of order and stability are the people who blame must be exclusively hurled upon. Evil is allowed to triumph when good me do nothing, as Edmund Burke put it, and we should never forget that.

However, the reason why I am passionate about this matter is that such displays of poor character ought to lead a nation to abandon the philosophies being put forward by those failed characters. Instead, Americans continued to champion Jacksonian Democracy and liberal populism, and in time the North grew to become a force that was not merely passive towards bad ideas but actively supported them. Letting the South go would have been a tremendous political good to the North, but it would have left a moral evil still unsettled.

As it currently stands, I see a New Left Democratic Party that continues to weaken America as ever before, and to pervert our morals, destroy our character and wreck our principles. But up until recent history, there has always been a strong opposition party to protect us to some extent. Now, the South seems to have taken over control of the GOP and run it into the ground with its old liberal populism, jokingly called neoconservatism and rightist, and it has been one sick farce and one long national nightmare. I see little hope, but I remain somewhat enthused at the prospects of a candidate who has drawn such hatred and scorn from populist pundits and activists who were unable to stop him from getting the nomination. Perhaps the South has been finally shown to be incompatible with the GOP and that the Southern Strategy was its biggest mistake since the Compromise of 1877.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

*****yawn*********


Through yet?

Man you get boring with that shit. For someone who has so much knowledge of political history, it seems like you would be able to show me the legislation the North proposed and the South squelched in Congress, to abolish or outlaw slavery before the Civil War.

So far, you have done a great job of proving my points, most recently, proving the North was not totally "abolitionist" as you had claimed. You camouflaged it nicely in another boring rant about the Whigs and Federalists, but you addressed the point, that Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virgina, were Northern states who had slaves. You say they were "southern states" but they were fighting on the side of the Union, and that is intellectual dishonesty to try and claim they were part of the Confederacy. Nice try, though.


As for the politics or the political movements, or even the radical political movements, of 1860 America, I don't really care what happened with whom and when. The fact remains, whoever was running the US (and I find it hard to believe it was ALL Southerners) failed or refused to deal with the issue of Slavery before the Civil War, during the Civil War, and in some cases, after the Civil War.


I think I am starting to see how you maintain your bigoted view. Essentially, everyone who didn't favor abolition was a Southerner, and if they weren't, you will just lump them in and claim they were anyway. The radical few who actually favored abolition, they were from the North, and this is the "North" you are referring to, who won the war. Now that I see how your bigotry works, my curiosity is satisfied and I can move on.

 

[Minister of Truth]

As for the politics or the political movements, or even the radical political movements, of 1860 America, I don't really care what happened with whom and when...........

And we come to the moment of truth where Dixie doesn't really care how the world works, how people think and act, what motivates them, politics, and so forth. The fact is, you can learn a great deal about what went on by studying the first three party systems.

Oh, and Kentucky, Missouri and W. Virginia were and are southern states. They just weren't Confederates. That is a big deal, because it means they weren't traitors, but in terms of the debate which brought on the Confederacy, they were all culpable.

Furthermore, I have argued that the USA would be a vastly better place today if the Union had not been preserved and had remained split. I don't see how you could possibly deny that. Biggoted, probably.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And we come to the moment of truth where Dixie doesn't really care how the world works, how people think and act, what motivates them, politics, and so forth. The fact is, you can learn a great deal about what went on by studying the first three party systems.

Oh, and Kentucky, Missouri and W. Virginia were and are southern states. They just weren't Confederates. That is a big deal, because it means they weren't traitors, but in terms of the debate which brought on the Confederacy, they were all culpable.

Furthermore, I have argued that the USA would be a vastly better place today if the Union had not been preserved and had remained split. I don't see how you could possibly deny that. Biggoted, probably.

When it comes to the issue of Slavery, Dixie doesn't care what excuses you make to justify almost a century of American indifference and lack of action. Your attitude is precisely why America has the racial problems it has today, because you aren't willing to accept ANY responsibility for what your ancestors did. You want to blame it all on a geographic region and their people, and absolve yourself and your ancestors from any blame or criticism.

The record is clear, this nation condoned and practiced slavery, accepted it in every aspect, supported it and fostered it's growth and perseverance. There happened to be more slaves in the South due to climate, and more people who had no connection with, or use for slaves in the North. You've narrowed the true "abolitionists" down to a very small minority of people in the Northeast, with the disowning of the border Union states, but even with that, you have not explained how their view was representative of the entire North, or how this was the issue of the Civil War.

You have also not addressed the fact that most abolitionists did not favor simply freeing the slaves into white society, and were in fact, vehemently opposed to equality for black people. Most of them wanted to free the slaves because they feared increased black population, and sought to ship the freed slaves, along with any other black people they could round up, off to Central America or somewhere out of their sight. The only morality involving 'freedom' from the abolitionist perspective, was freedom from black people.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Furthermore, I have argued that the USA would be a vastly better place today if the Union had not been preserved and had remained split. I don't see how you could possibly deny that. Biggoted, probably.

I actually think this makes you more foolish than anything you've said about the Civil War. How can you possibly think America would be a better place without the diversity of cultures found in EVERY area which comprises our great nation? Would this be the same place without the cultural influences of New Orleans and Memphis? Would we have been able to accomplish the technological feats of space travel without Marshal Space Flight Center, Houston, or Cape Canaveral? Would we have ever known about Booker T. Washington or George Washington Carver? Would we herald the bravery and courage of the Tuskegee Airmen if Tuskegee weren't a part of America? Would there have been a voice of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., or Rosa Parks? OR would the North simply have wallowed in their bigotry, prejudice, and denial of responsibility until this day?

You see, while you look at the history of the South and find shame and disrespect, I look at the history of the South and see our destiny. It took the South to bring these issues to the forefront and force white America to deal with it. It was because of the issues of slavery and civil rights, America had to come to grips with its conscience and accept its own principles of liberty and freedom for all. Had nothing ever challenged that, we may very well still be stuck in 1860 America, bigoted and prejudiced toward what we perceived as an inferior race of people. So you can bash and trash the South all you like, if it weren't for the South, I suspect America would have remained indifferent to equality of race, and would not be anything close to the place it is today.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Here is something else to consider....

IF America had adopted the 1860 Abolitionist viewpoint, as you seem to advocate support for, we would presently be a nation with about a 2% black population, and we would be importing coal from the majority-black Central American country of Lincolnia. You and I would live in a lily-white society, and have very little connection with people of African descent. I doubt we would have had the Civil Rights struggle of the '60s, so the few blacks who did live here, probably wouldn't be allowed to vote or participate in the political process. We probably wouldn't have ever realized our injustices toward the Native Americans, and they would probably be living in Lincolnia by now as well. We would probably be having a debate on whether to send the Jews to Lincolnia by now.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Here is something else to consider....

IF America had adopted the 1860 Abolitionist viewpoint, as you seem to advocate support for, we would presently be a nation with about a 2% black population, and we would be importing coal from the majority-black Central American country of Lincolnia. You and I would live in a lily-white society, and have very little connection with people of African descent. I doubt we would have had the Civil Rights struggle of the '60s, so the few blacks who did live here, probably wouldn't be allowed to vote or participate in the political process. We probably wouldn't have ever realized our injustices toward the Native Americans, and they would probably be living in Lincolnia by now as well. We would probably be having a debate on whether to send the Jews to Lincolnia by now.

Fine, but there would have been less sufforing here. America need not be a multicultural nation if few minorities live here. It is only in the present situation that such a concept becomes necessary.

By the way, I have addressed many times the views Northern whites held about equality. And I don't consider any of the Southern contributions you mentioned important. King was only necessary because things played out the way they did, but in a situation where the Union remained divided and few blacks lived in the US it would not have been as big of a deal.

LOL at your crack on how the US needed the excesses of Southern evil to reform itself. How can an "indifferent North" be held responsible for Southern slavery? I thought it was the State's responsability to act rightly.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Fine, but there would have been less sufforing here. America need not be a multicultural nation if few minorities live here. It is only in the present situation that such a concept becomes necessary.

By the way, I have addressed many times the views Northern whites held about equality. And I don't consider any of the Southern contributions you mentioned important. King was only necessary because things played out the way they did, but in a situation where the Union remained divided and few blacks lived in the US it would not have been as big of a deal.

LOL at your crack on how the US needed the excesses of Southern evil to reform itself. How can an "indifferent North" be held responsible for Southern slavery? I thought it was the State's responsability to act rightly.

For the record, the whole US was indifferent, not just the north.

Yep, the bigot comes out a little more here, doesn't he? Is the reason you resent the South because they created this present situation of you having to share your white society with black people? Yeah, I guess if we had listened to folks like you, we could've shipped 'em all off to Central America, and never had any of the problems Strom Thurmond had, huh? America would have been a 'better' place, right?


Whether you consider things important is not evidence the nation would have been better off without something. You are a moron, a bigoted ignorant moron. You've proved it in this thread. You have no moral decency toward your fellow man, you live in a bubble world where Threedee's opinion of things is how the world ought to be, and anyone who disagrees or has a different opinion, has to be called names and ridiculed. I've got news for you, if you think you are hiding your racism behind this facade of indignation toward the South, you are a fool. I can see it as clear as day, it just took a little time to bring it out of you. It's evidenced in your subtle hints you think 'unlegislated segregation' would have worked... if only us Southerners hadn't made it all an issue for the blacks, we coulda led 'em by the nose, off to Central America or somewhere you wouldn't have to deal with them. Fuck multiculturalism, we didn't need that either, did we? No, in your America, it wouldn't be that way at all, you'd have kept it all lily-white and free of minorities.

You make me sick.

 

[Minister of Truth]

For the record, the whole US was indifferent, not just the north.

Yep, the bigot comes out a little more here, doesn't he? Is the reason you resent the South because they created this present situation of you having to share your white society with black people? Yeah, I guess if we had listened to folks like you, we could've shipped 'em all off to Central America, and never had any of the problems Strom Thurmond had, huh? America would have been a 'better' place, right?


Whether you consider things important is not evidence the nation would have been better off without something. You are a moron, a bigoted ignorant moron. You've proved it in this thread. You have no moral decency toward your fellow man, you live in a bubble world where Threedee's opinion of things is how the world ought to be, and anyone who disagrees or has a different opinion, has to be called names and ridiculed. I've got news for you, if you think you are hiding your racism behind this facade of indignation toward the South, you are a fool. I can see it as clear as day, it just took a little time to bring it out of you. It's evidenced in your subtle hints you think 'unlegislated segregation' would have worked... if only us Southerners hadn't made it all an issue for the blacks, we coulda led 'em by the nose, off to Central America or somewhere you wouldn't have to deal with them. Fuck multiculturalism, we didn't need that either, did we? No, in your America, it wouldn't be that way at all, you'd have kept it all lily-white and free of minorities.

You make me sick.

You make me sick, Southern boy. The reason why I'm not a fan of Southern politicans is because they dragged the rest of the country towards the left - character never seems to matter when you can offer the masses bread and circuses.

Furthermore, I pointed out that we would probably be a largely non-legislated segregated society today, because there never would have been any public outrage, and the economies of minority-segregated neighborhoods would be vastly greater, so they wouldn't have had as much to complain about. Booker T. Washington's philosophy would have worked better and been far more relevant.

You also pretend as if significant statistics worth of Blacks went off to Monrovia. Very few ever did, and it can hardly be criticized - after all, we are supposed to respect our roots, correct?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

LOL... Threedee, I would shut up before you start sounding like Trent Lott, because you are coming mighty close to it.

 

[Minister of Truth]

LOL... Threedee, I would shut up before you start sounding like Trent Lott, because you are coming mighty close to it.

Happy Birthday, Dixie, you should be president!

You also can't do simple detective work very well...

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You make me sick, Southern boy. The reason why I'm not a fan of Southern politicans is because they dragged the rest of the country towards the left - character never seems to matter when you can offer the masses bread and circuses.

Furthermore, I pointed out that we would probably be a largely non-legislated segregated society today, because there never would have been any public outrage, and the economies of minority-segregated neighborhoods would be vastly greater, so they wouldn't have had as much to complain about. Booker T. Washington's philosophy would have worked better and been far more relevant.

You also pretend as if significant statistics worth of Blacks went off to Monrovia. Very few ever did, and it can hardly be criticized - after all, we are supposed to respect our roots, correct?

Idiotic.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Idiotic.

You could have just typed, "bump," if you wanted to troll this thread...