Change???

[Minister of Truth]

OMFG, ROFLMAO! It just gets better and better! So now, the North didn't oppose Slavery for the previous century because there was a "gag order" on them? You are really grasping at straws here man, starting to lose it!

Well there was a gag order. How were they supposed to address the issue other than in Congress? Historical fact wins again...

Right, and you can keep the cookie, making my point was good enough.

There was a point? Crap, I guess I should have offered beer instead of cookies.

Hmmm, you claim you aren't a liberal, but you sure argue like a liberal. When they are defeated, they always run to the bag of platitudes and cynicisms.

You are the more liberal of us. You place an inconsistent theory of state's rights ahead of Christian morality. I say inconsistent, because I just remembered that the South supported the Fugitive Slave Act which attacked Northern "state's rights" and got pissed off whenever people would ignore it and let the slaves go by (or pass laws making it illegal to enforce the act).

OMGLMFAO Again! Are you seriously going to try and argue that before the government ruled the slaves were property in Dred Scot, they held some other view? The lack of officialdom in the issue is not evidence they favored abolition. Neither is the evidence that some Northern states who had no use for slaves, established abolition laws. The evidence is, these states had no problem whatsoever, accepting goods and products which were the result of slave labor in the South. Their great and noble policy of "containment" was to keep the black people out of their neck of the woods.

Well, there was no offical act before the Quart made its lovely decisionl,but the Northern states abolished slavery long before the war locally and abolished it federally after the war. But their true intentions weree whatever you say they were...

Well then, it is in conflict with the SCOTUS ruling which said otherwise, that is all I can say. And it's amazing you will keep throwing up the 3/5 thing, since it was the North who didn't have the moral decency to call them full people, and the South was fighting to have them count as whole people. It kind of slings a big pile of horse shit right back in your face, doesn't it? Oh, but you have a justification and excuse for everything, as bigots always do.

Wow, you said South and moral decency in the same sentence, lol. And the South was treating the slaves better than the North by demanding that they provide yet another service to their masters that would work to keep them in a miserable state. Now who's arguing like a liberal? What the South did was institute a policy that is the same as "taxation without representation."

I'm still having a hard time following your tapdance around this pinhead. First you claim the North was opposed to the South counting them as whole people, then you claim they had no political power anyway. First you claim the South was in such strong arm control of Congress they initiated gag orders against people even freely debating abolition, and then you claim they had virtually no political power for a decade. You keep jumping all over the board with your arguments, it's hard to tell what you are trying to say anymore, other than a desperate attempt to explain your bigotry and hate.

*Trumpets sound at the utterance of the P-Word* Yeah, with political power, there would have been a Big 0 in the place of the 3/5 number. Also, the North had slightly more power in 1788 than after 1800. The South gradually began to lose power oduring the 50's because the Whig Party collapsed and people were getting fed up with Southern gems such as Bleeding Sumner, the Fugitive Slave Laws, fear of the Slave Power spreading westward, inept presidents like Pierce and Buchanan, and so forth. These things never happen all at once, and it took the pendulum 10 years to swing. Also, the North really outpaced the South that decade, overtaking its economy, which in turn stopped growing at all during that decade.

Again, "The North" did no such a thing! There was no "The North" prior to "The Civil War!" There were northern states, who held very few (if any) slaves, and they naturally outlawed slavery because of the abhorrent nature of the practice as well as no economic interest or personal concern. In border states where slaves were prevalent, the US didn't even free them with the Emancipation Proclamation! What happened with regard to Western states and territories is irrelevant, there were no slaves in New Mexico! No one in the DESERT needed slaves!

"The North" has always existed, especially during the days of the Federalists. Up is down, etc. I might point out that there is considerably more than "DESERT" in places like Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Oregon, Washington, California, and company. What a retarded thing to say. More liberal logic from Dixie...

No you have failed to offer a reasonable explanation as to how admitting a slave state to the Union in 1863, could be viewed as "containment" in any way. You have also failed to prove how this shows a desire or effort on part of a completely unobstructed US government, to do what you claim they fought the Civil War to do, which was to free the slaves.

How could slavery be contained if the war was lost? Also, by 1863, the goal was total abolition, as the mindset of the general public shifted gears amid the bloodbath.

Yes, I know there was, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It should have been the same text as the CRA of 1964, IF the cause of the North was giving the black man freedom. You keep stepping in a load of crap, it's really fun to watch... about the time you think you've found a point to make, it blows up in your face. The fact of the matter is, and you have not refuted this, the overwhelming view in ALL of America at the time, was not for abolition. It was, in your very own words, an "extremist" view of the time, and politicians who embraced it faced almost certain defeat. Yet, you want to paint us this Norman Rockwell picture of General Grant with his loving arms around a Slave, and pretend that was the reason for the Civil War. Sorry, it's a complete load of crap.

Other than the arsm around the slave, that sounds about right... How come there were Civil Rights acts in 66 and 75 if what you argue is true?

You are retrospectively deeming behavior that was legal and constitutional at the time, inappropriate. You are seeking to punish people for obeying the law of the land and doing exactly what their government told them they could do!

I'll say, a lot of people have a lot of explaining to do when they are judged. Maybe the govt. will make it legal to shoot people from the South - it would be perfectly legal and I could work on my accuracy a little...

You claimed the North was devoid of Slavery, and I pointed out the fact there were a half-million slaves in the North, to which you promptly blame the South for, for some odd and mysterious reason. I don't know how to argue through that kind of bigoted ignorance, I really don't. So, I must resign from this thread at this time, it is hopeless with you, the hate and bigotry just runs to deep.

Which, slaves? The one's in Kentucky and Missouri, which are Southern states?

GO NORTH

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well there was a gag order. How were they supposed to address the issue other than in Congress? Historical fact wins again...

No, historical fact comes back to destroy any logic in your argument. You are saying that the US Congress couldn't deal with the issue of slavery because the US Congress passed a gag order and couldn't discuss the issue. And this is somehow the fault of the CSA.

There was a point? Crap, I guess I should have offered beer instead of cookies.

Yes, there was a point, and it was so well made it left you with nothing but a smart-ass infantile retort.

You are the more liberal of us. You place an inconsistent theory of state's rights ahead of Christian morality. I say inconsistent, because I just remembered that the South supported the Fugitive Slave Act which attacked Northern "state's rights" and got pissed off whenever people would ignore it and let the slaves go by (or pass laws making it illegal to enforce the act).

"inconsistent theory of states rights?" No, it was in the Constitution as plain as day, there was no "theory" on this matter. And "Christian Morality" had not dealt with the issue of human enslavement from the early 1600's when Colonial settlers first came here, all the way up until the Civil War, and some cases, after it. You continue to throw out examples of how the US Congress dealt with slavery, as some proof of how the South did something wrong. You do it again here with the Fugitive Slave Act, which was passed into law by the US Congress, not the CSA.

Well, there was no offical act before the Quart made its lovely decisionl,but the Northern states abolished slavery long before the war locally and abolished it federally after the war. But their true intentions weree whatever you say they were...

And I have already shown you twice where this is incorrect. The North accepted the slave state of West Virginia in 1863, so they obviously hadn't "abolished" slavery. I also cited the fact that the US Federal Government, used slave labor up until 1866, to help reconstruct government buildings AFTER the war!

Wow, you said South and moral decency in the same sentence, lol. And the South was treating the slaves better than the North by demanding that they provide yet another service to their masters that would work to keep them in a miserable state. Now who's arguing like a liberal? What the South did was institute a policy that is the same as "taxation without representation."

The South worked within the law of the time to secure its best interests. You want to take this point out of the context of 1860 America and make some relevant moral point of judgment based on today's standards, and it is complete and total intellectual dishonesty to do that.

*Trumpets sound at the utterance of the P-Word* Yeah, with political power, there would have been a Big 0 in the place of the 3/5 number. Also, the North had slightly more power in 1788 than after 1800. The South gradually began to lose power oduring the 50's because the Whig Party collapsed and people were getting fed up with Southern gems such as Bleeding Sumner, the Fugitive Slave Laws, fear of the Slave Power spreading westward, inept presidents like Pierce and Buchanan, and so forth. These things never happen all at once, and it took the pendulum 10 years to swing. Also, the North really outpaced the South that decade, overtaking its economy, which in turn stopped growing at all during that decade.

These are all speculative opinion on your part. Things you believe were a certain way for a certain reason, and you have constructed them in a way which you think supports your twisted view of history and reality. You hope people will get lost in all the boring details of the various political parties of the day, and forget the fact that the US Congress, by-and-large, did nothing to end slavery.

"The North" has always existed, especially during the days of the Federalists. Up is down, etc. I might point out that there is considerably more than "DESERT" in places like Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Oregon, Washington, California, and company. What a retarded thing to say. More liberal logic from Dixie...

The North, like The South, and The West, and The East, are geographic regions of our country. They did not serve in isolated representation of various segments of the country as you seem to want to maintain. In most cases, there was no coalition of ANY particular region, because our government operated on a fundamental principle of individual state rights. There was Maryland, and sometimes Virginia would go along with them... There was Tennessee, and sometimes Mississippi would go along with them... We had individual states represented in ONE Congress of the the US, not THE North and THE South. These terms became widely prevalent during the Civil War, not before it.

How could slavery be contained if the war was lost? Also, by 1863, the goal was total abolition, as the mindset of the general public shifted gears amid the bloodbath.

Like I said, you have an excuse and justification for everything. If the mindset had been "total abolition" they would have accepted a slave state on NO condition.

Other than the arsm around the slave, that sounds about right... How come there were Civil Rights acts in 66 and 75 if what you argue is true?

How come the CRA of 66 and 75 did little or NOTHING to give black people a political voice in America, and it took another century to correct it, if what you argue is true?

I'll say, a lot of people have a lot of explaining to do when they are judged. Maybe the govt. will make it legal to shoot people from the South - it would be perfectly legal and I could work on my accuracy a little...

I doubt the government will make that legal, but if they do, you better aim well the first shot. I must point out, once again you allow your hate and bigotry to spill over into your debate, which is why bigots can't be considered credible in their arguments.

Which, slaves? The one's in Kentucky and Missouri, which are Southern states?

No, the 500,000 who lived in the NORTH during the war, including the ones who worked as slaves for the US government after the war, to rebuild Northern infrastructure. Got an answer for those? Maybe they had no choice, the South forced them to use the slaves against their will, I am sure you'll come up with a way to explain this, bigots can explain anything.

 

[Minister of Truth]

No, historical fact comes back to destroy any logic in your argument. You are saying that the US Congress couldn't deal with the issue of slavery because the US Congress passed a gag order and couldn't discuss the issue. And this is somehow the fault of the CSA.

Those states concerned joined the CSA, so, yes. I still haven't gotten any stats from you that turned out to be true (i.e. 2%)

Yes, there was a point, and it was so well made it left you with nothing but a smart-ass infantile retort.

Give me a stupid charge and I respond with a stupid comment.

"inconsistent theory of states rights?" No, it was in the Constitution as plain as day, there was no "theory" on this matter. And "Christian Morality" had not dealt with the issue of human enslavement from the early 1600's when Colonial settlers first came here, all the way up until the Civil War, and some cases, after it. You continue to throw out examples of how the US Congress dealt with slavery, as some proof of how the South did something wrong. You do it again here with the Fugitive Slave Act, which was passed into law by the US Congress, not the CSA.

Christian morality did deal with slavery in 1865, though. The FSLs were passed into law by the Southern majority, btw - don't blame Northerners for Southern fuck-ups.

And I have already shown you twice where this is incorrect. The North accepted the slave state of West Virginia in 1863, so they obviously hadn't "abolished" slavery. I also cited the fact that the US Federal Government, used slave labor up until 1866, to help reconstruct government buildings AFTER the war!

You have not actually substantiated the 1866 claim with facts and I couldn't find it on Google. Should I check the KKK site? The US Govt. abolished slaver in 1865, which was after 1863, and after preserving the Union, for what it was worth...

The South worked within the law of the time to secure its best interests. You want to take this point out of the context of 1860 America and make some relevant moral point of judgment based on today's standards, and it is complete and total intellectual dishonesty to do that.

The Nazi prison guards operated within the German laws of the 1930's as well. So I guess that let's them off the hook...

These are all speculative opinion on your part. Things you believe were a certain way for a certain reason, and you have constructed them in a way which you think supports your twisted view of history and reality. You hope people will get lost in all the boring details of the various political parties of the day, and forget the fact that the US Congress, by-and-large, did nothing to end slavery.

First of all, the political parties of the day make for FASCINATING history! How dare you insult perfectly entertaining history! Also, facts are not speculative... If you want to understand history, you have to understand political history in addition to military, economic, cultural, etc.

The North, like The South, and The West, and The East, are geographic regions of our country. They did not serve in isolated representation of various segments of the country as you seem to want to maintain. In most cases, there was no coalition of ANY particular region, because our government operated on a fundamental principle of individual state rights. There was Maryland, and sometimes Virginia would go along with them... There was Tennessee, and sometimes Mississippi would go along with them... We had individual states represented in ONE Congress of the the US, not THE North and THE South. These terms became widely prevalent during the Civil War, not before it.

The regions represented political factions which rarely agreed on anything... The terms were being used to demonstrate differing oppinions long before the effing war. Otherwise there never would have been one.

Like I said, you have an excuse and justification for everything. If the mindset had been "total abolition" they would have accepted a slave state on NO condition.

I have facts, and any historian will tell you that between the time period of Antietam and Gettysburg, the public turned towards abolition. It began as a sensable wartime measure to weaken the enemy and it inspired a crusade.

How come the CRA of 66 and 75 did little or NOTHING to give black people a political voice in America, and it took another century to correct it, if what you argue is true?

Whaddyah mean? There were black governors and Congressmen in the Reconstruction governments!!!

I doubt the government will make that legal, but if they do, you better aim well the first shot. I must point out, once again you allow your hate and bigotry to spill over into your debate, which is why bigots can't be considered credible in their arguments.

Well, one can always hope...

No, the 500,000 who lived in the NORTH during the war, including the ones who worked as slaves for the US government after the war, to rebuild Northern infrastructure. Got an answer for those? Maybe they had no choice, the South forced them to use the slaves against their will, I am sure you'll come up with a way to explain this, bigots can explain anything.

Again, no facts have been presented on this charge...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Ahh.... I see you are still trying to argue your refuted points. I guess you missed the end of the debate, when I determined you are too bigoted to have a rational discussion. But since you have returned for more, and being that you are a history buff, I have something very special for you.

Let's take a look at your glorious Abraham Lincoln, and how he dealt with the issue of Slavery before and during the war.

Here is what he said in the famous Douglas debates...

I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.

To Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune, who had passed along a report of a rabid anti-Lincoln harangue in the Mississippi legislature, Lincoln wrote that "madman" there had quite misrepresented his views. He stated he was not "pledged to the ultimate extinction of slavery," and that he did not "hold the black man to be the equal of the white."

Remember how you tried to argue that there wasn't much to the whole "send them back home" movement? It seems it was quite the 'pet project' of Lincolns... but it goes further than simply relocating slaves, he wanted to ...shall we say... 'ethnically cleanse' the good old USA...

In his first annual message to Congress on December 3, 1861, President Lincoln proposed that persons liberated by the fighting should be deemed free and that, in any event, steps be taken for colonizing slaves at some place, or places, in a climate congenial to them. It might be well to consider, too, whether the free colored people already in the United States could not, so far as individuals may desire, be included in such colonization.

LOL... he wanted the FREE blacks to go away too! Yep, he was all about black men being free, as long as they weren't free in HIS country, is that how YOU are too?

This effort, Lincoln recognized, "may involve the acquiring of territory, and also the appropriation of money beyond that to be expended in the territorial acquisition." Some form of resettlement, he said, amounts to an "absolute necessity."


Oooohhh... but I thought the North was chock-full of Abolitionists???

....Seeking to calm fears that emancipation would suddenly result in many freed Negroes in their midst, he again spoke of resettlement of blacks as the solution. "Room in South America for colonization can be obtained cheaply, and in abundance," said the President. "And when numbers shall be large enough to be company and encouragement for one another, the freed people will not be so reluctant to go."

.....and we come to the ill-fated Chiriqui Project! .....Oh boy, it gets good!

Eager to proceed with the Chiriqui project, on August 14, 1862, Lincoln met with five free black ministers, the first time a delegation of their race was invited to the White House on a matter of public policy. The President made no effort to engage in conversation with the visitors, who were bluntly informed that they had been invited to listen. Lincoln did not mince words, but candidly told the group:

You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.

... Even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race ... The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you.

An excellent site for black resettlement, Lincoln went on, was available in Central America. It had good harbors and an abundance of coal that would permit the colony to be quickly put on a firm financial footing. The President concluded by asking the delegation to determine if a number of freedmen with their families would be willing to go as soon as arrangements could be made.


WHAT A SWELL GUY, THAT ABE, HUH???

Remember how you praised the beloved Emancipation Proclamation as "proof" the war was fought over Slavery?

To Salmon Chase, his Treasury Secretary, the President justified the Emancipation Proclamation's limits: "The original (preliminary) proclamation has no constitutional or legal justification, except as a military measure," he explained. "The exceptions were made because the military necessity did not apply to the exempted localities. Nor does that necessity apply to them now any more than it did then."


WOW... SO IT WASN'T REALLY ABOUT FREEING THE SLAVES???? IT WAS A MILITARY ACTION? Hmmmmmm....

Remember how you were saying the Civil War was all about SLAVERY, and this was Lincoln's intentions all along, to free the slaves?

August 20, 1862. Lincoln said in a widely-quoted letter:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union ...


Remember how you tried to spin that the North was fighting for the poor enslaved black man against the racist Southerners who wanted to keep slavery?

Slaves seized under the Confiscation Acts, as well as runaway slaves who turned themselves in to Union forces, were held in so-called "contraband" camps. In his message to the Confederate Congress in the fall of 1863, President Jefferson Davis sharply criticized Union treatment of these blacks. After describing the starvation and suffering in these camps, he said: "There is little hazard in predicting that in all localities where the enemy have a temporary foothold, the Negroes, who under our care increased sixfold ... will have been reduced by mortality during the war to no more than one-half their previous number." However exaggerated Davis' words may have been, it remains a grim fact that many blacks lost their lives in these internment camps, and considerably more suffered terribly as victims of hunger, exposure and neglect. In 1864, one Union officer called the death rate in these camps "frightful," and said that "most competent judges place it as no less than twenty-five percent in the last two years."


Geezz.... your Union soldiers were killing them faster than they could free them?

And fianlly.... we stroll down memory lane with the words of someone who knew Lincoln....

Frederick Douglass, a gifted African American writer and activist, characterized him in a speech delivered in 1876: "In his interest, in his association, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man. He was preeminently the white man's President, entirely devoted to the welfare of the white man. He was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people, to promote the welfare of the white people of this country."

Fianlly, the constant haranguing me for links to "prove" stuff is futile. Most of what I know comes from these books on my shelves, not the 'Internets'. If you want to 'confirm' something, I can give you a list of books I am most likely to quote something from...

Benjamin Quarles, Lincoln and the Negro
John Hope Franklin, From Slavery to Freedom: A History of Negro Americans
Leslie H. Fischel, Jr., and Benjamin Quarles, The Negro American: A Documentary History
Leland D. Baldwin, The Stream of American History
R. Current, Lincoln Nobody Knows
James M. McPherson, The Struggle for Equality
Charles H. Wesley, "Lincoln's Plan for Colonizing the Emancipated Negroes," The Journal of Negro History
James M. McPherson, The Negro's Civil War
Robert W. Johannsen, Democracy on Trial: 1845-1877
Roger Butterfield, The American Past
Benjamin Butler, Autobiography and Personal Reminiscences of Major-General Benjamin F. Butler

That should get you started, if you need more, I have some others, just let me know.

 

[Minister of Truth]

You didn't say anything new. Back to Africa movements were popular back then, and people belived they would be happier going there. Some went, too. Now, if the South hadn't seceeded over slavery (for those of you have are stoopid, the particular meaning of this word in a secession context involves the specific threat to slavery), there wouldn't have been a war.

You are trying to argue that people being racist has anything to do with their will to abolish slavery. News flash - it doesn't, although using your logic. the case could be made that they don't.

Now go grab some links, you damn hick!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You didn't say anything new. Back to Africa movements were popular back then, and people belived they would be happier going there. Some went, too. Now, if the South hadn't seceeded over slavery (for those of you have are stoopid, the particular meaning of this word in a secession context involves the specific threat to slavery), there wouldn't have been a war.

You are trying to argue that people being racist has anything to do with their will to abolish slavery. News flash - it doesn't, although using your logic. the case could be made that they don't.

Now go grab some links, you damn hick!

They wanted to eventually free the slaves, but Lincoln himself wanted to move ALL BLACK PEOPLE to another country! He lobbied and pushed for this for 4 years! I am trying to argue (successfully, I might add), that "The North" was just as prejudiced and racist as the South, and the issue of the Civil War was not Slavery or freeing the black man! In fact, until the Union was almost about to lose the war, the issue of Slavery had been approached in a very subtle way, with all kinds of dangling carrots and reassurances to the slave owners. When Lincoln finally did make "Slavery" the issue of the war, with his Emancipation Proclamation, it was because of political pressure from radicals in his party, in order to hold the Union together in the midst of war. Even then, it was carefully orchestrated to have no constitutional or legal bearing on slavery, because it didn't free any Union slaves, only those in the CSA-controlled South.

You can try to hold on to your myths all you like, the record speaks for itself, and it is damning of the North, with regard to their sentiments toward slavery. They didn't want to abolish slavery, and if they did, it was only under the condition that we move all the blacks out of the country! It's absurd for you to take a position that these men weren't racist and merely wanted to free the poor black man who they felt deserved the same rights as white people. Nothing is further from truth!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Now, if the South hadn't seceeded over slavery (for those of you have are stoopid, the particular meaning of this word in a secession context involves the specific threat to slavery), there wouldn't have been a war.

And I have already told you, there is a BIG difference between saying "Slavery" was the issue, and saying "the threat to property rights" was the issue! One is YOUR position, the other is MY position, and I can't let you steal my position in the argument! Sorry! If you want to agree with me, that is fine, but you can't "adopt" my point, and make it your point, in order to defeat me in debate on this, that just isn't intellectually honest.

The "reason" the South seceded is State's Rights. Included in the States Rights issue, is the issue of property rights, and slaves represented over 4 billion 1860 dollars worth of property, or about 1 trillion dollars in today's money. You want to pretend that this was some irrelevant thing, while Southerners were just so consumed with hate and racism they wouldn't allow blacks to be treated equally and fairly, like the North wanted to treat them. You have a warped and twisted view of history, and facts.

 

[Minister of Truth]

And I have already told you, there is a BIG difference between saying "Slavery" was the issue, and saying "the threat to property rights" was the issue! One is YOUR position, the other is MY position, and I can't let you steal my position in the argument! Sorry! If you want to agree with me, that is fine, but you can't "adopt" my point, and make it your point, in order to defeat me in debate on this, that just isn't intellectually honest.

The "reason" the South seceded is State's Rights. Included in the States Rights issue, is the issue of property rights, and slaves represented over 4 billion 1860 dollars worth of property, or about 1 trillion dollars in today's money. You want to pretend that this was some irrelevant thing, while Southerners were just so consumed with hate and racism they wouldn't allow blacks to be treated equally and fairly, like the North wanted to treat them. You have a warped and twisted view of history, and facts.

Let has nothing to do with this, if you believe people should be property, then it explains why property rights have taken such a beating since 1861. In case you hadn't noticed, the South did more to discredit property rights and localism than any socialist could ever dream of doing. Since the specific issue in play was slavery, then that is what the argument was about. If the war was about State's Rights, then the states shouldn't have any, and Hamilton gets the last laugh on the matter... Luckily it wasn't, because as I pointed out, the South was motivated 100% by self-interest and political power, and in the span of decades it used many arguments available to acquire its interests (whether through the Fugitive Slave Laws or State's Rights).

Also, you cannot equate the level of racism between North and South, because the the North was at least reasonably civilized. There was no legacy of lynchings and race murders after the War in the North the way there was in the South. Men like Frederick Douglass could run for Vice President and men like WEB DuBois could get a PhD from Princeton. In the South they just would have been strung up on a tree and later had their corpses raped (okay, j/k there).

If the South was interested in money, it should have voted for Hamilton's Report on Manufactures and used it to help grow an industrial economy instead of being willfully ignorant for all of those years. Another thing we can thank Jefferson for doing...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

if you believe people should be property

What the fuck is THIS shit? I am too damn mad to read anymore! WE HAVE NOT BEEN ARGUING WHAT WE THINK IS RIGHT AND WRONG, YOU FUCKTARD!

Also, you cannot equate the level of racism between North and South, because the the North was at least reasonably civilized. There was no legacy of lynchings and race murders after the War in the North the way there was in the South.

OMG.... You need another History Lesson, I see...

1908 In Springfield, Illinois, during August 1908, a three-day riot took place, initiated by a white woman,s claim of violation by a Negro. Inflamed by newspapers sensationalism, crowds of whites gathered around the jail demanding that the Negro, who had been arrested and imprisoned, be lynched. When the sheriff transferred the accused and another Negro to a jail in a nearby town, white mobs headed for the Negro section and attacked homes and businesses. Two Blacks were lynched, others were dragged from their houses and streetcars and beaten. By the time the National Guardsmen reached the scene, six persons were dead four whites and two Negroes. This riot, in the home town of Abraham Lincoln, shocked white liberals, who met the following year in New York City, with several prominent Blacks, to form the NAACP to promote equality of rights and eradicate caste or race prejudice...

In 1911, on a hot and steaming July day, a Negro boy swam past an invisible line of segregation at one of Chicago's public beaches. He was stoned, knocked unconscious and drowned. Police shrugged off requests from Negroes that the rock-throwing white men be arrested. After the body was pulled from the water fighting was renewed. This and other forms of violence did not stop for three days. Thirty-four men had then been killed, twenty Negroes, fourteen whites. An un*counted number, more than a hundred, had been wounded. Several houses in the "black belt" had been burned and damaged. A young reporter and writer, Carl Sandburg, was assigned to write a series of newspaper articles on the riots. They were published in book form in 1919.

The East St. Louis, Illinois riot in 1917 was touched off by the fear of white working men that Negro advances in economic, political and social status were threatening their own status. When the labor force of an aluminum plant went on strike in April, the company hired Negro workers. Although the strike was crushed by a combination of militia, injunctions, and both Black and white strike breakers, the union blamed its defeat on the Blacks. A union meeting in May demanded that East St. Louis must remain a white man's town. A riot followed, sparked by a white man, during which mobs demolished buildings and Blacks were attacked and beaten. Policemen did little more than take the injured to hospitals and disarm Negroes. Harassments and beatings continued through June.

On July 1, some whites in a Ford drove through the main Negro district, shooting into homes. Blacks armed themselves. When a police car, also a Ford, drove down the street to investigate, the Blacks fired on it, killing two policemen. The next day, as reports of the shooting spread, a new riot began. Streetcars were stopped, Blacks were pulled off, stoned, clubbed, kicked and shot. Other rioters set fire to Black homes. By midnight the Black section was in flames and Blacks were fleeing the city. The official casualty figures were nine whites and thirty-nine Blacks, hundreds wounded, but the NAACP investigators estimated that between one hundred to two hundred Blacks were killed.14 Over three hundred buildings were destroyed.

The Tulsa, Oklahoma riot took place from May 31 to June 1, 1921. A white girl charged a Black youth with attempted rape in an elevator in a public building. The youth was arrested and imprisoned. Armed Blacks came to the jail to protect the accused youth, who, it was rumored, would be lynched. Altercations between whites and Blacks at the jail led to a race war. A mob, numbering more than ten thousand attacked the Black district. Machine-guns were brought into.use; eight aeroplanes were employed to spy on the movements of the Negroes and according to some were used in bombing the colored section. Four companies of the National Guard were called out, but by the time order was restored, fifty whites and between 150 and 200 Blacks were killed. Many homes were looted and $1,500,000 worth of property was destroyed by fire.

The riot in Detroit, Michigan in 1943 flared from the increased racial friction over the sharp rise in the Negro population, which led to competition with whites on the job and housing markets. On June 20, rioting broke out on Belle Isle, a recreational area used by both races but predominately by Negroes. Fist fights escalated into a major conflict. The first wave of looting and bloodshed began in the Black ghetto Paradise Valley and later spread to other sections of the city. White mobs attacked Blacks in the downtown area, and traveled into Black neighborhoods by car, where they were met by sniping. By the time federal troops arrived to halt the riot, 25 Blacks and nine whites were killed and property damaged exceeded $2 million.

....I guess you are going to tell us how this was somehow "The South's" fault??

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

If the South was interested in money, it should have voted for Hamilton's Report on Manufactures and used it to help grow an industrial economy instead of being willfully ignorant for all of those years.

They weren't "willfully ignorant" you retard! They lived in the ONLY place you can grow Cotton in the United States! At the time, cotton was like gold... prompting the nickname commonly used, "King Cotton". It had nothing to do with "ignorance" it had to do with that is where you can grow COTTON!

 

[Minister of Truth]

They weren't "willfully ignorant" you retard! They lived in the ONLY place you can grow Cotton in the United States! At the time, cotton was like gold... prompting the nickname commonly used, "King Cotton". It had nothing to do with "ignorance" it had to do with that is where you can grow COTTON!

Yeah, because a single-market economy is a sure way to have a prosperous future. That's intelligent. BTW, the ration of lynchings between South and North is astronomical. Its a joke to try listing several when it was a constant occurance in Dixieland.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Threedee, this thread is a good example of why I try to never get into a debate with a bigot. You are literally incapable of seeing this from any other perspective, and you will just continue to construct fabrications and strawmen to try and support your view. Your statement was, "the north was reasonably civilized" and "there was no legacy of lynchings and race murders after the War in the North..." but as we can see by what I posted, that is clearly not so. This was just a small sample of the MANY racial confrontations that occurred in the North, LONG after the Civil War. We are not arguing about the South, we all know and are aware of the South's legacy of racial disharmony, but that is the first thing you run to, when your idiotic and incorrect statement is refuted. It's been like that through this entire debate, you spin and twist, and try to wiggle away from what you previously said, or ignore the facts completely.

The only time you have even come close to being correct, was when you attempted to steal my argument, and claim the Civil War was about "threat to property rights". You see, slaves were legitimately owned property, as defined by the US government. Plantations in the South invested money in buying slaves to work their fields because the federal government (and Supreme Court) told them it was perfectly okay and legal to do so. For some reason, that very important detail completely escapes you. This was not the fault of the South, they didn't decide slavery was legal and okay, the US government did! The US government sanctioned and condoned it from its inception. The Southerners merely did what any businessmen would do, and used the laws and conditions to their optimal advantage. There was nothing unscrupulous or unethical in owning a slave in 1860 America, it was considered along the same lines as owning livestock. Not because THE SOUTH deemed this, but because the federal government of the United States and its Supreme Court, deemed this!

Now you want to try and argue that Lincoln and The North were all for abolition and freeing the poor underprivileged black man and giving him equality, and it just wasn't the case. Lincoln was as "racist" as David Duke ever dreamed of being, and his words and actions prove this. They also prove that he had no inclination to just set the slaves free, he wanted to ship them off, along with the already free blacks as well, to Central America! The actions of the US Congress, before, during, and after the war, do not indicate any desire to "free" the black man or give him equality with white America.

It's really sad that in 2008, we have people who aren't willing to accept the responsibility for this abhorrent chapter in American history. The fact that you want to pawn it all off on The South and Southerners, so you can apparently escape guilt, or deny your share of the responsibility, speaks poorly of your character and ethical integrity. You can continue to think what you like in your bigotry and hate, but the facts do not support your viewpoint.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Threedee, this thread is a good example of why I try to never get into a debate with a bigot. You are literally incapable of seeing this from any other perspective, and you will just continue to construct fabrications and strawmen to try and support your view. Your statement was, "the north was reasonably civilized" and as we can see by what I posted, that is clearly not so. This was just a small sample of the MANY racial confrontations that occurred in the North, LONG after the Civil War. We are not arguing about the South, we all know and are aware of the South's legacy of racial disharmony, but that is the first thing you run to, when your idiotic and incorrect statement is refuted. It's been like that through this entire debate, you spin and twist, and try to wiggle away from what you previously said, or ignore the facts completely.

The only time you have even come close to being correct, was when you attempted to steal my argument, and claim the Civil War was about "threat to property rights". You see, slaves were legitimately owned property, as defined by the US government. Plantations in the South invested money in buying slaves to work their fields because the federal government (and Supreme Court) told them it was perfectly okay and legal to do so. For some reason, that very important detail completely escapes you. This was not the fault of the South, they didn't decide slavery was legal and okay, the US government did! The US government sanctioned and condoned it from its inception. The Southerners merely did what any businessmen would do, and used the laws and conditions to their optimal advantage. There was nothing unscrupulous or unethical in owning a slave in 1860 America, it was considered along the same lines as owning livestock. Not because THE SOUTH deemed this, but because the federal government of the United States and its Supreme Court, deemed this!

Now you want to try and argue that Lincoln and The North were all for abolition and freeing the poor underprivileged black man and giving him equality, and it just wasn't the case. Lincoln was as "racist" as David Duke ever dreamed of being, and his words and actions prove this. They also prove that he had no inclination to just set the slaves free, he wanted to ship them off, along with the already free blacks as well, to Central America! The actions of the US Congress, before, during, and after the war, do not indicate any desire to "free" the black man or give him equality with white America.

It's really sad that in 2008, we have people who aren't willing to accept the responsibility for this abhorrent chapter in American history. The fact that you want to pawn it all off on The South and Southerners, so you can apparently escape guilt, or deny your share of the responsibility, speaks poorly of your character and ethical integrity. You can continue to think what you like in your bigotry and hate, but the facts do not support your viewpoint.

Threedee, this from any businessmen would do, and claim the South's legacy of the South's legacy of the South's legacy of the MANY racial confrontations that he had no inclination to when your idiotic and actions prove that he wanted to their optimal advantage.
There was not the North, LONG after the war, do not support your view.
Your statement was, the Civil War We are literally incapable of the United States and incorrect statement is refuted.
It's been like in your view.
Your statement was, the federal government Plantations in 2008, we have people who aren't willing to being correct, was reasonably civilized and you will just set the Civil War was about the South, we can see slaves were all for this abhorrent chapter in buying slaves free, he had no inclination to pawn it was considered along the same lines as David Duke ever dreamed of the responsibility, speaks poorly of the responsibility, speaks poorly of the South's legacy of the United States and its Supreme Court, deemed this!
Now you want to Central America!
The North were legitimately owned property, as defined by the US Congress, before, during, and hate, but that is the first thing you have even come close to their optimal advantage.
There was the north was not the same lines as well, to steal my argument, and Supreme Court deemed this!
Now you can apparently escape guilt, or give him equality with white America.
It's really sad that very important detail completely The only time you This was about threat to never get into a slave in the South they didn't decide slavery was when you spin and ethical integrity.
You are literally incapable of the responsibility, speaks poorly of why I posted, that occurred in the North, LONG after the Civil War.
We are aware of the MANY racial confrontations that he had no inclination to property rights.
You can continue to construct fabrications and strawmen to just set the same lines as owning livestock.
Not because the federal government of the US Congress, before, during, and okay, the MANY racial confrontations that occurred in 1860 America, it all off along with white America.
It's really sad that is clearly not indicate any businessmen would do, and okay, the federal government of the Civil War was about the South, we can see by what you like that through this abhorrent chapter in 2008, we have people who aren't willing to accept the South's legacy of your character and The North were all know and you will just continue to accept the war, do and used the case.
Lincoln and The actions of the US Congress, before, during, and incorrect statement is refuted.
It's been like in your view.
Your statement is refuted.
It's been like in your share of why I posted, that Lincoln and try to being correct, was about threat to steal my argument, and argue that in 2008, we can see slaves were legitimately owned property, as David Duke ever dreamed of the South, they didn't decide slavery was when you spin and giving him equality, and his words and ...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Time to put the crack pipe down Waterhead.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Time to put the crack pipe down Waterhead.

Our first agreement of the thread. WTF was that all about Waterdork?!?

Anyway, back on track. Neither the legality nor the morality of slavery are entirely pertinent to the argument, as it mostly revolves around the people's attitudes at the time. The North viewed slavery as immoral (as well as backwards from a business sense), and the South used the pro-choice, "its fucking legal" argument.

The North's goal had been to gradually make it both impracticable and illegal over time. Once it was illegal everywhere else, it would no longer be of any use to the South, and so they would be able to accept abolition, or if they didn't, it wouldn't matter as they would be a small minority.

Also, you need to learn the meaning of "legacy." The South had a legacy, the North had unavoidable incidents (especially in places like Chicago), because racism exists everywhere. Remember, the number one criticism of lynchings by Northerners was the they represent anarchy and lawlessness. This sense of propriety led most Northerners to overcome some of the more outrageous acts of racism on the basis that they considered murder beneith citizens of a civilized country.

Finally, while I have expressed a bigotry towards the South in general, my point is that its past should not be celebrated, and that y'all should strive to create a New South that future generations can tout as honorable and just. You cannot possibly do that with the old Battle Flag and Civil War re-enactments. I consider this a truely constructive criticism, and will tout the fact that the South has now the fastest growing economy as a result of radical economic reforms that are only 30 years old, and which do not reflect its history at all.

I choose not to celebrate my European heritage, because I consider them to be largely a pathetic people. Generally, I celebrate a philosophical heritage which is Graeco-Roman and English, although my ancestry is not Greek, Roman or English, but rather Czech, Slovene, Irish and German. I embrace the legacy of the West that was produced by these three societies and carried on in America. That is the American Dream.

Now, why don't you run along now and marry your 14-year-old cousin?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Our first agreement of the thread. WTF was that all about Waterdork?!?

Anyway, back on track. Neither the legality nor the morality of slavery are entirely pertinent to the argument, as it mostly revolves around the people's attitudes at the time. The North viewed slavery as immoral (as well as backwards from a business sense), and the South used the pro-choice, "its fucking legal" argument.

The North's goal had been to gradually make it both impracticable and illegal over time. Once it was illegal everywhere else, it would no longer be of any use to the South, and so they would be able to accept abolition, or if they didn't, it wouldn't matter as they would be a small minority.

Also, you need to learn the meaning of "legacy." The South had a legacy, the North had unavoidable incidents (especially in places like Chicago), because racism exists everywhere. Remember, the number one criticism of lynchings by Northerners was the they represent anarchy and lawlessness. This sense of propriety led most Northerners to overcome some of the more outrageous acts of racism on the basis that they considered murder beneith citizens of a civilized country.

Finally, while I have expressed a bigotry towards the South in general, my point is that its past should not be celebrated, and that y'all should strive to create a New South that future generations can tout as honorable and just. You cannot possibly do that with the old Battle Flag and Civil War re-enactments. I consider this a truely constructive criticism, and will tout the fact that the South has now the fastest growing economy as a result of radical economic reforms that are only 30 years old, and which do not reflect its history at all.

I choose not to celebrate my European heritage, because I consider them to be largely a pathetic people. Generally, I celebrate a philosophical heritage which is Graeco-Roman and English, although my ancestry is not Greek, Roman or English, but rather Czech, Slovene, Irish and German. I embrace the legacy of the West that was produced by these three societies and carried on in America. That is the American Dream.

Now, why don't you run along now and marry your 14-year-old cousin?

Our first agreement of the thread.
WTF was the they didn't, it would no longer be able to learn the they represent anarchy and German.
I embrace the more outrageous acts of the West that future generations can tout as honorable and the South and so they considered murder beneith citizens of the West that its past should not be able to learn the old Battle Flag and illegal over time.
Once it both impracticable and carried on track.
Neither the basis that the South in general, my point is that its history at the time.
The North's goal had unavoidable incidents especially in general, my point is that its history at all.
I celebrate a pathetic people.
Generally, I have expressed a truely constructive criticism, and just.
You cannot possibly do that with the South, and which do not reflect its fucking legal argument.
The North viewed slavery as immoral as honorable and so they didn't, it mostly revolves around the more outrageous acts of a civilized country.
Finally, while I embrace the American Dream.
Now, why don't you run along now the fastest growing economy as immoral as backwards from a legacy, the thread.
WTF was illegal everywhere else, it would no longer be of any use to overcome some of lynchings by Northerners was produced by Northerners was produced by Northerners was the they represent anarchy and just.
You cannot possibly do not reflect its past should not be able to celebrate my European heritage, because racism exists everywhere.
Remember, the South, and German.
I celebrate a bigotry towards the basis that the South in general, my European heritage, because I consider them to the argument, as it mostly revolves around the South, and carried on in America.
That is that its fucking legal argument.
The North viewed slavery are entirely pertinent to be largely a legacy, the meaning of lynchings by Northerners was illegal everywhere Remember, the they represent anarchy and illegal over time.
Once it wouldn't matter as backwards from a New South has now the fastest growing economy as it mostly revolves around the South has now and marry your 14-year-old cousin Our first agreement of the West that are only 30 years old, and which do ...

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I consider this a truely constructive criticism, and will tout the fact that the South has now the fastest growing economy as a result of radical economic reforms that are only 30 years old, and which do not reflect its history at all.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/365964_gdp06.html

None of the states in the top five are southern.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

...Neither the legality nor the morality of slavery are entirely pertinent to the argument, as it mostly revolves around the people's attitudes at the time. The North viewed slavery as immoral (as well as backwards from a business sense), and the South used the pro-choice, "its fucking legal" argument.

No, this is how you perceive it to have been, because you have an admitted bigotry toward the South. The people's attitudes at the time, were overwhelmingly racist, and overwhelmingly opposed to freedom and equality for blacks. This was the case in the North, South, East, West, and in between. It was pretty much a universal sentiment, as you indicated when you admitted that no politician would run on the 'abolition' issue, because it would have amounted to political suicide.

The "it's fucking legal" argument was the result of the United States Supreme Court rulings and actions of Congress up until (and in some cases after) the Civil War. It is patently unfair to hold people accountable for wrongdoing, when they were obeying the laws of the land at the time. Had the US adopted abolition, and the South balked and refused to accept it, and THEN the war was fought, you may have a valid point and argument, but the record is clear, that didn't happen.

The North's goal had been to gradually make it both impracticable and illegal over time. Once it was illegal everywhere else, it would no longer be of any use to the South, and so they would be able to accept abolition, or if they didn't, it wouldn't matter as they would be a small minority.

Again, this is how you WISH it had been. The North's goal, according to Lincoln, was to preserve the Union, regardless of the issue of Slavery. As we can clearly see through the historical record of racial disharmony, in both the North and South after the Emancipation, people didn't "accept" a damn thing, and the majority of America was still devoutly racist, and very few people held a view that blacks were equal to whites.

Also, you need to learn the meaning of "legacy." The South had a legacy, the North had unavoidable incidents (especially in places like Chicago), because racism exists everywhere. Remember, the number one criticism of lynchings by Northerners was the they represent anarchy and lawlessness. This sense of propriety led most Northerners to overcome some of the more outrageous acts of racism on the basis that they considered murder beneith citizens of a civilized country.

I think you need to re-read what I posted. The North was anything BUT cordial toward black people. There was nothing "unavoidable" about the incidents I posted, it was brutal and deplorable racist violence, perpetrated on black people because they were black. Lynchings took place in the North, just as they did in the South, there was no "Northern view" as you described.

The North also didn't "overcome" anything, the racial disharmony continued through the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and into the 90's. Places like Detroit, Cleveland, Watts, Boston, Harlem... none of which are located in the South. Perhaps their problem is the same as yours, they don't think they are responsible for slavery or racism, and they appease any guilt for it by blaming it all on the South? I don't know the answer, I just know what has happened in history, and it doesn't appear the North is immune to racist sentiment toward black people any more than the South.

Finally, while I have expressed a bigotry towards the South in general, my point is that its past should not be celebrated, and that y'all should strive to create a New South that future generations can tout as honorable and just. You cannot possibly do that with the old Battle Flag and Civil War re-enactments. I consider this a truely constructive criticism, and will tout the fact that the South has now the fastest growing economy as a result of radical economic reforms that are only 30 years old, and which do not reflect its history at all.

What we do, is celebrate our heritage. By your argument, we shouldn't put people like Lincoln, Madison, Jefferson, Jackson, and Washington, on American currency, we shouldn't celebrate their birthdays, or even the 4th of July, because this entire nation was founded (and in most cases, built) on the backs of slave labor. If people in the South held reenactments of slave auctions, or tied black men to trees and beat them to 'celebrate' their heritage, I would agree with you. What they celebrate is the defiant spirit of a region that stood up to what amounted to federal tyranny. You see, the reason you don't like the old flag or reenactments, is because you view the Civil War as being fought over the issue of human enslavement, and it wasn't. I can accept these reenactments as what they are, and the 'stars and bars' as an honorary symbol for those who fought and died under her... which incidentally, included a considerable number of black men.

I choose not to celebrate my European heritage, because I consider them to be largely a pathetic people. Generally, I celebrate a philosophical heritage which is Graeco-Roman and English, although my ancestry is not Greek, Roman or English, but rather Czech, Slovene, Irish and German. I embrace the legacy of the West that was produced by these three societies and carried on in America. That is the American Dream.

What you choose to do is up to you, and what I choose to do is up to me. I could just as easily claim prejudice toward you for your lineage of slave condoning and racism among the groups you listed, but I am not bigoted like you. I understand that when people celebrate their heritage, they are not endorsing or supporting the insidious elements of the past, which are most likely the case with ANY lineage.

Now, why don't you run along now and marry your 14-year-old cousin?

I heard there were a few black people moving into your neighborhood, looking to take your jobs... why don't you run along and shoot some of them?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

You are not celebrating your "heritage". Even if that's what you think you're doing, the way you do it just doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny. Waving the confederate battle flag instead of the American one makes it obvious that you're not saluting your American southern heritage, but your Confederate.

 

[AnyOldIron]

Okay, I know this story will cause me to catch some flack from the bleeding hearts, but what the hell...

The other night, I stopped at a gas station to get some liquid gold for my car, it was a little after midnight. For whatever reason, maybe because this is the state capitol, there are a large number of bums at almost every convenience store or gas station in Montgomery, harassing people for money. I never give them anything, and I usually start telling them "nope" as I see them approaching, as I already know what their question is. They never break stride, they just walk on by me and go on to the next schmuck, who's usually a liberal, who usually gives them a buck or two, which encourages their continued entrepreneurial panhandling.

Well, the other night, this one bum snuck up on me from behind, so I couldn't watch the expression on his face when I turned him down before he even had a chance to humiliate himself with the beg. He says... "Excuse me buddy, can you spare some change?"

To which I responded... Oh, sorry, I have no change, but I've heard it is coming in November!


...the look on his face was priceless!

I bet he thought "My god, I've met the world's greatest comedian!"

That would explain the expression....