Change???

[AnyOldIron]

I knew that but it was all I had. I basically shot my wad insult wise with the pearly white tooth comment.

And that is so 1970s mate....

 

[Damocles]

They like to be hit continuously by giant roosters? British women are kinky!

Any breed of poultry will do.

Next time you are over, buy a chicken from a butcher's and slap the nearest woman about the face with it.

They love it! You will be in like Flynn... Honest Gov'ner!

I'll do that while shouting, "I'm an American, I'll do what I want!"

Women will be swarming me!

 

[Socrtease]

I'll do that while shouting, "I'm an American, I'll do what I want!"

Women will be swarming me!

Oh hell yeah. You might even get one or too of them to lock you up and do that bondage thing with you. Give that a try. Should work wonders.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

When the US was formed it supported slavery, as did we once. The 'consensus opinion' of the then modern world changed. The South was just a little slow in catching on to this opinion, but the worm had turned. The resistence of the South was really futile but seems to have seeded its modern reputation.

Which is to a degree unfair. We shouldn't harangue modern southerners for the actions of their ancestors, tar them with the same brush, for actions we ourselves committed only a few scant years before.

Not often I stick up for Dixie....

Well thanks, but I have to take some exception with your remarks. The South was no 'slower' in accepting emancipation than anyone else. It wasn't something that had been practiced 'a few scant years before' at all, it was the law of the land, up to, during, and after the Civil War. While it was more widely practiced in the South because of agriculture, slavery was also practiced in the North, and was perfectly legal and acceptable, according to the US Congress and SCOTUS.

As I said, had the US Congress and SCOTUS adopted an abolitionist policy, ruled that slaves were NOT property, rather, human beings deserving of the same freedoms and liberties enjoyed by white Americans, and THEN the South declared a war, Threedee's points would be relevant and accurate. That was not the case in 1860 America.

It is easy for someone in 2008 to see the moral reprehensibility of slavery, and assume the South must have been on the wrong side of the issue in 1860, especially since that is likely what they were taught in public schools, but this isn't an accurate assessment of the circumstances and situation in America at that time.

By Threedee's own admission, abolition was such a radical idea, no politician of the time would dare run on the issue or publicly support abolition. The majority of America didn't support abolition before 1860, and those who did support it, did so with the precondition the freed slaves would be shipped off to another country to live. It is inherently impossible for this to have been the "reason" for the Civil War. It was a part of a larger issue concerning property rights and the federal government's Constitutional limitations, but Slavery itself, emancipation, and abolition, came to the forefront as an "issue" in the last year or so of the war, because Lincoln was desperate to justify the enormous amount of bloodshed and death surrounding his torn nation. This is when the Civil War became "about slavery" and not before.

 

[AnyOldIron]

I'll do that while shouting, "I'm an American, I'll do what I want!"

Women will be swarming me!

Some nylons and a bar of chocolate should do it!

 

[AnyOldIron]

Well thanks, but I have to take some exception with your remarks. The South was no 'slower' in accepting emancipation than anyone else. It wasn't something that had been practiced 'a few scant years before' at all, it was the law of the land, up to, during, and after the Civil War. While it was more widely practiced in the South because of agriculture, slavery was also practiced in the North, and was perfectly legal and acceptable, according to the US Congress and SCOTUS.

As I said, had the US Congress and SCOTUS adopted an abolitionist policy, ruled that slaves were NOT property, rather, human beings deserving of the same freedoms and liberties enjoyed by white Americans, and THEN the South declared a war, Threedee's points would be relevant and accurate. That was not the case in 1860 America.

It is easy for someone in 2008 to see the moral reprehensibility of slavery, and assume the South must have been on the wrong side of the issue in 1860, especially since that is likely what they were taught in public schools, but this isn't an accurate assessment of the circumstances and situation in America at that time.

By Threedee's own admission, abolition was such a radical idea, no politician of the time would dare run on the issue or publicly support abolition. The majority of America didn't support abolition before 1860, and those who did support it, did so with the precondition the freed slaves would be shipped off to another country to live. It is inherently impossible for this to have been the "reason" for the Civil War. It was a part of a larger issue concerning property rights and the federal government's Constitutional limitations, but Slavery itself, emancipation, and abolition, came to the forefront as an "issue" in the last year or so of the war, because Lincoln was desperate to justify the enormous amount of bloodshed and death surrounding his torn nation. This is when the Civil War became "about slavery" and not before.

I don't deny that there was a degree of hypocrisy by the North towards the South.

The tide had turned against slavery long before the US civil war. The first nail in its coffin was when Britain, then the world superpower, introduced the 1807 Abolition of Slavery act. When, in 1833 the British Empire, with a navy that literally controlled the seas, began to close down the Atlantic trade it must have been obvious to the US states that the end was coming. As I say, there was shocking hypocrisy by the North. But it was the North that got the ball rolling so to speak. And I realise I am generalising, that abolition was unpopular in parts of the North.

But my point was that the South's bad reputation was defined by its reluctance to follow the ball that was started rolling in the North. And maybe that is a little unfair.

However, lynching well into the 20th century didn't help that reputation, nor did the activities of certain groups, nor the reluctance to accept the inevitable when it came to the civil rights movement.

Having said that, are we going to blame the South for the activities of their ancestors forever?

 

[Minister of Truth]

And why didn't Freemont win, if the VAST MAJORITY of America wanted to free the slaves? Seems like it would have been a landslide, if the view was as you have described. The truth is, there was an Abolitionist movement, it had been gaining popularity among the elite intellectuals for the previous 20 years, but it was still a radical idea for the time, and most Americans did not support it. Those who saw the moral ethics of it, and favored emancipation, only did so on the condition we ship them off to Central America, Algeria, or Monrovia.

Freemont lost for the same reason Lincoln won, the presence of 3rd Party candidates.

There was no abolition of slavery in the US, 4 years before the war broke out. There was no immorality in owning a slave in 1860 America, it was no different than owning a horse or a mule. We are not debating the morality of slavery, or the morality of the laws on slavery, how many times do we need to make that point clear?

Idiot, I was referring to the Dred Scot decision, not abolition. Follow a conversation or shut up. Laws often lead from a debate over morals, otherwise we would be debating the merits of parking tickets. You cannot argue that slavery was not a moral issue in 1860, because Northerners viewed it as one, just as the pro-abortion movement does not view infanticide as immoral. MORALITY EXISTS, because God is unmovable, it does not change as people change.

The 13th-15th Amendments were passed AFTER the Civil war, had "Slavery" been such a popular issue among the people, these would have been passed BEFORE the war. The South balked at the audacity of the federal government dictating what states could or couldn't do, in contradiction to the Constitution, which did not grant that right to the federal government.

The Constitution did not prohibit the Govt. from abolishing slavery, but merely permits that persons in bondage will count as 3/5 in a census. Since the matter could not be addressed in a divided Congress, the North sought to win the issue in the West.

The record shows no such thing. It shows the North was just as racist as the South, and it shows the South was interested in maintaining control of 4 billion dollars worth of their own property and not allowing the government to take it away without compensation. Both sides believed in freedom, but not for the black man. Freedom without equality, is no freedom at all.

What your pea-brain thinks might have happened, IF... makes no difference to anything, because it is wholly irrelevant. We did have slavery, the North condoned it and in some cases, practiced it, but did nothing to abolish it until after the Civil War. We did have massacres of Native Americans, and we are just now getting around to realizing the injustices perpetrated on them. Perhaps one of the reason America has a hard time righting the wrongs, is because of attitudes like yours, which try to pass off blame and guilt, instead of accepting responsibility for it?

I think referring to slaves as 4 billion dollars worth of property is racist. It was recognized as a BS argument by the North back then. People can speculate what would have happened if the South had not won elections under the 3/5 Clause, and what would have happened if the North had left the South out of the Union indefinitely when it seceeded, because most people appear to be smarter than you. My advice after such an idiotic statement is to never attempt a major in any social science (particularly history and poli sci). You are also wrong about freedom and equality, because freedom is more important. The slaves would have still been better off once emancipated, even if they were denied the vote and so forth.

......So you favor "non-legislated" segregation? Nothing can be "laid on" the South! You want to find blame, go look in your fucking mirror! YOU are to blame! YOU and people like you, who don't have the moral courage to accept responsibility for what YOUR country has done!

I'm saying what would be a reality if not for the long struggle over slavery and Jim Crow. People would be segregated and it wouldn't be considered a big deal, just as Irish and Italians live in NYC.

Succession happened as a result of the federal government violating it's own Constitution. The 4th doesn't "represent" anything, it is a goddamn right in the Bill of Goddamn Rights, or do you NOT understand that concept?

Many Confederate soldiers also died under the flag of the Confederacy, and they were Americans too. I don't celebrate the deaths of US troops, or any troops, or any human beings for that matter. I don't know where the fuck you came up with that hair-brain thought... do they actually let people this stupid into military service these days?

Dumbass, you mentioned the 4th of July, and I was referring to it when said "4th." Try to follow a conversation or shut up. You obviously wouldn't know the mental state of servicemembers today, because you obvious have never served. And yes, the Battle Flag of the Confederacy represents death to Americans ahead of anything else (i.e. a pathetic history and culture, racism, etc.). Also, we only call US Americans "Americans." Those in the CSA were Confederates.

Well, it is fine if you don't have any ancestry to be proud of. But many other Americans do, and some of them really get into it and enjoy it. Do you think we live in your dictatorship, and aren't allowed to pay tribute to anything you don't personally like? I got news for you, fuck off.

If you want to celebrate a miserable past, the killing of American soldiers, and treason, go right ahead, as you are free to do so. Just don't act all surprised when I call you out on it.

Well, yeah... I think if you went out shooting blacks and burning black neighborhoods like your Northern ancestors once did, the ANG would frown upon that.

I suspect they would.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I don't deny that there was a degree of hypocrisy by the North towards the South.

The tide had turned against slavery long before the US civil war. The first nail in its coffin was when Britain, then the world superpower, introduced the 1807 Abolition of Slavery act. When, in 1833 the British Empire, with a navy that literally controlled the seas, began to close down the Atlantic trade it must have been obvious to the US states that the end was coming. As I say, there was shocking hypocrisy by the North. But it was the North that got the ball rolling so to speak. And I realise I am generalising, that abolition was unpopular in parts of the North.

But my point was that the South's bad reputation was defined by its reluctance to follow the ball that was started rolling in the North. And maybe that is a little unfair.

However, lynching well into the 20th century didn't help that reputation, nor did the activities of certain groups, nor the reluctance to accept the inevitable when it came to the civil rights movement.

Having said that, are we going to blame the South for the activities of their ancestors forever?

Thanks, that cleared up some of the misconceptions in your previous remarks. I will add however, Britain was not as dependent on slavery as the agricultural southern United States, and did not have a 4 billion dollar investment in 'private property' as defined by the law. The Southern reluctance to embrace abolition of slavery, was the result of US complacency and literal support and facilitation of the practice in America, up until that time. Had their actions been different, had the US adopted Britain's policies and practices in 1807, or 1817, 1827, 1837, 1847, 1857... the Civil War may have been fought over the issue of Slavery, but this wasn't the case.

I think that I said earlier (and I realize this thread is getting long and you joined it late) that America had already stopped importing slaves, and most of the slaves on plantations across the South, were 2nd and 3rd generation slaves, who were born on US soil. Certainly, it must have been abundantly clear to even the most 'ignorant' Southerner, that Slavery as an institution, would not and could not endure much longer. So, why would they start and fight the most bloody war in American history to hold on to something becoming obsolete? It makes no sense in that respect, and is precisely why my argument is supported. The war was not about the issue of human enslavement, that issue was slowly being dealt with by all civilized people of the world, and would have eventually came, regardless of a war.

More than the actual issue of slavery, was the issue of how to go about emancipating slaves in a very racist American society. It wasn't difficult to get anyone to accept that it was against our very principles of liberty and freedom to condone or practice human enslavement, the question was, what to do about it? You say the North "got the ball rolling" but they didn't! That is the point here, there was absolutely NO action by the US government before the Civil War, to try and abolish slavery or outlaw the practice. It was condoned in a policy described as "containment" and that is about it.

From the Southern perspective, there had been a significant financial investment in buying slaves. They did this because US Congress and Courts said they were legally entitled to do it. I likened it earlier to people buying internal-combustion cars today, it is perfectly legal to buy and own a car powered by a gasoline engine, but what if we suddenly had a movement to 'abolish' such vehicles because of global warming or whatever, and the federal government threatened to confiscate everyone's car? Would those who protested this, be cast in the light of 'barbarians who wanted to destroy the planet with greenhouse gasses' or would they have had a legitimate complaint about the federal government violating their 4th Amendment rights in unlawfully seizing their assets? This is not to compare human slavery with global warming, or owning black people to owning cars, but the Constitutional issue is what was in debate at the time. Not the issue of human enslavement.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I think referring to slaves as 4 billion dollars worth of property is racist.

I agree. Which is precisely why I say, the US, the US Supreme Court, and indeed, the vast and overwhelming majority of 1860 America, was devoutly RACIST!

The CSA didn't determine slaves were property! The South didn't determine the slaves they owned were property! The US GOVERNMENT had determined this!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Try to follow a conversation or shut up.

Try to articulate your fucking thoughts, or shut up! I responded to the TEXT you posted, Dumbass!

 

[Kamala Trump]

As we well know, the government is not the people. Our democracy is a sham.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Try to articulate your fucking thoughts, or shut up! I responded to the TEXT you posted, Dumbass!

You dumbass, the text was based upon your own posts! Besides that, you have the whole debate to refresh your memory if it fails on you. I shouldn't have to waste anymore words on you that absolutely necessary.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Thanks, that cleared up some of the misconceptions in your previous remarks. I will add however, Britain was not as dependent on slavery as the agricultural southern United States, and did not have a 4 billion dollar investment in 'private property' as defined by the law. The Southern reluctance to embrace abolition of slavery, was the result of US complacency and literal support and facilitation of the practice in America, up until that time. Had their actions been different, had the US adopted Britain's policies and practices in 1807, or 1817, 1827, 1837, 1847, 1857... the Civil War may have been fought over the issue of Slavery, but this wasn't the case.

Well, if some region would have consented to abolition we wouldn't have had anything to worry about. But since that was not the case, different measure had to be taken by the opposition.

I think that I said earlier (and I realize this thread is getting long and you joined it late) that America had already stopped importing slaves, and most of the slaves on plantations across the South, were 2nd and 3rd generation slaves, who were born on US soil. Certainly, it must have been abundantly clear to even the most 'ignorant' Southerner, that Slavery as an institution, would not and could not endure much longer. So, why would they start and fight the most bloody war in American history to hold on to something becoming obsolete? It makes no sense in that respect, and is precisely why my argument is supported. The war was not about the issue of human enslavement, that issue was slowly being dealt with by all civilized people of the world, and would have eventually came, regardless of a war.

Its called the "Expand or Die Theory." The South believed that without the trade, they would need to expand slavery out West to keep it alive. For some reason the idea of the institution failing was bad to them. It was this theory that was precisely at odds with the Northern view of Western Lands that created most of the problems.

More than the actual issue of slavery, was the issue of how to go about emancipating slaves in a very racist American society. It wasn't difficult to get anyone to accept that it was against our very principles of liberty and freedom to condone or practice human enslavement, the question was, what to do about it? You say the North "got the ball rolling" but they didn't! That is the point here, there was absolutely NO action by the US government before the Civil War, to try and abolish slavery or outlaw the practice. It was condoned in a policy described as "containment" and that is about it.

Which Southerners conceeded those points about the rightness of slavery? Most just engaged in sophomoric comparisons to free laborers or OT Biblical quotes...

From the Southern perspective, there had been a significant financial investment in buying slaves. They did this because US Congress and Courts said they were legally entitled to do it. I likened it earlier to people buying internal-combustion cars today, it is perfectly legal to buy and own a car powered by a gasoline engine, but what if we suddenly had a movement to 'abolish' such vehicles because of global warming or whatever, and the federal government threatened to confiscate everyone's car? Would those who protested this, be cast in the light of 'barbarians who wanted to destroy the planet with greenhouse gasses' or would they have had a legitimate complaint about the federal government violating their 4th Amendment rights in unlawfully seizing their assets? This is not to compare human slavery with global warming, or owning black people to owning cars, but the Constitutional issue is what was in debate at the time. Not the issue of human enslavement.

The Supreme Court did not speak on slavery until 4 years before the war. The Constitution did not call slaves property, but instead called them "persons." Thus, any attempts to use the 4th and 10th Amendments was typically ignorant of Southerners.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well, if some region would have consented to abolition we wouldn't have had anything to worry about. But since that was not the case, different measure had to be taken by the opposition.

Kindly tell me, in what year before the Civil War, did any members in the US Congress attempt to pass legislation to abolish slavery? I would like to know the actual bill number, so I can go look up the votes and confirm your suggestion. Thanks.

Its called the "Expand or Die Theory." The South believed that without the trade, they would need to expand slavery out West to keep it alive. For some reason the idea of the institution failing was bad to them. It was this theory that was precisely at odds with the Northern view of Western Lands that created most of the problems.

As has already been pointed out, you are totally full of shit. Slavery as an institution was beginning to wane, and even the 'uneducated' southerners knew it's time was coming, and nothing was going to save it. The ISSUE was not the institution of slavery, it was FEDERAL encroachment on the rights of the individual state to make their OWN determinations, pursuant to the frikin' Constitution, which gave them that right!

The Supreme Court did not speak on slavery until 4 years before the war. The Constitution did not call slaves property, but instead called them "persons." Thus, any attempts to use the 4th and 10th Amendments was typically ignorant of Southerners.

The fact that the US Government and SCOTUS was so complacent and indifferent to the issue of slaves as to not address it until 4 years before the war, is not proof of anything except my point, that the US government and SCOTUS was complacent and indifferent to slavery.

No "attempt" to use any goddamn thing, asswipe... the fucking SUPREME COURT RULED that slaves were PROPERTY! Can you not get that through your fucking head? It wasn't some "attempted" argument on part of the South, it was the mutherfuckin RULING by YOUR UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT! Got that, Bozo? YOUR Court, not the CSA, not The South, not Alabama, Georgia, or Mississippi, but the FUCKING UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AND UNTIED STATES CONGRESS!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You dumbass, the text was based upon your own posts! Besides that, you have the whole debate to refresh your memory if it fails on you. I shouldn't have to waste anymore words on you that absolutely necessary.

No, the text you posted was vague, you said "the 4th" and made no clarification of what the fuck you were talking about.... "the 4th amendment" ..."the 4th of july" ...."the 4th Reich"... not a clue, because you didn't fucking articulate it. Then you proceeded to jump down my throat and call me names because I couldn't read your mind and tell what you meant. You are jumping all over the board in your lame attempt to divert and distract, hoping to (I guess) win some moral victory here, but it remains futile. You have failed to prove any point, other than my own point about the US being racist and complacent in dealing with the issue of slavery before the war. If I were you, I would have just let the thread die three pages ago, and maybe you wouldn't be getting embarrassed so badly. But, being the stubborn bigot you are, it is impossible for you to let this go. Now, I am growing tired of the bullshit, either present some goddamn facts to support your idiotic notions, or go away.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

AMERICA
THE DECADENT
GOD SHOVES HIS SHIT ON THEE
FROM PURPLE MOUNTAIN DYNASTY
IMPERIALISM ACROSS THE LAND
AMERICA AMERICA
GOD SHOVES HIS SHIT ON THEE
FROM SEA TO MURKY, POLLUTED SEA

 

[Minister of Truth]

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.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You can pretend you are fucking someone if you like, you've not proven your argument true in any respect. Time and time again, I have proven you to be a liar and incorrect about your viewpoints. From the idiotic view that Lincoln believed in freedom for blacks, to the argument that the Civil War was fought over a disappearing institution of which the Federal government had NEVER addressed or dealt with, except to rule it acceptable.

The issue was "state's rights" and it always will be, you can't change that fact. You can revel in bigoted ignorance and believe something else if you like, but you simply can't change historical facts.

 

[Minister of Truth]

You can pretend you are fucking someone if you like, you've not proven your argument true in any respect. Time and time again, I have proven you to be a liar and incorrect about your viewpoints. From the idiotic view that Lincoln believed in freedom for blacks, to the argument that the Civil War was fought over a disappearing institution of which the Federal government had NEVER addressed or dealt with, except to rule it acceptable.

The issue was "state's rights" and it always will be, you can't change that fact. You can revel in bigoted ignorance and believe something else if you like, but you simply can't change historical facts.

Wait, you deny that Lincoln believed in freedom for blacks! What is your evidence for that?!?

And yes, I believe that bombing the South forward into the Stone Age would have done us a world of good, but unfortunately there were no airplanes and the most powerful explosive was nitroglycerine...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Wait, you deny that Lincoln believed in freedom for blacks! What is your evidence for that?!?

And yes, I believe that bombing the South forward into the Stone Age would have done us a world of good, but unfortunately there were no airplanes and the most powerful explosive was nitroglycerine...

Lincoln wanted to ship ALL AFRICANS to another country, not live here in freedom and liberty with Americans. That's my evidence. As I said before, freedom without equality is no freedom at all. ....Actually, I think it was someone famous who said it first, but the point is relevant here. Lincoln did not favor equal rights for black people, he wanted to "contain" slavery, not "abolish" slavery, but when he was about to lose the war, and was feeling political pressure from "radical" abolitionists of the time, he endorsed abolition. This was well AFTER the start of the Civil War. Before the Civil War, he was offering every possible concession to the South, in order to keep the Union together. In his own words... "If I can save the union by freeing no slaves, I will do it..." In other words, he didn't give one shit about freeing blacks.

Regardless of what you believe in your warped and bigoted mind, bombing the South into the stone age would not have prevented the long history of racial turmoil in NORTHERN states following the Civil War. They would have still been shooting blacks and burning their neighborhoods... so, would you have advocated "bombing to the stone ages" for them as well? Or how about the MAJORITY of the American public in 1860, which prohibited any US politician in their "right mind" from running on the issue of abolition? What about the US Supreme Court and Congress, would you carpet bomb them too? My goodness, you need a fucking hell of a lot of bombs to rid the US of racist prejudiced people who didn't favor abolition without condition.