Originally Posted by Dixie View Post
I never said it was okay, I said it was legal. You state a moot point that's common knowledge. Why? It doesn't justify slavery, and since you insinuate that you didn't agree with it, why state the obvious.
Because it seems to NOT be obvious to many who want to imply it was illegal to own slaves in 1860 America, or that Southerners were doing something they weren't supposed to be, or shouldn't be doing. The legality of slavery doesn't justify slavery, but it does justify why businesses used slaves to harvest cotton.
I never pretended the cotton picked itself, in fact, I stated very clearly that slaves picked the cotton! No shit sherlock....and previous to that you state that they were not the backbone of the financial situation....a pretty dumb statement given that without the slaves, the cotton would NOT have been harvested at the rate it was for two centuries. It's YOU that try to separate the two...and you failed.
I stated that slavery wasn't the backbone of the economy, which was what you stated. Cotton was the backbone of the economy, and slaves were indeed instrumental in harvesting the cotton. There were a number of reasons cotton was the backbone of the economy, namely Northern textile industrialization and demand for cotton, spurred by the invention of the cotton gin. None of these things pertained to the social issue of African slavery, or what to do about it. I separate the two because they are two separate issues.
It's right there in black and white in the post you are responding to, idiot! Can't you fucking read, you illiterate hick? See above responses, folks.
Yeah folks, see the above responses where I state basically the exact same thing as this idiot, regarding slavery not being the cause for the Civil War, and he just keeps on trying to morph my comments into something he can find fault with. I state the truth, that slavery was legal, and that translates to Chicklet as me saying, slavery was legal therefore it was good and right! I never actually said that, but when Chicklet reads my post, he interprets that from my comments. It's really fascinating to watch him do this over and over again.
What I won't "pretend" is that slavery was not legal, No one said it wasn't, you braying jackass....and the South was doing something illegal by using slave labor to pick cotton. No one said they were at the time, you braying jackass I can't "pretend" that the South invented slavery, or that it was merely something they did against the will of the government or society in general, because that is a fucking bald-face lie. No one said they did, you braying jackass....
See how much we agree on and Chicklet ADMITS we agree on? So why is he continuing to argue as if I have said something he has to contradict and refute? If no one has indicated these things, then we agree on it, and we can move along, right?
the discussion is about the romantic fantasy of the Confederacy fight against "northern aggression" and how slavery was really an inconsequential issue...as if there was never an anti-slavery movement in the country prior to the Civil War.
Again, nothing I have posted has "romanticized" the Confederacy and I have never called it a fight against "northern aggression." I never said slavery was an "inconsequential issue" and I went out of my way to explain precisely how slavery was involved as an issue, how it pertained to SCOTUS interpretations of "property rights" at the time, and how we need to evaluate the history based on the perspectives and viewpoints of the time, rather than trying to apply a modern view that didn't exist then. I have never stated there wasn't an anti-slavery movement, only that the anti-slavery movement wasn't necessarily based on a viewpoint of racial equality or civil rights for blacks.
I've not dodged a damn thing, I haven't said what you claimed I said, and there is nothing "revisionist" about anything I've stated. A lie....as I've just demonstrated here.
How have you demonstrated any such thing? All I see is you mis-characterizing things I have said, or attributing things to me that I never said. The only thing you are demonstrating, is a willingness to be dishonest, and a defiantly bigoted viewpoint that prevents you from realizing your own ignorance.
You can call me racist every time you post, I don't give a flying fuck, it doesn't bother me in the least, because I know I am not a racist and never have been.
And yet your writings belie your protests. You're just another bigoted, revisionist hack with delusions of intellectualism. My previous statements stand...and you can't BS your way around it. Carry on.
I haven't "revised" anything except
your incorrect assertions and viewpoints regarding historical facts. I have given you ample credit where you were correct, and I have explained where you are wrong, but you want to continue hurling names and accusations, and making outright slanderous allegations about me and what I believe, without any basis whatsoever.
Your previous statements STAND as a testament to what a bigoted closed-minded fuckwit you are. They STAND as evidence of how intolerant and ignorant of historical fact your viewpoints are, and after repeated opportunities to present a coherent argument, they STAND for your inability to do so.
"Bravo" indeed.
