Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

Dixie said:
T.... As for who had slaves, NO ONE had slaves because they "wanted something to do with it" ...slavery wasn't because people liked owning other people! As I stated before, people owned slaves because that was how you harvested cotton, and the US Government and Supreme Court, had ordained the institution and established it as law of the land. People who didn't own slaves were not automatically opposed to slavery or supportive of Civil Rights for slaves, they simply didn't have a need to own slaves because they didn't have cotton to harvest. Had cotton grown in Pennsylvania, they would have had just as many slaves as any southern state, the circumstances of who owned slaves was related directly to the climate, not social viewpoints on equality of race!
Click to expand...


Shorter Plantation Boss Version:


Southern whites were too lazy to work in the hot sun, so they enslaved the darkies to do it.

Enslaving and oppressing people for economic reasons is completely understandable, and so much better and more morally justified than enslaving them for the sheer joy of it.
 
No shit there were no labor intensive industries in the north? No, the didn't have phoney aristocrat pussies loike the south. Today's kkk
 
Ok, most CSA regulars were not terrorists, however, the CSA encouraged and when they could supplied men like William Clarke Quantrill and his raiders who are most famous for the Lawrence KS Massacre which was nothing short of a terroristic raid in which only 18 Union soldiers were killed but almost 200 civilian men and boys were killed in the raid, businesses were looted and burned to the ground. All of this in 1863, so before you go crying about Sherman, remember, the Allies burned Dresden to the ground for the attacks on London.
 
T&A said:
So how come the Northern economy didn't tank after the war when the cotton industry dried up?
Click to expand...

Cotton remained a key crop in the southern economy after emancipation and the end of the civil war in 1865. Across the South, sharecropping evolved, in which free black farmers and landless white farmers worked on white-owned cotton plantations of the wealthy in return for a share of the profits.

Interestingly, during the Civil War, the Brits, who relied heavily on Southern cotton, were forced to buy cotton from Egypt instead, and following the Civil War, they resumed trade with the US, which plunged Egypt's economy into the toilet, and prompted British annexation of Egypt.
 
Cypress said:
Shorter Plantation Boss Version:


Southern whites were too lazy to work in the hot sun, so they enslaved the darkies to do it.

Enslaving and oppressing people for economic reasons is completely understandable, and so much better and more morally justified than enslaving them for the sheer joy of it.
Click to expand...

Uhm... Southern whites didn't invent slavery. Sorry.
 
signalmankenneth said:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/11/martin.confederate.extremist/index.html?hpt=C1
dixie-show-and-tell.jpg
Click to expand...

BOOM! THERE IT IS!

:woot:
 
Here are some hard to live with truths about this issue:

1) The radical republicans of old Don't exist anymore
2) The Dixie-crats DO NOT run the Democratic Party anymore
3) Slavery WAS a secondary issue until Lincoln realized he needed black folk to help win the war...then he became more than just a philosophizing "emancipator".
4) Without a century and a half of slavery, the "confederacy" wouldn't have the economic means to wage the war to the extent it did.
5) THAT CENTURIES OF SLAVERY IS CONSIDERERED A SIDE ISSUE IN THE ROMANTICIZING OF THE CONFEDERACY SPEAKS VOLUMES TO THE MINDSET......THAT ENSLAVEMENT AND DETRIMENTAL TREATMENT OF AN ENTIRE RACE OF PEOPLE WAS JUST AN AFTERTHOUGHT THAT WOULD "EVENTUALLY" BE RESOVLED BY THE FOLK WHO BENEFITTED MOST FROM THIS EVIL. PUH-LEEZE!
 
Taichiliberal said:
Here are some hard to live with truths about this issue:

1) The radical republicans of old Don't exist anymore
2) The Dixie-crats DO NOT run the Democratic Party anymore
3) Slavery WAS a secondary issue until Lincoln realized he needed black folk to help win the war...then he became more than just a philosophizing "emancipator".
4) Without a century and a half of slavery, the "confederacy" wouldn't have the economic means to wage the war to the extent it did.
5) THAT CENTURIES OF SLAVERY IS CONSIDERERED A SIDE ISSUE IN THE ROMANTICIZING OF THE CONFEDERACY SPEAKS VOLUMES TO THE MINDSET......THAT ENSLAVEMENT AND DETRIMENTAL TREATMENT OF AN ENTIRE RACE OF PEOPLE WAS JUST AN AFTERTHOUGHT THAT WOULD "EVENTUALLY" BE RESOVLED BY THE FOLK WHO BENEFITTED MOST FROM THIS EVIL. PUH-LEEZE!
Click to expand...

3) Lincoln didn't do it to secure black support, but because the attitude of the public had shifted. The shock of so much bloodshed gave the people the need for a moral crusade, and the lack of victories coupled with the death toll was viewed by many as a judgement from God. The draw at Antietam, which the North declared a victory, was viewed as the perfect timing to officially change the tone of the war effort.

4) Completely wrong. If not for slavery, the Southern economy would have been organized in a very different way. Pretending that under these circumstances that it still would wind up seceeding, and assuming that it organized its economy under a strong, diversified, industrial-based system, the North would have had a MUCH less likely chance of winning the war.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Here are some hard to live with truths about this issue:

1) The radical republicans of old Don't exist anymore
Now we have "radical liberals" instead?
2) The Dixie-crats DO NOT run the Democratic Party anymore
But they once did.
3) Slavery WAS a secondary issue until Lincoln realized he needed black folk to help win the war...then he became more than just a philosophizing "emancipator".
CORRECT!
4) Without a century and a half of slavery, the "confederacy" wouldn't have the economic means to wage the war to the extent it did.
Yeah, that Northern and British money came in handy.
5) THAT CENTURIES OF SLAVERY IS CONSIDERERED A SIDE ISSUE IN THE ROMANTICIZING OF THE CONFEDERACY SPEAKS VOLUMES TO THE MINDSET......THAT ENSLAVEMENT AND DETRIMENTAL TREATMENT OF AN ENTIRE RACE OF PEOPLE WAS JUST AN AFTERTHOUGHT THAT WOULD "EVENTUALLY" BE RESOVLED BY THE FOLK WHO BENEFITTED MOST FROM THIS EVIL. PUH-LEEZE!
Here's where you go off the deep end with your stupidity.
Click to expand...

I have never defended or condoned slavery, it was a horrible practice and thank God it was eradicated. I don't think I have "romanticized" the Confederacy, that would involve me hearkening back to the "good old days" and I haven't said anything about slavery being good or made any justifications for it. I have also not said that the issue was something that would have eventually been resolved, but an honest look at what had happened up to that time, indicates slave labor would have eventually been replaced by technology.

The ONLY point I have consistently made and stood defiantly to support, is the truth about the history of the Civil War, and slavery in America. I refuse to allow YOU to redefine history and pretend the South was full of racists who fought solely for slavery, while the North were all lily white purveyors of racial equality and equal rights. I can't let that LIE stand uncontested, because it is simply NOT TRUE. You can keep trying to manipulate the facts and put words in people's mouth, pretend something was the case, apply a 2010 politically correct viewpoint to 1860 America, imagine U.S. Grant and Abe Lincoln as glorious believers in equality for black people.... but you are full of horseshit. I will continue to point to the steaming bile spewing out of you in every post, because it is important for the reader to understand what a dishonest fuckwit you are.
 
T&A, you continue to IGNORE the facts! Cotton was the #1 crop produced in America, and the #1 resource used in Northern industrialization at the time. While the South certainly profited, so did the North, it was AMERICA'S leading export and source of income!

If not for slavery, the Southern economy would have been organized in a very different way.
Click to expand...

HOW??? Would we have NOT grown our #1 crop and leading cash source? That sounds a little idiotic to think it would be realistic! If not for slavery, the cotton wouldn't have been picked, and the Southerners had nothing else of value to sell... Northern textile mills would have closed because you have to supply them with cotton to operate! You just reel off these stupid ass comments based on some emotive viewpoint you WISH people held back in that day, but they didn't! I wish you knew how profoundly retarded you sound! Stop repeating the same stupid inane point, and explain how the fuck the South was supposed to have done something different? They produced the #1 crop, the #1 money-maker, the #1 industrial resource, the #1 export good... they did it with slaves because the United States Supreme Court said they could... REPEATEDLY! The South didn't invent slavery, the South didn't enslave people in violation of some law, or to the protest of the U.S. Government or the Northern states who gladly accepted the slave-picked cotton and made their share of profits off the textiles it produced!
 
Dixie said:
T&A, you continue to IGNORE the facts! Cotton was the #1 crop produced in America, and the #1 resource used in Northern industrialization at the time. While the South certainly profited, so did the North, it was AMERICA'S leading export and source of income!



HOW??? Would we have NOT grown our #1 crop and leading cash source? That sounds a little idiotic to think it would be realistic! If not for slavery, the cotton wouldn't have been picked, and the Southerners had nothing else of value to sell... Northern textile mills would have closed because you have to supply them with cotton to operate! You just reel off these stupid ass comments based on some emotive viewpoint you WISH people held back in that day, but they didn't! I wish you knew how profoundly retarded you sound! Stop repeating the same stupid inane point, and explain how the fuck the South was supposed to have done something different? They produced the #1 crop, the #1 money-maker, the #1 industrial resource, the #1 export good... they did it with slaves because the United States Supreme Court said they could... REPEATEDLY! The South didn't invent slavery, the South didn't enslave people in violation of some law, or to the protest of the U.S. Government or the Northern states who gladly accepted the slave-picked cotton and made their share of profits off the textiles it produced!
Click to expand...

Dixie, even with slavery, the cotton market almost dried up in the 1790s. Had Eli Whitney not fixed that problem, the South would have been forced to reorganize its economy. I can't picture the sky falling over that.
 
T&A said:
Dixie, even with slavery, the cotton market almost dried up in the 1790s. Had Eli Whitney not fixed that problem, the South would have been forced to reorganize its economy. I can't picture the sky falling over that.
Click to expand...

LMAO.... Nooo... the Cotton market didn't "almost dry up" in the 1790s. Fool! Go read up on it, cotton was the LEADING product of the United States for years. I think at one point, we provided 80% of the world's cotton supply.


Eli Whitney actually was responsible for MORE slaves being used to pick MORE cotton!
 
Dixie said:
LMAO.... Nooo... the Cotton market didn't "almost dry up" in the 1790s. Fool! Go read up on it, cotton was the LEADING product of the United States for years. I think at one point, we provided 80% of the world's cotton supply.


Eli Whitney actually was responsible for MORE slaves being used to pick MORE cotton!
Click to expand...

Whitney invented the Gin in 1793. His invention saved the market and caused it to take off throughout the next several decades. And obviously this meant an astronomical growth in the number of slaves being bought and sold.
 
T&A said:
Whitney invented the Gin in 1793. His invention saved the market and caused it to take off throughout the next several decades. And obviously this meant an astronomical growth in the number of slaves being bought and sold.
Click to expand...

What the fuck do you mean "save the market?" The cotton demand was always HUGE, the problem was supplying the demand for cotton! With the invention of the cotton gin, it became even MORE in demand! What you are trying to say is the same as trying to argue the 1959 Cadillac saved the OIL market! Yep... we were on the verge of the oil market collapsing, and they invented the gas guzzler... SAVING the entire oil industry in America! LMFAO!
 
And obviously this meant an astronomical growth in the number of slaves being bought and sold.
Click to expand...

Obviously... and OBVIOUSLY, Eli Whitney was a devout racist Southerner who simply wanted to keep slaves shackled in the cotton fields, that is why he invented a machine to clean cotton more efficiently, he just wanted to place more burden on production and ensure we kept black people enslaved! That is how utterly ridiculous some of the claims in this thread have become!

When our forefathers came to America, they brought slaves with them, and they established a governing body which approved slavery and did nothing to prevent it or discourage it for years... decades! The Supreme Court had several opportunities to step to the plate and do something about slavery, and they continually ruled that slaves were personal property, not people, not citizens, and without ANY Constitutional right! All of these things happened for DECADES before the CSA was even thought of! It was the UNITED STATES government who condoned and sanctioned slavery, and later, segregation! This was NOT something perpetrated by The South or the Confederacy!
 
Taichiliberal said:
Here are some hard to live with truths about this issue:

1) The radical republicans of old Don't exist anymore
2) The Dixie-crats DO NOT run the Democratic Party anymore
3) Slavery WAS a secondary issue until Lincoln realized he needed black folk to help win the war...then he became more than just a philosophizing "emancipator".
4) Without a century and a half of slavery, the "confederacy" wouldn't have the economic means to wage the war to the extent it did.
5) THAT CENTURIES OF SLAVERY IS CONSIDERERED A SIDE ISSUE IN THE ROMANTICIZING OF THE CONFEDERACY SPEAKS VOLUMES TO THE MINDSET......THAT ENSLAVEMENT AND DETRIMENTAL TREATMENT OF AN ENTIRE RACE OF PEOPLE WAS JUST AN AFTERTHOUGHT THAT WOULD "EVENTUALLY" BE RESOVLED BY THE FOLK WHO BENEFITTED MOST FROM THIS EVIL. PUH-LEEZE!
Click to expand...

The slavers were Democrats.
 
Cypress said:
Shorter Plantation Boss Version:


Southern whites were too lazy to work in the hot sun, so they enslaved the darkies to do it.

Enslaving and oppressing people for economic reasons is completely understandable, and so much better and more morally justified than enslaving them for the sheer joy of it.
Click to expand...
So why did black slave owners own slaves?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top